The Essence of the Tale

[Inziladun]

It's almost bedtime for me, but in brief I would say that the essence of LOTR to me is about duty and sacrifice.
Frodo is presented by Gandalf with the knowledge that the Ring must be destroyed, and that it came into Frodo's possession in order for him to be its guardian for an undetermined amount of time, and perhaps to take it himself to Mordor and destroy it.
Frodo takes the burden willingly, trusting Gandalf, not truly understanding at the first exactly what toll being the Ring-bearer would have on his body and spirit, Still, though, he could just as easily have denied the responsibility and remained a simple Shire Hobbit.
And then there's Sam, sticking with Frodo through it all out of love, yes, but also out of a sense of duty. He had a idea from the start of the quest that he had a job to do, a part to play, and nothing drew him away from it.

Gandalf's duty and overriding focus was the defeat of Sauron, and all his words and deeds were colored by that ideal.

So that's what I see in the book. It doesn't come through as much in the movies. Frodo seems to be rather harried and fearful instead of purposeful. Sam comes nearer the mark though,

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

It's almost bedtime for me, but in brief I would say that the essence of LOTR to me is about duty and sacrifice.

"To me" is undoubtedly the pivot on which this discussion turns, but if we leave things at "it's all relative," the discussion will go nowhere, so let me pursue this line of thought.

I agree wholeheartedly, that duty and sacrifice is a major theme of The Lord of the Rings, but I wonder how a retelling of the story that emphasized this--and dramatically changed the plot--would play out. So here's a thought experiment:

Gandalf does his duty and sacrifices himself. Instead of sending him back to finish the task, we get a different wizard sent to Middle-earth (Alatar the White, perhaps--assuming he also died in the East). Faramir succumbs to the Black Breath, but Denethor has more backbone and pulls himself together to lead the defence of Minas Tirith, and does his duty when Aragorn comes, sacrificing his pride to his rightful King.

Or, for an even bigger one, Frodo still can't make the sacrifice on Mt. Doom, but Gollum is no longer there. To give us the victory, Sam wrestles Frodo, bites off the Ring-finger, and throws it into Mt. Doom.

One thread I see already in this is that, although duty and sacrifice are necessary, tweaking things to emphasize that more would often remove the reward that should come of it, which changes the message rather emphatically. That said, I think that a Faramir who died succumbing to the Black Death would have felt considerably more LotR-esque than the Evil!Faramir we got in the movie-TTT, and might have made more sense for a movie adaptation than what we got.

After all, a movie DOES have to simplify things a little...

[Kuruharan]

I don't believe there is much that can be altered in LotR that could be removed without altering the fundamental character of the story. Some minor things like Tom Bombadil and Ghan-buri-Ghan can go without too much damage, however, LotR is a finely crafted and balanced thing designed to be what it is (tautological as that sounds). It will not sustain major meddling and retain its essence, and in fairness nothing really will. This is why adaptations are difficult.

One thread I see already in this is that, although duty and sacrifice are necessary, tweaking things to emphasize that more would often remove the reward that should come of it, which changes the message rather emphatically.

As you say, you can further emphasize the element of sacrifice, but you quickly get to the point where you diminish the eucatastrophe. In my view, all of the elements in LotR are similarly balanced.