Fantasy

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So then that begs a question - was he trying to teach us any kind of lesson at all?

Exactly! Maybe he skipped over all of the real life gore and mud because he wanted to, maybe not so much in the way of the lesson, show a world where even war wasn't as ugly, and that the good prevail, and that hope springs eternal.

And isn't that what fantasy's all about? Escape from reality?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

Exactly! Maybe he skipped over all of the real life gore and mud because he wanted to, maybe not so much in the way of the lesson, show a world where even war wasn't as ugly, and that the good prevail, and that hope springs eternal.

And isn't that what fantasy's all about? Escape from reality?

But if war wasn't that ugly, then this sets up all kinds of moral cans of worms. Doesn't it?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But if war wasn't that ugly, then this sets up all kinds of moral cans of worms. Doesn't it?

Are we back to talking about romance? Surely at least one of my daughters will end up dating or even marrying a troll, who, unlike Beren or Aragorn, will treat her poorly, if hopefully nothing worse.

Maybe the books should be printed with disclaimers such as:

This is a fiction/fantasy book, and the characters and events herein do not accurately represent reality as most know it - your experiences may vary.

[Lalwendë]

Hmmm, just that if we have a book (or any other kind of Art or entertainment) which shows war as 'not that bad, really', then hasn't it crossed a boundary? Even in video games where you can hack, slash and do what you like with glee, there isn't any sense that doing this stuff is in any way alright. It always hurts somebody.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I like that disclaimer, alatar. When it comes to depictions of "realism," I don't need graphic details of word or image to understand the reality. When I hear that a bomb struck a building full of people, for instance, I don't need to be told the details of what happened to the building and their bodies to know the kind of carnage that ensued, and feel horrified by it. Perhaps other people do. In fantasy, I might need to be told what the effects of a magic "blast" may be, since magic can operate under whatever laws the author wants, and have the results the author desires. But Tolkien's battles were not written as magical battles, and thus I can reasonably presume that their brutality and the results would be much the same as similarly fought battles in the real world.

As to the kind of story Tolkien was attempting to tell, in letter 183, he says:

In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour.

As this letter is a response to W. H. Auden's review of RotK, it is long and has many things to say; in particular, Tolkien writes at some length about good and evil, motivations, and such. But he ends the letter with an interesting observation:

So I feel that the fiddle-faddle in reviews, and correspondence about them, as to whether my 'good people' were kind and merciful and gave quarter (in fact they do), or not, is quite beside the point. Some critics seem determined to represent me as a simple-minded adolescent, inspired with, say, a With-the-flag-to-Pretoria spirit, and willfully distort what is said in my tale. I have not that spirit, and it does not appear in the story. The figure of Denethor alone is enough to show this; but I have not made any of the peoples on the 'right' side, Hobbits, Rohirrim, Men of Dale or Gondor, any better than men have been, or are, or can be. Mine is not an 'imaginary' world, but an imaginary historical moment on 'Middle-earth' -- which is our habitation.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

I like that disclaimer, alatar. When it comes to depictions of "realism," I don't need graphic details of word or image to understand the reality. When I hear that a bomb struck a building full of people, for instance, I don't need to be told the details of what happened to the building and their bodies to know the kind of carnage that ensued, and feel horrified by it. Perhaps other people do. In fantasy, I might need to be told what the effects of a magic "blast" may be, since magic can operate under whatever laws the author wants, and have the results the author desires. But Tolkien's battles were not written as magical battles, and thus I can reasonably presume that their brutality and the results would be much the same as similarly fought battles in the real world.

Hmmm, but if you hear about a bombing, for example, without any of the stories involved in it, then the atrocity is just about statistics. We can say with genuine horror "100 people were killed". But if we know a little about those people, it becomes more touching.

Taking the holocaust as an example, it's one thing to know that 6 million were murdered, but it's quite another to read Anne Frank's diary or to watch Schindler's List. The former is just a fact, the latter are stories.

Tolkien knew the human need for stories, and he did not flinch when it came to texts like the Children of Hurin, nor did he flinch in every instance in Lord of the Rings, but sometimes he does flinch. He didn't have to tell us the gory detail if he didn't want to, the stories behind some of the hundreds killed are another way of achieving empathy.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Exactly! Maybe he skipped over all of the real life gore and mud because he wanted to, maybe not so much in the way of the lesson, show a world where even war wasn't as ugly, and that the good prevail, and that hope springs eternal.

