Fantasy

[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.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

obloquy...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.

But you recognize that those things are a certainty, which is my point. I was not saying that a person naturally imagines those details when reading LotR, only that if one considers it, one recognizes that they absolutely do occur given what we know about Middle-earth.

[Rumil]

Or as Shagrat would put it-

Come here, and I'll squeeze your eyes out, like I did to Radbug just now

I'll put red maggot holes in your belly first

Quick as a snake Shagrat slipped aside, twisted round, and drove his knife into his enemy's throat.

'Got you Gorbag!' he cried, 'Not quite dead, eh? Well, I'll finish my job now.' He sprang on to the fallen body, and stamped and trampled it in his fury, stopping now and again to slash it with his knife. Satisfied at last, he threw back his head and let out a horrible gurgling yell of triumph. Then he licked his knife,

Oops - cross posted with Morth's upsum.

[davem]

Morth Very good summation of all your points. Now back to my actual questions ...

Should the reality of battle, specifically how people die, have been depicted in order to give an honest view of war? Does the omission lessen the impact of the work as a whole? Is there a moral obligation on an author of fantasy to tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth? 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?

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.

And is it ok to do that? 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)

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.

Nope - the First World War poets you go on to cite later had already been published & I am not suggesting Tolkien be anymore 'graphic' than they were - only as honest.

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.

Why would an honest depiction of death in battle = falling prey to cynicism? I don't get your point

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.

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

10. 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.

(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?

[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.

[davem]

The problem here is this Aunt Sally you keep setting up, in order to knock down & thus feel you have won the argument. I am not suggesting that Tolkien should have have depicted death in battle in the way you accuse me of. I am stating that Tolkien's depiction of death in battle is not true.

If I may quote LadyBrooke form an earlier post:

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.

Battle has three 'aspects', if you will - there is (as I acknowledged earlier) honour, self-sacrifice, glory, excitement - even joy as displayed by the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields, & all of this Tolkien gives us. Secondly, there is loss, death, bereavement. Again, Tolkien gives us this in spades. I'd say he is absolutely honest in his depiction of those two aspects of battle. But there is also a third aspect - people get maimed. They lose limbs, they die slowly & in agony. They may freeze to death overnight even if not mortally wounded (as at Kineton Fight during the English Civil War, or at Towton). They may just be left to die because there's no-one to treat them, or because they are not considered to be worth saving. Some die because they run away in terror & get cut down by their own side (Towon again). After the battle there has to be a clear up & burial - or the bodies rot & spread disease. Oh, & in battle people lose it when the adrenalin is flowing & do terrible & unecessary things to the foe.

And that's the aspect Tolkien doesn't deal with at all. Its equally true. The horror, the reduction of human to animal is absent. Is Tolkien's depiction of battle honest is the question, & if not, should it be? Also, of not, what is lost by that lack of honesty? In LotR it simply is seen as a 'brave & glorious thing' to die in battle against Sauron - or in other words Tolkien has written a tale which 'justifies' war by writing about a justifiable war. The uncomfortable questions - about the morality of killing for a cause, about whether 'Jaw-Jaw is better than War War', about whether pacifism is a more, or a less, morally justifiable philosophical position, are all neatly avoided by giving us a war that no 'decent' person could have any objection to fighting.

So, we have a war that the decent 'have' to fight & which is then depicted in a way that avoids any mention of the dirty, animal horror of real war. You cannot question the need to fight it, & you don't need to fret over being maimed, blinded or sent crazy as a result of fighting it, cos the worst that will happen is that you'll suffer a quick, clean death & then a minstrel will compose a verse in your memory which will be sung in the mead hall while maidens weep for you. The best is that you will return a great hero, to the acclamation of your family & friends. Apart fromFrodo, of course - but then he gets to travel with the Elves to the West rather than passing into a lonely, frightened & forgotten old age.

These might not have been the issues Tolkien wished to deal with in his book, they may not be as important as the ones he did choose to deal with, either, but they are real, war related, issues, & I can't see that its somehow unacceptable to ask about them.