We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 105
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by YamydeAragon View Post
    As this get off topic, it is incorrect & doesnt make any sence. Next time you want to say that there are no female warriors, look to all sides & start running before to get the 1st word out. Dont let Arwen catch you or she will 1-hit kill you. LOL
    Rad is correct about Arwen not fighting in the books. (as far as was written: who knows what adventures she had in her lifespan) Was she trained in the arts of fighting? We may never know. Was Eowyn trained in the arts of fighting or did she slay the Witch King without any prior training. Were many other females of any race trained in the arts of fighting so that could defend themselves or others if need be? As far as I know Tolkien never addressed the issue. We are left to speculate on the matter.

    You are quite correct when you say look to all sides. It is very difficult to look to the side of the orcs, as Tolkien said: “not much was known” i.e. he left it up to us to speculate. All we can honestly do is speculate on the matter of female orc warriors. (at this point; without proof one way or the other) In my opinion Arwen was probably trained to defend herself, especially after what happened to her mother. If she was trained to fight, then it is a valid statement to say that she was a warrior. (depending upon how you define warrior)

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Middle Earth, Arda
    Posts
    4,695
    You will also say that Luthien didn't rescue Beren cause there was not female warriors in middle earth. There was & will be female warriors. Women are not damsels in despair that need a galant man in white armour to rescue them.
    Is this Alternate Playable Character Disorder? :

    Check my Kinship at Gladden server: The Fate of Middle Earth

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelwyn View Post
    I agree that is one of the possible ways to look at it.
    If you've got a better suggestion, I'd be interested in hearing it.

    It looks like we may never know. Is there anyone out there who can enlarge up the letters of the pages for us. I do not know how to do it.

    lol – or enlarge the pages of the letter. That might work even better.
    Dude, this isn't CSI

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,293
    Quote Originally Posted by YamydeAragon View Post
    You will also say that Luthien didn't rescue Beren cause there was not female warriors in middle earth. There was & will be female warriors. Women are not damsels in despair that need a galant man in white armour to rescue them.
    Err, no I wouldn't. Luthien was no warrior, she was an enchantress. Besides, can't you read plain English? I said that Tolkien includes female warriors rarely, by exception, not that there are none at all.

  5. #80
    the only thing i can glean from this thread is that there are people frequenting these boards who take themselves, and all of this tolkien lore, way, way to seriously

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelwyn View Post
    I have been researching this quote. It is written to a Mrs. Munby. I cannot find the letter posted with its full content. Does anyone have a link? It is hard to get a clear idea of what JRR was trying to say from just a snippet.
    I agree, taking a portion and posting it out of context makes it very ambiguous. It could mean just what it appears to mean (i.e. not much is known about the lives of orcs {males and females} except that they were sometimes warriors) or it could have been phrased that way to indicate something else.

    If Tolkien was trying to say that there were no female orc-warriors, then he would have been better served to just state it plainly. He did not choose to do so in this part of the letter. If the surrounding passages serve to better clarify his meaning then we can reevaluate it.
    Last edited by RKL; Feb 28 2013 at 07:17 PM.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by YamydeAragon View Post
    You will also say that Luthien didn't rescue Beren cause there was not female warriors in middle earth. There was & will be female warriors. Women are not damsels in despair that need a galant man in white armour to rescue them.
    I agree. During those times when women and children were overrun in the villages/towns/cities/caves/camps/mines/fields/etc. did the females take up arms to defend themselves and their young, or did they passively give up their lives? If they fought, were they not warriors in those instances? I am not saying that these were the only times women took up arms; I am just stating examples that come readily to mind. If Tolkien had them giving up, then perhaps we should reevaluate the validity of even caring about Tolkien’s lore. Personally I do not believe that he had such an opinion of women.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,293
    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    Rad is correct about Arwen not fighting in the books. (as far as was written: who knows what adventures she had in her lifespan)
    That hardly seems likely, since nothing like that is even so much as hinted at. Look at the very different way he describes Galadriel, who'd really had some adventures.

    Was she trained in the arts of fighting? We may never know. Was Eowyn trained in the arts of fighting or did she slay the Witch King without any prior training. Were many other females of any race trained in the arts of fighting so that could defend themselves or others if need be? As far as I know Tolkien never addressed the issue. We are left to speculate on the matter.
    We don't need to speculate, we know that women (particularly noblewomen) might well be trained to fight in last-ditch defence of their homes. Eowyn hadn't been trained so that she could go off to war, that was something she wished for but which would have been denied her, had she done what Theoden wanted.

