Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
Are the Barrow Downs just too British, too closely linked to the geography of Great Britain to be important to New Zealanders and the Americans in Hollywood? (Hey Nolly, Nolly, the woods are awake!) Are the barrows which dot the British landscape meaningful only for the denizens of that island? Did PJ reject them as being too insular? Or, again, are they a black hole in the plot and thereby easy to eliminate?
Is the British folklore and history which is so dear to Lal something that has not made the leap over the Pond and become the stuff of global English culture? Or, again, is it Tolkien's style which fails here?
|
On the topic of barrows in general, when I first read LotR I assumed, as a rather ignorant 15 year old American would, that Tolkien had invented barrows and that they existed only in ME. I was soon told otherwise by my mother though, and have since learned a lot about barrows.
But PJ was probably very familiar with the range of knowledge of American teenagers such as myself and this may have been a reason he left the Barrow-downs out, to avoid confusing and possibly alienating his young audience, but it's seemingly inconsequential role in the story was probably the main factor.
Also, back to my question (it was actually TheGreatElvenWarrior who posted the question, with my permission, under my name, not hers, because we were on the same computer and she didn't feel like switching to her account) I like what Alatar said: "Frodo could have left his friends for dead, and the Wise would (maybe) have agreed with the sacrifice, but in the end, Frodo chose to stay and fight the darkness." I never really thought about it that way.