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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[LadyBrooke]

And indeed when writing that I didn't have you in particular in mind. I was actually reading another thread at the same time I was going through this thread and writing my response and poeple on that thread seemed to be expecting Tolkien to have guessed what his readership would be like now, when I believe that he expected his books to have a quite limited readership.

Besides like I said it's a soapbox of mine - just like Celeborn. You really don't want to get me started on him.

[Bêthberry]

*whispers* Celebrian *coughs*

LadyBrooke, thanks for quoting that letter from Tolkien about transforming his experience/ seeking a distraction. This was something I had suggested some posts back, that Tolkien's fascination with war epics was related to his own wartime experience in WWI and was not necessarily a deliberate lie.

[LadyBrooke]

Coughhalforcscough

Thank you Bêthberry, but the credit for the quotes must go to Ibrin who was the one who looked them up in the first place and not me. I simply recopied them from her post and added my thoughts to them. For some reason though her name didn't show up even though I quoted them from her post.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Something that has struck me about The Lord of the Rings and, indeed, most of the Legendarium, has been the fact that, as you say, davem, violence is not depicted in grotesque or detailed terms. There are glimpses here and there, but nothing to the extent of the heroic deeds and so on. What strikes me as the possible reason is that Tolkien simply did not want to do this. When reading his essay On Fairy Stories as well as the forward to The Lord of the Rings (I vaguely remember something from the letters, but it's been so long since I read them-) that Tolkien was writing what he wanted.

That, in itself, is a dream, I have to say. So often I have been told by tutors on my Creative Writing course that you have to include a, b and c in a healthy balance whether you like it or not. There is merit in this, granted. Issues should be dealt with, things addressed and considered. It does not make them easy or pleasant to write about.

With The Hobbit being chiefly a children's book, Tolkien can be very much forgiven for the lack of violence. Indeed, with The Lord of the Rings being a sequel it almost, but not quite, could be expected that violence and graphic horror would not have the same presence. However, because The Lord of the Rings is directed at and appeals to an older audience, Tolkien had the liberty to do so. But he does not. Or, perhaps, will not.

With The Silmarillion, Children of Hurin and so on, we have much broader strokes of the stories; details are left out because the vastness of the tail, you might say, thrusts it aside. Had the detail been the same in The Silmarillion as it was in The Lord of the Rings, could it be contained within the bounds of a paperback? Probably not; it would probably collapse in on itself and create a black hole.

Tolkien seems to relish and toughly enjoy telling us about the heroic deeds as well as the tragic tales. There we find some of his best writing. We enjoy it. We relish it. We are here discussing it. After all, what was Tolkien's duty other than to tell the story? Indeed, even that was not a duty, as such, but a need within him.

Besides all this, to my mind, Middle Earth was, for so long, a place beset with evil and horror. The seemingly endless war with Melkor and the battles with Sauron must have plagued their minds. Therefore, any act of heroism, I should think, would be savored and remembered. It would not surprise me if the same was true of heroic tales of our own world were born from the same mindset. Places racked with war seeking any way to think of better things. Who knows?

[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)...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

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...

The question is irrelevant. It neither applies to Tolkien's temperment, beliefs, mode of writing, or the time period in which he wrote, nor does it matter a hill of beans what we think he should have done.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Morthoron -

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)...

davem's points often twist and turn depending on how long he wants to maintain the controversy and how much fun he is having baiting people. However, in post #121 he phrases the issue this way:

Originally Posted by davem, post 121

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?

Here he is putting the question in terms of the effect on readers' reactions to events in their historical world, the Primary World. This is a classic complaint against literature.

It is also, in reverse, the complaint made about computer games, that the violence in them leads to gamers' violence in real life.

Presumably davem wants us to consider if the omission might make readers more eager for war, not understanding how horrible it is.

Who is responsible for how readers use literature--or gamers, games--the users or the creators?

Of course, we don't know if literature/games/LotR would have a misleading effect, if it would incite readers to acts of war or make it easier to think that a just war is possible in our time.

We could, for instance, look at how Karen Armstrong discusses the effect on her of reading about the specific acts of horrendous cruelty and barbarity which the Western crusaders inflicted on both Muslims and Jews, in Europe and in the "Holy Land", and on women and children, not just combatants. And we could then examine her analysis of the consequences for cultural relations that continues down to this time. And we could think about how this knowledge influences our reading of today's world--and, even, our reading of Tolkien's just war.

But those historical accounts are indeed that, historical records--a witness--left by the participants, and not works of the imagination. They certainly aren't fantasy.

