Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[davem]

The large bridge was cut - Tolkien is clear:

The bridge was gone, and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking. If he plunged into it, a vapour and a steam would arise enough to cover all the land with a mist for
days; but the lake was mightier than he, it would quench him before he could pass through.

You can't get away from the text. "The bridge was cut & his enemies were on an island" cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the big bridge was cut/thrown down.

As to the picture, it is wrong - in Barrels out of Bond we read:

It seemed a town of Men still throve there, built out on bridges far into the water as a protection against enemies of all sorts, and especially against the dragon of the Mountain. From Laketown the barrels were brought up the Forest River. Often they were just tied together like big rafts and poled or rowed up the stream; sometimes they were loaded on to flat boats.

built out on bridges far into the water[ does not conform to the picture, which shows only one large bridge, & Lake Town is hardly 'far out'. Hence, the picture is both correct & not correct (& possibly so is the text). The only explanation I can think of to this dilemma is that Tolkien at some points visualised Esgaroth as being linked to the shore(s) by a number of bridges which could all be cast down (ie they were some form of suspension bridge) & at other points he conceived of it as having one big, substantial bridge

A great bridge made of wood ran out to where on huge piles made of forest trees was built a busy wooden town, not a town of elves but of Men, who still dared to dwell here under the shadow of the distant dragonmountain.

So, there is a single, great bridge built on huge piles of forest trees, which clearly (from the picture) could not be 'cast down' or cut in short order unless it had some form of mechanism built in (possibly of Elvish design???) & at the same time there are a number of bridges which can be cast down - the book seems to contradict itself. Whatever, Tolkien clearly states that when the Dragon attacks the town is an island in deep water, so whether there was one, or many, is not really the issue.

The only possible way of making the two concepts fit is that lake Town was a collection of seperate buildings connected by bridges - but you still have to accept that the big bridge was destroyed in some way because when Smaug attacked it was cut off: 'an island'.

[Morthoron]

Evidently, the folk of Laketown believed that cutting the bridge would either offer protection from Smaug landing, or as davem stated earlier, that cutting the bridge would diffuse the stampeding masses, rather than centralize their egress along one route.

In any case, Smaug did not land, and there was no crush of hysterical refugees flooding the bridge.

[Sauron the White]

davem
I am not arguing that the main bridge was not destroyed. I am saying that it was not one of the bridges which could have been cut because the illustration Tolkien gave us - which is far more detailed than any text description with words - shows a substantial structure built on thick plyons and not a supsension bridge upheld by ropes to be cut.

I think you can question how well this passage was written since JRRT himself says they had "little time" and this main bridge seems to be the type that would take a great deal of effort to not only take down but destroy - and Tolkien seems to think there is a difference.

So, if JRRT says the main bridge was destroyed, then it was destroyed.

This thread was started to question the wisdom of the decision to destroy the bridge as a tactic to fight a fire breathing dragon who is attacking you from the air.

built out on bridges far into the water[ does not conform to the picture, which shows only one large bridge, & Lake Town is hardly 'far out'. Hence, the picture is both correct & not correct (& possibly so is the text).

The picture of Laketown that you reproduced for us shows one angle of Laketown closest to the mainland. Perhaps a more complete aerial view of the entire area would show us something different ... perhaps not. I have no idea and that is all speculation which cannot be proven or disproven. I have no idea what JRRT meant when he used the term "far out" in terms of meters or yards or miles. I also have no idea as to what the exact scale is in the picture. Do you?

So, there is a single, great bridge built on huge piles of forest trees, which clearly (from the picture) could not be 'cast down' or cut in short order unless it had some form of mechanism built in (possibly of Elvish design???) & at the same time there are a number of bridges which can be cast down - the book seems to contradict itself.

Yes, I agree. The picture clearly shows two different kind of bridges.

Whatever, Tolkien clearly states that when the Dragon attacks the town is an island in deep water, so whether there was one, or many, is not really the issue.

Yes. The issue that I began with is that the decision to cast down and destroy the bridge was not a wise one since it meant nothing in stopping a flying fire breathing dragon who was attacking you by air.

The only possible way of making the two concepts fit is that lake Town was a collection of seperate buildings connected by bridges - but you still have to accept that the big bridge was destroyed in some way because when Smaug attacked it was cut off: 'an island'.

As I have said, if JRRT said the bridge was destroyed, then it was destroyed. My main point is that such an action is not the wisest or best tactic employed against a fire breathing dragon attacking you from the air. A different and more minor point was the difficulty - or perhaps impossibility - of actually downing and destroying such a substantial bridge in such "little time" as JRRT says was available to the people of Laketown. However, that is a writing problem. I have no doubt that if this event had happened in LORD OF THE RINGS, it would have been written differently, things explained in more detail, and it would have made much more sense.

