Celebrian's Misfortunes

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Lately, there's been heated discussions regarding Celebrian's ordeal in other Tokien-related forums. There's been great speculation that Celebrian suffered more than Tolkien metaphorically intended her to. Some say that she was indeed, raped by the orcs. What do you guys think about that?

[Neurion]

Lately, there's been heated discussions regarding Celebrian's ordeal in other Tokien-related forums. There's been great speculation that Celebrian suffered more than Tolkien metaphorically intended her to. Some say that she was indeed, raped by the orcs. What do you guys think about that?I doubt it.

[Boromir88]

I agree with Neurion.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

It isn't entirely impossible that such a torture did occur for Celebrian. Tolkien deosn't really address clearly when something sexual-related is open to interpretation.

[Boromir88]

Why must people try to look for sexual intentions in Tolkien's books? What I mean is, "Are Frodo and Sam gay?" "Did Arwen and Aragorn do it before the Council of Elrond?" "Oooh, did you see how Galadriel looked at Bilbo when they were parting for Valinor, do you think there was something between them? Or maybe Frodo?"

It's like since there is no mention of sexual activity people must go and force in possible instances when there is really nothing there.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Why must people try to look for sexual intentions in Tolkien's books? What I mean is, "Are Frodo and Sam gay?" "Did Arwen and Aragorn do it before the Council of Elrond?" "Oooh, did you see how Galadriel looked at Bilbo when they were parting for Valinor, do you think there was something between them? Or maybe Frodo?"

It's like since there is no mention of sexual activity people must go and force in possible instances when there is really nothing there.
Boromir, I highly doubt that my question on Celebrian's ordeal is of the same nature that you find offensive in those other ridiculous questions you stated.

[Encaitare]

So maybe she was, and maybe she wasn't. It certainly is more of a reason to fall into despair and want to leave Middle-earth forever, but then again, maybe to an elf, being attacked is enough. It's sort of like with Morgoth wanting to do something "terrible" to Luthien. That is all we're told, and it can be interpreted in various ways, as many things in Tolkien's work can be.

Whatever the case, nothing can come of arguing one side or the other. It's like those darned Balrog wings... :eek: ;)

[Nukapei]

Your right, Boro, your question is entirely different than people making up sexual relationships (sometimes homosexual ones) between LotR characters. In fact, I've often wondered the same thing -- it Celebrian was raped, I mean. However, I doubt it. Something that awful was sure to be mentioned, or at least hinted at, by Tolkien. And, anyway, orcs don't really seem to have the same sexual urges humans have, especially humans of our culture. We are a very sex-orienated people, after all -- all one needs to do to see that is turn on the tv.

[Bêthberry]

Well I suppose that before we could settle the question of did they or didn't they, we would have to come to terms with the nature of orcish reproduction, which I believe is just slightly less problematic than balrog wings or Tom Bombadil. :p ;)

[the phantom]

In a thread I started about the Morgoth/Luthien incident I brought up rape. Then I read some HoME (X, Laws and Customs...) and found this-
there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force... one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos
If the orcs had attempted to rape Celebrian, it seems she would have "died". So, since she was rescued alive I would assume she was not raped.

However, it's very likely she was tickled mercilessly- a preferred method of torment amongst all who learned under Melkor's tutelage.

[Mister Underhill]

That's a great find, phantom -- nice to see some of that ol' time HoME being slung. However, I'm compelled to point out that the passage you cite was actually revised out of a later version of the essay and changed to "...seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them."

Unfortunately, I think this change paves the way for some rather dark interpretations of Celebrian's "misfortunes" (now there's a euphemism if I've ever heard one). Knowing orcs, I think we may suppose that if they could, they did.

[narfforc]

She was in fact raped, for I was the offspring of that unholy union. When I was born they called me Narfforc, because I was one. Sorry to end the speculation this way.

[Nukapei]

I've just done a search at both CoE and The Encyclopedia of Arda, and neither mention a "Narfforc" under any category. Where'd you get this information, Narfforc?

[The Barrow-Wight]

narfforc is obviously not being truthful, for he is a troll, not an orc. :rolleyes:

Let's stay on topic, please. No need to digress any further into silliness.

[Nukapei]

I know, I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

This has always been an intriguing, if disturbing, aspect of the Legendarium to me. I find it interesting that Tolkien so carefully uses the word "torment" to describe what Celebrian went through -- this is an ambiguous word which means simply 'suffering or agony of some kind'. Tolkien could have used the more specific word "torture" to indicate physical assault of a more direct kind (that is, probably not rape), but he did not. Both in the Appendix and in the brief mention of the incident in the tale, he uses the word "torment".

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes. One can be tormented by oneself (psychological torment), by others physically or emotionally, by an idea, by a weapon, even by God (there are any number of uses in the OED from the Middle Ages in which God "tormentid" both the ungodly and those faithful whom he was testing).

So Tolkien has given us a clear indication that something agonising, painful and which does lasting harm, has happened to Celebrian, but because of the word he uses, he gives us no indication of what form that torment did, or did not, take. So it comes back to one of Tolkien's greatest strengths as a writer, insofar as it would appear that the reader is being given a certain amount of freedom. The question becomes not "what happened to Celebrian" (because all we know is that she was tormented) but "what kind of torment do I think orcs would inflict on Celebrian"?

For my money, I think that there is no form of torment to which an orc would be adverse -- and given their violence, their attitudes toward nature and other peoples, I find it hard to think that they would pass up the chance to rape a beautiful and noble Elf woman. It's one of the sadder ideas I've ever encountered in Tolkien, and I don't like to think of it much, but there it is. Middle-earth is, as we have so often noted elsewhere, a complete world both in its good and in its evil. If we are to have the healthy and productive sexual relationship of Rosie and Sam, there must logically exist the opposite of that somewhere. . .

EDIT

In the Appendix account we read that Celebrian was "seized and carried off" by the orcs. For what it's worth, that phrase is a Victorian euphemism for rape. And at the council of Elrond, we hear that Celebrian suffered torment in the "dens" of the orcs -- again, Victorian connotations around the word "den" are interesting insofas as it is used to refer to vice and sensuality ("dens of iniquity" and so on).

[Neurion]

This has always been an intriguing, if disturbing, aspect of the Legendarium to me. I find it interesting that Tolkien so carefully uses the word "torment" to describe what Celebrian went through -- this is an ambiguous word which means simply 'suffering or agony of some kind'. Tolkien could have used the more specific word "torture" to indicate physical assault of a more direct kind (that is, probably not rape), but he did not. Both in the Appendix and in the brief mention of the incident in the tale, he uses the word "torment".

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes. One can be tormented by oneself (psychological torment), by others physically or emotionally, by an idea, by a weapon, even by God (there are any number of uses in the OED from the Middle Ages in which God "tormentid" both the ungodly and those faithful whom he was testing).

So Tolkien has given us a clear indication that something agonising, painful and which does lasting harm, has happened to Celebrian, but because of the word he uses, he gives us no indication of what form that torment did, or did not, take. So it comes back to one of Tolkien's greatest strengths as a writer, insofar as it would appear that the reader is being given a certain amount of freedom. The question becomes not "what happened to Celebrian" (because all we know is that she was tormented) but "what kind of torment do I think orcs would inflict on Celebrian"?

For my money, I think that there is no form of torment to which an orc would be adverse -- and given their violence, their attitudes toward nature and other peoples, I find it hard to think that they would pass up the chance to rape a beautiful and noble Elf woman. It's one of the sadder ideas I've ever encountered in Tolkien, and I don't like to think of it much, but there it is. Middle-earth is, as we have so often noted elsewhere, a complete world both in its good and in its evil. If we are to have the healthy and productive sexual relationship of Rosie and Sam, there must logically exist the opposite of that somewhere. . .

EDIT

In the Appendix account we read that Celebrian was "seized and carried off" by the orcs. For what it's worth, that phrase is a Victorian euphemism for rape. And at the council of Elrond, we hear that Celebrian suffered torment in the "dens" of the orcs -- again, Victorian connotations around the word "den" are interesting insofas as it is used to refer to vice and sensuality ("dens of iniquity" and so on).I suppose I'll have to throw my two cents in now.

You make a good argument, but I think if such a crime really was commited against Celebrian then Tolkien would say so less cryptically. In the Narn I hin Hurin , there is an incident in which an outlaw pursues a girl through the forest, and gets himself slain by Turin. The meaning of the pursuit is fairly easy to guess from the comments of the other outlaws.

I also wonder if the orcs would be capable of such an act, as they seem to be quite asexual, nothing being said about female orcs or anything else, only that they spawned.

Finally, I believe Tolkien wrote that Celebrian's reason for leaving was "A poisoned wound" not any psychological damage.

[the phantom]

the passage you cite was actually revised out of a later version of the essay and changed to "...seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them."
Yes it was. But the "seldom..." statement of manuscript B directly interferes only with this part of manuscript A-> "there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force".

Manuscript B ignores the most pertinent part of the manuscript A quote-> "one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos". Nothing in B goes against this statement.

[Mister Underhill]

Except that its very removal in revision implies that the professor had second thoughts on this idea.

[the phantom]

Point taken, but it could also imply that he had so many thoughts about so many things that he couldn't help but forget to reword, rescind, reiterate, or even address some of the finer points in the manuscript. ;)

[Nukapei]

Or that there wasn't enough space / he'd rather get more detailed on something else.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

This has always been an intriguing, if disturbing, aspect of the Legendarium to me. I find it interesting that Tolkien so carefully uses the word "torment" to describe what Celebrian went through -- this is an ambiguous word which means simply 'suffering or agony of some kind'. Tolkien could have used the more specific word "torture" to indicate physical assault of a more direct kind (that is, probably not rape), but he did not. Both in the Appendix and in the brief mention of the incident in the tale, he uses the word "torment".

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes. One can be tormented by oneself (psychological torment), by others physically or emotionally, by an idea, by a weapon, even by God (there are any number of uses in the OED from the Middle Ages in which God "tormentid" both the ungodly and those faithful whom he was testing).

