One of the most touching aspects of the background of LotR is Tolkien's basis for Sam Gamgee:
"My ‘Samwise’ is indeed ... largely a reflexion of the English soldier—grafted on the village-boys of early days, the memory of the privates and my batmen that I knew in the 1914 War, and recognized as so far superior to myself."
Seems that English society learned quite a bit from those two wars (at a steep price though). Sadly it seems those lessons are fading as the generations leave.
I'm not sure what you or the author of that IWM page mean - today the British Army still has a county regimental system, with the specific idea that the soldiers in a unit will have come from the same areas, have the same friends, be part of the same families, and so on.
I agree, the blurb describes in detail what a "Pals Battalion" is, but not why it was actually problematic for the communities from which that battalion originated from.
Basically, large groups of young men from the same community (hundreds to thousands), would all join up patriotically into the same battalion. After all, if they were going to join a war, they might as well join together with those that they know and already have bonds with. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences were those same entire battalions could be wiped out in a single day (like at the Somme), and now you had a community losing nearly all of it's young men at the exact same time, with hundreds of families in the same area now missing a son at the exact same time. As one would expect, the effects of this would be devastating mentally, and demographically enough so as to destroy smaller communities that had sent the majority of their sons and now no longer had fathers for the next generation.
Today they recruit much smaller numbers. Recruitment in the Great War meant mass recruitment -- Kitchener's first call for volunteers in August 1914 brought in nearly 500,000 men all by itself, and nearly 2.5 million in total would volunteer before voluntary recruitment was finally abandoned in favor of conscription in 1916 (see https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/voluntary-recruitin...). For comparison, the entire modern-day British Army only has about 80,000 regular troops.
Moreover, a battalion was a unit of around a thousand men, so the "pals battalions" -- where men were encouraged to volunteer by being allowed to serve with people they knew -- ended up being drawn from extremely narrow geographical areas. There were pals battalions of men who all worked in the same factory, of men who'd all attended school together, of the players from the local football club and all their fans. So when one of these battalions got wiped out, as many did in the battles of the Somme, a very specific community would suddenly more or less cease to exist.
Isn't the point (being missed?) that militarily a fighting group with close ties will fight harder for I've another, they already have a deal of camaraderie - that can be grown in months of training.
IIRC some ancient Greek states exploited romantic partnerships to increase esprit de corps in cadres of men. Part of the thinking seemingly being that one wouldn't flee the battlefield and leave a sexual partner so easily as otherwise.
Of course what's good for making a fighting force isn't necessarily good for the rest of society. Or at least there's a cost to that benefit.
Why do you presume that all people from the same place are automatically friends or even like each other? When you have people with histories there's camaraderie, but there are also rivalries, stolen girlfriends, family disputes, revenges, all kinds of histories and skeletons in the closet that can cause problems later on. On the other hand, starting on a clean slate avoids this - and in my own experience at least, spending 3+ months in a bootcamp 24/7, eating, training and sleeping with the same guys creates by itself quite a strong bonds between people and a sense of brotherhood (united against the officers mostly, but still the brotherhood).
In the case of the pals battalions, the point was that the UK's tiny professional army had been shattered in the battles that opened the war, so they needed to drum up a whole new army in a very short period of time. But unlike the continental powers, Britain had no tradition of mass conscription; British armies had always been made up of volunteers, and the government knew backing away from that policy would cause a political uproar. So some way had to be found to encourage lots of new volunteers to come forward quickly.
The pals battalions were the government's attempt to solve this problem. They offered potential recruits a kind of carrot: groups of men could join them together, with the guarantee that the group would be kept together in the same unit. You and your mates could go down to the recruiting office and sign up to support each other for the duration. Going to war is a scary thing, so that was an appealing proposition.
An unspoken stick accompanied the offer, of course. It was understood that if not enough volunteers could be found a draft would probably come eventually, and if you were drafted, you'd just get thrown into whatever unit the government chose to toss you into. So if you were a man of military age you were probably going to end up in the ranks one way or the other -- but if you volunteered, you could at least do your service among friendly faces.
The combined carrot and stick worked beyond the government's wildest expectations, drumming up a huge New Army (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchener%27s_Army) in just a few months. But then that New Army got fed into the meatgrinder of the Somme, and the plan that had seemed so brilliant revealed its dark side as communities across Britain woke up to the realization that none of their men would be coming home.
But significantly larger geographic areas (i.e. entire counties) than the single towns of the WW1 Pal's battalions, reducing the impact on any one area. Furthermore, non-infantry arms (e.g. armour and artillery) might not have any regionally sourced battalions at all.
Yes. Some of the artwork in the exhibition has been previously used in Tolkien calendars and the like, which I loved as a kid. It will be great to see the original art!
