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

[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.

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

Whatcha talking about? Lotho died.

Pardon. None of the Hobbits in the Fellowship 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!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by morm

Hobbit Fanboy!

I take my cue from the Professor ...

I don't see why it's stretching credulity that Pippin should survive the battle at the Black Gate. Might as well say it's stretching credulity that Aragorn survives the numerous skirmishes and battles that he is involved in - or that Sam survives his encounter with Shelob, for that matter.

These events, as portrayed, have always come across to me as entirely plausible.

[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.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The Shire has lost its innocence - how could it ever go back to the pre-Saruman days?

But did it really loose it's innocence? The landscape was destroyed but that can and was mended to a degree and will be to it's full in due time. However, think of how the Shire may have reacted if one of the more notable families lost one of their own in this war? That coupled with the desecration of the Shire would truly have lost their innocence and you immortalize this in their memory.

I guess my point is that most authors seem to balk at the prospect of killing of one of the beloved and good characters because the audience will not react kindly to it, but it could be used to be more a poignant story.

[Lush]

Great thread (great title too, takes me back to the 8th grade, or something like that ).

I want to comment specifically on something Saucy said:

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?

This is a very interesting point. The modern horror film genre, however, appears to use "apparent death" episodes more so on the evil characters than the good. Of course, it's very nice when a good guy (like Dewey in "Scream," if anybody knows what I mean) who has seemingly died comes back in the end. But overall, the most powerful moments are those when you believe the monster/psycho killer/evil witch/etc. to be dead, and then they suddenly spring back up to life again. It's like a demonic reversal of the Resurrection, a cross turned upside down (if you don't mind me using Christianity as a prop here).

I don't see Tolkien doing this. I do not believe he uses "apparent death" as a means of shocking the reader. Or does he?

[Rhod the Red]

I don't see anything wrong with these 'near chances', as one might describe them, of death threatening situations. I doubt it had anything to do with external influences, as Tolkien liked to point out a strong lack of. Like in his synopsis to The Fellowship of the Ring .

[Mithalwen]

I have been delighted by the responses so far and they have given me far more to think about than I can fully tackle right now - and I want to look a few things out in HoME.

However, while it has taken me probably more years than Lush has been alive (Grade 8 is about 12 isn't it?) to realise that there are a lrge number of this instances (and I never claimed my list was exhaustive) -I do remember thinking when I finished the book that it was lucky that only Boromir had died (and stayed dead!) -since I was only twelve and also quite devastated by Halbarad dying (that guy makes quite an impact in about sentences), I didn't regard it as a problem. Frodo's seeming death had been a factor in my giving up on my first attempt to read the book so I think the death say of Legolas would have been just too traumatic - even though he and Gimli are not essential to the plot in ROTK, they are little more than representatives (I like both characters don't get me wrong).

As I grew older, and studied Literature eventually for my degree, I got the feeling that in "serious" literature people die and there are no happy endings. So the relatively few deaths among the main characters may be and overhang from LOTR's origins as a Children's book. Nevertheless I feel that one of the books great strengths is that few characters really getan absolutely happy ending - most have a bittersweet note. Even in the Hobbit which is so very much a children's book, the death of Thorin is extremely powerful and lingers in the memory (first time a book had made me cry since the death of Ginger in "Black Beauty" ).

I do like this idea of Tolkien telling the individual's story and it is one I will return to shortly.

[Lalwendë]

Warning some spoilers within...

Originally Posted by Lush

The modern horror film genre, however, appears to use "apparent death" episodes more so on the evil characters than the good. Of course, it's very nice when a good guy (like Dewey in "Scream," if anybody knows what I mean) who has seemingly died comes back in the end. But overall, the most powerful moments are those when you believe the monster/psycho killer/evil witch/etc. to be dead, and then they suddenly spring back up to life again. It's like a demonic reversal of the Resurrection, a cross turned upside down (if you don't mind me using Christianity as a prop here).

I don't see Tolkien doing this. I do not believe he uses "apparent death" as a means of shocking the reader. Or does he?