And isn't that what fantasy's all about? Escape from reality?

And Tolkien's opinion:

Fantasy is a natural human activity. It certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better fantasy will it make. If men were ever in a state in which they did not want to know or could not perceive truth (facts or evidence), then Fantasy would languish until they were cured. If they ever get into that state (it would not seem at all impossible), Fantasy will perish, and become Morbid Delusion. For creative Fantasy is founded upon the hard recognition that things are so in the world as it appears under the sun; on a recognition of fact, but not a slavery to it. So upon logic was founded the nonsense that displays itself in the tales and rhymes of Lewis Carroll. If men really could not distinguish between frogs and men, fairy-stories about frog-kings would not have arisen. OFS

For Tolkien fantasy is not an 'anything goes' genre. It has its basis in, is founded on, primary world reality. It does not reject scientific fact - where it departs from them it does so for logical reasons -

"If men were ever in a state in which they did not want to know or could not perceive truth (facts or evidence), then Fantasy would languish until they were cured. If they ever get into that state (it would not seem at all impossible), Fantasy will perish, and become Morbid Delusion."

Tolkienian fantasy has its basis in cold hard facts - it is not an anything goes genre. If it was he would not have spent so much of his life creating Middle-earth. Hence, when such 'cold, hard facts' are omitted they are omitted for a reason. A world 'where war isn't ugly' is a world which is not based on the 'cold hard facts' that Tolkien insists on. In fact, such a world is exactly the kind of 'morbid delusion' that he condemns.

Fantasy has also an essential drawback: it is difficult to achieve. Fantasy may be, as I think, not less but more sub-creative; but at any rate it is found in practice that “the inner consistency of reality” is more difficult to produce, the more unlike are the images and the rearrangements of primary material to the actual arrangements of the Primary World. It is easier to produce this kind of “reality” with more “sober” material. Fantasy thus, too often, remains undeveloped; it is and has been used frivolously, or only half-seriously, or merely for decoration: it remains merely “fanciful.” Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language can say the green sun. Many can then imagine or picture it. But that is not enough—though it may already be a more potent thing than many a “thumbnail sketch” or “transcript of life” that receives literary praise.

To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art: indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most potent mode.OFS

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

I like that disclaimer, alatar. When it comes to depictions of "realism," I don't need graphic details of word or image to understand the reality. When I hear that a bomb struck a building full of people, for instance, I don't need to be told the details of what happened to the building and their bodies to know the kind of carnage that ensued, and feel horrified by it. Perhaps other people do.

But what if a writer included such an event in his story, but implied that the people died quickly & peacefully, & left behind neat, unmutilated corpses?

One can certainly write about an invented world where Pixies ride around on purple unicorns & the sun shines all day long & no-one is ever unhappy. And that would be 'fantasy' as well. But it wouldn't be Tolkienian fantasy. When one chooses to write about war, about battlefields, about men killing each other, then doesn't one have (if one is writing Tolkienian fantasy, with its roots in cold hard facts & 'the perception of scientific verity' & where if the sun is green its green-ness must be given a justification) an obligation to ground that killing & dying in cold hard facts as well?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

For Tolkien fantasy is not an 'anything goes' genre. It has its basis in, is founded on, primary world reality. It does not reject scientific fact - where it departs from them it does so for logical reasons

Understood.

Tolkienian fantasy has its basis in cold hard facts - it is not an anything goes genre. If it was he would not have spent so much of his life creating Middle-earth. Hence, when such 'cold, hard facts' are omitted they are omitted for a reason. A world 'where war isn't ugly' is a world which is not based on the 'cold hard facts' that Tolkien insists on. In fact, such a world is exactly the kind of 'morbid delusion' that he condemns.

Show me once (I'm probably setting myself up for a big dose of stupid ) where any character, especially an elf, voids itself of what cannot be digested, metabolized or is the product of symbiotic bacteria in the gut, if you know what I'm saying. Sure is a lot of eatin' and drinkin' in Tolkien's world, yet his light never shines on the subsequent requisite activity. Think that we all know that it's there, but somehow don't mind that it was left to our imagining.

