Fantasy

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

So can we blame Tolkien for not wanting to write a perfectly accurate description of life? Don't we all want to leave this world and all of its ugliness behind for a while? Not only did Tolkien created characters without feet of clay, but also kept their semi-angelic feet out of the muck as well.

Recently upon perusing an ealier history of travels, which included some events of warfare and war like acrimony, and many other things as well which don't pertain to LotR, I came upon a passage which upon reflection seemed to suit this comment, so I offer it in the kindness that alatar may feel he need not double post, not withstanding the latter comments by several other Downers , although for what specific reason I cannot specifically ascertain, whether as Ornament to our Discussion or as Truth.

Originally Posted by Gulliver's Travels, Bk IV, chap 12

Thus, gentle reader, I have given thee a faithful history of my travels for sixteen years and above seven months: wherein I have not been so studious of ornament as of truth. I could, perhaps, like others, have astonished thee with strange improbable tales; but I rather chose to relate plain matter of fact, in the simplest manner and style; because my principal design was to inform, and not to amuse thee.

It is easy for us who travel into remote countries, which are seldom visited by Englishmen or other Europeans, to form descriptions of wonderful animals both at sea and land. Whereas a traveller's chief aim should be to make men wiser and better, and to improve their minds by the bad, as well as good, example of what they deliver concerning foreign places.

I could heartily wish a law was enacted, that every traveller, before he were permitted to publish his voyages, should be obliged to make oath before the Lord High Chancellor, that all he intended to print was absolutely true to the best of his knowledge; for then the world would no longer be deceived, as it usually is, while some writers, to make their works pass the better upon the public, impose the grossest falsities on the unwary reader. I have perused several books of travels with great delight in my younger days; but having since gone over most parts of the globe, and been able to contradict many fabulous accounts from my own observation, it has given me a great disgust against this part of reading, and some indignation to see the credulity of mankind so impudently abused. Therefore, since my acquaintance were pleased to think my poor endeavours might not be unacceptable to my country, I imposed on myself, as a maxim never to be swerved from, that I would strictly adhere to truth; neither indeed can I be ever under the least temptation to vary from it, while I retain in my mind the lectures and example of my noble master and the other illustrious Houyhnhnms of whom I had so long the honour to be an humble hearer.

- Nec si miserum Fortuna Sinonem Finxit, vanum etiam, mendacemque improba finget.

I know very well, how little reputation is to be got by writings which require neither genius nor learning, nor indeed any other talent, except a good memory, or an exact journal. I know likewise, that writers of travels, like dictionary-makers, are sunk into oblivion by the weight and bulk of those who come last, and therefore lie uppermost. And it is highly probable, that such travellers, who shall hereafter visit the countries described in this work of mine, may, by detecting my errors (if there be any), and adding many new discoveries of their own, justle me out of vogue, and stand in my place, making the world forget that ever I was an author. This indeed would be too great a mortification, if I wrote for fame: but as my sole intention was the public good, I cannot be altogether disappointed. For who can read of the virtues I have mentioned in the glorious Houyhnhnms, without being ashamed of his own vices, when he considers himself as the reasoning, governing animal of his country? I shall say nothing of those remote nations where Yahoos preside; among which the least corrupted are the Brobdingnagians; whose wise maxims in morality and government it would be our happiness to observe. But I forbear descanting further, and rather leave the judicious reader to his own remarks and application.

I am not a little pleased that this work of mine can possibly meet with no censurers: for what objections can be made against a writer, who relates only plain facts, that happened in such distant countries, where we have not the least interest, with respect either to trade or negotiations? I have carefully avoided every fault with which common writers of travels are often too justly charged. Besides, I meddle not the least with any party, but write without passion, prejudice, or ill-will against any man, or number of men, whatsoever. I write for the noblest end, to inform and instruct mankind; over whom I may, without breach of modesty, pretend to some superiority, from the advantages I received by conversing so long among the most accomplished Houyhnhnms. I write without any view to profit or praise. I never suffer a word to pass that may look like reflection, or possibly give the least offence, even to those who are most ready to take it. So that I hope I may with justice pronounce myself an author perfectly blameless; against whom the tribes of Answerers, Considerers, Observers, Reflectors, Detectors, Remarkers, will never be able to find matter for exercising their talents.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Recently upon perusing an ealier history of travels, which included some events of warfare and war like acrimony, and many other things as well which don't pertain to LotR, I came upon a passage which upon reflection seemed to suit this comment, so I offer it in the kindness that alatar may feel he need not double post, not withstanding the latter comments by several other Downers , although for what specific reason I cannot specifically ascertain, whether as Ornament to our Discussion or as Truth.

I have this fantasy that one day I will once understand what Bêthberry is writing about...

[davem]

http://www.suvudu.com/2009/02/the-re...-k-morgan.html

“I tell you, it’s no game serving down in the city”

- Gorbag - forgotten orc captain from Minas Morgul

I’m not much of a Tolkien fan - not since I was about twelve or fourteen anyway (which, it strikes me, is about the right age to read and enjoy his stuff). But it would be a foolish writer in the fantasy field who failed to acknowledge the man’s overwhelming significance in the canon. And it would be a poor and superficial reader of Tolkien who failed to acknowledge that in amongst all the overwrought prose, the nauseous paeans to class-bound rural England, and the endless bloody elven singing that infests The Lord of the Rings, you can sometimes discern the traces of a bleak underlying human landscape which is completely at odds with the epic fantasy narrative for which the book is better known.