Thanks, LadyBrooke, for clarifying that it was not you who provided that intriguing quote from Tolkien's letters. My thanks to the very talented Ibrin for that contribution.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Presumably davem wants us to consider if the omission might make readers more eager for war, not understanding how horrible it is.

And, of course, why Tolkien presented war in the way he did. Tolkien knew the truth about war, about how people really die (or don't die, just remain functioning with broken bodies & shattered minds). Yet he doesn't present us with that reality. He (& knowing the truth from first hand experience) chooses to write about it in such a way that that reality is absent.

Is that not intriguing? What would a psychologist make of a victim's account of a traumatic event which deliberately onitted the most horrific dimension.

Oh, its because Tolkien was writing an heroic romance. Or its because he was writing in the forties, when authors didn't go in for all that brutal realism. Or, its because he didn't want to upset any kiddies that might pick up the book. Or its....er... its because when the book was published there was a paper shortage & he had to be selective in what he included.....

Why is the truth, the harsh, unpleasant reality of war totally absent from the book, when the glory, excitement, joy, the self sacrifice & the rest of the 'positives' are played up. And do we as readers get a false impression of war from it? If its because Tolkien couldn't bring himself to speak of something so close to him, that I can accept, but still ask the question - what do we lose by that ommission. If, on the other hand its because he didn't want to frighten the children, or shock the ladies ("Would you want your wives, or your servants to read this book?" ) then I find that a bit distasteful.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

Yes, yes, yes. But....the reason for that is, I started the discussion & set the terms. You don't have to participate, & if you want to discuss a different topic, or the same kind of topic in a different way, you are free to start your own thread. (BTW, when I pointed up the number of views this topic has so far recieved, it was to make the point that people are clearly enjoying the debate, the cut & thrust, the dynamic interaction, the long words, the twisting of arguments & the knocking down of Aunt Sallys involved. Or they may just be bored & have nothing better to do.Who knows?

What would you like to discuss instead?)

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

You're welcome, Bethberry (and LadyBrooke).

The subject of whether or not "entertainment" -- fiction, games, movies, etc. -- leads to indifference toward violence will probably be debated forever. But comparatively speaking, it is a very recent issue, if for no other reason than movies, video games, and role-playing games didn't exist until recent times (at least in historic terms). It's entirely possible that some people do become jaded toward violence because of their "unrealistic" exposure to it in such media -- especially in things where you can see the violence "happen," but in such a way that the witness is detached from any sense that the event is, or could be, "real." It has also been suggested (quite some time ago; I wrote a paper on it while I was in high school about 40 years ago) that seeing footage of real violence on the evening news causes the same kind of detachment, and after an initial horrified reaction, eventually inures some viewers to the real horror of it -- because it feels unreal, like the commercials and sitcoms and cartoons one sees on the same screen.

I can well imagine that it's possible that some people are similarly affected by reading about graphic violence; after a time, the descriptions cease to have the same effect they had the first time they were read. Because of my ongoing therapy for PTSD, I have read many books on the subject and related issues; I can't recall which author said it (it may have been John Bradford or Jon Kabat Zinn), but it is nonetheless true: "The witness of abuse is the victim of abuse." One can be as sorely harmed, psychologically, by seeing another person abused as the person who is being beaten or bullied, especially if this is something they see repeatedly, or the trauma is extreme. If this is so, then I would say that the use of graphic violence or other traumatic events in fiction writing is something best used very judiciously. One person might think that an author has a moral obligation to show the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, harsh and unvarnished and in all possible detail; another might believe that the author has a moral obligation to show as much as is necessary to provoke thought without traumatizing the reader, by making them a witness to verbal violence. I know that it's possible to do so through words alone. I've seen people react both emotionally and physically to brief passages in books; I've even written some things that readers told me prompted similar responses. They also told me that they were quite glad I showed restraint; a little bit went a long way, and too much would have made them feel as if they were being unnecessarily bludgeoned with it when I had already made my point.

So should Tolkien have written "the truth" about the horror of war in LotR? My feeling is that he did, in the way that was true to his story and true to himself. I did not come away from my first reading of LotR at age 11, thinking that war was glorious, or that it was something that just happened without causing lasting harm. I felt that it was something terrible, something that any sane person would want to avoid, and that even when it became necessary as defense, there were still many, many people who were hurt and suffered and died, both among the soldiers and the civilians. Graphic detail would not have enhanced this reaction; it quite likely would have made me put down the book long before the end, and I would have lost a great deal by not finishing. Fictional depiction of unpleasant truths can be educational -- but only up to a point, I believe. Beyond that threshold, it can undercut, distort, or even obliterate the message, because the audience stops listening, or listens out of fear.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Clearly, yourself & Morthoron are bored with this subject (in fact you both seem to be so similar in your outlook I could almost believe the two of your were married ), so I've been trying to come up with a way to help. I'm thinking of a new thread topic & I'd like to get your feedback - its about whether Orcs resort to juvenile insults because they're too stupid to sustain an intelligent debate, or whether its just because they think (& perhaps this goes to the heart of their tragedy as a corrupted, pathetic, species) it makes them look clever. Do you think there's any mileage in it?

