If I see a very realistic painting, I will say that it is well-painted and that it is real. However, I would not necessarily say that the picture is true. It might be too good to be true for me, but if the painter can attest to its being true, then it is true.
But if I see a painting that depicts brutal settings, for example, and looks as if it was created in haste and not very realistically, yet I know that it shows what is really happening, then it is true, regardless of how I see it physically.
(I recall the book "All-American Girl" by Meg Cabot telling something about this. If you have read the book, then I'm sure you understand me. Or maybe not.)
I am probably just repeating what others have been saying all along, but I cannot quote everyone. Reality is defined by how each of us sees it. If we think poverty is not real and then see slum areas, that will teach us that we are wrong. But the truth is there, whether we see it or not.
As for LotR, I can feel myself being sucked into Middle Earth as I read. When I put the book down, for a moment it seems as though I've just been transported from one world to another, with no idea where I really am. After a while, I will remember that I am in the classroom, waiting for my teacher to come...and then I read the book again.
In itself, LotR is real. Tolkien's profound descriptions, powerful dialogues, and intensely emotional characters make it real for me. But I know my limits. There is no Middle Earth. Eowyn is not true-to-life, although I see how much we have in common. Tolkien's experiences may make LotR be "based on true story" or at least inspired by them, but in our world LotR is not real. The most that the books can do for us is make us laugh, make us cry, inspire us, and more, but they cannot tell us that, "Hey, this is what happened sometime in the world. This is historical."
|