That little twist of urban angst quoted above is one such trace. It comes at the end of The Two Towers and is part of an on-going set of dialogues between two orc captains at the tower of Cirith Ungol. And for a while - until Tolkien remembers these are Bad Guys and sends the wearyingly Good and Wholesome Sam up against them - we get a fascinating insight into life for the rank and file in Mordor. The orcs are disenchanted, poorly informed and constantly stressed by the uncertainties that lack of information brings. They suspect that the war might be going badly for their side, and that their commanders, far from being infallible, seem to be making some serious errors of judgment. They worry that if their side loses, they can expect scant mercy from their victorious enemies. They mutter their misgivings sotto voce because they know that there are informers in the ranks and a culture of enforcement through terror bearing down from above. They also seem possessed of a rough good humour and some significant loyalty to the soldiers they command. And they’re not enjoying the war any more than Frodo or Samwise; they want it to be over just as much as anybody else.

For me, this is some of the finest, most engaging work in The Lord of the Rings. It feels - perhaps a strange attribute for a fantasy novel - real. Suddenly, I'm interested in these orcs. Gorbag is transformed by that one laconic line about the city, from slavering brutish evil-doer to world-weary (almost noir-ish) hard-bitten survivor. The simplistic archetypes of Evil are stripped away and what lies beneath is - for better or brutal worse - all too human. This is the real meat of the narrative, this is the telling detail (as Bradbury's character Faber from Fahrenheit 451 would have it), no Good, no Evil, just the messy human realities of a Great War as seen from ground level. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that what you're probably looking at here are the fossil remnants of Tolkien's first-hand experiences in his own Great War, as he passed through the hellish trenches and the slaughter of the Somme in 1916.

The great shame is, of course, that Tolkien was not able (or inclined) to mine this vein of experience for what it was really worth - in fact he seemed to be in full, panic-stricken flight from it. I suppose it's partially understandable - the generation who fought in the First World War got to watch every archetypal idea they had about Good and Evil collapse in reeking bloody ruin around them. It takes a lot of strength to endure something like that and survive, and then to re-draw your understanding of things to fit the uncomfortable reality you've seen. Far easier to retreat into simplistic nostalgia for the faded or forgotten values you used to believe in. So by the time we get back to Cirith Ungol in The Return of the King, Gorbag and his comrades have been conveniently shorn of their more interesting human character attributes and we're back to the cackling slavering evil out of Mordor from a children's bedtime story. Our glimpse of something more humanly interesting is gone, replaced once more by the ponderous epic tones of Towering Archetypal Evil pitted against Irritatingly Radiant Good (oh - and guess who wins).

Now, I just know that most of the responses this will get will be attacks on the writer for attacking Tolkien, but I think, as with the last article I linked to, that he makes some valid points (the ones I've highlighted)

the traces of a bleak underlying human landscape

&

It takes a lot of strength to endure something like that and survive, and then to re-draw your understanding of things to fit the uncomfortable reality you've seen. Far easier to retreat into simplistic nostalgia for the faded or forgotten values you used to believe in

Tolkien, in Shagrat & Gorbag, shows not the banality of evil, so much as the humanity of it. S & G are the poor bloody infantry in a way that no-one on the 'good' side is. We almost glimpse the true horror of war, but never quite do. Its clear that there is this 'split' in Tolkien - the veteran who knows the horror & banality of real war is in constant conflict with the romantic dreamer who wants to escape back into an ideal past, when men fought honourably in just wars. The S & G scene is shocking in its realism - in fact, I suspect that the writer is correct - Tolkien here actually touched on the reality of war - & on realising that he ran from it like a shot.

[Pitchwife]

I know I'm not responding to davem's last post quite as seriously as it deserves (and I mean this quite seriously), but as soon as I read about Shagrat and Gorbag representing the poor bloody infantry this popped up in my mind:

Marching Song of the Mordor Orcs
(tune: The Old Barbed Wire; cf Chumbawamba, English Rebel Songs)

If you want to find the Dark Lord, I know where he is
I know where he is, I know where he is
If you want to find the Dark Lord, I know where he is
He's sitting in safety on top of his bloody tower

If you want to find the Nazgûl, I know where he is
I know where he is, I know where he is
If you want to find the Nazgûl, I know where he is
He's riding aloft on his wingéd beast

If you want to find the Uruk, I know where he is
I know where he is, I know where he is
If you want to find the Uruk, I know where he is
He's scattered in pieces all over the Pelennor

I saw him, I saw him
Scattered in pieces all over the Pelennor

(Note: Originally I meant to write this from the perspective of a Gondorian or Rohirric private, but it doesn't work for the good guys - which tells us something about good and evil, doesn't it?)

[davem]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

(Note: Originally I meant to write this from the perspective of a Gondorian or Rohirric private, but it doesn't work for the good guys - which tells us something about good and evil, doesn't it?)

It does - just as if we change the quote I gave earlier slightly

The Gondorians/Rohirrim are disenchanted, poorly informed and constantly stressed by the uncertainties that lack of information brings. They suspect that the war might be going badly for their side, and that their commanders, far from being infallible, seem to be making some serious errors of judgment. They worry that if their side loses, they can expect scant mercy from their victorious enemies. They mutter their misgivings sotto voce because they know that there are informers in the ranks and a culture of enforcement through terror bearing down from above.

we find ourselves in totally different territory. Yet, can we honestly imagine that none of the PBI in Gondor or Rohan felt that way? Tolkien stepped out onto dangerous ground with this scene - those Orcs suddenly become human - if they are stupid & vicious as well we are forced to ask ourselves whether we could expect anything else, given that they are brought up without education, ambition, or hope for the future.

But is he attempting to elicit sympathy for sentient beings in a hellish situation, or contempt?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

- if they are stupid & vicious as well we are forced to ask ourselves whether we could expect anything else, given that they are brought up without education, ambition, or hope for the future.

Oh, dear. "It's not the lad's fault, Milud, he had a bad childhood."

