Peter S. Beagle does have a Tolkien connection, though – he was one of the screenwriters for the Bakshi version. Didn’t do a very good job, either. 
I had a roommate in college who would read the trilogy front to back, then start all over again right away. He never read anything else until I got him Bored of the Rings and Ursula K. LeGuin’s Orsinian Tales. Then he got hold of my copy of David Eddings’ Pawn of Prophecy and I never saw it again.
So, to loop back to our illustrious OP, Oreo and make a relevant point: LOTR may be a “deep swim” indeed but you’re not the only one who’s been in that boat. Many of us started off treading water and have gradually learned to dive for pearls.
(How’s that for beating a metaphor to death?)
Thanks for all the advice, everybody. I wish I had read this thread before last night, because I already started LOTR. Now I think I should have started with the Hobbit. Maybe I’ll stop LOTR and go get the Hobbit on my lunch break.
But I don’t know if I’ll be able to resist LOTR. I’ve just gotten to the part where Gandalf is starting to explain to Frodo about the origins of the ring. I would have finished this part but I just couldn’t keep my eyes open any longer. It WAS slow at first, but now I’m at the point where I’m eager to find out what happens next.
I think I’m really going to love this book. Another treasure discovered! 
“…when it was acquired by the Gambasia Elves in Jersey. But Hoss Gambasia had a bomb accident, and since there wasn’t a hotter potato on the east side, the family let control slide to the dwarves, who are meaner than an Orc with dysentery, and don’t give a flip about any curses except those made by their own mothers…”
I’ve also got to chime in about The Silmarillion: I just finished it (having decided to read the books in the order of The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings, with various lost tales and bestiaries thrown in for good measure, in preparation for the upcoming movie), and i thought it was great! I’ll grant you, though, that this was not my first attemp at reading it. This time, however, I really enjoyed it. It’s really been enlightening for all the references to the ancient past made in the other books. I heartilly recommend it, but be prepared to confront a nearly overwhelming number of names!
-b
I’ll be slightly contrary here and say that, while The Hobbit may be a good introduction to Middle Earth, I found it to be fairly different in tone than The Lord of the Rings. I didn’t read it until several years after I first read TLotR and it failed to make the same impression on me. (I always have thought of it as a “younger” readers book but I couldn’t explain why.)
While we’re discussing the book…
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD. IF YOU HAVEN’T READ THE BOOK, TURN BACK NOW.
It seems to me that there are a few Pointless Side Quests ™ at the start of the book. I’m thinking of the sequence with Old Man Willow, Tom Bombidil and the Barrow-Wights. I have never really understood why these bits are in there. They don’t contribute to the main plot and the characters which are introduced don’t show up again. Why are they there?
I’ve come up with two theories. 1) Tolkien came up with the character of Bombidil and wanted to include him even though he couldn’t really work him into the War of the Ring. 2) It’s to mislead the reader as to the main plot of the book. We are to think the hobbits are going to be encountering lots of small adventures and not realize they are going to become involved in the War.
Or, maybe he just needed to pad his word count for some reason.
It seems to me that the story would have worked just as well if it had gone directly from the Shire to the Prancing Pony. Just as a side note, at least one friend of mine gave up on the book after (as he puts it) “Tom Bombadil has to save the hobbits for the second time in as many days”.
Can someone help enlighten me on this sequence?
…SPOILERS in response to tanstaafl…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Partially true. Old Tom was a previously existing character, based directly off of one of Tolkien’s sons’ dolls.
Again partially true. Tolkien originally intended for LotR to be a true sequel to The Hobbit. It was going to be annother there and back again story. Instead the work “swept Tolkien up” and took him down a different path. Thus the ever more serious tone as the first part goes on.
Unlikely as he had a horrible time getting it published due to the length. In fact in the end only half of it was published as they turned down the Silmarillian at that time. (A different version compiled by his son Christopher was eventully published some 20 years later).
According to Tolkien and others, Bombidil serves several purposes in the naration:
-
It provides a break from the main story. It allows the hobbits to be hobbits in a way that they can’t be when there are black riders breathing down their necks. So we get a change in pace and some additional character development. These are common throughout the book. After a series of major action sceens the characters get a break. It happens with Tom, at Rivendell, at Loren, and with Faramir. These changes of pace are part of what makes the book so readable.
-
It allows the inclusion of a neutral character. Tom is simply not on anyone’s side in the war of the ring. It also demonstrates that should the hobbits fail in their mission, many people that they don’t know will be affected.
-
It provides depth. Tolkien had a whole world created that did not come into play in his books. By allowing the naration to pass near Tom it allows this ancient and diversely populated world to peak through.
-
It allows Tolkien a private joke. As he puts it Tom is an “intentinal enigma.” Few things in the book have been argued about as much as Tom. Everyone has an opinion on who or what he is. Only Tolkien knew for sure, and as far as anyone can tell he never told anyone.
