Fantasy

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

So if in Tolkien world we have devolved from the heroes of old, and if the ability to lay down one's life was previously available, how do we know that the soldiery in, say, the Third Age, when fatally injured on the battle, just 'turned off,' after uttering some pro-Gondorian salute?

"May the King return!"

.

Because Tolkien never mentions anything of the sort. One might as well offer up the explanation that Earedel hovered invisibly over the battlefields & teleported the corpses off the field. Or that lots of carnivorous butterflies alighted on the bodies & ate them.

What you're doing, it seems to me, is inventing an 'explanation' for which there's no textual support in order to avoid the difficulties in the story. The simplest explanation is that Tolkien decided not to deal with the actual, unpleasant realities of warfare (& other things) because he didn't want such things in his story. The question is whether he was justified in doing that?

And further, if Tolkien is justified in doing that, because he is 'subcreating' a secondary world, how can one condemn, say, Philip Pullman for presenting us with a God who is a senile old fake, or any writer creating a secondary world in which black people are sub-human, rape is fun for all concerned, or mass murder of jews is a moral act?

OK - I've taken extreme examples there, but that's what it comes down to - does the fantasy genre permit any degree of 'invention' on a writer's part? I'm fairly sure that many who would defend Tolkien's right to omit the 'unpleasant' realities of death in battle in Middle-earth, would condemn Pullman's depiction of God - not simply as 'offensive' but also as untrue....

Because, we either say that fantasy as a genre allows total freedom to a writer to depict any kind of world they wish & we, as readers, must not question that right, or we accept that we do have a right to question the choices a writer of fantasy makes, the omissions & inclusions.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

And further, if Tolkien is justified in doing that, because he is 'subcreating' a secondary world, how can one condemn, say, Philip Pullman for presenting us with a God who is a senile old fake, or any writer creating a secondary world in which black people are sub-human, rape is fun for all concerned, or mass murder of jews is a moral act?

OK - I've taken extreme examples there, but that's what it comes down to - does the fantasy genre permit any degree of 'invention' on a writer's part? I'm fairly sure that many who would defend Tolkien's right to omit the 'unpleasant' realities of death in battle in Middle-earth, would condemn Pullman's depiction of God - not simply as 'offensive' but also as untrue....

Your extreme examples would very likely not be allowed--that is, would be taken to court if published--in the realistic fiction you trumpet so much, at least in the countries which have laws against hate literature while also eschewing censorship, so those restrictions would also pertain to fantasy.

Originally Posted by davem

Because, we either say that fantasy as a genre allows total freedom to a writer to depict any kind of world they wish & we, as readers, must not question that right, or we accept that we do have a right to question the choices a writer of fantasy makes, the omissions & inclusions.

This is a false dichotomy. This is not an 'either/or' situation, as there are more than just these two choices.

For instance, readers have the right to question, explore, and examine the choices a writer makes, but the significant issue is the grounds which determine the questionings, exploring or examining, because those grounds make the questioning more or less credible.

davem's answer to the observation about Tolkien's war descriptions (which has not itself gone unchallenged) is to argue that only historical veracity is the true and acceptable measure. This ignores Tolkien's other criteria, of arresting strangeness, as well as overlooking Tolkien's insistence that LotR was not a veiled representation of WWII.

As I said, this ain't an either/or situation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Your extreme examples would very likely not be allowed--that is, would be taken to court if published--in the realistic fiction you trumpet so much, at least in the countries which have laws against hate literature while also eschewing censorship, so those restrictions would also pertain to fantasy.

Exactly. And we're all fine with that. It would be illegal (though not everyone would consider all those examples to be 'immoral' - many athiests find Pullman's depiction of God & the Church perfectly fine, many believers not. Many white supremacists would find 'sub human' black people perfectly acceptable, if not simply 'true' according to their lights).