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Oh, dear. "It's not the lad's fault, Milud, he had a bad childhood."

Tolkien clearly struggled over the nature & motivation of Orcs, whether they were 'robots' or sentient creatures. If they were sentient one can analyse their behaviour, attitudes, whether they lived empty, hopeless lives, & if so to what extent they had any option in that.

The point of this particular discussion is why Tolkien (uniquely, I think) chose to, for a brief moment, give us a glimpse into the essential 'humanity' of Orcs. We get to see more deeply into the psyche of these two creatures than we do into most of the other characters in the whole book. In a real sense these are 'modern' people who have snuck into Tolkien's epic romance.

"Sh, Gorbag!" Shagrat's voice was lowered, so that even with his strangely sharpened hearing Sam could only just catch what was said. "They may, but they've got eyes and ears everywhere; some among my lot, as like as not. But there's no doubt about it, they're troubled about something. The Nazgul down below are, by your account; and Lugburz is too. Something nearly slipped." 'Nearly, you say!" said Gorbag. 'All right," said Shagrat, 'but we'll talk of that later. Wait till we get to the Under-way. There's a place there where we can talk a bit, while the lads go on." ........ 'No, I don't know," said Gorbag's voice. "The messages go through quicker than anything could fly, as a rule. But I don't enquire how it's done. Safest not to. Grr! Those Nazgul give me the creeps. And they skin the body off you as soon as look at you, and leave you all cold in the dark on the other side. But He likes 'em; they're His favourites nowadays, so it's no use grumbling. I tell you, it's no game serving down in the city." 'You should try being up here with Shelob for company," said Shagrat. "I'd like to try somewhere where there's none of 'em. But the war's on now, and when that's over things may be easier."

"It's going well, they say." "They would," grunted Gorbag. "We'll see. But anyway, if it does go well, there should be a lot more room. What d'you say?--if we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses." 'Ah!" said Shagrat. 'Like old times." 'Yes," said Gorbag. "But don't count on it. I'm not easy in my mind. As I said, the Big Bosses, ay," his voice sank almost to a whisper, 'ay, even the Biggest, can make mistakes. Something nearly slipped, you say. I say, something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. But don't forget: the enemies don't love us any more than they love Him, and if they get topsides on Him, we're done too.

Those are real, true, grumbling soldiers - & they don't 'belong' in Middle-earth. They complicate things - they aren't the simplistically 'nasty' bad guys of the rest of the legendarium. For a moment they break free of their cliched existence & become three dimensional beings with hopes & fears & dreams. Again, its that "bleak underlying human landscape" which peeps through the fairy story, which for all his efforts Tolkien cannot keep out of his creation.

What's interesting, though, is that these 'glimpses' are always associated with the 'bad' side. The good side wanders in Faery, beneath the stars to the accompaniment of Elven hymns to Elbereth.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by davem

Yet, can we honestly imagine that none of the PBI in Gondor or Rohan felt that way?

Probably not. Generally, the commanders of the 'good side' seem to have been respected, admired, in some cases (like Beregond/Faramir) even loved by their soldiers; but we have one little scene where a soldier of Rohan expresses his doubt, or even distrust, of one of the Big Bosses (without fear of being informed on and punished!) - LotR Book III, Helm's Deep:

'What does that mean?' said one of the guard to Háma.
'That Gandalf Greyhame has need of haste,' answered Háma. 'Ever he goes and comes unlooked-for.'
'Wormtongue, were he here, would not find it hard to explain,' said the other.
'True enough,' said Háma; 'but for myself, I will wait until I see Gandalf again.'
'Maybe you will wait long,' said the other.

We may also wonder whether anybody bothered to tell the common soldiers who took part in the last attack on the Morannon that they were merely bait in a trap, with little hope of survival - and if so, or if they guessed the truth by themselves, how did they feel about it? Unfortunately, we're not told, but it would have been interesting.

Now to the Orcs.

if they are stupid & vicious as well we are forced to ask ourselves whether we could expect anything else, given that they are brought up without education, ambition, or hope for the future.

True; and this is still the most efficient method of reducing human beings to moral Orc-level. On the other hand (to take up WCH's point), if we suppose that the Orcs were sentient beings and not robots, does that not also mean that they were in some degree morally responsible for what they made of the starting conditions they were raised in, even if these conditions were admittedly bleak? How far did their corruption by Morgoth and Sauron actually go?
The sparse glimpses of the other side's perspective Tolkien offers us (not only in the Gorbag/Shagrat scenes, but also in the dialogues of Uglúk and Grishnákh in the Uruk-hai chapter) are very interesting in this respect. Among other things, they show us that the Orcs did believe in such values as honour and solidarity, just like the 'good guys' - but they also show us their utter inability to act according to these values, even in their dealings among themselves; rather they treated each other just as badly as they were treated by their superiors.
But how did they acquire any idea of such values in the first place? And if their inability to act on them is a measure of their corruption, does that mean they're not to blame? I don't think the Professor himself ever made up his mind about that.

But is he attempting to elicit sympathy for sentient beings in a hellish situation, or contempt?

A strange mixture of disgust and pity, I'd say - disgust at the result of the corruption they had undergone, and pity (as in Gandalf's 'I pity even his slaves') for the sentient beings who were thus corrupted.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

I have this fantasy that one day I will once understand what Bêthberry is writing about...

That's rather like the once and future king, isn't it? I shall take to calling you Arthur now. Or would that be Arthatar?

Originally Posted by davem

Those are real, true, grumbling soldiers - & they don't 'belong' in Middle-earth. They complicate things - they aren't the simplistically 'nasty' bad guys of the rest of the legendarium. For a moment they break free of their cliched existence & become three dimensional beings with hopes & fears & dreams. Again, its that "bleak underlying human landscape" which peeps through the fairy story, which for all his efforts Tolkien cannot keep out of his creation.