Of course you are right when you say “the story would have worked just as well without Tom.” Tolkien himself admitted that he does not advance the primary narative. And in fact he has been cut out of every radio and film production that I am aware of. But there are those of us who think that Tolkiens world would have been poorer without him.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
…End of SPOILERS…
I can’t give you a definitive answer on the question you raise, tanstaafl, but I can offer you a well-reasoned opinion instead. Please keep in mind it has been some time since I read LOTR, so if my facts are wrong someone should jump in and set me straight.
In general I agree with you. The incident with Tom Bombadil, the Barrow-wights, etc. seems a diversion which does not seem to advance the plot of the story. But plot developments is only one of three things that good writing should do; the other two are character development and description. The Bombadil-Wight incident could be viewed as descriptive, in that the hobbits learn Middle-Earth is a bigger and far more dangerous place than they (and with them, the reader) have experienced to that stage and/or that the journey itself is perilous, apart from the specific quest. Having said which, it is likely that the overall story would not suffer too much if this particular section were dropped.
Another thing to consider is that publishers are far more stringent today about publishing novels which are “tight” – that is, each part of the story must be quite relevant in the sense we are discussing here – than perhaps they once were. It wasn’t a matter of padding word count; Tolkein wanted to explore his world as much as tell a specific story, and so periodically introduces these digressions to allow that. Austin Tappen Wright’s 1100-page Islandia (published posthumously in 1942) often meanders away from, or eddies around, the main story line in a way which, perhaps, the author could not “get away with” today – but which is nonetheless engaging. As first-time novelists today, Tolkein and Wright might have been pressured by an editor to make some serious cuts.
BTW: I liked The Hobbit but I understand what you mean about its different tone and child-like quality. It has the feeling of an epic fairy-tale. Tolkein wrote several non-Middle Earth short stories/novellas which have the same feeling: Farmer Giles of Ham, Smith of Wootten Major.
I heard that the character of Tom Bombadil was cut from the movies. Anyone know if it’s true? Although it is a very interesting part, I agree that it is not essential to the plot.
True. Tom Bombadil is not in the movie version. While I’d rather see the whole thing done in detail, I admit that I have a much higher patience with long movies than the rest of the public. Peter Jackson had to leave something out, and I think this was probably the best choice.
SPOILER BELOW
In reply to those who say that the Tom-Barrowight segment served no purpose to the main story, go read the passage in Return of the King after the Lord of the Nazgul gets taken down. The sword that Merry found in the barrow was absolutely necessary to that scene. I’m wondering what Jackson will do to make sure the hobbits are properly armed without having them visit an Arnorian burial site.
Saltire, there are any number of people who could lob scimitars at the hobbits, thus making sure they’re packing evil-slaying goodness. Elrond, Galadriel, Theoden and Saruman come to mind.
My best guess is that Merry will receive the sword at Rivendell, possibly from Elrond or another ranking member of the Council. Perhaps this will be thematically joined with Aragorn receiving Anduril. Just a thought.
Seen in this light, Old Tom is nothing more than a plot device! </sacrilege>
SPOILERS CONTINUE AND ABOUND
.
.
.
.
.
Saltire, the Barrow scene is only significant if you take the “spell that bound his invisible sinews” and “no other swords” lines literally. A significant number of us believe that it is poetic license. Certainly other swords could have done the same job (the other three in the barrow come to mind), even if you believe that the stab behind the knee had to be magical. In addition the killing blow was still done by Eowyn with a standard non-enchanted blade.
Hello Again, according to the movie sites I’ve visited, the blades will be given to the hobbits at Bree by Strider. Although why he would be packing 4 short swords hundreds to thousands of years old is beyond me.
Y’know, guys, I enjoy discussing these books as much as anyone, but this thread was, after all, started by someone new to Tolkien. D’you think that we might move all these spoilers to another thread? Or at the very least, mark them all clearly?
Interesting about Hobbit II! In Book I, there is a part where a fox (“Well, what next?”) comments on the hobbits traveling. The fox most certainly does not fit in with the rest of the story.
Heilien said this very very well about heroes in Glory Road when Oscar was being leactured on why Starr didn’t just whisk him right to the lair where the Phoenix’s Egg was being held; without the previous adventures with Igli, etc. he would never have been prepared for the main event. I think the same is true of the Hobbits; without Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wights, they would never have been ready to be properly suspicious or appreciative of Strider, they would never have been able to make their way through
<SPOILER SPACE>
the mines of Moria, or withstood being captured by the Uruk-Hai. These are soft little hobbits who needed some serious weathering before their tree-root toughness could even begin to show. The idea that the book could just “skip those parts” seems to me to reflect a more current predilection for minimal character development, such as that exemplified by Disney movies.