Yes. The early D&D artwork had so much more charm. The artwork they've used in the last 20 years is often very technically good, but it's also often kind of bland and generic. I usually prefer the simple line drawings of people like Jeff Dee and Erol Otus than the ultra-slick stuff you see today.
You can also see the same progression in the covers of Dragon Magazine over the years. The artwork for the first 5 years or so was often not the greatest technically, but there was much more variety than in later years when the magazine got slicker and fancier.
I think Tolkien's own artwork fits into this mold. It was very simple, but it captured a feel that is often lacking in more recent artwork, and let's not forget the immortal Hildebrandt brothers, who's style I always loved. Their character work was always amazing, but their architecture could be really bland. But ultimately it was a simple style that really captured the spirit of the books and the times in which they were done.
The art in Magic: The Gathering followed a very similar arc. Cards have absolutely amazing art today in terms of technique, but many older cards conveyed a sense of charm and whimsy that's gone now.
This is why I often end up with lots of old lands in my newer decks. I just love the way they're drawn. My friends don't get it, but to me the art is just so much more.
That said, the newer sets do still produce art with that charm from time to time. But it's much rarer than it used to be.
The OP is actually reporting a new Tolkien exhibition in Oxford [0] rather than comprehensively describing Tolkien's creative processes. The exhibition and accompanying coffee-table book are about the novels rather than the recent films.
I've already booked my tickets - the exhibition is the most significant for years (if not ever) and will move from the UK to New York later in the year. And then Paris.
There is so much to appreciate here. The bit about starting to create an elvish language really stands out to me in painting his passion for this world.
I think the story is rather the opposite. Tolkien began work on the elvish languages (plural, yes) first, and then started creating a mythology to fit them. The Lord of the Rings later grew out of that mythology.
Is that based on other research you’ve done? The article says the language predates the books but doesn’t say specifically that the stories grew out of the language.
My sense is he did a lot of work in parallel and let the world find itself among many mediums.
Just everything that's ever been written about Tolkien and his life and work. Including at least 3 biographies that I know of, countless scholarly papers dedicated to his linguistic work as an academic and fantasy writer, literally volumes of material that have been published by his son, himself describing his creative process, etc.
It's a pretty well-known thing that he was a linguist first, wrote the hobbit to read his children as a story that fit in with the languages and mythology he'd already developed, and only ever considered publishing them because his friends (including C.S. Lewis) badgered him about it.
its largely correct based on a lot of what I read. i think it may have been a more organic process of co-creation, where the language informed the world&story building, and vice-versa. But its definitely mistaken to think that he just created the languages to populate his world, as some kind of afterthought.
The fact that the elves have this one-way trip they can make over the sea to some sort of magical neverland, a central part of the plot for elves in the lord of the rings and in fact all of his stories, is pretty much only for the reason that it makes an interesting playground for linguistic evolution. He has the two main elvish languages evolve in different contexts, with one receiving influence from the other languages of middle earth and new generations of elves (think: the romance languages), and the other having more conservative influences (think: ecclesiastical latin) but sometimes influenced by middle earth elves making a one-way return trip over the sea. He explicitly talks about major parts of middle earth history being invented for the purpose of exploring the languages, not the other way around IIRC from the biographies.
Yes, go read a biography on Tolkien. I read multiple biographies as part of a school report many, many years ago. It's even alluded to in the original prologue to LotR, although not made clear enough for a general audience. IIRC he talks about how he generated fake historical accounts--timelines, genealogical trees, descriptions of wars, etc.--for his "hobby" (not as his hobby, but for his hobby, that hobby being what is now called "conlanging", specifically art-conlangs). He showed these histories (what would become The Silmarillion and other works) to friends to see if they thought anyone would be interested in reading them. He was emphatically told NO, and so he picked a story and told that as a story instead.
The world of the Lord of the Rings exists solely for the purpose of providing an explanation for the evolution of his made up elvish languages, which was the real interest of this professor of linguistics. That it was published at all was an accident of the fact that people liked the bedtime story he wrote for his son (The Hobbit) which drew inspiration from his linguistically-driven worldbuilding.
When I was growing up, Tolkien's works were some of the few books sold in the church's bookstore. As I've grown older, I've grown more critical of the simple narratives in most literature, that make frequently abhorrent attitudes and acts possible. In the case of Tolkien, he literally dehumanizes the enemies. One example that stands out is the "light hearted" sequence where Legolas and Gimli hold a contest of who can kill the most orcs. These days, recognizing this type of storytelling, with all its justifications, is very often part of the problem, I try to find works that help develop more nuanced perspectives.
Edited to remove bad reference to Nanking Massacre. The point is that glorious battle stories with simple morals are prevalent, and are a big part of Tolkein's stature.
