![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#19 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
And that still leaves the problem of Sam's grief being greater for lost trees than for lost Hobbits. But the question still remains 'Should Tolkien have avoided that aspect, & does the omission leave out something of vital importance?' Tolkien decided to omit real dying in his story about death - is that something he should have done? If he honestly knew, as he did, that death in battle was a horrible, sickening thing should he not have made that clear? And by omitting it did he not miss out one of the essential points of why death is terrible - death is a terrible thing not just because it deprives the survivors of the victim's presence, but because the ending of one's life on the field is gross, agonising & generally without dignity. In fact, he did not simply omit to mention he horror of dying in battle, he created a world in which such horror is largely absent. In battle one is reduced to the state of an animal in an abattoir, hacked down & left to die in the mud. One may die for a noble cause, but the way one dies is rarely noble & on the field a dying knight & his dying horse are far more similar than many like to think. Except in Middle-earth.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 02-05-2009 at 09:41 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |