Celebrian's Misfortunes

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Lately, there's been heated discussions regarding Celebrian's ordeal in other Tokien-related forums. There's been great speculation that Celebrian suffered more than Tolkien metaphorically intended her to. Some say that she was indeed, raped by the orcs. What do you guys think about that?

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

Lately, there's been heated discussions regarding Celebrian's ordeal in other Tokien-related forums. There's been great speculation that Celebrian suffered more than Tolkien metaphorically intended her to. Some say that she was indeed, raped by the orcs. What do you guys think about that?

I doubt it.

[Boromir88]

I agree with Neurion.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

It isn't entirely impossible that such a torture did occur for Celebrian. Tolkien deosn't really address clearly when something sexual-related is open to interpretation.

[Boromir88]

Why must people try to look for sexual intentions in Tolkien's books? What I mean is, "Are Frodo and Sam gay?" "Did Arwen and Aragorn do it before the Council of Elrond?" "Oooh, did you see how Galadriel looked at Bilbo when they were parting for Valinor, do you think there was something between them? Or maybe Frodo?"

It's like since there is no mention of sexual activity people must go and force in possible instances when there is really nothing there.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Why must people try to look for sexual intentions in Tolkien's books? What I mean is, "Are Frodo and Sam gay?" "Did Arwen and Aragorn do it before the Council of Elrond?" "Oooh, did you see how Galadriel looked at Bilbo when they were parting for Valinor, do you think there was something between them? Or maybe Frodo?"

It's like since there is no mention of sexual activity people must go and force in possible instances when there is really nothing there.

Boromir, I highly doubt that my question on Celebrian's ordeal is of the same nature that you find offensive in those other ridiculous questions you stated.

[Encaitare]

So maybe she was, and maybe she wasn't. It certainly is more of a reason to fall into despair and want to leave Middle-earth forever, but then again, maybe to an elf, being attacked is enough. It's sort of like with Morgoth wanting to do something "terrible" to Luthien. That is all we're told, and it can be interpreted in various ways, as many things in Tolkien's work can be.

Whatever the case, nothing can come of arguing one side or the other. It's like those darned Balrog wings...

[Nukapei]

Your right, Boro, your question is entirely different than people making up sexual relationships (sometimes homosexual ones) between LotR characters. In fact, I've often wondered the same thing -- it Celebrian was raped, I mean. However, I doubt it. Something that awful was sure to be mentioned, or at least hinted at, by Tolkien. And, anyway, orcs don't really seem to have the same sexual urges humans have, especially humans of our culture. We are a very sex-orienated people, after all -- all one needs to do to see that is turn on the tv.

[Bêthberry]

Well I suppose that before we could settle the question of did they or didn't they, we would have to come to terms with the nature of orcish reproduction, which I believe is just slightly less problematic than balrog wings or Tom Bombadil.

[the phantom]

In a thread I started about the Morgoth/Luthien incident I brought up rape. Then I read some HoME (X, Laws and Customs...) and found this-

there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force... one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos

If the orcs had attempted to rape Celebrian, it seems she would have "died". So, since she was rescued alive I would assume she was not raped.

However, it's very likely she was tickled mercilessly- a preferred method of torment amongst all who learned under Melkor's tutelage.

[Mister Underhill]

That's a great find, phantom -- nice to see some of that ol' time HoME being slung. However, I'm compelled to point out that the passage you cite was actually revised out of a later version of the essay and changed to "...seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them."

Unfortunately, I think this change paves the way for some rather dark interpretations of Celebrian's "misfortunes" (now there's a euphemism if I've ever heard one). Knowing orcs, I think we may suppose that if they could, they did.

[narfforc]

She was in fact raped, for I was the offspring of that unholy union. When I was born they called me Narfforc, because I was one. Sorry to end the speculation this way.

[Nukapei]

I've just done a search at both CoE and The Encyclopedia of Arda, and neither mention a "Narfforc" under any category. Where'd you get this information, Narfforc?

[The Barrow-Wight]

narfforc is obviously not being truthful, for he is a troll, not an orc.