I very much doubt that Tolkien was looking for inspiration in Japanese newspaper articles. According to your own link, the event wasn't widely known even in Japan until the 1960s, after the Lord of the Rings was written.
It seems more likely that Tolkien was drawing on much older (thousands of years) stories about the same thing.
> This was likely inspired by an event preceding the Nanking Massacre
There is about no likelihood that Tolkien heard about a despicable war crime committed by an Axis power, involving an evil, flagrant disregard for human life, and decided to use that as material for two of his "good" characters. Nothing in Tolkien's works, worldview, or influences aligns with that sort of thought. This is the author who despised German publishers inquiring about his Aryan descent, even though, being of German heritage and a prominent scholar of Anglo-Saxon/Norse/Germanic literature, Tolkien could have perfectly flattered the Nazi mythology [0]. But in your opinion, while hating Hitler and the Nazis for treating Jews as second-class citizens (in 1938, when the persecution was not yet elevated to mass execution), he simultaneously decided, "well, this Japanese massacre of innocent civilians sounds like a fun bit of material, I'll use that"?
More realistically, the influence, as most of his influences, is in Anglo-Saxon and Norse literature, where accounts and songs of battles often make them appear almost like sport, with contests and even gamification. I suppose that is one method of mentally bracing oneself for such a horrifying activity, and for attempting to process the event afterwards. It is part of a common mindset of soldiers at war, one that even the Japanese murderers were engaging, albeit in a perverted misuse. In that view, both Tolkien and the Japanese were drawing from a (very) distantly related source, but much different in purpose, and certainly neither influenced by the other.
OK, I was wrong about the very specific influence. But it's ultimately the same thing; flatten the idea of the enemy to make a sport of killing reasonable, and more entertaining stories. That may be an appropriate thing to do in the most dire circumstances, but it's still a disturbing moral choice given that "evil" most often has to be invented.
Tolkien was not of the opinion that war propaganda represented absolute truth.
Here's an example of his thought on WWII:
> I have just heard the news. Russians 60 miles from Berlin. It does look as if something decisive might happen soon. The appalling destruction and misery of this war mount hourly : destruction of what should be (indeed is) the common wealth of Europe, and the world, if mankind were not so besotted, wealth the loss of which will affect us all, victors or not. Yet people gloat to hear of the endless lines, 40 miles long, of miserable refugees, women and children pouring West, dying on the way. There seem no bowels of mercy or compassion, no imagination, left in this dark diabolic hour. By which I do not mean that it may not all, in the present situation, mainly (not solely) created by Germany, be necessary and inevitable. But why gloat! We were supposed to have reached a stage of civilization in which it might still be necessary to execute a criminal, but not to gloat, or to hang his wife and child by him while the orc-crowd hooted. The destruction of Germany, be it 100 times merited, is one of the most appalling world-catastrophes. Well, well – you and I can do nothing about it. And that shd. be a measure of the amount of guilt that can justly be assumed to attach to any member of a country who is not a member of its actual Government. Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter – leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines. As the servants of the Machines are becoming a privileged class, the Machines are going to be enormously more powerful. What's their next move?
If you read his full letters, you will discover that davidy's ideas about what Tolkien thought, and what he represented in LotR, are tremendously wrongheaded.
I haven't said anything about what Tolkien thought or his wartime experiences. What I have commented on is his fantasy stories and similar types of story, which are staples for some audiences (and in this case apparently beyond reproach). They are separate things. Tolkien may have been a great, balanced humanist in his letters, but his stories are about good and evil, surviving grim circumstances, glorious battles and magical kingdoms. It's very likely his books were moderated by his publisher, who would specifically ask that nuance be removed.
There are plenty of examples of nuanced war stories, with more consideration and without requiring the use of "evil," for example by Kurt Vonnegut or Joseph Heller. But the path of reading those books starts in adulthood.
If you read his Letters, you will understand that you are absolutely not correct. Tolkien's views are bound up entirely with his stories. He explains precisely how and provides interpretations on many occasions. You are seriously misrepresenting his fantasy works, not just his personal views. To all appearances, you are speaking whereof you know close to nothing. I apologize if this comes across as adversarial, but this is a serious mis-reading of a man who felt very deeply about the subject.
> more consideration and without requiring the use of "evil,"
Unfortunately, whether you like or or not, there is a such thing as evil for most people. You appear to like "nuance", which appears to be code for some sliding relativistic scale. Yes, dehumanization is bad, but that's not what Tolkien is doing when he talks about evil, whether you think so or not. That's why, for example, torturing information out of Orcs is unjustifiable in-story regardless of circumstance - because to engage in such an act is to be an Orc, which is a mode of being (alluded to in the Letter I quoted)- or why taking up the Ring causes good to be perverted into evil.
