Tone - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Tigerlily Gamgee · 09-30-2002, 06:38 PM

This is sort of related to the "If feels different near the Shire" thread.
My friend and I were walking around "the windy city" this afternoon and we were discussing fantasy (and of course, Lord of the Rings).
A thought came to my mind...

What if Tolkien had not decided for the Fellowship not to be broken??
I mean, when looking at the books, the tone of the book changes so much when the characters are set out on their separate journeys. I think that the breaking of the Fellowship is what really starts these books on their main journey. Up until then the tale is still semi-light-hearted. I look at the The Fellowship of the Ring and compare it to the other two books and it can be easily seen how the tone and structure is different.
Do you think that Tolkien knew what was coming next before he wrote it, or was it as much of a journey for him. I have not read many of his letters, so some of you may be more clear on this than I.
I just thought how amazing it is that a choice like that is essentially what helped to create such an epic. Had the Fellowship remained together and had a nice, long, happy journey the book would've surely been labeled as a fairy tale.
Sorry if this seems a little strange for a topic to some of you... I was just wondering if any of you has any insight to this subject.

littlemanpoet · 09-30-2002, 09:00 PM

I do know that in Tolkien's first drafting of LotR he was discovering just as much if not more than a new reader. Then he went back and "back-wrote" to make everything fit into a seamless whole.

I see what you're getting at, but I think a qualification is in order. Wherever Merry and Pippin go the light-heartedness remains. Even among the orcs crossing Rohan. The only exception to this is when either of them come as far as Minas Tirith.

Frodo and Sam's story is surely the dark and difficult road. And, of course, the story enters into War. Therefore you have epic proportions. The Faerie tone even as far as Lorien is bound to be forgotten in all the great doings of Men, even though Lorien and Imladris do affect and inform those events.

I don't think the breaking of the Fellowship was avoidable. It was in the nature of the Ring and of the destinies of the Nine Walkers for the breakup to occur.

doug*platypus · 02-15-2003, 05:20 AM

Very interesting topic, I'm sorry that it has so few replies (so far). Tolkien's own Fellowship was, I believe, broken by the First World War. The group of four friends (I forget what they were called; this is long before the Inklings) lost two to the war, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps Tolkien felt it would be naive for the Fellowship to remain together? Most groups of friends tend to come and go over the years, as each moves on towards their own destiny.

If the Fellowship had stayed together, it would have ended up like so many of the trashy fantasy stories that were spawned in the 80s and 90s. Even with the death of Boromir, the unbreaking of the Fellowship would have seemed both unnatural and idealistic. In any case, Aragorn planned to split the Fellowship anyway.

littlemanpoet · 02-15-2003, 12:34 PM

Thanks for resurrecting this thread, doug-platypus.

By way of expanding on the final sentence of my previous post in this thread, it seems to me that the breakup of the Fellowship was fated not merely by the Ring, but by the very nature and make-up of the Fellowship, as well as its purpose.

Two men, a wizard, four hobbits, a dwarf, and an elf. Both men were aimed toward Minas Tirith from the start, although Aragorn was of two minds (which is an important aspect of his internal conflict, making the story that much more interesting). Gandalf had intended to go all the way to Mount Doom, had he made it as far as Rauros. Pippin and Merry wanted to go with Frodo, but even if the orcs had not captured them, I think Frodo would have given them the slip (Wow! I didn't even know I thought that until I wrote it!). Gimli and Legolas might have gone with Frodo, but I think only Legolas would have managed to stick with them had it come to giving the others 'the slip'. Hmm! There's an interesting possibility for a fan-fiction - What if the orcs had not captured M & P, and only Legolas had managed to stick with F & S? Sorry, major tangent. Maybe I ought to start a new thread....

Phrim · 02-15-2003, 03:18 PM

I think fate plays a large part of why Tolkien chose to break the Fellowship. If you think about it, Aragorn's destiny was so vastly different than Frodo's that both could not be achieved on the same quest.

