Nice cave trolls?

[Finduilas]

Earlier my younger brother asked me which of the cave trolls was the nice one. He of course meant the one that wanted to let Bilbo go, Bill I believe. He continued by asking me why Bill didn't want to eat Bilbo, and my answer was he wasn't hungry. So he follows that up with, "So the cave troll in Moria was hungry?" I found it amusing, and explained to him the difference in books. But it set me thinking. What kind of creatures were the cave trolls in the Hobbits? Did they only kill things for food? How were the cave trolls in the LotR different? Did they just kill for the sake of killing? Were the Hobbit trolls smarter? I mean, you never see LotR trolls talking.

~Finduilas~

[Inziladun]

You've pretty much explained it with your mention of the difference in the books. The Hobbit certainly has an overall much lighter tone than LOTR
. The dialogue and names of the Hobbit trolls were regretted by Tolkien, who had not the understanding of the world he'd created in those days.
Tom, Bert, and Bill were probably not much different fundamentally from the Moria trolls. They were likely followers of Sauron, and would probably have killed any Men, Elves, or Dwarves they could, whether they were hungry or not. I'm not sure, really, if Tom, Bert, and Bill were cave trolls. Strider just refers to them as trolls when he sees them, whereas Gandalf specifies cave trolls in Moria.
My first time using the Outlook-type italics and whatnot. Wonder if it worked?

[The Might]

Indeed, they were quite different, and this is also made clear in the Appendix of LotR:

[FONT=&quot]Trolls therefore took such language as they could master from the Orcs; and in the Westlands the Stone-trolls spoke a debased form of the Common Speech.[/FONT]

Pretty clearly, the 3 trolls from the Hobbit were indeed this type of stone-trolls.

The encounter from the Hobbit also happens to unfortunately be the only one with this kind of creatures, so no further information exists. But clearly they might have been less intelligent, aggressive and dangerous then other types of trolls, such as the cave trolls or the feared Olog-hai.

Still, I doubt there was like a "nice" troll, because there is really no reason why there would be one. If they indeed originated from creatures corrupted by Melkor then it is quite unlikely you would find any nice ones, just as unlikely as finding nice Orcs.

[Volo]

Originally Posted by The Might

less intelligent

or more intelligent. Hmm...

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by The Might

Pretty clearly, the 3 trolls from the Hobbit were indeed this type of stone-trolls.

I had considered that they might be a different kind, but had been to lazy to look it up.

Still, I doubt there was like a "nice" troll, because there is really no reason why there would be one. If they indeed originated from creatures corrupted by Melkor then it is quite unlikely you would find any nice ones, just as unlikely as finding nice Orcs.

Yes, not nice, but not blatently(sp) evil. (Referencing back to the fact that Bill didn't want to eat Bilbo just for sport.)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by The Might

The encounter from the Hobbit also happens to unfortunately be the only one with this kind of creatures, so no further information exists. But clearly they might have been less intelligent, aggressive and dangerous then other types of trolls, such as the cave trolls or the feared Olog-hai.

Why less intelligent? I'm not saying the Olog-hai, because there is said about them that they are clever, definitely, but the cave-troll in Moria does not speak at all and personally, I always imagined that troll as almost-animal, sort of a "troll caveman". Bert, Tom and William are maybe stupid ("burrahobbit?"), but quite talkative and not necessarily more stupid than humans (I'm sure you'll find people with similar intelligence among gondorian soldiers).

And whatever the case, William was, in fact, nice: with this, I agree with Finduilas and her brother; I also felt it similarly when I read it. He says:

"Poor little blighter," said William. He had already had as much supper as he could hold; also he had had lots of beer. "Poor little blighter! Let him go!"
"Not till he says what he means by lots and none at all," said Bert. "I don't want to have me throat cut in me sleep. Hold his toes in the fire, till he talks!"
"I won't have it," said William. "I caught him anyway."

(emphasise mine)
Despite the fact that William "already had as much supper as he could hold", so he is not hungry, and despite the fact that he "had lots of beer", so he may be a little bit drunk and in somewhat calmer state (that sort of a friendly-state when you go around and call everybody your friend), there must have been some basic attribute of mercy in him, otherwise he would not even think of letting Bilbo go, and what more, won't defend him against the others! So whatever the case, we are witnessing, yes, compassion from a troll. I don't want to hear anything about uncanonicity now - it is there, period (in other words: you may talk about this not being canonical, but not with me. For me, questioning canonicity of such a thing, as it is a part of The Hobbit, would be the same as questioning whether Bilbo ever found his Ring. Especially when Pippin speaks about this encounter in LotR).

Now, one thing that stems from this, let's jump for a moment to the neighbours. What does this tell about Orcs? When a troll is capable of compassion, an Orc surely must be as well. Now, let's see what the Orcs themselves have to say, namely Mr. Grishnákh:

Originally Posted by Two Towers; Chapter III: Uruk-Hai

What do you think you've been kept alive for? My dear little fellows, please believe me when I say that it was not out of kindness: that's not even one of Uglúk's faults.

Now, let's assume this orc-troll similarity for a moment yet. Grishnákh obviously despises kindness, for him, it is a fault. But if we stay with our assumption, then even the Orcs are capable of kindness, or compassion that we spoke about. I believe Grishnákh would say the same thing about compassion as what he said about kindness. And so, taking it the other way around, the similar could be a point of view of a troll. What does that tell us? Simply: William was a troll who had certain "character flaw", as the trolls (and orcs) would judge it, he was capable of compassion and he showed it (from time to time, probably - when one has a character trait, it is improbable that it will show only once in a life during an encounter with a burrahobbit). It is true of course that probably circumstances would have to be a little favourable for his compassion to show (like not being hungry and having more beer), but the conclusion is: even the trolls were not just mindless butchering monsters (and the more it should say about Orcs). Which I kind of, yes, I really like that idea. Maybe it sounds funny, but now the trolls and orcs seem to me more like "human beings".

