Fantasy

[davem]

Your 'demands' for gratuitous sex/sexual violence in Tolkien's work is, again, a pretty Aunt Sally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunt_Sally if you don't get the reference)

Aunt Sally is a traditional throwing game. The term is often used metaphorically to mean something that is a target for criticism. In particular, referring to the fairground origins, an Aunt Sally would be "set up" deliberately to be subsequently "knocked down", usually by the same person who set the person up.

& again misses the whole point I'm making. Tolkien doesn't mention sexual activity at all, let alone rape or child abuse....but if he did mention the latter.....

I would expect him not to present either rape or child abuse in a positive light, as exciting or glorious, or quickly over & forgotten about as if it had never happened. I would expect an acknowledgement of the ugly, brutal & inhuman truth. If he had included those things without acknowledging that ugly, brutal & inhuman truth, I would be on here stating very clearly that his depiction of them was false, untrue & dangerously misleading to his readers.

In all this I am simply asking why, when an activity is depicted it is not depicted honestly, warts & all, & whether it should be. No,

A corporeal Immortal Evil walking the earth in black array with a magic ring he can't manage to keep hold of is not true.

, but, when "A corporeal Immortal Evil walking the earth" is presented I expect it to behave like a "A corporeal Immortal Evil " if I am to take its seriously - if all this 'corporeal Immortal Evil" did was nick a few apples from Sam's garden, or make cupcakes for Elrond's tea with flour that's a couple of days past its Best Before date, I would say (wrongly, perhaps) that such a "corporeal Immortal Evil" wasn't a very truthful or honest depiction of same, & that we ought to expect this villain to actually do something evil - even if this was in a fantasy novel, where the author has absolute freedom to depict "A corporeal Immortal Evil walking the earth" in any way he saw fit. As a reader I have rights too. If an evil being appears in a novel I have a right to expect him to do evil things, not naughty things. In the same way, if a battle involving thousands of people armed with swords, spears, arrows, axes & the like takes place I expect there to be maimed, brutalised, broken souls on the field, alongside severed limbs & the rest - because that's what would have happened.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Your 'demands' for gratuitous sex/sexual violence in Tolkien's work is, again, a pretty Aunt Sally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunt_Sally if you don't get the reference)

Well, if you're referring to an 'Aunt Sally' (a term I shall never use again), I suppose I can refer to a 'straw man argument' in the case of your last reply.

I was referring to serial and large-scale rape attendant in war. It was and is a regular occurence in war right down to the WWII war crime trials of Nuremberg and Tokyo, and presently in several African countries. It was considered a 'spoil of victory' in Rome, among the Vikings, throughout the Middle-ages, and up until the 19th century in Europe. Even the vaguest codification of rape as a crime in the 'rules of war' in international law did not appear until the 18th century.

Originally Posted by davem

& again misses the whole point I'm making. Tolkien doesn't mention sexual activity at all, let alone rape or child abuse....but if he did mention the latter.....

If an evil being appears in a novel I have a right to expect him to do evil things, not naughty things. In the same way, if a battle involving thousands of people armed with swords, spears, arrows, axes & the like takes place I expect there to be maimed, brutalised, broken souls on the field, alongside severed limbs & the rest - because that's what would have happened.

And rape in war was a natural occurrence in Dark Age and Medieval War. Tolkien didn't mention it? So what, it was part of war, plain and simple. Rape was an is, historically, an inherent evil in war. Just because you want to divorce one aspect of 'true war' for what you feel is 'appropriate' for 'true war' does not change facts, and it is actually quite absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. You are railing against one aspect of war that Tolkien obviously missed, and I am merely offering another relevant piece of the 'true war' you so covet.

And there is the vaguest intimation of something untoward and unsavory in regards to 'Half-orcs' and 'Goblin-men' isn't there? One doesn't get the feeling that woman submitted willingly to the sexual whims of brute Orcs; therefore, rape seemingly is implied and should be brought forward with pronounced clarity, in keeping with your need for 'real war'.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Davem, your position would have more force if there were some existing tradition of gore, screams and viscera which Tolkien presumptuously violated. But the contrary is true: eliding over the blood 'n guts was the established literary mode: are you therefore condemning Tolstoy and Hugo and the on and on? It's really inaccurate and unfair to dismiss this convention as "Boys' Own Paper" when it was in fact the dominant mode of Western war fiction up until Tolkien's age.

