# Isn't it a bit unrealistic?



## Sarah (Dec 29, 2004)

Isn't it a bit unrealistic that with all the battles, orcs, trolls, goblins, oliphaunts, evil men, wraiths, nazgul, etc. that only TWO of our beloved good guys die? The two that I am talking about are Boromir and Theoden. I do not count Gollum/Smeagol and Denethor as good guys for this. And as for Boromir, since he dies in FOTR you almost forget about him by the end. Not that I wan't them to die however, it just seems a bit unrealistic that with all the death around them in battle, most of the deaths are nameless and faceless. Surely Tolkien would have understood, being involved in war himself, that not everyone who dies in battle is bad, not everyone survives. Boromir died before we really got to know him, even though we got his backstory later. This is kind of complicated for me to say, and I can play devil's advocate with myself on this topic, but it still seems a bit unrealistic, you know?

Comments?


----------



## Starbrow (Dec 29, 2004)

Yes, it's unrealistic. But isn't that typical of most stories. When was the last time you saw a good guy get shot on TV, even with machine gun bullets flying everywhere.


----------



## Saucy (Dec 29, 2004)

its an important element to story really tht the good guy doesnt alawys die. i mean part of a story is a fact that there is a character left to be telling the story. if i make any sense.


----------



## Thráin II (Dec 30, 2004)

I don't find it all that unrealistic to be honest. You need to remember that most of the main characters of the LotR are great heroes. Aragorn is the king of men and a descendant of the line of Gondorian kings. Legolas is a Mirkwood elf, which should suffice as information. Gimli is a young sturdy dwarf of noble family (his father Gloin we all know from TH) and closely related to the dwarves of Moria. Gandalf then is an Istari of great power and wisdom. 

It is thus not all that suprising that all these battle-hardied characters would have survived Orc attacks, and we know that Orcs' true power was in their number and in their ability to induce fright rather than in their great skills in battle. Not often would you see any one character fight a hoard of Orcs by himself, and when Boromir does, he dies doing it.

Then also, these mighty warriors and Gandalf were not easily firghtened by whatever evil.

As for the hobbits, well they were most of the time well protected (Merry and Pipin were) by the rest of the fellowship and when they were captured by the Uruks in Rohann they used their natural hobbit skills to get out of their predicament, and they also had a good share of luck, which Tolkien himself says that hobbits were born with.

Frodo and Sam, well, let's consider them the exception if you will, it was not for no reason that Gandalf chose them, just as he chose Bilbo in TH. He knew they had it in them to succeed; I don't think Gandalf would have sent the ring out to Mordor with the first hobbit to cross his path.


Gollum is a tragic character and most of his evil deeds cannot be blamed on him, but on the influence the ring had on him. Smeagol was hobbit a as well (of some sort) and we could actually consider his character a positive one.

Also, add Theodred to the pool of good dead characters.

---------------------------------------------------

Try to think of bad characters that died...

Sauron dies only by the destruction of the one ring, he had not been defeated.
Same goes for the Ringwraiths.
Grima Wormtongue doesn't die.
Saruman doesn't die in The War of the Ring.

Not a lot of main bad characters die either, so even if unrealistic it's balanced.

Imagine the story with Aragorn dead on Amon Sul, Legolas and Gimli dead at Amon Hen with Boromir, and Sam and Frodo killed in the night by a surviving Gollum... it's just no good.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 30, 2004)

Sarah said:


> Isn't it a bit unrealistic that with all the battles, orcs, trolls, goblins, oliphaunts, evil men, wraiths, nazgul, etc. that only TWO of our beloved good guys die?



Well — depending on how you look at it, the _entire saga_ is "unrealistic!" But who cares? That, in great measure, is much of the point!

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 30, 2004)

Another point to consider, The whole saga was based on Mythology and Legend. That is the Style of northern mythology and legend was the basis for setting the Style of LotR. Now in mythology many things can seem or even Be unrealistic.

To look at the members of the Fellowship in this myth. Each had a path and a purpose that went beyond their time in the quest of the Fellowship. This is true even of Boromir.

Aragorn was to be the King of the united kingdom of Arnor and Gondor. He was also destined to unite the lines of Elrond and Elros.

Legolas and Gimli help in healing the breach between the Elves and Dwarves.

Merry and Pippin were to be leaders of the Hobbits in the Scouring of the Shire.

Frodo was to be important in preventing the Hobbits from taking their revenge too far.

Sam was the one destined to put right the damage done to the land of the Shire.

Were it not for Boromir would Pippin have entered the army of Gondor and become the Hobbit he was in the Scouring of the Shire?

Gandalf seems to have the least to do after the Fellowship. However, he was the only Istar to remain fully true to the task and as such was the only one to return to the West.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Dec 30, 2004)

That is why a truly "good" author (mythic or otherwise) seldom puts in anything in the story that is a "throw-away". For instance, take the Harry Potter books. Rowling is verbose; she ain't no Ernest Hemingway. At time (as in the last book) people thought that she put in _too much_ information or added too many sub-plots. Yet, when the story was finished, one discovered that each bit of "useless" information or stray sub-plot was essential for the completion of the whole story.

In the same way, Tolkien's little diversions often come back in a later situation to make it possible for the individuals involved to perform their allotted (if unknown) task. Gandalf says as much when he points out the sequence of actions from the time that M&P go with Frodo, reach Rivendell and are permitted to continue with the Fellowship. Had none of this happened, Boromir would not have been redeemed and Aragorn and his companions would not have gone to Fangorn and helped Theoden to defeat the forces of Saruman. Indeed, Fangorn (Treebeard) and the Ents might never have risen up at all which in turn means that, without the presence of huorns, Saruman might well have triumphed at Helm's Deep or, at least, the victory would have been even more costly in men and horses, perhaps delaying Theoden's appearance on the Pelannor field! Thus does each small plot decision affect the whole (which, I suppose, is why writing isn't as simple as it sometimes looks!). 

There is an old saying: for want of a nail, a kingdom was lost. Again, Gandalf speaks of "small matters" which set off a chain reaction resulting in great events. Sam says as much when he speaks about the "tales" which are told of events such as that in which he and his Master are involved. Often the smallest thing becomes of overwhelming importance at a crucial part of the story. LOTR is full of them. Even Sam's neglect of his small fire in Ithilian results in the hobbits being "found" by Faramir and led to safety. Had that not happened, might they not have been killed in the fighting or revealed to the enemy? At the very least, they would not have had the supplies Faramir gave them which helped sustain them through Mordor. And so, each small incident leads to consequences that loom large as the story progresses.


----------



## Narsil (Dec 30, 2004)

In _The Silmarillion_ everyone seems to to die..It's all very sad and hopeless.  I am glad that so few of the main characters in LOTR are killed off. It's an apect of the book that I really like. Maybe it's not very realistic but I get attached to people in books and I like it that they confront great odds and danger and live.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 31, 2004)

Narsil said:


> In _The Silmarillion_ everyone seems to to die..It's all very sad and hopeless.



Yep, I don't think they'll be making a musical of it any time soon!

But on a more serious note, I think that its mood has a lot to do with Tolkien's battlefield experiences and how their effects permeated the rest of his life at some deep level, and the fact that he lost almost all of his friends in what was such an appalling slaughter. So much of his writings are on the theme of good causes lost: "battling the long defeat." Had WW I never happened, I daresay he would have been quite a different man — and it wouldn't surprise me if his writings had then never have come to see the light of day, or at least not have been as profound as they are.

Barley


----------



## Ravenna (Dec 31, 2004)

Although the main characters do not die, at least there is realism in the fact that they are not immune to harm, Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Faramir, Eowyn; all get fairly seriously damaged during the course of the story, and those are just the ones that spring to mind first.

They survive, but not unscathed.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Dec 31, 2004)

Yes, I too found the Sil a very depressing book. Of course, it was supposed to be much like the Bible - a narrative of great and terrible events that influenced a world - and so one assumes that it was going to incorporate very sad and catastrophic happenings. Also, remember, LOTR covers a very short time period - in fact, the main action takes place in less than a year! - while the Sil covers ages both before and after the creation of the world. And, of course, with regard to the story of the Noldor, one has to imagine that they were not going to "thrive" given the circumstances under which they entered Middle-earth! 

However, all in all, I don't think that the Sil - great as it is - will ever achieve the popularity that LOTR did. It's not a really "up" book.