On the other hand, it is interesting to speculate why Tolkien would give such a modern voice to the orcs. What would it mean for readers, even veterans, to identify themselves with the orcs?

Recall Tolkien's thoughts in the Foreword to the Second Edition where he argues that the legendary war in his tale ressembles neither the progress nor the conclusion of the historical war. His hypothetical reading suggests that something like the atom bomb is akin to the Great Ring he envisions Saruman would make. It's a very pessimistic vision of his fellow allies.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

We do have a rather significant example of Tolkien's "heroes" feeling clear pity for the "enemy." In "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit":

Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering banks, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of a broken sword.

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace.

This is not a reaction of contempt. And I have often felt that in it are echoes of Tolkien's own experiences in WWI, what he felt when he experienced the reality of war for the first time. Even when the person is in strange clothing, has different colored skin, and bears the label of "enemy," he is still another living being (or on this case, was a living being), and might well have the very same thoughts and feelings about being a part of this war as an ally. If you prick an enemy, even an orc, they still bleed, and suffer, and die. It is to both Sam's and Tolkien's credit that he is able to look upon a fallen foe and not only feel pity for him, but also also a kind of kinship.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Please do keep in mind that Shagrat and Gorbag are NOT 'real, true, grumbling soldiers:' they aren't talking about going home and opening a pub, their wish is to go loot, murder and rape on their own rather than for somebody else.

Tolkien's problem with the Orcs operates on a theological level, not a practical one. Frankly I get rather annoyed at the school of criticism, so dominant today, which demands (a) 'realism' and (b) moral ambiguity. The abstractive process Tolkien called 'Recovery" can with perfect validity take the form of distilling good and evil one from the other.

I put 'realism' in quotes because the supposed 'realism' of academe often bears little resemblance to the actual world. It produces notions like the following: " if they are stupid & vicious as well we are forced to ask ourselves whether we could expect anything else, given that they are brought up without education, ambition, or hope for the future.." Well, here I'm on my home ground, criminal law. Yes, we can very well "expect anything else." I assure you, the majority of young men from the ghetto "are brought up without education, ambition, or hope for the future," and yet they do NOT become thugs. Actual empiricism, real-world evidence, here as so often elsewhere is the death of the flat universalisms so indicative of a priori thinking.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Yes, we can very well "expect anything else." I assure you, the majority of young men from the ghetto "are brought up without education, ambition, or hope for the future," and yet they do NOT become thugs. Actual empiricism, real-world evidence, here as so often elsewhere is the death of the flat universalisms so indicative of a priori thinking.

So where are the 'majority' of Orcs who do not become thugs then? Given the number of Orcs available to Sauron in the book if the thuggish Orcs constitute merely a 'minority' then the corpses of the majority of good, decent, compassionate & forward thinking Orcs, the ones with ambition, the ones who want to get themselves out of Mordor & make something of their lives, must be ten deep across the whole of Mordor - unless the other Orcs have come up with their own equivalent of Soylent Green....

Sorry, the Orcs must be corrupted, ground down & twisted into the sub human monsters we see in the book....except, some of them do dream & hope - & it matters not at all for the purpose of this argument that they dream about loot, murder & rape - what matters is that they dream about 'freedom' from Sauron, breaking free from the restriction, the fear, the hopelessness which is all they have known. 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. Every other being, from every other race, obeys the rules of the world they inhabit. None of them, Men, Elves, Dwarves, Balrogs, as we encounter them would fit into the Primary World - they are all true to their fairy story origins, but these Orcs are not. They have strayed out of some 'realistic' novel & have no place in Faerie. Luckily, they are dispatched quickly & so can be forgotten.

As Bb asks, why did Tolkien give such a 'modern' voice to the Orcs? Indeed, why did he make them such modern people? With such a modern attitude?

Perhaps because Mordor is the ultimate 'modern' state & so produces 'modern' rebels. Yet, & here perhaps is the most interesting issue raised (to my mind, of course), there is no desire on Tolkien's part to have these rebels 'saved', for that first, tentative reaching for freedom from the crushing weight of Sauron's heel, to have a chance to develop into something beyond looting, rape & murder. They are 'evil' so they are damned.

And that's another interesting thing about Tolkien's world & the philosophy which underlies it - 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?

And that brings us to the incident with the fallen Haradrim

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace.

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....

[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..

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

And that's another interesting thing about Tolkien's world & the philosophy which underlies it - 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?

According to Tolkien's faith, offering forgiveness is always good and never pointless, because it enhances the wellbeing of the person doing the offering (assuming it was offerred with a compassionate frame of mind and not with ulterior motives). It isn't a matter of showing off one's enlightened state or scoring rep points or pwning!, but of actively promoting good, even if it is refused. To call it pointless if refused is to apply the value system of materialism to the act--one might even say, if I am reading Tolkien correctly, Mordor's materialism.

[alatar]

Orcs need hugs too!

Originally Posted by davem

So where are the 'majority' of Orcs who do not become thugs then? Given the number of Orcs available to Sauron in the book if the thuggish Orcs constitute merely a 'minority' then the corpses of the majority of good, decent, compassionate & forward thinking Orcs, the ones with ambition, the ones who want to get themselves out of Mordor & make something of their lives, must be ten deep across the whole of Mordor - unless the other Orcs have come up with their own equivalent of Soylent Green....

I'm sure that their population follows the usual bell curve distribution, where most are something, and a few are different at both ends. Where Shagrat and Gorbag fall, I'm not sure. I'm guessing that the orc pacifist-poets remain hidden within the population, as, due to their society, this would been seen as a weakness - acting human - and allow others to take from them with the consensus of the crowd.