Aragorn was to be the King of Gondor (and Arnor). Clearly his fate rested in Gondor and its people. One might argue that he could have gone and somehow claimed the Kingship before the war was over, and *then* accompanied Frodo to destroy the Ring. This is somewhat unrealistic though, as destroying the Ring was of paramount importance; no time could be wasted in Gondor if it meant the Ring was idle. As proven by the books, Sauron's armies would have crushed Gondor, and quickly, before the attempt to destroy the Ring was even made, if these were done sequentially.

Of course, the opposite argument would be to have Aragorn and company destroy the Ring, *then* go claim the throne of Gondor. This, I argue, is equally unrealistic given the political climate of the time. Even had Aragorn personally destroyed the Ring, he would not have returned to Gondor and have the crown handed to him freely. Take away Sauron and the armies of Mordor, take away the need to unite and lead the nation into war, and you find yourself in no need of a King. Quite frankly, without the threat of Sauron, the folk of Gondor would live quite happily as they are. And despite any of Aragorn's pedigree, the pride of Denethor would simply not allow him to cede his power to an outsider without a great cause.

On the other hand, for Frodo, the struggle with the Ring was, I think, meant to be a highly personal undertaking. Tolkien wanted to show that he had to grow and overcome his burden without the "supervision" of mighty warriors or powerful wizards. To crowd Frodo with all of the other characters would be to take away a lot of the emphasis on Frodo's personal struggle with the Ring. Overcoming the pull of the Ring was not meant to be a group effort; it was the test of one Hobbit's resilience.

doug*platypus · 02-16-2003, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Take away Sauron and the armies of Mordor, take away the need to unite and lead the nation into war, and you find yourself in no need of a King.

At the risk of being off-topic, I have to say that's a great observation, Phrim! Very realistic as well, so many great leaders in human history have been dependent on their people being in dire straits.

Aragorn was indeed a lucky guy, everything (including the deaths of Boromir and Denethor) just fell into place for him!

Quote:

Aragorn was of two minds (which is an important aspect of his internal conflict, making the story that much more interesting).

Quote:

Pippin and Merry wanted to go with Frodo, but even if the orcs had not captured them, I think Frodo would have given them the slip

Curse you, littlemanpoet! Just when I was starting to enjoy the movies a bit more - *sigh*. Alas, poor Aragorn!

09-30-2002, 06:38 PM	#1
Tigerlily Gamgee Hostess of Spirits Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Meduseld Posts: 1,056	Tone This is sort of related to the "If feels different near the Shire" thread. My friend and I were walking around "the windy city" this afternoon and we were discussing fantasy (and of course, Lord of the Rings). A thought came to my mind... What if Tolkien had not decided for the Fellowship not to be broken?? I mean, when looking at the books, the tone of the book changes so much when the characters are set out on their separate journeys. I think that the breaking of the Fellowship is what really starts these books on their main journey. Up until then the tale is still semi-light-hearted. I look at the The Fellowship of the Ring and compare it to the other two books and it can be easily seen how the tone and structure is different. Do you think that Tolkien knew what was coming next before he wrote it, or was it as much of a journey for him. I have not read many of his letters, so some of you may be more clear on this than I. I just thought how amazing it is that a choice like that is essentially what helped to create such an epic. Had the Fellowship remained together and had a nice, long, happy journey the book would've surely been labeled as a fairy tale. Sorry if this seems a little strange for a topic to some of you... I was just wondering if any of you has any insight to this subject. __________________ ~ ExerciseJunky.com (Hobbits fitness of choice!)~ ~Lady of Rohan: An Eowyn Fansite ~ ~The NEW/OLD Barrow Downs Photo Page~

02-15-2003, 05:20 AM	#3
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 963	Very interesting topic, I'm sorry that it has so few replies (so far). Tolkien's own Fellowship was, I believe, broken by the First World War. The group of four friends (I forget what they were called; this is long before the Inklings) lost two to the war, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps Tolkien felt it would be naive for the Fellowship to remain together? Most groups of friends tend to come and go over the years, as each moves on towards their own destiny. If the Fellowship had stayed together, it would have ended up like so many of the trashy fantasy stories that were spawned in the 80s and 90s. Even with the death of Boromir, the unbreaking of the Fellowship would have seemed both unnatural and idealistic. In any case, Aragorn planned to split the Fellowship anyway. __________________ But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'.