Let's stay on topic, please. No need to digress any further into silliness.

[Nukapei]

I know, I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

This has always been an intriguing, if disturbing, aspect of the Legendarium to me. I find it interesting that Tolkien so carefully uses the word "torment" to describe what Celebrian went through -- this is an ambiguous word which means simply 'suffering or agony of some kind'. Tolkien could have used the more specific word "torture" to indicate physical assault of a more direct kind (that is, probably not rape), but he did not. Both in the Appendix and in the brief mention of the incident in the tale, he uses the word "torment".

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes. One can be tormented by oneself (psychological torment), by others physically or emotionally, by an idea, by a weapon, even by God (there are any number of uses in the OED from the Middle Ages in which God "tormentid" both the ungodly and those faithful whom he was testing).

So Tolkien has given us a clear indication that something agonising, painful and which does lasting harm, has happened to Celebrian, but 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"?

For my money, I think that there is no form of torment to which an orc would be adverse -- and given their violence, their attitudes toward nature and other peoples, I find it hard to think that they would pass up the chance to rape a beautiful and noble Elf woman. It's one of the sadder ideas I've ever encountered in Tolkien, and I don't like to think of it much, but there it is. Middle-earth is, as we have so often noted elsewhere, a complete world both in its good and in its evil. If we are to have the healthy and productive sexual relationship of Rosie and Sam, there must logically exist the opposite of that somewhere. . .

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).

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

This has always been an intriguing, if disturbing, aspect of the Legendarium to me. I find it interesting that Tolkien so carefully uses the word "torment" to describe what Celebrian went through -- this is an ambiguous word which means simply 'suffering or agony of some kind'. Tolkien could have used the more specific word "torture" to indicate physical assault of a more direct kind (that is, probably not rape), but he did not. Both in the Appendix and in the brief mention of the incident in the tale, he uses the word "torment".

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes. One can be tormented by oneself (psychological torment), by others physically or emotionally, by an idea, by a weapon, even by God (there are any number of uses in the OED from the Middle Ages in which God "tormentid" both the ungodly and those faithful whom he was testing).

So Tolkien has given us a clear indication that something agonising, painful and which does lasting harm, has happened to Celebrian, but 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"?

For my money, I think that there is no form of torment to which an orc would be adverse -- and given their violence, their attitudes toward nature and other peoples, I find it hard to think that they would pass up the chance to rape a beautiful and noble Elf woman. It's one of the sadder ideas I've ever encountered in Tolkien, and I don't like to think of it much, but there it is. Middle-earth is, as we have so often noted elsewhere, a complete world both in its good and in its evil. If we are to have the healthy and productive sexual relationship of Rosie and Sam, there must logically exist the opposite of that somewhere. . .

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 suppose I'll have to throw my two cents in now.

You make a good argument, but I think if such a crime really was commited against Celebrian then Tolkien would say so less cryptically. In the Narn I hin Hurin , there is an incident in which an outlaw pursues a girl through the forest, and gets himself slain by Turin. The meaning of the pursuit is fairly easy to guess from the comments of the other outlaws.

I also wonder if the orcs would be capable of such an act, as they seem to be quite asexual, nothing being said about female orcs or anything else, only that they spawned.

Finally, I believe Tolkien wrote that Celebrian's reason for leaving was "A poisoned wound" not any psychological damage.

[the phantom]

the passage you cite was actually revised out of a later version of the essay and changed to "...seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them."

Yes it was. But the "seldom..." statement of manuscript B directly interferes only with this part of manuscript A-> "there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force".

Manuscript B ignores the most pertinent part of the manuscript A quote-> "one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos". Nothing in B goes against this statement.

[Mister Underhill]

Except that its very removal in revision implies that the professor had second thoughts on this idea.

[the phantom]

Point taken, but it could also imply that he had so many thoughts about so many things that he couldn't help but forget to reword, rescind, reiterate, or even address some of the finer points in the manuscript.

