Should Legolas have been wounded? How did Gimli remain unscathed?

[MatthewM]

This is a two part thread, if you will. I figured instead of starting two new threads as the questions are rather simliar I would combine my two questions.

Should Legolas have been wounded?

Upon reading The Treason of Isengard, it became known to me that Tolkien had originally intended Legolas to be wounded by an orc archer in Moria. I cannot remember if the arrow pierced his leg or his arm. Why do you think Tolkien abandoned this idea? I am not anti-Legolas by any means, for I like the character, but I think it would have been interesting and good, if I may say it like that, if Legolas had been wounded.

My reasons for this are as followed.
One, it would have been feasible, because even to this day I am still amazed that all of those orc arrows never pierced the flesh of any of The Company while in Moria. I remember them almost hitting Gandalf's head and Frodo's shoulder (a little side note: why is it always Frodo?)
Two, it would have made an interesting aspect to the story. Legolas, the archer, being wounded by an arrow. Ironic perhaps? It also makes sense that the orcs would be aiming primarily for the archer who is shooting their fellow orcs down left and right. A wounded Legolas travelling to Lorien, finding comfort there, etc. It is still a shock to me that aside from cuts and minor dings Legolas remained practically unscathed, as far as Tolkien mentioned.

All in all, I think wounding Legolas would have been, for a lack of better words, bad ***.

How did Gimli remain unscathed?

I haven't thought this question out fully, yet. It just seems so unrealistic to me that Gimli, a short (yet sturdy) dwarf would remain immune to serious injuries or even death during the War of the Ring. How did he make it out with minor cuts and bruises? Come on now, The Fellowship's journey, The Pelennor, The Black Gates...and no injury? Did Tolkien particularily like Gimli? It just seems that Gimli at least should have died sometime during The Tale of Years, but instead he is of an extremely high age and sails over the sea with Legolas. Why didn't he die? I do not know much of dwarves so I do not know their usual life expenctancy. Is it somewhere in the 200's?

I am not anti-Gimli, but his outcome just seems a little absurd to me. Am I the only one that thinks Gimli could have easily been slain in one of the countless battles he participated in? Just seems weird.

[Morwen Tindomerel]

My best guess would be Tolkien decided not to wound Legolas because he felt it would be an unecessary complication distracting from the main story line.

As for Gimli I find it quite believable he should come through the assorted battles unscathed. To start with he's wearing Dwarf mail - which is the best there is - and
secondly Dwarves themselves are very tough customers. Short they may be but they are also very stocky and muscular. And finally the same dramatic objection applies. Wounding Gimli would be distracting as he and Leggy are basically spear carriers.

[Alfirin]

Well, Gimli has his battle axe damaged when it hits an orc's iron collar at Helm's Heep. If dwarves have as deep an attachment to thier weapons as is usually made out this might feel like being wounded to Gimli.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

Well, Gimli has his battle axe damaged when it hits an orc's iron collar at Helm's Heep. If dwarves have as deep an attachment to thier weapons as is usually made out this might feel like being wounded to Gimli.

Gimli himself (not just his weapon) was wounded in the battle of Hem's Deep: he got a (minor) wound on the head.

Like Morwen, I see no reason why Gimli should have died. To be realistic and nit-picky, it is far more astonishing that all the Hobbits survived having no military training or experience and being used to simple and peacuful life. I know; Hobbits were far tougher than they seemed, but it is still a bit odd. But that of course is part of the magic of the book and the Hobbits themselves. It would be a grim book if one of the Hobbits died or was seriously wounded.

As to the original Legolas question, maybe because it would have been unnecessary, as Morwen already said. Also, it would have taken attention from Frodo and Sam's wounds and the fact that Gandalf perished.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Like Morwen, I see no reason why Gimli should have died. To be realistic and nit-picky, it is far more astonishing that all the Hobbits survived having no military training or experience and being used to simple and peaceful life. I know; Hobbits were far tougher than they seemed, but it is still a bit odd. But that of course is part of the magic of the book and the Hobbits themselves.

That was my thoughts exactly, Thinlómien. It was far more likely that Merry or Pippin would have died in the battle of the Pellenor Fields, than Gimli throughout the entire war.

That was a good point you made about Legolas, Morwen.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

That was my thoughts exactly, Thinlómien. It was far more likely that Merry or Pippin would have died in the battle of the Pellenor Fields, than Gimli throughout the entire war.

Oh, Btw Merry almost died in the Battle at Pellenor, and Pippin almost died at the Black Gate... If it wasn't for Gimli! The only member of the Fellowship that didn't hurt himself during the WR is Legolas... why did Tolkien like Legolas so much? It may be because he was an elf... Darn elves...

I don't think it would be a bad thing for the plot if Leggy even got the smallest of injury. I would've been happier if he did, but that's just my opinion, Elves can get hurt. And poor old Gimli did get hurt.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Gimli himself (not just his weapon) was wounded in the battle of Hem's Deep: he got a (minor) wound on the head.

Like Morwen, I see no reason why Gimli should have died. To be realistic and nit-picky, it is far more astonishing that all the Hobbits survived having no military training or experience and being used to simple and peacuful life. I know; Hobbits were far tougher than they seemed, but it is still a bit odd. But that of course is part of the magic of the book and the Hobbits themselves. It would be a grim book if one of the Hobbits died or was seriously wounded.

As to the original Legolas question, maybe because it would have been unnecessary, as Morwen already said. Also, it would have taken attention from Frodo and Sam's wounds and the fact that Gandalf perished.

Well I didn't say Gimli should have died, I just found it odd. I, too, think it is odd that all the Hobbit's survived, but I am glad they did! In HoMe Tolkien was debating whether or not to kill off Pippin.

As to a distraction from the plot, I can't see that as a feasible reason. There are so many little things going on throughout the whole story that one wound would not really distract much.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

JRRT did consider killing Pippin off.