# Question: "Fog on the Barrow Downs"??



## Xanados (Mar 15, 2012)

I have never read the LotR trilogy.

What a strange, unexpected chapter is "Fog on the Barrow Downs."

I have one question: Why on earth does Merry awake from the wight's dream (??) and say to himself "What in the name of wonder? Of course, I remember! The men of Carn Dum came on us at night, and we were worsted. Ah! The spear in my heart! No, no. What am I saying? I have been dreaming!"

I read somewhere that he was reliving an experience not in his own life... 
This makes no sense to me. Why did no one even speak up after he said that? Frodo doesn't even ask him.

No explanation is given whatsoever in this chapter about anything. 


I'VE RE-READ IT TWO TIMES! What a completely unnecessary, weird chapter.

Edit: "The ghosts of the Barrow-downs in the Old Forest seem to possess Merry, Pippin, and Sam."

That isn't even told in the book!

Edit: This doesn't even seem like the films that I know and love...


----------



## Codey Amprim (Mar 15, 2012)

I think it was one of those things you just throw in there to make the world a little bit more interesting and give the reader something to 'hmm' about. I said the same exact thing when I read that, and various other points in the story.

It should have been wrapped up or answered in some way, but wasn't.


----------



## Xanados (Mar 15, 2012)

Codey Amprim said:


> I think it was one of those things you just throw in there to make the world a little bit more interesting and give the reader something to 'hmm' about. I said the same exact thing when I read that, and various other points in the story.
> 
> It should have been wrapped up or answered in some way, but wasn't.


I'm really not a fan of things that go unchecked or are in many ways quite unofficial. What I have read so far completely blows my mind when referencing the movies that I love.


----------



## Xanados (Mar 15, 2012)

If anything it's just making me bloody confused and sad, actually. It feels like I'm reading from a different universe at this point. I do flip through to see the name "Denethor" and that makes me happier. This feels more like a Disney cartoon.

Edit: It just doesn't feel real... The hobbits wake up and seem to hardly care AT ALL about what has just happened to them.


----------



## Codey Amprim (Mar 15, 2012)

How about when Gandalf fell? There barely seemed to be a tear shed. I put the book down for two months after I found out that is how it was written


----------



## Xanados (Mar 15, 2012)

Codey Amprim said:


> How about when Gandalf fell? There barely seemed to be a tear shed. I put the book down for two months after I found out that is how it was written


I'm only on chapter 8. As I said I haven't read the trilogy yet! 
Ugh that sounds horrible. There was so much emotion in the film.

Thanks for making me feel better


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 15, 2012)

Lord of the Rings is one of those classics that some people love and some give up after reading a couple of chapters.  It certainly has its flaws, but most people say "Why be a fantasy writer if you haven't read Lord of the Rings?"  I agree to an extent, but I haven't read it yet either.  Although I've read "The Hobbit" which I struggled with at first, but then quite enjoyed it.  I think a lot of modern readers may have difficulty with Tolkein's text.  I had a friend that read the "Simarillion" and forced himself to finish it even though he hated it the whole time.  I personally don't get that.  If I hate reading something, then I don't finish it.  But that's just me.


----------



## Xanados (Mar 15, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> Lord of the Rings is one of those classics that some people love and some give up after reading a couple of chapters.  It certainly has its flaws, but most people say "Why be a fantasy writer if you haven't read Lord of the Rings?"  I agree to an extent, but I haven't read it yet either.  Although I've read "The Hobbit" which I struggled with at first, but then quite enjoyed it.  I think a lot of modern readers may have difficulty with Tolkein's text.  I had a friend that read the "Simarillion" and forced himself to finish it even though he hated it the whole time.  I personally don't get that.  If I hate reading something, then I don't finish it.  But that's just me.



I will finish the trilogy. I don't hate it. I just disagree wholly with Tom's chapters...