So Tolkien has given us a clear indication that something agonising, painful and which does lasting harm, has happened to Celebrian, but because of the word he uses, he gives us no indication of what form that torment did, or did not, take. So it comes back to one of Tolkien's greatest strengths as a writer, insofar as it would appear that the reader is being given a certain amount of freedom. The question becomes not "what happened to Celebrian" (because all we know is that she was tormented) but "what kind of torment do I think orcs would inflict on Celebrian"?

For my money, I think that there is no form of torment to which an orc would be adverse -- and given their violence, their attitudes toward nature and other peoples, I find it hard to think that they would pass up the chance to rape a beautiful and noble Elf woman. It's one of the sadder ideas I've ever encountered in Tolkien, and I don't like to think of it much, but there it is. Middle-earth is, as we have so often noted elsewhere, a complete world both in its good and in its evil. If we are to have the healthy and productive sexual relationship of Rosie and Sam, there must logically exist the opposite of that somewhere. . .

EDIT

In the Appendix account we read that Celebrian was "seized and carried off" by the orcs. For what it's worth, that phrase is a Victorian euphemism for rape. And at the council of Elrond, we hear that Celebrian suffered torment in the "dens" of the orcs -- again, Victorian connotations around the word "den" are interesting insofas as it is used to refer to vice and sensuality ("dens of iniquity" and so on).
Alas, my fears have been realized. Although Tolkien never directly confirms it, it seems that this really was the direction they were headed. The quote about the Elves taking other spouses doesn't really suffice against this. Celebrian was of a royal lineage, & the spouse of Elrond, Lord of Rivendelle. I doubt that they'd just easily slay her for that, & what greater way to torment a noble elven-woman than to defile her body against her will. A poisoned wound doesn't only need to be within the confines of the physical aspect. What a victim of rape feels during the aftermath is "poisoned-wound" enough, just like Frodo's mental anguish after the whole ordeal of his mission.

[radagastly]

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes.

How much more horrible her torment becomes when we are forced to install our own particular ideas of horror into her story, instead of having Tolkien detail them for us (which, as a gentleman, he most certainly would not do.)

In the Appendix account we read that Celebrian was "seized and carried off" by the orcs. For what it's worth, that phrase is a Victorian euphemism for rape. And at the council of Elrond, we hear that Celebrian suffered torment in the "dens" of the orcs -- again, Victorian connotations around the word "den" are interesting insofas as it is used to refer to vice and sensuality ("dens of iniquity" and so on).

I don't think I needed these (only slightly veiled) euphemisms to understand what happened to her, at least when I read about it.

Phantom:
However, it's very likely she was tickled mercilessly

I doubt even orcs would be that cruel.

[The Saucepan Man]

To my mind, Fordim Hedgethistle presents a compelling argument (post #16 above).

To clear up a few other points:

Manuscript B ignores the most pertinent part of the manuscript A quote-> "one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos". Nothing in B goes against this statement.In a sense this is what happened to Celebrian. It is said in Appendix A that, as a consequence of her torment at the hands of the Orcs and despite being "healed in body by Elrond", she "lost all delight in Middle-earth, and the next year went to the Havens and passed over the Sea". Admittedly, the passage suggests that the treatment referred to would have caused the spirit to leave the body and pass directly to Mandos. However, it is clear that her departure west was occasioned by the psychological, rather than physical, wounds that she received. Perhaps Elrond's skill was able to prevent her spirit leaving her body, yet her spirit could still not remain. And perhaps, once she reached Valinor, she did reject her physical body and spend time "cleansing" her spirit in Mandos' Halls.


I also wonder if the orcs would be capable of such an act, as they seem to be quite asexual, nothing being said about female orcs or anything else, only that they spawned.Tolkien never referred to Orcs being spawned in the sense portrayed in the films. And creatures can be described as "spawning" when they physically procreate (frogs and fish, for example). Moreover, in The Silmarillion its is said, in connection with the creation of Orcs:


For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar ...In light of this, and given that there are references to Orcish "families" (Azog being the father of Bolg, for example), it seems to me that there is sufficient evidence to posit that they were able to procreate in the same manner as the other races.


Finally, I believe Tolkien wrote that Celebrian's reason for leaving was "A poisoned wound" not any psychological damage.As mentioned above, it was the psychological damage that caused her to leave, since her physical wounds were healed by Elrond.

[Bêthberry]

Well, much as I would like to quote Fordim's excellent post, I see several have already beat me to the idea, so I will limit my comments.



. . . because of the word he uses, he gives us no indication of what form that torment did, or did not, take. So it comes back to one of Tolkien's greatest strengths as a writer, insofar as it would appear that the reader is being given a certain amount of freedom. The question becomes not "what happened to Celebrian" (because all we know is that she was tormented) but "what kind of torment do I think orcs would inflict on Celebrian"?

EDIT

In the Appendix account we read that Celebrian was "seized and carried off" by the orcs. For what it's worth, that phrase is a Victorian euphemism for rape. And at the council of Elrond, we hear that Celebrian suffered torment in the "dens" of the orcs -- again, Victorian connotations around the word "den" are interesting insofas as it is used to refer to vice and sensuality ("dens of iniquity" and so on).

I like very much this very philological approach to the historical meaning of workds and phrases. It suits Tolkien very well indeed. I think and provides us with rsonances for torment which are far more ominous than, as you suggest, "torture" or even a more blunt statement of the particular nature of the assault..

But my main question takes us slightly off topic, and in some manner is speculative.

Fordim. why do you think Tolkien chose to be this indirect? Your comment here suggests your believe he was leaving open an aspect of the mythology for readers to develop. We know he wanted people to take up the mythology and run with it, so to speak. Do you think he worked this into his narrative, specifically creating "narrative spaces" or "gaps" for readers to fill in?

Or was there some other purpose served? Once several years ago I was discussing the nature of good and evil in LotR with someone who shared Tolkien's religous beliefs and for her this matter of indirection was a moral directive. To speak of evil openly and directly would be, according to her, tantamount to promulagating the evil. "Speak no evil", quite literally. If this is the case, then quite sadly, the silence works against its purpose by inspiring readers with curiousity about the event.

I'm not sure how to make a definite determination here, but I think the writerly question is interesting: where, when and how to "withhold information" in order to stimulate in readers that ole "RPG" or fanfiction urge to ponder more aspects of Middle earth.

[the phantom]

Not that anyone would write a fan-fic or start an RPG about the specific information gap in question.

(at least I'd hope not)

[Nukapei]

Yeah, that would be rather . . . sadistic.

[Neurion]

Alas, my fears have been realized. Although Tolkien never directly confirms it, it seems that this really was the direction they were headed. The quote about the Elves taking other spouses doesn't really suffice against this. Celebrian was of a royal lineage, & the spouse of Elrond, Lord of Rivendelle. I doubt that they'd just easily slay her for that, & what greater way than to torment a noble elven-woman than to defile her body against her will. A poisoned wound doesn't only need to be within the confines of the physical aspect. What a victim of rape feels during the aftermath is "poisoned-wound" enough, just like Frodo's mental anguish after the whole ordeal of his mission.I can see where this is heading........

If Tolkien wanted to imply that Celebrian was assaulted in such a way I'm sure he would not have resorted to such a circurtious and cryptic circumlocution to say so.

And I think we've all dwelt on this long enough now.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

I can see where this is heading........

If Tolkien wanted to imply that Celebrian was assaulted in such a way I'm sure he would not have resorted to such a circurtious and cryptic circumlocution to say so.

And I think we've all dwelt on this long enough now.
Did you not read Bethberry's post? Religion played a part on his cryptic input. Did not the soldiers of WW2 raped? And his writings were for the most part, based on those experiences. Not implying anything, just a thought.

[Neurion]

Did you not read Bethberry's post? Religion played a part on his cryptic input. Did not the soldiers of WW2 raped? And his writings were for the most part, based on those experiences. Not implying anything, just a thought.One would think you were implying something. :rolleyes:

As to WWII soldiers, on the whole, Axis generaly yes, Allied generaly no, with the notable exception of the Russians and French colonial troops.

The bottom line is, you're set on believing that Celebrian was raped on flimsy evidence and guessing. the tone of your posts confirm this ("All my worst fears have been confirmed!" sheesh). The obvious course to take after getting settled on this "fact" is to start wondering where else in M-E such occurences took place. "Gee, according to some unpublished papers, Eol took Aredhel to wife by force." "Maybe Finduilas was outraged by the orcs before they killed her." Please don't take this any further.

As I said before, if Tolkien wanted to say so, he would have in plainer style. The incident with Turin and the outlaws points to this.

I've discussed this enough. I'm taking my leave.

[A_Brandybuck]

there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force... one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos

A detail in this quote attracted my attention. Tolkien refers only to Elves, who takes other Elves by force. He didn't mention any kind of other races in his phrases. Not in this one, not in the other ones in manuscript B.
He didn't mention, how these Elves rejected bodily life, nor when they reject.

I have two intentions concerning the quote:

1. Tolkien didn't mean "raped", but he meant rather, that an Elf takes another Elf's wife and forces her to live with him and other marital responsibilities.
Love under Elves has a special meaning in Middle-earth. It is something very binding. The bind lasts even after one part went to Mandos and the other part could not marry another Elf without consent of the other part in Mandos, that he/she rests in the Halls in Mandos until the end (Finwe and Miriel).
Regarding this, we can assume, that it must be very hard to en Elf being forced to change the partner. It must be a very huge torment to live with another Elf and not to see his/her "naturally given" partner. These elves passes to Mandos.
But this means not that being raped by orcs is no reason to leave Middle-earth.

2. (assuming, that Tolkien meant "raped")
I could be, that Orcs are not included in that theory, but only Elves. Being raped by orcs must not mean, that they rejects life and pass to Mandos. It is more a kind of physical torture. Being raped by Elves, by someone of their own people, could be a huge physical and psychological wound, that they can't suffer this and pass to Mandos.