Precisely. A point I've made several times, in addition to the fact that Lord of the Rings is not meant strictly for adult consumption.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

And rape in war was a natural occurrence in Dark Age and Medieval War. Tolkien didn't mention it? So what, it was part of war, plain and simple. Rape was an is, historically, an inherent evil in war. Just because you want to divorce one aspect of 'true war' for what you feel is 'appropriate' for 'true war' does not change facts, and it is actually quite absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. You are railing against one aspect of war that Tolkien obviously missed, and I am merely offering another relevant piece of the 'true war' you so covet..

No, again you're missing the point. Rape is not mentioned in LotR (though there is an instance of attempted rape in CoH). Therefore rape is not applicable to the discussion, which is about the way Tolkien depicts the things that are mentioned. Firearms were part of medival warfare, but not of warfare in M-e, & therefore your point re rape is about as relevant to the discussion as if you were to argue that culverins were employed on the Pelennor but not mentioned in the text. There is no use of rape in the War of the Ring. The point I made earlier is the only relevant one as regards rape - if Tolkien had included rape in the story I would require him to present it in realistic terms, not in a poetic/elegiac way, not 'romanticised' & the victim given a quick, clean death & then to just disappear from the story.

So, to reiterate, we're discussing how Tolkien deals with what he does put into his story (ie, the way he depicts battle, & specifically the way people kill each other & how they die on the field), we aren't discussing why things that aren't part of the story haven't been included. People are being killed in battle & I'm questioning how that is depicted - because it is depicted, but not in a realistic way. There is no mention of rape taking place - it isn't depicted in any way at all so its not possible to discuss how Tolkien deals with rape as a weapon of war, because he doesn't deal with it at all.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

No, again you're missing the point.

It is not that I miss any point, but thanks for the constant reminders; rather, I refuse to discuss the subject in the manner you demand, as is my preorogative. Others in the discussion seem to follow their own way as well, however limited and irrelevant you deem their replies.

Originally Posted by davem

Rape is not mentioned in LotR (though there is an instance of attempted rape in CoH). Therefore rape is not applicable to the discussion, which is about the way Tolkien depicts the things that are mentioned. Firearms were part of medival warfare, but not of warfare in M-e, & therefore your point re rape is about as relevant to the discussion as if you were to argue that culverins were employed on the Pelennor but not mentioned in the text. There is no use of rape in the War of the Ring. The point I made earlier is the only relevant one as regards rape - if Tolkien had included rape in the story I would require him to present it in realistic terms, not in a poetic/elegiac way, not 'romanticised' & the victim given a quick, clean death & then to just disappear from the story.

I'm sorry, but rape (or the lack of it) is certainly relevant. Just as there is a lack of culverins, and even more primary ballistic weapons like the handheld crossbow are not mentioned, it indicates that Tolkien's world is indeed a fantasy and not based on objective measurements against a real world time period or means of combat. To rely on such measures is doomed to futility (much like this conversation), as Tolkien's world is anachronistic and cannot be shown to adhere to any one epoch reliably or with any specificity.

There is a near complete reliance on chain mail in Middle-earth (save for a brief mention of Imrahil's pauldrons), and the use of mail has been in constant use in Arda for several thousand years with no real technological advance into plate. This in no way is historically factual, nor does it make much sense when comparing real-world precedents. There isn't even an advance from bronze to iron to steel in any consistent manner. On the other hand, we have clocks and other oddities like tea, tobacco, potatoes, umbrellas, etc., readily available in homes in the Shire (these were emended in part by Tolkien, but the anachronistic flavor remains).

So Tolkien eschewed rape as a weapon of war even though it was a primary tactic of fear, even a right of the victors, in European wars, just as he neglected the mention of culverins, which were at the battles of Crecy and Poitiers, or crossbows which were available in Europe at a far earlier date. This makes his depiction of war follow a more classical or legendary mode of storytelling not necessarily reliant on factual data which he would clearly possess, as steeped in history and philology as he was; therefore, this need of yours to castigate Tolkien for being unfactual in his depiction of war is unfounded, as his emphasis was never to present a carbon-copy historical document based on medieval warfare.

Originally Posted by davem

So, to reiterate, we're discussing how Tolkien deals with what he does put into his story (ie, the way he depicts battle, & specifically the way people kill each other & how they die on the field), we aren't discussing why things that aren't part of the story haven't been included. People are being killed in battle & I'm questioning how that is depicted - because it is depicted, but not in a realistic way. There is no mention of rape taking place - it isn't depicted in any way at all so its not possible to discuss how Tolkien deals with rape as a weapon of war, because he doesn't deal with it at all.