I don't think propaganda pieces are going to contain full reality, practically by definition. Which is not to say the times weren't dire. But Tolkien's work is fantasy and considered deeply moral under contrived circumstances. Viewed as a simple story it's fine, but given their stature I'd rather watch x-men, which has more nuanced characters, or something that tries to be accurately and considerately historical, or something that isn't about finding excuses for glorious battle.
Ok. Your preference is your preference - and I don't think anyone's going to suggest that you shouldn't watch X-Men if you want to. At the same time, one might reasonably read your comments and come to the conclusion that nuanced stories are better than ones that are not.
There is evil in the world. Auschwitz was evil. The Famine-Genicide in the Ukraine was evil. The Gulags were evil. The death of (tens of) millions of Chinese during the Great Leap Forward was (the result of) evil. One could go on. Many people, and I'm one of them, would reject any nuance that tried to diminish and explain away these evils. Do I want to understand what I can do to prevent them? Sure.
There should be room for both nuanced stories and grand narratives.
except that when it was enemy men who died, the attitude portrayed in the Lord of the Rings was markedly different. Orcs were Morgoth's primordial perversion of the light. Tolkien, who experienced first hand the horror of the Great War, was no war mongerer. Read his letters.
I think the point davidy is going for is that Tolkien was dehumanizing the enemy by making them the "evil other" much in the same way that the Japanese soldiers did. Essentially, by making the enemy into faceless monsters, it's easier to make sport of killing them than it would be if they were men with similar backgrounds and lives as their killers.
Whether you see this as Tolkien glorifying warmongering or him commenting on the psyche of war that made such acts possible is up to each reader to decide.
The thing you're missing is that Tolkien didn't "dehumanize" the enemy, because the enemy were literally not humans. Orcs are a deformation — a creation intended to be evil from the beginning. They have no inherent good in them, as a fact. I believe Tolkien wrote about this in some of his letters: that the Orcs are really truly evil creatures, by design, and that questioning that fact is against the purpose of their existence in the story. They're a manifestation of the evil of Morgoth.
In contrast, bad men are handled quite differently. Shortly after Frodo and Sam meet Faramir in The Two Towers they find themselves on the edges of a battle between the Rangers and a company of Haradrim (supposedly "evil" men from the East):
> Sam, eager to see more, went now and joined the guards. He scrambled a little way up into into one of the larger of the bay-trees. For a moment he caught a glimpse of swarthy men in red running down the slope some way off with green-clad warriors leaping after them, hewing them down as they fled. Arrows were thick in the air. Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, 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 – all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind.
Though this is certainly the most explicit instance of a character questioning whether another is truly evil, the theme is present throughout the novel.
(Excerpt copied from "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit", the fourth chapter in The Two Towers, pages 660-661 in the 50th Anniversary Edition of The Lord of the Rings as published by HarperCollins in 2004.)
The willful creatures in the story are representations of humans just as much as talking ants in a Pixar story. Or, the story has no real relevance at all because it's pure fantasy. You can say the stories are about the humans on one side of war, but there are better examples of war novels with balanced perspectives without the fantasy elements. LoTR probably mainly rose to prominance due to the Hobbit being sold as a children's tale, the provenance my comment starts with.
Another comment includes the phrase "orc-crowd" from one of Tolkien's letters. Perhaps Tolkien (to comment on him personally this time) decided to vilify certain behaviours, which is a common enough response.
> The willful creatures in the story are representations of humans just as much as talking ants in a Pixar story.
No, I disagree. Tolkien was emphatic that his stories were not allegories for anything at all.
If you were right, then why would Tolkien also have bad humans? Why not just make all of the enemy into orcs/trolls/etc? Why have the dichotomy if not to show that humans are capable of being both bad and good, thus separating them from truly evil creatures like orcs?
> Or, the story has no real relevance at all because it's pure fantasy.
Yes, that's correct. The story is pure fantasy; it doesn't serve to "teach" about anything. It's literally just a story.
> LoTR probably mainly rose to prominance due to the Hobbit being sold as a children's tale, the provenance my comment starts with.
I think LOTR became prominent because it literally invented modern high-fantasy and created a gigantic world the scope of which had never really been seen before. The Hobbit touched on it, but LOTR really goes into far more depth about many things than The Hobbit ever did.
> Tolkien didn't "dehumanize" the enemy, because the enemy were literally not humans
I think the GP is saying the same thing, but from another perspective (and I agree). Effectively, the GP says:
the enemy were literally not humans so Tolkien literally "dehumanizes" the enemy.
Another way to to look at it: In the Lord of the Rings, you can identify someone's character by their appearance and 'race': Orcs are evil; odd-looking people (some in Bree, IIRC) are questionable; Elves are just and wise; Dwarves are greedy and sturdy; etc.