----------



## Thráin II (Dec 31, 2004)

The Silmarillion does not have to be a popular book. The book that attracts the general public is the LotR. If, after reading the LotR you find that you need more knowledge about Middle Earth and all, then you will read the Silmiarillion regardless of how depressing or unpopular it is.

It's simply not meant to be an attractive book because The Hobbit and the LotR have the aspect of popularity covered.

And again, I don't find it unrealistic at all, it's just the way the story went. Remember that this story was retold *because* the characters survived. There were lots of young princes in Middle Earth who died young, they all could have had a great story attached to them but they died befor it could happen. Aragorn survived so it's his story that is retold. It's all a matter of perspective.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Dec 31, 2004)

Thráin II said:


> The Silmarillion does not have to be a popular book. The book that attracts the general public is the LotR. If, after reading the LotR you find that you need more knowledge about Middle Earth and all, then you will read the Silmiarillion regardless of how depressing or unpopular it is.
> 
> It's simply not meant to be an attractive book because The Hobbit and the LotR have the aspect of popularity covered.
> 
> And again, I don't find it unrealistic at all, it's just the way the story went. Remember that this story was retold *because* the characters survived. There were lots of young princes in Middle Earth who died young, they all could have had a great story attached to them but they died befor it could happen. Aragorn survived so it's his story that is retold. It's all a matter of perspective.


Ah, but you don't remember what it was like when T. S. was released! Everyone (myself included) was waiting for another tale like LOTR or T.H. - and consequently, most were very disappointed. Oh, the _beauty_ of the work was in no doubt, but many were horribly confused by Tolkien's fixation with names and once they "got on" to that part of the book in which actual _tales_ took place, they found most of those tales to be sad and not at all as "uplifting" as either T. H. or LOTR. As a result, the book really only made a "hit" with those whose love of Tolkien went deeper than the simpler works. They (we) were willing to "slog" through the Valinorian telephone book of often unpronounceable names and abide the sad fate of so many heroes and heroines if for no other reason than that it gave a "foundation" to our more favorite works.

However, as I have said before, T. S. is _much_ better "listened to" than read. My unabridged version (costly though it was), has made what was "hard reading" (and I am no slouch as a reader) into grateful hearing. I would recommend it to anyone who has had problems reaching the end of T. S.


----------



## JRRTFAN09 (Dec 31, 2004)

It may seem unrealistic but it is realistic because many of the people that come in aid to gondor during the seige in the book do not come in the movie. They changed the Army of the Dead and things. These changes also change how many "good guys" we learn about!! THis is why it seems that only 2 good guys die. but you can also tell that there were many losses.


----------



## Thráin II (Dec 31, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> Ah, but you don't remember what it was like when T. S. was released! Everyone (myself included) was waiting for *another tale like LOTR or T.H. - and consequently, most were very disappointed.* Oh, the _beauty_ of the work was in no doubt, but many were horribly confused by Tolkien's fixation with names and once they "got on" to that part of the book in which actual _tales_ took place, *they found most of those tales to be sad and not at all as "uplifting" as either T. H. or LOTR.* As a result, the book really only made a "hit" with those whose love of Tolkien went deeper than the simpler works. They (we) were willing to "slog" through the Valinorian telephone book of often unpronounceable names and abide the sad fate of so many heroes and heroines if for no other reason than that it gave a "foundation" to our more favorite works.


 That's exactly what I was looking for in the Silmarillion. I have a vivid imagination and I can't stop thinking about things that I like (such as Middle Earth) until the point where I fall asleep, so learning all those facts that were in the Silmarillion simply made it easier for me to imagine all the things that went on in Middle Earth prior to the War of the Ring (and some short time during and after).

To me the Silmarillion was always meant to be a FACTBOOK (I expected that even before I read it) so I was not disappointed. Maybe that's just the kind of person I am, for I enjoyed reading the Appendix to the LotR _VERY _much.

It's not a book that will make you feel better where "good prevails over evil" is concerned but it is a book that will give you realistic objective insight into the history of Middle Earth, and it will deepen your knowledge, both which are things I WANT.


----------



## Ingwë (Jan 7, 2005)

It isn`t unrealistic because Tolkien is the best author of 20th centiry and he descripted all guys very good and his life. The third book is _Return of the king _and it will be unrealistic if Aradorn die.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 7, 2005)

dreadlord said:


> It isn`t unrealistic because Tolkien is the best author of 20th centiry and he descripted all guys very good and his life. The third book is _Return of the king _and it will be unrealistic if Aradorn die.


"Our side" did suffer losses: Gandalf, Boromir, Theoden and Denethor. Later we learn that both Nain and the King of Dale have perished in their battles in the North. The fact is that given the relatively small number of people the story covers in detail, it is not unusual that most of them live through the conflict. After all, there are really on two "great" battles - Helm's Deep and the Pelannor - and then the lesser Battle at the Black Gates, so it isn't as if everyone is fighting constantly. Indeed, it is rather like a chess game. Most of the story is spent moving the pieces around which means that the chances of "the pieces" being killed is considerably less than had their been ongoing conflict every ten minutes.


----------



## aragil (Jan 10, 2005)

Just to add to the excellent points already made:

One interesting way to look at this is from the internal conceipt of the narrative. The story is supposed to be written by Frodo, so without Frodo surviving the story could not exist. Frodo did survive thanks mostly to the heroism of Sam- this could be termed 'unrealistic', or more properly 'unlikely', but after all Sam is quite the little hero.
Most of the insight we get to the various characters in the narrative would then come from interviews by Frodo/Sam, as they fleshed out the 'Red Book of Westmarch'. Since those who perished during the events could not contribute interviews (Hama, Halbarad, etc.), it is not surprising that these casualties become somewhat 'nameless/faceless' in the finished product.

Perhaps a parallel-ish story from real life could be the events recounted in Steven Ambrose's 'Band of Brothers'. Here Ambrose interviewed surviving members of 'Easy' company (101st Airborne, 506 PIR), so naturally most of the 'main characters' survive, even though the unit suffered appalling casualties.
A pertinent difference between the two stories (besides the obvious fiction/non-fiction divide) is the difference in style of warfare. LotR is of course medieval-style warfare, where your survival in combat was largely dependant on your skill. The same could be said to an extent for BoB, but the advent of large-scale machines of destruction (bombs, modern artillery) increased the level of randomness- no matter how good of a soldier you were, if you happened to be in the wrong foxhole during an artillery barrage, it was still curtains. The major characters in LotR are extraordinary heroes, so their subsequent survival in the major battles is not as surprising as it otherwise might be. This goes doubly for the Fellowship, who, besides the Hobbits, were picked (we must imagine, though Elrond never specifically mentions it) for their abilities to aid in the quest of the Ring.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 10, 2005)

I don't think that the story is told strictly from Frodo's point of view. True, both Bilbo and Frodo contribute to the story - as does Sam later on - but all three wrote specifically from the point of view of hobbit and the Shire and their contribution to the War of the Ring in their particular "literary works". 

But the story as it is presented in both T. H. and LOTR is not a personal narrative. It is not a "first person" story and so, Frodo's survival is not necessarily "guaranteed" in LOTR any more than Bilbo's in T. H. which is also told from a third person/narrator point of view rather than in Bilbo's own words. True, we are given his "thoughts" at times and, of course, dialogue, but it isn't a "Dear Diary" story and that means that the narrative would have continued even had Bilbo or Frodo "dropped out" of the tale, so to speak. 

Of course, the reader knows that both will probably survive since both are the "main character" in both stories and, after all, Bilbo appears in LOTR many years after the end of T.H., so his continued existence is no surprise. 

I believe that both of these stories are supposed to be presented as if a great story teller was telling tales of long ago (Sam mentions as much in LOTR). Since story tellers were early human culture's version of books and later films, television and radio, the presentation is about the same: a third person relating events that happened to other people. Certainly, such a presentation affords the author a much greater latitude than a first person narrative especially as in LOTR where so much is going on that neither Frodo nor Sam know anything about until well after the fact!


----------



## aragil (Jan 10, 2005)

> _From the book_
> The title page had many titles on it, crossed out one after another, so:
> _My Diary. My Unexpected Journey. There and Back Again. And What Happened After.
> Adventures of Five Hobbits. The Tale of the Great Ring, compiled by Bilbo Baggins from his own observations and the accounts of his friends. What we did in the War of the Ring._
> ...


