Fantasy

[tumhalad2]

I have found the essay and I can here present some of the relevant informations:
[I]
Orcs, Wraiths, Wrights: Tolkien's Images of Evil[/I

"...Shagrat sees nothing wrong with Gorbat's use of "elvish" and Gorbat has no quarrel with Shagrat's sense of humour.

The subtle irony makes a point that is repeated again and again in the orcish conversation we hear, and which in its wider implications is important for Tolkien to stress again and again...Briefly what the episode of Shagrat and Gorbag reveals is that orcs are moral beings, with an underlying reality much the same as ours. But if that is true, it seems that an underlying morality has no effect of actual behaviour. If one starts from a sound moral basis, how can things go disastrously wrong? It should require no demonstration that this is one of the vital questions raised with particular force during the twentieth century, in which the worst atrocities have often been committed by the most civilized people...Orcs in fact place a high theoretical value on mutual trust and loyalty. "Rebel" is another one of their pejorative words...Snaga says to Shagrat "I've fought for the Tower against those stinking Morgul-rats", which shows a kind of limited loyalty. Another favourite word among the orcs is "lads", a word that implies male bondage and good fellowship...It should be pointed out that Gorbag and Shagrat soon fall out, and their ideal of being "trusty" is ironic because Shagrat says "I don't trust all my lads, and none of yours, nor you neither, when you're mad for fun"...nevertheless Mauhar and his lads do turn up and make an attempted rescue. The orcs furthermore, -to say the best one can of them-understand the concept of parley...Saruman's orcs show great pride in their boast, many times repeated "We are the fighting Uruk-hai".

Although all orcs appear to be man eaters, they do not appear to be cannibalistic, but reserve that catagorisation for orcs who eat other orcs...

It would be tedious to point out all the ways in which these claims are systematically disproved or ironized...But the point remains, the orcs recognize the idea of goodness, appreciate humour, value loyalty, trust, group cohesion, and the ideal of a higher cause than themselves, and condemn failings from these ideas in others. So, if they know what is right, how does it happen that they persist in wrong? The question becomes more persistant in that the orcish behaviour is also perfectly clearly human behaviour...

After all, if all evil creatures in the beginning were good...what justice is there in condemning them irrivocably to perdition? Could there not be some way of saving them? Tolkien never took up the challenge of finding some way of educating or "rehabilitating" the orcs, though he was aware of it [Shippey points to Morgoth's Ring] and though he did spend considerable time on the possibility of rehabilitating Gollum...Orcish behaviour, whether in orcs or in humans, has its root not in an inverted morality, which sees bad as good and vise versa, but as a kind of self centredness that sees indeed what is good-like standing by one's comerads and being loyal to one's mates-but is unable to set one's behavior on the right place in this accepted scale...

To summarise: There is in Tolkien's presentation of orcs a quite deliberate realism. Orcish behavior is human behavior, and their inability to judge their actions by their own moral criteria is a problem all too sadly familiar."


That's about as much as I could find that's relevant....interesting take on things

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Shippey I do recall points up the hypocritical contrast between "just left him lying- typical Elvish trick", wityh the fate of old Ufthak, whom his 'lads' did just that to. What Shippey is on about is that the Orcs are evil precisely because they *do* at some level know better- but never act on that better impulse. If they had no moral sense to disregard they would be mere animals, and blameless.

I really dislike the notion that this 'rebellious streak' is some sort of impulse to freedom. It reminds me uncomfortably of those who regard Milton's Satan as some sort of proto-democratic Hero. And, after all, Melkor *is* Lucifer, taking the same role in the cosmological drama, the Prime Rebel: which Tolkien defines as the root of all evil.

I would suggest that to Tolkien the essence of evil is *selfishness.* He goes so far as to claim Sauron in the First Age was less evil than his master because he at least served something other than himself, even if only from self-interested motives. Shagrat and Gorbag and Orcs generally are constantly fighting one another because selfishness is deeply ingrained in them. And, again, these two lovelies aren't 'rebelling' in any sense of repentance; they just want to plunder for their own benefit rather than the 'big bosses.' Nor, of course, is their 'friendship' any more than skin deep, as we see in the next chapter of the Frodo-narrative.

[Lalwendë]

The way this thread has gone, it really begins at post 16.

But getting right back to davem's original question, and linking with all the stuff inbetween, it is very interesting just what fantasy writers choose to include and exclude. davem has spotted that Tolkien chose not to write about the true picture of war, but there are more things Tolkien chose not to include, and it interests me why he did that.

The main thing I notice as absent is a true picture of monarchy. The stories of the British monarchs alone are enough to keep you going in juicy tales for a whole lifetime, and it seems we never had a King like Aragorn. Obviously Tolkien's main stories are from narrow time frames of Middle-earth's history so that limits the opportunities, but I often think this is something noticeably absent - the full picture of a real monarch. And all the politics surrounding that.

The closest he comes is with Theoden, trapped in his madness, corrupted by the counsels of Grima. But I'd love to have seen more of this, really seen Grima at work. It almost seems too easy for Gandalf to bring him to his senses.