I have not, as of yet, resorted to personal insult on this thread. I have, however, come to the conclusion, as Bethberry intimated earlier, that you have utterly no interest in a discussion and are merely prolonging a debate that has lost whatever merit it had long ago, for your own sordid reasons. It certainly seems Beth is right.

Originally Posted by davem

Oh, its because Tolkien was writing an heroic romance. Or its because he was writing in the forties, when authors didn't go in for all that brutal realism. Or, its because he didn't want to upset any kiddies that might pick up the book. Or its....er... its because when the book was published there was a paper shortage & he had to be selective in what he included.....

Yep, all relevant and compelling reasons. In fact, just one of those points is all that is necessary; however, the accumulated circumstancial evidence gives a preponderance of the truth in the matter. Therefore, I won't be continuing this absurdity beyond this: to infer that what a writer published over 50 years ago is wrong based on the skewed ideals/sensibilities of a modern reader is irrelevant. Hindsight is only good when one is not viewing things through one's posterior.

P.S. Good luck on your 'Orkish juvenile insult' thread, davem. I can't think of anyone better qualified to lead such a discussion.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Calm down, you lot.

I was going to mention this in my previous post but couldn't find the exact quote. Fortunately, good master Legate had it as his signature. That's probably where I saw it, actually.

Originally Posted by On Fairy-Stories

For creative Fantasy is founded upon the hard recognition that things are so in the world as it appears under the sun; on a recognition of fact, but not a slavery to it.

I think this is the point I was making earlier, if you think it valid. I have come across people in the past who thought the Lord of the Rings was too violent (books, not films, I did ask). My reaction indeed was 'I don't think it is'. Perhaps not compared to some stuff out there. I'm reading G.R.R Martin's A Game of thrones at the moment; this is a tad more graphic. But I get the impression from interviews and so on that that is what he wanted to do.

Tolkien, on the other hand, shies away from the graphic violence, as we have discussed. In the quote above I think we have a possible answer as to why this may be. One of the reasons I have loved Middle Earth is the fact that Tolkien delights in the brightness and good in his world. There are plenty of writers out there discussing the more gory details of war. I think Tolkien was writing, as he says, much for his own pleasure. A man who finds little pleasure in blood and guts, won't be in a hurry to pen it.

That's not to say there aren't the tragic and less desirable parts of the Legendarium. But plot is dependent on these things. The battle of Pelenor field would not have hit me so hard and remained in my memory if not for the passing of Théoden.

The tragic parts, such as the Scouring of the Shire and others, serve a much deeper purpose than simply balancing out good and evil. They effect the reader in a more emotional way than the blood and spilled entrails ever could. It is these events that hit hardest, that stay in the mind. Tolkien, I think, wanted his story to have these effects. The same things he had felt when reading myths and legends.

[davem]

From an account by Army surgeon Richard Wiseman at the Siege of Taunton in 1645, during the English Civil War. Horrible & graphic, but please read to the end..

One of Colonel Arundel's men, in storming the works, was shot in the face by case shot. He fell down and, in the retreat, was carried off among the dead; and laid in an empty house by the way till the next day; when, in the morning early, the colonel marching by that house heard a knocking within against the door.

Some of the officers, desiring to know what it was, looked in & saw this man standing by the door without eye, face, nose or mouth. The colonel sent to me....to dress the man. I went, but was somewhat troubled where to begin. The door consisted of two hatches: the uppeermost was open& the man stood leaning upon the other part of the door, which was shut. His face, with its eyes, nose. mouth & foremost part of the jaw with the chin, was shot away & the remaining parts of them driven in. One part of the jaw hung down by his throat & the other part pushed into it. I saw the brain working out underneath the lacerated scalp on both sides between his ears & brows.....

I could not see any advantage he could have by my dressing, but I helped him to clear his throat, ehere was remaining the root of his tongue. He seemed to approve of my endeavours & implored my help by the signs he made with his hands.

