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

[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?

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

You bloodthirsty Hobbit-hater you, morm.

[Celuien]

I actually dislike it when too many main characters are killed off. Of course, that may be a result of my never having fully recovered from the traumatic experience of reading The Mill on the Floss.

But in all seriousness, how much realism do we want? Yes, the probability of Pippin not being killed in battle would be low if the tale were fully realistic, but so would the chances of Frodo and Sam reaching Mount Doom. As would Eowyn's and Merry's triumph over the Witch King. As would the actual defeat of Sauron by the Free Peoples. This is a mythic tale, after all, and improbabilities are permitted in plenty.

Besides, so much of the story is about the unlikely and unexpected triumph of unlikely heroes that it's not too much of a stretch for me to accept that none of the Hobbits died. I prefer that they didn't, but that's just the personal inclination of my sentimental ol' self.

[Firefoot]

none of the Hobbits died.

Whatcha talking about? Lotho died.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

You bloodthirsty Hobbit-hater you, morm.

Hobbit Fanboy!

Now I realize this is a mythic quest and epic and good prevails but besides Frodo having to pass into the west there really isn't a final price to pay. We started with hobbits and ended with hobbits and it all works out for the hobbits with no ill to speak of. The Shire is repaired and is lovlier than ever thanks to Galadriel and Sam but what price did the Shire truly pay? Why not expose us to a bit of reality? Life always isn't happy and it's a great opportunity to teach those of us who read it that lesson.

Plus would any of us actually miss Pippin?

[Firefoot]

Plus would any of us actually miss Pippin?

Yes!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by mormegil

The Shire is repaired and is lovlier than ever thanks to Galadriel and Sam but what price did the Shire truly pay? Why not expose us to a bit of reality? Life always isn't happy and it's a great opportunity to teach those of us who read it that lesson.

Sam planted saplings in all the places where specially beautiful or beloved trees had been destroyed, and he put a grain of the precious dust in the soil at the root of each. He went up and down the Shire in this labour; but if he paid special attention to Hobbiton and Bywater no one blamed him. And at the end he found that he still had a little of the dust left; so he went to the Three-Farthing Stone, which is as near the centre of the Shire as no matter, and cast it in the air with his blessing. The little silver nut he planted in the Party Field where the tree had once been; and he wondered what would come of it. All through the winter he remained as patient as he could, and tried to restrain himself from going round constantly to see if anything was happening.
Spring surpassed his wildest hopes. His trees began to sprout and grow, as if time was in a hurry and wished to make one year do for twenty.

Or is it? We know 1420 was a good year, but could the Shire ever go back to what it had been? Even with Galadriel's dust and Mallorn seed, could they replace all that had been lost? On one level, Sam only has enough to treat places where his very favourite trees have been lost so we must guess that some other new trees did not grow quite so fast, if indeed there were new trees in all places anyway; on another level, The Shire has lost its innocence - how could it ever go back to the pre-Saruman days? The trust of the Hobbits was spoiled by his incursion.

Which brings me on to another incident where we think we have heard the last of someone, not a death but the 'downfall' of Saruman. We see Gandalf break his staff and the Ents imprison him, we then see him clad as a wanderer (I always think of mad tramps raving away when I think of Saruman like this), but would any of us have expected him to turn up as overlord of The Shire?

I think Tolkien's decision to not kill off his Hobbits was entirely intentional, not merely guided by affection, as he wanted to show that though they may have appeared small and insignificant, they were not delicate, but incredibly hardy beings. And powerful too, if they so chose to be. In this way Hobbits survived where many Men, Orcs and even Elves did not.

But while Tolkien did not kill off his Hobbits, he did inflict terrible injuries on The Shire. He could easily have had Sam restore it fully (i.e. right back to the original state, with all trees restored, and with the Elven 'soil' (where can I get some of that stuff by the way? Sounds like it would work a treat on my garden). But he did leave the hint that the recovery was not complete, and that this was a very different Shire than the one the four Hobbits first left behind. For me, it seems Tolkien treated his landscapes with as much (and at times more) affection as he treated his characters, so to have The Shire marred in this way very much mirrors what happens to Frodo. Survival, but not a full recovery?

In that sense, if Frodo/The Shire 'seem dead but aren't', then Tolkien created a wonderful, subtle comparison, and made a much more interesting point than he could have done had they simply been killed/annihilated.