    You are quite correct when you say look to all sides. It is very difficult to look to the side of the orcs, as Tolkien said: “not much was known” i.e. he left it up to us to speculate. All we can honestly do is speculate on the matter of female orc warriors. (at this point; without proof one way or the other) In my opinion Arwen was probably trained to defend herself, especially after what happened to her mother. If she was trained to fight, then it is a valid statement to say that she was a warrior. (depending upon how you define warrior)
    All we can honestly do is look at Tolkien's writing and see just how seldom he ever was women fighting in war. It's not as if it's ambivalent, as in his writing warriors are almost invariably men so for you to pretend it could be equally likely either way is fundamentally dishonest. As for female Orcs, they are never, ever mentioned in the tales and it's that very lack which shows they were no more likely to be warriors, because it's the fighting Orcs who appear in the tales. Female Orcs would be at home, doing whatever passed for home-making among Orcs, just as everybody else's women remained at home with only the rarest of exceptions. There's no reason to assume Tolkien imagined Orc-women as warriors, and good reason not to because they never appear even so much as once in the tales.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    That hardly seems likely, since nothing like that is even so much as hinted at. Look at the very different way he describes Galadriel, who'd really had some adventures.


    We don't need to speculate, we know that women (particularly noblewomen) might well be trained to fight in last-ditch defence of their homes. Eowyn hadn't been trained so that she could go off to war, that was something she wished for but which would have been denied her, had she done what Theoden wanted.


    All we can honestly do is look at Tolkien's writing and see just how seldom he ever was women fighting in war. It's not as if it's ambivalent, as in his writing warriors are almost invariably men so for you to pretend it could be equally likely either way is fundamentally dishonest. As for female Orcs, they are never, ever mentioned in the tales and it's that very lack which shows they were no more likely to be warriors, because it's the fighting Orcs who appear in the tales. Female Orcs would be at home, doing whatever passed for home-making among Orcs, just as everybody else's women remained at home with only the rarest of exceptions. There's no reason to assume Tolkien imagined Orc-women as warriors, and good reason not to because they never appear even so much as once in the tales.
    These are adequate enough ideas to be considered for verification purposes, or to simply stand alone as opinions. I will not say that they are necessarily wrong.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,293
    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    I will not say that they are necessarily wrong.
    Damn right you won't.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelwyn View Post
    I read that page before during research. That was a conclusion I came to as well. The full letter was never published. I was hoping someone had done so somewhere. I saw on some sites that pages were shown in small pictures. I thought maybe someone had blown them up and written them down. Maybe we will never know what JRR was saying or what the original question was that the lady’s son asked. It is not an important thing anyway. I was just curious because of all the doubt this forum has generate about the meaning of the snipet.
    If you have found pictures of the pages on the web, perhaps you can zoom them yourself with your browser. I use Internet Explorer and I think that I can zoom in on a page by at least 400%. You may need a program such as Photo Shop though if it is too distorted to read. It should be a very simple process for some technical people to do.

  12. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by husaragi View Post
    the only thing i can glean from this thread is that there are people frequenting these boards who take themselves, and all of this tolkien lore, way, way to seriously
    I don't take myself seriously, as in 'I'm some sort of expert so don't question me', but as for the lore, guilty as charged and proud of it. The lore comes from the literature and the literature is important for what it says. For some it's a casual novel but for those who can see the deeper meanings, it's a very important work in the library of English Literature. On the theoretical desert island, LOTR is the one book that I would take with me.
    "You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81



  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelwyn View Post
    Yes, this is a very likely meaning. Like I said earlier maybe we will never know. One thing seems clear, there is no mention in the quote about orc women fighters. So I would think that JRR was not trying to say that they did not exist somewhere. That thought seems far fetched.
    Insisting there'd be lots of female Orc warriors somewhere as RKL did is what's far-fetched, because as written there weren't lots of female warriors of any sort anywhere. Tolkien didn't write like that; some fantasy may treat female warriors as commonplace but that's demonstrably not the case in Tolkien's work. They appear by exception.

    Tolkien had a simple purpose for Orcs, as the Enemy's grunts. He put so little thought to their home life that he never so much as mentions female Orcs in the tales themselves, they exist only by implication. That should tell you something.