How long a walk was it from Rivendell to the Bridge in the Mines of Moria? Was the Balrog brought down by magic or halitosis? Sure, Gollum is said to have stank, but me I'd rather be upwind of the Nine Walkers after such a long trip as well.

But you're going to tell me that, along with the dying moaning soldier lying om the Pelennor in blood, offal and other words whose meanings I'm not quite sure of, you thought about other biological realities of any or many of the main characters?

Now I get what y'all are saying, seeing that maybe, just maybe, Tolkien was glorifying war because he wasn't gorifying it. But maybe that's you. Me, the scene where Sam sees the dead man in Ithilien speaks loudly.

And just how much better was Jackson's depiction? Would anyone be more or less 'rah-rah' after watching the movies (which depict a few suffering souls) or reading the books?

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

And just how much better was Jackson's depiction? Would anyone be more or less 'rah-rah' after watching the movies (which depict a few suffering souls) or reading the books?

Remember what I posted earlier -

"War is brutal, harrowing and devastating for everyone involved, and war fiction should be every bit as brutal, harrowing and devastating as the violence of the reality it seeks to document. Anything less at best sanitises war and its effects, at worst trivialises it. Anything more exploits other people's misery as purely vicarious entertainment. It is a very, very fine line."

I'd say Tolkien too often falls to the former side of the line, Jackson too often to the latter.

[Bêthberry]

We Downers are all very adept at picking and choosing quotations from The Professor--or any author, for that matter-- to shore up our side of the discussion, but often a quotation cannot of itself provide a preemptive strike or hard and fast evidence of a position unless the entire context of the essay is considered and applied with the quotation. We are like Protestants who delight in chapter and verse while being woefully unable to provide a thematic framework which puts the quotation in context.

Tolkien wrote OFS to ofset a trend which disturbed him--the trend to relegating fairy tales to the children's nursery. He wrote to restore fantasy to full fledged position in the adult literature of a nation and culture. To that end, he sought to prove that fairy stories partake of certain qualities which adult literature of his time had. One of the most important qualities was credibility: is this world, story credible? This accounts for Tolkien's careful explication that fantasy not insult reason or scientific verity--note his use of the word verity rather than veracity. Yet fantasy is not, for Tolkien, beholding to the world of historical fiction: a recognition of fact, not a slavery to it, he writes. (I think it was Ibrin who first made this point and kudos to her for this.) The world in fantasy must be credible and natural, but also--and this is the difficult part for a writer to achieve--strange, unusual, utterly something other at the same time. It is the realm of Fairie, in which fairies have their being, as Tolkien puts it.

Originally Posted by OFS

The definition of a fairy story--what it is, what it should be--does not then depend upon any definition or historical account [my italics] of elf or fairy but upon the nature of Fairie, the Perilous Realm itself, and the air that blows in that country.

Those of us who are charitable might add here that Fairie does not depend upon any historical account of war either. (And in this analysis Tolkien is typically English in understating his contribution when he refers to his "imperfect vision of it". )

And later in the essay Tolkien differentiates his idea of sub-creation from representation or symbolic interpretation of the beauties and terrors of the world. Literary belief in Fantasy, for Tolkien, has to do with Art, with the magical qualities of story telling, where unlikeness to the Primary World and freedom from the domination of observed 'fact' engage strangeness and wonder in the Expression.

Another way of expressing this is Tolkien's idea about how fantasy distances us from our own time, which would also make it not susceptible to authenticating it by events of our time.

Originally Posted by OFS

For one thing, they are now old, and antiguity has an appeal in itself--distance and a great abyss of time. . . . They open a door on Another Time, and if we pass through, though only for a moment, we stand outside our own time, outside of Time itself, maybe.

In fact, Tolkien argues that things in Fairey which do not conform to the primacy world are not grounds for criticism:

Originally Posted by OFS

That the images are of things not in the primary world (if that is indeed possible) is a virtue, not a vice.

For Tolkien, Fantasy plays strange tricks with the world, and that includes not just elves and hobbits and balrogs, but war as well as trees which grow in darkness without light.

So, in short, there be my pickin's of quotations. (Everything I have bolded save for Downers' names are Tolkien's words from OFS unless otherwise noted.)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

But what if a writer included such an event in his story, but implied that the people died quickly & peacefully, & left behind neat, unmutilated corpses?