Its too bad JRRT never finished his attempt at rewriting THE HOBBIT. Maybe this portion would have been changed. Maybe not.

[davem]

Tolkien's painting of The Death of Smaug shows the great bridge thrown down


Rateliff comments:

The decision for Lake Town to have only one great bridge seems to have been determined through the two illustrations Tolkien drew of the scene apparently created over the Christmas 1936 vacation ..... if so the changes in page proof... would have been made to bring the text into agreement with the illustration 'Mr Baggins' p444

So, it seems that the 'bridges' were part of the original conception but that after drawing the pictures Tolkien changes the text - or at least most of it, as there are still references to both Bridge & bridges. Possibly the most important thing is Tolkien's conception of Esgaroth being 'an island' when Smaug attacked. We have an illustration by Tolkien of the Bridge having been thrown down - therefore it was thrown down (even if its not easy to conceive of how it was done). Why? Well, different theories have been put forward & you pays your money & takes your choice.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by STW

I would guess that they can only cut which can be cut. Some bridges - the suspension types with ropes - would lend themselves to that procedure. Others - like the main Laketown bridge drawn by JRRT himself - would not lend itself to being cut.

I don't understand the problem you have with the word "cut". . . you dont actually "cut" trees yet we have no problem using the phrase.

Also, I don't know the process of destroying a bridge, but through time it has been done thousands of times in warfare and plenty of time in haste. . .why should one not be able to do it in Lake Town?

[Sauron the White]

Rikae said

So, are you now accepting the idea that the illustration is misleading, by agreeing that all the bridges were cut?

no
Are we clear about that now?

In my last post before this one I said very clearly

I am not arguing that the main bridge was not destroyed. I am saying that it was not one of the bridges which could have been cut because the illustration Tolkien gave us - which is far more detailed than any text description with words - shows a substantial structure built on thick plyons and not a supsension bridge upheld by ropes to be cut.

The quibbling about methodology is a very minor point that some here seem to cling onto like grim death. The point of this thread was a far larger one: when you are being attacked by air by a fire breathing dragon it is not the best course of action, indeed it is foolish, to spend your resources destroying the main bridge to the mainland as it does nothing to defeat the attacker and is in fact limiting your own routes of escape.

If Smaug wanted to go to the ground in Laketown, he had more room on the docksides than he did on the bridge. That is clear from the detailed illustration JRRT himself did of Laketown. However, there was no reason for Smaug to go to the ground in Laketown. In fact, a smart attack strategy dictated just the opposite for Smaug. Use your speed in the air and distance from the people on the ground who are attempting to kill you. Why get closer so they can fight you better? Stay in the air where you have the advantage. Nothing in the text says Smaug intended to land in Laketown.

davem
does that second illustration - the rougher one - show a covered bridge?

from Rune

I don't understand the problem you have with the word "cut". . . you dont actually "cut" trees yet we have no problem using the phrase.

JRRT says that the people of Laketown have "little time" to prepare for Smaug. It makes some sense that you could cut the ropes on a suspension bridge in "little time" and down the bridge. It does not make sense that you could down that much larger bridge regardless of the verb you want to use. Yes, you can cut down a tree. In how much time with a more primitive saw? Now cut down all those thick pillars, or enough of them supporting that bridge. Now go beyond that and destroy it. All in "little time" as JRRT says they had.

It simply is not the best writing in the book. It does not hold up without a ton of other assumptions and a great leap of faith.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

After following this thread with a mixture of amusement and bemusement, I felt I had to toss in my two cents.

I've been an illustrator, and a fiction writer. And I have to say, it's often extremely difficult to put down on paper (or canvas) an image of what one sees in one's head. I suppose that if I had devoted more time to drawing than to writing, I would be better able to render the illustrations, but one does have to make choices. So I went looking, and came across this in Tolkien's letters (#27, to the Houghton Mifflin Company, from 1938, apparently in reference to a request for JRRT to supply drawings of hobbits for use in a future edition of TH):

I am afraid, if you will need drawings of hobbits in various attitudes, I must leave it in the hands of someone who can draw. My own pictures are an unsafe guide.

And, from letter 280 in November 1965:

I do not recollect when the rough sketch of the Death of Smaug was made; but I think it must have been before the first publication, and 1936 must be near the mark. I am in your hands, but I am still not very happy about the use of this scrawl as a cover. It seems too much in the modern mode in which those who can draw try to conceal it. But perhaps there is a distinction between their productions and one by a man who obviously cannot draw what he sees.

