The Barrow-Downs?

[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.
Don't want to start a big discussion by bringing that up, but the story could have done very well without this passage.
Please do not bring up changes that would have been caused as an argument as that makes no sense.
So what if the Hobbits would have reached Weathertop earlier? Tolkien could easily change it so that they would leave later or make the Nazgul leave earlier or whatever. And the outcome and everything afterwards (still there is the problem with the swords of the Hobbits, but maybe they received them in Rivendell or Tolkien could have thought up something to replace the barrow-wight scene) would have remained the same.
So yes, LotR could have lived without this.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by The Might

So what if the Hobbits would have reached Weathertop earlier? Tolkien could easily change it so that they would leave later or make the Nazgul leave earlier or whatever. And the outcome and everything afterwards (still there is the problem with the swords of the Hobbits, but maybe they received them in Rivendell or Tolkien could have thought up something to replace the barrow-wight scene) would have remained the same.
So yes, LotR could have lived without this.

Of course with no problem - and the same LotR could have lived even without Balrog. Gandalf could have, for example, been killed by an Orc lieutenant or a cave-troll. LotR could have lived without Frodo meeting Faramir - I think it's pretty much the same thing. Sméagol could be tempted by the Ring and betray Frodo to Shelob anyway. LotR could have lived even without the Scouring, indeed, we all know that! And without Frodo leaving to the West as well - after all, it's just an epilogue.

This is not meant to be sarcastic (well yes, maybe it is, but just a little ), but what I want to say is that all these scenes have the same value as the Old Forest and the Barrow-Downs.

[Bêthberry]

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.

[ArathornJax]

In a letter to Naomi Mitchison on April 25, 1954, Tolkien wrote:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment.' I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention . . . and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has lost any object save mere power, and so on; but on both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty,' renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him the world of Sauron."

According to Tolkien's own words, this section with Tom represents something that he, Tolkien, felt was an important. Thus in the words of the author, I don't think we can dismiss this section.

Why? As Frodo and his 3 friends go throughout their journey, the encounter unexpected aid or help from unexpected quarters. This begins with Gildor, goes to Tom, to Strider/Aragorn, then on to Elrond and Rivendell, then to Lothlorien, and then to other characters and places (Treebeard, Theoden, Dernhelm/Eowyn, Denethor, Faramir, Smeagol/Gollum etc.). ALL of these characters have a interest in someway with the notions of 'power and control.' Only Tom is unique. The ring has no power over him because of his position. He has no desire nor thought for power and control. As such, he doesn't seek dominion over anything. Because Tom has this unselfish view, and though he doesn't play an active role outside of saving Frodo and co. from Old Man Willow and from the Barrow Wight, his stance is viewed in Rivendell as worthy to be defended. The tolerance and understanding shown to Bombadil at the Council of Elrond, is perhaps, something that in our own world today, we need more of, even as we go about saving the world. Seeing the good that exists and working to preserve all of it, is what is noble here (I think). That is why I feel and believe that this section of the book is worthy to be there. There are others, but this is perhaps the main one.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Interesting thoughts on this topic! I just read the corresponding chapter in Hammond and Scull's LotR Reader's Companion to prepare for the chapter discussion (which will be posted today) on the Chapter-by-Chapter sub-forum. The real life source of the TB character was indeed a "colourful Dutch doll owned by the Tolkien children, dressed exactly as Tom is described". The name may have been chosen by one of the children, they speculate; the character existed long before he found his way into Middle-earth and LotR. The story began as an oral tale, then Tolkien wrote a long poem which can be read in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil.

I agree that he (along with the Old Forest and Barrow-downs) is an essential part of the story, even if he can be removed from it when it is adapted and abbreviated. As the Hobbits go on their journey, they build "adventure muscles", so to speak, starting with smaller and less immediate dangers, being rescued (and building up their own courage to defend themselves!) while still close to home, and finding safe havens even while in the Shire or close to its borders. Without those, I think the large-scale adventures and dangerous foes that come later would have been too difficult for them to handle. There is a progression throughout the journey, and removing one step leaves stumbling blocks along the way.

[Lalaith]

I do understand where Mith is coming from on the Bombadil front, but still...I think those early adventures are important partly *because* they are unnecessary. They add to the authenticity, the fairy-tale/mythic feel of the tale. I'm reading the complete works of Grimm at the moment, and these old stories do have a lot of random, disjointed elements in the narrative.

[davem]

The Old Forest/Bombadil/Barrow Downs episode is one I treasure. I understand why some don't, though. Interestingly, most adaptations of the book skip it - I only know of two that have included it - the American radio version & the original BBC radio adaptation from 1955, which Tolkien hated. Perhaps the problem for those who don't like it comes down to the fact that most of them feel it doesn't 'fit' comfortably with the rest of the story, & sidetracks it down a blind alley to a dead end...

Perhaps if they read it as a tale within a tale (as often found in romance literature) they'd feel more comfortable with it. Brain Sibley, one of the adaptors of the BBC radio LotR which we're discussing on another thread, omitted this episode from the adaptation, but dramatised it seperately a few years afterwards as a self contained hour long drama. The surprising thing is how well it works as a self-contained story. It has a clear beginning, middle & end. I'd advise those who don't like the episode to read those three chapters as a short story in their own right, apart from the larger narrative - you might be surprised by your reaction.