Thus, a line does exist as to what's acceptable & what isn't - 'Fantasy' as a genre does not = anything goes. We expect certain standards to be maintained, certain boundaries to be upheld. But are they simply 'negative' boundaries - 'Within these set bounds you may do as you please", or are there more 'positive' requirements? Has political correctness entered the secondary world? We know from what we know of Tolkien, the old school Catholic who attended Mass everyday, that homosexuality & adultery would (if they had appeared in his world) have been 'sinful' & that no 'good' person would have done either. Yet, if homosexual acts had been presented by Tolkien as 'Orcish' or immoral, would we have accepted that as being within those 'bounds' I mentioned earlier, or not? Probably at the time it was published they would have been, but nowadays not. So, Tolkien's presentation of war, specifically of death in battle, is not 'true'. Battles involving men dying on the end of sharpened metal implements of various ingenious designs were not as Tolkien depicted them. And Tolkien knew they weren't. More importantly, we nowadays, know they weren't. Yet, though we (or most of us) would not accept a depiction of homosexuality as sinful & as solely the province of 'bad' people, we do accept a sanitised & completely misleading depiction of warfare.

For instance, readers have the right to question, explore, and examine the choices a writer makes, but the significant issue is the grounds which determine the questionings, exploring or examining, because those grounds make the questioning more or less credible.

And who determines those 'grounds'? Who decides what questions can be asked & which questions (or perhaps questioners) are verboten? I cannot help feeling that that issue, too, is to be decided (as with what is acceptable in fantasy fiction) on subjective grounds. Either a question is valid (whatever the grounds it is asked on) - ie is 'logical', or it is invalid - therefore illogical & thus impossible to answer.

This ignores Tolkien's other criteria, of arresting strangeness, as well as overlooking Tolkien's insistence that LotR was not a veiled representation of WWII.

I don't see how an honest depiction of war excludes 'arresting sttrangeness' - it may even enhance it - the etherial beauty, the arresting strangeness, of Lorien would only be magnified by contrating it to the true horror of death on the Pelennor. And I don't see where WWII comes into it. Hacking someone with a broadsword will produce certain physiological effects which, being universal, & determined by the essential nature of the human body, are timeless, & not limited to events in WWII. In fact, I would say that the very use of implements such as swords & spears, as opposed to machine guns & hand grenades is sufficient in itself to seperate the War of the Ring from WWII.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Because Tolkien never mentions anything of the sort. One might as well offer up the explanation that Earedel hovered invisibly over the battlefields & teleported the corpses off the field. Or that lots of carnivorous butterflies alighted on the bodies & ate them.

Please...

What you're doing, it seems to me, is inventing an 'explanation' for which there's no textual support in order to avoid the difficulties in the story.

It's very possible that I just like having a good discussion with you.

Anyway, to put you in the dock for a moment:

• Do you affirm or deny that there is textual support that someone of Númenórean descent could stop living at a self-determined moment, though we may not know the mechanism?

• Do you affirm or deny that there is textual support for the existence of Númenórean 'blood' in the soldier population of Gondor at the end of the Third Age, regardless of the amount?

• Do you affirm or deny that there is textual support that makes my supposition completely impossible (i.e. a direct and clear statement to the fact that men with Númenórean blood could not chose the moment of their deaths)?

However much my paranoia makes me believe in carnivorous butterflies, there is no textual support, as you indicate, for the same. I would believe that there are insects in Middle Earth, as we see examples of the midges and neekerbreekers and having poor Grima name 'Worm.' Surely some type of bug - so close to Mordor - would attack the wounds and flesh of the dying on the battlefield. But butterflies? I'd believe locusts or spiders or ants or beetles, as they 'eat' things whereas butterflies are nectar drinkers (or whatever the technical term is).

The simplest explanation is that Tolkien decided not to deal with the actual, unpleasant realities of warfare (& other things) because he didn't want such things in his story. The question is whether he was justified in doing that?

Okay, so I think that this is a more fair and understandable question. What justice do you seek from his writings? Again, if we are including 'what really happens,' we don't have to stop at the battlefield. Is this an issue with fantasy, or with writing a whole? How would the story change if we have to 'real up' every scene? Where did Bilbo store his butter? How did he keep Bag End so dry...dry enough to store books? Etc.