I asked him if he would drink. making a sign by the holding up of a finger. He presently did the like & immediately after held up both his hands, expressing his thirst. A soldier fetched some milk & brought a little wooden dish to pour some of it down his throat; but part of it running on both sides, he reached out his hands to take the dish. They gave it him full of milk. He held the root of his tongue down with one hand & with the other poured it down his throat (carrying his head backwards) & so got down more than a quart. After that I bound his wounds up

Yes, its horrible & graphic, but its also heartbreaking & brings home the true horror & pain of war in a way that nothing in Tolkien does.

Does that make my point any clearer?

[LadyBrooke]

*Looks at thread* Meep! I suggest that everybody takes a few deep breaths, back away for a moment, and try to calm down before people learn the reality of war from this thread. This is not a life or death situation, nobody is going to die because we can’t agree, and we do not want to become known as ‘the group of Tolkien fans that tried to bludgeon each other over the internet.’ As one of the youngest on the thread I think I can safely say that it is possible to keep one’s head cool, and not descend to the level of orcs. Note the description for the Books forum

In-depth discussions of Middle-earth for the learned and the curious. Everyone is welcome.

Learned implies a certain degree of maturity, and those who are curious have to be careful to not overstep the bounds of civility

Now on to my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Something that has struck me about The Lord of the Rings and, indeed, most of the Legendarium, has been the fact that, as you say, davem, violence is not depicted in grotesque or detailed terms. There are glimpses here and there, but nothing to the extent of the heroic deeds and so on. What strikes me as the possible reason is that Tolkien simply did not want to do this. When reading his essay On Fairy Stories as well as the forward to The Lord of the Rings (I vaguely remember something from the letters, but it's been so long since I read them-) that Tolkien was writing what he wanted.

Tolkien wrote he wanted, just like most other writers in this day and age who are not constrained to writing what a rich patron wanted them to write. Jane Austen wrote what she wanted, so did George MacDonald, C.S.Lewis, and many other writers still do today. After all, the best books to do seem to come from people who had the freedom to write what they wanted - not what the person dangling the money bag wanted

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

With The Silmarillion, Children of Hurin and so on, we have much broader strokes of the stories; details are left out because the vastness of the tail, you might say, thrusts it aside. Had the detail been the same in The Silmarillion as it was in The Lord of the Rings, could it be contained within the bounds of a paperback? Probably not; it would probably collapse in on itself and create a black hole.

If The Silmarillion had as much detail as LotR does, it would need it’s own zipcode, and would most likely have been broken up into a series of 50 books. Which I wouldn’t have minded.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Tolkien seems to relish and toughly enjoy telling us about the heroic deeds as well as the tragic tales. There we find some of his best writing. We enjoy it. We relish it. We are here discussing it. After all, what was Tolkien's duty other than to tell the story? Indeed, even that was not a duty, as such, but a need within him.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. As a writer myself, this is one of the things I’ve been trying to express in my posts. For some writers, we don’t think about duty or anything like that. It is a need to tell a story that drives us to stay up to 3am to finish just one more line or derive complex genealogies for characters that are mentioned once.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Besides all this, to my mind, Middle Earth was, for so long, a place beset with evil and horror. The seemingly endless war with Melkor and the battles with Sauron must have plagued their minds. Therefore, any act of heroism, I should think, would be savored and remembered. It would not surprise me if the same was true of heroic tales of our own world were born from the same mindset. Places racked with war seeking any way to think of better things. Who knows?

The idea of seeking any way to think of better things is one I am frequently seeing in my own area recently. I don’t know if anybody outside of Kentucky and Indiana has even noticed our recent problem, but in a 6 month period we have had two severe power outages lasting for over a week in some places due to hurricane winds and snow. And people have sought escape from thoughts of snow. In fact the week of the snow all of the radio stations were playing such songs as Sunshine and Summertime by Faith Hill.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Who is responsible for how readers use literature--or gamers, games--the users or the creators?

I feel extremely uncomfortable that this is even necessary to ask. Is nobody going to be held responsible for their own actions, these days? Even if you read a book titled 1,000,000 Ways to Destroy Earth, if you blow up the Earth it was your own decision. Not the book’s writer, not video games’ designer , not your dog’s. Yours.

Originally Posted by davem

Is that not intriguing? What would a psychologist make of a victim's account of a traumatic event which deliberately onitted the most horrific dimension.

While I am not a trained psychologist, I am (A.) Currently taking psychology for school credit and (B.) Somebody who has had an anxiety disorder, and has chosen to study all sorts of mental disorders and traumas. Therefore I feel I am in somewhat of a position to comment on this.

