Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitchwife
Morthoron -
Not quite. I think davem does have a point, and I've been wondering for quite a while which kind of answer would satisfy him. Lots of reasons have been given (by you and others) why Tolkien didn't describe battle more honestly/realistically, but davem's question, as I understand it, is:
"Never mind the reasons why he didn't do this, do we (21st century readers) think he should have?"
To which there would be two kinds of possible answers:
1. Yes, I think he should have done it, because...
2. No, I'm fine with the job he did, because...
Unfortunately, I'm too tired right now to dig into this any more than I've already tried to (I should have been in bed an hour ago). But I've got a feeling that this thread will be going on for another couple of days (unless you two get tired of playing ping-pong  )...
|
davem's points often twist and turn depending on how long he wants to maintain the controversy and how much fun he is having baiting people. However, in post #121 he phrases the issue this way:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem, post 121
If we are dealing with violence specifically is it right to present that in a romantic/elegiac way which may mislead the reader & affect the way they percieve violence in the real world?
|
Here he is putting the question in terms of the effect on readers' reactions to events in their historical world, the Primary World. This is a classic complaint against literature.
It is also, in reverse, the complaint made about computer games, that the violence in them leads to gamers' violence in real life.
Presumably
davem wants us to consider if the omission might make readers more eager for war, not understanding how horrible it is.
Who is responsible for how readers use literature--or gamers, games--the users or the creators?
Of course, we don't know if literature/games/LotR would have a misleading effect, if it would incite readers to acts of war or make it easier to think that a just war is possible in our time.
We could, for instance, look at how Karen Armstrong discusses the effect
on her of reading about the specific acts of horrendous cruelty and barbarity which the Western crusaders inflicted on both Muslims and Jews, in Europe and in the "Holy Land", and on women and children, not just combatants. And we could then examine her analysis of the consequences
for cultural relations that continues down to this time. And we could think about how this knowledge influences our reading of today's world--and, even, our reading of Tolkien's just war.
But those historical accounts are indeed that, historical records--a witness--left by the participants, and not works of the imagination. They certainly aren't fantasy.
Thanks,
LadyBrooke, for clarifying that it was not you who provided that intriguing quote from Tolkien's letters. My thanks to the very talented
Ibrin for that contribution.