I love the films, to the point of shedding manly tears every time I watch the full extended edition. I WILL read the trilogy.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 15, 2012)

As I understand it, Tom Bombadil was really interesting to Tolkien as this sort of personification of the world-spirit... or something. Even Tolkien knew that Bombadil wasn't really important to the story structure, but he liked exploring that character, which is why he's in the novel.

I had more or less the same reaction the first time I read _LotR_: "What was the point of that, exactly? Oh well, they're on to other adventures now."


----------



## Xanados (Mar 16, 2012)

I think I'm annoyed at the obliviousness of the hobbits after almost dieing than anything...


----------



## Kit (Mar 16, 2012)

Xanados said:
			
		

> I have never read the LotR trilogy.
> 
> What a strange, unexpected chapter is "Fog on the Barrow Downs."
> 
> ...



Sometimes places can hold traces of past events, especially very traumatic events. You can be more vulnerable to inadvertantly tapping into such an energy trace and "reliving" the event if you are stupid enough to sleep on a site that was an old battlefield or a gravesite.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Mar 16, 2012)

Funny thing is a lot of fans hated the fact that tom Bombadil and the barrow downs were never included.  

I love the books, more so than the film.  But Tom Bombadil was a bit superflous and odd within LOTR, though he would have fit in with the Hobbit perfectly.  Perhaps Tolkien was trying to remind readers of some of the magic of the legacy Hobbit with its more fairy tale aspects?  

The Barrow Downs I could live with, though again Tom bombadil's deux ex machina appearance was kinda lazy, I would have preferred to see the Hobbits find their own way out.  And yes Merry was awakening from a dream of the history of the dead people of the barrows.

I think part of the apparent lack of fear and concern comes from the intrinsic nature of the Hobbits, don't forget these are practically fairy folk with a different outlook to Humans.  Merry and pippin especially have curious and mischief making personalities that cause many problems for the group as the story evolves.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Mar 16, 2012)

> Edit: This doesn't even seem like the films that I know and love...


well of course not, since when was any film faithful to the book?  

Jackson took many liberties with the books, even to the point of merging characters together to make new characters.  He even invented whole new scenes and plotlines.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 16, 2012)

Those chapters were not my favorite, but I didn't mind them. Tom Bombadil serves to further characterize the world as a whole and even the Ring itself. And of course it sets up Frodo's departure from the Shire, right?


----------



## myrddin173 (Mar 16, 2012)

I haven't read LotR in a while so my recollection is a bit fuzzy.  I agree with Graham about Hobbits not being humans and therefore having a different outlook on life, they knew they were safe at that point so why worry about what happened.  I also have to admit, Bombadil is one of my favorite characters, tied with Gandalf for first of course (Treebeard and Galadriel are tied for second),  precisely because no one, not even Tolkien, knows what he is and yet he is this incredibly powerful being.

I also saw the movies before I read the books, and the movies have a dear place in my heart, but I hold the books more dearly.  In many ways it amuses me that you liken reading the books to Disney cartoon because I would argue the opposite.  Disney takes things and waters them down in the same way Peter Jackson did.  A lot of the fans absolutely hate him for what he did to the books, notably leaving out Bombadil and more importantly the Scouring of the Shire which DRASTICALLY changed the story and its meaning.  

P.S.  "Fog on the Barrow Downs" may seem like an unneeded chapter but it is actually an important plot point by the time you get to Book Five.

P.P.S.  I still can't read the last quarter of Book One because of nightmares I had about the Black Riders when I was younger...


----------



## grahamguitarman (Mar 17, 2012)

The fog on the barrow downs is also the source of their semi magical swords too from what I remember, although Frodo's was later replaced by sting.

I actually read the books long before the film - several times, so like many I was disappointed at the loss of magic from the story.  Nearly everything that made LOTR enchanting and magical was stripped out to make room for more action. As much as I enjoyed them, the films in my opinion are flat and two dimensional compared to the books.


