Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrīnišilpathānezel
I like that disclaimer, alatar. When it comes to depictions of "realism," I don't need graphic details of word or image to understand the reality. When I hear that a bomb struck a building full of people, for instance, I don't need to be told the details of what happened to the building and their bodies to know the kind of carnage that ensued, and feel horrified by it. Perhaps other people do. In fantasy, I might need to be told what the effects of a magic "blast" may be, since magic can operate under whatever laws the author wants, and have the results the author desires. But Tolkien's battles were not written as magical battles, and thus I can reasonably presume that their brutality and the results would be much the same as similarly fought battles in the real world.
|
Hmmm, but if you hear about a bombing, for example, without any of the stories involved in it, then the atrocity is just about statistics. We can say with genuine horror "100 people were killed". But if we know a little about those people, it becomes more touching.
Taking the holocaust as an example, it's one thing to know that 6 million were murdered, but it's quite another to read Anne Frank's diary or to watch Schindler's List. The former is just a fact, the latter are stories.
Tolkien knew the human need for stories, and he did not flinch when it came to texts like the Children of Hurin, nor did he flinch in every instance in Lord of the Rings, but sometimes he does flinch. He didn't have to tell us the gory detail if he didn't want to, the stories behind some of the hundreds killed are another way of achieving empathy.