Consider that in Tolkien's world, unlike our own, Men (i.e. humans), like other creatures in his world, started off in a state much above where we find ourselves today. Think about it - the Edain lived much longer than we could ever hope (at this present time), could fight with and alongside magical creatures, and some, if they stayed true, at the end of their days could lay down their lives in peace, giving back the gift.

We in this world have trodden a different course, where we now live longer than ever before, live and maybe one day even fight alongside seemingly magical technologies, and can, if legally available, lay down our lives peaceable at the end of our days. It was not always so.

So if in Tolkien world we have devolved from the heroes of old, and if the ability to lay down one's life was previously available, how do we know that the soldiery in, say, the Third Age, when fatally injured on the battle, just 'turned off,' after uttering some pro-Gondorian salute?

"May the King return!"

These soldiers may have not enough of the pure blood to die when at home, but in extremis, like after being hacked half to death by some orcs with less-than-sharp implements, would find the ability within (or maybe Eru would grant the ability at that moment, or maybe they would hear Ulmo telling them how to do it in all of the perspiration around).

It is we, less noble and possible intermingled with orcs - genetically or psychologically - that in later years have cried out and moaned upon the battlefield.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

So if in Tolkien world we have devolved from the heroes of old, and if the ability to lay down one's life was previously available, how do we know that the soldiery in, say, the Third Age, when fatally injured on the battle, just 'turned off,' after uttering some pro-Gondorian salute?

"May the King return!"

.

Because Tolkien never mentions anything of the sort. One might as well offer up the explanation that Earedel hovered invisibly over the battlefields & teleported the corpses off the field. Or that lots of carnivorous butterflies alighted on the bodies & ate them.

What you're doing, it seems to me, is inventing an 'explanation' for which there's no textual support in order to avoid the difficulties in the story. The simplest explanation is that Tolkien decided not to deal with the actual, unpleasant realities of warfare (& other things) because he didn't want such things in his story. The question is whether he was justified in doing that?

And further, if Tolkien is justified in doing that, because he is 'subcreating' a secondary world, how can one condemn, say, Philip Pullman for presenting us with a God who is a senile old fake, or any writer creating a secondary world in which black people are sub-human, rape is fun for all concerned, or mass murder of jews is a moral act?

OK - I've taken extreme examples there, but that's what it comes down to - does the fantasy genre permit any degree of 'invention' on a writer's part? I'm fairly sure that many who would defend Tolkien's right to omit the 'unpleasant' realities of death in battle in Middle-earth, would condemn Pullman's depiction of God - not simply as 'offensive' but also as untrue....

Because, we either say that fantasy as a genre allows total freedom to a writer to depict any kind of world they wish & we, as readers, must not question that right, or we accept that we do have a right to question the choices a writer of fantasy makes, the omissions & inclusions.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

And further, if Tolkien is justified in doing that, because he is 'subcreating' a secondary world, how can one condemn, say, Philip Pullman for presenting us with a God who is a senile old fake, or any writer creating a secondary world in which black people are sub-human, rape is fun for all concerned, or mass murder of jews is a moral act?

OK - I've taken extreme examples there, but that's what it comes down to - does the fantasy genre permit any degree of 'invention' on a writer's part? I'm fairly sure that many who would defend Tolkien's right to omit the 'unpleasant' realities of death in battle in Middle-earth, would condemn Pullman's depiction of God - not simply as 'offensive' but also as untrue....

Your extreme examples would very likely not be allowed--that is, would be taken to court if published--in the realistic fiction you trumpet so much, at least in the countries which have laws against hate literature while also eschewing censorship, so those restrictions would also pertain to fantasy.

Originally Posted by davem

Because, we either say that fantasy as a genre allows total freedom to a writer to depict any kind of world they wish & we, as readers, must not question that right, or we accept that we do have a right to question the choices a writer of fantasy makes, the omissions & inclusions.

This is a false dichotomy. This is not an 'either/or' situation, as there are more than just these two choices.

