Fantasy

[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.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by davem

I am stating that Tolkien's depiction of death in battle is not true.

Again, I ask, "So, what?"

[davem]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

Again, I ask, "So, what?"

Its called having a discussion about an aspect of Tolkien's work/thought. That's what we're here for. I state that Tolkien's depiction of war is 'false', & present my reasons for that statement, you then come back & either refute those reasons, or offer support for my position. When we've taken the discussion as far as we can, or reach agreement, or just get bored with it we hope someone will come up with another topic. Some times we adopt a position in a debate which we may not personally agree with 100% ourselves in order to explore the implications of a certain idea & see what comes of it.

What do you want to discuss instead?

Have a look at the Books page & see how many views this topic has garnered so far in comparison to the other discussions.....

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by davem

Its called having a discussion about an aspect of Tolkien's work/thought. That's what we're here for. I state that Tolkien's depiction of war is 'false', & present my reasons for that statement, you then come back & either refute those reasons, or offer support for my position. When we've taken the discussion as far as we can, or reach agreement, or just get bored with it we hope someone will come up with another topic. Some times we adopt a position in a debate which we may not personally agree with 100% ourselves in order to explore the implications of a certain idea & see what comes of it.

What do you want to discuss instead?

Have a look at the Books page & see how many views this topic has garnered so far in comparison to the other discussions.....

Okay, my refutation is that this concern is contrived. Tolkien wrote masterpieces, sold plenty of books, and had an indelible effect on our culture without retroactive input on how war "should" be depicted.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hmmm...yes, 'not true'. A corporeal Immortal Evil walking the earth in black array with a magic ring he can't manage to keep hold of is not true. Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits are not true either. There perhaps is the subtle disconnect were are having in this conversation. I always considered The Lord of the Rings to be a fantasy -- marvelously detailed and endearing, but a fantasy nonetheless. I am somehow able to divorce the fantasy from reality; other are not, obviously.

But my last point, Auntie Sal (where that came from, I have no idea), is that the lack of sex, mention of sex, or even allusion to sex is not true in a real sense either. For instance, there are no blatant rapes in Lord of the Rings, and one would think that the vengeful Dunlenders' burning of the Westfold would include some rapine along with the pillaging. The sack of Minas Tirith should have mirrored the bestial sack of Rome by Charles V's troops in 1527. Of course, such rape should be described if one seeks a 'real testament' of war, shouldn't it? War would not be true without massacres of innocents, disembowlments and brutal interrogations, but some good ol' graphic rape scenes should be required as well (the history of war, particularly medieval war and earlier, is chock full of 'em).

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Again, I demand brutal rape scenes as well. A war is not a real war without callous disregard for the bodies of the enemy's women-folk. And after the rapes, the dragging off of the women and children as slaves to live miserable lives at the hands of their victorious masters. Throw in some cannibalism as well, particularly during siege scenes where the besieged have already eaten the dogs, horses and rats. Dig up the corpses, boys, supper's ready!

I am not being flippant here, just asking the same questions you are. Where exactly do you wish to cut off the depictment of reality in a 'fantasy' book meant for a wide demographic and not just for adults, davem? Must we stop at how an axe pierces a helm, or how a soldier with bloody stumps helps a disemboweled comrade gather up his intestines? Why not bowel movements? Sex scenes? How about child pornography?

How ugly does the story need to get to please you? And would it serve the story any better than its original presentation?

Originally Posted by davem

Have a look at the Books page & see how many views this topic has garnered so far in comparison to the other discussions.....

But davem, the amount of views this topic has garnered has nothing to do with the subject matter. No, it is because of our witty repartee and our stellar proficiency in grammar and syntax.

[davem]

Your 'demands' for gratuitous sex/sexual violence in Tolkien's work is, again, a pretty Aunt Sally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunt_Sally if you don't get the reference)

Aunt Sally is a traditional throwing game. The term is often used metaphorically to mean something that is a target for criticism. In particular, referring to the fairground origins, an Aunt Sally would be "set up" deliberately to be subsequently "knocked down", usually by the same person who set the person up.