Sorry, the Orcs must be corrupted, ground down & twisted into the sub human monsters we see in the book....except, some of them do dream & hope - & it matters not at all for the purpose of this argument that they dream about loot, murder & rape - what matters is that they dream about 'freedom' from Sauron, breaking free from the restriction, the fear, the hopelessness which is all they have known.

But I'd say that they just want to be 'top dog;' not interesting in changing things in a so-called enlightened way, but just dream that one day they would be calling the shots and get all of the loot.

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. Every other being, from every other race, obeys the rules of the world they inhabit. None of them, Men, Elves, Dwarves, Balrogs, as we encounter them would fit into the Primary World - they are all true to their fairy story origins, but these Orcs are not. They have strayed out of some 'realistic' novel & have no place in Faerie. Luckily, they are dispatched quickly & so can be forgotten.

Boromir, Sam, Frodo et al didn't have dreams or desires, or want to buck the system?

As Bb asks, why did Tolkien give such a 'modern' voice to the Orcs? Indeed, why did he make them such modern people? With such a modern attitude?

It was cool to read that the orcs weren't video-game horde villains, but actually were realistic animals with biological needs as vital as any organism.

Perhaps because Mordor is the ultimate 'modern' state & so produces 'modern' rebels. Yet, & here perhaps is the most interesting issue raised (to my mind, of course), there is no desire on Tolkien's part to have these rebels 'saved', for that first, tentative reaching for freedom from the crushing weight of Sauron's heel, to have a chance to develop into something beyond looting, rape & murder. They are 'evil' so they are damned.

I don't think that there was time to 'evolve' them into something more benign. We read of times in the history of Middle Earth when orcs *weren't* multiplying (were they all accountants?), and so maybe we have examples of Pax Orcana when the majority of living orcs were more reasonable (though genetically susceptible to the call of an evil leader).

And that's another interesting thing about Tolkien's world & the philosophy which underlies it - 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?

I think that he was trying to keep the characters both interesting and not so muddy. We could have had Saruman the Repentant, but then he could have fallen away later in the story yet again, and so on...makes one think that killing him on a spiky wheel simplifies the story greatly.

The LotR story takes place in a year. Show me someone who turns around completely in such a time, especially if they've had years (even thousands) in which to become such a person. For example, few addicts simply put down their junk and walk away and not feel any side effects or cravings or backslide or whatever, especially if they've been using for a long time. Theoden didn't shake off his issues quickly, and he even had Gandalf's help. Anyway...

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....

Agreed, though it does point out that people can remain people even during conflict.

[Pitchwife]

An afterthought:

Originally Posted by davem

there is no desire on Tolkien's part to have these rebels 'saved'

But did they ever actually rebel, or did they just talk and fantasize about it (the way a smoker may talk about quitting, because it would be reasonable/healthy/whatever, but without the will to actually try) ? The way I understand Tolkien's views, you have to make an effort if you want to be saved; dreaming is not enough. Again, it's the difference between paying lip-service to values and acting accordingly, see above.

[littlemanpoet]

Ah the taste of human blood
it is like the sweet smell of dung
like listening to keening mothers
weeping for their sons oh the delight
like swallowing a great gob of manflesh
like knives on the tongue
and another's gold in the hand
ah the taste ah the taste

[davem]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

An afterthought:


But did they ever actually rebel, or did they just talk and fantasize about it (the way a smoker may talk about quitting, because it would be reasonable/healthy/whatever, but without the will to actually try) ?.

But isn't it interesting that no 'bad guy' ever chooses to repent? Why does Tolkien not include a 'villain' who turns? And wouldn't it have been interesting if he had? It would have reinforced the message of hope, of the 'unexpected turn of events'. But it seems that once one has chosen evil one loses all real desire for the good. Certainly there is hope for the good guys even at the greatest extremity, at the Sammath Naur, but those who have chosen evil, like Gollum, Saruman, Denethor, Wormtongue, & the rest will not turn. What does this tell us about moral choices in Tolkien's world?

It may well be true that offering forgiveness & the chance of repentance to those who have chosen evil "enhances the wellbeing of the person doing the offering (assuming it was offerred with a compassionate frame of mind and not with ulterior motives)" but how long is it going to be before the good guys realise that its ultimately a futile exercise because the bad guys won't take up the opportunity?

Yet, one could argue that the knowledge that the bad guy won't repent actually makes offering the chance of repentance & forgiveness easier - if you know the monster won;t repent you know you won't have to deal with them, have them living among 'decent folk'. And wouldn't that have been the hardest thing - living with a reformed Gollum or Saruman after everything they'd done? Far harder than simply offering the chance of repentance in the first place. Much easier to offer a homeless ex-convict a room in your house if you know they'll reject it, but would you make the offer if you thought they might take you up on it?

Tolken 'deals' with evil by having it conveniently choose damnation, thereby avoiding any need for all that messy 'Truth & Reconciliation' stuff.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

But isn't it interesting that no 'bad guy' ever chooses to repent?

What of the Dunlendings, as a group, in the aftermath of Helm's Deep?

Why does Tolkien not include a 'villain' who turns? And wouldn't it have been interesting if he had? It would have reinforced the message of hope, of the 'unexpected turn of events'. But it seems that once one has chosen evil one loses all real desire for the good. Certainly there is hope for the good guys even at the greatest extremity, at the Sammath Naur, but those who have chosen evil, like Gollum, Saruman, Denethor, Wormtongue, & the rest will not turn. What does this tell us about moral choices in Tolkien's world?