[Nukapei]

Or that there wasn't enough space / he'd rather get more detailed on something else.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

This has always been an intriguing, if disturbing, aspect of the Legendarium to me. I find it interesting that Tolkien so carefully uses the word "torment" to describe what Celebrian went through -- this is an ambiguous word which means simply 'suffering or agony of some kind'. Tolkien could have used the more specific word "torture" to indicate physical assault of a more direct kind (that is, probably not rape), but he did not. Both in the Appendix and in the brief mention of the incident in the tale, he uses the word "torment".

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes. One can be tormented by oneself (psychological torment), by others physically or emotionally, by an idea, by a weapon, even by God (there are any number of uses in the OED from the Middle Ages in which God "tormentid" both the ungodly and those faithful whom he was testing).

So Tolkien has given us a clear indication that something agonising, painful and which does lasting harm, has happened to Celebrian, but 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"?

For my money, I think that there is no form of torment to which an orc would be adverse -- and given their violence, their attitudes toward nature and other peoples, I find it hard to think that they would pass up the chance to rape a beautiful and noble Elf woman. It's one of the sadder ideas I've ever encountered in Tolkien, and I don't like to think of it much, but there it is. Middle-earth is, as we have so often noted elsewhere, a complete world both in its good and in its evil. If we are to have the healthy and productive sexual relationship of Rosie and Sam, there must logically exist the opposite of that somewhere. . .

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).

Alas, my fears have been realized. Although Tolkien never directly confirms it, it seems that this really was the direction they were headed. The quote about the Elves taking other spouses doesn't really suffice against this. Celebrian was of a royal lineage, & the spouse of Elrond, Lord of Rivendelle. I doubt that they'd just easily slay her for that, & what greater way to torment a noble elven-woman than to defile her body against her will. A poisoned wound doesn't only need to be within the confines of the physical aspect. What a victim of rape feels during the aftermath is "poisoned-wound" enough, just like Frodo's mental anguish after the whole ordeal of his mission.

[radagastly]

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes.

How much more horrible her torment becomes when we are forced to install our own particular ideas of horror into her story, instead of having Tolkien detail them for us (which, as a gentleman, he most certainly would not do.)

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 don't think I needed these (only slightly veiled) euphemisms to understand what happened to her, at least when I read about it.

Phantom:

However, it's very likely she was tickled mercilessly

I doubt even orcs would be that cruel.

[The Saucepan Man]

To my mind, Fordim Hedgethistle presents a compelling argument (post #16 above).

To clear up a few other points:

Originally Posted by phantom

Manuscript B ignores the most pertinent part of the manuscript A quote-> "one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos". Nothing in B goes against this statement.

In a sense this is what happened to Celebrian. It is said in Appendix A that, as a consequence of her torment at the hands of the Orcs and despite being "healed in body by Elrond", she "lost all delight in Middle-earth, and the next year went to the Havens and passed over the Sea". Admittedly, the passage suggests that the treatment referred to would have caused the spirit to leave the body and pass directly to Mandos. However, it is clear that her departure west was occasioned by the psychological, rather than physical, wounds that she received. Perhaps Elrond's skill was able to prevent her spirit leaving her body, yet her spirit could still not remain. And perhaps, once she reached Valinor, she did reject her physical body and spend time "cleansing" her spirit in Mandos' Halls.

Originally Posted by Neurion

I also wonder if the orcs would be capable of such an act, as they seem to be quite asexual, nothing being said about female orcs or anything else, only that they spawned.

Tolkien never referred to Orcs being spawned in the sense portrayed in the films. And creatures can be described as "spawning" when they physically procreate (frogs and fish, for example). Moreover, in The Silmarillion its is said, in connection with the creation of Orcs:

For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar ...

In light of this, and given that there are references to Orcish "families" (Azog being the father of Bolg, for example), it seems to me that there is sufficient evidence to posit that they were able to procreate in the same manner as the other races.

Finally, I believe Tolkien wrote that Celebrian's reason for leaving was "A poisoned wound" not any psychological damage.