It seems to me that this interpretation would only make sense if all of the enemy are orcs/trolls/etc. But that's not the case at all. Tolkien draws a clear distinction between the truly evil non-human creatures and the bad/misled humans.
> odd-looking people (some in Bree, IIRC)
"The Southerner", who is later speculated to in fact be a rather human-looking orc if I remember right.
Just to add on to your very good description, Tolkien himself wrestled with the question of the moral/spiritual nature of Orcs. Are orcs just soulless creations of Melkor/Morgoth? Are they twisted/mutilated perversions of Elves and Men? The latter is the interpretation the Jackson films go with, but it wasn't absolutely firm in the books and the legendarium in general. The question of the ultimate fate of Orcs and whether or not they can be saved or if they have good in them is something Tolkien tried to reconcile with his own faith and theology.
Famous Japanese author J.R.R. Tolkien was known to laugh hysterically as he tortured innocent Koreans, Chinese, and American POWs in between writing passages from Lord of the Rings.
Never let your ignorance get in the way of your righteousness, friend.
Just letting you know if you want to turn that paragraph into a whole Alt-Reality Fan Fiction..., I would happily support you on Patreon to read more of that.
Entirely tangential, but the best album I've heard is Music Inspired by The Lord of the Rings by Bo Hansson. Instrumental progressive rock that, at least for me, entirely evokes a fantasy-like feeling and might even be, dare I say, superior to Howard Shores' score for the films.
Now that I think about it, Tolkien and works related to him seem to have set the bars for a few things - worldbuilding, fantasy literature, epic films, etc.; not to mention more than a few things that have been directly inspired by his works.
Never heard of this before, but from what I just listened to it sounds pretty great, very ambient.
It's kind of weird that it's so old, it was published on vinyl in 1970, and according to wikipedia, this album hit the top 40 in the UK (idk why but I just automatically assumed it was much more recent, and not well known). So, it came out right around the same time that Zeppelin was putting out their first albums, and LZ IV also had several songs referencing lotr. Makes me wonder if rock musicians who wrote lotr-themed music was a sterotype/trend in the 70s.
If I had, to I might ascribe to the fact that the 60s and 70s apparently had a resurgence in popularity of Lord of the Rings as a new generation discovered the works.
Didn't know of that! Sounds like it might be similar to 1979 album
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentateuch_of_the_Cosmogon.... Two records of music by Dave Greenslade (w/Phil Collins) included a hardback book lavishly-illustrated by Patrick Woodroffe.
Because that book was all about describing the world where as the movie tried to jampack a lot of action into 3 movies so milk it. There is a reason why Lord of the Rings were the first movie they did was much better suited for filmatization.
It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for Tolkien found from the letters that he had received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.
I like the passage that they find trolls from Hobbit still turned to stone the most...
He wasn't influenced by publishing standards to make it longer. LOTR was in fact quite long by the standards of the day and had to be split into three separate volumes as a result.
The "books" of LOTR are just super-chapters, really. He never intended for the six "books" to be published separately; they just divide portions of the story. He was very much against publishing LOTR in separate volumes, and only did so because his publishing agent told him it would never be published otherwise. It was too big a risk for them.
The general feeling I get when reading through some of the content released after Tolkien's death (History of the Lord of the Rings books specifically) is that the reason the first half of the Fellowship is at a slower pace than the rest is because Tolkien did not know where the story was going or where it would end.
The most telling evidence for this is how drastically the story and characters change from the beginning to Bree when looking at first draft compared to published text. It took a lot of wildly divergent drafts to get to Bree, with the texts rapidly evolving. My favorite example of this is that the Strider character was originally named Trotter, and he was a hobbit that wore wooden shoes. This type of slowly building story, where layer upon layer of idea built on top of each other is not really present for most of Two Towers and Return of the King.
It was almost like Tolkien was a train that gained momentum as it went forward.
For anyone interested in the development of LotR over time, I really recommend listening to the Signum University online lectures going through the History of Middle-Earth series. Dr Corey Olson is going through each of the volumes in turn and offering great analysis of how the story began to emerge, just as you describe.
- LotR was originally just meant to be a shorter sequel to The Hobbit. It's always fun to see his early notes about how few chapters he expects the book to take.
- When The Hobbit was first released, it was emphatically not part of the full legendarium that Tolkien was working on, re: the Silmarillion. He borrowed heavily from his private stories about the Elves, but it wasn't until he was writing LotR that he actually realized that everything was all connected into the same continuity.
- Tolkien was extremely conservative in his writing, in a waste-not attitude. He hated to just cut out things he had written, and instead would do a lot of recycling and reworking so that bits of dialogue and description he had done in earlier drafts would be preserved but with their context completely altered.
