Reading Lord of the Rings could help prevent war, says prof

Ananova ^ | February 18, 2003 | Ananova

[MadIvan]

A leading German literature professor says that reading Tolkien's Lord of the Rings could help prevent war.

Thomas Kullmann, a 42-year-old professor from the University of Osnabrueck, said: "If adults read children's literature more often then we would probably live in a much more peaceful world.

"Fairy tales and other works for children may not be one-to-one with reality but they help excite the imagination. They give the reader new ideas that could even help solve political problems.

"Children's books can definitely help adults rethink a situation and help them assess political situations on a higher and even wiser level."

He added: "Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is a good example of a children's book that could help.

"It shows, in a spectacular way, how destroying an object can prevent world domination from one person or side."

[buffyt]

I only saw LOTR part one, and it was FULL of violent battles.

[Mad Dawgg]

"It shows, in a spectacular way, how destroying an object can prevent world domination from one person or side."

Yup that is why we are going to destroy Saddam.

[Pippin]

Hi, Ivan!

I was wondering where that prof got his reasoning from?

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

"If adults read children's literature more often then we would probably live in a much more peaceful world. "

Just what we need, a nation of Michael Jacksons.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Hmmmm. Separated at birth?

  

[Eowyn-of-Rohan]

"Lord of the Rings is a good example of a children's book" .....

I don't think of LOTR as a children's book(s) but as a tale that taps into fears, hopes, dreams, and ancient truths and symbolism that dwell in our consciousness all our lives

"It shows [how] destroying an object can prevent world domination from one person or side"

This is a pretty literal and shallow synopsis! It sounds like an excerpt from a middle-high school student's book report.

[Eowyn-of-Rohan]

I personally recite One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish Blue Fish before losing my temper

ROTFL...THAT is a children's book!

[pgyanke]

You're missing something pretty terrific... go see the second one. You won't be disappointed.

[Democratic_Machiavelli]

He thinks it's a children's book? That pretty much sums up his intelligence in this matter.

I got out of LOTR that war is evil, destructive, horrifying, and the most terrible thing that could happen to the creatures of a world. I also learned that the advice given to Frodo at the beginning ("Don't go lookin' for trouble, and trouble won't find you," or something like that) is a complete lie. Sometimes you have to dip your sword in blood to keep beauty, truth, and goodness alive. And doing so doesn't make you evil yourself.

[Mr. Silverback]

Actually, I find that Fellowship would be a good allegory for Iraq: Evil building while those who should know better ignore it or side with it. A thought occurs: If using the same definition of "imminent threat" that our appeaseniks and members of Le Partie Democratique use, the leaders of Middle Earth could have concluded that Mordor was not an imminent threat to their lands.

It's no surprise to me that some readers thought that Tolkien was writing an allegory of free peoples vs. Nazi Germany.

[katana]

It must have lost a lot. I'm in the process of re-reading the trilogy for the first time in twenty years and what I recall to be the main themes are the same. That is evil must be destroyed, it can't be bargained with or bought off, and delaying its destruction just makes it stronger and more dangerous.

It is not at all a pacifist work of literature. The battle scenes are graphic and unsparing (last night was the Siege of Gondor with mutilated heads of captured soldiers being catapulted over the city walls) and there is no quarter given to the soldiers of evil. Tolkien knew war first hand and understood how terrible it is. However, he didn't seem to believe surrender to evil was an option.

[300winmag]

A thought occurs: If using the same definition of "imminent threat" that our appeaseniks and members of Le Partie Democratique use, the leaders of Middle Earth could have concluded that Mordor was not an imminent threat to their lands.

"Imminent" is now no longer good enough for them. I recently heard some whiny leftist say that action should only be considered when a threat was "extremely imminent". Of course, as with all their murky ideas, there is no definition of what that would mean. If Saddam's scud is sitting on the launch pad, and that's not good enough, is reentry "extremely imminent"? And if so, what does the leftist propose be done in those 30 seconds?

[Alkhin]

That is the most asinine and foolish statement I have heard yet...well, excepting all the actor-worshippers who throng on TheOneRing.net...heaven forbid you should ever protest what Viggo writes on a stupid t-shirt, or what some of the hobbits say about the environment!!

And LOTR is NOT NOT NOT (I am sure you, MadIvan, and all the others here know this already...I am just venting)...a children's book!!!!! GAH!!!!!!

some excerpts from The Scouring of the Shire, if he thinks LOTR is about NOT going to war:

"We're not allowed to," said Robin.
"If I hear not allowed much oftener," said Sam, "I'm going to get angry."
"Can't say as I'd be sorry to see it," said Robin, lowering his voice. "If we all got angry together something might be done..."

"But if there are many of these ruffians," said Merry, "it will certainly mean fighting. You won't rescue Lotho, or the Shire, just by being shocked and sad, my dear Frodo."
"No," said Pippin. "It won't be easy scaring them a second time..."
...
"Raise the Shire!" said Merry. "Now! Wake all our people! They hate all this, you can see..."

[ELS]

LOL! Very good.

[nutmeg]

bump

[LowOiL]

And pipeweed.

I admire you for your ceaseless quest anyway. LOL...granted you don't miss a chance to beat the drum do ya? At least this time you made me snort.

[Utah Girl]

LOTR ping. :)