And further, if Tolkien is justified in doing that, because he is 'subcreating' a secondary world, how can one condemn, say, Philip Pullman for presenting us with a God who is a senile old fake, or any writer creating a secondary world in which black people are sub-human, rape is fun for all concerned, or mass murder of jews is a moral act?

I'm sure that it's all in the head of the reader. If the writer can create something plausible that a reader can then accept; well, there you would have it.

If you ever get the chance, speaking of bugs, read, "Hellstrom's Hive" by Frank Herbert. Tell me that by the end you're not rooting for the insect humans over our current society. Why? Because the writer set up a scenario that me as the reader could accept as plausible. Now, when I put the book down, I'm not looking forward to becoming a bug-like species, but when in the book, I can see it.

OK - I've taken extreme examples there, but that's what it comes down to - does the fantasy genre permit any degree of 'invention' on a writer's part? I'm fairly sure that many who would defend Tolkien's right to omit the 'unpleasant' realities of death in battle in Middle-earth, would condemn Pullman's depiction of God - not simply as 'offensive' but also as untrue....

Readers' experiences with materials may vary.

Because, we either say that fantasy as a genre allows total freedom to a writer to depict any kind of world they wish & we, as readers, must not question that right, or we accept that we do have a right to question the choices a writer of fantasy makes, the omissions & inclusions.

Writers can do whatever they like (within the law, of course), and readers can decide whether the work is good or not.

Seems to me that many must agree that Tolkien's battlefield depictions work.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

• Do you affirm or deny that there is textual support that makes my supposition completely impossible (i.e. a direct and clear statement to the fact that men with Númenórean blood could not chose the moment of their deaths)?

Denethor had Numenorean blood but he still had to resort to immolation. I suspect that in the height of battle the necessary peace of mind would be absent - particularly if one was missing limbs/intestines. Howsumever...what of those who didn't have Numenorean blood (like Hobbits & Rohirrim?)

However much my paranoia makes me believe in carnivorous butterflies, there is no textual support, as you indicate, for the same. I would believe that there are insects in Middle Earth, as we see examples of the midges and neekerbreekers and having poor Grima name 'Worm.'

I won't deny the possibility - merely note that there would have to be a lot of them present. (BTW 'Worm' in Grima's nickname surely references a Wyrm or Dragon in the sense of false speaking)

How would the story change if we have to 'real up' every scene? Where did Bilbo store his butter? How did he keep Bag End so dry...dry enough to store books? Etc.

I think its entirely plausible to build such a hole - given decent damp-proofing etc

Seems to me that many must agree that Tolkien's battlefield depictions work.

Actually, from many of the threads & individual posts I've come across on the Downs its fairly clear that many readers have no real knowledge of medieval warfare or the effect of medieval weaponry on the human body, let alone the truth about what happened on the battlefield (how about the fact that bodies of prominent persons would often be boiled in great cauldrons to get rid of the flesh so that the bones could then be transported back to their local church for inhumation?)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Denethor had Numenorean blood but he still had to resort to immolation.

Not sure that that's a good example. Methinks that Denethor wanted not only to die but to keep his lifeless body out of the hands of the orcs.

I suspect that in the height of battle the necessary peace of mind would be absent - particularly if one was missing limbs/intestines. Howsumever...what of those who didn't have Numenorean blood (like Hobbits & Rohirrim?)

Agreed. Just stating 'possible' and not 'probable.'

No hobbits were hurt beyond a hurt arm and a good bruising (those in the Shire had no death scenes and so obviously died instantaneously). And we all know that the Rohirrim, mounted as they were, would have most likely broken their necks as they fell from their horses - again, no pain and suffering. Theoden was crushed by Snowmane, and he never cried out.

