Fantasy

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

But were the broken, hacked up bodies actually there?Did people actualy DIE, or did they just get nicely DEAD.

There's no reason to assume some kind of magic prevented the mutilation of bodies slain with the cruel weapons of the age. Therefore, that death happened in a real way seems patent enough, and Tolkien's refrainment is perhaps to do with this presumption.

So, the 'truth' about how people die in battle, what human beings do to each other on the field, is absent. Should it be? Its an omission, but do we lose or gain by that omission? To repeat my earlier point:

Yes, it should be absent. In part because what is happening in Middle-earth is largely NOT what "human beings do to each other," but rather what humans and orcs do to each other. Orcs are manifestly evil, intended to be strictly unsympathetic. One might argue that what orcs do to humans (or more broadly what any warring humanoids do to one another) might be relevant. But really, it seems pretty clear that Tolkien's purpose was decidedly not to illuminate these grisly truths, for those reasons you have yourself beaten to death. Perhaps one reason that Tolkien refuses to embrace an allegorical reading of his story is exactly your point: any correlation of LotR's conflicts to the wars of the 20th century would be dishonest and dehumanizing.

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

There's no reason to assume some kind of magic prevented the mutilation of bodies slain with the cruel weapons of the age. Therefore, that death happened in a real way seems patent enough, and Tolkien's refrainment is perhaps to do with this presumption.

Nope. There is a very important reason to assume the mutilation of bodies with the cruel weapons of the age was absent- Tolkien created Middle-earth & it only contains what Tolkien included. Tolkien did not include the horrors of dying in battle. People don't die horribly, even when 'pierced by many arrows' or having a full size horse dumped on top of them. The most horrific death in LotR (Denethor's) can be dismissed (comfortably) as being his own fault. Why do we assume the reader will 'assume' that people will die in M-e in the same way as some poor bugger at Agincourt, Towton, Kineton Fight or the Somme? I didn't. My 'assumptions' of how people died in those battles was actually shaped by movies like Olivier's Henry V, or Knights of the Round Table & to an extent also by reading Tolkien . It was only when I began reading up on military history that I began to see what was absent in Tolkien's depictions of battle - & that was exactly the kind of thing I've brought up in this discussion.

Yes, it should be absent. In part because what is happening in Middle-earth is largely NOT what "human beings do to each other," but rather what humans and orcs do to each other.

Except that Hillmen, Eastgerlings & Southrons are also involved. So this is about what humans do to other humans - its just that Tolkien avoids dealing with it.

Orcs are manifestly evil, intended to be strictly unsympathetic. One might argue that what orcs do to humans (or more broadly what any warring humanoids do to one another) might be relevant.

Which is what I have been arguing. By offering us an unsympathetic foe Tolkien is able to have his heroes kill thousands of them with impunity & never suffer the inconvenience of having to ask if what they're doing is right, face the possiblity that they have 'sinned', or, most importantly in this context, show them any respect.

Perhaps one reason that Tolkien refuses to embrace an allegorical reading of his story is exactly your point: any correlation of LotR's conflicts to the wars of the 20th century would be dishonest and dehumanizing.

This is not about allegorising. Its about reality (or 'secondary reality'). Its also about what readers take from the story. Now, one can decide 'Its just a fantasy, pure escapism. It means nothing at all & has no value beyond a few hours entertainment.' But... if one does take that approach then one, surely, must treat the whole book that way - the beauty of the natural world, the self-sacrifice of Frodo, the depiction of the corrupting effect of desire for power & control - none of that, or even the incredible feat of imagination behind it all - all just escapism & without any relevance to the reader beyond escaping the harsh realities of the real world for a bit.

The point is - everything else is there, except the reality of how people die in battle, which is skipped over. They're alive, they're dead, & the corpses (with their neat, tidy & instantly & painlessly mortal wounds) nicely disappear to save the survivors the sordid necessity of shovelling up the body parts & heaving the hundreds of thousands of bits into a mass grave. Then the survivors can get on with composing a nice elegy & replacing the trees with a clear conscience. Middle-earth is the most beautifully, perfectly created secondary world, Tolkien's prose touches perfection in many parts of LotR & his vision, his understanding of the human condition is profound. His meditations on the nature of mortality against immortality provide some of the most thought provoking moments in the whole of literature.

