Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2014-11-17 07:30 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2014-11-17 07:30 pm
[ SECRET POST #2876 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2876 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
[The Boxtrolls]
__________________________________________________
03.
[One Piece]
__________________________________________________
04.
[Hockey RPF, Patrick Kane]
__________________________________________________
05.
[The Silmarillion]
__________________________________________________
06.
[Meghan Trainor: All About That Bass]
__________________________________________________
07.
[Radiant Historia]
__________________________________________________
08.
[Twin Peaks]
__________________________________________________
09.
[Meghan Trainor]
__________________________________________________
10.
[Taylor Swift]
__________________________________________________
11.
[Star Wars]
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 051 secrets from Secret Submission Post #411.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: Hobbit 3
(Anonymous) 2014-11-18 04:59 am (UTC)(link)I reiterate that Bard has no reason to care about Dwarves who are not immediately there. His people are starving. This is an immediate issue. You cannot know what he would or would not do with the gold. That's true of Thorin as well. The fact that you will give Thorin the benefit of the doubt but not Bard shows your bias. I could just as easily read that Thorin had no intention whatsoever of giving Bard a dime, no matter what he said. I understand Thorin's POV but you cannot say that Bard was any more culpable of the situation than Thorin was. If Bard should've given Thorin a few days to cool off, then Thorin should've given Bard a few token pieces of treasure to prove his good will (something like the emeralds of Girion that are irrefutably Dale's). They are the same.
And no where does anyone say anything about Bard occupying the mountain. I can believe that his people might stay there that first winter if they have no other alternatives but I hardly believe any humans would want to live in an underground city. So, they are not depriving the Dwarves of their home. And, as I said, they have a claim to the treasure. Thorin is keeping that part of the treasure hostage. The same would be true if Bard had the whole treasure and was keeping it from the other Dwarves if Thorin's Company had been dead. It's the same thing. The other Dwarves abandoned the place. I'm not saying they don't have the right to ask for their treasure back or that Bard would be wrong to keep it, but Bard has every right and reason to go to the mountain and take that treasure. You would say it would start a war. But politically it would also give Bard a position of strength in any negotiating with the Dwarves. That is a power his people have not had in their dealings with them and look how it turned out for them.
As for letting the Dwarves starve, that is their own stubbornness and nothing more. Bard spoke to them and told them his demands. He then gave them several hours and it was his messenger who told them they could starve when they shot at him. Clearly, the Dwarves were not going to back down. Dwarves are known for their stubbornness. There's no reason for Bard to believe that if he gave them several days that they would be more amenable to negotiation. However, if they'd had no food . . .
This is a perfectly acceptable tactic to use. I think the people of Laketown had every right to besiege the Mountain and not to trust the Dwarves.
But whatever you think about that, the point is that Bard is not any more of a aggressor than Thorin is. He certainly isn't the chief aggressor. You cannot put all the blame on Bard. He's acting reasonably considering the circumstances. He did give Thorin some time to think about the situation and Thorin shot at his messenger (note: Bard gave him this time without any such threats of starvation at this point). Why should Bard have to give him any more time than that? The answer is he doesn't.
Re: Hobbit 3
(Anonymous) 2014-11-18 02:47 pm (UTC)(link)I'm not arguing what I think Bard will do with the gold, I'm arguing what Thorin thinks Bard will do with the gold and/or what the dwarves back home will think when they hear the mountain is in his control. It's not a question of me giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, but of how much benefit they have reason to give each other. Bard is a fair man by what we've seen, and I'm actually pretty sure he would have given up what was owed once he controlled it, but Thorin can't know that, nor any other dwarf either. All they know about Bard so far is that he showed up with an army to take their treasure when he thought they were dead, and doesn't seem particularly inclined to back down now that he knows they're not. That's literally all they know, because in the book they never actually met him in Laketown (and neither did the audience: the first we see of him, Smaug is already mid-attack). So Thorin has no reason whatsoever to trust the man, or presume that he will treat them fairly, or even presume that he won't just kill them if they let him in with that nice army of angry people he went and brought along.
And yes, I'm presuming they are angry, given that they've just watched their town be ravaged and destroyed. I'm presuming that tempers are short in general, otherwise everybody involved has even less excuse for what they're doing. Bard is less so than the men he's leading, because he kept a level head and knows Thorin never set the dragon on the deliberately, which couldn't be said of some of the people under his command, but he's still being very cold and abrupt, and I'm guessing having watched his people burn is part of the reason for that. When he thought Thorin had died first, and the same way, he wasn't really angry at him at all, but when faced with Thorin sitting safe and sound in a mountain, I think that would have changed.
And no where does anyone say anything about Bard occupying the mountain.
