LotR -- Book 5 - Chapter 06 - The Battle of Pelennor Fields

[Bêthberry]

Some rambling observations here for this incredible chapter, which I must say has always drawn from me strong emotions.

Estelyn mentioned how the title of our last chapter used alliteration. There's lots in the poems in this chapter which imitate Old English style--which I would assume comes from Frodo the real narrator rather than be one of Merry's perceptions--but one of my favourite lines is the following:

And now the fighting waxed furious on the fields of the Pelennor; the din of arms rose upon high, with the crying of men and the neighing of horses.

There's a great deal said in LotR about the rightful or proper relationship with the nature world, but not much said about how humans treat animals. Wasn't it in "On Fairy-stories" that Tolkien said one of the three most great desires was to understand animals? Here of course the horses and 'elephants' are bred as war machines.

The strange winged creature who bears the Witch King. Where does it come from? It is a creature out of a dark, primeval past, as Shelob and Ungoliant?

it was a winged creature: if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked, and neither quill nor feather did it bear, and its vast pinions were as webs of hide between horned fingers; and it stank. A creature of an older world maybe it was, whose kind, lingering in the forgotten mountains cold beneath the moon, apt to evil. And the Dark Lord took it, and nursed it with fell meats, until it grew beyond the measure of all other things that fly;

I cannot recall now what we discussed about Ungoliant's history, but now I am wondering just what this older world was. Is there anything elsewhere which explains how it fits into the Legendarium?

but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them into the fray; Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand, Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues . . . . East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight.

I thought that evil could not create. In discussion of Melkor's intent with Luthien, there was serious debate about whether he could procreate. So how can we have half-trolls? Or does this rather signify the depths of depravity that men are capable of?

There is one other passage that I think is highly ambiguous. (I'm not sure if we will be called upon to suggest a movement between Frodo's recollections and his POV and his attempt to suggest Merry's POV.)

These staves he [Éomer] spoke, yet he laughed as he said them. For once more lust of battle was on him; and he was still unscathed, and he was young; and he was king: the lord of a fell people.

What is going on with this description of the Rohirrim as "a fell people"? We've just been given a description of the Dark Lord feeding the Witch King's flying creature with "fell meats" as a way to develope evil. Why now--at this moment of Éomer's battle lust and in the midst of the most incredible battle chapter of the book--are his people described as fell?

There's a possibility of answer at the end of the chapter:

And in that hour the great Battle of the field of Gondor was over; and not one living foe was left within the circuit of the Rammas. All were slain save those who fled to die, or to drown in the red foam of the River.

In my understanding of warfare (which is limited and partial I admit), the souls of soldiers were vouchedsafe by the idea that they were to fight to defend themselves and take a military target but not to take up the deliberate intent to kill. (It's a fine line, I know, but one which speaks to the integrity of the individual soul.) The most foul form of war gave the command, "take no prisoners" where even those enemy who surrendered or who were incapacitated were to be killed. Is that what happened here? Or was the blood lust so great upon them?

I'm probably bringing in primary world assumptions about war, but I wonder if there is not something here which suggests Tolkien's own conflicted attitudes about war. Is there a Middle-earth Clausewitz?

[Kuruharan]

So how can we have half-trolls? Or does this rather signify the depths of depravity that men are capable of?

Same way we can have half-orcs probably.

[Bêthberry]

So it's just another sleight of fiction then, eh, Kuru? And "fell people" as well will fit that category.

[Kuruharan]

The word "like" is used. For somebody like me, in order to be consistent, I must take the view that these were not in fact half-trolls but only looked like...er...I mean similar to a troll.

Not to get too technical but I see a number of problems with breeding humans and trolls together.

And "fell people" as well will fit that category.

I think "fell" is a morally neutral way of saying "dangerous" or "unpleasant." It would be both to be at the sharp end of the Rohirrim army and the food given the fell beast (which was also dangerous and unpleasant) was probably not the most savory of substances.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I think "fell" is a morally neutral way of saying "dangerous" or "unpleasant." It would be both to be at the sharp end of the Rohirrim army and the food given the fell beast (which was also dangerous and unpleasant) was probably not the most savory of substances.

Hmm. Well, it is not my experience of the word 'fell' to say it is morally neutral.

Originally Posted by OED

1. of animals and men, their actions and attributes: Fierce, savage; cruel, ruthless; dreadful, terrible. Also in cruel and fell, fierce and fell. Now only poetical or rhetorical.

2. Of things, esp natural agents, weapons, diseases,suffering etc: Keen, piercing, intensely painful or destructive. Of poison: deadly. Still dial. in colloquial use, in literature only poetic and rhetoric:dire appaullingly cruel or destructive.

However, it still seems to me that to describe both the food of the beast and the Rohirrim with the same word collapses the distance between the two at the moment of pitched battle when the difference seems so very important. They share the same quality.

[Kuruharan]

Hmm. Well, it is not my experience of the word 'fell' to say it is morally neutral.

Imagine that, you've been having a new experience all these years and you didn't even know it.

1. of animals and men, their actions and attributes: Fierce, savage; cruel, ruthless; dreadful, terrible. Also in cruel and fell, fierce and fell. Now only poetical or rhetorical.

Well, warfare requires this sort of thing and the Rohirrim were fighting a war.

However, it still seems to me that to describe both the food of the beast and the Rohirrim with the same word collapses the distance between the two at the moment of pitched battle when the difference seems so very important. They share the same quality.

A) I think you are grasping at straws in taking a rather narrow instance and making a bit much of it.

B) What do you expect? Look at it as a part of Tolkien's empathy to show that fighting against the Free Peoples was an unpleasant experience for those involved and he appreciated that as an author.

[Encaitare]

Dictionary.com says...

1. Of an inhumanly cruel nature; fierce: fell hordes.
2. Capable of destroying; lethal: a fell blow.
3. Dire; sinister: by some fell chance.
4. Scots. Sharp and biting.

I think that definition 2 was what Tolkien has in mind; it shows what exactly the Rohirrim are capable of in what they think is their last hour. He could have described them as valiant or brave or noble, but we already know that. If we go by definition 2, we can see that they've been acting 'fell' all along even if they haven't been defined as such, charging at the foe crying 'Death!' and hacking off the heads of evil beasts.

Originally Posted by Bb

However, it still seems to me that to describe both the food of the beast and the Rohirrim with the same word collapses the distance between the two at the moment of pitched battle when the difference seems so very important. They share the same quality.

Maybe Sauron fed the beast with Rohirrim.