But his battle scenes are all fake. There, & only there, does he descend into an Edwardian, Boy's Own, vision of knights in shining armour, of derring do on the battlefield, of Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori & in Tolkien it is sweet & glorious to die on the field - because death on the field is quick & painless, free from suffering.

[obloquy]

I submit that the problem lies entirely with you.

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I submit that the problem lies entirely with you.

That's certainly a detailed refutation of all my points. I clearly can't argue with such a cogently argued response........

[LadyBrooke]

Gwathagor, I can’t consider it a happy ending because to me a happy ending would have necessitated the entire Fellowship surviving and being happy. Obviously that’s not what happens. Aragorn gets Arwen, but she never gets to see her family (save perhaps Celeborn and the twins) again; Boromir is dead, his father goes insane and tries to burn his brother to death; Legolas gets the sea longing and has to sail, most likely leaving his father behind; Frodo has to sail leaving his friends and family. Sacrifice isn’t happy to me, it is tragic that sacrifice is ever neccesary.

Oh dear, it appears I’m not expressing my self clearly enough, davem, if you still think that I think that you advocate graphic violence. I don’t, and agree with you that Tolkien could have expressed more of the reality of war without having to go into graphic detail. What I think you do believe (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that it is Tolkien’s responsibility to show the reality of war in his books because otherwise people might get the wrong view of war. I have to disagree you that it is his responsibility (and I am probably biased as a writer and artist) because I believe that a writer’s utmost responsibility is to write the story that they want.

In the same way I don’t read fairy tales and expect my love life to end up like a fairy tale princess, Narnia and expect my closet to contain a portal to another world, or Shakespeare and expect everybody to start talking in poetic meter, I don’t read LotR and expect a realistic view of war.

Even the most fantastic of books can teach us something - without having to be realistic to our own world. And truthfully, for my own generation, I am glad that there are books like LotR to stand contrary to such things as Grand Theft Auto and the massive shoot out battles that seem to be in every other movie or video game.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

What I think you do believe (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that it is Tolkien’s responsibility to show the reality of war in his books because otherwise people might get the wrong view of war. I have to disagree you that it is his responsibility (and I am probably biased as a writer and artist) because I believe that a writer’s utmost responsibility is to write the story that they want.

Well, I'm just asking whether he should show the reality of war, & not so much whether people might get the 'wrong' view of war, but what kind of view of war they're being given, & why Tolkien chose to present war in that way. If Tolkien chose to depict war in one way rather than another why did he make that choice, & how does that affect the reader's perception of war? Do we gain something by having war & death in battle presented in Tolkien's 'romantic/elegiac' way, & if we do gain something by it what is that, & is what we gain good or bad? Do we lose something, & equally, is what we lose good or bad?

To expand the question I could ask, what was Tolkien's attitude to war, & did the way he presented it in LotR reflect his true feelings about it. Some have suggested that he was as 'graphic' & realistic in his depiction as the times (1940's) allowed in a novel, or as the genre he was writing in (epic romance) allowed. But is that true - is that the only reason for his choice? Does fantasy give carte blanche to an author? We've all seen the regular attacks on LotR that it is 'racist' - let's say it was blatantly racist, would the justification that 'Its fantasy' be acceptable? I'd say not (personal opinion).

I don’t read LotR and expect a realistic view of war.

But do you expect an unrealistic view of it?.

[littlemanpoet]

Original question:

is it right, or acceptable, to demand that Fantasy shouldn't explore certain ideas - if those ideas challenge, or attack, certain values or beliefs?

It seems to me that the reverse of this question ought to be posed as well:
Is it right or acceptable to demand that Fantasy ought to explore certain ideas - if those ideas harmonize with contemporary values --- such as the horrors, cruelties, and brutality of war?

Good Fantasy convinces, bad Fantasy doesn't. But bad Fantasy isn't a 'threat' to Churches or political regimes, or to anyone's personal beliefs - because bad fantasy doesn't convince: it feels fake. Only good fantasy is a threat - because it does convince - of its 'reality', the possibility that a world like that is possible (if only logically possible).

