[mormegil]

I personally feel that I would rather see a main character die in this. It adds to the tragedy of the story. We must accept that sacrifices were made and that, to borrow the saying, 'freedom is not free'. It leaves one with a sense of hollowness to read the death of a beloved character but if it is appropriate it should be used. Why shouldn't Pippin die? Would it not be realistic to have at least one hobbit die in all the fellowship? How is it that Pippin could survive open battle against trolls and orcs? I think this, to me, would imortalize Pippin and show his self-sacrifice.

I think Tolkien wrote superbly but in general I would like to see a bit more realism in literature. For example (IF YOU HAVEN'T READ DRACULA BY BRAM STOKER I WARN YOU OF SPOILERS NOW!) I think Bram Stoker attempted this but failed by killing of Morris at the end. He's a 'main' character but you never really attach to him nor do you really like/dislike him. He simply is a character and since you never read his jounal of feel his thoughts the emotional attachment is non-existant. I feel the same with Boromir. There's an attempt at being realistic but they take the easy and comfortable way out by killing a 'main' character that we really don't bond with emotionally. For Boromir he was saved by his death and fairly soon 'replaced' by his brother Faramir who is all Boromir could have been so the void is filled.

This gives us the 'warm fuzzy' feeling that we all crave but doesn't hold true to life. I am not advocating a mass slaughter of all good guys but I would like to see them die on occasion. Think of (ANOTHER SPOILER OF X-MEN COMICS AND THE UPCOMING MOVIE) Jean Grey dies and the void is great, yet fans love it. Why? Because it had to be. We would accept their death and be saddened but moved.

Think about how the Shire may react to find the Peregrin Took had been killed by orcs or ruffians, this alone may be sufficient to raise the Shire and therefore Pippin alive wouldn't be required.