----------



## WilliamElse (Mar 18, 2012)

I believe Tolkien once said that Tom Bombadil was intentionally 'an enigma', which explains (or rather _doesn't_ explain) his oddly discordant appearance in the book. Personally, I've always liked him, although it wouldn't hurt if he laid off the singing once in a while...

I can see that the emotional responses of the characters in the book could sometimes seem a little odd and unrealistic from a modern perspective. It's worth remembering, however, that Tolkien steeped his world in the lore and mindset of the dark ages. You'll find similar outlooks in the Mabinogion or the Norse sagas. The past, as they say, is a foreign country.

I love the films and think Peter Jackson made the right choice in watering down the books' content to make it more accessible, but I still find the books far more atmospheric and the characters in them more credible as products of Middle Earth.


----------



## gerald.parson (Mar 18, 2012)

I am not surprised at the changes, I am actually surprised there wasn't many more. At first they were just going to make one, 3 hour movie, but it wasn't until New Line Cinema stepped in that the project was expanded. Sadly not many people that got involved with the project actually cared for the book's, even Mr.Jackson him self has taken plenty of shots at it. He in fact wanted to take out "the army of the dead" and rewrite that whole segment, he thought it was a cheap and quick way to progress the story and didn't like it, but he kept it in there because that would in fact be quit the overhaul. In short they had no intention of making the movie(s) spot on accurate to the book(s), they wanted to appeal to a broader demographic so they went a more mainstream route. I suspect they will do the same with the hobbit too.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 26, 2012)

Probably the hobbits think nothing of Merry's words because they all have experienced the same thing. They were spellbound into being like the men that were buried in the barrows; men who fought against an ancient evil realm in the north ruled by one of the Black Riders. I think it gives the story some history and sets what will become the background of one of the chief characters of the story. Many things in the book that seem to be loose ends actually are whole threads which extend out of sight.


----------



## Shockley (Apr 2, 2012)

While an earlier poster was correct in pointing out that the events in the Barrow-Down have increasing significance as the story goes on, there's something from outside of Lord of the Rings that I'd like to bring into the discussion.

 Tolkien wrote lots and lots of things. Some of them were published in his life time (The Hobbit, LotR), some of it was published post-mortem (the Silmarillion) and some of it wasn't published at all (and probably won't be). Christopher Tolkien put out a fifteen volume on the writing process behind the Lord of the Rings, and that probably didn't even begin to scratch the surface. The important part to take away from this is that, when originally writing, Tolkien didn't always conceive of his events as happening in the same universe. When writing the Hobbit (after he had laid out most of the Silmarillion in some form or another) he did not see it as part of the same world. Only when writing Lord of the Rings did he decide to make that connection, and he included a lot of stuff in the early chapters to clarify that connection. 

 One obvious example is the evolution of Aragorn as a character. He was originally intended to be a maimed Hobbit. Only when Tolkien decided to implement the ideas of Sauron and the One Ring of Power did Aragorn begin to flesh out as a man. Another one, and this is the meat, is the presence of Tom Bombadil. The Adventures of Tom Bombadil was an epic poem that Tolkien wrote in 1934 (Predating the Hobbit. Based on the text of the poem, it's interesting that Bree also predates the Hobbit.). When putting everything together into one universe, he made the decision to tie in Tom Bombadil as well. 

 I think it improves the story, but I might be one of the few.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 2, 2012)

Xanados said:


> "The ghosts of the Barrow-downs in the Old Forest seem to possess Merry, Pippin, and Sam."
> 
> That isn't even told in the book!  This doesn't even seem like the films that I know and love...



Didn't I warn you?  HA! It looks like you're starting to believe me.


----------



## Xanados (Apr 2, 2012)

anihow said:


> Didn't I warn you?  HA! It looks like you're starting to believe me.