Perhaps it would be more useful to say that good fantasy doesn't descend into polemics and bad fantasy might. Pullman breaks his own spell with polemics. So to my mind, fantasy is not the prolbem people think it is, except to the weakminded who want to be told what to accept and reject without having to think for themselves.

Does good fantasy have to be rooted in reality to work?

Fantasy cannot help but be rooted in reality. It's still a sun whether green or yellow or beige. So the question becomes, "How rooted in reality must a fantasy work be to work as believable (legitimate) fantasy?" Do the author's causes follow to believable results?

Of course, it could be (and has been) argued that Tolkien didn't write fantasy at all, but a romance, as he said himself.

Well, Tolkien's depiction of fantasy eschewed an explicit depiction of Evil.

It depends on what you mean. The banality of orcs is pretty graphically conveyed. The potency of the witch king and the evil of the Morgul valley come across powerfully. Perhaps what is meant here is the degree of explicitness; which is, of course, the author's prerogative.

But it still leaves us with evil & ugliness of war being presented as, if not 'good' at least glorious...

Every author makes choices. Tolkien chose to imply rather than rake through the squalor of it. Why desire the squalor?

Tolkien was not against war. Meriadoc's answer to Frodo in the Scouring of the Shire shows that. A war to defend home and community was not merely legitimate but virtuous; not to defend is to succumb to cowardice.

Tolkien's 'sin' is not that he fails to depict violent death in a graphic way - its that he goes to the other extreme & shows it as too clean & neat.

This is a demand for Tolkien to do in regard to war what Edmund Wilson demanded regarding sex. To show the horror, cruelty, and brutality of war, was not Tolkien's point.

In the end, Tolkien really doesn't need an excuse for his choices.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Every author makes choices. Tolkien chose to imply rather than rake through the squalor of it. Why desire the squalor?

.

Because the squalor is true - just as much as the honour, glory & self-sacrifice - & none of those are merely 'implied'

[Gwathagor]

You can't expect an author to include everything just because it's true. At what point is there enough detail? The author is always going to leave SOMETHING out, regardless of how hard he tries to be totally "realistic." So, what is included is determined by the themes of the story. Tolkien chose to focus on some of the nobler aspects of war and left the nastier stuff up to our imaginations. Both are equally real and legitimate subjects.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

That's certainly a detailed refutation of all my points. I clearly can't argue with such a cogently argued response........

What points?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Tolkien may not have gone on at length describing mutilation and the human atrocities of war, but he certainly did not utterly ignore them. To me, one of the most horrific passages of LotR is in "The Siege of Gondor":

Then among the greater casts there fell another hail, less ruinous but more horrible. All about the streets and lanes behind the Gate it tumbled down, small round shot that did not burn. But when men ran to learn what it might be, they cried aloud or wept. For the enemy was flinging into the City all the heads of those who had fallen fighting at Osgiliath, or on the Rammas, or in the fields. They were grim to look on; for though some were crushed and shapeless, and some had been cruelly hewn, yet many had features that could be told, and it seemed that they had died in pain, and all were branded with the foul token of the Lidless Eye. But marred and dishonoured as they were, it often chanced that a man would see again the face of someone that he had known, who had walked proudly once in arms, or tilled the fields, or ridden in upon a holiday from the green vales in the hills.

There are in Tolkien's letters many references to his feelings about war. In #73, written to his son in June of 1944, four days after the Normandy Invasion, Christopher had apparently asked him about his own experiences of writing while serving in the military, and he replied:

As for what to try and write: I don't know. I tried a diary with portraits (some scathing some comic some commendatory) of persons and events seen; but I found it was not my line. So I took to 'escapism': or really transforming experience into another form and symbol with Morgoth and Orcs and the Eldalie (representing beauty and grace of life and artefact) and so on; and it has stood me in good stead in many hard years since and still I draw on the conceptions then hammered out.