- Tolkien sometimes claimed that his worldbuilding started with a map, and then he placed a story inside of it, but looking through his early notes shows that's not quite true. He tended to think in terms of a series of adventures he wanted his characters to have, and would wiggle around locations on his still-nebulous maps to make the distances work (he was very particular about getting the distances and travel times all right!).
76 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 151 ms ] thread"My ‘Samwise’ is indeed ... largely a reflexion of the English soldier—grafted on the village-boys of early days, the memory of the privates and my batmen that I knew in the 1914 War, and recognized as so far superior to myself."
https://johngarth.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/sam-gamgee-and-to...
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-pals-battalions-of-the-fi...
Basically, large groups of young men from the same community (hundreds to thousands), would all join up patriotically into the same battalion. After all, if they were going to join a war, they might as well join together with those that they know and already have bonds with. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences were those same entire battalions could be wiped out in a single day (like at the Somme), and now you had a community losing nearly all of it's young men at the exact same time, with hundreds of families in the same area now missing a son at the exact same time. As one would expect, the effects of this would be devastating mentally, and demographically enough so as to destroy smaller communities that had sent the majority of their sons and now no longer had fathers for the next generation.
The units recruit from specific geographical areas.
Moreover, a battalion was a unit of around a thousand men, so the "pals battalions" -- where men were encouraged to volunteer by being allowed to serve with people they knew -- ended up being drawn from extremely narrow geographical areas. There were pals battalions of men who all worked in the same factory, of men who'd all attended school together, of the players from the local football club and all their fans. So when one of these battalions got wiped out, as many did in the battles of the Somme, a very specific community would suddenly more or less cease to exist.
IIRC some ancient Greek states exploited romantic partnerships to increase esprit de corps in cadres of men. Part of the thinking seemingly being that one wouldn't flee the battlefield and leave a sexual partner so easily as otherwise.
Of course what's good for making a fighting force isn't necessarily good for the rest of society. Or at least there's a cost to that benefit.
The pals battalions were the government's attempt to solve this problem. They offered potential recruits a kind of carrot: groups of men could join them together, with the guarantee that the group would be kept together in the same unit. You and your mates could go down to the recruiting office and sign up to support each other for the duration. Going to war is a scary thing, so that was an appealing proposition.
An unspoken stick accompanied the offer, of course. It was understood that if not enough volunteers could be found a draft would probably come eventually, and if you were drafted, you'd just get thrown into whatever unit the government chose to toss you into. So if you were a man of military age you were probably going to end up in the ranks one way or the other -- but if you volunteered, you could at least do your service among friendly faces.
The combined carrot and stick worked beyond the government's wildest expectations, drumming up a huge New Army (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchener%27s_Army) in just a few months. But then that New Army got fed into the meatgrinder of the Somme, and the plan that had seemed so brilliant revealed its dark side as communities across Britain woke up to the realization that none of their men would be coming home.
An aside, the Royal Armoured Corps in the UK is regionally source, and artillery is to a little extent.
What do you have in mind?
You can also see the same progression in the covers of Dragon Magazine over the years. The artwork for the first 5 years or so was often not the greatest technically, but there was much more variety than in later years when the magazine got slicker and fancier.
I think Tolkien's own artwork fits into this mold. It was very simple, but it captured a feel that is often lacking in more recent artwork, and let's not forget the immortal Hildebrandt brothers, who's style I always loved. Their character work was always amazing, but their architecture could be really bland. But ultimately it was a simple style that really captured the spirit of the books and the times in which they were done.
That said, the newer sets do still produce art with that charm from time to time. But it's much rarer than it used to be.
I've already booked my tickets - the exhibition is the most significant for years (if not ever) and will move from the UK to New York later in the year. And then Paris.
[0] https://tolkien.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/
My sense is he did a lot of work in parallel and let the world find itself among many mediums.
It's a pretty well-known thing that he was a linguist first, wrote the hobbit to read his children as a story that fit in with the languages and mythology he'd already developed, and only ever considered publishing them because his friends (including C.S. Lewis) badgered him about it.
The world of the Lord of the Rings exists solely for the purpose of providing an explanation for the evolution of his made up elvish languages, which was the real interest of this professor of linguistics. That it was published at all was an accident of the fact that people liked the bedtime story he wrote for his son (The Hobbit) which drew inspiration from his linguistically-driven worldbuilding.
Edited to remove bad reference to Nanking Massacre. The point is that glorious battle stories with simple morals are prevalent, and are a big part of Tolkein's stature.
It seems more likely that Tolkien was drawing on much older (thousands of years) stories about the same thing.