Um. You kind of did? "Possession in nine-tenths and all that, why shouldn't Bard take command of the treasure and then when the Dwarves come, give back what they demand later?" To take command of the treasure, he's going to have to sit on it. I don't mean occupy the mountain as in live in it, I mean occupy the mountain as in control it with an armed force. Which he would have had to do, if he wanted to command the treasure had the dwarves been dead. The treasure is big enough for a dragon to curl up under it and be invisible. What's he going to do, take it out of the mountain chest by chest and stash it in the ruins of Dale? No. He'd have had to stay and protect it if he wanted to control it, and any dwarf force from the Iron Mountains would have arrived to find an army or guard of men standing between them and their home, for the purposes of taking their treasure. Which would not have inclined anyone to be even tempered, which we saw when Dain showed up anyway.
Bard should've given Thorin a few days to cool off, then Thorin should've given Bard a few token pieces of treasure to prove his good will (something like the emeralds of Girion that are irrefutably Dale's).
To an extent I agree. Thorin is a blockheaded prideful idiot of a dwarf who's already been affected by the goldlust, and he's doing basically everything wrong. However, he does have a a fair point about surrendering anything under threat of force. It was his main objection, and Bard never answered it. Thorin asked how much Bard would have given his people had Bard found him dead and the treasure unguarded, and Bard says the question is fair, and then just flat doesn't answer it. Thorin says he won't give anything while there's an armed threat at his door, which is pretty reasonable, and Bard just flat ignores it and says basically 'we'll go now and come back when you stop making objections'. Bard doesn't give an inch, and Bard is the one with the army. He's the one who CAN.
You would say it would start a war. But politically it would also give Bard a position of strength in any negotiating with the Dwarves. That is a power his people have not had in their dealings with them and look how it turned out for them.
But he doesn't need a position of strength right now. He has it. He has an army at the gates. It's Thorin who needs the treasure as leverage against his life and his people's lives. They're fourteen against an army. The treasure right now is the only leverage they have. Full stop, the end. If taking and holding the treasure as leverage is a reason you think Bard should want it, why not Thorin?
And historically has nothing to do with it. Dale never needed leverage against Erebor, by all accounts they had a pretty decent trade relationship, given they had mutual wealth sitting happily on top of each other. It was the dragon they would have need power against, and that went as badly for the dwarves as for them. Where do we see evidence of Dale ever needing leverage against dwarves? Maybe they would have done eventually, given that Thror's madness was in full swing by that stage, but there was no evidence of an armed threat between dwarves and men until basically Bard showed up with one.
There's no reason for Bard to believe that if he gave them several days that they would be more amenable to negotiation. However, if they'd had no food . . .
Except he isn't negotiating. Negotiation means things like compromise and assurances and codes of safe conduct. Bard didn't give those. Bard showed up, said what he wanted and why he believed it should be granted (all of which were genuinely reasonable, yes), and when Thorin said he wasn't going to hear anything until Bard lost the army, Bard just went away and flat refused. A request that people not come armed to a negotiation isn't unreasonable, and Thorin didn't say he wouldn't negotiate once it happened, he just said he wouldn't negotiate until it happened. And Bard ignored that. The only thing Thorin asked for was that Bard remove the threat of force before they talked, and Bard ... didn't. Instead, Bard besieged the mountain, and sat down to starve them out of it, instead of negotiating.
I am not saying Thorin was right. He patently wasn't, and he only got worse later on. But in the opening phases of negotiation, he was consistently the one under threat and Bard was consistently the one doing threatening, simply because Bard was the one able to. Thorin's request boiled down to "Back off the army and then we'll talk", and Bard's response boiled down to "No, give me what you owe me or else".
In the first negotiations, before the Arkenstone happened, there were exactly five exchanges before Bard first called a recess. Bard explained what he wanted and why he thought it fair, Thorin explained that he didn't agree with some of them and didn't trust a man who came with an army at his back and wanted to know what would have happened had he been dead, Bard says that's a fair question but doesn't answer it, Thorin flat says he won't negotiate with an army or with elves, come back when you haven't got any, and Bard says bugger that, they stay, but we'll give you a while to start being reasonable. Then, when his messenger comes back, not Bard himself, all the messenger does is reiterate demands without having listened to a single thing Thorin said and without giving any guarantees about things like losing the army and the threat of force. So Thorin shoots at him. Following which Bard's forces declare the mountain under siege and that Thorin can starve for all they care, they'll get what they want in the end.
Those aren't negotiations, on anyone's side. Those are demands. But Thorin's demand is primarily not to be threatened while they talk, and Bard's demand is to be given what he's owed before the threat gets a lot worse. Again, I'm sorry, but Bard looks the more aggressive because of it.
Re: Hobbit 3
(Anonymous) 2014-11-18 06:58 pm (UTC)(link)You've made a ton of assumptions to prove your point and keep drawing on stuff that has no bearing on the situation at present. None of those arguments are valid or relevant to the conversation. But, I can see you're just going to keep repeating them as if they are so there's obviously no point in trying to argue further. Clearly you've entrenched yourself too much to see reason.