Celebrian's Misfortunes

[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.

[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.

[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. )

[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.