I think that Gollum was an 'almost-was.' He was slowly, from the kindness of Frodo, turning back from his evil, and if the events of Ithilien had gone differently, he may have gotten over the threshold. That said, his journey took him, Frodo and Sam closer with each footstep *to* the physical source of evil in the world, and so Gollum may have not been able to break free. If, somehow, the three had been able to go West instead of East...

It may well be true that offering forgiveness & the chance of repentance to those who have chosen evil "enhances the wellbeing of the person doing the offering (assuming it was offerred with a compassionate frame of mind and not with ulterior motives)" but how long is it going to be before the good guys realise that its ultimately a futile exercise because the bad guys won't take up the opportunity?

I don't think that a thinking man allows others to dictate his course. The noble and/or heroic (me guesses) do what they do despite the consequences or however slim the chances. And that's why we read about them instead of those that give in or give up much sooner.

Yet, one could argue that the knowledge that the bad guy won't repent actually makes offering the chance of repentance & forgiveness easier - if you know the monster won;t repent you know you won't have to deal with them, have them living among 'decent folk'. And wouldn't that have been the hardest thing - living with a reformed Gollum or Saruman after everything they'd done? Far harder than simply offering the chance of repentance in the first place. Much easier to offer a homeless ex-convict a room in your house if you know they'll reject it, but would you make the offer if you thought they might take you up on it?

Much agreed, and it would have been interesting to see how that played out. What if Worm had walked away from Saruman? But then what interest to the story would he have been? He was Saruman's lackey sidekick, and with Theoden dead, what use he? Far better, I guess, for the story to have him turn on his master.

Tolken 'deals' with evil by having it conveniently choose damnation, thereby avoiding any need for all that messy 'Truth & Reconciliation' stuff.

Again, we are seeing a snapshot of these creatures' lives. Maybe the Balrog just wanted to be left alone, but no! Those pesky Dwarves wouldn't let him be.

[tumhalad2]

It might be interesting here to invoke Tom Shippey's essay, called Orcs, Wraiths, and Wrights-The Nature of Evil in Tolkien's Middle-earth

Though I dont have it with me, it deals with the very issue of the Shagrat and Gorbag episode. Shippey argues that indeed, the orcs are posessed of a moral compass, they are posessed of hopes, dreams and such, but only in a momentary sense

It's been a while since I've read it, but his essay argues that Tolkien is being quite deliberate in his characterisation here. Shippey argues that the episode is designed to elicit an empathetic response, at least initially. Indeed this is the central point-once this response has occured, the orcs subsequently effect the destruction of each other, revealing their base, fundementally animalistic natures-despite their 'humanity'

As I say I dont have the essay with me so I'm going off my (admittadly bad) memory.Shippey makes the point that the episode, rather than a mispaced modern insertion into an otherwise "morally simplistic" fable is designed to expose evil's absurd side-its fake, ultimately baseless morality.

Im not sure I have explained this very well; I dont have much time at the moment, but that is the gist of it

[davem]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Indeed this is the central point-once this response has occured, the orcs subsequently effect the destruction of each other, revealing their base, fundementally animalistic natures-despite their 'humanity'

Hmm...so its alright to slaughter them with impunity, then, because, although they seem to have emotions, hopes, fears - to be, in effect, just like us - they are in reality 'just animals'..... ?

Its not an analysis I accept - take the incident with Ghan buri Ghan & the Rohirrim, where he reveals that the Horse Lords routinely hunt the Woses like animals for sport. The Rohirrim are doing exactly what Shippey is saying Tolkien is doing - claiming that although the Woses may seem like people, they actually aren't - its an illusion, one which 'smart' people would not fall for?

What's interesting in this context is that we readers are so willing to accept Shippey's interpretation - & I can't help but feel that that's because it excuses our heroes' treatment of the enemy. If we were confronted with a 'human' enemy we would not feel as comfortable in our reading of the book. Hence, my own feeling that Tolkien actually did begin to present us with the 'human' side of the enemy, realised the devstating implications for his story of such a move, & drew back.

[tumhalad2]

Here's some analysis of Shippey's essay:

http://www.hatrack.com/svu/tolkien_lewis/al's%20Tolkienpaper.html

and the particularly relevant piece:

Shippey also makes an interesting point when he analyzes the discussion between Shagrat and Gorbag when they find Frodo at Cirith Ungol he says, “What the episode with Shagrat and Gorbag reveals is that orcs are moral beings, with an underlying morality much the same as ours.” However, if that is true, it seems that an underlying morality has no effect at all on actual behavior. How, then is an essentially correct theory of good and evil corrupted? If one starts from a sound moral basis, how can things go so disastrously wrong? It should require no demonstration to show that this is one of the vital questions raised with particular force during the twentieth century, in which the most civilized people have often committed the worst atrocities. Tolkien deserves credit for noting the problem, and refusing to turn his back on it, as so many of his canonical literary contemporaries did. Shippey also mentions that Tolkien “Insists in several places that evil has no great power. It ‘mocks’ and does not make.’”

AND:

FROM: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...4f77b?lnk=raot

They are cruel, they are greedy and they are selfish.


They also take delight in the degradation and humiliation of others,
and they derive pleasure from hurting and torturing others.


> But we also see that they are capable of an inner social structure,


But so are ants and other animals, so that fact alone doesn't really
make much of a difference, I'd say. The important thing must be the
nature of that social structure, and in the matter of the Orcs, their
social structure seems to be strictly a hierarchical pecking order
with the strongest in the top, cruelly dominating the rest.


> and as Tolkien insists that they breed like all other beings on
> Middle Earth, there must also be mothers, youngsters, etc.

[tumhalad2]

I have found the essay and I can here present some of the relevant informations:
[I]
Orcs, Wraiths, Wrights: Tolkien's Images of Evil[/I

"...Shagrat sees nothing wrong with Gorbat's use of "elvish" and Gorbat has no quarrel with Shagrat's sense of humour.