 The internal conceipt is that Tolkien has faithfully transcribed the story from the Red Book, and so it was in fact written by Frodo, Bilbo, and Sam. Tolkien even went so far as to excuse the first edition of The Hobbit, saying that the 'incorrect' initial version of events surrounding the Riddle Game with Gollum owed to the fact that Bilbo (under the influence of the Ring) had written down a factually incorrect version of the story in the Red Book:


> _From the Prologue_
> Now it is a curious fact that this is not the story as Bilbo first told it to his companions. To them his account was that Gollum had promised to give him a present, if he won the game; but when Gollum went to fetch it from his island he found the treasure was gone: a magic ring, which had been given to him long ago on his birthday. Bilbo guessed that this was the very ring that he had found, and as he had won the game, it was already his by right. But being in a tight place, he said nothing about it, and made Gollum show him the way out, as a reward instead of a present. This account Bilbo set down in his memoirs, and he seems never to have altered it himself, not even after the Council of Elrond. Evidently it still appeared in the original Red Book, as it did in several of the copies and abstracts. But many copies contain the true account (as an alternative), derived no doubt from notes by Frodo or Samwise, both of whom learned the truth, though they seem to have been unwilling to delete anything actually written by the old hobbit himself.


 Of course, we don't know that this is the internal conceipt until we reach the final chapter. However, the fact that the story is told in the third person should not bother us overmuch- it is simply the style that both Frodo and Bilbo elected to use. If we are to enter into the internal conceipt of the story in order to discuss 'realisim', then we should keep in mind the fact that the history is written by F&B.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 10, 2005)

Ostensibly, those are supposed to be the _sources_ for the story. They are (obviously), not the narrative style of either story. Many books are written about people and events which are based upon the diaries and journals of those people who have participated in the events in question, but they are _not_ those diaries and journals and are therefore written - as I noted - in the _third_ person (from the point of view of a commentator) rather than in the first person (from the point of view of the diarist).

You are not incorrect in your indication that both LOTR and TH are supposedly based upon books written by Bilbo, Frodo and later added onto by Sam, but they are _not_ those books themselves.


----------



## aragil (Jan 10, 2005)

They in fact are supposed to be as faithfully transcribed as translation from Westron to English allows. 

The internal conceipt of the story is that Frodo _et al_ wrote the book in the third person. That's the whole point of the 'inaccuracy' of early editions of the Hobbit- it was a faithful Westron to English adaptation which translated a factual error!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 10, 2005)

aragil said:


> They in fact are supposed to be as faithfully transcribed as translation from Westron to English allows.
> 
> The internal conceipt of the story is that Frodo _et al_ wrote the book in the third person. That's the whole point of the 'inaccuracy' of early editions of the Hobbit- it was a faithful Westron to English adaptation which translated a factual error!


Then it couldn't have been a "diary", certainly. It was written in the third person. It seems strange, however, that even if both Frodo and Bilbo wrote "history books", they spoke of _themselves_ in the third person. Most people tend not to refer to themselves in the third person except perhaps Queen Victoria and Gollum.

Furthermore, they never make any "aside comments" that usually appear in books written by people concerning people and events in which they are participating. For instance, it would be perfectly natural for Frodo to write, "I had wondered at the time why we chose the Redhorn Gate, but, of course, I learned later that Aragorn did not wish to go through Moria because of his concern for Gandalf's safety." That is the sort of thing that a person who participated in an event would write about it. Yet neither book contains any such comments. Rather, both books are written completely in the third person; there are simply _no_ first person comments. It may be that this is how Tolkien had Bilbo, Frodo and Sam write them, but it is not in keeping with the way such books are written even when the book isn't solely concerned with the author's experiences. 

I realize that Tolkien may have been presented the works as a "translation" of the books written by the two/three hobbits, but it just doesn't "read" that way at least as far as I am concerned.


----------



## aragil (Jan 10, 2005)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> I realize that Tolkien may have been presented the works as a "translation" of the books written by the two/three hobbits, but it just doesn't "read" that way at least as far as I am concerned.


I would agree with this- as I said, we don't know the internal conceipt until we read the end of the story, and cerainly there are not that many hints along the way.

Incidentally, while it is sometimes referred to as Bilbo's diary, I don't believe Frodo ever refers to it in that sense- certainly not as his own diary. And while 'The downfall of the Lord of the Rings & the Return of the King' could certainly be the title of a work written in the first person, it cerainly sounds a little grandiose for a title of a diary, at least one written by Frodo. Bilbo, on the other hand, always appears to me to be a little more self-indulgent, and the (crossed) out titles for his own book reflect that, and often have a first person element in them. In any case, the Red Book is generally referred to as a scholarly work, and that is surely not inconsistent with it being written in the third person.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 10, 2005)

Dealing with the off-thread stuff first, it would be possible to write The Hobbit in the First Person, because all the action centres around one character. In LotR though, the characters split up and the story follows three separate routes at one stage. Some of it is dealt with by retrospective storytelling; but you couldn't do it all that way, with only, say, Frodo telling the story.

On the realism of only losing two of the fellowship; it was the small size of the group that helped them to survive, magnificent seven style. And as I think Mrs. M pointed out, there were many good guys lost; not only Theodred, but Hama and Halbarad, and others in the same battle as Theodred. Also, many of the losses in the Silmarillion are woven into the LotR: Elendil and Isildur.

Also, don't forget how much the Valar wanted this mission to succeed. Look how many times the fellowship felt an urgency to move and did so just in the nick of time. The whole story is unlikely, but that's myth. Maybe in 1000 years time, the rescues from the beaches of Dunkirk will be viewed mythologically. It should have been a massacre, but the fog had settled on the land and not the sea, so allowing the rescue whilst preventing the slaughter of the troops and the many tiny vessels that crossed the channel to rescue them.

Take the event of Frodo's seeming death by Shelob. If that had not happened, and Sam had not left Frodo long enough for the orcs to capture him, the Tower would have been an unpassable heaving mass of orcs and they would never have been able to get through. Unrealistic? Of course! Wonderful stuff? Of course!


----------



## aragil (Jan 10, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> And as I think Mrs. M pointed out, there were many good guys lost; not only Theodred, but Hama and Halbarad, and others in the same battle as Theodred. Also, many of the losses in the Silmarillion are woven into the LotR: Elendil and Isildur.


 I forgot to mention along these lines- as JRRTFAN09 alluded, their was a lot of death at Pelannor, and it wasn't exactly nameless. IIRC, the last page of the chapter is a poem reciting the heroes who fell- including doughty Grimbold, who gets plenty of face time in Unfinished Tales (and a bit part in the movie!). Then there is the entire regiment of Household knights that rode with Theoden (excepting of course Eowyn). These are the knights who charged out with the King at the sounding of Helm's Horn at Helm's Deep, precipating the route of Saruman's forces there. They also joined the King at Pelannor during the charge into the Haradrim, where a handful of the Rohirrim swept through the entire mounted company of Southrons, slaying the Harad-chieftain and striking down the Haradrim standard. They are killed almost to a man by the attack of the Witch-king, and although Tolkien (or Frodo, rather  ) does not name them except perhaps in the 'Song of the Mounds of Mundburg', they were each heroes, and certainly Eomer could recognize and name each on the battlefield.



Eledhwen said:


> Maybe in 1000 years time, the rescues from the beaches of Dunkirk will be viewed mythologically.


I thought it already is! Isn't it called 'The Miracle at Dunkirk'?


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 11, 2005)

aragil said:


> I thought it [Dunkirk] already is [viewed mythologically]! Isn't it called 'The Miracle at Dunkirk'?


Maybe in the USA. Here in England, we just salute the bravery of the massed flotilla that went to the rescue. The 'miraculous' aspects are played down. It's a cultural thing.

How many times do we hear of something that happens in real life, and we say that if it appeared in a novel, we would find it incredulous. Tolkien had been through enough in his life to know what realism was; but that wasn't what he was offering. In some ways he was offering something to aspire to.


----------



## Arvegil (Jan 12, 2005)

Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is: you can alwars read The Sil, everybody dies in that book.