I tend towards the first intention and that Celebrian was raped by orcs. Especially plausible is for me the reasoning of SpM, that Elrond healed the wounds, but Celebrian passed in spite of the healing, because she lost her delight.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Fordim. why do you think Tolkien chose to be this indirect? Your comment here suggests your believe he was leaving open an aspect of the mythology for readers to develop. We know he wanted people to take up the mythology and run with it, so to speak. Do you think he worked this into his narrative, specifically creating "narrative spaces" or "gaps" for readers to fill in?

I'm not really sure that Tolkien was being as "indirect" as all that. The euphemistic language he uses in these passages is not perhaps explicit, but I think that it is pretty clear, given the context of his writing. The word "rape" was simply never used in any kind of formal writing until the 1970s and 80s. Even the euphemism which is still a staple in all journalistic writing today, "sexual assault", was not invented until the 1960s. Before then, the only ways to refer to rape that were publishable in any form were euphemisms like the ones used by Tolkien. It worked, because while the writer did not explicitly say "she was raped" everyone knew what was meant when told "she was taken against her will."

But this does not really address your question: why did Tolkien write it this way? Well, I don't know, cause I can't see inside his head (woe is me!) but my suspicion is that Tolkien did keep it relatively 'gentle' due to his own reservations with directly representing something so ugly, in part as it would do injury to his own sensibilities, and as it might give offense to his readers. Just look at the passionate reaction some people have to the mere suggestion that Celebrian's "torment" might have been sexual!

But to finally address your question: yes, I do think that he would have valued the ambiguity of this moment insofar as it allows readers some room to imagine the incident in such a way as to make it 'fit' their own version of Middle-earth. For those to whom such an act would destroy the enchantment, they can easily read that moment as being one of 'mere' physical torment. For others whose sense of the enchantment can withstand such an ugly episode, we are free to interpret it that way too.

This might sound odd, but I find that my sense of wonderment and enchantment with the text is actually, and extremely ironically, buttressed by the idea that Celebrian was raped. Ugly, I know, but hear me out: one of the ways in which Middle-earth can sometimes seem unbelievable to me is in the things that do NOT happen, or that are not allowed to happen. Things that are clearly a part of the human world, but not a part of Middle-earth. Homosexuality is a good example (can of worms, can of worms, can of worms); sex and rape are others. The less like our world it is, the less I am able to be immersed by it.

Think of it this way: if it were to state somewhere, unequivocally, that orcs did not rape, I would find that hard to believe. They are monstrously evil, depraved beings that reflect the very worst of humanity. They destroy without thought, kill without conscience or reason, defile nature -- to turn around and say that despite this they are too delicate to rape a prisoner. . .well, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

One more thing that I find interesting about Tolkien's depiction of this episode is what we do NOT find in it. If he had wanted to make sure that no-one could come along afterward and wonder "did the orcs rape Celebrian?" he could so easily have included a single sentence like, "some among the orcs desired to commit foul outrages upon her body, but they were unable to approach her for the wonder of her nobility and grace. They knew that to defile her was to ensure their own destruction." Obviously, the Professor could have done a much better job than I, but I think you get the idea.

[Ainaserkewen]

Lordy, where's the Professor when we need him to answer such dire questions. And for the record, this is not sarcasm. Just imagine how easy it would be if no speculation was needed and the original mind were there to give us the answers. I suppose if this were true then this thread, not to mention this site, would not exist.

I too am weary of the ideas presented in this thread. My question is Why? Why would orcs think to do these things if they altogether had no record of doing them before. One of the basic rules of fantasy stories is that nothing can be different if there is no change (relevant or not). Yes, the orcs did capture and torture many elves and men, they hated them, despised them, were jealous and wanted revenge. These feelings were also shared against their maker and masters. The orcs are altogether ruined and evil. Perhaps the answer also lies with your own personal perception of Evil, which circles around my mind every time I post in these kinds of threads. Evil has shreds of humanity yes, or is it humanity? Is evil altogether NOT human and only a twisted variation? Again, it's up to the reader. I don't believe there is any reference or hinting of such a human indecency against Celebrian, but others would see what I cannot.

It just goes to show you how different one mortal mind is from the other.

[Nukapei]

My question is Why? Why would orcs think to do these things if they altogether had no record of doing them before.

I'm with Ainaserkewen (if I'm interpreting what she's saying correctly, that is! :rolleyes: ). I don't think the topic of this thread is would the orcs do something so despicable as rape. I think this is about did they. Just because they would doesn't mean that they did -- as Fordim Hedgethistle said in his last post (and which I hinted at in my original post), obsession with sex seems to be a major thing with our culture. Hence, the reason we'd think up something like rape as a means of torture (and also probably part, either consciously or sub-consciously, of the reason we're having this discussion in the first place). Again, the orcs probably would have, if they had thought of it! However, being as there isn't that much (comparatively) sex and love in the books, there's no guarantee that anyone who grew up in Middle-earth (especially as an orc!) with those standards would even think up such a thing.

[mark12_30]

I think the reason that Tolkien left it vague is that he was a gentleman who knew when not to discuss something in too great a detail.

There is a quote (regarding the speech of the orcs) in which Tolkien states that it was actually more foul than he had reported, but in the interest of decency he sanitized their speech.

Given the reactions of many even in this thread, can we blame him? There are some subjects that deeply upset some people, and rather than blatantly inflicting those subjects on his readers, he was gentleman enough to hint darkly and let it be.

[Mithalwen]

I don't think I would want Tolkien to get graphic about it and it is possible that Tolkien did not want to be specific for whatever reason.

But to me it depends what view of middle-earth you take. To me it is an alternate universe where all higher beings live out the Catholic ideal (no extra-marital or recreational sexual activity) :rolleyes: , and the Armies ofthe west was probably the only ever not ministered to by practioners of the oldest profession. It contained many of the nasty truths of our own world both past and present but they were contained to the lower orders (cf Brodda the Easterling), this seems to me more likely than assuming that there was lots of sex going on that Tolkien studiously ignored, and that "the truth"was closer to the fanfic... which would make Tolkien a "historian" on much the same level as the chap who wrote "The agony and the ecstasy". Equally unlikely to me is the idea that orcs would draw the line, that they would have a moral code that would prevent them committing rape if they were capable of it when they kill without thought. Historically, rape has played a part in military conflicts and in certain circumstances still does (former Yugoslavia, parts of Africa now..). In these instances rape is about power as much sex and I while I have never subscribed to the glib theory that all men are potential rapists - I am sure that war may make rapists of men who would never have done such a thing in their normal lives.

So, on balance of probabilities , I think that Celebrian was raped - unless there was a plan to hold her to ransome which would explain why she was not killed immediately. If she were not raped it is hard to imagine what torment would be so bad that she could not recover despite Elrond's best efforts - OK merely being the prisoner of orcs would not be fun but Celebrian is in the unique position of knowing that it may be goodbye for ever to her children if she goes....

I think we have to remember that rape was a taboo subject until recently - maybe even since the prof's death,and was long regarded as a fate worse than death and victims were stigmatised. This lingers on .... I think it is quite possible that the prof left indications for those eyes that can see them but itisequally possible he sketched out the story only briefly and never chose to investigate further....

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Thanks to an Inktomi Slurp Spider, I found this thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=17031) and thought it was interesting in light of the current discussion.

Hey, if Morgoth can think of it, then he probably passed along the same capacity for evil to the orcs he 'made' (however he made them. . .)

[Lalaith]

Point of interest on the use of the word rape, Fordim: Tolkien of course used it himself but referring to the theft of the Silmarils, not in the context of sexual assault. (The most common early use of the word was referring to the Rape of the Sabine Women, which took in both the theft and the sex attack meanings)

But back to the subject at hand
If she were not raped it is hard to imagine what torment would be so bad that she could not recover
Really? I could imagine a lot of tortures worse than rape. Although I don't want to imagine them. And neither, I think, did Tolkien. I think his avoidance of spelling out exactly what happens to Celebrian was not so much his distaste for sexual detail but his distaste for sadistic detail.
Bethberry - that's a very good point about Tolkien not wanting to promulgate evil by repeating it in writing, I think that's exactly what he thought. And, mark 12_30, I too was reminded of that excerpt about not wanting to repeat the true profanity of Orcish speech.
Spelling things out is not always necessary. Sometimes less is more. I remember finding the simple sentence about Elladan and Elrohir "never forgetting their mother's torment at the hands of the orcs" very haunting and effecting when I first read it as a child.
Part of her torment may well have been rape, but I don't think it really matters, what we know is that horrors she endured broke her spirit.
Oh and btw it was WWI that Tolkien fought in, not WWII.

[Neurion]

The less like our world it is, the less I am able to be immersed by it.Considering some of your criteria for said immersal, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Mithalwen]

Really? I could imagine a lot of tortures worse than rape. Although I don't want to imagine them. .


You misunderstand me ..... I mean not that rape is necessarily the worst torture , but that if the orcs did " worse " and I a have no desire to create a hierachy of abuse (although having read survivors tales (eg Alice Sebold's "Lucky") then being abducted and raped, would figure fairly high if I did so...) then they would probably also have raped her ...... but Celebrian is such a thinly drawn character that it is hard to judge.

I have to say, that it always seemed a slightly thin plot device to get her out of the way... given the physical and mental strength of the elves I always wondered was Celebrian especially frail or if not ( and this seems unlikely given her lineage) the difference must be in the nature of the torment...

[Neurion]

To me it is an alternate universe where all higher beings live out the Catholic ideal (no extra-marital or recreational sexual activity) :rolleyes: I take it you do not agree with the Catholic Church's teaching on morality then?

Armies ofthe west was probably the only ever not ministered to by practioners of the oldest profession. I think this excerpt from one of Tolkien's letters might be relevant. Concerning the Numenorians/Gondorians "I believe they were akin to the Ancient Egyptians, in their love of, and ability to create collosal architecture, but in their religious beliefs they were Hebraic (though even more puritan)".

