Fantasy

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Its not, I think, that Tolkien glorifies war so much as 'sanitises' the rough end of it. One example that springs instantly to mind is the death of Boromir. The fact that he dies pierced by arrows means that when Faramir sees the Elven boat bearing him pass by he looks as if he is sleeping peacefully & thus even in death he retains dignity. He does not die on the recieving end of an Orc poleaxe which takes off half his face so that Faramir sees him looking like he died an agonising death, choking on his own blood & broken teeth . We don't encounter any of our heroes with ugly, badly healed facial wounds.

I've thought of this often and always intended to respond to this post, since I read the myth of Cuchulainn. (sp?) The seminal mythic story in regard to this Celtic hero is that he goes into a berserker rage and single handedly kills a whole army, leaving bodies six deep on the battle field. The story is told in a way that revels in the gory details. Compare this to tales from the Nordic mythos. There is violence, but there is not revelry; rather, tragedy. The details serve to heighten the emotional intensity of the story rather than excite one to revel in the amazing (and happy - for the hero) effects of a berserker rage on the hero.

In other words, it seems to me that what is being called "realism" here is not actually more real than a so-called "sanitised" description. Tolkien writes in an essentially Nordic mode, if you will, because that's the kind of story he is writing. It is not Celtic in the sense of reveling in gore.