Good point. The use of the bad guy coming back 'to getcha' has gone beyond cliche. I now watch horror films/thrillers fully expecting that to happen. It gives the hero another go at the baddie, just to underline his/her machismo. So much so that I remember ruining Dead Calm for some friends by laughing at the end and yelling "Hey suckers!" . The more shocking horror films these days seem to be the ones where they do all die at the end, and that's a growing trend. The 28 Days Later DVD comes packaged with two endings, one of which has the hero die. There was also Terminator 3 which does see the machines rise.

Tolkien's most shocking moments are the real deaths. I can't be alone in being struck by the death of Boromir, I know a lot of us will have drawn pictures of that scene! I was also deeply upset by the death of Theoden and the deaths of the Hobbits at the battle of Bywater. But I suppose that the apparent death and rebirth of Gandalf was a big shock too.

The only mistake as far as I'm concerned with what Tolkien did in LOTR is that I'd have liked to have seen more Elves 'die'. Really. It would make a particularly poignant point. But then one small part of me thinks that at the end, when they leave for Valinor, they might as well be dead. I often think of what a modern cynic, placed in Middle-earth would think when Sam or Aragorn spoke of the passing of the ship into the West; they'd be thinking that the reality was that the ship was lost at sea. Maybe Tolkien thought of this too, and when he chose to explain his mistake over Glorfindel within the context of Arda, he also used it to his advantage as an example of 'proof' that Valinor really does exist.

A bit rambling, but there you go.

[Rhod the Red]

"Tolkien's most shocking moments are the real deaths." Yes, the first loss recorded is the death of Theodred, I think. I feel sad, he could have made a great contribution to the Helm's Deep battle.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by Lal, whom I seem to borrow from constantly

The only mistake as far as I'm concerned with what Tolkien did in LOTR is that I'd have liked to have seen more Elves 'die'. Really. It would make a particularly poignant point.

But wouldn't that defeat Tolkien's intent on showing that the Elves are not willing to become involved in warfare and are rather content in staying back and defending their own little parcels of ground while giving advice (and perhaps a couple of useful gifts) to those who can fight?

Trying to tie it back to the topic of this thread, isn't Tolkien trying to tell us that so many elves have died (actually died, not returned from the death... Glorfindel being an exception ) that they do not want to become directly involved in even more bloodshed? And perhaps their lack of compromise and their lack of strenght to re-generate after being kicked down is what brings about their defeat.

During LoTR we have examples of hobbits being "reborn" (Frodo) of men being "reborn" (Aragorn) and even of Maiar being "reborn" (Gandalf) but do we see any elves being reborn? (during LoTR, so Glorfindel does not count)

We don't. Perhaps this shows that the elves have lost that "fight" that they once had in them. In all the rebirths we see there is that intangible aspect of willingness to survive that helps the character through. Even when Frodo and Sam are at Mt. Doom and rivers of lava stream down the sides of the mountain, them being far away from food, drink or any possible rescuers we see them moving away from the destruction. They could have just sat there and let the fires of Orodurin end their misery, but even then they did a little bit of effort to survive... which ultimately paid off when Gandalf and the Eagles showed up.

Yet do we see that from the elves? They stay in Middle Earth and fight for their little tiny kingdoms, yet when they get tired they "simply" travel on to the West (I know it's not that simple, but what option did Frodo have? He did not know of the gift he'd be granted, he had no easy way out and he toughed it up until the end)

Perhaps their lack of that fire, that desperation that if they do not succeed on middle earth they will perish and die, is what caused the elves to stay rather than rise up again.

Yes, we cannot ignore the fact that if it was not because of Elrond or Galadriel Frodo, Aragorn and the rest would have never triumphed, yet we see no Feanor-like brave elves going to battle on shiny armours and single-handedly defeating companies upon companies of orcs.

And don't tell me that the elven strenght was in their wisdom. Sure, they were wise but can we ignore that they were excelent fighters? I think we cannot -and should not- do so. It is a statement, and an important one, that there were no elven companies on the fields of Pellenor.