It is very intriguing, which is why I chose to start a thread on the psychological affects in the books and on Tolkien. A psychologist would likely make something along the lines of what I have already mentioned in this thread, and backed up with one of Tolkien’s own quotes from a letter. That is that Tolkien used his writings as a form of escapism, which is a frequent mode of coping with disaster - separating oneself from the actual event.

Originally Posted by Ibrînidilpathânezel

Fictional depiction of unpleasant truths can be educational -- but only up to a point, I believe. Beyond that threshold, it can undercut, distort, or even obliterate the message, because the audience stops listening, or listens out of fear.

Something like this happened in one of my history classes once. We had to watch this very realistic movie on the Holocaust. Brilliant movie and absolutely true to what happened. And yet myself and many of my classmates would be unable to tell you anything about what happened or even what it was called. Why? Because by the time we had seen a little of the movie, many of us were so desperate to just get these images out of our head, that we had all stopped watching. I myself just grabbed my arm and dug my nails in to have something else to focus on. It was too traumatizing, too realistic - we couldn’t deal with it. This was 15 and 16 year olds by the way. Sometimes it can be more damaging to show the complete truth, than it is to describe the basics and let the rest go. I sincerely believe we would have gotten more if they had just described the camps and the number of people - not just Jews - that died there.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

That's not to say there aren't the tragic and less desirable parts of the Legendarium. But plot is dependent on these things. The battle of Pelenor field would not have hit me so hard and remained in my memory if not for the passing of Théoden.

The tragic parts, such as the Scouring of the Shire and others, serve a much deeper purpose than simply balancing out good and evil. They effect the reader in a more emotional way than the blood and spilled entrails ever could. It is these events that hit hardest, that stay in the mind. Tolkien, I think, wanted his story to have these effects. The same things he had felt when reading myths and legends.

Touching briefly on Theoden’s death, I don’t think it would have affected me as hard if Tolkien had described what the actual death would have been like. It would have taken something away from Theoden’s speech and forgiveness of Merry for disobeying orders because the entire time I would have been like “He’s talking this much with a horse lying on top of him - WHAT?????”, but without that speech Theoden would have been less of a hero to me. If that makes sense.

Sometimes things have to be traded for other things. In this case I think the realistic part of war was put lower on the list of priorities to give Tolkien a chance to create characters that stand for hope to so many around the world.

That excerpt gave nothing to me except to make me feel a sense of hopelessness. What’s the point of living if there is no hope?

[davem]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

That excerpt gave nothing to me except to make me feel a sense of hopelessness. What’s the point of living if there is no hope?

Don't know if you're referring there to the excerpt I gave in my last post, but if you are then I'd have to argue with you. It depicts the reality of war, & to omit it from a tale of war is actually to turn a blind eye to what men like that unnamed soldier suffered & pretend he didn't suffer at all. It would have been nicer all round if the original shot had killed him quickly & cleanly, but it didn't.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

From an account by Army surgeon Richard Wiseman at the Siege of Taunton in 1645, during the English Civil War. Horrible & graphic, but please read to the end..

I quote only your source, davem, because it is its genre which is significant: an historical account, an eye witness. Would such extensive details be given in literary epics of war from the time--the Civil War? Did Cromwell's bloody assaults in Ireland make it into the poetry books? They certainly aren't collected in the usual anthologies of the time.

Compare these literary battle epics with Tolkien and consider how different or similar is his use of graphic detail to what they enlist:

The Battle of Maldon (Modern translation)

Selections from Sheamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf This link is particularly interesting as it is devoted to translations of the ancient poem from 1805/1826 to the present. I haven't read them all as I think Heaney's translation gives a good general sense of the epic style.

The point you are harping on, in a different context, would be well worth thinking about, the difference between historical war accounts and literary genres, or the difference between twentieth century attitudes towards war and those of earlier centuries. However, your bloody insistence that Tolkien's personal experience of war must necessarily trump his literary experience of war is a travesty of imaginative creativity as well as of psychology. We might well ask why Tolkien did not indulge in the modern style as the other war poets did (Sassoon etc), but that only shows again how his work is not "modern." Tolkien hated modern literature for its language style and loved old literature, for its language's sake. We can read his own acknowledgement that he sought a release from the personal imperative in the old epics.

But you haven't simply asked about the difference. You have couched it in a demand that Tolkien's work follow a different drummer, one whose beat you have measured. I suppose you think that's what makes this thread interesting, but like the straw man in The Wizard of Oz, it lacks real fibre--a spark or tinder ends it all.

