# Pro or Anti WAR?



## Sarah (May 29, 2004)

There have been arguments for both sides, and i'm not quite sure whether this has been discussed b4, but dost thou think that J.R.R. Tolkien's books are pro or anti war. People claim they are pro because there is just so much fighting in it (and the movies are about 95% battle), but I tend to disagree. I believe that they are anti war because of what we know Tolkien himself went through during war, and just the plain and simple fact that every time the good guys were in battle, they were defending their home territory, not invading someone else's (not even invading someone else's territory claiming that it is in defense *cough*bush*cough*) Oops, I have to correct myself. The Ents invaded Orthanc in defence. But every other time, the good guys were defending their own territory. Thoughts?


----------



## Starbrow (May 29, 2004)

I don't think the books give much evidence of being anti-war. Although terrible things happen, in general the main characters come through their battles pretty well. Even though Boromir dies in a battle, he redeems himself by bravely defending the hobbits. Of course, the heros are defending themselves and are not the agressors. Maybe Tolkien sees it as a necessary evil. As Eowyn says, "It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two..."


----------



## grendel (May 29, 2004)

I'm pretty sure that I've read of Tolkien being anti-war... he was certainly affected by WWI. My opinion is that LotR is against the waging of war for evil purposes... whereas defense is necessary and noble.


----------



## Gandalf White (May 29, 2004)

Uhh, what exactly is meant by "pro-War"? Because I seriously doubt you'll find many people who want to go to war for the sake of fighting.


----------



## Sarah (May 29, 2004)

pro war in the sense that, that is the first option chosen by leaders, (ie invading or going to war, even tho there may be other choices.) Many people have claimed LOTR to be pro war because of the amount of fighting, and especially in the movies w/ sam's line: "because there's good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for."


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 30, 2004)

Sarah said:


> There have been arguments for both sides, and i'm not quite sure whether this has been discussed b4, but dost thou think that J.R.R. Tolkien's books are pro or anti war...



It's about the perennial values: friendship, loyalty, peace, doing what's right for the general good. And sometimes one must fight evil to maintain good. Then we have a just war, such as WW II.

Barley


----------



## Beorn (May 30, 2004)

> ...But all Big Things planned in a big way feel like that to the toad under the harrow, though on a general view they do function and do their job. An ultimately evil job. For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed. But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are as clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side.....Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai. Keep your hobbitry in heart, and think that all _stories_ feel like that when you are _in_ them. You are inside a very gret story!


Source: The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #66. Date: May 6th 1944

I think that sums up Tolkien's view of war in general, so I'd say that could be used to say that he is anti-war, so works of him would be anti-war.


----------



## Iluvatar (May 30, 2004)

In the tale "Aldarion and Erendis: The Mariner's Wife" in _Unfinished Tales_, the Numenorean king's thoughts following Gil-Galad's plea for aid against the shadow in the East:



> I am in too great doubt to rule. To prepare or to let be? To prepare for war, which is yet only guessed: train craftsmen and tillers in the midst of peace for bloodspilling and battle: put iron in the hands of greedy captains who will love only conquest, and count the slain as their glory? Will they say to Eru: _At least your enemies were amongst them_? Or to fold hands, while friends die unjustly: let men live in blind peace, until the ravisher is at the gate? What then will they do: match naked hands against iron and die in vain, or flee leaving the cries of women behing them? Will they say to Eru: _At least I spilled no blood_?



Tolkien has plenty of wise and profound quotations, but this is one of my favourites. I can think of no one yet who has found a satisfactory answer to this dilemna


----------



## Lantarion (May 30, 2004)

Iluvatar I totally agre; that is a brilliant quote, very profound and beautifully constructed.
And I think grendel put it really well; but all in all I think Tolkien, like most humanist people, was against fighting and warring, for any purpose. What _must_ be done, must (like defense of one's own life), but beyond that is it a strict 'No'?


----------



## Snaga (May 30, 2004)

The dilemma is simplified when there are no orcs and trolls in the world. The ravisher's at the gate are no different from ourselves... in fact, it seems to me the choice is whether or not to be the ravisher at the gate.

Clearly, Lord of the Rings doesn't promote pacificism, but it does speak against imperialism. At least to me, this is what Sauron represents (amongst other things). Saying imperialism is wrong is easy of course, and the arguments always start in how to apply this lesson.


----------



## Sarah (May 30, 2004)

Beorn said:


> Source: The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #66. Date: May 6th 1944
> 
> I think that sums up Tolkien's view of war in general, so I'd say that could be used to say that he is anti-war, so works of him would be anti-war.



Erm, I was wondering if we could go, just for this argument, based soley on the words in The Lord of the Rings itself, rather on Tolkien's opinion on his own works. (in the letters or interviews, etc.)


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 30, 2004)

Sarah said:


> Erm, I was wondering if we could go, just for this argument, based soley on the words in The Lord of the Rings itself, rather on Tolkien's opinion on his own works. (in the letters or interviews, etc.)