----------



## Kuduk (Jan 12, 2005)

As Eledhwen and others on this thread have pointed out, the whole entire story is unlikely, up to and including the successful destruction of the One Ring at Mount Doom. Determining what body count would be 'realistic' in this context seems to me a meaningless task (Is Shakespeare's penchant to distribute his deaths so even-handedly to both sides in his tragedies also unrealistic? I would answer, Does it really matter?). Sarah's question, however, touches on what I consider to be part of Tolkien's brilliance as a writer. He is able to make a story feel true that is otherwise patently false and obviously rooted in fantasy. IMHO, what is astonishing is that so much of the story (the characters, the places, the events, etc.) feels so convincingly real even while you know it couldn't be.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 13, 2005)

Kuduk said:


> ...what is astonishing is that so much of the story (the characters, the places, the events, etc.) feels so convincingly real even while you know it couldn't be.



Well put!

Barley


----------



## Palando (Jan 15, 2005)

While LOTR in general may be unrealistic, I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 15, 2005)

Palando said:


> While LOTR in general may be unrealistic, I wouldn't have it any other way.



You said it, brother! And welcome to the asylum! 

Barley


----------



## Palando (Jan 15, 2005)

Thanks. And as for the deaths not being realistic, you have to look at the sides. Let's see, we have a warrior dwarf, skilled elf, Ranger-soon-to-be-king, An Istari, and a Warrior of Gondor vs. some Orcs. 
That is of course in the FOTR. In ROTK on the Pelennor fields, there are Rohan Cavalry getting trampled by Oliphaunts all over the place. And what do you know, Theoden gets killed too. So then again, the battles were unrealistic, but not _too_ unrealistic.


----------



## aragil (Jan 15, 2005)

Does anybody besides me see a distinction between unrealistic and unlikely?
Some of the episodes in the book were indeed unlikely. The Red Sox beating the Yankees after being down 3 games to none, and then going on to win the World Series was also unlikely. However, I don't question the 'realism' of the latter, and I don't think anyone on this thread has seriously questioned the realism of the former.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 16, 2005)

aragil said:


> Does anybody besides me see a distinction between unrealistic and unlikely?



I never thought much about it until I spent a year compiling daily quotes from a calendar based on Robert Foster's book about Middle-earth. Then both the unreality and the unliklihood of what goes on in Middle-earth really hit me. When one reads about the people and places of Middle-earth as if they were entries in an encyclopedia, taken out of the context of the saga, one sees the whole thing in a different light. _I'm not sure that's good._

When one opens the books or sees the movies, and the "suspension of disbelief" principle takes over, one is drawn in: it's all accepted, just as one accepts the reality of a dream while dreaming. But when examined coldly and dispassionately (which shouldn't really be done!), it not only strikes one as unreal and unlikely, but even ridiculous. So I do not recommend that kind of analysis!

Barley


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 16, 2005)

Firstly, although Tolkien speaks about his "history" as if it is supposed to be our own earth, he is writing about a mythical period in which things happen that don't happen today. You can see the same thing in Lewis' That Hideous Strength where Merlin revives after centuries of "sleep" and wishes to go about and "reawaken" the natural spirits. Ransom tells him that they can no longer _be_ reawakened and, besides, it is not "lawful" (God's law) to do it nor, perhaps was it lawful even when Merlin himself lived. In the book, the old Wizard is a natural spirit in a man's body - a sort of lesser Tom Bombadil - who has outlived his time and has been brought back as a tool to use against the enemy. In the same way, Tolkien writes of an age gone by, a _larger_ age or an age in which "magic" still prevailed as did folk other than man who now is alone left on earth as a "child" of Iluvatar. 

Also, it is wise to remember that _any_ story deals either only with a very narrow view of what is occuring (LOTR) or else an overview of such immensity, that we really can only see the greatest of events (The Sil). This means that much of what happens seems either incredibly unrealistic or impossibly vague. It is much like what I'm told of quantum physics. You can't both look at an atomic level particle and see it at the same time. You can see where it is until you look at it. Don't ask me what that means, but in the sense of telling a story, the more detailed you are, the narrower the focus of the tale and therefore the more "corroborating detail" gets left out.


----------



## Kuduk (Jan 16, 2005)

aragil said:


> Does anybody besides me see a distinction between unrealistic and unlikely?
> Some of the episodes in the book were indeed unlikely. The Red Sox beating the Yankees after being down 3 games to none, and then going on to win the World Series was also unlikely. However, I don't question the 'realism' of the latter, and I don't think anyone on this thread has seriously questioned the realism of the former.



I agree there is a distinction; but I see it, especially in common usage such as in the term 'having unrealistic expectations', as one of nuance rather than absolute meaning. Also, while Sarah's question may have more properly asked whether the apparently low casuality rate was unlikely, her post seemed to also imply (and obviously she's the only one who can say what she actually meant) that this apparent unlikelihood made the story seem less believable or 'real', in particular where she says



Sarah said:


> Not that I wan't them to die however, it just seems a bit unrealistic that with all the death around them in battle, most of the deaths are nameless and faceless. Surely Tolkien would have understood, being involved in war himself, that not everyone who dies in battle is bad, not everyone survives.



If I remember correctly, Tolkien rewrote several parts of LOTR several times because he felt that what he had originally wrote was not what 'really happened' (or something along those lines). So I think Sarah's implication (whether or not it was intended) is not a trivial one.

Finally, I think that before this year if anyone wrote a story about the Red Sox like what actually happened, I wouldn't blame anyone for dismissing it as a Red Sox fan's fantasy (and therefore unlikely and unrealistic, not to mention fantastical, delusional, surreal, and just plain downright crazy )

Oh, and thank you for the compliment, Mr. Butterbur.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 16, 2005)

Kuduk said:


> ... before this year if anyone wrote a story about the Red Sox like what actually happened, I wouldn't blame anyone for dismissing it as a Red Sox fan's fantasy (and therefore unlikely and unrealistic, not to mention fantastical, delusional, surreal, and just downright plain crazy )



All of which brings me to say: I bought the DVD of the historical "curse-breaking" game, which is available at Amazon.com! 

Barley


----------



## Helcaraxë (Jan 22, 2005)

You have to consider that more than just physics is at work here. For instance, Gandalf hints in "The White Rider" in TTT that he cannot be harmed by physical weapons, even Anduril. Aragorn is the superlative fighter, and the lineage of the kings of Numenor allows him great mental prowess; it's not surprising that no orc ever harms him. The hobbits are a different story.


----------



## Elfarmari (Feb 5, 2005)

aragil said:


> A pertinent difference between the two stories (besides the obvious fiction/non-fiction divide) is the difference in style of warfare. LotR is of course medieval-style warfare, where your survival in combat was largely dependant on your skill. The same could be said to an extent for BoB, but the advent of large-scale machines of destruction (bombs, modern artillery) increased the level of randomness- no matter how good of a soldier you were, if you happened to be in the wrong foxhole during an artillery barrage, it was still curtains. The major characters in LotR are extraordinary heroes, so their subsequent survival in the major battles is not as surprising as it otherwise might be. This goes doubly for the Fellowship, who, besides the Hobbits, were picked (we must imagine, though Elrond never specifically mentions it) for their abilities to aid in the quest of the Ring.


 
I think this is very true; after Pelennor Fields, when Aragorn, Eomer, and Imrahil ride back into Minas Tirith, it says, "These three were unscathed, for such was their fortune and the skill and might of their arms, and few indeed had dared to abide them or look on their faces in the hour of their wrath." It then goes on to list many who _did_ die, and the list is not short, even including only the most valiant or well-known. And while the battle of Pelennor fields was a great battle, it was not the only one. We are not told all the Riders who fell with Theodred, as has been mentioned, or the names of all those who fell at Helm's Deep, or the Elves, Men, and Dwarves who fell fighting in Rivendell, Lothlorien, Dale, and Erebor. I agree that the fact that the main characters were still alive is a factor both of their skill in battle and their relatively small number.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 5, 2005)

Skill was certainly a factor, but luck (chance?) also played its part, especially as there were archers, at least among the men of the West. Still, I do not doubt that enemies took themselves off elsewhere when Aragorn or Eomer entered the battle, especially after the fall of the Witch-king and the obvious keen disappointment that must have afflicted the forces of Mordor and the Easterlings to see their enemies pouring out of the Corsair ships!