But since you enjoy smoking so much--or at least defend it so often, here's some to enjoy

[LadyBrooke]

Yes, that is indeed the excerpt I am referring to. Yes, it depicts the reality of war, but I feel that instead of people learning the reality of war from literature they should learn it in real life. I can sit a kid a kid down, and read him the excerpt and half of them will think that it is ‘cool’. Guts and blood and brains splattered everywhere are ‘cool’ to many of my of peers because they see it on t.v. and movies - that doesn’t mean that they consider it reality. In fact, as long a book or movie or t.v. show is labeled fiction, it won’t matter how realistic the subject is portrayed, because it is in the same category as Twilight, Shakespeare, Nancy Drew and Jane Austin - all fiction. It can be ignored because it is not real.

People will not learn unless they see real people who have been hurt in real wars and have suffered real consequences. It is unfair to demand that Tolkien and other authors dealing in fictional worlds should have to carry a burden that isn’t demanded of our real world leaders and workers. Why not demand that our lawmakers, our teachers, and our newspaper writers teach the same? Our lawmakers can speak of heroic sacrifice without having to detail the grim reality of death many people suffer in war - and not just our soldiers' deaths but the civilians on the ground and that is acceptable. Nobody speaking of the nuclear bombings spoke of the reality of suffering for many years. It is a struggle to get benefits for soldiers unless one got national news coverage - just ask my great-uncle, who only got his benefits for his Vietnam injuries this past October.

People need to face issues in the real world, and stop blaming our literature, video games, movies, and television for what is in fact a failure to acknowledge reality in the real world. I am currently in High School and just finished taking World History last year. And never once was the real horror of war talked about. We managed to do a whole chapter on WWI without once talking about death beyond the obligatory so-and-so million people died in this war. The rest was on the political issues behind and during the war. That is why so many people can’t understand the reality of war - because unless you or a close friend or family member is fighting in it or lives in the country where it is taking place war isn’t real.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But you haven't simply asked about the difference. You have couched it in a demand that Tolkien's work follow a different drummer, one whose beat you have measured. I suppose you think that's what makes this thread interesting, but like the straw man in The Wizard of Oz, it lacks real fibre--a spark or tinder ends it all. :

No - I'm following the argument I linked to way back in the article by Poul Anderson & asking whether when a modern writer knows the historical reality, the facts of how people die in battle, how far a horse can actually gallop without collapsing, how long a man can swing a heavy sword without needing a rest he should take that into account in his fiction. In short how much of the primary world has to be brought in to a secondary world if the reader it to accept that secondary world.

Its also, interestingly, an issue Tolkien himself addressed in The Homecoming of Brythnoth, in the characters of Tida & Totta the old man who has seen the horrors of war at first hand & will not put up with the young poet's romantic approach to battle. For the poet, even as they trek through the corpses to find the body of their lord, death in battle is a glorious thing. For the old man that's a silly, juvenile attitude, & the poet needs to wake up & smell the excrement & hear the screams of the dying - because that's what war is really all about.

I don't know whether the writers of Maldon or Beowulf had experienced battle, but I do know, (as Tolkien himslelf did - read his 'Ofermod') that Tolkien had no time for Brythnoth's 'chivalry'. I do know that Tolkien had experienced war at first hand, & thus if he refuses to acknowledge what really happened that is his freely made choice. Not talking about war because of the horrors one has seen is one thing. Writing about war in a way that presents it sans all the horror that traumatised one is an odd response - to me.

Finally, if Tolkien can, in Sam, choose to honour the humble batman who was always there to help his officer, why would he not also choose to honour the poor bllody infantryman (probably conscripted after a deal of social pressure http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...te-feather.htm) who left the field like the soldier Richard Wisman records? A writer makes choices for a reason. One, surely, can ask what that reason was.

I'm not asking about "the difference between historical war accounts and literary genres," - but you can if you want. And going back to your question about whether Cromwell's bloody assaults in Ireland should have made it into the poetry books (or historical novels, which is the point here) I would say that, if a modern novelist, who knew what really happened there, was to write a historical novel about that event without mentioning the real horrors that took place, then that writer would be failing in his or her responsibility to their reader.

[Morthoron]

Trees. One would think a man like Tolkien, a professed lover of trees, would describe them more realistically. But no! His trees walk about and grumble and eat people! It's preposterous! I think Tolkien was barking up the wrong tree on this one, and gives the reader a stilted view in his depictions that in no way mirror real life. Some readers may get an altogether wrong impression about trees, and the way Tolkien glorifies trees going to war. They may cringe whenever they pass a malevolent maple or bellicose beech, eventually contracting dendrophobia, and flee in terror from a sullen spruce, irrationally fearing that it will engorge the family dog.