OPINION???!! What Tolkien says about his own work is not simply "opinion" — it's the definitive word from the primary source! He's telling you FACTS, not simply "opinion." I don't get you. Why would you want to ignore that? Just to play speculative games?  You remind me of the guy who, when pinned down in a specious argument, said "Don't confuse me with facts!"

Barley


----------



## Beorn (May 31, 2004)

Sarah said:


> Erm, I was wondering if we could go, just for this argument, based soley on the words in The Lord of the Rings itself, rather on Tolkien's opinion on his own works. (in the letters or interviews, etc.)


I quoted his letters, which were written to express his feelings. In this case, his feelings on war. Why would he create something that says the opposite of how he feels? Would he be so proud of making something against his concience?


----------



## HLGStrider (May 31, 2004)

Occasionally as a writer you do go against your own views, but it is hard. Your characters will do things you believe are wrong and make it look good if you let them get out of hand. . .or if you have any conflict about the beliefs at all, your writing may show both sides or the side you eventually decide to go against.

I think the work can't be anti-war in the stict sense of pacifism at any cost. Obviously, however, only the orcs/bad guys are pro-war in that they want war at any cost. 

I think most people go to war when they see it as the only choice. It's just some see more choices than others. Everyone has the amount they are willing to back down before they fight back. Let's take a school yard bully analogy. Some may feel having the bully call them a name is simply too much to put up with honorably and punch the bully out at this point. To them the thought of backing down at this point is simply cowardice and it lets the bully win. Others will wait until the bully physically attacks them and then defend themselves. There is, of course, another option. You can take the beating or the punch. . .and then there will be several degrees of beating. How many punches will you take before you punch back? And there is always the choice of letting the bully down right kill you.

Most people don't take it as far as letting the bully kill you but you will find many different opinions between fighting at the first insult and fighting to save your very life. I think that will always be the moral conflict.

I think Tolkien did see a cause for war, definitely in WWII, perhaps in the wars of the past, not in WWI. . .however, like all Christians, and probably all men I'm just saying Christians because I know this is a huge theology question within the Christian religion, he wondered when the point was where you had to stop turning the other cheek in favor of defending what is right.

I think this conflict exists in the Lord of the Rings and exists in our life. So the Lord of the Rings are neither. They present one of the ways war can be a necessary evil, but they don't really go into the philosophy of when it isn't necessary. They're not a philosophy book and they aren't meant to answer that question.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 31, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> OPINION???!! What Tolkien says about his own work is not simply "opinion" — it's the definitive word from the primary source! He's telling you FACTS, not simply "opinion." I don't get you. Why would you want to ignore that? Just to play speculative games?  You remind me of the guy who, when pinned down in a specious argument, said "Don't confuse me with facts!"
> 
> Barley



In Sarah's defence: I think she's simply trying to separate the question of Tolkien's personal views on war from that of whether _Lord of the Rings_--as a text--priviliges a pro- or anti-war position (or does neither). That is, one question focuses upon the author; the other (the one I believe Sarah is asking) is focused upon a particular work. 

BTW: I don't wish to get into a debate about the status of the author's intention--a debate which, when you're dealing with a cultural icon of Tolkien's stature, is bound to get very ugly. But I do wish to make this point: It makes as much sense to say "Tolkien is anti-war, therefore LOTR is anti-war" as it does to say "LOTR is pro-war, therefore Tolkien must be pro-war."

First, such statements are not really pertinent to the topic of the thread, which (as I have endeavoured to point out above) addresses the position of war privileged in LOTR, rather than Tolkien the author's views on war. (Not that I'm suggesting that Tolkien's thoughts on the matter are not worthy of consideration in the abstract--they are simply not the focus of this thread, that's all).

Second, if such statements were valid it would be possible to make claims about whether LOTR is pro- or anti- war without actually reading the book; conversely, it would be possible to draw conclusions about Tolkien's views on war without actually reading what Tolkien himself has to say on the topic. 

Third, and most important: such statements--and the pro/anti-war question itself--oversimplify matters greatly. With respect to the books, there are several voices articulating quite varied views on war. It is not simply a matter of the "goodies" being anti-war, and the "baddies" being pro-war (or vice versa); nor is it a matter of the Free Peoples seeing war as a necessary evil, and the Evil Peoples relishing war for its own sake. Without the Battle of the Hornburg, the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, and the Siege of the Morannon, would Frodo have been able to destroy the Ring? On the other hand, would these battles have come to nought if Frodo hadn't destroyed the Ring? Which, in the final analysis, was more important: the endeavours of powerful warriors and huge armies, or the "small hands" of the Hobbits? These are complex questions--and I don't think it does the book justice to label it either pro-war or anti-war--it's just not that simple. With respect to Tolkien's own opinions on war: as others on this thread (Barliman, Beorn) have pointed out, while he might have drawn a distinction between just and unjust wars, he also maintained that the issue is not so black-and-white in the real world as it can be in fiction. Tolkien, doubtless, conceded the necessity of WWII as a just war--but would he have applauded Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Again, these questions are far too complex for the simple anti-/pro-war binary to Tolkien (or anyone else) justice.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 31, 2004)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> ...most important: such statements--and the pro/anti-war question itself--oversimplify matters greatly. With respect to the books, there are several voices articulating quite varied views on war...



