Celebrian's Misfortunes

[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.

[Ruoutorin]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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? 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.

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.

[edit] I hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings. [/edit]

[Ruoutorin]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Ruoutorin, rather than debate your rhetorical style, I refer you to Fordim Hedgethistle's thread, Canonicity: The Book or The Reader? 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]

Originally Posted by Ruoutorin

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]

Originally Posted by Neurion

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.

[A_Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by Ruoutorin

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.