Quote:
Originally Posted by Bęthberry
But you haven't simply asked about the difference. You have couched it in a demand that Tolkien's work follow a different drummer, one whose beat you have measured. I suppose you think that's what makes this thread interesting, but like the straw man in The Wizard of Oz, it lacks real fibre--a spark or tinder ends it all. :
|
No - I'm following the argument I linked to way back in the article by Poul Anderson & asking whether when a modern writer knows the historical reality, the facts of how people die in battle, how far a horse can actually gallop without collapsing, how long a man can swing a heavy sword without needing a rest he should take that into account in his fiction. In short how much of the primary world has to be brought in to a secondary world if the reader it to accept that secondary world.
Its also, interestingly, an issue Tolkien himself addressed in The Homecoming of Brythnoth, in the characters of Tida & Totta the old man who has seen the horrors of war at first hand & will not put up with the young poet's romantic approach to battle. For the poet, even as they trek through the corpses to find the body of their lord, death in battle is a glorious thing. For the old man that's a silly, juvenile attitude, & the poet needs to wake up & smell the excrement & hear the screams of the dying - because that's what war is really all about.
I don't know whether the writers of Maldon or Beowulf had experienced battle, but I do know, (as Tolkien himslelf did - read his 'Ofermod') that Tolkien had no time for Brythnoth's 'chivalry'. I do know that Tolkien had experienced war at first hand, & thus if he refuses to acknowledge what really happened that is his freely made choice. Not talking about war because of the horrors one has seen is one thing. Writing about war in a way that presents it sans all the horror that traumatised one is an odd response - to me.
Finally, if Tolkien can, in Sam, choose to honour the humble batman who was always there to help his officer, why would he not also choose to honour the poor bllody infantryman (probably conscripted after a deal of social pressure
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...te-feather.htm) who left the field like the soldier Richard Wisman records? A writer makes choices for a reason. One, surely, can ask what that reason was.
I'm not asking about "the difference between historical war accounts and literary genres," - but you can if you want. And going back to your question about whether Cromwell's bloody assaults in Ireland should have made it into the poetry books (or historical novels, which is the point here) I would say that, if a modern novelist, who knew what really happened there, was to write a historical novel about that event without mentioning the real horrors that took place, then that writer would be failing in his or her responsibility to their reader.