[Mithalwen]

I take it you do not agree with the Catholic Church's teaching on morality then?

I think this excerpt from one of Tolkien's letters might be relevant. Concerning the Numenorians/Gondorians "I believe they were akin to the Ancient Egyptians, in their love of, and ability to create collosal architecture, but in their religious beliefs they were Hebraic (though even more puritan)".


Interesting about the egyptians .. I really must get hold of the letters .... thanks ...

I am not catholic though I was raised Anglo-Catholic - despite being Cof E my parents and grandparents variously received Catholic and Quaker educations (interesting puritan/guilt trip combo). I taught briefly in a Catholic school and have read Vatican 2 and the new Catholic catechism, however I really wouldn't say that I was in a position to judge in a wider context ... but I certainly don't agree with their attitude towards contraception particularly in the context of AIDS, and I certainly don't think it immoral for spouses to enjoy " a full relationship" without desiring to conceive. The world has swung from one extreme of extreme repression and hypocrisy to almost no holds barred... in which perhaps we mis-interpret the writing of a coyer or more innocent age .., but though I believe Beren and Luthien and Aragorn and Arwen were chaste til marriage ... I do think this Celebrian question is debatable

[Nukapei]

I have to say, that it always seemed a slightly thin plot device to get her out of the way... given the physical and mental strength of the elves.

I don't think so. If Tolkien had just wanted her out of the way, he could've killed her off just as easily. If not even easier, because a death, perhaps even an accident, would've been easier to explain and write about than the verbal tap-dance he did instead.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that it's best if we steer clear of personal views on issues of morality and stick to the question at hand. Clearly, we can all agree that rape is an immoral act. The central issue is whether Tolkien, by the words he used (as referenced above), intended to imply that Celebrian was raped by the Orcs and/or whether they are capable of bearing such meaning.

This is an issue which needs to be discussed with the particular care and sensitivity which has (for the most part) characterised the debate so far. I suspect that getting into issues of personal morality will put that at risk so, as I said, let's just steer clear.

[Neurion]

I certainly don't think it immoral for spouses to enjoy " a full relationship" without desiring to conceive.I disagree with that as it negates the actual purposes of intercourse. In principle, it's a bit like the decadent elite of the late Roman Empire stuffing themselves to bursting at a feast, then visiting the vomitoreum and then heading back to start all over again, thus negating the purpose of having consumed the food in the first place.

[The Barrow-Wight]

We are getting off-topic and heading towards non-Tolkien. Let's drag it back to the original subject, please. As SaucepanMan said, this is not a discussion of morality.

[Neurion]

We are getting off-topic and heading towards non-Tolkien. Let's drag it back to the original subject, please. As SaucepanMan said, this is not a discussion of morality.I just felt Mithalwen's previous comments required an answer.

[The Saucepan Man]

I just felt Mithalwen's previous comments required an answer.It didn't because it was off-topic too. Just like the question that provoked it. If you really felt a response was necessary, you should have sent a Personal Message.

Now, back to the topic at hand ...

[Bêthberry]

Well, let me try my hand at getting "back to the topic at hand."

One of the points which I see many of us making, and making it repeatedly, is how LotR affects us so deeply because it has, if I may borrow a phrase, "a felt reality."
The latest discussion to tender this view is littlemanpoet's Mythic Realities thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=368162#post368162). I would like to use lmp's summation as a general example of this argumnent, without of course holding him responsible for the entire range of the debates we have had. (I could as easily have found quotations from davem, SpM, Mark 12_30, Fordim, Child--to name only those who have, from my experience, made the claim many times.)



2. Tolkien created something he could believe in. I do not mean this only in terms of Secondary Belief, although that is certainly important. This provisional answer harks back to davem's fascinating statement which seems true to me:
Quote:
I think we respond to Tolkien in the way we do because on some level we feel we're learning (or re-learning) something important.
I think that Tolkien was answering questions like, "what story/events in the past could have generated a name like Earendil?" His language capabilities (as drigel has said) made him singularly gifted to posit believable answers to such questions.

3. Tolkien wove feigned language, history, myth, and folklore into a believable if seamy fabric. The very seaminess of it is part of its charm.

4. The works were never completed. This is an additional aspect of the feignedness/life-likeness.

5. The content is real; that is, we feel its realness in our bones. Tolkien has modified that which really was to fit his corpus.

6. Tolkien was a realist and modern who straddled the "great divide" between the pre-modern and modern eras . Tolkien was born in the pre-modern era, and loved it. He lived through the change to the modern era, and while mourning the losses that accompanied it, had a modern man's mindset, and was therefore able to communicate all he knew from myth to a modern audience such that we could make it our own.


Can we apply this statement to the question of Celebrian's experience: "a believable if seamy fabric ... The content is real; we fell its realness in our bones." I've put the bolding in because this is the crucial point.

What is a real or believable interpretation of "poisoned wound", of "tormented"? Do we acknowledge historical fact and reality, that victims of kidnapping and capture, particularly during war or animosities, are frequently raped? That 'rape' is an act of power and bullying rather than an act of sexual desire?

Or, do we say that reality consists of being a gentleman who wishes not to spread evil by naming it? (Sorry, Helen, I don't mean to single you out just because you described Tolkien as a gentleman. To me, being a 'gentleman' is a duplicitous act that has little to do with virtue.) Is it an act of reality to say that if we ignore evil it will go away? And if naming the act makes readers uncomfortable, how in Eru's name must the act itself make the victims feel? I am not talking about "graphic details" but about a simple suggestion of an abominable act.

History and psychology also show us that the reality of a code of silence about horrid and despicable acts such as rape or child abuse or pedophilia in fact creates complicity with the act. When society does not allow the crime to be named, the victims are doubly harmed. Their voice is denied and their pain is turned inward.
This happens not only to victims of sexual assault but also to soldiers in wartime who were not allowed to admit their fear, their pain, their fright, even their cowardice.

Is this what happened to Celebrian? The quotations above, that Elrond was able to heal her physically but not emotionally/mentally/psychologically suggest very much to me that Tolkien understood the trauma of a code of silence. He himself uses the code of silence to undermine it. Great poets and great writers have been doing this for centuries, turning words back upon their audience to suggest what their true meaning is.

I suppose, though, that there are other definitions of 'real' besides historical fact and psychological experience. Yet if we are to say that Middle earth touches us so deeply because it is real, because it makes the secondary world a truer experience than the primary world, then I think we have to face the possibility that Tolkien was using indirection very deliberately to unveil an ugly reality.

[Neurion]

I'm not really sure that Tolkien was being as "indirect" as all that. The euphemistic language he uses in these passages is not perhaps explicit, but I think that it is pretty clear, given the context of his writing. The word "rape" was simply never used in any kind of formal writing until the 1970s and 80s. Even the euphemism which is still a staple in all journalistic writing today, "sexual assault", was not invented until the 1960s. Before then, the only ways to refer to rape that were publishable in any form were euphemisms like the ones used by Tolkien. It worked, because while the writer did not explicitly say "she was raped" everyone knew what was meant when told "she was taken against her will."Actually, if Tolkien had meant to say so, there are other older terms in the English language to describe that particular crime which were acceptable to use. Tolkien could have just as easily said "Outraged" or "Ravaged" had he meant to tell his readers that Celebrian was mistreated as you suggest rather than using (as he did) the very vague "Torment".

[The Saucepan Man]

Tolkien could have just as easily said "Outraged" or "Ravaged" had he meant to tell his readers that Celebrian was mistreated as you suggest rather than using (as he did) the very vague "Torment". On reflection, I think that Tolkien chose his words very carefully and deliberately here.

I agree with Fordim's analysis that the words used in conjunction with the situation described do suggest that Celebrian was violated. And I seriously doubt that Tolkien would have been unaware of the connotations of the words used in this regard. Certainly, when I have read the book in recent years, this is the suggestion that comes to my mind when I read the relevant passages. Importantly, however, it is not something which would have occurred to the younger and more (blissfully) innocent me who first read the book.

I would suggest, therefore, that Tolkien was carefully and wisely choosing words which would avoid suggesting to his more innocent readers that such things happen. Why, after all, should he take responsibility for introducing his younger readers to the brutal realities of life? At the same time, the words convey the intended impression to those who are (sadly) acquainted with such realities.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Well said The Saucepan Man. I've always thought of this since Tokien has a variety of readers (ranging from age groups) & being a gentleman that he is, might've chosen to downplay some of his diction.

[Nukapei]

What, exactly, does the passage say? I only have the LotR books, The Hobbit, and The Sil.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

I don't have the passages but if I remember correctly, she was taken away into a den & tormented, suffered a poisoned wound...

But I've stumbled on a passage in the Unfinished Tales regarding Amroth & Nimrodel & the quote goes like this:

"If she came through the settled lands of Gondor," they said, "she would not be molested, and might receive help; for the Men of Gondor are good, and they are ruled by the descendants of Elf-friends of old who can still speak our tongue, after a fashion; but in the mountains are many unfriendly Men & evil things." - Unfinished Tales (amroth & Nimrodel pg. 253)

So molestation was possible for Celebrian then, if it is possible for Nimrodel, although the quote seems to be reffering to evil men who could do such things, but were not the orcs thrice evil or more?

[Neurion]

I don't have the passages but if I remember correctly, she was taken away into a den & tormented, suffered a poisoned wound...

But I've stumbled on a passage in the Unfinished Tales regarding Amroth & Nimrodel & the quote goes like this:

"If she came through the settled lands of Gondor," they said, "she would not be molested, and might receive help; for the Men of Gondor are good, and they are ruled by the descendants of Elf-friends of old who can still speak our tongue, after a fashion; but in the mountains are many unfriendly Men & evil things." - Unfinished Tales (amroth & Nimrodel pg. 253)

So molestation was possible for Celebrian then, if it is possible for Nimrodel, although the quote seems to be reffering to evil men who could do such things, but were not the orcs thrice evil or more?"Molestation" in its original sense was a generic term for being brought to harm or even annoyed by someone. For example, if a celebrity is mobbed by fans on the street, one could say that he/she is being "molested" by them. The term did not have an implicitly sexual connotation until recently.