[Guinevere]

From William's exclamation "poor little blighter!" I also got the impression that he must have been more goodnatured than his fellow trolls.

Anyhow, these trolls in the Hobbit seem quite different and much more fairy-tale like than the creatures in the LotR. (Think of the speaking purse! Reminds me of the giant in "Jack and the Beanstalk")

I remember having read something exactly about that question in one of Tolkien's letters:

from letter 153 (draft) to Peter Hastings, 1954

I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfeits', and hence (though here I am of course only using elements of old barbarous mythmaking that had no 'aware' metaphysic) they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested. Of course (since inevitably my world is highly imperfect even on its own plane nor made wholly coherent – our Real World does not appear to be wholly coherent either; and I am actually not myself convinced that, though in every world on every plane all must ultimately be under the Will of God, even in ours there are not some 'tolerated' sub-creational counterfeits!) when you make Trolls speak you are giving them a power, which in our world (probably) connotes the possession of a 'soul'. But I do not agree (if you admit that fairy-story element) that my trolls show any sign of 'good', strictly and unsentimentally viewed. I do not say William felt pity — a word to me of moral and imaginative worth: it is the Pity of Bilbo and later Frodo that ultimately allows the Quest to be achieved — and I do not think he showed Pity. I might not (if The Hobbit had been more carefully written, and my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression 'poor little blighter', just as I should not have called the troll William. But I discerned no pity even then, and put in a plain caveat. Pity must restrain one from doing something immediately desirable and seemingly advantageous. There is no more 'pity' here than in a beast of prey yawning, or lazily patting a creature it could eat, but does not want to, since it is not hungry. Or indeed than there is in many of men's actions, whose real roots are in satiety, sloth, or a purely non-moral natural softness, though they may dignify them by 'pity's' name.

I hope I haven't killed this thread with this lengthy quote...

[Galin]

Peter Hastings argued that William had a feeling of pity for Bilbo (quote from letter edited) ... JRRT, letter to Peter Hastings (draft) 1954

Edit: Oh well... beat me to it Guinevere

[Inziladun]

That's the letter I was recalling, Guinevere. I was too lazy to write all that out, though.

[The Might]

It is also the point of view from the letter that I had in mind when I wrote less intelligent.
An Olog-hai might not be able to speak Westron, but they do use the Black Speech, and personally I really can't imagine an Olog-hai - had these creatures been vulnerable to sunlight - be so stupid so as to argue until the sun rose.
It is true that much of their intelligence comes from Sauron who was controlling them, but this does not change the fact they were smarter.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by The Might

It is also the point of view from the letter that I had in mind when I wrote less intelligent.
An Olog-hai might not be able to speak Westron, but they do use the Black Speech, and personally I really can't imagine an Olog-hai - had these creatures been vulnerable to sunlight - be so stupid so as to argue until the sun rose.
It is true that much of their intelligence comes from Sauron who was controlling them, but this does not change the fact they were smarter.

But I was not speaking about the Olog-hai. I pretty clearly said that I definitely think the O-H were smarter; but I was speaking of the cave troll from Moria. And I don't think he was an Olog-hai. Cf. above.

[A Little Green]

I might want to say that the entire affair is about the Hobbit being a children's book and written before LotR. Though this viewpoint has been up in the discussion, I'd like to emphasise it a little. If we start making up 'reasonable' explanations, we'll just have a headache, because if there are any by Tolkien they most probably are belately invented.

Or then there is the chance that I'm just an ignorant little brat who hasn't read the Letters..

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I might want to say that the entire affair is about the Hobbit being a children's book and written before LotR. Though this viewpoint has been up in the discussion, I'd like to emphasise it a little. If we start making up 'reasonable' explanations, we'll just have a headache, because if there are any by Tolkien they most probably are belately invented.

Yes, indeed.

Or then there is the chance that I'm just an ignorant little brat who hasn't read the Letters..

I hope not... because I'd be in the same boat.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I might want to say that the entire affair is about the Hobbit being a children's book and written before LotR. Though this viewpoint has been up in the discussion, I'd like to emphasise it a little. If we start making up 'reasonable' explanations, we'll just have a headache, because if there are any by Tolkien they most probably are belately invented.

And that is why I am looking at it not from the point of the Letters (because I am also an ignorant little brat who hasn't read the Letters, mainly because he could not rather than he would not like to), nor from the point of an outside observer (because I don't want to), but from the point of looking at a self-consistent world, which is put in front of us, and where really, one late spring night, one troll showed compassion

[The Might]

Well, little brats, you'd better start reading!
Sorry Legate, didn't pay enough attention I guess.

A cave troll...it's hard to compare him to anything else as we know so little.

Actually, after thinking about this a bit I realised that they aren't even necessarily a different type of troll at all. The three are enver specifically identified as Stone-trolls, only later Tolkien mentions in the Appendix that the Stone-trolls spoke the Common Speech. Thus it is plausible that this name only derives from the fact they turned to stone and that they were in fact Hill -trolls, like those that had slain Arador, Aragorn's grandfather, in the Ettenmoors.

I know this is not exactly on topic, just thought I might bring that into discussion, as I guess it's up to each of us to decide for himself if what is said in The Hobbit really fits with the rest of the works or not.