(BTW 'Worm' in Grima's nickname surely references a Wyrm or Dragon in the sense of false speaking)

Considered that as a possibility, but that would assume I knew what you'd stated. Had I not, I would have happily thought for all time that he was named thus due to his slimy character. Does the word 'worm' as it applies to Dragon-kind appear in LotR?

I think its entirely plausible to build such a hole - given decent damp-proofing etc

What I'm getting it is I assume that when you read the scene where Gandalf and Bilbo (or Frodo) are dialoguing in Bag End, thoughts of waterproofing the structure were far from your mind. When reading about the various battles in LotR, I intellectually know that people are dying in very ugly ways, and that the battlefield is strewn with those whom pity is the only thing you can give to them, as they are beyond aid. That said, in no scene was this my focus as I continued to read onward to see what was to happen next.

Sure, Tolkien could have made a point that dying thus was ugly, but I don't think that that was a major consideration in what he was trying to accomplish. If I were selling you a car/auto/<insert your local word here>, I would not spend much time extolling the virtues of the PCV valve. Yes, it's in there and is important, but I think that you may be more interesting in other details, such as the engine, the colour, the horsepower, the features and if it has room for children.

Actually, from many of the threads & individual posts I've come across on the Downs its fairly clear that many readers have no real knowledge of medieval warfare or the effect of medieval weaponry on the human body, let alone the truth about what happened on the battlefield (how about the fact that bodies of prominent persons would often be boiled in great cauldrons to get rid of the flesh so that the bones could then be transported back to their local church for inhumation?)

Interesting. I too think it fairly clear that many readers (you and me excluded, though I'm not too sure about you...or me ) haven't any idea how the internet works, how a computer is made, the basics of science, history before they were aware among many other things, and yet they find enjoyment in both Tolkien's words as well as those here on the Downs.

If I wanted reality, I would switch on the news...or maybe not.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Really, Dave, are you saying that we should trash Casablanca as a bogus or illegitimate movie because it doesn't show Maj Strasser's convulsive death agonies after Reynaud gut-shoots him? That is a slow, painful and messy way to die, and Cukor wimped out.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Considered that as a possibility, but that would assume I knew what you'd stated. Had I not, I would have happily thought for all time that he was named thus due to his slimy character. Does the word 'worm' as it applies to Dragon-kind appear in LotR?

There's a single reference (as far as I remember) to Scatha the Worm - Merry's horn comes from his hoard.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Really, Dave, are you saying that we should trash Casablanca as a bogus or illegitimate movie because it doesn't show Maj Strasser's convulsive death agonies after Reynaud gut-shoots him? That is a slow, painful and messy way to die, and Cukor wimped out.

I'd say it should have been made apparent how he died. But that's what I'm asking others about - whether there is an obligation on a writer to depict honestly what he knows to be true, or whether. particularly in Fantasy, the writer has special exemption from 'facts'. Shouldn't violent death be shocking, rather than sanitised to the point of meaninglessness? In a story about Death shouldn't the truth about death be brought to the fore?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Does the word 'worm' as it applies to Dragon-kind appear in LotR?

There's a single reference (as far as I remember) to Scatha the Worm - Merry's horn comes from his hoard.

Also in the Hobbit (on the map, the Great Worms of the Withered Heath; and BB's reference to Smaug as an "old Worm.") And of course Farmer Giles is full of 'worms'.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar to davem

It's very possible that I just like having a good discussion with you.

Yes, it's rather like watching a spin doctor work on a politician's errs and mistakes.

Originally Posted by alatar

I would believe that there are insects in Middle Earth, as we see examples of the midges and neekerbreekers and having poor Grima name 'Worm.' Surely some type of bug - so close to Mordor - would attack the wounds and flesh of the dying on the battlefield.

Where there's spiders, there must be webs, ergo, critters of all sorts to catch and feed upon.

Originally Posted by davem

Thus, a line does exist as to what's acceptable & what isn't - 'Fantasy' as a genre does not = anything goes. We expect certain standards to be maintained, certain boundaries to be upheld.

