Fantasy

[Lalwendë]

Well indeed. There are, alas, one or two stupid people in the world who would stick their hand in the fire if you told them to do so

I can also think of a couple of well known religious texts which some stupid people have taken as carte blanche to do some very cruel things. Just because that particular prophet didn't consider that somewhere down the line an idiot might be inspired to pick up a Kalashnikov doesn't mean he shouldn't have said that his religion was really cool, in his opinion

Same goes for fantasy. If someone is such a clown that they think wearing a replica One Ring really will make them invisible then it's not really the writer's fault. Obviously there are limits, such as it would have been unwise of JK Rowling to fill the Harry Potter books with examples of Draco Malfoy dealing crack behind the broomstick sheds, but mostly, the writer isn't to blame for the fools who (mis)read his books.

In the case of Tolkien's depictions of war, in my opinion, it's about the Aesthetic he chooses.

[davem]

Yes, but, when I talk about an author's 'repsonsibility' I mean 'responsibility' to the truth - ie, to be honest about what war involves. Should you show the facts about death in battle because they are the facts? Should some Hobbits die of lung cancer because that's what happens to some smokers in the primary world?

Or can the author just say 'This is my world, & in my world battles don't involve such butchery, & smokers don't get cancer'? But if the author takes that approach, completely divorcing 'his' world from the real world, can he/she expect us to treat anything else in that world seriously? I'm not suggesting that not showing the reality of warfare involving people attacking other people with sharpened bits of metal will lead to readers going out & joining the army, because it will give them an overly romantic view of battle (or that showing Hobbits smoking with impunity will encourage readers to take up smoking). I'm asking whether writing in the Fantasy genre absolves the writer from any responsibility to tell the truth about those things?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, but, when I talk about an author's 'repsonsibility' I mean 'responsibility' to the truth - ie, to be honest about what war involves. Should you show the facts about death in battle because they are the facts? Should some Hobbits die of lung cancer because that's what happens to some smokers in the primary world?

Is the author's intent 'telling a story,' or writing a detailed description of the horrors of war? I don't have the text with me (I get searched at the door), so from memory I don't think that the Battle of Azanulbizar was written to make it seem as if war were fun. From near Rauros to the Pellenor (I think), in LotR we continually lose named persons in battle. Theoden loses his son (off stage) and his Doorwarden Háma, who we got to meet (and whose corpse gets abused). The dour-handed Rangers suffer losses, and we lose Denethor II from madness. Don't know how dim of a bulb one has to be to not see that, in war, not everyone comes back, physically and mentally, even when your side wins.

We are given some description of Lothlorien - to me, not enough - so that we can at least picture what the author had in mind regarding Paradise. Enough may have been written to demonstrate the otherworldliness of the place. How much description then do we need to visualize something that is far more common (and base)?

Or can the author just say 'This is my world, & in my world battles don't involve such butchery, & smokers don't get cancer'? But if the author takes that approach, completely divorcing 'his' world from the real world, can he/she expect us to treat anything else in that world seriously? I'm not suggesting that not showing the reality of warfare involving people attacking other people with sharpened bits of metal will lead to readers going out & joining the army, because it will give them an overly romantic view of battle (or that showing Hobbits smoking with impunity will encourage readers to take up smoking). I'm asking whether writing in the Fantasy genre absolves the writer from any responsibility to tell the truth about those things?

War is ugly and smoking/tobacco are bad. What more do we need to say? War, when defending one's land against an aggressor bent on slaughtering you, is a good thing even when people do get ground up like so much meat. Tobacco, still a legal product, when used in moderation, does not have to lead to cancer/emphysema in all cases.

Does a fantasy author have to go through all of these caveats? Or can he/she simply show that some things are bad, some good, and one has to choose between?