What are some things that J.R.R Tolkien did wrong in his writings?

The "nine walkers" being set against the "nine riders" (Council of Elrond) presents a very interesting juxtaposition.
The nine riders often separated, doing their own part on behalf of the darkness.
The nine walkers, together for a time, yet then separated to do their own bit on behalf of the purposes of light.
The head of the nine walkers meeting his demise, but being granted grace to return to complete his mission.
The head of the nine riders meeting his demise, but having no power sufficient to provide grace to return.
Perhaps more juxtaposition could have been done with individual members of the nine riders, to correlate them to the nine walkers - but this was not done.

Boromir of the nine sets up a small difference as we know of no juxtaposition among the nine for Boromir's passing.

(Of course, Gandalf's demise and return is also a juxtaposition of Sauron's and Saruman's destructions - but those are different matters on different planes in Tolkien's world and plan.)

Radaghast said:

Why Merry, in particular?

Click to expand...

Because it would give more meaning to his part in the killing of the witch-king, if Merry died from the Black Breath. It would show how he matured from a simple farmer (or whatever it was he did in the Shire) to a soldier who gave his life for the Good. But then, that's just my opinion.

Radaghast said:

Also, I don't know if it's accurate to say they were attacked many times.

Click to expand...

I meant all the members of the Fellowship, not the Fellowship as a whole. As a whole the Fellowship was only attacked twice -once in Moria, the second time at the falls of Rauros. But after that Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli briefly met Saruman in the forest, were in the battle of Helm's Deep, Merry and Pippin were present when the Rohirrim attacked the orcs that captured them, Merry and Pippin were also in the battle of Isengard, Frodo and Sam got attacked by Gollum and orcs more times than I can count, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli were in danger in the paths of the dead, Merry was in the charge of the Rohirrim and attacked the Witch-King, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli were in the battle of Pelenor fields, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli were in the final stand against Mordor. It's kind of odd that nearly all of them lived through all that.

Elwing the White said:

Honestly I kind of agree that he should have killed off a bit more characters.
I wasn't really thinking about the Fellowship but maybe some of the dwarves from the Company. Most of them don't really have personalities or anything interesting about them, so at least a few could die (or contribute more to the plot).

Click to expand...

For me, the deaths of Fili and Kili are worth the lives of 6 other dwarves.

I'm aware of the deaths of Fili and Kili, but they weren't really impacting enough to me because they don't have much screen time and don't really do much the stands out compared to what they could have been. I guess I just wish the dwarves had had more a role to play within the plot rather than what they were given (or that some of them had died, either way).

Now that you mention it, having Merry die would be quite interesting, as he would have developed more and his sacrifice would have meant something.

So, let me see if I understand this aright...
Some of you are saying Tolkien made a mistake by not killing off Merry?
Tolkien.Made.A.Mistake.By.Not.Killing.Off.Merry. ( *shakes head*...walks away in utter disbelief)

I leisurely await the day (nor am I holding my breath) when any of you can write a story 1/100th as good as LOTR that may perhaps allow the you prerogative to make such a statement .

Deimos said:

So, let me see if I understand this aright...
Some of you are saying Tolkien made a mistake by not killing off Merry?
Tolkien.Made.A.Mistake.By.Not.Killing.Off.Merry. ( *shakes head*...walks away in utter disbelief)

I leisurely await the day (nor am I holding my breath) when any of you can write a story 1/100th as good LOTR that may perhaps allow the perogative to make such a statement .

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have clarified this in my earlier post. I do not think that Tolkien made a mistake by not having Merry die. I was merely saying that it may have added more to Merry's charachter and have made the danger more realistic. Pardon if my earlier posts made it seem as if I was criticizing Tolkien, which I was not. Tolkien is one of the best authors I have ever read and I doubt that anybody I know, (least of all myself) could top his works. He chose not to kill Merry, and that worked well with the story as he wrote it. I was just pointing out that it might have been more interesting if another member of the Fellowship died, not saying that it was wrong for Tolkien not to kill off more charachters. Once again, pardon if my post was unclear about that.

