Thought provoking if nothing else

Hello everyone,
Well, I have a small topic that was brought up in the chat and I thought it was interesting. It's a couple of parts and it will make you think but here it goes.
If any member of the fellowship did not exist would things have turned out differently? Of course, you are going to say "well yes they would" but, think about it really. Would they have? Or would someone else have filled the place they left? Or were some members of the fellowship just not needed at all? Like Boromir, he passed on very early in Lord of the Rings, would he have really affected the outcome all of that much? What if nothing ever happened to Gandalf at all?
It's more or less looking at each member and the need they posessed - or if they didn't posess one at all. Or, would it be true that one person no matter how small a part they played were actually needed. Just wanted to see what everyone else says

~Daisy Grubb

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I believe that everyone has a small part to play... Boromir, you mentioned, for example... Had he not been there then Frodo may not have been driven to leave the Fellowship at that moment, and Merry and Pippin may not have been abducted.
I think that everyone and everything has it's place & if someone else filled the shoes of certain characters then things would've turned out differently.

[Kalimac]

Tolkien said that Legolas probably accomplished the least out of the Fellowship, and he may have meant something like this; most of the members of the Fellowship (especially Merry and Pippin, who at first seem to be good only for comic relief) affected the course of events enormously. But Legolas (and Gimli to some extent) didn't really do too much along that line. Not having them there at all would have made something of a difference - more difficulty tracking the Orcs across Rohan, for example, eighty-odd fewer dead Orcs at Helm's Deep, etc - but nothing quite as wildly different as say, the difference between Faramir being rescued (if Pippin is there) and Faramir being burned alive by his father (if Pippin is left behind in Rivendell). Not that I'm saying it would be better with Legolas and Gimli out of the story, quite the opposite, just that they didn't force any pivotal events to happen or to change. Sorry, hope that made sense [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

[Mirkgirl]

The story has many things that affected the story, so it's really hard to say what would happen if someone of the characters was missing... I'll try to tell the things about the beginning where it is just a bit more possible.

We can't remove Gandalf at all, maybe he may stay at Orthanc for a change /have to think it over later on this/

And here comes the Shire... lets drag Merry out aww what happened?!? No one to organize the things... the others wouldn't last long, no TB's would help in distance... He is the one to make all preparations, he's the one to do some help in the Old Wood, tho not v. much but w/out him no one semi confident in the wood would leave...

More to come but now I don't have time (:

[pippin_took0]

I think without Legolas the Fellowship might not have made it through Lothlorien (in the books...). They might have got shot otherwise.

[Beren87]

I think that things perhaps would have happened differntly without a member of the Fellowship, but would have turned out if not exactly the same at least the main objective of the Fellowship would have been completed.

[ElanorGamgee]

Here's something that I just realized that's kind of interesting. Pippin saves Faramir from being burned alive by Denethor. Merry, by distracting the Witch King, keeps Éowyn from being killed. Then Faramir and Éowyn meet in the houses of healing and fall in love. So Merry and Pippin are pretty much resposible for the marriage of Faramir and Éowyn. So cute [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Jessica Jade]

Boromir was definitely very important! Here's why:

"Boromir may actually do some good by confronting Frodo. At the very least, he forces a decision. It is characteristic of The Lord of the Rings more general that bad events are turned toward a good end through some coincidence; here, Frodo's indecision is delaying the company and Boromir's action (though deplorable) forces the hobbit to act immediately. Moreover, it forces Frodo to make what his heart tells him is the right decision. He knows that he must head for the Cracks of Doom, but, as Sam correctly observes, he is simply afraid--afraid of Mordor but also afraid that if he goes back and tries to convince the others to go to Mordor, they will talk him out of his decision. This shows Frodo's deep honesty of character; he could not live with himself if he took the easy way out, even if it seemed reasonable. It is Tolkien's view, rooted in Christianity, that evil will in the end defeat itself. Thus, Boromir's treason against the Company, even though it breaks the Fellowship, has the ultimate good effect of moving the Ring further toward the Land of Shadow."

I got that from Sparknotes. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[Ancalime]

I think that each member had their own unique part to play, as several people have already pointed out. Now, this is slightly off-topic, but I wonder what would have happened if Gollum had been killed early on, say by Bilbo (in which case Sauron wouldn't have known where the ring was) or by the Fellowship in the Mines of Moria. Gollum is basically the only reason that the Ring ended up being destroyed-Frodo wasn't going to throw it in on purpose. Or would he have ended up throwing it in anyway? Sorry, I digress. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
Back to what I was saying, even though Gollum is not a part of the Fellowship, he is still very important to the story. Without him, Frodo and Sam may not have made it through the marshes or whatever that was (I can't remember at the moment) or found that side trail through the mountains or any of that. So in Gollum's case, you could argue that without him, the quest to destroy the Ring may not have succeeded.
Food for thought. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ainur]

I tend to think that the story would have turned out pretty much the same without Legolas or Gimli, but continuity of the story wasn't necessarily why they were there. Tolkien was trying to show his readers as much of Middle Earth as he could in the course of the story. Why else do we learn so much of the languages and history, even history that we don't really need to know, like the people of Rohan migrating from the north behind Eorl. Was it just so Tolkien could give them their own name for Hobbits? (Periannath--I think, I don't have my books handy.) Did Eorl know Smeagol's grandmother?
And how much would we learn of Dwarves if Gimli had not been there right along? They might still have found their way through Moria without him since both Gandalf and Aragorn had been there before, but would the tidings from the Book of Mazarbul have been as moving without him? I don't think so. Gimli's presence shows us a noble and gentle side to the dwarves that we could never get from the caperings in "The Hobbit." But the story would have proceeded just as well without him.
And Legolas gives us a different perspective of the Elves than we would ever get from Elrond or Galadriel. He is Moriquendi, a dark elf who never saw the light of the Two Trees of Valinor or ever travelled there. The "sea-longing" he speaks of in RoTK seems to me to recall the desire awakened in all the Elves to go the Valinor with the original summons of the Valar way back when they were still by the shores of Cuivienen. That may be a stretch, but his presence certainly instills a sense of history and age that transcends the 'timelessness' of Rivendell and Lothlorien. and so we see the elves from a new perspective. But still the story would have progressed without him, just not as richly textured or as moving. Tolkien wanted us to glimpse the bigger story that begins with the Ainulindale but never really ends, 'The Road Goes Ever On.' Tolkien wrote "Leaf by Niggle" to illustrate this point far better than I can express it.

