Fantasy

[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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

No, again you're missing the point.

It is not that I miss any point, but thanks for the constant reminders; rather, I refuse to discuss the subject in the manner you demand, as is my preorogative. Others in the discussion seem to follow their own way as well, however limited and irrelevant you deem their replies.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

I'm sorry, but rape (or the lack of it) is certainly relevant. Just as there is a lack of culverins, and even more primary ballistic weapons like the handheld crossbow are not mentioned, it indicates that Tolkien's world is indeed a fantasy and not based on objective measurements against a real world time period or means of combat. To rely on such measures is doomed to futility (much like this conversation), as Tolkien's world is anachronistic and cannot be shown to adhere to any one epoch reliably or with any specificity.

There is a near complete reliance on chain mail in Middle-earth (save for a brief mention of Imrahil's pauldrons), and the use of mail has been in constant use in Arda for several thousand years with no real technological advance into plate. This in no way is historically factual, nor does it make much sense when comparing real-world precedents. There isn't even an advance from bronze to iron to steel in any consistent manner. On the other hand, we have clocks and other oddities like tea, tobacco, potatoes, umbrellas, etc., readily available in homes in the Shire (these were emended in part by Tolkien, but the anachronistic flavor remains).

So Tolkien eschewed rape as a weapon of war even though it was a primary tactic of fear, even a right of the victors, in European wars, just as he neglected the mention of culverins, which were at the battles of Crecy and Poitiers, or crossbows which were available in Europe at a far earlier date. This makes his depiction of war follow a more classical or legendary mode of storytelling not necessarily reliant on factual data which he would clearly possess, as steeped in history and philology as he was; therefore, this need of yours to castigate Tolkien for being unfactual in his depiction of war is unfounded, as his emphasis was never to present a carbon-copy historical document based on medieval warfare.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

We are not discussing anything. I think most of the discussion has devolved into you and the rest of us. I've already given several compelling reasons why battle is not depicted in the manner you deem appropriate based on publisher demands, the time period in which it was written, the proposed audience of the book, Tolkien's eccentric reliance on archaic/classical modes of expression, and conversely, a scrupulous avoidance of modernism evident in other writers of the first half of the 20th century.

I know, I know, I miss the point. Whatever.

[Pitchwife]

Morthoron -

We are not discussing anything. I think most of the discussion has devolved into you and the rest of us.

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)...

[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.

[LadyBrooke]

Just some quick thoughts about various posts and quotes from Letters. This is not a short post though, just to warn you.

Originally Posted by davem

But do you expect an unrealistic view of it?.

Actually when I start to read a book I try to expect nothing, for I too often find that having prior expectations keeps me from enjoying the book itself. To answer the question of realistic or unrealistic view of war, from Tolkien I did (by the time I reached the battles) expect the battles to be around the same as those in Greek epics or French Medieval Romances. Also, it’s not that like Tolkien wrote anything along the lines of people being killed by firey demons and then coming back to life or an entire species that can’t really be killed. Nothing at all that unrealistic in his books.

Originally Posted by davem

My suggested answer would be 'Not for every reader'. Some readers will assume those things & 'see' them as they read the story, but other readers won't. Some will deny the existence of those things in M-e,.

Of course not every reader will believe that these things existed in M-E, but even if Tolkien states that something happened there are people who will refuse to believe it. This is the danger of publishing a work. Once it is published it is open to interpretation by the reader - this is at once one of the greatest and worst things about publishing something. The amount of stories I’ve heard about authors being told that their work means or says something that they didn’t intend for it to.

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.

- J.R.R. to Christopher, June 1944
Escapism - the seeking of distraction from reality by engaging in entertainment or fantasy: this is the definition from my dictionary. So he was using his writing to escape the reality of war and become emerged in a fantasy world where everybody is noble and righteous.

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.'

- J.R.R. August 1945
So horrifying one is stunned; utter folly of these lunatic physicists; while their moral and intellectual status is declining: all quotes that say to me that even in his worst nightmares Tolkien could not imagine what modern man is capable of. So obviously the characters in his books can not do anything approaching the utter horror of our current warfare meaning that trying to use his books to educate people about the horrors of modern day warfare is about as useful as using an original car to educate somebody about how to take care of a Porsche.

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.

