Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
But I'm asking why Tolkien made the choice he did, what effect that has on his readers & what if anything would have been different if he had made the other choice - as well as whether his choice was legitimate.
|
Just chiming in - as for the second question: Of course his choice was legitimate. He is the author. His choice is always legitimate. And obviously, he made this choice - he wanted the narration to look in a certain way. G. Orwell wrote his 1984 with the intention to seem dystopian, and so it was. H.P. Lovecraft wrote his Call of Cthulhu in order to be terrifying, he felt no need to include the mundane way the world goes. Both were coming from some realistic background in the first place, but just to underline their main points: the impression they intended to give to the reader. So did Tolkien. He did not want his reader to see massacred hundreds of bodies. It simply did not fit his concept. People who read what he wrote have the right to pick these books just because it fits their taste. Somebody who does not like Orwell or Lovecraft, feeling them too pessimistic or frigtening or generally discomforting, can pick something else. Somebody who would think Tolkien lacks something important, can pick something else. There are enough authors (and not necessarily just belles-lettres) who portray the war far more "realistically".
It is the same as asking if, in a children's tale of Little Red Riding Hood, the author is legitimate not to include the fact that somebody eaten by a wolf won't probably look very good after climbing out of somebody's stomach, not to speak of the poor beast itself.
Fantasy is fantasy mainly just because it is not that tightly bound by reality, and in contrary to other genres of literature, the author is not only allowed to, but one can almost say, expected to make up things on his own. Any book you write is biased by your point of view anyway, even if you tried to be super-realistic: even if you were writing a book about some real historical event, with the perfect historical circumstances and all, you will be putting some of your own personality into it. And as an author, you are expected to! (And speaking of that, even if you were a historian writing a history book, you will do that, however hard you tried to be objective. But that's another thing.)
As for what we gain (a reply to a question
davem posted a few posts ago): It always depends on a reader anyway in which way he reacts to the book. Of course this one book he reads is not the only one book in the world, so the views presented by it are not crucial to one's reception of reality. Somebody just wants to relax and not think about the real war-slaughter at all, so he grabs Tolkien instead of something else.
If you ask, does not one get too idealistic/heroic/whatever view of war from the books? Perhaps, or I would rather say, if he already has one, it won't break it for him. But that's all it will do. So, it won't influence his point of view, in my opinion: it will just keep it steady on where it is. (For I don't think a person who knows about the blinded veterans and whatnot would be suddenly convinced, after reading LotR, that they don't exist.)
P.S. I admit I haven't been following the whole discussion... so apologies if I am not quite "up to date" or reacting from some "out-of-topic" perspective... just been reading this and decided to, erm, *looks up at the not exactly short post* chime in...