Quote:
Originally Posted by The Might
Still the initial question remains could LotR have lived without it?
Of course every bit of the story has itw own importance and of course without any part LotR wouldn't be LotR truly any longer, however, I feel that LotR could have lived even without certain scenes, as you can see in the movies.
|
The issue cannot be resolved by referring to the movies. The movies work through sound (score) and sight (images, scenery, actors, etc) while the book works through words, just words.
Just because something'worked' in the movies does not automatically imply it would 'work' in the book. We might as well say Arwen at the Bruinen would have worked in the book--but we have no idea how Tolkien would have depicted that, or even if he wanted to. Pretty much a hypothetical good for discussion board disagreements.
The issue is, how would Tolkien have deleted those scenes so the book would 'work'. What would he have replaced them with, if anything, what would he have changed. Would he have made Bree and the Prancing Pony darker because readers would have had no initiation into the inexplicable dangers that lurk in Middle-earth? Would he have wanted to include some other place/form/history so we would know that The Shire has had its share of troubled times? Without the Bonfire Glade, how would readers know that hobbits didn't always get along with their neighbours? That little bit of historical background helps prepare readers for what happens in The Shire once ole Sharkey arrives--can't have it all the Party Tree.
We would have to discuss what LotR would be without these scenes before we could determine if it would live--and what that means anyway. Expurgated books can have long shelf lives.