Idril Celebrindal said:

Perhaps I should have clarified this in my earlier post. I do not think that Tolkien made a mistake by not having Merry die. I was merely saying that it may have added more to Merry's charachter and have made the danger more realistic. Pardon if my earlier posts made it seem as if I was criticizing Tolkien, which I was not. Tolkien is one of the best authors I have ever read and I doubt that anybody I know, (least of all myself) could top his works. He chose not to kill Merry, and that worked well with the story as he wrote it. I was just pointing out that it might have been more interesting if another member of the Fellowship died, not saying that it was wrong for Tolkien not to kill off more charachters. Once again, pardon if my post was unclear about that.

Click to expand...

It's still Monday night quarterbacking (lots of people do it...I've just never seen the point of it...)

Idril Celebrindal said:

Because it would give more meaning to his part in the killing of the witch-king, if Merry died from the Black Breath. It would show how he matured from a simple farmer (or whatever it was he did in the Shire) to a soldier who gave his life for the Good. But then, that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Fair point. But the story needed all four hobbits to live. They needed to return home different than when they set out.

Idril Celebrindal said:

I meant all the members of the Fellowship, not the Fellowship as a whole. As a whole the Fellowship was only attacked twice -once in Moria, the second time at the falls of Rauros. But after that Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli briefly met Saruman in the forest, were in the battle of Helm's Deep, Merry and Pippin were present when the Rohirrim attacked the orcs that captured them, Merry and Pippin were also in the battle of Isengard, Frodo and Sam got attacked by Gollum and orcs more times than I can count, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli were in danger in the paths of the dead, Merry was in the charge of the Rohirrim and attacked the Witch-King, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli were in the battle of Pelenor fields, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli were in the final stand against Mordor. It's kind of odd that nearly all of them lived through all that.

Click to expand...

Well, I think it's fair to say there's some plot armor at play in the story. Honestly, Aragorn standing on the parapet of the Hornburg, unconcerned about the arrows being fired at him should be ample evidence of that. But you have raised some dubious points here. . Speaking of which, the "Three Hunters" don't actually fight Saruman. Merry and Pippin get themselves pretty well separated from the orcs that are attacked by the Rohirrim. And they don't actually help the Ents attack Isengard; Treebeard kept them out of harm's way; it's a bit odd that you think they should have been in danger, especially in the latter incident.

The statement that Frodo and Sam are attacked more times than you can count is perhaps the oddest of all. When are the two attacked by orcs at all, particularly? Frodo's taken captive and is whipped (though not extensively, as far as I can tell). Later, when dressed in orc armor, they accosted by a troop of orcs who order them to fall in line. This would not count as an attack by any definition, and even if it did, it's only one encounter.

I'm not sure what danger Legolas and Gimli were in on the Paths of the Dead, exactly, especially Legolas who had no fear at all. The power of the Dead is fear. Gimli succumbs, Aragorn and Legolas don't. The only danger would be if Gimli was there alone.

As for the rest, I guess that's fair, but there's nothing to say that they couldn't all survive the battle. And they all needed to be alive for Tolkien to tell the story he wanted to tell. Also, Pippin surviving is explained easily enough (protected from further harm by the corpse of the troll he kills), while Legolas and Gimli are among the very best of their respective races. As stated before, all the hobbits had to survive the story for the sake of the penultimate chapter, "The Scouring of the Shire". Killing Aragorn or Gandalf (again) would be out of the question. Killing Legolas and Gimli would be pointless, done just for the sake of filling some sort of quota. On the other hand, leaving them alive symbolizes the healing of a rift between the two races.

Radaghast said:

.... And they all needed to be alive for Tolkien to tell the story he wanted to tell. ..

Click to expand...

Thaaannk Youuuuu. 🙂
Change [most] anything and the story would have been different, perhaps even unrecognizable (if we could have the "before and after" versions to look at).
And I guess that's where my disbelief comes in at the suggestions about how the story could have been made "more interesting" or "better".
Until anyone has written a tour de force like LOTR , well, there is a real malady called "abysmal ignorance", sometimes coupled with arrogance, and it afflicts writers, readers, and reviewers of all stripes.