The justification or explanation of the limitations to published work of any genre is whether this work promulgates or incites hatred towards a person or an identifiable group of people, not whether it falls within or without the moral tenets of a particular ideology or faith. Perhaps you might wish to work on an argument whether this includes Pullman's god or not, since you seem to enjoy bringing up Pullman so often in this discussion.

Originally Posted by davem

And who determines those 'grounds'? Who decides what questions can be asked & which questions (or perhaps questioners) are verboten?

*sighs* It's either the author's Fairy Godmother or those angels and demons that sit, one on each side, of readers' shoulders.

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see how an honest depiction of war excludes 'arresting sttrangeness'

Leaving aside that word "honest", the use of which has been refuted many times earlier on this thread to at least my satisfaction, I thought you have been arguing lo! these many posts that Tolkien's depiction of war is strange. Have you changed your mind now or is this just more of your spin doctoring?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The justification or explanation of the limitations to published work of any genre is whether this work promulgates or incites hatred towards a person or an identifiable group of people, not whether it falls within or without the moral tenets of a particular ideology or faith.

And that would apply if the 'person' was Hitler, or Torquemada, or the 'identifiable group of people' included Nazis, White Supremacists, suicide bombers...? Or are certain 'identifiable groups of people' excluded?

Leaving aside that word "honest", the use of which has been refuted many times earlier on this thread to at least my satisfaction,

I'd say it has merely been rejected...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The justification or explanation of the limitations to published work of any genre is whether this work promulgates or incites hatred towards a person or an identifiable group of people

No. No no no no no no no. No, no, NO. I will go to the mat opposing the false, pernicious and tyrannical false dichotomy between free speech and 'hate speech,' the tool of despots. No power, prince, potentate or Certified Victim Group gets a veto over any expression or opinion whatsoever. Not now, not ever.

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” - Noam Chomsky

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." — C. S. Lewis

And JRRT: "I am not a "socialist" in any sense - being averse to "planning" (as must be plain) most of all because the "planners", when they acquire power, become so bad ."
-- and the most awful crime of the planners is the determination of which thoughts and opinions must be 'planned' out of existence.

[davem]

In the wider fantasy context - this is interesting - Disney's new moviehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...TE-prince.html

One disappointed fan wrote (sic): 'I think it's sad that he is white because its saying that black love isn't good enough and that black men could never be princes.

‘Disney had the perfect chance to make its first black prince, but instead it decided to go the controversial route.'

Another complained (sic): ‘I am very disappointed and I wished Disney had made the prince black,(and the ironic thing is the prince in the movie is white but the evil voodoo villain is voiced by a black actor and is black).’

Since announcing their plans for the first black princess in 2006 the production of Hollywood studio's 49th animated film has been dogged by racial controversy.

Originally called The Frog Princess, its heroine was to be a chambermaid called Maddy working for a spoilt white debutante in 1920s New Orleans.

But the storyline sparked a backlash from critics who claimed it reinforced prejudice and demeaned black people.

The princess’s original name was perceived by some to be a stereotypical ‘slave name’ and she was also a maid working for a wealthy white boss, which was criticised as being racially insensitive.

Even the New Orleans setting for the film was questioned as it had overtones of voodoo and slavery.

Disney has insisted its choice of a black princess was part of a policy to give characters as much diversity as possible.

Now, one could put forward all kinds of objections to these comments - starting with the 'bleedin' obvious' one that there were no black princesses in 1920's New Orleans (or black princes for that matter) but there were a surfeit of black maids - so in terms of historical accuracy the original script was 'truer' - & if a maid, then working for a wealthy white boss is hardly pushing at the bounds of reality.

One could go further & point out that there were (& still are) white princes, so that the fact that the prince in the story is white is again still within the bounds of likelihood. Further, just as there were & are white princes in this world there are black villains. So, nothing in the original script or the finished movie are 'untrue' as such.. One could even point up the fact that this 'black' princess is actually (if one sets aside skin colour) a 'European' princess - her dress, her lifestyle, even the house she lives in, are European in origin. Yet there are no objections being raised to the fact that 'European' culture is being presented as superior to 'African'.