[Estel the Descender]

In the Lays of Beleriand it does say that raping was an Orcish SOP:

"the Orcs went forth to rape and war. . ." (from line 3516)

Admittedly, this is the old Lay of Leithian and not the recommenced version, but after reading Fordim Hedgethistle's EDIT in Post # 16 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=367606&postcount=16) I am led to consider the possibility that Celebrian was indeed raped.

But then again, the word "rape" may just simply mean "capture", as in The Rape of The Silmarils. In that sense, Celebrian's "rape" may merely mean her capture, and the Orcs in LB might probably be just stealing. Yet the psychological wounding of Celebrian which caused her to leave Middle-earth does seem to imply that the word "rape" means more than mere capture. But, as others have already noted, if she was really raped in the sexual sense, why didn't she die outright? Unless, just as Mister Underhill noted, Tolkien changed or modified this.

But what if the "rejection of bodily life and passing on to Mandos" did not happen as an immediate occurence but as a gradual process? Then Celebrian could have survived long enough to be rescued and Elrond would have artificially preserved Celebrian's bodily life through Vilya. But the fea of Celebrian would still want to leave Ennor and so she left.

It is also possible that the reason why Elladan and Elrohir are so bitter about their mother's "torment" is because, assuming that the rape was sexual, they felt themselves also disgraced. If it was a mere capture, their bitterness may be a tad bit overreacting. Still, I may be wrong. . .

[Thinlómien]

I think "a poisonous wound" refering to rape is a bit far-fetched. Of course "Tolkien was a gentleman", as it's said here many times, but still... And that raping mentioned in Lays of Beleriand refers to stealing and raiding only, I think.
And also I can't think about orcs as very sexual creatures really...
I would clearly say Celebrian wasn't raped, if I hadn't read the post #16 by Fordim Hedgethistle. It really made me think about this.

[Lord Melkor]

Hmmm, I agree with the conclusion that Tolkien implied that Celebrian was raped by the Orcs. Lets see if we can come to a viable hypothesis by asking ourselves several questions:

1. How do Orcs procreate? This question is of importance because the question whether Celebrian was raped depends on the fact whether Orcs had sexual feelings. If Orcs reproduced asexually and had no sexual feelings at all, than why would they rape Celebrian? Indeed, if they were asexual then the very notion of rape must have seemed alien to them, since the act of fornication would be completely unknown to them (including the intimacy of it) and they probably would've been unable to conceive how much being raped would have damaged Celebrian, both physically and psychologically (and I'm not even talking about the Orcs lacking the *ahem* 'proper equipment'. However, it seems it's pretty clear that Orcs reproduced sexually. They clearly have families (Bolg, son of Azog) and the Silmarillion clearly states that Orcs reproduced in the manner of the Children of Iluvatar. It is therefore obvious that Orcs reproduce by having sex.

2. Did the Orcs have the opportunity to rape Celebrian and is it likely that they would have done so? It is strange that the Orcs abducted Celebrian instead of killing her outright, which would seem to be an Orcish thing to do. Celebrian would have had an escort but she's the only elf who was taken captive. This means that the Orcs probably had 'special plans' for her in store. One must wonder why the Orcs would have spared her while killing the others. It is unknown what the make-up of her escort was but one would assume that she has some ladies-in-waiting with her. These appear to have been killed, though it could be that I'm speculating too much here. Celebrian was the wife of a high-ranking elflord, so this would add to her value, but I'm not sure whether Orcs hold peopel for ransom. When they are not under the influence of a Dark Lord Orcs seem to make a living with raiding (as seen in the Hobbit where the Goblins intend to raid villages with the Wargs) and brigandeering. From what I can tell they generally tend to have a 'No prisoners, no survivors' attitude towards their victims. Tolkien has also made no mention of any ransom demands from the Orcs, so I feel that the 'ransom' scenario is unlikely.

This leaves the 'sadist' scenario. The Orcs took Celebrian to their dens to have some 'fun' with her before killing her. Their entertainment was cut short by Elladan and Elrohir's rescue attempt (I assume this was done with a strong force of Elves under their command). Tolkien states that Celebrian was tormented and that her psychological wounds were so severe she could no longer dwell in Middle-Earth. How likely is it that rape was part of that torment? Orcs are sexual creatures and pretty evil creatures at that. It seems unlikely that Orcs would have had any sort of aversion to raping captured women. We also know that Orcs love to defile and destroy beautiful things. To an Orc, what could be greater than to defile a beautiful elflady? What is the most degrading, the most defiling thing that one can do to woman? I'm afraid the answer is pretty obvious on that one. :( This would also explain why only Celebrian wasn't killed outright. Her high status probably enticed the Orcs to draw out her defilement as long as possible, while they quickly killed off her escort of soldiers and lower-ranking ladies.

Conclusion: While the text itself is rather vague on the subject, it would appear to me from a logical POV, taking into account the situation and especially the nature of Orcs, that it is quite likely that one of the torments Celebrian was subjected to was indeed rape.

I hope this post wasn't to vague or fuzzy, I tend to lose track when writing large posts like this. ;)

EDIT: Edited for typos n such. :p

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Very brilliant post Lord Melkor. My conclusions have also been swayed to your direction, but it seems that other Tolkien fans are too touchy to really delve into the inuendos of that story.

[Celebrian]

From a literary point of view, the disgrace of their mother would provide motive for Elladan amd Elrohir to join the War, in spite of their father's peaceful ways.

I tend to agree with The Saucepan Man. Is this not an example of Edwardian grace, that the "indirect", as Bethberry calls it, is used to deliberately limit the amount of evil to that which is in the mind of the reader?

The Catholic scripture says of Gorthaur's proposed evil in Ephesians 5:3, "let it not be once named among you". In my interpretation, that would be a way for Tolkien to avoid spreading even more evil into the thought-life of the reader.

[Lush]

I read this thread with an increasing feeling of sadness. It seems that a few couple of people on here immeditely associate rape with sex, and the fact that "obsession with sex seems to be a major thing with our culture." Rape is a form of violence, and, in war, a kind of weapon. It seems perfectly reasonable that in a book that mainly deals with war, rape would occur.

Rape is a part of our lives and a part of our myths, we should be able to discuss its possibilities in a literary context without claiming that other just have dirty minds, or something like that.

Why so uncomfortable with a perfectly legitimate, if disturbing subject? Is it because we sexualize rape too much, make it into something its not?

As for my personal opinion on the matter, I believe Celebrian was raped. That's how I read it the first time I picked up the book. The vague "torment" and the inability to heal psychologically in a world that would constantly remind her of what happend are consistent with trauma following sexual assault. You don't have to see it the way I do, but I hope my viewpoint doesn't make me into just another sex-obsessed modern person, daring to defile Tolkien's writing with my so-called dirty thoughts.

[Ruoutorin]

I totally disagree. It's just not "Tolkienish". They way I see Celebrain's torment is that it is similar to Frodo's torment after the destruction of the One Ring. Celebrain was wounded in body and mind and could not be content anymore in Middle Earth, just like Frodo. Tolkien is not afraid to use the word rape. He does it when describing the fate of the Silmarils.

An Elf who was raped would die:
"Among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos. Guile or trickery in this matter was scarcely possible…for the Eldar can read at once in the eyes and voice of another whether they be wed or unwed." (JRRT, Morgoth's Ring, Laws & Customs of the Eldar, footnote 5)

Tolkien says nothing of Celebrian passing to Mandos. He says her body was healed by Elrond, and it wasn't until the following year that she chose to sail across the sea.
Nothing about dying.

[Bêthberry]

If I may step in here, I think Lush was replying to an insinuation in the previous post, one which in fact misinterprets my earlier post.

Celebrian posted:
I tend to agree with The Saucepan Man. Is this not an example of Edwardian grace, that the "indirect", as Bethberry calls it, is used to deliberately limit the amount of evil to that which is in the mind of the reader?


My use of 'code of silence' and 'indirection' was intended to suggest a linguistic strategy Tolkien used. That strategy is very aptly described in Fordim's excellent posts on the literary and historical habits of euphemism in this regard.

Some of us understand this linguistic pattern. To say that we are interpreting based "on the amount of evil ... that ... is in the mind of the reader" is a personal attack. It says our interpretation is wrong because our minds are filthy. Such an ad hominem attack has no place in a discussion forum and Lush was right to call Celebrian on it.

Tolkien chose to write the passage vaguely, but he left enough linguistic evidence to demonstrate how he wanted this occurence to be regarded: discretely but not overlooked or passed over. He had lots of evidence in the early lives of Christian saints, after all, which is common knowledge among those who read lives of the saints.

It is part of the readerly experience to become close to some characters and to identify with them. That does not, however, mean that we must deny the right of others to interpret the characters in ways which might make us uncomfortable, especially when these other interpretations are fairly and legitimately made. There is a long tradition of literature that in fact acknowledges the important role of literature in making readers uncomfortable. It is part of the reading experience.

Ruoutorin, your quotation from HoMe can be discounted on the grounds of literary evidence. There is much matter in HoMe and UT which we can discuss, but on the whole such work remains tangential to the texts published in Tolkien's time. After all, as HoMe and UT demonstrate, Tolkien's ideas changed, and changed often, over the decades he wrote his legendarium. Usually, when authors read back into a text, readers are free to consider what the text meant at the time of publication. After all, is there any evidence that Tolkien was thinking about Celebrian when he wrote that passage, or was he trying to establish something general about elves? He often made statements that were generalisations and then had to go back and try to fit the specific incident into the generalisation, or vice versa. This is what is "Tolkienish", a creative mind in constant motion over time and we must capture a snapshot of one moment.

