How does one determine if prose is "filler"? (meaning)

[Emrak]

OK, we all know the conventional wisdom that says you should cut scenes from your novel that don't really advance the plot at all. These scenes are called "filler" or "fat" or whathaveyou. However, as I'm reading Lord of the Rings to my son, it seems that this rule was violated several times.

Example: when the hobbits encounter Tom Bombadill and Goldberry. To me it's straight filler. Am I wrong? And it's not just Tolkien. Now that I think on it, there are many contemporary novels that violate that rule (every one of Robert Jordan's or Terry Goodkind's novels, for instance).

Bottom line: how does a writer determine if a scene is "filler" or if the writing would actually be enjoyable to a reader? Just curious as to opinions here.

Thanks!

[Rocky Raab]

None of us have lives that lack peripheral issues or events. I think that a novel that lacks them is less than life-like. The good author uses these "sidebar" events to develop his protagonist's personality or character.

In the justifiably acclaimed Aubrey/Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian, for example, Captain Aubrey's many misadventures ashore are used to show that no hero is perfect. Stephen Maturin likewise is highly learned, crafty and of shining parts - but is also addicted to opiates. Without the many "off story line" scenes that illustrate these foibles, the series would be less than realistic.

If there is a point to a sidebar event, it is justified. The reader can always tell when a passage is mere filler, or if it illustrates or develops a point - even if that point does not become meaningful until later in the tale.