Thus, it seems that in order for this movie to tick all the right boxes both the princess & the prince must be black - despite the fact that that would have been impossible in the New Orleans of the 1920's - & the villain should have been a white magician (or a white black magician - if you see what I mean). Or, in short, for the movie to be acceptable it must bear no resemblance to the facts as known.

But its fantasy, so any relation to reality at all is not a requirement. Mind you - it does have a talking frog (albeit one that is an enchanted white prince) so we mustn't push the demand for realism too far. Howevah...The objections to the movie are actually demanding a recognition & acknowledgement of 'facts' - that to present a young black woman as a servant to a rich white boss is more demeaning even than presenting her as a European princess, & that black men in a democracy have as much right to be princes as white men. And that white men can be black magicians.

Hence & thus, there is a demand that certain truths be present & fully acknowledged in this fantasy, but an equal demand that other truths be ignored. And that, I would say, is the core of this discussion.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

But its fantasy, so any relation to reality at all is not a requirement.

Hence & thus, there is a demand that certain truths be present & fully acknowledged in this fantasy, but an equal demand that other truths be ignored. And that, I would say, is the core of this discussion.

I don't think that 'truth' is the issue. The word I think to be more useful is 'plausibility.'

Some people are intellectually lazy; many not. Regardless, most do not take their conception of a thing or the world out every often, if ever, to see it really really works. We don't have time for that kind of in-depth analysis; sometimes we don't want to see where the analysis may lead. We pattern match, take shortcuts, use stereotypes, etc, all to get to the 'important' data or issue. Compromises are made fairly often.

Again, this isn't because people are stupid or lazy. I think that our brains are wired to screen all of the massive amounts of data that we are constantly receiving for relevance. Is it important? Do I need to look at something more closely? Or is there something else higher on the list? If so...

Sure; whatever...

We read about these toe-to-toe battles in Middle Earth, and if we thought about it, as davem may have pointed out maybe once or twice, it's a real visceral ugly abattoir-kind of event. But we're more interested in Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn and the like and so when Faramir's wounded are retreating back to the Gate, are we thinking about the guy with the compound fracture limping along as his life pours from his wound? Or do we gloss over that possibility to see what happens next?

Sure; whatever...

Anyway, a writer can write whatever he or she or it (hate to be specisist), and if the work works, is plausible, we can overlook where reality is cruelly tread upon because the work has crossed the plausibility threshold, and so issues with the same drop down on the priority list; superseded, mayhap, by questions such as: is this a good story, regardless of the genetic background of the protagonist? Is it sating the need I have to escape the world of reality for a moment before I drift off into sleep each night?

Sure; whatever...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

And that would apply if the 'person' was Hitler, or Torquemada, or the 'identifiable group of people' included Nazis, White Supremacists, suicide bombers...? Or are certain 'identifiable groups of people' excluded?

Since you are so eager to learn about Canadian law, which was what I was referencing, here's a link that explains it: when hate is a crime It's a contentious law--as William Cloud Hicklin's post makes clear, so I'll also post this link: Parliamentary Information and Research on Hate Propaganda

However, the existence of the law serves the function in this discussion of proving that not just fantasy but all writing is subject to legal limits to what is allowed.

Originally Posted by davem

I'd say it has merely been rejected...

You say to-mah-to and I say to-may-to.

But its fantasy, so any relation to reality at all is not a requirement

This statement ignores the quotations from Tolkien's OFS that set up two requirements for fantasy, credibility and arresting strangeness, which is the core of the discussion.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Canadian law, which was what I was referencing, here's a link that explains it: when hate is a crime It's a contentious law...

That's putting it mildly, when it comes to the infamous "Human Rights" Commissions and the ghastly Section 13.

Just because some nation, even our close friend and neighbor, enacts a law more appropriate to Stalin's USSR, that doesn't make the conception legitimate.