[Orodhromeus]

Periannath is the Gondorian word for Halfling/Hobbit (plural Pheriannath). Holbytla is the name a Rohan warrior used for Merry. Is Holbytla the Rohirrim word for Halfling (or Hobbit) or is it a more general word?

[Nar]

It seems that the only members of the fellowship we need to make a case for are Legolas and Gimli.

Legolas saves Aragorn's life at Helm's deep 'The foremost fell with Legolas' last arrow buried in his throat...' Gimli saves Eomer's life 'The orcs ran up with their long arms stretched out to sieze him. Suddenly, a small figure leaped out from behind a rock .. 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad Ai-Menu!..' (I'm paraphrasing, so I've probably messed up a word or two) So, no Aragorn, no Eomer without Legolas and Gimli.

It's difficult, though. They do their part, but as Aragorn's tracking and batttle companions, everything they do is subsumed under his leadership. Aside from watching the backs of their friends, Legolas and Gimli, by bonding over Galadriel, Lothlorien, and their orc-killing game, end the feud between dwarves and elves that stretches back to the Eldar days.

Who is to say if killing the bad guy does more to save the world than reaching a true, heartfelt alliance between elves, dwarves, men and hobbits (and ents)? Tolkien's pretty clear at the Battle of Five Armies: if all races get together, darkness will be defeated, if they don't, it will not. A new age of men has begun, and the end of all the old feuds (not counting the poor orcs whom nobody now loves) may mean that the new age has a real chance to be cleaner than the past ones.

[Elven-Maiden]

I think Legolas and Gimli were of least importance. Yes, they healed the rift between Elf and Dwarf. But without them, the Ring would still have been destroyed, which was the goal of the quest.

[dragongirlG]

Gimli and Legolas were important, besides ending the races' feud. Gimli saved Eomer from being killed at Helm's Deep, right? And Legolas helped in the battle. It might have been much worse if they weren't in the battles and hadn't fought.

[VanimaEdhel]

I agree that the company would have had much harder a time getting into Lorien without Legolas. If Legolas did not jump into the tree, hear the cry in Elvish, jump down, and respond, the Elves could, very well, have shot the Company. That would not have been good (to make an understatement). That is the line that they kind of copied in the LotR: FotR Movie with the "...breathing so hard, we could have shot them in the dark". They were commenting on the company being loud, and the fact that they referenced to shooting them in the dark suggests that they WOULD HAVE shot them in the dark, so to speak, without Legolas.

Gimli, too, was important. Yes, he did repair the friendship between Elves and Dwarves, but he also fought valiantly (remember when they lost Gimli, and it turned out that he was in a cave fighting? He most likely saved many men...and he did save Eomer).

Yes, I believe that the quest would not have been the same without any of the characters. Even Boromir (as one person brought up) had a role. Without his death, Faramir would not have really become involved with the armies as much, probably would not have gotten injured, would not have met Eowyn, and then there goes an entire line. That means that Eowyn would have still pined for Aragorn (and his power), and would most likely have never been satisfied.

Any other characters you want me to defend? I'm ready *takes a defensive sports stance* bring it on! LOL [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[mordor136]

In Unfinished tales I belive Tolkien said Legolas probably accomplished least because the elves stopped really caring.If you want to get really picky an orc killed by someone who is no longer there could kill someone of geat importance to the plot!

[Ahanarion]

To Orodhromeus holbytla is old english for hole builder in the books old english is used to represent the language of Rohan. The actual word is kud-dukan and the actual word for hobbit is kuduk. Hope that helps.

[Orodhromeus]

"Kuduk" is rohirrim for Hobbit then. But what's "kud-dukan"? Sorry if all this is in the LotR Appendices.

[Bruce MacCulloch]

From The Lord of the Rings, Appendix F:

Hobbit is an invention. In the Westron the word used, when the people was referred to at all, was banakil 'halfling'. But at this date the folk of the Shire anof Bree used the word kuduk, which was not found elsewhere. Meriadoc, however, actually records that the King of Rohanused the word kûd-dûkan 'hole-dweller'. Since, as has been noted, the Hobbits had at one time spoken a language closely related to that of the Rohirrim, it seems likely that kuduk was a worn-down form of kûd-dûkan. The latter I have translated, for reasons explained, by holbytla; and hobbit provides a word that might well be a worn-down form of holbytla, if that name ever occurred in our own ancient language.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Bruce MacCulloch ]

[Keeper-of-Vilya]

I think all the members of the felowship played an important part. As Galadriel said - Even the smallest person can change the course of the future....

[QuickSlash]

Another point for Gimli is Moria. If Gimli had not been there, would they have stayed by the tomb longer? Would Pippin still have awakened the orcs and Balrog? What would've happened if Gandalf never fell? Something to ponder about.

[Luineglin]

i belive that there is a theory that says that any little action or nonaction affects everything. so if there was one less that one orc that wasnt killed could have killed Frodo later on or many other things. Becaase of this we could not see the effects of leaving a member out. It is above us if u will.