So it would seem that rather than write a tale depicting war in realistic, grisly detail, Tolkien preferred to write about the war in a more metaphysical sense, the ongoing War between Good and Evil, in which the battles are more symbolic than representational. In fact in letter 93, written on Christmas Eve of the same year (during which Tolkien was still working on LotR), he told Christopher:

C. Williams who is reading it all says the great thing is that its centre is not strife and war and heroism (though they are understood and depicted) but in freedom, peace, ordinary life and good liking. Yet he agrees that these very things require the existence of a great world outside the Shire -- lest they should grow stale by custom and turn into the humdrum....

Another interesting comment on his attitude toward war in general came in June of the following year in letter 101:

There is a stand-down parade of Civil Defence in the Parks in the afternoon, to which I shall prob. have to drag myself. But I am afraid it all seems rather a mockery to me, for the War is not over (and the one that is, or the part of it, has largely been lost). But it is of course wrong to fall into such a mood, for Wars are always lost, and The War always goes on; and it is no good growing faint!

He does not specify, but I cannot help but think "The War" means the eternal struggle between Good and Evil, which is at the core of much of the mythology he loved. He made another intriguing remark in his next letter (102, August 1945):

The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of these lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world! Such explosives in men's hands, while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope 'this will ensure peace.'

In January of 1945 (letter 96), he wrote:

The appalling destruction and misery of this war mount hourly: destruction of what should be (and indeed is) the common wealth of Europe, and the world, if mankind were not so besotted, wealth the loss of which will affect us all, victors or not. Yet people gloat to hear of the endless lines, 40 miles long, of miserable refugees, women and children pouring West, dying on the way. There seem no bowels of mercy or compassion, no imagination, left in this dark diabolical hour. By which I do not mean that it may not all, in the present situation. . . be necessary and inevitable. But why to gloat! We were supposed to have reached a state of civilization in which it might still be necessary to execute a criminal, but not to gloat, or to hang his wife and child by him while the orc-crowd hooted. The destruction of Germany, be it 100 times merited, is one of the most appalling world-catastrophes. Well, well, you and I can do nothing about it. And that shd. be a measure of the amount of guilt that can justly be assumed to attach to any member of a country who is not a member of its actual Government. Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter -- leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines. As the servants of the Machines are becoming a privileged class, the Machines are going to be enormously more powerful. What's their next move?

I think that these remarks almost more than any other reflect why Tolkien wrote LotR as he did. Machines are not human in any sense of the word, though they may be used by humans, and the greatest destruction they wreak are not on the bodies of the slain, but in how they wreak despair upon the human heart and soul, leaching it of hope, creating a world in which morals and ethics have no place, because they are not a part of the inhuman Machine. The ruination of entire countries -- such as Mordor -- is destruction painted on an even larger canvas than those of the slain on a battlefield; its scale is mythical, rather than "realistic," and Tolkien was creating a myth. He knew the horrors of war; that he chose to write of its "real" aspects as subtext makes perfect sense given the times through which he had already lived, and the horror he had already witnessed. Sometimes, "reality" can be understood best when it is presented in a different way and in a different light that frees one from the obvious horrors to see the even greater horrors that lie beneath. Moreover, it was his authorial choice to depict the story however he wished, and whether or not a reader approves of his choice is up to the individual. There really is no right or wrong.

[Pitchwife]

Ibrin, thanks for posting the quote about the severed heads of the slain being used as ammunition during the Siege of Gondor. I had thought of that, but neglected to include it in my post.
Another example that has come to my mind was Gelmir being hacked to pieces by the Orcs before his brother Gwindor's eyes at the beginning of the Nirnaeth Arnoediad.
Perhaps one of the reasons that warfare is described more grimly in the Silmarillion is that Silm was written in a much more distanced, 'annalistic' style than LotR. Maybe Tolkien just couldn't bear to describe his own experience of war any closer, without that filter of talking about things that happened ages ago?

obloquy, slightly (but not entirely) off-topic - an appalling number of people in our time happily consumes meat without wanting to think about having to kill a living creature and handling a bleeding carcass (not me - I've butchered chickens with my own hands). Live animals are cute, and dead animals are tasty; the transition tends to be blithely ignored. One can always choose not to see what one doesn't want to see (which probably is what most of our politicians who send people to war do). Of course people in Middle-earth had their intestines ripped out, but did we think of that when we first read LotR? If you did, good for you; I didn't.