& again misses the whole point I'm making. Tolkien doesn't mention sexual activity at all, let alone rape or child abuse....but if he did mention the latter.....

I would expect him not to present either rape or child abuse in a positive light, as exciting or glorious, or quickly over & forgotten about as if it had never happened. I would expect an acknowledgement of the ugly, brutal & inhuman truth. If he had included those things without acknowledging that ugly, brutal & inhuman truth, I would be on here stating very clearly that his depiction of them was false, untrue & dangerously misleading to his readers.

In all this I am simply asking why, when an activity is depicted it is not depicted honestly, warts & all, & whether it should be. No,

A corporeal Immortal Evil walking the earth in black array with a magic ring he can't manage to keep hold of is not true.

, but, when "A corporeal Immortal Evil walking the earth" is presented I expect it to behave like a "A corporeal Immortal Evil " if I am to take its seriously - if all this 'corporeal Immortal Evil" did was nick a few apples from Sam's garden, or make cupcakes for Elrond's tea with flour that's a couple of days past its Best Before date, I would say (wrongly, perhaps) that such a "corporeal Immortal Evil" wasn't a very truthful or honest depiction of same, & that we ought to expect this villain to actually do something evil - even if this was in a fantasy novel, where the author has absolute freedom to depict "A corporeal Immortal Evil walking the earth" in any way he saw fit. As a reader I have rights too. If an evil being appears in a novel I have a right to expect him to do evil things, not naughty things. In the same way, if a battle involving thousands of people armed with swords, spears, arrows, axes & the like takes place I expect there to be maimed, brutalised, broken souls on the field, alongside severed limbs & the rest - because that's what would have happened.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Your 'demands' for gratuitous sex/sexual violence in Tolkien's work is, again, a pretty Aunt Sally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunt_Sally if you don't get the reference)

Well, if you're referring to an 'Aunt Sally' (a term I shall never use again), I suppose I can refer to a 'straw man argument' in the case of your last reply.

I was referring to serial and large-scale rape attendant in war. It was and is a regular occurence in war right down to the WWII war crime trials of Nuremberg and Tokyo, and presently in several African countries. It was considered a 'spoil of victory' in Rome, among the Vikings, throughout the Middle-ages, and up until the 19th century in Europe. Even the vaguest codification of rape as a crime in the 'rules of war' in international law did not appear until the 18th century.

Originally Posted by davem

& again misses the whole point I'm making. Tolkien doesn't mention sexual activity at all, let alone rape or child abuse....but if he did mention the latter.....

If an evil being appears in a novel I have a right to expect him to do evil things, not naughty things. In the same way, if a battle involving thousands of people armed with swords, spears, arrows, axes & the like takes place I expect there to be maimed, brutalised, broken souls on the field, alongside severed limbs & the rest - because that's what would have happened.

And rape in war was a natural occurrence in Dark Age and Medieval War. Tolkien didn't mention it? So what, it was part of war, plain and simple. Rape was an is, historically, an inherent evil in war. Just because you want to divorce one aspect of 'true war' for what you feel is 'appropriate' for 'true war' does not change facts, and it is actually quite absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. You are railing against one aspect of war that Tolkien obviously missed, and I am merely offering another relevant piece of the 'true war' you so covet.

And there is the vaguest intimation of something untoward and unsavory in regards to 'Half-orcs' and 'Goblin-men' isn't there? One doesn't get the feeling that woman submitted willingly to the sexual whims of brute Orcs; therefore, rape seemingly is implied and should be brought forward with pronounced clarity, in keeping with your need for 'real war'.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Davem, your position would have more force if there were some existing tradition of gore, screams and viscera which Tolkien presumptuously violated. But the contrary is true: eliding over the blood 'n guts was the established literary mode: are you therefore condemning Tolstoy and Hugo and the on and on? It's really inaccurate and unfair to dismiss this convention as "Boys' Own Paper" when it was in fact the dominant mode of Western war fiction up until Tolkien's age.