The subtle irony makes a point that is repeated again and again in the orcish conversation we hear, and which in its wider implications is important for Tolkien to stress again and again...Briefly what the episode of Shagrat and Gorbag reveals is that orcs are moral beings, with an underlying reality much the same as ours. But if that is true, it seems that an underlying morality has no effect of actual behaviour. If one starts from a sound moral basis, how can things go disastrously wrong? It should require no demonstration that this is one of the vital questions raised with particular force during the twentieth century, in which the worst atrocities have often been committed by the most civilized people...Orcs in fact place a high theoretical value on mutual trust and loyalty. "Rebel" is another one of their pejorative words...Snaga says to Shagrat "I've fought for the Tower against those stinking Morgul-rats", which shows a kind of limited loyalty. Another favourite word among the orcs is "lads", a word that implies male bondage and good fellowship...It should be pointed out that Gorbag and Shagrat soon fall out, and their ideal of being "trusty" is ironic because Shagrat says "I don't trust all my lads, and none of yours, nor you neither, when you're mad for fun"...nevertheless Mauhar and his lads do turn up and make an attempted rescue. The orcs furthermore, -to say the best one can of them-understand the concept of parley...Saruman's orcs show great pride in their boast, many times repeated "We are the fighting Uruk-hai".

Although all orcs appear to be man eaters, they do not appear to be cannibalistic, but reserve that catagorisation for orcs who eat other orcs...

It would be tedious to point out all the ways in which these claims are systematically disproved or ironized...But the point remains, the orcs recognize the idea of goodness, appreciate humour, value loyalty, trust, group cohesion, and the ideal of a higher cause than themselves, and condemn failings from these ideas in others. So, if they know what is right, how does it happen that they persist in wrong? The question becomes more persistant in that the orcish behaviour is also perfectly clearly human behaviour...

After all, if all evil creatures in the beginning were good...what justice is there in condemning them irrivocably to perdition? Could there not be some way of saving them? Tolkien never took up the challenge of finding some way of educating or "rehabilitating" the orcs, though he was aware of it [Shippey points to Morgoth's Ring] and though he did spend considerable time on the possibility of rehabilitating Gollum...Orcish behaviour, whether in orcs or in humans, has its root not in an inverted morality, which sees bad as good and vise versa, but as a kind of self centredness that sees indeed what is good-like standing by one's comerads and being loyal to one's mates-but is unable to set one's behavior on the right place in this accepted scale...

To summarise: There is in Tolkien's presentation of orcs a quite deliberate realism. Orcish behavior is human behavior, and their inability to judge their actions by their own moral criteria is a problem all too sadly familiar."


That's about as much as I could find that's relevant....interesting take on things

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Shippey I do recall points up the hypocritical contrast between "just left him lying- typical Elvish trick", wityh the fate of old Ufthak, whom his 'lads' did just that to. What Shippey is on about is that the Orcs are evil precisely because they *do* at some level know better- but never act on that better impulse. If they had no moral sense to disregard they would be mere animals, and blameless.

I really dislike the notion that this 'rebellious streak' is some sort of impulse to freedom. It reminds me uncomfortably of those who regard Milton's Satan as some sort of proto-democratic Hero. And, after all, Melkor *is* Lucifer, taking the same role in the cosmological drama, the Prime Rebel: which Tolkien defines as the root of all evil.

I would suggest that to Tolkien the essence of evil is *selfishness.* He goes so far as to claim Sauron in the First Age was less evil than his master because he at least served something other than himself, even if only from self-interested motives. Shagrat and Gorbag and Orcs generally are constantly fighting one another because selfishness is deeply ingrained in them. And, again, these two lovelies aren't 'rebelling' in any sense of repentance; they just want to plunder for their own benefit rather than the 'big bosses.' Nor, of course, is their 'friendship' any more than skin deep, as we see in the next chapter of the Frodo-narrative.

[Lalwendë]

The way this thread has gone, it really begins at post 16.

But getting right back to davem's original question, and linking with all the stuff inbetween, it is very interesting just what fantasy writers choose to include and exclude. davem has spotted that Tolkien chose not to write about the true picture of war, but there are more things Tolkien chose not to include, and it interests me why he did that.

The main thing I notice as absent is a true picture of monarchy. The stories of the British monarchs alone are enough to keep you going in juicy tales for a whole lifetime, and it seems we never had a King like Aragorn. Obviously Tolkien's main stories are from narrow time frames of Middle-earth's history so that limits the opportunities, but I often think this is something noticeably absent - the full picture of a real monarch. And all the politics surrounding that.

The closest he comes is with Theoden, trapped in his madness, corrupted by the counsels of Grima. But I'd love to have seen more of this, really seen Grima at work. It almost seems too easy for Gandalf to bring him to his senses.

A similar thing happens with the story of Numenor. There's so much that could have been fleshed out there.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

but there are more things Tolkien chose not to include, and it interests me why he did that.

Originally Posted by Post 16

Or, in short, how much should a writer - how much can a writer - get away with?

While I like lal's approach here--intrigued by omissions rather than assigning error or blame or falsehood--both her question and this earlier question from post 16 make a certain assumption about the nature of the imagination.

And that is, that "reality" or historical "fact" exists prior to any creative act, which must become some sort of deviation from that originary existence or a confirmation of it.

However, if we start with the idea that our perception of the world and experience originates in our mind--is our mind's response to our experiences-- then we do not have to deal with this idea of a Creative Fall but instead simply examine the world that is brought forth.

