The Barrow-Downs?

[Mithalwen]

I know all this yet I wish so much the Prof had revised and written out the twee-ness...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I know all this yet I wish so much the Prof had revised and written out the twee-ness...

It seems to me there are two different points of view developing here about Ole Tom and the House of Bombadil. The first is that the entire sequence from Crickhollow to the Barrow Downs to Bree is not essential to the narrative--it's just a major black hole in the plot.

The second concerns frustration with Ole Tom hisself, the much referred to "twee-ness". (And it isn't just Mith who feels this way, so I'm not 'singling' her out.)

But what are the elements of twee-ness? Is it just Tom's nonsense verse? Or is it Tom himself as a character with power who doesn't seem much bothered by his power? Is it depiction of Tom and Goldberry and their habits of dinner partying? Are these places where Tolkien's style--gasp!--is at fault in that it jars a far number of readers? If Tolkien had had a surer hand with nonsense verse, would Ole Tom be better received?

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?

[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.

[Laurinquë]

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.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Laurinquë

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.

I thought you knew that before you read LotR... oh well... I don't know anything about you...

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.

But the audience of PJ's movies was not totally directed towards teenagers...

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)

It was an assignment, remember?

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.

I really like to think of it that way, the brave little hobbit, Frodo trying his best (and succeeded) to rescue his friends from the nasty BW and succeeded because of his courage, another reason why it was put into LotR, to show Frodo's courage and good will?

[Peregrin Took]

One of the best and scariest parts of all the tale!

[doug*platypus]

I agree, Peregrin. Frodo's becoming separated from his friends in the depths of night, and the appearance of the Barrow-Wight is the scariest part of the whole book!

Some really good points have been raised by previous posters here. In answer to the question, why the "whole chunk" from Crickhollow to the Barrow-Downs was included, I'll summarise what I think we get out of it being there.

It gives us a side-adventure, if you will, separate from the Black Riders, with dangers to be overcome. This shows how dangerous Middle-Earth, and in a larger sense the "perilous" realm of Faerie, can be, while not having to draw on the Black Riders for fear/conflict too many times. Without the Old Forest and the Barrow-Downs, the hobbits would have had no difficulties to overcome between the Shire and Bree. If the "chunk" weren't there, then something else would need to be in its place, as it would be unlikely that with the pursuit close behind them, the hobbits would have an uneventful journey between Crickhollow and Bree. I suppose this something could take the form of an encounter with the Black Riders, but I feel this is best left until Weathertop, so that the danger, tension and excitement are gradually increasing from Three is Company all the way to A Knife in the Dark. Makes for great reading.

Tom is necessary because we have the dangers of the Old Forest and the Barrow-Downs. One of the key features of the book is the fact that after a period of excitement or danger there is usually a respite not far away. Tom's place, Rivendell, Lórien, Henneth Annûn, etc. I have always enjoyed this, as it gives the reader (and the characters) a chance to gather and refresh themselves for the next task (and usually have a good meal!). Tolkien also obviously wanted to work the character of Bombadil into Middle-Earth.

Frodo's bravery in the barrow is one of the more important things we get out of having these chapters in LOTR. Gandalf himself said that this was "perhaps the most dangerous moment of all" on Frodo's trip to Rivendell (Weathertop included!). As has already been mentioned, he stood his ground, didn't desert his friends, hacked off the Barrow-Wight's hand, and had the presence of mind to call for jolly, yellow-booted reinforcement.

In addition, I have always been a Merry fan, and I enjoy the fact that in The Old Forest he shows local knowledge, having been in the forest before, and leads the way.

So, you see that these chapters do give us several things. However, are they absolutely necessary? Well, I agree with what seems to be the general consensus on this thread: LOTR could do without these chapters, BUT it would be, shall we say, less brilliant without them. I can understand why these scenes were left out of the movie; it was always going to happen that some material would not make it in due to time constraints. It was natural but regrettable that these chapters were left out. Personally, I would have loved to see "a vision, both comical and alarming, of his bright blue eye gleaming through a circle of gold".