For instance, readers have the right to question, explore, and examine the choices a writer makes, but the significant issue is the grounds which determine the questionings, exploring or examining, because those grounds make the questioning more or less credible.

davem's answer to the observation about Tolkien's war descriptions (which has not itself gone unchallenged) is to argue that only historical veracity is the true and acceptable measure. This ignores Tolkien's other criteria, of arresting strangeness, as well as overlooking Tolkien's insistence that LotR was not a veiled representation of WWII.

As I said, this ain't an either/or situation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Your extreme examples would very likely not be allowed--that is, would be taken to court if published--in the realistic fiction you trumpet so much, at least in the countries which have laws against hate literature while also eschewing censorship, so those restrictions would also pertain to fantasy.

Exactly. And we're all fine with that. It would be illegal (though not everyone would consider all those examples to be 'immoral' - many athiests find Pullman's depiction of God & the Church perfectly fine, many believers not. Many white supremacists would find 'sub human' black people perfectly acceptable, if not simply 'true' according to their lights).

Thus, a line does exist as to what's acceptable & what isn't - 'Fantasy' as a genre does not = anything goes. We expect certain standards to be maintained, certain boundaries to be upheld. But are they simply 'negative' boundaries - 'Within these set bounds you may do as you please", or are there more 'positive' requirements? Has political correctness entered the secondary world? We know from what we know of Tolkien, the old school Catholic who attended Mass everyday, that homosexuality & adultery would (if they had appeared in his world) have been 'sinful' & that no 'good' person would have done either. Yet, if homosexual acts had been presented by Tolkien as 'Orcish' or immoral, would we have accepted that as being within those 'bounds' I mentioned earlier, or not? Probably at the time it was published they would have been, but nowadays not. So, Tolkien's presentation of war, specifically of death in battle, is not 'true'. Battles involving men dying on the end of sharpened metal implements of various ingenious designs were not as Tolkien depicted them. And Tolkien knew they weren't. More importantly, we nowadays, know they weren't. Yet, though we (or most of us) would not accept a depiction of homosexuality as sinful & as solely the province of 'bad' people, we do accept a sanitised & completely misleading depiction of warfare.

For instance, readers have the right to question, explore, and examine the choices a writer makes, but the significant issue is the grounds which determine the questionings, exploring or examining, because those grounds make the questioning more or less credible.

And who determines those 'grounds'? Who decides what questions can be asked & which questions (or perhaps questioners) are verboten? I cannot help feeling that that issue, too, is to be decided (as with what is acceptable in fantasy fiction) on subjective grounds. Either a question is valid (whatever the grounds it is asked on) - ie is 'logical', or it is invalid - therefore illogical & thus impossible to answer.

This ignores Tolkien's other criteria, of arresting strangeness, as well as overlooking Tolkien's insistence that LotR was not a veiled representation of WWII.

I don't see how an honest depiction of war excludes 'arresting sttrangeness' - it may even enhance it - the etherial beauty, the arresting strangeness, of Lorien would only be magnified by contrating it to the true horror of death on the Pelennor. And I don't see where WWII comes into it. Hacking someone with a broadsword will produce certain physiological effects which, being universal, & determined by the essential nature of the human body, are timeless, & not limited to events in WWII. In fact, I would say that the very use of implements such as swords & spears, as opposed to machine guns & hand grenades is sufficient in itself to seperate the War of the Ring from WWII.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Because Tolkien never mentions anything of the sort. One might as well offer up the explanation that Earedel hovered invisibly over the battlefields & teleported the corpses off the field. Or that lots of carnivorous butterflies alighted on the bodies & ate them.

Please...

What you're doing, it seems to me, is inventing an 'explanation' for which there's no textual support in order to avoid the difficulties in the story.

It's very possible that I just like having a good discussion with you.

Anyway, to put you in the dock for a moment:

• Do you affirm or deny that there is textual support that someone of Númenórean descent could stop living at a self-determined moment, though we may not know the mechanism?

• Do you affirm or deny that there is textual support for the existence of Númenórean 'blood' in the soldier population of Gondor at the end of the Third Age, regardless of the amount?

• Do you affirm or deny that there is textual support that makes my supposition completely impossible (i.e. a direct and clear statement to the fact that men with Númenórean blood could not chose the moment of their deaths)?

