[Morthoron]

Excellent points, Obloquoy and Rumil, but since davem is in a rather obstinate mood, I don't think it much matters what can be said that hasn't already been reiterated several times in various forms throughout this circumlocutious thread. As I reviewed this discussion, I found myself going over the literal litany of points I made previously in regard to davem's objection/supposition/query about the lack of graphic/realistic violence in Lord of the Rings. It seems none of them suffice; ergo, I will merely repost the Compleat Catalogue of Copious Counterpoints for your edification.

And so, here we have a veritable laundry lists of reasons -- culled patiently from my posts -- as to why Tolkien did not dwell on graphic violence in his most famous novel. For those who wish conciseness, here are bullet points:

1. Tolkien subscribed to a classical representation of war that precludes the gross. He offered a 'dignified' presentation of a a fierce faery epic in the medieval mold (like TH White's Once and Future King, or its precursor Le Mort D'Arthur), which purges the utterly gross from its heroes, and does not dwell on the true mayhem and obscene violence that was medieval war.

2. The time period in which Tolkien was writing precluded such graphic presentations of reality (whether in a fantasy or fictional presentation in books or movies). And it is indisputable that there was heavier censorship and higher moral codes at the time.

3. The hope attendant in Tolkien's religion precluded him from falling prey to the cynicism of many of his literary peers who survived WWI.

4. We really don't see such presentations of graphic violence in fantasy literature until the late 1960's and 1970's (like Stephen Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant), or in films of a medieval nature even later on, like Braveheart (if you remember Excalibur from the 70's, it rarely even displays any blood on those ultra-shiny metal coifs).

5. I doubt very much that Tolkien's work would find its way into grade school (or primary school) libraries if he dwelt on clumps of brains and clots of hair and sodden buttocks like Sassoon. It is the restrained nature of the presentation that allows it to be enjoyed by eight year-olds and eighty year-olds alike.

6. At least two of the most important battles (to the plot, at least) are the Battle of Five Armies and the Battle before the Black Gates. In both cases, the battles are interrupted before they get heavy (in one, Bilbo is knocked unconscious, and the other Pippin is smothered beneath a troll). The actual battle scenes are described later under much more favorable circumstances. In any case, Hobbits are purported to be the principal authors of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and therefore were not directly involved in as much combat in comparison to other main characters.

7. The plot centers on the noble heroes (even Samwise the Everyman is Jack in the Beanstalk, for all intents and purposes), and the crises and eucatastophe are fairy tale in quality (a quest, a ring, the destruction of an immortal evil, etc.). Tolkien was strident, almost vehement, that LotR was not allegorical to WWI or WWII, and for good reason. It has nothing to do with real world conflicts; rather, it has everything to do with Faery and a rousing tale on the grand scale.

8. LotR was written initially as a sequel to The Hobbit, as required by his publishers. Tolkien, of course, pushed the envelope in his own inimitable manner, and forced through integral elements of his own beloved mythology. The Hobbit was always a children's book, and whereas LotR is less so, it is still within the realm of being read to children without requiring censors and expletive deletions.

9. His prose was considered archaic in style even when it was first published (and almost alien to the bulk of fiction produced in the 40's and 50's). Such attention to classical form leads inevitably to the death speeches (Shakespeare's plays are chock full of them), the lack of viciousness and sanguineness in the noble characters (like Aragorn or Faramir), the inevitable fall of evil characters, and the many tragic heroes in Tolkien's work that follow the Greek example (Turin and Boromir as prime examples). There is nothing 'modern' in Tolkien's writing.

10. And finally, adding graphic realism to Lord of the Rings would not necessarily make it better, make it more interesting, or more endearing. Again, in order to emphasize what should be obvious, it would eliminate any preteen reader from the book's near universal demographic appeal; and thus, the element of wonder and timeless appeal of the books would be sadly diminished.

P.S. Here's another: compare Lord of the Rings to the Silmarillion. The Sil is much darker, violent and Oedipal, but it is still purged of the gross in a classical manner. Nevertheless, The Silmarillion, an early Tolkien work, was not published until 1977 when such a tale (or series of tales) could find a readership that perhaps it could not have reached had it been published prior to Lord of the Rings. In any case, Tolkien's publishers did not show much enthusiasm regarding the project. They wanted The Hobbit II, not Hurin impregnating his sister.