Tolkien, much earlier than most of us, came face to face with contemplating the tentativeness of life and the certainty of his own death. In response, he seems to have devoted his creative life to exploring the quality of goodness and the preciousness of life. In his personal life, he obviously passed a certain amount of time in pursuing the pleasures of companionship (and drink) and the devotion of family (in many unsentimental ways) without compromising his worldly responsibilties. Unless of course one thinks that his Legendarium, in garnering academic ridicule, did compromise those responsibilities.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bb

Tolkien, much earlier than most of us, came face to face with contemplating the tentativeness of life and the certainty of his own death. In response, he seems to have devoted his creative life to exploring the quality of goodness and the preciousness of life.

Can he really do that thoroughly without showing us the true effects of war/violence though? We don't actually meet those little Hobbits from the Shire who lost their lives in the Battle of Bywater, and nor do we know how they lost their lives. They're just a faceless statistic written up on a memorial.

I know I'm going back to what davem has been arguing, but I do think that we aren't able to fully comprehend their sacrifice unless we either know a little of them or the way they died.

[davem]

This quote from crime novelist David Peace is maybe worth considering. He says:

"Crime is brutal, harrowing and devastating for everyone involved, and crime 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 crime 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."

Substitute 'war' for 'crime' here & we have a nice encapsulation of the argument:

"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."

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

"X is brutal, harrowing and devastating for everyone involved, and X 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 X 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."

Also substitute love, romance, child-rearing, changing nappies, discussing reality with a teenager, life, football, and discussing fantasy for X as well...

Even Steven King, known to be just a little on the verbose side, can't capture *everything*, to everyone's satisfaction and adequate to everyone's experience. There are, perhaps, hundreds upon hundreds of allusions in LotR to things British that I as a 'Merican have no appreciation for (like how best to refer to all things British). Should Tolkien have wasted extra pages to explain why anyone would care to smoke a pipe, drink tea when not ill or not iced, stay at an inn or eat at a pub (an interesting experience when I was there), or -gasp- farm?

P.S. Note to davem and Lalwendë: Had a dream the other night - must have been reading the Downs before falling off to sleep. Anyway, in a dream that was just a collection of odd thoughts, remember meeting your children, and saying hi, though that makes no sense at all.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Also substitute love, romance, child-rearing, changing nappies, discussing reality with a teenager, life, football, and discussing fantasy for X as well...

Even Steven King, known to be just a little on the verbose side, can't capture *everything*, to everyone's satisfaction and adequate to everyone's experience.

Its still a question of whether one depicts 'X' honestly, not whether one depicts it in graphic detail....

There are, perhaps, hundreds upon hundreds of allusions in LotR to things British that I as a 'Merican have no appreciation for (like how best to refer to all things British).

Allusions to things English, surely......

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Its still a question of whether one depicts 'X' honestly, not whether one depicts it in graphic detail....

Much agreed. Rose Cotton had babies, and thankfully we're spared the details of little Elanor the Fair's entrance into the world. Or should we read about that as well?

Allusions to things English, surely......

I wasn't talking about our common language...but of that country Tolkien lived in (never knew that it was called Englishland ).

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

I wasn't talking about our common language...but of that country Tolkien lived in (never knew that it was called Englishland ).

Tolkien lived in England (from Engla Land, land of the Angelcynn -

England
From: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology | Date: 1996 | Author: | © The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology 1996, originally published by Oxford University Press 1996. (Hide copyright information) Copyright information

England OE. Engla land (orig.) country of the Angles (see ANGLE), (later) of the Germanic inhabitants of Great Britain; hence OFris. Angelond, OS. (Du.) Engeland, (O)HG., Icel., etc. England.
So English OE. englisċ pert. to the group of Germanic peoples known coll. as Angelcynn, lit. ‘race of Angles’; also adj. and sb., of their language. Hence Englishman OE. Englisċmon. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O27-England.html

)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Can he really do that thoroughly without showing us the true effects of war/violence though? We don't actually meet those little Hobbits from the Shire who lost their lives in the Battle of Bywater, and nor do we know how they lost their lives. They're just a faceless statistic written up on a memorial.

Interesting perspective on remembrance there. You might pause to consider the responses to the Viet Nam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. and then the responses to the statue built to satisfy those who demand realism in art.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien lived in England (from Engla Land, land of the Angelcynn

I'm very sorry; retention of such geographical knowledge will surely get me escorted to the border...and I'm not really that fond of the weather in Argentina.

alatar is off to have that last post removed from memory

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

I'm very sorry; retention of such geographical knowledge will surely get me escorted to the border...and I'm not really that fond of the weather in Argentina.

Don't worry - I'm now expecting a midnight knock on the door from Ms Harperson's thought police for my injudicious mention of 'England' ... (for the benefit of non-Englsh Downers I won't explain that one

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Interesting perspective on remembrance there. You might pause to consider the responses to the Viet Nam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. and then the responses to the statue built to satisfy those who demand realism in art.

Ah, but then there are also Banksy's photo-realistic 'additions' to brutalist concrete buildings, aren't there?

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien lived in England (from Engla Land, land of the Angelcynn

I always thought "Engla land" was a term penned by Keith Allen for the New Order/England World Cup Squad song World In Motion

Originally Posted by alatar

Also substitute love, romance, child-rearing, changing nappies, discussing reality with a teenager, life, football, and discussing fantasy for X as well...

But nappy changing isn't a big 'theme' of the text is it? If you are trying to 'teach' your audience about something then it helps to emphasise that lesson, I find, with good examples. So if Tolkien was trying to teach us about how War is a bad and brutal thing, then shouldn't he show us it is brutal, either by describing the brutality or by showing how war tends to kill those we have got to know and care for. He doesn't do either of those (not many 'good' characters do die, after all) - I don't mind which he chose, but it would have helped.

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

[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.