----------



## Bergil (Feb 15, 2005)

It might be a tad unrealistic that none of the hobbits had died, especially since none of them had touched a sword before. But charcaters such as Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, there skill was unmatched against the orcs on the battlefield. I sppose luck had a lot to do with it though. Back to the hobbits, for one, maybe none of the orcs never bothered to look down or perhaps (again) chance played a huge roll. Archers could have taken down any of the main characters just as they took down any other soldiers. Something that might have been the most unrealistic was Faramir. He is the sole survivor of about 200 men? Now that does seem odd.....


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 15, 2005)

Bergil said:


> Something that might have been the most unrealistic was Faramir. He is the sole survivor of about 200 men? Now that does seem odd.....


Faramir was not the sole survivor.



> Again the trumpet rang, sounding the retreat. The cavalry of Gondor halted. Behind their screen the out-companies re-formed. Now steadily they came marching back. They reached the Gate of the City and entered, stepping proudly: and proudly the people of the City looked on them and cried their praise, and yet they were troubled in heart. For the companies were grievously reduced. *Faramir had lost a third of his men*. And where was he?
> Last of all he came. His men passed in. The mounted knights returned, and at their rear the banner of Dol Amroth, and the Prince. And in his arms before him on his horse he bore the body of his kinsman, Faramir son of Denethor, found upon the stricken field.


RotK: Chapter 4: The Siege of Gondor.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 15, 2005)

I think Bergil was speaking of the _film_ with Faramir - a truly ridiculous bit of palaver with Faramir being dragged through the gate with his foot stuck in the stirrup! Really! Jackson just couldn't abide grace and strength. He turns Frodo into a helpless potato sack held on a horse at the fords in FOTR, Aragorn into a helpless horse's "date" in TTT and then Faramir into a helpless lump dragged home by his horse in ROTK. It seems to me that the only ones for whom Jackson had any respect were the horses!

As for the hobbits, well Frodo and Sam aren't in any battles per se. At Parth Galen, the orcs had been instructed to capture alive any hobbits. However, in the two battles that Merry and Pippin fought, both came close to being killed, so there's nothing "incredible" about that. Merry is saved by the fall of the Witch-king which halts the battle for the time necessary for him to leave the field and Pippin is saved by the fall of Sauron and Gimli's sharp eyes. Both are quite believable scenarios.


----------



## Mike (Feb 15, 2005)

This is the book thread, Mrs. Maggot. Please refrain from ranting about the movies.

Anyway, yes its unrealistic that only one of the Fellowship died, but think about it:

Would you have wanted Gimli to die in the Mines of Moria?
Legolas to die at Helm's deep?
Eowyn and Merry to die on the Pelennor Fields?
Faramir to die in the houses of healing?
Pippin to die at the Black gate?

Sure, it's not like real war (which Tolkien experienced), but it sure makes sense from astory standpoint, and also avoids the dilemma when a reader looks up from a page and goes: "He died? What? What the Hell's going on?"

As an end note, I've found Tolkien's description of Medieval warfare to be far better than that of many fantasy writers today, and he is far more realistic than a lot of writers in general.


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 15, 2005)

I think Bergil's memory of the book had been altered by the film, which Mrs. Maggott pointed out and (as you rightly pointed out) expanded on. 

Bergil also mentions the inordinate amount of luck and chance that seemed to go the Hobbits' way. I prefer to think of it as the providence of the Valar. Samwise says at one point that if he could speak with The Lady (Galadriel), he would ask for a little fresh water and proper daylight; and within a very short space of time his wish is granted. Sam, of course, knows nothing, or very little, of the Valar. But their entire journey seems to be blessed with a guiding hand that turns even the darkest moments to good - every single time! Don't forget who sent Gandalf (twice, it seems).


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 15, 2005)

Mike said:


> This is the book thread, Mrs. Maggot. Please refrain from ranting about the movies.


You beat me to it, Mike.

As for the subject of the thread, as the warfare in the book is mostly of the Medieval style. If one wants an example of completely unrealistic results from actual history one only has to look at the battle of Agincourt between the English under Henry V and the French under Charles d'Albret. Sources vary some on the exact numbers of casualties, but most agree on the scale of the victory. The encyclopedia I checked lists French casualties as 500 knights and nobles, including the commander, plus 5000 troops versus Englsih casualties of less than 200 total with I think no (or almost no) English nobility lost.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Feb 15, 2005)

Not everyone dies in a real war, in fact most soldiers tend to surive a war. Medieval warfare was much more about skill and personal fitness than modern war, which relies much more heavily upon technology.

The characters in LOTR are heroes, they are not the average soldier that just happens to be on a quest to destroy the One Ring. The members of the Fellowship are following their destiny and they have the talents and skills to survive. What we do see, however, are the members of the Fellowship being wounded and beaten back just as any other warrior could be.

Boromir's death was against overwhelming odds, he fought valiantly, but he did die. Gandalf also 'dies', he is sent back though. Frodo would have been killed in Moria where it not for his mithril shirt. The battle at the Black Gate would almost certainly have been lost, resulting is the likely deaths of many, if not all, of the Fellowship; as it was the destruction of the Ring saved the day.

I don't find the LOTR unrealistic at all, in terms of warfare, but one must remember that it is just a story. If one tries to read too much into it, one may be disappointed.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 15, 2005)

1. I was _not_ "ranting".

2. I _was_ responding to Bergil's comments about Faramir; I mentioned that _he_ had referenced the film rather than the book Faramir. Yes, I did make some further comment, but it was an aside referable to the comment itself - something that is hardly "against the rules".

3. I was posting about the _book_ hobbits, _NOT_ those in the films. I think you will find my comments are correct: Merry and Pippin are taken alive by the Urak hai (book _and_ film); after the fall of the Witch-king, there is a lull in the battle that allows Merry to make his way into the City (book); at the battle before the Black Gate, Pippin falls beneath the body of a troll he has slain but is saved from death by Sauron's fall. Gimli espies his foot under the troll's body (book). 

Try reading my posts just a bit more carefully before you determine that I am referring exclusively to the films. Furthermore, if I choose to add a comment about the films within the context of a response to another member - and not as a sole point of my comment - then I see nothing in the forum which forbids me from doing so. Often, members confuse certain events in the book or the films (as Bergil did with Faramir) and if one is not allowed to even _mention_ the films, it's going to be hard to "set the record straight".


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 16, 2005)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> ... if one is not allowed to even mention the films, it's going to be hard to "set the record straight".


Gothmog managed to "set the record straight" by quoting a passage from the book. No mention of the film was made or necessary.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 16, 2005)

He "settled" it to his own satisfaction, not necessarily mine. And since I am posting and it is my opinion that matters - at least to me - please excuse me if I do not bow to your great wisdom as you see it.


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 16, 2005)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> He "settled" it to his own satisfaction, not necessarily mine.


Your phrase was "set the record straight". Gothmog did that unequivocally and definitively with the relevant passage from the book. You have no way of knowing what was in Bergil's mind or how he made his error. You merely chose to rant for your "own satisfaction".


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 16, 2005)

*Mods comment*

Ok. I think that now we can leave the discussion about "Film Rants" as everybody has given their side. Time to return to the question of the thread once more.

Thanks


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 16, 2005)

Returning to the subject of the thread, I have already pointed out the real battle of Agincourt whose casualty lists were so "unrealistic", but we should also recognize that the good guys did not come out of the War of the Ring unscathed. Merely listing the deaths of Boromir and Theoden does not tell the full story. Frodo is maimed and left with wounds that will "never heal". He is in fact, so wounded that he does not get the "typical" he lived happily ever after ending. In the end his wounds cost him his beloved Shire. The Shire itself has been partly laid waste and must be rebuilt. Sam, Merry and Pippin lose their best friend when Frodo leaves Middle Earth. Legolas too, can never be happy again in his forest home after seeing the sea. Arwen, of course, gives up her immortality and is parted forever from her father and kin. The elves lose their beloved Lothlorien; Elrond loses not only Arwen, but Rivendell. There is much loss and sacrifice on the side of the good guys and as in real wars even the survivors and victors are left wounded.


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 16, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> There is much loss and sacrifice on the side of the good guys and as in real wars even the survivors and victors are left wounded.


This is very true. My Grandad was not counted among the casualties of WW1, but in his dotage, decades later, he believed himself to be back in the trenches. Not all the casualties of war lose their lives at the same time.