There is about no likelihood that Tolkien heard about a despicable war crime committed by an Axis power, involving an evil, flagrant disregard for human life, and decided to use that as material for two of his "good" characters. Nothing in Tolkien's works, worldview, or influences aligns with that sort of thought. This is the author who despised German publishers inquiring about his Aryan descent, even though, being of German heritage and a prominent scholar of Anglo-Saxon/Norse/Germanic literature, Tolkien could have perfectly flattered the Nazi mythology [0]. But in your opinion, while hating Hitler and the Nazis for treating Jews as second-class citizens (in 1938, when the persecution was not yet elevated to mass execution), he simultaneously decided, "well, this Japanese massacre of innocent civilians sounds like a fun bit of material, I'll use that"?
More realistically, the influence, as most of his influences, is in Anglo-Saxon and Norse literature, where accounts and songs of battles often make them appear almost like sport, with contests and even gamification. I suppose that is one method of mentally bracing oneself for such a horrifying activity, and for attempting to process the event afterwards. It is part of a common mindset of soldiers at war, one that even the Japanese murderers were engaging, albeit in a perverted misuse. In that view, both Tolkien and the Japanese were drawing from a (very) distantly related source, but much different in purpose, and certainly neither influenced by the other.
[0] https://io9.gizmodo.com/5892697/whats-classier-than-jrr-tolk...
It was very much a good vs evil feeling at the time. You can look at propaganda pieces of the time.
Here's an example of his thought on WWII:
> I have just heard the news. Russians 60 miles from Berlin. It does look as if something decisive might happen soon. The appalling destruction and misery of this war mount hourly : destruction of what should be (indeed is) the common wealth of Europe, and the world, if mankind were not so besotted, wealth the loss of which will affect us all, victors or not. Yet people gloat to hear of the endless lines, 40 miles long, of miserable refugees, women and children pouring West, dying on the way. There seem no bowels of mercy or compassion, no imagination, left in this dark diabolic hour. By which I do not mean that it may not all, in the present situation, mainly (not solely) created by Germany, be necessary and inevitable. But why gloat! We were supposed to have reached a stage of civilization in which it might still be necessary to execute a criminal, but not to gloat, or to hang his wife and child by him while the orc-crowd hooted. The destruction of Germany, be it 100 times merited, is one of the most appalling world-catastrophes. Well, well – you and I can do nothing about it. And that shd. be a measure of the amount of guilt that can justly be assumed to attach to any member of a country who is not a member of its actual Government. Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter – leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines. As the servants of the Machines are becoming a privileged class, the Machines are going to be enormously more powerful. What's their next move?
http://www.tolkienestate.com/en/writing/letters/letter-chris...
If you read his full letters, you will discover that davidy's ideas about what Tolkien thought, and what he represented in LotR, are tremendously wrongheaded.
There are plenty of examples of nuanced war stories, with more consideration and without requiring the use of "evil," for example by Kurt Vonnegut or Joseph Heller. But the path of reading those books starts in adulthood.
> more consideration and without requiring the use of "evil,"
Unfortunately, whether you like or or not, there is a such thing as evil for most people. You appear to like "nuance", which appears to be code for some sliding relativistic scale. Yes, dehumanization is bad, but that's not what Tolkien is doing when he talks about evil, whether you think so or not. That's why, for example, torturing information out of Orcs is unjustifiable in-story regardless of circumstance - because to engage in such an act is to be an Orc, which is a mode of being (alluded to in the Letter I quoted)- or why taking up the Ring causes good to be perverted into evil.
There is evil in the world. Auschwitz was evil. The Famine-Genicide in the Ukraine was evil. The Gulags were evil. The death of (tens of) millions of Chinese during the Great Leap Forward was (the result of) evil. One could go on. Many people, and I'm one of them, would reject any nuance that tried to diminish and explain away these evils. Do I want to understand what I can do to prevent them? Sure.
There should be room for both nuanced stories and grand narratives.
Whether you see this as Tolkien glorifying warmongering or him commenting on the psyche of war that made such acts possible is up to each reader to decide.
In contrast, bad men are handled quite differently. Shortly after Frodo and Sam meet Faramir in The Two Towers they find themselves on the edges of a battle between the Rangers and a company of Haradrim (supposedly "evil" men from the East):
> Sam, eager to see more, went now and joined the guards. He scrambled a little way up into into one of the larger of the bay-trees. For a moment he caught a glimpse of swarthy men in red running down the slope some way off with green-clad warriors leaping after them, hewing them down as they fled. Arrows were thick in the air. Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, 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 – all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind.
Though this is certainly the most explicit instance of a character questioning whether another is truly evil, the theme is present throughout the novel.
(Excerpt copied from "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit", the fourth chapter in The Two Towers, pages 660-661 in the 50th Anniversary Edition of The Lord of the Rings as published by HarperCollins in 2004.)