In an age when environmentalism and ecology are crucial subjects and the effects of global warming are more pronounced every day, it is evident we need more trees; unfortunately, frightened people, having been been fooled by the nefarious machinations of Tolkien, will eschew the planting of trees and may suggest at their local city council meetings that trees be banned altogether due to their insidious encroachment on eaves, awnings and underground water pipes and sewage lines, as well as the negative effects barbarous trees may have on impressionable youths. It only takes one bad apple tree to spoil the whole bunch.

Was Tolkien aware of the damage he wrought? Wouldn't it have been far more responsible to portray trees as noncombatative and less curmudgeonly? Arborism may not been Tolkien's branch of study, but he knew enough about trees from personal experience to know better. I am shocked and appalled!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

. In short how much of the primary world has to be brought in to a secondary world if the reader it to accept that secondary world.

This short takes us back to the readers as having the final say on what successfully constitutes an achieved secondary world.

Based on the legions of Tolkien fans, the answer seems to be that Tolkien's readers accept the secondary world he has created. And not only do they accept that secondary world, they go to some effort to attempt to enter it themselves, to imaginatively recreating it, whether it is the costume dinners at Tolkien events or simply painting their homes in a Middle-earth style or designing sub-divisions to ressemble Middle-earth, or searching for replicas of the weapons.

There are many readers who don't take to Tolkien's Middle-earth and possibly they are the ones who object to his depiction of war, although they'd have to read far into LotR to become disenchanted with his battles. From my experience, these readers don't cotton much to the genre of fantasy itself.

Originally Posted by davem

I do know that Tolkien had experienced war at first hand, & thus if he refuses to acknowledge what really happened that is his freely made choice.

But he did acknowledge it, just not where you want it. That's what his Homecoming of Brythnoth is about, as you have ably stated.

Originally Posted by davem

(or historical novels, which is the point here)

Ah but perhaps the difficulty lies with this definition of LotR's genre. While clearly there is a strong impetus to presenting it as if it were history, it lies uneasily in this category. LotR is not a novel within the tradition of realistic novel. Many characters do not have the kind of development seen in, say, E. M. Forrester's novels or Viriginia Woolf's novels (whose work for that matter isn't historical novel either). They fall within the style and type of Dickens' Mr. Gradgrind. Their style of speech changes; Legolas and Gimli lose their distinctively different speech patterns later in LotR and come both to speak in heroic measure. In fact, the style of language in LotR changes, an inconsistency often brought out by those who want LotR to be within this novelistic tradition. And as Morthoron has so humorously pointed out--forum hardware's not letting me rep you, Morth-- Tokien's trees aren't biologically accurate either. Nor are his flying taxis, the eagles, nor his talking foxes. The significance and presence granted to verse in LotR also differentiates it from historical novels. In fact, some might even argue that LoR is not a novel at all. It is . . . fantasy. I sort of think that's what Morthoron's getting at too.

Yet, as I say, legions of fans accept his secondary world as if it were real. Why, I could even quote our illustrious Legate to that, from another thread.

gotta run. ta ta.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

save for a brief mention of Imrahil's pauldrons

Er, that would be vambraces, and plate forearm-guards go back at least as far as the Greeks.

Still, the point is quite well taken. For whatever reason Tolkien chose to freeze military technology at about the time of Hastings. Probably because he was concerned with *decline*- the weapons of the Elder Days were, by authorial fiat, better than those of the decadent Third Age. Of course, that's pretty much exactly the way his beloved Old English viewed things: Roman ruins were 'eald enta gweorc,' ancient works of giants.

[alatar]

Despite the fact that this thread has changed tracks, changed trains, gone back to the stations a few times, resisted various attempts of hijacking and demolition, it remains an interesting read.

But let's skip warfare for a moment, as that's too removed from many people's lives. Or at least let's look at the ravages of another war, a war we all fight and lose, the war against time. Throw into the mix disease, and you have yourself a pretty picture of the primary world we call life.

Visit a care facility where people - real people - are biding their last few days of life. See how many, once noble, are reduced to the kind of care of that of an infant. Look in their eyes and see that divine spark missing - the body is there, but the mind, the spirit, has already left. Smell the underlying scent of disease and decay and death and offal, and hear the moanings of the lost and suffering, and beeps and hummings of the life-sustaining machines that continue on long after the person has been declared dead.

If a loved one is in such a place, would this be how we would want to remember him/her? Or do we remember that warm but not yet hazy day on the ball field, with the early sun casting shadowed trees long across the field, when we helped the 'Old Man' get ready for his softball game by playing some catch?