We are not discussing anything. I think most of the discussion has devolved into you and the rest of us. I've already given several compelling reasons why battle is not depicted in the manner you deem appropriate based on publisher demands, the time period in which it was written, the proposed audience of the book, Tolkien's eccentric reliance on archaic/classical modes of expression, and conversely, a scrupulous avoidance of modernism evident in other writers of the first half of the 20th century.

I know, I know, I miss the point. Whatever.

[Pitchwife]

Morthoron -

We are not discussing anything. I think most of the discussion has devolved into you and the rest of us.

Not quite. I think davem does have a point, and I've been wondering for quite a while which kind of answer would satisfy him. Lots of reasons have been given (by you and others) why Tolkien didn't describe battle more honestly/realistically, but davem's question, as I understand it, is:
"Never mind the reasons why he didn't do this, do we (21st century readers) think he should have?"
To which there would be two kinds of possible answers:
1. Yes, I think he should have done it, because...
2. No, I'm fine with the job he did, because...
Unfortunately, I'm too tired right now to dig into this any more than I've already tried to (I should have been in bed an hour ago). But I've got a feeling that this thread will be going on for another couple of days (unless you two get tired of playing ping-pong)...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Lots of reasons have been given (by you and others) why Tolkien didn't describe battle more honestly/realistically, but davem's question, as I understand it, is:
"Never mind the reasons why he didn't do this, do we (21st century readers) think he should have?"
To which there would be two kinds of possible answers:
1. Yes, I think he should have done it, because...
2. No, I'm fine with the job he did, because...

The question is irrelevant. It neither applies to Tolkien's temperment, beliefs, mode of writing, or the time period in which he wrote, nor does it matter a hill of beans what we think he should have done.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Morthoron -

Not quite. I think davem does have a point, and I've been wondering for quite a while which kind of answer would satisfy him. Lots of reasons have been given (by you and others) why Tolkien didn't describe battle more honestly/realistically, but davem's question, as I understand it, is:
"Never mind the reasons why he didn't do this, do we (21st century readers) think he should have?"
To which there would be two kinds of possible answers:
1. Yes, I think he should have done it, because...
2. No, I'm fine with the job he did, because...
Unfortunately, I'm too tired right now to dig into this any more than I've already tried to (I should have been in bed an hour ago). But I've got a feeling that this thread will be going on for another couple of days (unless you two get tired of playing ping-pong)...

davem's points often twist and turn depending on how long he wants to maintain the controversy and how much fun he is having baiting people. However, in post #121 he phrases the issue this way:

Originally Posted by davem, post 121

If we are dealing with violence specifically is it right to present that in a romantic/elegiac way which may mislead the reader & affect the way they percieve violence in the real world?

Here he is putting the question in terms of the effect on readers' reactions to events in their historical world, the Primary World. This is a classic complaint against literature.

It is also, in reverse, the complaint made about computer games, that the violence in them leads to gamers' violence in real life.

Presumably davem wants us to consider if the omission might make readers more eager for war, not understanding how horrible it is.

Who is responsible for how readers use literature--or gamers, games--the users or the creators?

Of course, we don't know if literature/games/LotR would have a misleading effect, if it would incite readers to acts of war or make it easier to think that a just war is possible in our time.

We could, for instance, look at how Karen Armstrong discusses the effect on her of reading about the specific acts of horrendous cruelty and barbarity which the Western crusaders inflicted on both Muslims and Jews, in Europe and in the "Holy Land", and on women and children, not just combatants. And we could then examine her analysis of the consequences for cultural relations that continues down to this time. And we could think about how this knowledge influences our reading of today's world--and, even, our reading of Tolkien's just war.

But those historical accounts are indeed that, historical records--a witness--left by the participants, and not works of the imagination. They certainly aren't fantasy.

Thanks, LadyBrooke, for clarifying that it was not you who provided that intriguing quote from Tolkien's letters. My thanks to the very talented Ibrin for that contribution.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Presumably davem wants us to consider if the omission might make readers more eager for war, not understanding how horrible it is.

And, of course, why Tolkien presented war in the way he did. Tolkien knew the truth about war, about how people really die (or don't die, just remain functioning with broken bodies & shattered minds). Yet he doesn't present us with that reality. He (& knowing the truth from first hand experience) chooses to write about it in such a way that that reality is absent.