The fact of the matter is that Tolkien wrote a passage which is vague but which allows for a specific interpretation. The indirection is part of his writerly behaviour here. But as Fordim points out in his posts, understanding the linguistic habits of Tolkien's time helps us to understand where he was as a writer here.

[A_Brandybuck]

An Elf who was raped would die:
"Among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos. Guile or trickery in this matter was scarcely possible…for the Eldar can read at once in the eyes and voice of another whether they be wed or unwed." (JRRT, Morgoth's Ring, Laws & Customs of the Eldar, footnote 5)

That this quote from Morgoth's Ring must not obligatory mean, that Celebrian will die, shows (or hopefully shows ;-) ) my post far above.

I came (for me) to the conclusion, that (apart from the fact, whether Tolkien wanted to include a 'rape'), Orcs would in every case, if they are physically able to, rape Celebrian, because of their lust to torment.

But what I find more interesting is the behaviour of their family. Why does her sons Elladan and Elrohir show more grim as the rest of her family, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn.
Tolkien mentioned a few times, that Elladan and Elrohir would never forget the torments of her mother in the caves of the orcs. Why did Tolkien not write such a statement from Elrond or Galadriel?
I could imagine the following cases:

1. It were her sons, who saved her. And the view of her mother being tormented must has burned into their mind. They could in the opposite to the other family not forget what happenend, because they have seen it and the other not.

2. *speculating* Elrond, Galadriel and Celeborn knew, that they would see her again in the Undying Lands. The fate of her sons is open. They have to make their decision between Elven and Men. Maybe they feared they could never see their mother again, because they still have to make their decision being Elf or Man.
But then there is the question, why not Arwen? She have to make their decision, too. Maybe because of being female.

[Ruoutorin]

Ruoutorin, your quotation from HoMe can be discounted on the grounds of literary evidence. There is much matter in HoMe and UT which we can discuss, but on the whole such work remains tangential to the texts published in Tolkien's time. After all, as HoMe and UT demonstrate, Tolkien's ideas changed, and changed often, over the decades he wrote his legendarium. Usually, when authors read back into a text, readers are free to consider what the text meant at the time of publication. After all, is there any evidence that Tolkien was thinking about Celebrian when he wrote that passage, or was he trying to establish something general about elves? He often made statements that were generalisations and then had to go back and try to fit the specific incident into the generalisation, or vice versa. This is what is "Tolkienish", a creative mind in constant motion over time and we must capture a snapshot of one moment.

The fact of the matter is that Tolkien wrote a passage which is vague but which allows for a specific interpretation. The indirection is part of his writerly behaviour here. But as Fordim points out in his posts, understanding the linguistic habits of Tolkien's time helps us to understand where he was as a writer here.
Oh pleeeeasseee. So what you're saying is that we can dismiss The Silmarillion as a valid source as well, since it was not "published in Tolkien's time". Therefore we are left with no valid source of the First or Second Ages, but the short texts included in the Appendices of the LotR. The statement in Morgoth's Ring are obviously referring to the Elves in general as they are under the heading of "Laws and Customs of the Eldar". Whereas Tolkien does not contradict these statements anywhere else in his writings they, most certainly, can be considered his final decision on the matter. You say that understanding the linguistic habits of Tolkien's time helps us to understand.... Well, as I pointed out before, Tolkien DOES INDEED use the word "rape" when refering to the Silmarils, so why would he avoid using it when referring to a woman???? Why would he not just come straight out and say what he means instead of alluding to it? He does not seem afraid to do that in any other instance and he does not ever say that he intentionally left the matter vague, as he says with Tom Bombadil in his letters (enigma). Or maybe you consider The Letters of JRR Tolkien invalid as well, since he did not publish them (as if everyone finds it natural to publish letters that they write to friends and relatives, etc. )

[Bêthberry]

Ruoutorin, rather than debate your rhetorical style, I refer you to Fordim Hedgethistle's thread, Canonicity: The Book or The Reader? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10593&page=1) where the issue of authorial intentionality was discussed ad finitum, concerning which texts are canonical and which are not and how relevant that term is in discussing Tolkien in particular.

Why would Tolkien choose to be vague when describing the wife of an elven noble and not when describing a piece of jewellry? Because the two have different meanings, different significations for his culture. Because by the mores of his day, such a direct statement would tarnish the woman, as would not apply to the stones. He wished us to understand a personal anguish for the ruling family of Rivendell without at all subjecting Celebrian to the usual derision of his time. Because allusion was the established linguistic code of his time for women of quality or nobility.

Why would he not just come straight out and say what he means instead of alluding to it?

Because what he means is the allusiveness, obviously.

[Celebrian]

1) Reply: To answer Bethberry's charge of ad hominem, I say that I am sorry to any human, elf, or hobbit participating in the thread who may have thought my remarks were not generic.

edit: Perhaps I should rephrase to say something like, "limited to the experience of the reader", to show agreement with Saucepan Man. Still learning. :o

2) Comment: Rape could be the crime of having sexual intercourse with a woman or girl forcibly and without consent, or the act of seizing and carrying away by force (such as the Silmarils) , the plundering or violent destruction (of a city, etc.) as in warfare, or any outrageous assault or flagrant violation. (Webster's NWD)

3) A Conclusion: Tolkien does not answer Gorthaur's specific question, and therefore to assume rape is still speculative.

[Lush]

Oh dear. I certainly wasn't picking on Celebrian when I first posted on here. In fact, I was mostly picking on those who had posted before her.

Well, "picking on" is the wrong expression, really.

What I meant was, whether or not Celebrian was, in fact, raped, is just as legitimate of a topic as any. We should be able to discuss it without being accused of trying to forcefully dig up a sexual context in these works. Because, and this is the part that truly saddened me, immediately equating rape with sex and nothing more is insulting.

I see Celebrian's rape as another war-crime. I see it that way not because I'm a sex-crazed product of modern times, but because rape has always been used as a weapon in war and it does exist in myth. Think of Homer.

I hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings.

[Ruoutorin]

Ruoutorin, rather than debate your rhetorical style, I refer you to Fordim Hedgethistle's thread, Canonicity: The Book or The Reader? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10593&page=1) where the issue of authorial intentionality was discussed ad finitum, concerning which texts are canonical and which are not and how relevant that term is in discussing Tolkien in particular.

Because what he means is the allusiveness, obviously.
Please do not refer me to any so called "Tolkien Experts" as they are no more experts then you or I and only offer their own opinions as to what Tolkien's intentions were and state them as facts. Unless the author has conducted a recent seance and successfully contacted Tolkien and specifically discussed this issue with him, his opinion is merely that, his opinion.

There are people who have convinced themselves that they have seen the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich and they're sure that it is there. That certainly doesn't mean that it really is there. You can convince yourself of anything and really believe it, but that doesn't mean that it's true.

3) A Conclusion: Tolkien does not answer Gorthaur's specific question, and therefore to assume rape is still speculative.

AMEN!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Neurion]

Please do not refer me to any so called "Tolkien Experts" as they are no more experts then you or I and only offer their own opinions as to what Tolkien's intentions were and state them as facts. Unless the author has conducted a recent seance and successfully contacted Tolkien and specifically discussed this issue with him, his opinion is merely that, his opinion.I think that's a false assumption on the whole. To be sure, know one knows exactly what Tolkien's thoughts were, but someone who's thoroughly studied Tolkien's life, opinions and beliefs is going to have an inestimably better idea of what Tolkien meant than a 16 year-old who's just finished reading Lord of the Rings for the first time.

[Ruoutorin]

I think that's a false assumption on the whole. To be sure, know one knows exactly what Tolkien's thoughts were, but someone who's thoroughly studied Tolkien's life, opinions and beliefs is going to have an inestimably better idea of what Tolkien meant than a 16 year-old who's just finished reading Lord of the Rings for the first time.
No matter how much someone has studied Tolkien's works they cannot see into his mind. Perhaps they will catch a trend in Tolkien's way of thinking, but by no means does that give them the right to draw conclusions about what direction Tolkien was headed. You can read Tolkien's books dozens of times, study Tolkien's works extensively, but if you write a sequal to the LotR you cannot put Tolkien's name on it and tell everyone that this is what Tolkien was going to say next.

[The Barrow-Wight]

We're getting off topic. Let's move back to the central theme. There is probably already a discussion of 'Tolkien expertise' somewhere on the Downs. If not, it might make a good new topic if it can be discussed civilly.

[Neurion]

How Celebrian was tormented is unimportant. What is important is the way it impacted her family, and how it affected their actions during the War of the Ring.

[Lalaith]

I'm slightly concerned by the assumption that Elladan and Elrohir could only have been so angry and unforgiving to the Orcs because their mother was raped, or 'disgraced' as one poster put it! This smacks to me of a patriarchal honour system which, while it is certainly exists in various societies, does not seem to have been a feature of Tolkien's elvish culture. Surely any son would feel a need to avenge a mother submitted to torture, irrespective of what that torture actually involved?
I agree with Lush, rape is a war crime, not a sexual act. And I agree with A_Brandybuck - Celebrian's sons felt particularly vengeful because they were the ones who rescued her, and saw her in whatever hideous hell-hole she was being tortured in.

[Neurion]

I don't quite uderstand how this so-called "Patriarchial honour system" changes things.