Precisely. A point I've made several times, in addition to the fact that Lord of the Rings is not meant strictly for adult consumption.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

And rape in war was a natural occurrence in Dark Age and Medieval War. Tolkien didn't mention it? So what, it was part of war, plain and simple. Rape was an is, historically, an inherent evil in war. Just because you want to divorce one aspect of 'true war' for what you feel is 'appropriate' for 'true war' does not change facts, and it is actually quite absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. You are railing against one aspect of war that Tolkien obviously missed, and I am merely offering another relevant piece of the 'true war' you so covet..

No, again you're missing the point. Rape is not mentioned in LotR (though there is an instance of attempted rape in CoH). Therefore rape is not applicable to the discussion, which is about the way Tolkien depicts the things that are mentioned. Firearms were part of medival warfare, but not of warfare in M-e, & therefore your point re rape is about as relevant to the discussion as if you were to argue that culverins were employed on the Pelennor but not mentioned in the text. There is no use of rape in the War of the Ring. The point I made earlier is the only relevant one as regards rape - if Tolkien had included rape in the story I would require him to present it in realistic terms, not in a poetic/elegiac way, not 'romanticised' & the victim given a quick, clean death & then to just disappear from the story.

So, to reiterate, we're discussing how Tolkien deals with what he does put into his story (ie, the way he depicts battle, & specifically the way people kill each other & how they die on the field), we aren't discussing why things that aren't part of the story haven't been included. People are being killed in battle & I'm questioning how that is depicted - because it is depicted, but not in a realistic way. There is no mention of rape taking place - it isn't depicted in any way at all so its not possible to discuss how Tolkien deals with rape as a weapon of war, because he doesn't deal with it at all.

[obloquy]

Well fought, Morth.

Even your eloquent defense is unnecessary, I think, since davem's problem is entirely invented. He bemoans the dishonesty of depicting battle without its more horrible details, but Tolkien does not actually conceal the reality with some sanitizing miracle of the Valar--i.e. a description of the bloodless withering to dust of those slain as a special provision of Manwe. We know that these myths are written as some fantastical epoch of our own history, so the Men of Middle-earth are us, and supposably will gush blood and fall apart in exactly the same ways men do today--and do in George R.R. Martin novels*. Elves are physiologically identical to Men, and while there is perhaps more reason to expect with elves a magical fading in place of gory slaughter, Tolkien makes no such provision explicit. They, too, bleed red.

So, in answer once again to the question which davem has asked repeatedly, Yes, things (slaughter, sex, elimination, etc.) occur identically in Middle-earth despite that Tolkien omitted their details. When a person takes a wife, certain details of the next couple days are implied; when a person is smashed with a mace or slashed with a sword, other details are similarly implied; when a person so much as exists, still more very basic details are implied. None of these details need to be explicated for us to know that they occur. Further, unless some agenda is served by doing so, one might even expect an author to spare his readers such descriptions. This decision can only be called dishonest if one claims that Tolkien intended his audience to get some idea of the harsh reality of life and war. Instead, it seems apparent that while Tolkien did not deny the baser realities of the world, he chose rather to emphasize the potential for nobility and beauty.

*Had Tolkien chosen the tack of Martin, not only would there be plenty of guts, but surely Aragorn would have been the first character to be beheaded. How much different would LotR have been if gritty realism had been a part of the formula?

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

This decision can only be called dishonest if one claims that Tolkien intended his audience to get some idea of the harsh reality of life and war.

Only if he had not gone to such lengths to play up the 'positives' of battle - the honour, self-sacrifice, glory, excitement. That's the point - that Tolkien is showing the light without pointing up the dark as well, so that the depiction of battle become a caricature of reality. I'm asking why Tolkien decided not to give us a balanced depiction of battle, which included the nasty, brutal, inhuman side alongside the poetic/elegiac, & what the effect of that decision is, & whether that depiction is dishonest (which I think it is)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Davem, your position would have more force if there were some existing tradition of gore, screams and viscera which Tolkien presumptuously violated. But the contrary is true: eliding over the blood 'n guts was the established literary mode: are you therefore condemning Tolstoy and Hugo and the on and on? It's really inaccurate and unfair to dismiss this convention as "Boys' Own Paper" when it was in fact the dominant mode of Western war fiction up until Tolkien's age.