However much my paranoia makes me believe in carnivorous butterflies, there is no textual support, as you indicate, for the same. I would believe that there are insects in Middle Earth, as we see examples of the midges and neekerbreekers and having poor Grima name 'Worm.' Surely some type of bug - so close to Mordor - would attack the wounds and flesh of the dying on the battlefield. But butterflies? I'd believe locusts or spiders or ants or beetles, as they 'eat' things whereas butterflies are nectar drinkers (or whatever the technical term is).

The simplest explanation is that Tolkien decided not to deal with the actual, unpleasant realities of warfare (& other things) because he didn't want such things in his story. The question is whether he was justified in doing that?

Okay, so I think that this is a more fair and understandable question. What justice do you seek from his writings? Again, if we are including 'what really happens,' we don't have to stop at the battlefield. Is this an issue with fantasy, or with writing a whole? How would the story change if we have to 'real up' every scene? Where did Bilbo store his butter? How did he keep Bag End so dry...dry enough to store books? Etc.

And further, if Tolkien is justified in doing that, because he is 'subcreating' a secondary world, how can one condemn, say, Philip Pullman for presenting us with a God who is a senile old fake, or any writer creating a secondary world in which black people are sub-human, rape is fun for all concerned, or mass murder of jews is a moral act?

I'm sure that it's all in the head of the reader. If the writer can create something plausible that a reader can then accept; well, there you would have it.

If you ever get the chance, speaking of bugs, read, "Hellstrom's Hive" by Frank Herbert. Tell me that by the end you're not rooting for the insect humans over our current society. Why? Because the writer set up a scenario that me as the reader could accept as plausible. Now, when I put the book down, I'm not looking forward to becoming a bug-like species, but when in the book, I can see it.

OK - I've taken extreme examples there, but that's what it comes down to - does the fantasy genre permit any degree of 'invention' on a writer's part? I'm fairly sure that many who would defend Tolkien's right to omit the 'unpleasant' realities of death in battle in Middle-earth, would condemn Pullman's depiction of God - not simply as 'offensive' but also as untrue....

Readers' experiences with materials may vary.

Because, we either say that fantasy as a genre allows total freedom to a writer to depict any kind of world they wish & we, as readers, must not question that right, or we accept that we do have a right to question the choices a writer of fantasy makes, the omissions & inclusions.

Writers can do whatever they like (within the law, of course), and readers can decide whether the work is good or not.

Seems to me that many must agree that Tolkien's battlefield depictions work.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

• Do you affirm or deny that there is textual support that makes my supposition completely impossible (i.e. a direct and clear statement to the fact that men with Númenórean blood could not chose the moment of their deaths)?

Denethor had Numenorean blood but he still had to resort to immolation. I suspect that in the height of battle the necessary peace of mind would be absent - particularly if one was missing limbs/intestines. Howsumever...what of those who didn't have Numenorean blood (like Hobbits & Rohirrim?)

However much my paranoia makes me believe in carnivorous butterflies, there is no textual support, as you indicate, for the same. I would believe that there are insects in Middle Earth, as we see examples of the midges and neekerbreekers and having poor Grima name 'Worm.'

I won't deny the possibility - merely note that there would have to be a lot of them present. (BTW 'Worm' in Grima's nickname surely references a Wyrm or Dragon in the sense of false speaking)

How would the story change if we have to 'real up' every scene? Where did Bilbo store his butter? How did he keep Bag End so dry...dry enough to store books? Etc.

I think its entirely plausible to build such a hole - given decent damp-proofing etc

Seems to me that many must agree that Tolkien's battlefield depictions work.

Actually, from many of the threads & individual posts I've come across on the Downs its fairly clear that many readers have no real knowledge of medieval warfare or the effect of medieval weaponry on the human body, let alone the truth about what happened on the battlefield (how about the fact that bodies of prominent persons would often be boiled in great cauldrons to get rid of the flesh so that the bones could then be transported back to their local church for inhumation?)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Denethor had Numenorean blood but he still had to resort to immolation.

Not sure that that's a good example. Methinks that Denethor wanted not only to die but to keep his lifeless body out of the hands of the orcs.

I suspect that in the height of battle the necessary peace of mind would be absent - particularly if one was missing limbs/intestines. Howsumever...what of those who didn't have Numenorean blood (like Hobbits & Rohirrim?)

Agreed. Just stating 'possible' and not 'probable.'