As mentioned above, it was the psychological damage that caused her to leave, since her physical wounds were healed by Elrond.

[Bêthberry]

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.

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.

[the phantom]

Not that anyone would write a fan-fic or start an RPG about the specific information gap in question.

(at least I'd hope not)

[Nukapei]

Yeah, that would be rather . . . sadistic.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

Alas, my fears have been realized. Although Tolkien never directly confirms it, it seems that this really was the direction they were headed. The quote about the Elves taking other spouses doesn't really suffice against this. Celebrian was of a royal lineage, & the spouse of Elrond, Lord of Rivendelle. I doubt that they'd just easily slay her for that, & what greater way than to torment a noble elven-woman than to defile her body against her will. A poisoned wound doesn't only need to be within the confines of the physical aspect. What a victim of rape feels during the aftermath is "poisoned-wound" enough, just like Frodo's mental anguish after the whole ordeal of his mission.

I can see where this is heading........

If Tolkien wanted to imply that Celebrian was assaulted in such a way I'm sure he would not have resorted to such a circurtious and cryptic circumlocution to say so.

And I think we've all dwelt on this long enough now.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by Neurion

I can see where this is heading........

If Tolkien wanted to imply that Celebrian was assaulted in such a way I'm sure he would not have resorted to such a circurtious and cryptic circumlocution to say so.

And I think we've all dwelt on this long enough now.

Did you not read Bethberry's post? Religion played a part on his cryptic input. Did not the soldiers of WW2 raped? And his writings were for the most part, based on those experiences. Not implying anything, just a thought.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

Did you not read Bethberry's post? Religion played a part on his cryptic input. Did not the soldiers of WW2 raped? And his writings were for the most part, based on those experiences. Not implying anything, just a thought.

One would think you were implying something.

As to WWII soldiers, on the whole, Axis generaly yes, Allied generaly no, with the notable exception of the Russians and French colonial troops.

The bottom line is, you're set on believing that Celebrian was raped on flimsy evidence and guessing. the tone of your posts confirm this ("All my worst fears have been confirmed!" sheesh). The obvious course to take after getting settled on this "fact" is to start wondering where else in M-E such occurences took place. "Gee, according to some unpublished papers, Eol took Aredhel to wife by force." "Maybe Finduilas was outraged by the orcs before they killed her." Please don't take this any further.

As I said before, if Tolkien wanted to say so, he would have in plainer style. The incident with Turin and the outlaws points to this.

I've discussed this enough. I'm taking my leave.

[A_Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by the phantom

there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force... one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos

A detail in this quote attracted my attention. Tolkien refers only to Elves, who takes other Elves by force. He didn't mention any kind of other races in his phrases. Not in this one, not in the other ones in manuscript B.
He didn't mention, how these Elves rejected bodily life, nor when they reject.

I have two intentions concerning the quote:

1. Tolkien didn't mean "raped", but he meant rather, that an Elf takes another Elf's wife and forces her to live with him and other marital responsibilities.
Love under Elves has a special meaning in Middle-earth. It is something very binding. The bind lasts even after one part went to Mandos and the other part could not marry another Elf without consent of the other part in Mandos, that he/she rests in the Halls in Mandos until the end (Finwe and Miriel).
Regarding this, we can assume, that it must be very hard to en Elf being forced to change the partner. It must be a very huge torment to live with another Elf and not to see his/her "naturally given" partner. These elves passes to Mandos.
But this means not that being raped by orcs is no reason to leave Middle-earth.

2. (assuming, that Tolkien meant "raped")
I could be, that Orcs are not included in that theory, but only Elves. Being raped by orcs must not mean, that they rejects life and pass to Mandos. It is more a kind of physical torture. Being raped by Elves, by someone of their own people, could be a huge physical and psychological wound, that they can't suffer this and pass to Mandos.

I tend towards the first intention and that Celebrian was raped by orcs. Especially plausible is for me the reasoning of SpM, that Elrond healed the wounds, but Celebrian passed in spite of the healing, because she lost her delight.

[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.

[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.

[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...