- J.R.R. Janurary 1945
Meaning that ‘true’ and ‘noble’ beings such as the forces of good in Tolkien’s books will not gloat or punish a criminal’s family for being related to him. This is despicable to Tolkien (and personally to me as well.)

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

His, and only his choice is, whether he reveres some authority, or is aware of his responsibility; as he holds, at least particularly, a responsibility for the others who are going to read his books. My opinion is of course that he should have in mind mainly the people who are going to read what he wrote.

But, and this is one of my soapboxes, today many people want to view historical people and authors from a viewpoint that is not even contemperary to the author, but is a modern viewpoint. Perhaps this is just me - who in recent weeks has been exposed to far too many editorials blasting such people as Abraham Lincoln - but I surely don’t expect Tolkien to have kept 21st century readers in mind while writing a book in the aftermath of two World Wars. Nobody coming out of either World War would have needed to have been reminded that war is a bad thing. They knew it, they lived it, and quite frankly they were sick of it. For some of them LotR probably served as the same thing it did for Tolkien according to one of the above quotes - escapism.

Originally Posted by Rumil

Tolkien's battles are usually (not, I'll agree, always) written from the Historian's lofty standpoint, featuring more of the wide overview and deeds of commanders than the mud and blood experience of the Poor Bloody Infantry. If we go 'in-book' we find that our authors (the hobbits) are mostly not involved in the fighting in the great battles. Bilbo gets knocked out, Merry probably has his eyes tight shut during the charge of the Rohirrim, then the Witch King showdown takes him out of the battle. Pippin gets squashed into unconsiousness under a troll. The Battle of Bywater is probably written by Frodo who was not involved in the fighting apart from getting the hobbits to spare the surrendering ruffians.

Therefore the battle sections are mostly what was told second-hand to the hobbits by Gandalf, Aragorn etc. I think they would not feel the need to burden the cheery halflings with the true brutality. Who's to say they'd be wrong?

Plus - and this is what happens in the real world - LotR is technically something like a translation from a copy of a copy of the original. When something has passed through that many hands details get lost, purged, mistranslated, etc. People have a tendency to change things they don’t like.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

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.

This is what I think too. Along with the fact that Tolkien didn’t actually publish the grim parts himself, it does make you wonder. My great-uncle can’t talk about his own part in Vietnam without coaching it in terms of various books and movies. It was simply too tramautic for him - much as WWI must have been for Tolkien, losing the good friends he did.

So, basically what is my entire point that I’ve been trying to express in every post I’ve made on this thread?

War is traumatic.

I know of many veterans who have turned their trauma into activism - good for them, that they can stand up for what they believe in.

I also know many veterans who for them it is too traumatic. They repress their memories of the bad things that happened. They refuse to speak about it. If they do it is only to close family members. They use escapism - whether that escapism takes the form of alcohol, drugs, the arts, extreme sports, whatever.

And I believe that Tolkien belongs firmly in the second group. His form of escapism is writing, he purged all of the bad memories from his public thoughts (in this case TH and LotR), and only spoke of the reality in his private thoughts (in this case the writings of his that were only published after his death).

It has nothing to do with misleading the public, and everything to do with his own personal reaction to a tramatic event in his own life. I don’t know if any of you have ever truly been traumatized. I do know that in the aftermath of 9/11, I developed an anxiety disorder that has lasting affects. Sometimes it’s not a matter of if somebody should have done something, but a matter of they could have done it.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

But, and this is one of my soapboxes, today many people want to view historical people and authors from a viewpoint that is not even contemperary to the author, but is a modern viewpoint. Perhaps this is just me - who in recent weeks has been exposed to far too many editorials blasting such people as Abraham Lincoln - but I surely don’t expect Tolkien to have kept 21st century readers in mind while writing a book in the aftermath of two World Wars. Nobody coming out of either World War would have needed to have been reminded that war is a bad thing. They knew it, they lived it, and quite frankly they were sick of it. For some of them LotR probably served as the same thing it did for Tolkien according to one of the above quotes - escapism.

Yes, all too true! That's exactly what I think as well. Though, with writing what I said above, I had in mind just the author himself - his point of view, the audience he estimates, or which he can estimate to read him. Of course he cannot know what the clima in the society will be like some hundred years later. That's a part of why I said no book is foolproof. But, my point was directed exactly to the author's choices, given his position according to his knowledge. But otherwise, I definitely agree with what you said.