09-30-2002, 09:00 PM	#2
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,072	I do know that in Tolkien's first drafting of LotR he was discovering just as much if not more than a new reader. Then he went back and "back-wrote" to make everything fit into a seamless whole. I see what you're getting at, but I think a qualification is in order. Wherever Merry and Pippin go the light-heartedness remains. Even among the orcs crossing Rohan. The only exception to this is when either of them come as far as Minas Tirith. Frodo and Sam's story is surely the dark and difficult road. And, of course, the story enters into War. Therefore you have epic proportions. The Faerie tone even as far as Lorien is bound to be forgotten in all the great doings of Men, even though Lorien and Imladris do affect and inform those events. I don't think the breaking of the Fellowship was avoidable. It was in the nature of the Ring and of the destinies of the Nine Walkers for the breakup to occur.

02-15-2003, 12:34 PM	#4
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,072	Thanks for resurrecting this thread, doug-platypus. By way of expanding on the final sentence of my previous post in this thread, it seems to me that the breakup of the Fellowship was fated not merely by the Ring, but by the very nature and make-up of the Fellowship, as well as its purpose. Two men, a wizard, four hobbits, a dwarf, and an elf. Both men were aimed toward Minas Tirith from the start, although Aragorn was of two minds (which is an important aspect of his internal conflict, making the story that much more interesting). Gandalf had intended to go all the way to Mount Doom, had he made it as far as Rauros. Pippin and Merry wanted to go with Frodo, but even if the orcs had not captured them, I think Frodo would have given them the slip (Wow! I didn't even know I thought that until I wrote it!). Gimli and Legolas might have gone with Frodo, but I think only Legolas would have managed to stick with them had it come to giving the others 'the slip'. Hmm! There's an interesting possibility for a fan-fiction - What if the orcs had not captured M & P, and only Legolas had managed to stick with F & S? Sorry, major tangent. Maybe I ought to start a new thread....

02-15-2003, 03:18 PM	#5
Phrim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 73	I think fate plays a large part of why Tolkien chose to break the Fellowship. If you think about it, Aragorn's destiny was so vastly different than Frodo's that both could not be achieved on the same quest. Aragorn was to be the King of Gondor (and Arnor). Clearly his fate rested in Gondor and its people. One might argue that he could have gone and somehow claimed the Kingship before the war was over, and then accompanied Frodo to destroy the Ring. This is somewhat unrealistic though, as destroying the Ring was of paramount importance; no time could be wasted in Gondor if it meant the Ring was idle. As proven by the books, Sauron's armies would have crushed Gondor, and quickly, before the attempt to destroy the Ring was even made, if these were done sequentially. Of course, the opposite argument would be to have Aragorn and company destroy the Ring, then go claim the throne of Gondor. This, I argue, is equally unrealistic given the political climate of the time. Even had Aragorn personally destroyed the Ring, he would not have returned to Gondor and have the crown handed to him freely. Take away Sauron and the armies of Mordor, take away the need to unite and lead the nation into war, and you find yourself in no need of a King. Quite frankly, without the threat of Sauron, the folk of Gondor would live quite happily as they are. And despite any of Aragorn's pedigree, the pride of Denethor would simply not allow him to cede his power to an outsider without a great cause. On the other hand, for Frodo, the struggle with the Ring was, I think, meant to be a highly personal undertaking. Tolkien wanted to show that he had to grow and overcome his burden without the "supervision" of mighty warriors or powerful wizards. To crowd Frodo with all of the other characters would be to take away a lot of the emphasis on Frodo's personal struggle with the Ring. Overcoming the pull of the Ring was not meant to be a group effort; it was the test of one Hobbit's resilience.