[Adel]

Wowie, interesting topic here! But as for me, I must personally say that I do not think that Celebrian was raped. For several reasons actually. Tolkien mentioned in his writings that an elf who was raped would immediately leave their bodies and go to the Halls of Mandos...and quite frankly, seeing as Celebrian stuck around after she was captured for another year, I don't think that that is a clear indication that something like that happened to her. And besides that, what is all this talk I am seeing about everyone thinking that a morgul-poisoning wound is not severe enough to make an elf lose delight in Middle Earth?! Did you see what happened to FRODO?! I mean, this poison that the Orcs used on Celebrian is some of the darkest in Middle Earth. From what was portrayed, we can see that it hurts you physically, mentally, and spiritually. Frodo was almost turned into a WRAITH for pity's sake! Besides the fact that usually whenever Tolkien talks about what happened to Celebrian, he usually sticks the little point of the morgul poisoning in there among everything else, so to me, it really looks like he is hinting toward the fact that THAT was the reason why she left. Besides, think of the scars left on her body after all of that! Her face was probably mangled from the burns and cuts and everything that the Orcs used to hurt her while she was captivity, and her whole body just probably had these lasting marks on them that even Elrond couldn't banish. After all, he can heal her, but things like scars are just marks. There weren't any fancy band-aids or powders back then to make scars fade away, like there might be today. And even besides that, just the simple fact of the memories and nightmares that she has to live with after all of that... no matter who her mother was, Celebrian is still female, and an elf at that. And why is being an elf an important thing here? Because elves were spoken of to being very tender-hearted, as they can die from a broken heart.

And upon the detail that she might have been able to survive a little longer because she was raped by an ORC and not an ELF...come on. Do you REALLY think it would be any easier on her to be raped by an Orc? Rape is rape. The deed can be done the same way by an Orc as with an elf. So if Celebrian was really raped by an Orc, she would still die. Her body and spirit has still been defiled, no matter who or what it was defiled by.

And I see that we've been kind of playing around with the supposed "gap" that Tolkien left for us by using the word "torment" instead of the word "torture". So... upon seeing this I decided to look up the word in an online dictionary, and guess what the outcome was...

Dictionary 1 Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin tormentum torture; akin to torquEre to twist -- more at TORTURE
1 : the infliction of torture (as by rack or wheel)
2 : extreme pain or anguish of body or mind : AGONY
3 : a source of vexation or pain

Dictionary 2 • noun 1 severe physical or mental suffering.

Dictionary 3
tor·ment [ tawr mént ]

1. inflict pain on somebody or something: to inflict torture, pain, or anguish on somebody or something

And the other definations that came along with that all had to do with "teasing", so I decided not to stick that in there...but really. Does that really sound like Tolkien was majorly hinting toward something more serious than your average torture? I don't think so. The word "torment" CAME from the word "torture", and it basically means the same thing. And it is mainly phyiscal stuff, like being poked, and burned, and scratched, etc. Now if he had said the word "assault", then maybe we'd be opened up to a bit more. But it really sounds like he's talking about torture there. And I tend to agree with that, since Orcs, from what I can tell from their personalities and the way they are described, seem to be the sort that would find more pleasure in the torture instead of some kind of sexual assault. Orcs, to me, really seem (from the point of their naturally descructive nature) like the types who would enjoy more of the wounds that they can see and hear, like blood, screams, ugly wounds, burns, deep cuts, etc. They don't seem like they would go lusting over beautiful women, since they despise elves and "ALL THINGS BEAUTIFUL". So why would they have this big sex-desire thing going on?

And many ask why the Orcs would have kept Celebrian instead of killing her right off, if not to take advantage of her beauty and the fact that she is female? Well, there are actually several reasons. 1) She is a lady of importance. High rank, high respect. The game is always more fun when you are dealing with someone valuable who is supposedly not easily broken. 2) She is an elf! Tolkien mentioned that Orcs have a special hatred for the eldar and their beauty, (which is another reason why I don't think they kept the beautiful and fair Celebrian to rape her) so why not take advantage of one of high rank to torture and have a little fun with?

And another thought on the subject that Tolkien may have been secretly "leaving a gap" for us to guess with in his using of the word "torment"...let's just be careful at how we put this stuff now. The LAST thing we want to do is take this genius' work and turn it into something it is NOT. For example (to use something written before this), someone says "well...it kind of SOUNDS like it sometimes...so I'm betting that Frodo and Sam are gay!". :eek: YIKES!! Can you even IMAGINE the look on Tolkien's face if he saw that?! I know I be VERY mad at anyone who did something like that to my finest work. And I know, to each his own opinion. But as I said, let's just be careful here. Heaven knows there are ways to torture someone that can be seen as bad as rape or worse! Humans these days over in other countries and in captivity go MAD from torture!

So yes, as "Celebrian" said, to assume rape in Tolkien's writings is still very spectulative. Let's just watch what we say about the dear old professor, and just leave his words as thety are. I know, I know, to each his own opinion...and I have just given you mine. *blushes* I hope I haven't offended anyone, but after a bit of research, well, you can see why I may differ in my opinions from a few people on this thread.

~Adel

P.S. I do agree with Lalaith. Elladan and Elrohir weren't necessary so horrified and angry at their mother's capture because she was raped. Think of what YOU would do if you walked into an Orcish torture den and saw someone using hot metals and rusty blades to ravage YOUR mother! I'd never see my brothers again...

[Nukapei]

Wowie, interesting topic here! But as for me, I must personally say that I do not think that Celebrian was raped. For several reasons actually. Tolkien mentioned in his writings that an elf who was raped would immediately leave their bodies and go to the Halls of Mandos...and quite frankly, seeing as Celebrian stuck around after she was captured for another year, I don't think that that is a clear indication that something like that happened to her . . . And upon the detail that she might have been able to survive a little longer because she was raped by an ORC and not an ELF...come on. Do you REALLY think it would be any easier on her to be raped by an Orc? Rape is rape. The deed can be done the same way by an Orc as with an elf. So if Celebrian was really raped by an Orc, she would still die. Her body and spirit has still been defiled, no matter who or what it was defiled by.

Not necessarily. Notice the exact wording:

"Among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos. Guile or trickery in this matter was scarcely possible…for the Eldar can read at once in the eyes and voice of another whether they be wed or unwed." (JRRT, Morgoth's Ring, Laws & Customs of the Eldar, footnote 5)

This quote directly relates to inter-Elvish relationships. Period. And, while you say that it is the act that is important, not the person committing it (or, in this case, the species of that person), I am forced to disagree. The identity of the criminal can make a big difference -- think of being raped by a complete stranger, versus a good and trusted friend! The former would be horrible; the latter could leave emotional scars that affect, not only your ability to function as a human being in society, but also your ability to trust!

Perhaps the species of the rapist would affect an Elf in that violent crimes (I agree, rape in this case has absolutely nothing to do with lust and sex, and everything to do with inflicting pain) are expected by Orcs. In Tolkien's (mostly) black-and-white world, Orcs are evil monsters that will do anything they can to inflict horrible pain on others, especially their most hated nemesis, the Eldar. For a fellow Elf to do the same is an even worse betrayal -- Elves aren't supposed to be capable of such.

Orcs, to me, really seem (from the point of their naturally descructive nature) like the types who would enjoy more of the wounds that they can see and hear, like blood, screams, ugly wounds, burns, deep cuts, etc. They don't seem like they would go lusting over beautiful women, since they despise elves and "ALL THINGS BEAUTIFUL". So why would they have this big sex-desire thing going on?

Being female myself, I know that I would certaily make all kinds of "satisfying" sounds in a similar situation. And what better way to inflict "wounds" on this beautiful, pure Elvish lady than defiling her, forcing on her deep emotional wounds that make her feel that her own body is a thing dirty and defiled (as rape victims often do)?

And I see that we've been kind of playing around with the supposed "gap" that Tolkien left for us by using the word "torment" instead of the word "torture". So... upon seeing this I decided to look up the word in an online dictionary, and guess what the outcome was . . .The word "torment" CAME from the word "torture", and it basically means the same thing. And it is mainly phyiscal stuff, like being poked, and burned, and scratched, etc. Now if he had said the word "assault", then maybe we'd be opened up to a bit more. But it really sounds like he's talking about torture there.

. . .

P.S. I do agree with Lalaith. Elladan and Elrohir weren't necessary so horrified and angry at their mother's capture because she was raped. Think of what YOU would do if you walked into an Orcish torture den and saw someone using hot metals and rusty blades to ravage YOUR mother! I'd never see my brothers again...

I agree with you here, on both parts. The exact wording is irrelivant, as "torment" and "torture" are synonymous. And, whatever the twins saw in that Orc den was horrible enough, no matter the details.

Sorry if I've ranted and raved, and picked apart your post! I just found it so interesting, and had to comment on certain parts of it, that I found especially important. :D

[Adel]

Oh, no problem about the picking apart there Nukapei! Everyone does it once in a while I think. And you have some valuable points, such as your point on Tolkien not being particularly direct in saying that any cases of rape would cause an elf to leave their bodies...but personally, I don't think that it makes any difference. Rape is rape is rape. It is the same defiling, the same humiliation, and though it may not be by a friend or family, the deed is still the deed. It still happened, it still does the same stuff. That is just what I believe...doesn't really mean it's correct, but that is just my opinion. I don't think it'd be any easier for Celebrian to pull through that, personally...

Nukapei: Being female myself, I know that I would certaily make all kinds of "satisfying" sounds in a similar situation. And what better way to inflict "wounds" on this beautiful, pure Elvish lady than defiling her, forcing on her deep emotional wounds that make her feel that her own body is a thing dirty and defiled (as rape victims often do)?

Because there are other ways of doing things just as bad or worse that would involve much more pleasure for the Orcs. Personally, I don't really think that an Orc would go to that kind of thing, since, as I said, I don't really imagine them having any lust or sex desires. They were never portrayed that way, seeing as they hate all things beautiful and fair, and especially the eldar. I mean, the morgul poisoning would be bad enough through and through. As I stated before, it bothers me how people are always downplaying the roll of the morgul poisoning! Why must we think that something else like RAPE had to happen in order for Celebrian to lose all delight in Middle Earth? Morgul poisoning is AWFUL! Again, look at Frodo! Sorry if I'm getting a little freaky here, I don't mean to be, but it really is something I don't understand. Poisons, gruesome mental images, crude words in the BLACK SPEECH (remember the Elves' reaction to that in the chapter "The Council of Elrond" in FOTR! They were NOT enjoying that!), extreme pain, despair, panic, fear, scars...I mean, you name it she felt it! Daughter of Galadriel or not, that would certainly be enough to get her over to Valinor in my opinion.