Another comment includes the phrase "orc-crowd" from one of Tolkien's letters. Perhaps Tolkien (to comment on him personally this time) decided to vilify certain behaviours, which is a common enough response.
No, I disagree. Tolkien was emphatic that his stories were not allegories for anything at all.
If you were right, then why would Tolkien also have bad humans? Why not just make all of the enemy into orcs/trolls/etc? Why have the dichotomy if not to show that humans are capable of being both bad and good, thus separating them from truly evil creatures like orcs?
> Or, the story has no real relevance at all because it's pure fantasy.
Yes, that's correct. The story is pure fantasy; it doesn't serve to "teach" about anything. It's literally just a story.
> LoTR probably mainly rose to prominance due to the Hobbit being sold as a children's tale, the provenance my comment starts with.
I think LOTR became prominent because it literally invented modern high-fantasy and created a gigantic world the scope of which had never really been seen before. The Hobbit touched on it, but LOTR really goes into far more depth about many things than The Hobbit ever did.
I think the GP is saying the same thing, but from another perspective (and I agree). Effectively, the GP says:
the enemy were literally not humans so Tolkien literally "dehumanizes" the enemy.
Another way to to look at it: In the Lord of the Rings, you can identify someone's character by their appearance and 'race': Orcs are evil; odd-looking people (some in Bree, IIRC) are questionable; Elves are just and wise; Dwarves are greedy and sturdy; etc.
> odd-looking people (some in Bree, IIRC)
"The Southerner", who is later speculated to in fact be a rather human-looking orc if I remember right.
The following StackExchange post illustrates further the questions that Tolkien was trying to figure out: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/26725/what-is-the-...
Never let your ignorance get in the way of your righteousness, friend.
Now that I think about it, Tolkien and works related to him seem to have set the bars for a few things - worldbuilding, fantasy literature, epic films, etc.; not to mention more than a few things that have been directly inspired by his works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs0AmruS8Ro
It's kind of weird that it's so old, it was published on vinyl in 1970, and according to wikipedia, this album hit the top 40 in the UK (idk why but I just automatically assumed it was much more recent, and not well known). So, it came out right around the same time that Zeppelin was putting out their first albums, and LZ IV also had several songs referencing lotr. Makes me wonder if rock musicians who wrote lotr-themed music was a sterotype/trend in the 70s.
If I had, to I might ascribe to the fact that the 60s and 70s apparently had a resurgence in popularity of Lord of the Rings as a new generation discovered the works.
This for some reason reminded me of a video in which Larry Wall says that Hobbits embody the three virtues of a programmer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G49RUPv5-NU
That production may have been encouraged by Jeff Wayne's 1978 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Wayne%27s_Musical_Version...
It seems so different from every other book Ive read(only hobbit-RotK).
Like did he add fluff in the forest because of publishing standards at the time?
I like the passage that they find trolls from Hobbit still turned to stone the most...
In stark contrast, Narnia (also read to me by dad at about the same time) seemed so small as to be a shoe-box diorama.
In my childhood imagination, Narnia was about the size of the Shire (perhaps with Bree thrown in for a sense of 'far off').
The most telling evidence for this is how drastically the story and characters change from the beginning to Bree when looking at first draft compared to published text. It took a lot of wildly divergent drafts to get to Bree, with the texts rapidly evolving. My favorite example of this is that the Strider character was originally named Trotter, and he was a hobbit that wore wooden shoes. This type of slowly building story, where layer upon layer of idea built on top of each other is not really present for most of Two Towers and Return of the King.
It was almost like Tolkien was a train that gained momentum as it went forward.
The lecture playlists (so far) can be found at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUxTFUltO4uXhEfqgI6GtIg/pla... .
Notable things about Tolkien's writing process:
- LotR was originally just meant to be a shorter sequel to The Hobbit. It's always fun to see his early notes about how few chapters he expects the book to take.
- When The Hobbit was first released, it was emphatically not part of the full legendarium that Tolkien was working on, re: the Silmarillion. He borrowed heavily from his private stories about the Elves, but it wasn't until he was writing LotR that he actually realized that everything was all connected into the same continuity.
- Tolkien was extremely conservative in his writing, in a waste-not attitude. He hated to just cut out things he had written, and instead would do a lot of recycling and reworking so that bits of dialogue and description he had done in earlier drafts would be preserved but with their context completely altered.
- Tolkien sometimes claimed that his worldbuilding started with a map, and then he placed a story inside of it, but looking through his early notes shows that's not quite true. He tended to think in terms of a series of adventures he wanted his characters to have, and would wiggle around locations on his still-nebulous maps to make the distances work (he was very particular about getting the distances and travel times all right!).