Well, I'm now on the Bridge of Kazhad-Dum. It's a lot better, but I think I might post my thoughts on the first book after I'm finished. Although I doubt it'll be a fresh take: everyone here has read the books!


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 2, 2012)

Tom Bombadil has his place in the book, but no place in the movies. Happily, some of his lines are given to Treebeard in the extended cut of The Two Towers, at least. 

Please remember that Tom is the ONLY character in the entire trilogy that is completely unaffected by the One Ring. It has no power over him at all, and this is a keynote of hope in the trilogy when the ultimate goal seems so far away and impossible. To me, Tom proves that the earth itself will always recover from any of the devastation that could be wreaked by Elves, Men, or Orcs. And Goldberry is practically the only female character in the book. (Yes, there are others, but Arwen is a footnote, and Eowyn's energy is very masculine as she is a fighter with a hardened heart which only softens near Aragorn. Galadriel is motherly, but in a very detached, goddessy way) So Goldberry is Tom's natural consort, and a very potent figure who dramatically throws herself up against the closed door to shut out the night. She's sexy and her charms are as heady as Tom's songs. 

As for the wights and the barrows, it adds so much depth to the story. You become aware of the history of these places, which the hobbits themselves are rather ignorant of. The fact that Tom saves them is like a father saving lost children - because that's what the hobbits are at this point. 

Merry's proclamation was about visions from another's life, and this also adds a sense of mystery and history to the world. After reading that, I wanted to know more about the things he spoke of. I assumed his companions didn't question his words because they understood where they came from and what they meant. 

Getting caught by the wights is Frodo's first test, and he passes it. It's the first time he's tempted to put on the Ring. He nearly abandons his friends and runs out on them. But he doesn't. This is a very important part of the story. Both reader and Frodo himself discovers that he is stronger than that. And this sets things up later for when he really can't resist putting on the Ring (when the Ringwraith commands him to on Weathertop). As such, we learn what Frodo is capable of, and what he is not. 

Such moments enrich the story and I was happy when I finally saw Jackson's original extended cuts, which put back into the films scenes that give it so much more depth: Aragorn providing for the hobbits by hunting a deer; Aragorn singing the Lay of Luthien and speaking of her to Frodo; Aragorn confessing to Eowyn that he's 87 years old. There are others. 

I remember I had trouble the first time I read The Two Towers as it seemed to me that Merry and Pippin should be more traumatized by their capture and abuse at the hands of the Uruk-hai. But Tolkien does write at that point that Hobbits are different, and can shrug off such things easily and treat them very lightly - which maybe is something that should have been mentioned and reinforced earlier in the trilogy.


----------



## Xanados (Apr 3, 2012)

Okay, I think the topic has been discussed enough...


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 3, 2012)

Xanados said:


> Okay, I think the topic has been discussed enough...



No one is forcing you to read the thread. You could employ a technique we have here in the States known as not clicking on it.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Apr 3, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> No one is forcing you to read the thread. You could employ a technique we have here in the States known as not clicking on it.



Agreed, some of us are still interested in the topic


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 3, 2012)

grahamguitarman said:


> Agreed, some of us are still interested in the topic



Yes, I've found the viewpoints quite interesting, and also learned some things I didn't know about the work.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 7, 2012)

I think it is an important point that Tom is immune to the power of the Ring. He is very down-to-earth, indeed he is practically of the earth himself; he only troubles about his own affairs, which are primarily concerned with eating and drinking and singing. In the same way, hobbits are down-to-earth, only concerned with their own affairs, primarily eating, drinking...

So you see, the chapter about Tom sets up the idea that the Ring can be resisted, in particular by those whose greatest ambitions are of avoiding Sackville-Bagginses. This is a theme touched on throughout the book- the wise and powerful who are tasked with guarding against Sauron are tempted to evil by the mere thought of the Ring, but the hobbits have laughable ambitions and are best able to resist it. Without this point it doesn't even make sense for the hobbits to take on such a daunting task.


----------

