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?

[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.

[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.

[Mithalwen]

Farael, I think you are being a little harsh of the Elves, the Last Alliance really was their last hurrah. I think that the number of elves remaining in Middle Earth at the time of LOTR was really very small. There are four settlements of elves remaining and only two if them are "realms". I imagine the communities of Mithlond and Imladris were very small, albeit as home to all that remained of the Noldor save Galadriel, made up of relatively powerful individuals. Mithlond reamined to facilitate the departure of the elves and Imladris was a last ditch refuge for the free peoples and a base for Elrond to use his power to hold off the enemy as long as possible. Elrond isn't staying for his "kingdom". He never took the title of king he was surely entitled to after Gil-galad died. His personal interests would surely have been better served to have left years before. Despite his advice being ignored by Isildur, he stays the course charted by the ring being allowed to survive and his personal loss is all the greater. Imagine the course of events had Elrond reamained to provide a refuge for Bilbo and healing for Frodo.

Galadriel has other issues but she too remains and plays a vital if relatively passive part. Her silvan folk and Thranduil's were much more reclusive. Nevertheless Thranduil led home barely a third of the army that had departed for the last alliance. Those numbers are extremely unlikely to have been replenished.

I expect that the elves had lost their taste for war (and who could blame them - think of Elrond's word at the council- they had seen many defeats and fruitless victories) but they were not cowards and did not fear death. It was no longer their role to be agressors

[Farael]

Hmmm maybe I used too many strong words on my last post. I did not mean for the elves to be called "cowards" but they sure are part of the "passive resistance" rather than the active one. Both kinds of resistance are important, someone has to be able to think for any active meassures to be effective.

Yet what I was trying to say is that the elves were knocked down and weren't really getting up again. As they had another way out (Valinor) they didn't need to get up, they could flee, and that's why we don't see them as active participants in battle and same reason why we don't see them die.. they keep themselves out of harm's way because they know that if they survive, sooner or later they can seek their way West.

[davem]

I suspect the truth is that the Elves have cut themselves off for so long that they've lost touch with what's really gong on in the world. The world they knew has changed & they haven't kept up. They were always essentially a backward looking people. They chose to isolate themselves from all change & ended up being left behind. The fact that Sauron was defeated with so little input from the Elves as a whole surely demonstrates how little they were needed by the end of the Third Age. They were lost in dreams of 'old, unhappy far off things, & battles long ago'. ('For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings'). They were no longer capable of being & doing what you expect of them. I think they played the part they were capable of playing. They had lost heart & hope of any victory they would consider worthy of the name. If a whole race can suffer from clinical depression I think the Elves came pretty close to doing so.

[Firefoot]

I don't think it's completely fair to forget that Sauron did send three assaults against Lorien out of Dol Guldur, and there was also fighting on the part of the Mirkwood Elves on the same day as the second assault. It's not like they were sitting at home knitting socks.

You can blame them for not leaving their land to fight with the Rohirrim and the Gondorians, but that's really not quite fair. The Dwarves and the Men of Dale didn't go either; they had to defend their own homes. And consider Theoden: he didn't go to the aid of Gondor until Saruman was taken care of and they didn't have another army ready to march on them from the other side.

As for the Elves at Rivendell and the Grey Havens, I can't say I really blame them, either. They don't really want another fight. And after thousands of years of fighting off and on, first Morgoth then Sauron, can you really say that you'd feel differently? Most of them were pretty much ready to leave M-E; they were just waiting for the right time to do it. Why get embroiled in another war? Especially with Men, who really don't seem to think to highly of them - mythical, sorcerous...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Farael

I did not mean for the elves to be called "cowards" but they sure are part of the "passive resistance" rather than the active one. Both kinds of resistance are important, someone has to be able to think for any active meassures to be effective.

Originally Posted by davem

I suspect the truth is that the Elves have cut themselves off for so long that they've lost touch with what's really gong on in the world. The world they knew has changed & they haven't kept up. They were always essentially a backward looking people. They chose to isolate themselves from all change & ended up being left behind.

So maybe the elves were the Europeans in contrast to the Americans today?

Sorry, but this just sounds like so much rhetoric from today's world politics... And surely, it's an arguable point, both in the ME and in the real world.

But I'm not sure, whether to call the elves "backward looking people" in the first instance. I would say, that they were folks that looked to another directions than men.

[Lalwendë]

We have to remember that there were two sorts of Elves, those descended from the Noldor/Eldar and those Elves who had never left Middle-earth in the first place. Those in the latter group were staying there anyway (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Legolas is a rare example of a Silvan Elf who leaves for Valinor?); it was the Eldar who were thinking about leaving.

It seems that both kindreds had started to become isolated, though seemingly for different reasons. The Eldar had maybe started to think of leaving Middle-earth in the hands of Men and so had begun to retreat, but I think the 'ordinary' Elves had become more reclusive out of necessity.

I wonder if this says anything about Elven attitudes in the different kindreds?

Why I wanted to see Elven deaths in LOTR? I simply think it would have underlined the essential tragedy of the idea of the 'long defeat', that evil always rises again, and the struggle against it is futile though necessary. To see an 'immortal' die perhaps underlines the idea. Maybe Elrond could have followed Gil-galad and died at Pelennor? Might have been interesting to show how each 'generation' of Elves took part in the struggle and suffered/was sacrificed for the hundreds of generations of mortals that would follow?

[Rhod the Red]

"the Elves have cut themselves off for so long that they've lost touch with what's really gong on in the world."

Huh? So they didn't know what was happening outside their own borders? No offence, but that view is very disproven by the content of The Lord of the Rings . The leading Elves are very informed, by magical and general scouting sources of the events of late, in Middle-earth and play their part(defensive) against the Dark Power of the East.

Being wary of strangers at your borders does not mean your people are ignorant of what's happening, much less maintaining their own traditions. Does rarely using Westron, the 'Common Speech', represent ignorance? No, just cultural necessity and the lack of linguistic applicability of the CS to Elvish society.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

"the Elves have cut themselves off for so long that they've lost touch with what's really going on in the world."

Huh? So they didn't know what was happening outside their own borders? No offence, but that view is very disproven by the content of The Lord of the Rings . The leading Elves are very informed, by magical and general scouting sources of the events of late, in Middle-earth and play their part(defensive) against the Dark Power of the East.

I was referring to their psychological state, not their level of intelligence. Tolkien is clear on this in a number of letters & comments, where he describes them as 'embalmers' & speaks of them as being essentially backward looking, & being 'pushed backwards' into the future. See my post here