I get knocked down but I get up again - you're never going to keep me down.

[Mithalwen]

A couple of days ago I made an aside in another thread saying that if I were to be hypercritical I thought that Tolkien played the "seems dead but isn't card" rather too often" . It was a casual, spur of the moment remark but one that has led me to think that I may have misjudged the Professor.

I do not mean that the card isn't played frequently - the more I think the more examples I think of - apart from Frodo's many near death experiences and Gandalf's actual "rebirth" we have Eowyn and Pippin found by Gimli seeming dead after the battle at the Black Gate .Giving a slightly looser interpretation the trances of the hobbits in the Barrow and even Merry's experience with the Nazgul in Bree could be included. I am sure there are others in the Rings and I know there are other instances in the Hobbit and Silmarillion.

I am now begining to doubt that all these back from the brink episodes should be dismissed as a failure of Tolkien's otherwise wondrous imagination (great on creating world weak on plot twists ?) or a consequence of the book generally getting out of hand and being published too soon after completion without time for the reflection which might have resulted in a few more "elegant variations" (Tolkien seemed to only take the criticism that it is too short so I had better let that thought perish...).

Another possibility is that he was too squeamish to kill off too many of the major characters - I think that the deaths of Eowyn and Pippin were contemplated at various points if I remember HoME aright- and instead introduced a whole raft of Gondorian lordlings in order to cull them at the Pelennor.

The new option that has occured to me since my flippant little post is that it is in fact deliberate; that renewal, rebirth , and the the triumph of hope were so important to Tolkien that he was happy to reuse this device frequently even to the renewal of the White Tree against all the odds.

It might be a reflection of Tolkien's religious faith, simple optimism or influenced by his great knowledge of and interest in mythologies and fairy stories where people coming back to life in unlikely fashions also seem to be a frequent occurrence (at least as far as my limited knowledge goes). Or something else maybe just chance.

I may be making something out of nothing and trying to turn a perceived flaw into a virtue, and it is not the sort of question that can be answered definitively but I would be interested to hear other opinions on this.

[Firefoot]

If it is a flaw, it must not be too terribly great a one because my first reading I fell for it just about every single time - the big ones, anyway. Gandalf, Frodo at Shelob's lair for sure; I'm not sure about the others, but by the time it happened to Pippin I had pretty much picked up on the fact that he probably wasn't dead.

As for being afraid to kill off main characters... maybe. But not nearly so much as many other authors I have seen. Boromir, Theoden, and Denethor are the big ones, but personally I was extremely sad when Halbarad died. I just really liked the chap. And I think we can gather enough from Tolkien's other works that it probably was not because he was afraid to kill them off that he didn't. (Thorin, Fili, and Kili, anybody? The entire Sil?) I don't want to repeat what I said in the other thread, but I would say that he typically leaves his characters alive for a reason. e.g. Pippin, who was needed to help raise the Shire.

I think the thing about making the reader believe that the character is dead is that it takes the reader through emotional ups and downs (No! he can't be dead! He's alive?? Yay!) and makes the book more effective. Whether or not he had something more symbolic in mind, as you suggested, Mith, I don't know but even if it was subconscious it does make a lot of sense.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

If it is a flaw, it must not be too terribly great a one because my first reading I fell for it just about every single time - the big ones, anyway. Gandalf, Frodo at Shelob's lair for sure; I'm not sure about the others, but by the time it happened to Pippin I had pretty much picked up on the fact that he probably wasn't dead.

As for being afraid to kill off main characters... maybe. But not nearly so much as many other authors I have seen. Boromir, Theoden, and Denethor are the big ones, but personally I was extremely sad when Halbarad died.

I fell for the first several, too. I wasn't sure about Pippin. Didn't have too long to reflect on it, you know? It kind of ended. And I, too, was very, veyr sorry to see Halbarad die. I really liked him, if only because Aragorn loved him so.

Originally Posted by Firefoot

I think the thing about making the reader believe that the character is dead is that it takes the reader through emotional ups and downs (No! he can't be dead! He's alive?? Yay!) and makes the book more effective. Whether or not he had something more symbolic in mind, as you suggested, Mith, I don't know but even if it was subconscious it does make a lot of sense.

It does add to the story, that is true. I think that is one great reason that he did it. (Everyone wants a great story, right?) But there may have been another underlying reason for him doing it so many times. You did mention it, Mith. . .being part of his religion. The dying and rebirth, and even the dying and coming back to life altogether, as in Gandalf's case. (He did die, didn't he?) I know, I know - Tolkien didn't write allegory. I've heard it a hundred times if I've heard it once. But I don't believe a chap can really write something quite as potent as the LotR without putting some of his truth and belief into it. It's not so much the length of the book - there are several books that are long, boring, and hardly have any hidden truth in them at all, but those are hardly the sort of books that catch and hold millions of people's imagination for longer than the reading of them. It's not the length, it's the content and what the content is built upon.

