Fantasy

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by davem

That tells us absolutely nothing about the dead man - it merely shows us Sam's sensitive nature - the man himself could well be a 'thug' who only wanted to do a bit of looting, rape & murder, & maybe deserved to cop it....

Don't you think Tolkien meant us, the readers, to ask ourselves the same questions Sam was asking himself? He doesn't give us the answer, but he invites us to give the dead Harad soldier the benefit of doubt.
However, I think we have to distinguish here. The Orcs were morally and spiritually corrupted to a much larger degree than any of Sauron's human soldiers - which is why the scene quoted by Ibrin is not quite to the point in the context of the latest posts (even though it's very much to the point in the context of this thread in general, if there still is such a thing); and which is also the reason why we don't see much of good, decent, compassionate & forward thinking Orcs. Although they may show human traits in some situations, Orcs are not human and I don't think we can judge them in quite the same way as we would a human.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting question what Orcs free of Sauron's tyranny (i.e. Fourth Age Orcs, such as survived Sauron's downfall) would do with their lives, if they were left alone for a couple of centuries. Not that I'm too optimistic...

A few other thoughts:

many 'sinners' are offered the chance of forgiveness & redemption, but how many of them actually take it? And why not - think of them - Gollum, Denethor, Wormtongue, Saruman? Not a one of them repents. What is Tolkien actually saying there - that offering forgiveness & the chance for repentance is good for the one who makes the offer & shows his 'enlightened' state, but is ultimately pointless, because once a bad guy always a bad guy?

Gollum is a very interesting example, as he comes very close to actual repentance - and it's not entirely his fault that he doesn't quite achieve it. If Sam had shown him a little more pity and offered some encouragement instead of accusing him of sneaking, who knows? once a bad guy always a bad guy definitely over-simplifies the matter.

What's interesting, though, is that these 'glimpses' are always associated with the 'bad' side.

That's interesting indeed. I think Tolkien viewed the grim, 'realistic' side of war - mutilation, moral degradation etc., you name it - as wholly evil and therefore, in so far as he chose to represent it at all in his writing, assigned it to the 'bad' side; the 'good' side, on the other hand, is meant to be a positive counterpart to evil, therefore they get all the heroism, noble sacrifice etc. I think the Prof knew very well (at the times of his writing LotR, at least - that is, after he had 20 years time to digest his WWI experience) that in every real, Primary World war both aspects are distributed evenly between both sides; but he wasn't writing a realistic novel.

On the other hand (I find myself using this phrase quite often in this thread) -

And for my argument here what matters is that that very desire, those very fears, make them out of place in Tolkien's fairystory world.

What exactly is 'Tolkien's fairystory world'? Isn't it everything he presents to us between the two covers of LotR - including Gorbag and Shagrat?

They have strayed out of some 'realistic' novel & have no place in Faerie.

But the fascinating thing about LotR is that it takes place at the point of intersection of realism and Faerie - which offers lots of opportunities of critisizing it for inconsistency, but also makes it so interesting in the first place. You may wish for more of one and less of the other, but both are there.

Anyway, davem, thanks for your obstinacy in forcing me to exercise my little grey cells. This thread is still fun.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

(even though it's very much to the point in the context of this thread in general, if there still is such a thing);

No time at the moment, but to clarify the point of the thread (which is why its jumping around so much) Are there any areas which should be out of bounds in Fantasy - things which a fantasy author shouldn't touch (like Pullman's presentation of 'God' as a senile old fake) & are there any obligations on an author of fantasy (eg to honestly depict battle in all its horror)?

Now have to rush..