Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bęthberry
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.