Re Agincourt; can anyone confirm the story I was told, that it was the origin of the British V sign (victory and defiance both). Agincourt was won because of the superior British archery, so whenever a British archer was taken prisoner, the two fingers he used to pull the bow were severed. Later, when the vanquished enemy soldiers were marched past, the jeering victors raised a two-finger salute with their bow fingers.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 16, 2005)

*Re: Mods comment*



Gothmog said:


> Ok. I think that now we can leave the discussion about "Film Rants" as everybody has given their side. Time to return to the question of the thread once more.
> 
> Thanks



If you ask me, it's FILM RANTS that should have been put off limits! (There are some on this board for whom "film ranting" is like chocolate — _better_ than chocolate: they never get tired of it, and they can never get enough of it! )

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 16, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> Re Agincourt; can anyone confirm the story I was told, that it was the origin of the British V sign (victory and defiance both). Agincourt was won because of the superior British archery, so whenever a British archer was taken prisoner, the two fingers he used to pull the bow were severed. Later, when the vanquished enemy soldiers were marched past, the jeering victors raised a two-finger salute with their bow fingers.


It seems that this story is true though I will have to check some of the books I have to find references.


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 16, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> Re Agincourt; can anyone confirm the story I was told, that it was the origin of the British V sign (victory and defiance both). Agincourt was won because of the superior British archery, so whenever a British archer was taken prisoner, the two fingers he used to pull the bow were severed. Later, when the vanquished enemy soldiers were marched past, the jeering victors raised a two-finger salute with their bow fingers.


I had never heard that account of the origin of the British V sign so I can not speak to it. As for the importance of British archery at Agincourt, it was certainly important, but the accounts I have read indicate there was more to the British victory than merely the superiority of British archery. The French were out generaled by the British who took decisive advantage of the terrain and the conditions. There were heavy rains before the battle and the battleground was relatively narrow. The French foolishly placed their massed cavalry in the front of their position, which might have worked in the open on hard ground. In the narrow confines and the mud after the rains, the cavalry with its heavily armored knights and horses quickly became completely mired and helpless in the mud. The British on the other hand stayed mobile. The French infantry was demoralized by the destruction of their cavalry (and probably the loss of many of their commanders) and were overwhelmed by the British troops, most of whom were armed with swords, knifes and hatchets.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Feb 16, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> I had never heard that account of the origin of the British V sign so I can not speak to it. As for the importance of British archery at Agincourt, it was certainly important, but the accounts I have read indicate there was more to the British victory than merely the superiority of British archery. The French were out generaled by the British who took decisive advantage of the terrain and the conditions. There were heavy rains before the battle and the battleground was relatively narrow. The French foolishly placed their massed cavalry in the front of their position, which might have worked in the open on hard ground. In the narrow confines and the mud after the rains, the cavalry with its heavily armored knights and horses quickly became completely mired and helpless in the mud. The British on the other hand stayed mobile. The French infantry was demoralized by the destruction of their cavalry (and probably the loss of many of their commanders) and were overwhelmed by the British troops, most of whom were armed with swords, knifes and hatchets.


 

Quite accurate except for one or two points.

Not only did the French army suffer due to the points you mentioned, but the French cavalry also trampled their own troops.

The French knights who did manage to get to the English lines found themselves faced with anti-horse emplacements, further hindering their ability to fight.

The arrows used by the Welsh archers would probably not have been able to pierce the thick plate armour worn by the French knights at great distances. However, their arrows would have been more deadly at closer ranges, especially if the enemy was stuck in mud.

The army opposing the French was an English army, with Welsh troops. Wales had been conquered by Edward I in the 13th century. Scotland was, and is, a seperate country to England, there was no United Kingdom at that point. It is technically correct to call the English army British because they were from the island of Great Britain, but it would be politically and historically innacurate.

The historical account gives us a figure of a few hundred hundred dead on the English side and approximately seven thousand dead on the French side. This isn't actually all that unrealistic and there is little to say otherwise.

The V for Victory sign did indeed originate from the Hundred Years War, but in an indirect manner. The French did threaten to cut off an archer's bow fingers if he was captured, so sticking those two fingers up at the opposing enemy became an insult. The victory sign was largely created and made popular by Sir Winston Churchill during WWII when he reversed his fingers, having his palm face away from him instead of his palm facing him.


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 16, 2005)

scotsboyuk,

Thank you for the additional info on Agincourt. 

Believe me I meant no disrespect for the Scots or the Welsh. My wife is of Scottish ancestry and my in-laws live in Edinburgh and all speak Scots Gaelic, as well as English. Scotland is a beautiful country and Edinburgh is a lovely city. I look forward to visiting again.

(My wife has grudgingly forgiven me my one quarter English ancestry.  )


----------



## scotsboyuk (Feb 16, 2005)

@Greenwood

No offence was taken. History being my main profession, I am more picky about it than most I suppose.


----------



## Annaheru (Feb 16, 2005)

Maybe I missed this somewhere in former pages- I skimmed most of them, but what about Halbarad? He died, and as a banner bearer it made sense that he died. What about that long list of Gondorin and Rohirim nobles, granted they weren't main characters, but they were 'good guys', and they died. Everyone would have died if the Ring hadn't gone into the fire, and it is probable that fully half the company might have died if it had taken Frodo and Sam two more hours to get to the fire. Pippin would have probably been smothered if several more hours had elapsed before Gimli found him. 

Tolkien might have been just this side of realistic in the death catagory, but as others have pointed out one of the purpose and ideas underlying JRR's understanding of life is that their is a God who has already planned history. Everything that happens to the people in LoTR was sung in The Beginning by Eru.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 16, 2005)

@scotsboyuk, Greenwood, etc - Whenever history is brought up I feel the need to emphasise my other ancestries...I'm not only English, okay? Got it? Maybe.... 

I think perhaps (regarding the original question) there is a degree of unreality involved. Only one out of nine died in the fellowship, and there is only so much excusing to be done by claiming the narrative viewpoint. If it were narrated by a Gondorian footsoldier, doubtless we would see a lot more death, but there would still be the quandary of the eight unscathed (ish) companions, arriving from nowhere and evading the blades of the foes with supernatural ease.

It would truly be sad, but I sometimes wonder if it would not have been more touching for Sam to have made the final sacrifice for Frodo at the journey's end, or for Faramir to die to save Aragorn, knowing that his kingdom would both pass on from his family's stewardship and go into the safe hands of its king. Or for Merry to die to save the king or Eowyn. I know, I know, I'm skirting dangerously close to Peter Jackson territory (@ Mrs Maggot   ), and it's only the wandering of the mind, after all. Only little "what-ifs". I don't know.

The other thing to recall, for all those who brought up the Silmarillion; that book was based over thousands of years, throughout which most major characters died. In LOTR, Aragorn and Arwen die eventually, as will their son, as will Sam and Rosie, Elanor and Frodo-lad, Faramir and Eowyn, Eomer and Beregond. These "invincible heroes" will all share much shorter lives than Fingolfin and Fingon and all of the tragic heroes of the Silmarillion. Only the elves who stay (barring accident  ) and the shiploads of passengers bound for the Blessed Realm would "live forever". Something to dwell on, perhaps...


----------



## scotsboyuk (Feb 16, 2005)

@Hammersmith

Why do you feel the need to mention your anscestry?

Gandalf dies too, althouhg perhaps not in the more conventional manner, but he still falls at one point.

Is the Fellowship much different to a crack squad of SAS commandos who battle a thousand enemy soldiers yet manage to return to base unharmed?


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 16, 2005)

Oh, just the whole British "taking-over-the-world" scene. History treats us surprisingly justly...which is not a good thing.

I take your point on the Fellowship/SAS comparison though. Except four of the "elite squad" are mushroom-munching bumpkins.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Feb 16, 2005)

@Hammersmith

History is actually rather unjust when it comes to the British Empire. That such things might be seen with an objective and balanced eye is something we shall probably have to wait a number of years for.