As usual, your posts are well-thought-out and finely nuanced. However, what _I_ was trying to say is simpler than what you saw in my post. Leaving Sarah out of it, I believe that: Tolkien is anti-war in principle, but is in favor of it as an appropriate response (and a last resort) when great evil threatens to overwhelm societies. The entirety of LOTR seems to me to support that, as does World War II.

Barley


----------



## Dark_Glamdring (May 31, 2004)

Absolutely anti-war
Wars destroy and kill innocent people more than to resolve a problem    
Wars are to show who has the power of this panet


----------



## Sarah (May 31, 2004)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> In Sarah's defence: I think she's simply trying to separate the question of Tolkien's personal views on war from that of whether _Lord of the Rings_--as a text--priviliges a pro- or anti-war position (or does neither). That is, one question focuses upon the author; the other (the one I believe Sarah is asking) is focused upon a particular work.
> 
> BTW: I don't wish to get into a debate about the status of the author's intention--a debate which, when you're dealing with a cultural icon of Tolkien's stature, is bound to get very ugly. But I do wish to make this point: It makes as much sense to say "Tolkien is anti-war, therefore LOTR is anti-war" as it does to say "LOTR is pro-war, therefore Tolkien must be pro-war."



Thank you, that is exactly what I meant. That is how I learned to interpret English text, and that is based upon the text alone, not on the author's own personal views, and I knew that was going to be hard to put into words, so thank you, Arthur, for clarifying that.


----------



## Wolfshead (May 31, 2004)

> These are complex questions--and I don't think it does the book justice to label it either pro-war or anti-war--it's just not that simple.


I'll agree with that, and add that I don't think it is either. The Lord Of The Rings is a story, and I don't think Tolkien was trying to get any sort of war message across. Yes, he may have been anti-war himself, but I feel it is irrelevent to The Lord Of The Rings.


----------



## Snaga (May 31, 2004)

The book is mostly clearly 'anti-evil', and _aggressive_ war for conquest is condemned: the methods of Sauron, Saruman etc.

There are a number of contrasting approaches to fighting evil in the book. Using instruments of overwhelming power is clearly rejected. The _limitations_ of war could also been seen from the text: it is a means to self-defence, rather than an ultimate victory perhaps. The defeat of evil comes through the courage of individuals, however small and ordinary.


----------



## HLGStrider (May 31, 2004)

Dark_Glamdring said:


> Absolutely anti-war
> Wars destroy and kill innocent people more than to resolve a problem
> Wars are to show who has the power of this panet


DG, this posts seems to say why you are anti-war, but it doesn't really say anything about why the LotR's is. We aren't discussing the validity of either the pro-war or anti-war side of real world philosophy, simply whether the Lord of the Rings backs either side.


----------



## moppel (Jun 1, 2004)

In several passages (f.e. the battle on helm's deep) Gimli counts his killings of orks as well as Legolas. It seems to me quite brutal and honors violence or justifies horrible acts. In my opinion it is not really funny, even if orks are artifical and wicked or nasty creatures. I don't feel sorry for them but it's a bit cruel to see the killings as a competition with winners and losers.  
On the other side the elves and the hobbits defeat Sauron who is the personification of the evil...  
But the price is also high because the hobbits gave up their peaceful life in order to survive


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 1, 2004)

I've discussed the Gimli-Legolas connection once before, and I find it rather realistic. . .just from the sense of WWII pilots keeping a kill tally in an attempt to become aces, etc. It sort of rings that bell. In war, the idea is to kill. . .the hope is that you are killing for a cause that justifies killing. The controversy is that not everyone will agree with your cause. 



> But the price is also high because the hobbits gave up their peaceful life in order to survive


Say rather that some Hobbits gave up their peaceful lives to prolong the peaceful lives of other Hobbits.


----------



## Snaga (Jun 3, 2004)

moppel said:


> In several passages (f.e. the battle on helm's deep) Gimli counts his killings of orks as well as Legolas. It seems to me quite brutal and honors violence or justifies horrible acts. In my opinion it is not really funny, even if orks are artifical and wicked or nasty creatures. I don't feel sorry for them but it's a bit cruel to see the killings as a competition with winners and losers.
> On the other side the elves and the hobbits defeat Sauron who is the personification of the evil...
> But the price is also high because the hobbits gave up their peaceful life in order to survive


I wouldn't trouble yourself. We orcs do exactly the same! 

Seriously, I agree with you. The enjoyment of killing is a dehumanising aspect of war.


----------