A similar thing happens with the story of Numenor. There's so much that could have been fleshed out there.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

but there are more things Tolkien chose not to include, and it interests me why he did that.

Originally Posted by Post 16

Or, in short, how much should a writer - how much can a writer - get away with?

While I like lal's approach here--intrigued by omissions rather than assigning error or blame or falsehood--both her question and this earlier question from post 16 make a certain assumption about the nature of the imagination.

And that is, that "reality" or historical "fact" exists prior to any creative act, which must become some sort of deviation from that originary existence or a confirmation of it.

However, if we start with the idea that our perception of the world and experience originates in our mind--is our mind's response to our experiences-- then we do not have to deal with this idea of a Creative Fall but instead simply examine the world that is brought forth.

Tolkien, much earlier than most of us, came face to face with contemplating the tentativeness of life and the certainty of his own death. In response, he seems to have devoted his creative life to exploring the quality of goodness and the preciousness of life. In his personal life, he obviously passed a certain amount of time in pursuing the pleasures of companionship (and drink) and the devotion of family (in many unsentimental ways) without compromising his worldly responsibilties. Unless of course one thinks that his Legendarium, in garnering academic ridicule, did compromise those responsibilities.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bb

Tolkien, much earlier than most of us, came face to face with contemplating the tentativeness of life and the certainty of his own death. In response, he seems to have devoted his creative life to exploring the quality of goodness and the preciousness of life.

Can he really do that thoroughly without showing us the true effects of war/violence though? We don't actually meet those little Hobbits from the Shire who lost their lives in the Battle of Bywater, and nor do we know how they lost their lives. They're just a faceless statistic written up on a memorial.

I know I'm going back to what davem has been arguing, but I do think that we aren't able to fully comprehend their sacrifice unless we either know a little of them or the way they died.

[davem]

This quote from crime novelist David Peace is maybe worth considering. He says:

"Crime is brutal, harrowing and devastating for everyone involved, and crime fiction should be every bit as brutal, harrowing and devastating as the violence of the reality it seeks to document. Anything less at best sanitises crime and its effects, at worst trivialises it. Anything more exploits other people's misery as purely vicarious entertainment. It is a very, very fine line."

Substitute 'war' for 'crime' here & we have a nice encapsulation of the argument:

"War is brutal, harrowing and devastating for everyone involved, and war fiction should be every bit as brutal, harrowing and devastating as the violence of the reality it seeks to document. Anything less at best sanitises war and its effects, at worst trivialises it. Anything more exploits other people's misery as purely vicarious entertainment. It is a very, very fine line."

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

"X is brutal, harrowing and devastating for everyone involved, and X fiction should be every bit as brutal, harrowing and devastating as the violence of the reality it seeks to document. Anything less at best sanitises X and its effects, at worst trivialises it. Anything more exploits other people's misery as purely vicarious entertainment. It is a very, very fine line."

Also substitute love, romance, child-rearing, changing nappies, discussing reality with a teenager, life, football, and discussing fantasy for X as well...

Even Steven King, known to be just a little on the verbose side, can't capture *everything*, to everyone's satisfaction and adequate to everyone's experience. There are, perhaps, hundreds upon hundreds of allusions in LotR to things British that I as a 'Merican have no appreciation for (like how best to refer to all things British). Should Tolkien have wasted extra pages to explain why anyone would care to smoke a pipe, drink tea when not ill or not iced, stay at an inn or eat at a pub (an interesting experience when I was there), or -gasp- farm?

P.S. Note to davem and Lalwendë: Had a dream the other night - must have been reading the Downs before falling off to sleep. Anyway, in a dream that was just a collection of odd thoughts, remember meeting your children, and saying hi, though that makes no sense at all.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Can he really do that thoroughly without showing us the true effects of war/violence though? We don't actually meet those little Hobbits from the Shire who lost their lives in the Battle of Bywater, and nor do we know how they lost their lives. They're just a faceless statistic written up on a memorial.

Interesting perspective on remembrance there. You might pause to consider the responses to the Viet Nam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. and then the responses to the statue built to satisfy those who demand realism in art.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Interesting perspective on remembrance there. You might pause to consider the responses to the Viet Nam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. and then the responses to the statue built to satisfy those who demand realism in art.

Ah, but then there are also Banksy's photo-realistic 'additions' to brutalist concrete buildings, aren't there?

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien lived in England (from Engla Land, land of the Angelcynn

I always thought "Engla land" was a term penned by Keith Allen for the New Order/England World Cup Squad song World In Motion

Originally Posted by alatar

Also substitute love, romance, child-rearing, changing nappies, discussing reality with a teenager, life, football, and discussing fantasy for X as well...

But nappy changing isn't a big 'theme' of the text is it? If you are trying to 'teach' your audience about something then it helps to emphasise that lesson, I find, with good examples. So if Tolkien was trying to teach us about how War is a bad and brutal thing, then shouldn't he show us it is brutal, either by describing the brutality or by showing how war tends to kill those we have got to know and care for. He doesn't do either of those (not many 'good' characters do die, after all) - I don't mind which he chose, but it would have helped.

So then that begs a question - was he trying to teach us any kind of lesson at all?