Note: The Following Is Based Upon the Films

Operation Ring

Squad: The Fellowship

Commander: Captain Gandalf, combat veteran, saw service in 'Nam, Bosnia and has been part of several covert operations in former Communist Bloc nations, able to build a rocket out of a coat hanger and some chewing gum, specialist in using a pipe as a weapon, trained to pilot giant eagles. Codename: Beardy

Second in Command: Sergeant Aragorn, well versed in sword fighting and prancing around on battle fields, able to change his accent at a drop of a hat, willing to put defenceless Hobbits and Elf women in danger at odds of 9 - 2. Codename: Male Love Interest

Sniper: Private Legolas, included as the cocky grunt that annoys the rest of the squad, saw service playing cowboys and indians, good when faced with a stampeding elephant, not good when faced with a serious acting role. Codename: Wooden

Medic: Private Pippin, extensive training in elstoplast technology, highly experienced in passing out at the sight of blood, good at creating excitiment for the squad by messing things up when the squad is doing well. Codename: Do Something Useful

Cook: Private Samwise, highly qualified cook, capable of leaving more than half the pot for the rest of the squad, able to speak in highly annoying accent so as to confuse enemy troops. Codename: Eats A Lot

Heavy Weapons Specialist: Private Gimli, extensive training in puerile banter, training in tossing has yet to be completed. Codename: Comic Relief

Logistics: Private Merry, intensive training has resulted in Private Merry being able to carry a full pocket's worth of food, which he is also capable of eating, trained in Kung Fu, Karate and Ninjitsu, specialises in bridge building and lorry transportation, voted world's strongest Hobbit two years running, voted world chess champion three years running. Codename: Useless In Battle

Intelligence: Lieutenent Frodo, master of disguise seemingly able to vanish into thin air!, veteran of several past conflicts with his neighbours, has excellent interpersonal qualities valuable to dangerous missions such as trusting mutated creatures intent on causing him harm. Codename: Free Willy

Infantry: Private Boromir, good at making rash suggestions, highly trained in the art of outshining siblings, trained to blow a big horn when fighting starts instead of engaging the enemy. Codename: First to Die


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 17, 2005)

Naughty, Scotsboyuk! If Mrs Maggott has to stick to the books, so do you.
I didn't get interested in history 'til I became an adult - something about my history teacher trying to enthuse 11-yr-olds with such things as The Repeal of the Corn Laws (zzzz!) 

Thanks, Greenwood, for the rundown of the Battle of Agincourt. A suitable subject for Time Commanders, methinks.

On realism, I suppose Luthien entering Angband and removing a silmaril from Morgoth's crown was a tad unlikely too. But that's the way with a heroic adventure. It's the author who decides whether the heroes die or not, and I think Tolkien had spent his quota of dead heroes in the Silmarillion, regardless of the timescale, which loses relevance in Elf-lifespans.


----------



## celebnaurwen (Feb 18, 2005)

_most of the deaths are nameless and faceless._ 

Redshirts. Every adventure story has them, because too many heroes getting killed is no fun. For instance, I read the first three books of "A Song of Fire and Ice" by George R.R. Martin, and the first few deaths were ok, but by the third book, everyone you'd had enough time to care about was dead, and very few of the original characters were left. If LOTR had done anything like that, people would get sick of it. Plus the orcs are extremely expendable, so nobody probably wastes their time training them to fight well, since they're so strong. The heroes, on the other hand, are skilled at fighting. And they probably would've all been dead anyway if the Balrog hadn't shown up, which was close enough for me.


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 18, 2005)

Ever see the Steve McQueen movie _The Sand Pebbles_? Thoughout the film different characters are built up and then killed until finally the hero, played by McQueen, is killed. Only the love interest survives. It is a good film, but a real downer. 

[edit: just correcting typos]


----------



## The Bull Roarer (Feb 18, 2005)

Thráin II said:


> The Silmarillion does not have to be a popular book. The book that attracts the general public is the LotR. If, after reading the LotR you find that you need more knowledge about Middle Earth and all, then you will read the Silmiarillion regardless of how depressing or unpopular it is.
> 
> It's simply not meant to be an attractive book because The Hobbit and the LotR have the aspect of popularity covered.
> 
> And again, I don't find it unrealistic at all, it's just the way the story went. Remember that this story was retold *because* the characters survived. There were lots of young princes in Middle Earth who died young, they all could have had a great story attached to them but they died befor it could happen. Aragorn survived so it's his story that is retold. It's all a matter of perspective.


 
I required more knowledge when i read the maps and thought "holy ****, he wrote a whole world here" and from that point on, i rest not till i have read all of tolkiens Ea related material


----------



## Narsil (Feb 18, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> On realism, I suppose Luthien entering Angband and removing a silmaril from Morgoth's crown was a tad unlikely too. But that's the way with a heroic adventure. It's the author who decides whether the heroes die or not, and I think Tolkien had spent his quota of dead heroes in the Silmarillion, regardless of the timescale, which loses relevance in Elf-lifespans.



Somehow I don't think Tolkien's goal was realism or portraying a realistic world. I believe he was interested in and inspired by mythology. In mythology it's not uncommon for the hero(es) to battle great odds and overcome them. The interest is in the battle itself, the building of character, of nobility, loyalty and comradeship. You are instinctively hoping and _expecting_ that good prevails over evil. The characters are supposed to be larger-than-life. Also, in mythology it's common that although the hero doesn't die he or she suffers in some other way that in many cases may be worse even then death. 

IMO the fact that very few of the main characters die is in keeping with the mythology that Tolkien studied, loved and was inspired by. 

As was pointed out the characters are indeed irrevocably altered, an in many ways don't recover. There are many ways to suffer besides death. While Boromir's death was sad I felt the bittersweetness of the Hobbit's arrival home to the Shire and Frodo's inability to heal from his wounds, along with the Elves leaving Middle Earth to be far more touching and poignant. 

Tolkien himself fought in and survived a horrible war. All of his friends, save one, were killed and it is only through luck that he himself was spared. Perhaps he wanted his story to be one of hope and inspiration, rather than depression and sadness. Plus, he was writing a book aimed at a society that was in all probability looking to be uplifted rather than reminded of the horrible bloodshed that they'd been experiencing for years. 

Plus, I like my heroes to survive. When everyone dies at the end of a movie or book I tend to shut down emotionally. I don't think I'm alone in this. 

Also, history is indeed filled with people who survive despite incredible odds against them. I don't think LOTR is as unrealistic as one might think.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 19, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> Ever see the Steve McQueen movie _The Sand Pebbles_? Thoughout the film different characters are built up and then killed until finally he hero, played by McQueen, is killed. Only the love interest survives. It is a good film, but a real downer.


I most heartily agree! There is nothing worse than going to a film and having the major characters killed off in the end unless, of course, it's a film about people you _know_ are going to die: The Alamo, A Night to Remember (the sinking of the Titanic) in which case you can hardly expect a "happy ending" - except in the epilogue. There's enough terrible tragedy in the world without paying good money to see more sad stuff. 

There in fact was a film about this in the 1930s during the great depression entitled "Sullivan's Travels" with Joel McCrea. McCrea plays a film director (Sullivan) who wants to make an "important" film during the Depression entitled, "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" (or something like that). And so he sets off to live with the most impoverished and downtrodden in America. During his "travels", he is hit in the head and robbed by a hobo who is subsequently killed by a train. He wakes up with amnesia and after a fight with a railroad bull, is sentenced to a term in a chain gang in the deep South. Of course, everyone in Hollywood thinks that Sullivan is dead because the bum had his wallet and was so badly mashed by the train that he couldn't be visually identified. 

During his time in the chain gang, Sullivan (who now remembers who he is but doesn't know how to get his identity to the press and get released from prison) goes with his fellow prisoners to a black church to see a film - a comedy. All of these poor, sad, desperate men spend an hour laughing - something that they seldom if ever do. Eventually, his presence is revealed and he is released. On the way back to Hollywood, everyone is so overjoyed to see him that they assure him he will have no trouble filming his great American tragedy. But Sullivan has changed his mind. Instead, he will make a comedy because in a time of actual national tragedy, what people need most is a good laugh! 

I think in the same way, people go to the movies to be entertained, not depressed. Certainly there are good films that are sentimental and even sad, but most of the time at least I don't pay money to be downhearted. I can stay home and do that for nothing.


----------



## Bergil (Feb 27, 2005)

My fault, thank you Gothmog, Faramir was not the only survivor.....I think I need to read the book a few more times instead of watching the movies.....


----------



## Alcuin (Mar 14, 2005)

scotsboyuk said:


> Not everyone dies in a real war, in fact most soldiers tend to surive a war. Medieval warfare was much more about skill and personal fitness than modern war, which relies much more heavily upon technology.