No hobbits were hurt beyond a hurt arm and a good bruising (those in the Shire had no death scenes and so obviously died instantaneously). And we all know that the Rohirrim, mounted as they were, would have most likely broken their necks as they fell from their horses - again, no pain and suffering. Theoden was crushed by Snowmane, and he never cried out.

(BTW 'Worm' in Grima's nickname surely references a Wyrm or Dragon in the sense of false speaking)

Considered that as a possibility, but that would assume I knew what you'd stated. Had I not, I would have happily thought for all time that he was named thus due to his slimy character. Does the word 'worm' as it applies to Dragon-kind appear in LotR?

I think its entirely plausible to build such a hole - given decent damp-proofing etc

What I'm getting it is I assume that when you read the scene where Gandalf and Bilbo (or Frodo) are dialoguing in Bag End, thoughts of waterproofing the structure were far from your mind. When reading about the various battles in LotR, I intellectually know that people are dying in very ugly ways, and that the battlefield is strewn with those whom pity is the only thing you can give to them, as they are beyond aid. That said, in no scene was this my focus as I continued to read onward to see what was to happen next.

Sure, Tolkien could have made a point that dying thus was ugly, but I don't think that that was a major consideration in what he was trying to accomplish. If I were selling you a car/auto/<insert your local word here>, I would not spend much time extolling the virtues of the PCV valve. Yes, it's in there and is important, but I think that you may be more interesting in other details, such as the engine, the colour, the horsepower, the features and if it has room for children.

Actually, from many of the threads & individual posts I've come across on the Downs its fairly clear that many readers have no real knowledge of medieval warfare or the effect of medieval weaponry on the human body, let alone the truth about what happened on the battlefield (how about the fact that bodies of prominent persons would often be boiled in great cauldrons to get rid of the flesh so that the bones could then be transported back to their local church for inhumation?)

Interesting. I too think it fairly clear that many readers (you and me excluded, though I'm not too sure about you...or me ) haven't any idea how the internet works, how a computer is made, the basics of science, history before they were aware among many other things, and yet they find enjoyment in both Tolkien's words as well as those here on the Downs.

If I wanted reality, I would switch on the news...or maybe not.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar to davem

It's very possible that I just like having a good discussion with you.

Yes, it's rather like watching a spin doctor work on a politician's errs and mistakes.

Originally Posted by alatar

I would believe that there are insects in Middle Earth, as we see examples of the midges and neekerbreekers and having poor Grima name 'Worm.' Surely some type of bug - so close to Mordor - would attack the wounds and flesh of the dying on the battlefield.

Where there's spiders, there must be webs, ergo, critters of all sorts to catch and feed upon.

Originally Posted by davem

Thus, a line does exist as to what's acceptable & what isn't - 'Fantasy' as a genre does not = anything goes. We expect certain standards to be maintained, certain boundaries to be upheld.

The justification or explanation of the limitations to published work of any genre is whether this work promulgates or incites hatred towards a person or an identifiable group of people, not whether it falls within or without the moral tenets of a particular ideology or faith. Perhaps you might wish to work on an argument whether this includes Pullman's god or not, since you seem to enjoy bringing up Pullman so often in this discussion.

Originally Posted by davem

And who determines those 'grounds'? Who decides what questions can be asked & which questions (or perhaps questioners) are verboten?

*sighs* It's either the author's Fairy Godmother or those angels and demons that sit, one on each side, of readers' shoulders.

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see how an honest depiction of war excludes 'arresting sttrangeness'

Leaving aside that word "honest", the use of which has been refuted many times earlier on this thread to at least my satisfaction, I thought you have been arguing lo! these many posts that Tolkien's depiction of war is strange. Have you changed your mind now or is this just more of your spin doctoring?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The justification or explanation of the limitations to published work of any genre is whether this work promulgates or incites hatred towards a person or an identifiable group of people, not whether it falls within or without the moral tenets of a particular ideology or faith.

And that would apply if the 'person' was Hitler, or Torquemada, or the 'identifiable group of people' included Nazis, White Supremacists, suicide bombers...? Or are certain 'identifiable groups of people' excluded?

Leaving aside that word "honest", the use of which has been refuted many times earlier on this thread to at least my satisfaction,

I'd say it has merely been rejected...