Between the two comments (and doubtless others, I was looking specifically for references to either Smaug or Lake Town), I think it's fairly safe to assume that Tolkien did not consider himself a very good artist, and that he had difficulty rendering accurately things that he imagined. It's a tough job. I do think that his art gives the reader a good feel for how he envisioned the things he created in his imagination, but they are more impressionistic than realistic, and I believe he acknowledged this. He also remarks in the first letter that his illustrations in which hobbits are shown are largely "general impressions," and that "the very ill-drawn one in Chapter XIX is a better guide," the "hobbit in the picture of the gold-hoard, Chapter XII, is of course (apart from being fat in the wrong places) enormously too large." Which it is, else Smaug is mighty small for a dragon. All of this, to me, points to one thing: don't use Tolkien's illustrations as hard evidence of how something looked; go with the written story.

That said, it seems to me that cutting the bridges when one is about to be assaulted by an enemy capable of a nasty aerial attack is rather puzzling -- wouldn't that be cutting off one's escape routes as well? But the passage davem quotes, which shows us Smaug's reaction to the cutting/destruction of the bridges, does seem to indicate that the dragon would have liked to have used some sort of ground (or bridge ) attack. Why this should be so... I certainly can't say, though Smaug does appear to use both methods, else he would not be ensconced in the Lonely Mountain, sitting pretty on his hoard with all the Dwarves driven away. Perhaps he had it in mind to frighten the folk of Lake Town, then set up residence in it until he had driven all the humans away. Or perhaps even his fiery attack is more effective on the ground, because of the closer range. I surely can't say, and it's been a while since my last reading of The Hobbit. But I would agree that it does seem rather a peculiar situation, especially on a cursory examination.

[Bêthberry]

You know, this reminds me of a discussion over another writer's illustration for his work: William Blake's engraving for the poem "Tyger, Tyger". The ferocious tiger, "burning bright" with dread might etc etc has a winsome smile on its face--and it's not a salacious, vicious, smug smile but a really Tony the Tiger happy smile.

Sometimes you have to face the fact that a writer is not as good at drawing as he is at writing and that visual imagination is a different thing than verbal imagination. Was Tolkien's ability as a visual artist as accomplished as his ability in language? Has he been claimed Artist of the Century?

Really, Tolkien is full of anomalies and changes and "niggling" and we get our kicks here coming up with fun hypotheses explaining them all. If the passage makes sense to readers as a written passage, why get nickers all pulled up because the drawing shows discrepancies? At a certain point, the siren call of the drawing led him to depict the place a certain way: the drawing for him became a primary work of sub-creation and not some hand maiden to the text. After all, his writing demonstrates many attributes of Old English style but his art work shows many affinities not to Anglo Saxon art but to contemporary art. It's one of the eccentricities of his genius--and I mean by that his guardian spirit.

EDIT: lol, cross posted with Ibrin

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I am not arguing that the main bridge was not destroyed. I am saying that it was not one of the bridges which could have been cut because the illustration Tolkien gave us - which is far more detailed than any text description with words - shows a substantial structure built on thick plyons and not a supsension bridge upheld by ropes to be cut.

Then, Sauron, you are still arguing that the picture is misleading; as it not only depicts a bridge that doesn't look as though it can be cut, but one that doesn't look as though it can be destroyed in "little time" at all, something the text tells us was done. So, any way you slice it, either that bridge was destroyed (and the picture is misleading), or it was not (and to make this assumption reasonable, we'd need to explain why only some bridges would be destroyed).

Regarding the idea that Smaug had more advantages in an air attack, consider that his fire-breath was probably not like gunfire from a plane - it would have most likely had a far shorter range. This would mean he would have to fly very close to the town before being able to ignite it, and then would have only had a brief moment to do so before having to veer away to avoid a crash. Also consider that he possessed immense strength and size, as well as a tough hide - features that wouldn't be particularly useful for a predator designed primarily to rely on agility and speed while hunting. Considering this, and also the lack of wings among some dragons and the well-known vulnerability of their undersides (I mean, come on - even hobbits heard about it!), it's quite likely they preferred to attack, in general, from the ground, probably using flight more for transportation and, if it was ever necessary, defense (their underside might be exposed, but if they intended to make a quick retreat rather than an attack, this would present little danger).

[The Sixth Wizard]

For your delectation, here's an interesting depiction of the dragon, though not drawn by Tolkien, I hasten to say.

In that picture, Smaug got pwned.