Fantasy

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

And if the book was a racist fantasy which presented non-whites as subhuman would that also be legitimate? Is any kind of presentation of any kind of subject legitimate, or are there certain limits, certain requirements - & are those requirements merely temporal/societal?

It would be certainly legitimate. And now before you are shocked, let me explain.

The difference is between the legitimity and legality, if we can call it this way. You are legitimate to do something as long as you were given the option and power to do so. And the author was given both. Whatever he chooses to do with it is another thing.

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 that is not in relation just to himself and his own ego, but to any other subjects which are around him. An egoistic writer can write anything he wishes, of course later he would face the consequences (even in a simple example, let's say if he writes a racist books and publishes them, he can be jailed. But actually, I would rather put it on the level that he should care about those who read his books - if they are harmed by it - becoming racists - that is something he should not want to do, as that's the worst way, when you can harm somebody else by your writing). If he sat at home and wrote just for himself, nobody else but him would read it, he is not going to harm anybody - except himself. (And that also means something. Although, now we could start about how his cultivating some bad habits will eventually become a strong part of his personality and will therefore influence everybody he is in contact with. But that would be probably already getting too off-topic.) But if he does not care still - it is his choice.

But, back to the original question of yours again: Do you think the need to introduce maimed and blinded veterans is a thing which a writer who is conscious of his readers should put in there? Even though the main purpose of his book is not to make them aware of all the horrors war causes?

Ok....let's say that in LotR as it is Tolkien was to introduce a scene in which Gimli struck Sam on the head with his axe, with all his strength, & Sam simply laughed it off & the narrator added the wry comment 'Sam was known in Hobbiton for his thick skull'. No other explanation - no hidden mithril cap or magical protection supplied by Gandalf - would we accept that, or would it break the spell? I'd suggest it would do exactly that, because Tolkien has carefully set out the rules of his world & in that world a Hobbit's skull is not harder than an Orc's. If Gimli's ability to dispatch an Orc with a single blow of his axe is to be accepted then the same kind of blow cannot be allowed to simply disturb a couple of hairs on a Hobbit's head.

But you say it yourself: Tolkien has set certain rules of his world, and therefore, he won't introduce the scene with Gimli hitting him and Sam merely laughing. So what's the point?

Do people in M-e die in the same way as people in the primary world? Do they survive war blinded & maimed? Do their body parts have to be gathered up for disposal? Does that aspect of war exist in M-e or does it not? 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, & someone suggests they 'must have happened even if Tolkien doesn't mention them specifically' they will state very clearly 'No they didn't, because Tolkien was writing a tale 'purged of the gross' - the blood, vomit & excrement, the howling of the dying, all the unpleasant aspect of war didn't happen in M-e.

And yet, from many of the 'opposing' posts there seems to be a belief that that kind of thing did occur - its just 'implied' by Tolkien, implied subtly enough that those who want to ignore it can do so.....yet, if they acknowledge its existence (however obliquely it appears) why do they only feel comfortable if it can be safely ignored? If it happened why do they not want to know about it? Is it not as 'real' as the stars above the northern mists or the golden hair of Galadriel?

Indeed, you said it. Not for every reader. I am just reminded of my discussion with a certain 'Downer whether there are gays in Middle-Earth. Pretty much the same case, in my opinion (although, of course, this subject is not addressed by Tolkien at all).

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Speaking from personal experience, davem, I have to say that during my first (and second, and third, and probably fourth) reading of LotR, I read the battle scenes very much like you did - sanitized heroicism. Oddly, however, I didn't get the idea from them that war was something good and glorious (actually, I was busy demonstrating for nuclear disarmament and protesting against Pershing-II's at the time).

And this is one important point I had in mind. Relatedly: It happens to me often that I read books about something, and even though the author writes about something, it does not mean I accept it! That would be a pretty bad way of doing it, wouldn't it?

Of course, it is always dangerous (cf. author's responsibility) when you write something, as many people can easily accept something without their own thinking just when they read about it. However, still, it is not only the author's intention that makes the final picture. And even if the author had the best intentions in mind, no book is foolproof, as it is also subject to the reader's interpretation.