Hm. Having sufficiently strayed from my point, I'll return. I don't think it's such an outrageous thing to suppose that Tolkien did have more than one reason and more than one conscious idea when he put so many 'deaths' and renewals of life, and one of those reasons and ideas may have been in direct relationship with his religious beliefs.

If they weren't, then I still think he drew some awfully lovely pictures of that belief in his writings.

-- Folwren

[Celuien]

I certainly haven't perceived the multiple 'deaths' as a flaw, though my dreamy optimism is well known to more than a few Downers. Like Firefoot, I happily accepted the emotional roller coaster of concern set up by the characters' apparent demises and joyous recoveries.

In Frodo's case, the repeated brushes with death seem to set up the necessity of his journey into the West. That final trip acts as a symbolic death by sending him to a far-removed land from which there is no return. Each of Frodo's encounters - the Morgul-blade, Shelob's sting, and the tableau following the Ring's destruction - injure him deeply and irrevocably. If taken with his last journey out of Middle-earth, perhaps Frodo's close calls truly are deaths on some level. The ending of the part of his psyche that would have allowed him to recover and live in the Shire as the other returning adventurers did.

I can certainly see Eowyn as having a 'death' and rebirth. The Eowyn who went to war is different from the one who fell in love with Faramir. Following her near death in battle, she has learned that she doesn't need to be a queen or seek glory as a shieldmaiden. The change is more dramatic than I would have expected to come from mere recovery from illness, as if she needed to go to the brink of dying and then return to gain a new perspective on life over her next days in the Houses of Healing. I'm unsure, however, on the relative importance given her experience in battle versus the effects of being healed by Aragorn. This requires further investigation from me when I have access to my books...

Merry and Pippin both return to the Shire as different Hobbits than when they left, though my impression is more of experience gained through adventure than a rebirth. Something else to recheck.

So my opinion is that the motif does play a role in the development of the story, rather than being due to chance (or lack of other plot-twists )

[Farael]

I strongly agree with the point of view that Tolkien would not kill off a character before his story was finished. Whether that's good or bad is open for debate, as sometimes in real life accidents happen and a life is cut short with no chance to achieve "completedness" in life, whatever that may be.

Yet I think that having main characters die would go against what I percieve was Tolkien's intent, to write a story about good triumphing over evil. There are many tragical, cruel deaths, that happen before the character has a chance to finish his story to the last word, such as Halbarad for example. Yet these characters are not as well developed as say, any of the four hobbits, Aragorn and just slightly less than Lady Eowyn (whom I hear Tolkien was thinking about killing).

Should Pippin be murdered by an orc when Eomer and his riders attack their camp, we would all be extremely saddened and the happiness we feel at the end of the story (at least, before we realize that Frodo will not be staying in The Shire) would be tainted by the realization that not all of those who left made it back. I think it's an important part in Lord Of The Rings that the good trimphs over evil almost flawlessly. The only "flaw" would be Frodo, yet he gets a compensation by being allowed into the West. All the others survive and become greater than what they had been before and most likely, greater than what they would have ever been if they had not joined Frodo's adventure.

I think that all the deaths (or near-deaths) and subsecuent resurrections are intended to show us the grave peril in which the forces of Good are found and how everyone's life hang on a really thin thread... yet their resurrection and victory are there to show us that even in such grave situations there is still hope and in the end, we see that even after so much sadness an pain it is possible to go back to a state of happiness rather than mourning.

Now, this I say from my own experience, I'm certain that other readers will think otherwise, yet by killing off only those characters that had succumbed to evil (Denethor, Saruman) or those who had in a way finished their mission in life (Theoden, Boromir) or those that are not dealt with in as much depth as others (Halbarad, Hama?) when the story ends the readers can feel that "everything is alright" without having that feeling tainted by the mourning of a character (or more) in the story.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I don't know...I never really thought about the seems-dead-but-isn't thing before. However, I would argue that Gandalf should be excluded from the category, because of them all, he is the only one who actually died, as in really wasn't alive any more.

I believed it just about every time. Others have said that they began to suspect something was up by the time Pippin's turn rolled around...but my most distinct memory of my first time through the books was that upon reaching the end of The Black Gate Opens, I actually refused to read more, and cried myself to sleep that night. Gullible? Yeah. But I was only 13 at the time, and was running on very low sleep and high adrenaline (reading LOTR still does that to me). The strange thing is that I never believed for a moment that Eowyn was dead. It always looked to me like a rash misdiagnosis on Eomer's part, partially influenced by his grief over Theoden, rather than an actual death...And it turns out that's exactly what it was.

