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

[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.

[Kuruharan]

Maybe Sauron fed the beast with Rohirrim.

Anything is possible.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

Maybe Sauron fed the beast with Rohirrim.

Ah, Encaitare, what a splendid entrance to the Chapter by Chapter discussions! Where logic splitteth hairs, humour gels.

Dictionary.com says...

. . . .

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.

Now I'll admit I'm as given to tossing out quotations from dictionaries as any one here (although I don't share completely Fordim's total admiration for the OED) but sometimes I wonder how people managed to understand books and new vocabulary before our great Dr. Johnson wrote our first illustrious dictionary and Noah Webster enlightened Americans about new ways to spell old words. How did they do it?

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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.

You know, you could be right, Kuru--straws making good strawmen--but I just sort of thought that Tolkien fans might be somewhat as curious about the ways of language as Tolkien was himself and when a rather unique word is used uniquely to describe two 'sides' in the major battle chapter of the book, well, gosh, it was just too tempting to make hay.