Quite true. However, we tend to forget how ferociously brutal wars can be, even if you win. World War I was quite personal for Tolkien, who observed that most of his friends were killed. 

But I like to count, so let’s count the casualties in the Fellowship of the Ring. 
Character Killed Wounded Result
Gandalf...Yes....No......Sent back to finish his work
Aragorn...No.....No......Crowned King, married Arwen
Frodo.....No.....Yes.....Never recovered, went into West
Sam.......No.....No......Married Rosie, went into West
Merry.....No.....Yes.....Black Breath: nearly died
Pippin....No.....Yes.....crushed under troll: nearly died
Legolas...No.....No......Saw the world, then went West
Gimli.....No.....Yes.....minor wounds, went West
Boromir...Yes....No......Buried at Rauros, carried to Sea

Fatalities ran about 20%. (Gandalf was sent back by what we might as well call Divine intervention, but he apparently died after fighting the Balrog.) Wounded account for 44%. It isn’t listed, but 1/3 of the members of the Fellowship were captured (all the hobbits except Sam), and those same characters were severely wounded and required serious attention in order to recover. 

Maybe Gimli’s injuries at the Hornburg don’t count; even so, that’s over half the Fellowship killed or seriously injured, and those seem heavy casualties to me. Elrond saved Frodo; neither Aragorn nor Glorfindel could save him in the field. Aragorn saved Merry, as well as Faramir and Éowyn. Gimli pulled Pippin out of the pile of dead from beneath a troll, as Annaheru has already pointed out, and even if he hadn’t smothered, it was a long way home for a wounded hobbit who hadn’t bothered to look at the maps; moreover, Gimli thought Pippin was dead, and the halfling subsequently spent 11 days in bed, one day less than Sam and Frodo. These guys received the best medical care available in Middle-Earth. 

Legolas and Aragorn were the only two who came through uninjured. Frodo never recovered. Boromir was dead, and Gandalf was – restored, sent back.

All around there were other less important but recognizable characters getting killed or injured. Théoden has been mentioned by others. Denethor suffered what during World War II might have been called battle fatigue: his mind collapsed. Faramir and Éowyn were both more badly injured than Merry. Halbarad was killed, and realized by foresight at the Dark Door that he was going to die sooner rather than later.

scotsboyuk is the historian in this thread. The members of the Fellowship of the Ring suffered 55% casualties, 1/3 captured but later escaped. How does that compare to ancient, medieval and modern casualty rates?

BTW, I am new to this forum, and maybe this not the right place to ask, but does anyone know why my post text is sometimes coming out black?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 14, 2005)

I have just obtained a book entitled "Tolkien and the Great War - The Threshold of Middle-earth". It is authored by John Garth. The back cover reads: "A fully authorized new biography tracing the impact of the First World War on J. R. R. Tolkien's mythology."

The book is published by Houghton Mifflin and priced at $26.00 for anyone interested in purchasing a copy. I have yet to read it, but it should be very interesting and perhaps present us with a new insight into the matter.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 14, 2005)

Alcuin,

Your analysis of the casualty rate of the Fellowship certainly adds perspective to the discussion. I am unfamilar with casualty rates for medieval warfare in general, but having read quite a bit about the American Civil War and World War II, I can say that a casualty rate of 55%, which included 20% mortality, would be considered quite heavy. Just as a matter of language, I would point out that the word decimated is often used to denote heavy losses, but that its literal meaning is a 10% loss rate, normally considered heavy.

As to the color of your posts, when you are typing a reply there should be some pull down menus above the text box for setting the font typeface, the font size and the font color. For some reason, your font color must be defaulting to black. On my pulldown menu, white is the bottommost color of the pulldown menu.

Mrs. Maggott,

Thank you for the information on the new book on Tolkien. I will watch for it.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 14, 2005)

Of course, casualties of war also include the wounded who later die. This would have been a greater percentage in warfare prior to the discovery of antibiotics and the increase in medical knowledge, techniques, anesthesia etc. 

In LOTR, we are concerned (ultimately) with a very "few" characters and their fate in the war. Doubtless, while the casualty rate was significant among the forces of the West, it was horrendous amongst those fighting for Sauron. And while it is true that "modern weapons" are deadly, an arrow through the heart or brain kills one just as dead as a bullet - as the French discovered at Crecy and Againcourt. 

I do not believe that the survival rate among the "Company" is unrealistic. Some were not involved in any actual battles (Sam and Frodo) although they were in considerable danger a good deal of the time. Both Merry and Pippin were exposed to an actual battle situation for a fairly short period of time during which both were "wounded" to some extent. Aragorn fought in all the battles, but we are told that his warrior's skill was sufficient to protect him against all but "misadventure" - that is, some arrow shot from a distance away that might have slain him. However, in a "mano a mano" contest, he was - like the great Achilles - unbeatable. Gandalf, as was noted, in fact "died" - or at least his mortal body did - but was returned to mortal form to fulfill his mission as an Istari. Boromir did _in fact_ die, but he was overwhelmed by many enemies as he fought alone rather than with the Company as a whole. Legolas and Gimli survived the battles, but as 80% to 90% of those fighting even in a "worst case" scenario survive, it is not unrealistic for them to do so. Given the above, I don't believe that the "survival rate" of the Fellowship was unrealistic.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 14, 2005)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> Of course, casualties of war also include the wounded who later die.


Actually, casualties include the wounded whether they die or not. A complete accounting of the casualties in a battle would also include the missing and captured.

Alcuin can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is agreeing with you (as I am) that the casualty rate among the Fellowship is not unreasonable. I think his point is that a person might have an incorrect impression of very few casualties among the Fellowship if one only considers deaths as constituting casualties.


----------



## Alcuin (Mar 14, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> Actually, casualties include the wounded whether they die or not. A complete accounting of the casualties in a battle would also include the missing and captured.
> 
> Alcuin can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is agreeing with you (as I am) that the casualty rate among the Fellowship is not unreasonable. I think his point is that a person might have an incorrect impression of very few casualties among the Fellowship if one only considers deaths as constituting casualties.


No correction, but amplification.

Only Sam, Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn got out without a near scrape, and of those four, only Legolas and Aragorn came through unscathed. Look at the number of skirmishes and battles:
[late edit re: Starbrow, next post] Weathertop
werewolves in Eregion
orcs and Balrog in Khazad-dûm (Sam and Frodo injured; Gandalf falls)
bowshots along Anduin
attack at Parth Galen (Boromir killed, Merry and Pippin captured [ed: add _very_ late] Merry injured)
attack on eaves of Fangorn (just Merry and Pippin; they weren’t combatants, but clearly in danger)
Hornburg (several near misses, [strike]but none of the Company killed or[/strike] Gimli injured)
Grey Company in Gondor (Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, with battles at Lindir and Pelargir)
Pelennor Fields (Merry gets Black Breath)
Black Gate (Pippin crushed, Gimli finds him and thinks he’s dead)
I may have missed a battle or skirmish; if so, someone please correct me. By this count, however, the Company suffered casualties in [late edit re: Starbrow, next post: replaced "4 of 9 encounters"] [strike]5[/strike] 6 of 10 encounters.

If we follow Frodo and Sam from Parth Galen, we find
Fight with Gollum in Emyn Muil
Frodo, Sam, and Gollum all captured by Faramir but released
Torech Ungol (the tunnel: Frodo wounded and captured)
Cirith Ungol (the tower: Sam fights Shagrat and frees Frodo)
Frodo and Sam captured on the road from Durthang to Isenmouthe (not recognized, escaped)
Fight with Gollum in Sammath Naur (Frodo wounded, Gollum killed)
Of these 6 encounters, 3 result in capture, 2 in injury (excluding Gollum’s outcome). 

@scotsboyuk is the historian in this thread. Can he comment on what this looks like historically? Tolkien was a considerable historian, too: he read source-document histories and accounts of northwest Europe in their original languages – and often enough the original documents – for a living. Do you suppose he would have drifted far from what felt right to him from reading the documents for over 40 years when he finished _Lord of the Rings_?


----------



## Starbrow (Mar 14, 2005)

Don't forget Weathertop where Frodo was severely wounded.


----------



## Alcuin (Mar 15, 2005)

Starbrow said:


> Don't forget Weathertop where Frodo was severely wounded.


Right. Thank you. Add Weathertop to that list. BTW, adding Weathertop means Frodo is wounded 4 times and captured 3 times.


----------

