[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

And is it ok to do that?

Yes. Obviously. We wouldn't be here discussing Tolkien on a Tolkien Forum with hundreds of intelligent people all drawn to Tolkien for the way he wrote. If he did not write in his manner, we would be discussing somebody else. Would burnt guts, bursted veins and bloody gore have made the story more relevant? Would it have reached the readership it holds today? The distinguishing feature of Tolkien's work is his synthesis of the classic epic form and classical mythical elements into a new, compelling and endearing fantasy mythos. I wouldn't trade it for several bucketfuls of brains -- even if you threw in a baby's arm holding an apple.

Originally Posted by davem

If an author has experienced the actual reality of war & how men die but deliberately avoids presenting that truth clearly to the reader, wants to present a neat & tidy vision of battle are we not justified in asking why he chooses to present it in the way he did - rather than simply stating that he didn't do it (which seems to be the point you're making here & which I already got)

And we already got (interminably so) that Tolkien did not write a depiction of war in the manner you believe should be correct; neither did Kipling, neither did T.H. White, neither did Malory, neither did Shakespeare, neither did Cervantes, neither did Sir Walter Scott, neither did C.S. Lewis, and more currently, an author such as Brian Jacques. From a film depiction standpoint, throw in George Lucas, and nearly every war picture filmed before 1950 or even 1960. Perhaps we should discuss why nearly every author of fantastical literature prior to 1950 did not write in a photo-realistic manner. They are all in this conspiracy together.

Originally Posted by davem

Was that Tolkien's motivation, or merely a fortunate consequence of the choice he made? Don't get the relevance of this point. ??

No, you don't get the relevance, hence the reiteration.

Originally Posted by davem

The eighty year olds may get the 'subtly implied' truth of how people die (as they may not need to be told the facts of how a pig is slaughtered) but an eight year old is likely to take from the book that battles are nice, clean & very exciting things to be involved in. Perhaps 8 year olds are not the right audience??

Perhaps eight year olds aren't the right audience, but in my case, my daughter loved The Hobbit and wanted to learn more about Middle-earth. We read Lord of the Rings together, and we made it through the rough spots together. But children are amazingly resilient and smart. She didn't need to see the severed head to know that the axe had fallen.

Originally Posted by davem

(Seems to sum up a number of your later points. )Leave out the facts about death in battle so as not to upset the children.... but leave in the excitement, the glory, the slaughter of the 'bad guys' & the celebration of victory on the field... but don't mention the pain, the blood, the horror. Sorry, but I find that actually shocking. Let's not upset children by showing them the bad side of battle - just focus on how cool & exciting it is to take a sword to someone. Why is it 'acceptable', even justified, to avoid the reality of war so as not to upset the kiddies?

I see you blithely ignored a) that Tolkien's publishers indeed required a sequel to The Hobbit, a children's book, and that Lord of the Rings, although more serious in its presentation, is not nearly as dark as the Silmarillion, which is more adult themed, b) the fact that Tolkien wrote in a time period that precluded such graphic presentations of reality, particularly a book that was not intended to be read merely by adults, and c) that Tolkien wrote the story as it was presented by Hobbits, who clearly abhorred horror and minimized it as part of their collective psyche (and there is ample evidence that shows several Hobbits behaving in like manner).

Be that as it may, I don't believe I ever came away believing that war was glorious when I first read Lord of the Rings, and I am certain my daughter didn't either (in fact, I asked her). The 'death' of Gandalf in Moria upset and shocked nearly everyone I've ever talked to about the book, as do the deaths of many other characters (I remember being particularly sad that Halbarad died). In fact, I don't think the general feeling one gets about the books is in relationship to war or its graphic presentation at all; rather, it is that no matter how small one is, one can fight oppression and stand up for one's self. It is a very self-affirming book, and one comes away exhilirated and a bit nostalgic.

The backdrop of the story may be war, but we are led for most of the book on a sojourn by two Hobbits into the very heart of darkness, and a triumph of mercy over violence. On the TORn forum someone was discussing how 'cool' it was that the WitchKing in the film knocked Gandalf off Shadowfax, and wouldn't it be 'cool' if they actually fought. I merely explained in reply that Peter Jackson got the scene all wrong, there would be no bursted staff and Gandalf falling, as Tolkien had no intention of the two figthing because Gandalf had fulfilled his mission to rouse the hearts of mortals to fight for themsleves, as he stated in a letter:

"He [Gandalf] alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of the Nazgul to Minas Tirith, when the City had been overthrown and its Gates destroyed -- and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to other mortal hands."

Resistance and mercy. The actual battle scenes are relatively superfluous and short (and in the case of the battle at the Morannon, told second-hand many days afterward), save the elements that matter to the plot, and there we get vignettes -- compartmentalized views of single combat germane to the story itself -- such as with Eowyn and Merry, Pippin stabbing a troll and falling, Boromir's fall, etc. In fact, the war scenes become sketchier and more oblique the further we get away from the direct presence of one of the Hobbit characters, which I think is very telling of the manner in which Tolkien devised the tale. Quite ingenious, actually -- yet there is a great deal of pain, suffering and death in those vignettes.

I don't think Tolkien needs to rise up from his grave and apologize for his presentation, or that he was in any way lying or short-shrifting the reader in the horrors of war. The book, which was separated into a trilogy due to expenses and shortages in WWII, is quite long. Did Tolkien need to show war vets hobbling about on crutches, or the blind begging for alms at the gates of Minas Tirith? I don't know, how many more additional pages of story do you require? I am also annoyed that Tolkien didn't refer at all to the minting of coinage or interstate commerce, or provide a more in-depth view of the vassalage system apparent in Gondor. There is so much more I need to know, dash it all, why did Tolkien die before answering every little, niggling plot question I have!

I am sure there is a goodly percentage of ogling adolescent readers who would have dearly loved to hear about comely elven damsels disrobing and engaging in any number of adulterous sex acts. davem, will your next thread express your indignation about the manner in which Tolkien viewed sexual relations? After all, other than a few wind-blown kisses, there is absolutely no sex in the novel! Tolkien refers to all manner of Hobbit children being born after the War of the Ring, yet not one instance where we are provided actual Hobbitish sex acts! Is it right that evils folk are mentioned multiplying like flies across Middle-earth without the titillating view of Orkish orgasms?

Is it right? Is it morally ethical? I don't know, but I will say that it would have profoundly effected the manner in which the story was presented, and to whom the story was presented to.