Suggestions for toture that Orcs very likely would use: (just for fun mind you. Mwahaha! This is good for all people who are stuck on ways to have their Orcs torture elven prisoners in all fanfiction...)

1. Poison. Absolutely. Probably some of the vilest out there. Poisons that infect your mind, your body, your spirit, your very being itself. Especially when the poisons are from Angmar, or even Mordor! All that black magic just kills you. Remember, Orcs are so good at cooking up stuff that hurts you that even their MEDICINES are painful to take! (and no, I don't mean your daily dose of chest congestion medicine or cough syrup. I mean physical PAIN) Poisons that can sometimes triple the pain that you would normally feel for a poke (working the nerves of the body), poisons that go to your mind and nearly drive you mad with just mental distortion there, poisons that turn your blood black or something to make it burn...I mean, come on. They could've done ANYTHING with the supplies they had!

2. Burns. Oh yeah, bring em' on! You heat up a hot poker, a sword blade, anything that'll heat up really hot and press it against that fair elven skin? Very good, very good. Screams, the smells of burning flesh, severe scars, wounds that take WEEKS to heal...

3. Black speech. Not really a major torture thing here, but that speech is so detestable and dark that elves have a very hard time standing it. It's nearly the opposite of what they speak, and there is no telling what the Orcs are actually saying in the process...

4. Bleeding. Whips, knives, chains, pinchers...anything that'll make the blood come! Orcs love blood, and they know how to draw it from you in the most painful ways with whatever they've got, so be prepared to lose a little of that red stuff if you're ever captured...

5. Physical distortion. Cutting off the tips of the ears, cutting the hair, the fingers, slicing up the face, cutting out the tongue, gouging out the eyes...I don't think I need to go on. But who said that Celebrian didn't come back to Imladris with an eye or a tongue missing? Eeeeek, creepy thought...

6. Hand you over to the Ring Wraiths. Probably the last time they'd see you in recognizable form, but it'd probably be the worst of the worst. After all, between Black Breath and some of the other awful stuff that those Nazgul have...well, I needn't say anymore. This is a drastic step, and they PROBABLY wouldn't normally take it, so go ahead and ignore this one. :D

All right, I'll stop babbling now. *looks around* Anyone made a run for the chuck-bucket yet? *cringes* I know it's awful. But those are Orcs, ya know...*points finger at Tolkien quickly* His fault! :D Thanks for your comments Nukapei! Again, I sure hope I haven't offended anyone, and remember, to each his own opinion! Some people may think that it is likely that Celebrian was raped, and others think not. Either way Tolkien never said, so no one can be positive or put their fingers down on anything. It's all a matter of perspective and opinion. Just like some people think that Frodo and Sam were most definately gay. I don't. Simple as that, so I'll stick to my opinion, and those people will stick to theirs. There is plenty of room in this world for both views.

This is Adel, signing out. *tips hat over eyes*

[Nukapei]

Good points, Adel. Yeah, I had forgotten about exactly how bad Morgul poison was. Not nice stuff, that. And I had forgotten about physical distortion, although I shouldn't have -- my fave pic of the silver lady is [this one (http://www.councilofelrond.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=My_eGallery&file=index&do=showpic&pid=10548&orderby=titleA)]. But the Imladris twins show up to find their mother, burn marks all over the place, maybe blind in one eye, head shaved, points cut off her ears, etc. and that'd be enough! Morgul poison aside . . .

Oh, and thanks for tearing mine apart! ;)

[Lush]

So why would they have this big sex-desire thing going on?

For the third time:

Automatically equating rape with an expression of sexual desire is dangerous. Rape is an act of violence. In times of war, rape is a powerful weapon. Tolkien served in a war, I'm sure he was more than aware of this.

This is not an argument for or against the theory of why exactly Celebrain left Middle Earth. This is a reminder that the definition of rape should not be skewed for the sake of argument.

[Adel]

A fair point as well, Lush. But I still say only one thing: I honestly do not believe that Orcs would ever choose to go through that particular line of "war". Men maybe, or some other creature like that, maybe even Uruk-Hai. But not Orcs. It is not in their nature to be that crafty, or do something that has such a small amount of outward results after the damage has been done. For although rape is terrible, yes, I cannot imagine that that would ever be the chosen way that the Orcs would do things.

But yes, many may still (and have every right to) hold to their argument that you believe that is what probably happened...and yet as I said before, I see no reason to pursue this topic, as it still boils down to one thing. To each his own opinion and outlook on the world! Tolkien never gave a direct answer to what happened, so arguing really is pretty worthless isn't it?

P.S. Lol Nukapei! Thanks for being such a great sport! *high fives* Hehe, I know, post-picking-apart-manuevers... :rolleyes: And I do know what you mean about that picture of Celebrian. I've always loved that one too...

[Bêthberry]

...and yet as I said before, I see no reason to pursue this topic, as it still boils down to one thing. To each his own opinion and outlook on the world! Tolkien never gave a direct answer to what happened, so arguing really is pretty worthless isn't it?
...

That would depend on what one's purpose in arguing is.

Some wish to bring people round to their side. Some might simply enjoy goading others into stronger and stronger statements--either playing devil's advocate or messing with other's ideas-- while still others might simply be interested in exploring the possibilities. For instance, I think Fordim's and SaucepanMan's posts here are interesting as explorations of the writing. They acknowledge the indeterminacy of the text and consider how that is a characteristic of the narrative. Isn't this valid?

Agreeing to disagree is a legitimate conclusion where people remain unconvinced. However, to suggest that a topic should not be pursued because there is no direct answer and because all we have are different opinions strikes me as a bit harsh. Surely discussion is all the more important where we don't have clear cut yes/no situations, where we can come to understand a variety of ways to consider a topic.

Or did you mean there's no point in pursuing the topic further, rather than at all?

Your point about the morgul poisoning is interesting, as it then suggests several purposes for Celebrian in the story. First, she provides her sons with reason and rationale to be always out fighting.(An important consideration when an author has some many characters at hand.) Second, she shows how close and personal has been the pain even in eminent, powerful elves. Third, she offers a way for astute readers to foretell Frodo's final fate. Although Elrond and Rivendell have 'healed' Frodo, we can surmise that there will be lasting effects. There is no magic bullet in LotR, but always a long defeat.

Oh, wait, Celebrian's absence also explains why/allows Arwen to spend so much time with Grandma Galadriel, where she can see Aragorn amidst the beauties of Lothlorien.

There are so many benefits to getting Celebrian out of the way. Hardly "a small amount of outward results", eh? It's the story that assaults her, not the orcs! ;)

[davem]

How Celebrian was tormented is unimportant. What is important is the way it impacted her family, and how it affected their actions during the War of the Ring.

Have only skimmed this thread this time around, but this seems to me to be the central point.

In an early draft of the story, we find this version of Celebrian's capture & torment:

On a time long ago, as she passed over the mountains to visit her mother in the land of Lorien, Orcs waylaid the road, & she was taken captive by them & tormented; & though she was rescued by Elrond & his sons, & brought home & tended, & her hurts of body were healed, she lay under a great cloud of fear & she loved Middle earth no longer; so that at last Elrond granted her prayer, & she passed to the Grey Havens & went into the West, never to return.

Compared to the final version in RotK:

In 2509 Celebrian wife of Elrond was journeying to Lorien when she was waylaid in the Redhorn Pass, and her escort being scattered by the sudden assault of the Orcs, she was seized and carried off. She was pursued and rescued by Elladan and Elrohir, but not before she had suffered torment and had received a poisoned wound.* She was brought back to Imladris, and though healed in body by Elrond, lost all delight in Middle-earth, and the next year went to the Havens and passed over Sea.

We see that the in the later version Celebrian's suffering is worse - not only is she tormented, but she recieves a 'poisoned wound' - but the effects of it are less - she simply 'loses all delight in Middle earth as opposed to 'laying under a cloud of fear & loving Middle earth no longer'. What's also interesting is that in the original version she remains in Middle earth until Elrond 'grants her prayer' to be allowed to leave. I don't think this should be interpreted in a 'sexist' way - Elrond being the master in his house & his wife having to await his permission to depart - but rather as showing how committed they were to each other - she held on in Middle earth despite her terrible suffering & the fear she lived under because of her love for her husband. So, finally, Elrond submits & lets her go into the West. He remains out of duty & love of his remaining family - only after the fall of Sauron does he depart to find his wife.

In short, I think there's a danger of getting too caught up in what might or might not have happened to Celebrian at the hands of the Orcs. As Neurion has pointed out, it is the consequences of her sufferings which are important - which is why, I think, Tolkien focussed on them, rather than on a graphic description of what happened to her.

Sorry if I've repeated earlier points...

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Then she really was raped if not seemingly.

[davem]

Then she really was raped if not seemingly.

We'll never know, so its all speculation - you might as well toss a coin. The only thing we can know is the effect of the Orcs' 'torment' on her. I suspect that Tolkien chose not to tell us exactly what happened because he didn't feel that it was relevant.

Basically, the alternatives are: a)unknown/unknowable 'torment' in the dark at the hands of the Orcs, or b) specific, known torment (rape or otherwise).

a) is more disturbing & from a literary point of view more effective, because all we need to know is that what Celebrian went through was enough to break her spirit & make it impossible for her to remain in Middle earth. As soon as the 'torment' is precisely defined - whatever it was - there will be some readers who respond 'Well, that wasn't all that bad - fancy being broken by something like that!'. To know the effect on Celebrian engenders sympathy/empathy, because the reader will think of the worst 'torment' they can imagine for themselves - which might not be rape at all, whereas to know the cause, may produce the opposite effect & cause her to be percieved as 'weak'. The unseen monster is always scariest (as PJ should have realised re the Balrog!)

[Neurion]

As Neurion has pointed out, it is the consequences of her sufferings which are important - which is why, I think, Tolkien focussed on them, rather than on a graphic description of what happened to her.I am referenced, therefore, I am.