Is that not intriguing? What would a psychologist make of a victim's account of a traumatic event which deliberately onitted the most horrific dimension.

Oh, its because Tolkien was writing an heroic romance. Or its because he was writing in the forties, when authors didn't go in for all that brutal realism. Or, its because he didn't want to upset any kiddies that might pick up the book. Or its....er... its because when the book was published there was a paper shortage & he had to be selective in what he included.....

Why is the truth, the harsh, unpleasant reality of war totally absent from the book, when the glory, excitement, joy, the self sacrifice & the rest of the 'positives' are played up. And do we as readers get a false impression of war from it? If its because Tolkien couldn't bring himself to speak of something so close to him, that I can accept, but still ask the question - what do we lose by that ommission. If, on the other hand its because he didn't want to frighten the children, or shock the ladies ("Would you want your wives, or your servants to read this book?" ) then I find that a bit distasteful.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I refuse to discuss the subject in the manner you demand, as is my preorogative. Others in the discussion seem to follow their own way as well, however limited and irrelevant you deem their replies.

Yes, yes, yes. But....the reason for that is, I started the discussion & set the terms. You don't have to participate, & if you want to discuss a different topic, or the same kind of topic in a different way, you are free to start your own thread. (BTW, when I pointed up the number of views this topic has so far recieved, it was to make the point that people are clearly enjoying the debate, the cut & thrust, the dynamic interaction, the long words, the twisting of arguments & the knocking down of Aunt Sallys involved. Or they may just be bored & have nothing better to do.Who knows?

What would you like to discuss instead?)

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

You're welcome, Bethberry (and LadyBrooke).

The subject of whether or not "entertainment" -- fiction, games, movies, etc. -- leads to indifference toward violence will probably be debated forever. But comparatively speaking, it is a very recent issue, if for no other reason than movies, video games, and role-playing games didn't exist until recent times (at least in historic terms). It's entirely possible that some people do become jaded toward violence because of their "unrealistic" exposure to it in such media -- especially in things where you can see the violence "happen," but in such a way that the witness is detached from any sense that the event is, or could be, "real." It has also been suggested (quite some time ago; I wrote a paper on it while I was in high school about 40 years ago) that seeing footage of real violence on the evening news causes the same kind of detachment, and after an initial horrified reaction, eventually inures some viewers to the real horror of it -- because it feels unreal, like the commercials and sitcoms and cartoons one sees on the same screen.

I can well imagine that it's possible that some people are similarly affected by reading about graphic violence; after a time, the descriptions cease to have the same effect they had the first time they were read. Because of my ongoing therapy for PTSD, I have read many books on the subject and related issues; I can't recall which author said it (it may have been John Bradford or Jon Kabat Zinn), but it is nonetheless true: "The witness of abuse is the victim of abuse." One can be as sorely harmed, psychologically, by seeing another person abused as the person who is being beaten or bullied, especially if this is something they see repeatedly, or the trauma is extreme. If this is so, then I would say that the use of graphic violence or other traumatic events in fiction writing is something best used very judiciously. One person might think that an author has a moral obligation to show the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, harsh and unvarnished and in all possible detail; another might believe that the author has a moral obligation to show as much as is necessary to provoke thought without traumatizing the reader, by making them a witness to verbal violence. I know that it's possible to do so through words alone. I've seen people react both emotionally and physically to brief passages in books; I've even written some things that readers told me prompted similar responses. They also told me that they were quite glad I showed restraint; a little bit went a long way, and too much would have made them feel as if they were being unnecessarily bludgeoned with it when I had already made my point.

So should Tolkien have written "the truth" about the horror of war in LotR? My feeling is that he did, in the way that was true to his story and true to himself. I did not come away from my first reading of LotR at age 11, thinking that war was glorious, or that it was something that just happened without causing lasting harm. I felt that it was something terrible, something that any sane person would want to avoid, and that even when it became necessary as defense, there were still many, many people who were hurt and suffered and died, both among the soldiers and the civilians. Graphic detail would not have enhanced this reaction; it quite likely would have made me put down the book long before the end, and I would have lost a great deal by not finishing. Fictional depiction of unpleasant truths can be educational -- but only up to a point, I believe. Beyond that threshold, it can undercut, distort, or even obliterate the message, because the audience stops listening, or listens out of fear.