So can we blame Tolkien for not wanting to write a perfectly accurate description of life? Don't we all want to leave this world and all of its ugliness behind for a while? Not only did Tolkien created characters without feet of clay, but also kept their semi-angelic feet out of the muck as well.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Er, that would be vambraces, and plate forearm-guards go back at least as far as the Greeks.

Still, the point is quite well taken. For whatever reason Tolkien chose to freeze military technology at about the time of Hastings. Probably because he was concerned with *decline*- the weapons of the Elder Days were, by authorial fiat, better than those of the decadent Third Age. Of course, that's pretty much exactly the way his beloved Old English viewed things: Roman ruins were 'eald enta gweorc,' ancient works of giants.

Or perhaps he does not see the advent of automatic or more advanced weapons / armor and such as being 'progress'.

Originally Posted by davem

I do know that Tolkien had experienced war at first hand, & thus if he refuses to acknowledge what really happened that is his freely made choice.

I agree that this is indeed strange. As I mentioned, you have to keep in mind that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were written for Tolkien's "own satisfaction" more than anything. While nowadays writers are encouraged to face up to realities and deal with horrors, I'm not sure Tolkien was, or if he was, it was probably by people that annoyed him. And you know what academics can be like with people that annoy them.

I'm speculating, of course.

We can say what Tolkien should have done until the end of days. A different writer may have focussed on the gore, but Tolkien did not. My feeling is that the horrors of war were well known to his audience, the first two World Wars still a raw memory.

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, its horrible & graphic, but its also heartbreaking & brings home the true horror & pain of war in a way that nothing in Tolkien does.

Here, I fear, we must agree to disagree. Without the knowledge of characters the section loses much of its effect. The loss in itself of a favored or enjoyed character is often enough, for me anyway. The details can add something, but a lack of them does not take anything away. For example, had Tolkien gone to great lengths to talk about the blood pouring from Boromir's arrow wounds or how it had pierced his lungs and so forth, I do not think it would make the scene any more powerful than it is. Not to me, anyway. But then, perhaps I am a little squeamish.

More than torn skin and bleeding faces, what brings the horror of war home, from my own view, was the souring of the Shire. Indeed, the Hobbits comment on how "it really brings it home to you because it is home".

Not that there isn't something to be said for graphic detail having a power. But I think it is of a different sort. I actually admire Tolkien for taking a different look at the realities and affects of war; destroyed homes and lives, things never being the same again. These are the long lasting, even generation-spanning effects.

Or something like that.

[Gwathagor]

Perhaps graphic violence would have been considered out of place in the fantasy genre as it existed at the time? That is as legitimate a reason as any.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But he did acknowledge it, just not where you want it. That's what his Homecoming of Bryhtnoth is about, as you have ably stated.

I'd see HoB differently, & this is why I brought it up. Tida, the old man, specifically attacks Totta's (the young poet) romantic/heroic take on warfare. Tida mocks Totta's idealism, telling him that if he is unfortunate enough to find himself in a battle he will realise that its not like the poems & songs he makes so much of. This conversation takes place while the two search for their fallen lord's body, picking their way through the corpses at night, while the 'masterless men' rob the dead. This is Tolkien himself speaking through the old warrior of the harsh reality of war, stating in no uncertain terms that he is wrong to view war as the playground of heroes. That the battlefield is a place where people get cut down, die painfully, & their corpses are left to scavengers.

Can we see this as in anyway Tolkien's response to certain aspects of his own work? I think so - in the same way as CoH can be seen almost as the inverted image of LotR. Its too simplistic to claim that Tolkien was seeking in his fiction to escape his own experiences - which is why (at the risk of repeating myself!) I have kept on rejecting that overly simplistic explanation. He gave us a novel, in LotR, in which warfare is reduced to heroic fantasy, but he knows very well (& tells us very clearly in HoB/CoH) that its not like that. In some of his works he is Totta, in others, he is Tida. Therefore, because he doesn't adopt a single approach to warfare in all his works its valid to ask why in LotR he glamourises war.

Originally Posted by Hookbill

Here, I fear, we must agree to disagree. Without the knowledge of characters the section loses much of its effect.

Well, the point is Wiseman & the wounded soldier were real people. We may not know even the soldier's name, but what we do know is that he was once a baby in his mother's arms, that he ran around & played with other children, that he grew up to manhood, joined the army & ended as we saw. The horror of his fate, so graphically (but not gratuitously) described brings home the true horror of his fate. He was a man like us, & his fate could be ours, or our children's.