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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle
. . . 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.