[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Very good Orual. I don't hate guns, but I do love swords. Yes they are more honorable but the real reason I like them is because they are more classic.

You said

but the Lord of the Rings is a very, sometimes harshly, realistic book. If it wasn't so realistic, then it probably would've taken the cheap way out and had everybody live "happily ever after." It's a world for us to escape to, but it's still a world, with all of the problems and realities thereof.

I do agree with you. I think that people think of it as fantasy and not reality on a general term. The same goes fo sci-fi (I say that fantasy and sci-fi have many similarities but there are major differences that draw the line between them). People don't think of it as realistic because a lot of things were not real and never were. Like wizards for example. They might say that LotR seems 'fake' and non-realistic because there were never wizards. True, but what they should really say is that its not reality instead of saying that its not realistic, because reality and realistic have two separate meanings. Reality means that some thing is/was real or true, while realistic means that something doesn't have to be real, but it has to have a truthful or real quality to it. And I think that LotR is realistic because it has truthful and real themes. Two themes I saw when reading LotR I showed in this thread In praise of Sam's Pans. The thread was about Sam letting go of his pans on the quest, and what I said was

I don't think that it was necessary for the fullfillment of the quest. It could have happened otherwise. But it does fit in nicely together. Maybe Tolkien did this to show that everyone must lose something in order to gain something, that is what taking risks is all about. But did they gain anything? Yes, the ring was destroyed. And in the end, Frodo is affected deeply by the journey (or the risk) and has to leave the Shire while Sam is fine and stays in the Shire. That shows another aspect of taking risks. Sometimes, even if you win you lose. Sam got to stay in the Shire and yes, he probably got new pans, so in a way Sam didn't lose at all. Frodo, he lost his 'precious' and he couldn't get another one, like Sam could. Also he had to leave the Shire because he was scarred for life because of the journey. For Frodo, this was a pyric victory. Even though he won the battle of the ring, he lost. He lost the ring, his youthfullness, and I'd say also his healthiness (the morgal blade wound). Sam didn't lose anything he couldn't reaquire (except Frodo, I think that Frodo leaving was a loss to him). I think that Tolkien purposely showed how you can lose even if you win. He showed us the downfalls to taking risks. And I think Tolkien also purposely showed us that you must give something up in order to gain something. Even though many characters suffered losses before/after the quest was completed, it was still worth the final result.

These themes are part of a harsh reality. And people sometimes don't see it. They criticize Tolkien's work as non-realistic when that's is obviously not true. And Tolkien's works also display irony. Irony is displayed in reality as well as literature. And many non-fiction writers tend to display irony in their works. Adding irony and a harsh reality adds to the realism of the book. For example, The Simpsons show a harsh reality sometimes. But people say its never realistic because it's animated and events are very far-fetched. But that's not rue. One time Bart wanted a video game but no one would get it. He resulted to stealing it but got caught. Towards the end of the episode everything was resolved and all. Marge gave Bart a video game for Christmas but it wasn't the one he wanted (it was Golf). Can you say that something like that never happened? No. Have you ever heard of a kid stealing like this? Yes, I'm sure you have. And have you ever gotten a gift that wasn't the one you wanted (when you specifically showed which one you did want), and pretended that you liked it anyways? Yes, I'm sure you have. Now, you can't tell me that wasn't realistic.

My point is that for something to be realistc, it doesn't need to look real. If it has themes or events that could and have probably happened, then it qualifies as realistic. People judge realism on a first look basis and they don't thoroghly investigate before charging a work as non-realistic. They don't read between the lines or somtimes they don't read at all (they watch the movie instead). I think they should look deeper in their examination. And people sometimes think that it's not realistic because it's labeled as a fantasy. Because middle earth never existed there were wizards and dragons and elves and dwarves and hobbits...I could go on for a long time. We label it as a fantasy not to stereotype it, but to organize or categorize it and make it eaiser to identify. We don't label it to say that it isn't raelistic. And sometimes people read the book or watch the movie and don't like it because they say its not realistic. Well, it is realistic, but they don't like it because they know that an elf is not real. Well it's very sad for them. Maybe if they didn't think about it while they read they would like it. And in another thread A Thinking Question . . . the talk was about whether you think about a character being believeabe or not while you're reading. I think that people think too much when they read. They need to forget about what's real and what's not. They should just get lost in the book and have fun and enjoy it. [Maybe Tolkien wanted us to be simple like hobbits, when we read, just a thought.] When you think about all that stuff, it sucks the fun out of reading a fantasy. Just let it go and read and you'll have a stronger opinion on whether you like the book or not. You can think about all that stuff after you read. But while your reading, just don't. It's sad that some people just can't do this.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]