Celebrian's Misfortunes

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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]

Originally Posted by Ainaserkewen

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! ). 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) , 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 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.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

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...

[Nukapei]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

To me it is an alternate universe where all higher beings live out the Catholic ideal (no extra-marital or recreational sexual activity)

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

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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]

Originally Posted by Neurion

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

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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]

Originally Posted by Neurion

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

"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.