I don't see the frequency of these incidents as a flaw. It's a book that tells the tale of a war. People die in war (like Halbarad, Boromir, Theoden, and countless others). People get hurt, too. But we have to take into account that to a person living in Middle-earth, a badly hurt person may in fact appear dead. Medicine wasn't advanced enough for them to tell the difference between coma/unconsciousness and death. (As a morbid side-track, when people excavated midieveal cemetaries, some of the coffins they found had scratch marks on the inside of the lids) Sam, who doesn't think best with his head, and knows absoloutely nothing about medical stuff could easily believe Frodo to be dead. It's a mistake I probably would have made, had I been in his shoes. I see Frodo's "death" after the encounter with Shelob as an honest mistake on Sam's part...though one that is, of course, intended to play a bit with the emotions of a reader.

Anyhow,a lot of people probably looked dead that weren't, though I must say that among the Fellowship and their friends, the incidence of this is somewhat rediculously high.

The only "death" I see as more of a direct attempt to convince readers that it actually happened is Pippin's. It has a different feel to it than the others. Gandalf actually was dead, for however brief a time. Eowyn and Frodo, and I guess we can include Merry in this one, were more of a misunderstanding by a character, than anything else. Readers make the mistake of belief along with the characters. Pippin's death is different, because it's only what Tolkien tells us of Pippin's own thoughts at the time of his injury. We don't get that particular window into a character's soul for any of the other "deaths" we experience in the book. I'm trying to say something here, but I can't think of the right words, so I hope you get it.

[Boromir88]

Sam, who doesn't think best with his head, and knows absoloutely nothing about medical stuff could easily believe Frodo to be dead.~Azaelia

And this makes sense with Tolkien's writing style. First, he sets up a difference between his characters and himself. (As in Letter 153 when Tolkien singles out Treebeard and says he's a character in his story not him). The knowledge, independency, and opinions of his characters are incorporated into the story. They may or may not always be right and they could certainly be fully of baloney. This makes sense with someone like Sam who sees Frodo there limp and not moving. Having no experience of this prior he would not know that Frodo was merely poisoned, where the Orc patrols who probably experienced this with Shelob several times, or were aware about it noticed that Frodo was indeed not dead.

Also, to explain Eomer who as mentioned was just grieving over the death of Theoden, now he sees his sister lying there not moving. Someone you forgot to mention Mith is Faramir who was perceived dead, but Denethor was not in the right state of mind during this.

The other thing about Tolkien's style is that he is much more of an "in the moment" sort of writer. Not really giving a look ahead to his readers, it's a what is known up to that point. Tolkien being the omniscient narrator is not bound to tell us all that he knows. In instance is with the Balrog. At first with Durin's Bane who is referenced as "It," (even by our omniscient narrator):

It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure. The flames roared up to greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs.~The Bridge of Khazad-dum

Also throughout this chapter Gandalf refers to the balrog as "It." Then later a gender is given to the Balrog:

"Name him not!" said Gandalf, and for a moment it seemed that a cloud of pain passed over his face, and he sat silent, looking old as death. "Long time I fell," he said at last, slowly, as if thinking back with difficulty. "Long I fell, and he fell with me. His fire was about me. I was burned. Then we plunged into the deep water and all was dark. Cold it was as the tide of death: almost it froze my heart."~The White Rider

So, the point is Tolkien acted much more like a recorder telling us the story. What is known by his characters at that point in time and he does not reveal to us all knowledge that may come to us later. It's what is going on at this time, and what is known at this time.

[The Saucepan Man]

I can think of two more examples. Faramir prior to the siege of Minas Tirith, and Bilbo at the Battle of Five Armies (which I always associate with Pippin's near-death at the Black Gate, due to the arrival of the Eagles).

I think that there is evidence to support symbolic intent on Tolkien's part, at least as far as Gandalf's death is concerned. But I would not underestimate the effect of these incidents as plot devices, nor Tolkien's intent to use them as such. He was an accomplished story-teller. He was skilled at engaging and involving the reader, which is just what these incidents do. And I would not view his use of them as heavy-handed, despite their frequency. My own experience, and that of others who have posted already, suggests that they do not stand out to the reader as such. I too was taken in (and distraught) when I thought Pippin (one of my favourite characters) had died at the Black Gate. They are credible because the story involves life-threatening events. Some of those involved are bound to die. And some are bound to get injured (and subsequently recover).

Tolkien was not averse to tricking his readers into thinking one thing and then presenting them with another in other ways either. I have in mind, in particular, the suggestion that the cloaked figure that the Three Hunters encounter in fangorn might be Saruman, but I am sure that there are others. Again, Tolkien the master story-teller is engaging and involving his readers through plausible and skillfully delivered plot twists. The beauty is that we never feel cheated by the actual outcome. Only delighted.

Edit: Cross-posted with Boro, who also pointed out Faramir.

[The Saucepan Man]

A further thought.

To the extent that these "apparent death" episodes might come across now as slightly cliched, I wonder if it is beacuse they are so over-used in the modern horor film genre?