  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by tuor66 View Post
    I don't take myself seriously, as in 'I'm some sort of expert so don't question me', but as for the lore, guilty as charged and proud of it. The lore comes from the literature and the literature is important for what it says. For some it's a casual novel but for those who can see the deeper meanings, it's a very important work in the library of English Literature. On the theoretical desert island, LOTR is the one book that I would take with me.
    you can take whatever "deeper meanings" you want from it, but tolkien himself says he didnt intentionally place any allegory in LOTR so /shrug. it always cracks me up when people start talking about the meanings behind this stuff...its all made up by fans interpretation. nothing tolkien intended himself.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelwyn View Post
    Yes, this is a very likely meaning. Like I said earlier maybe we will never know. One thing seems clear, there is no mention in the quote about orc women fighters. So I would think that JRR was not trying to say that they did not exist somewhere. That thought seems far fetched.
    The whole idea is farfetched. Let’s review the situation. Somebody claims that a sentence was part of a 6 page letter that we cannot read; and then someone else claims that the alleged sentence proves that Tolkien said that there were no female orc warriors? Farfetched is being kind. Absurd is a better word.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    As I recall, Tolkien said that he disliked allegory in any form.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,293
    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    The whole idea is farfetched. Let’s review the situation. Somebody claims that a sentence was part of a 6 page letter that we cannot read; and then someone else claims that the alleged sentence proves that Tolkien said that there were no female orc warriors? Farfetched is being kind. Absurd is a better word.
    Let's review the actual situation, which is that you are the one who's making things up and now you're busily blowing smoke as usual. You've been claiming that all of a sudden, there should be female Orc warriors when Tolkien never mentions female Orcs at all in any of his tales, never mind them being warriors. There's nothing in his writing which should lead anyone to posit female Orc warriors in any numbers, so you are plainly getting that idea from somewhere else, most likely baggage from other fantasy that postdates his and which you're clumsily trying to retrofit back onto his work.

    There's no plausible reason to imagine any more female Orcs being warriors than there were female warriors of any other race in the books, i.e. just a few, the odd exception here and there and even that is going beyond what Tolkien actually wrote. His intended role for the Orcs as the cruel and evil soldiers of the Enemy didn't require him to include any Orc-women at all in his stories, and so he doesn't - if pressed, he confirms that there must have been some somewhere but he leaves it at that. In other words, he goes nowhere near what you're trying to tack onto his work.

    Given that Orcs were evil, after all, it could very easily have been the case that female Orcs were cruelly oppressed and treated as chattels, essentially slaves. In the books, the larger Orcs treated smaller Orcs with contempt, considered them to be worthless and called them snaga (meaning 'slave') and so it's very easy to imagine them extending that attitude to their women, and beating them if they dared argue.

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Let's review the actual situation, which is that you are the one who's making things up and now you're busily blowing smoke as usual. You've been claiming that all of a sudden, there should be female Orc warriors when Tolkien never mentions female Orcs at all in any of his tales, never mind them being warriors. There's nothing in his writing which should lead anyone to posit female Orc warriors in any numbers, so you are plainly getting that idea from somewhere else, most likely baggage from other fantasy that postdates his and which you're clumsily trying to retrofit back onto his work.

    There's no plausible reason to imagine any more female Orcs being warriors than there were female warriors of any other race in the books, i.e. just a few, the odd exception here and there and even that is going beyond what Tolkien actually wrote. His intended role for the Orcs as the cruel and evil soldiers of the Enemy didn't require him to include any Orc-women at all in his stories, and so he doesn't - if pressed, he confirms that there must have been some somewhere but he leaves it at that. In other words, he goes nowhere near what you're trying to tack onto his work.

    Given that Orcs were evil, after all, it could very easily have been the case that female Orcs were cruelly oppressed and treated as chattels, essentially slaves. In the books, the larger Orcs treated smaller Orcs with contempt, considered them to be worthless and called them snaga (meaning 'slave') and so it's very easy to imagine them extending that attitude to their women, and beating them if they dared argue.
    I addressed these ideas earlier in the thread. See post #57 for the post numbers.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,293
    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    I addressed these ideas earlier in the thread. See post #57 for the post numbers.
    Not only have you consistently failed to do any such thing but it's plain you didn't even read all the way through that post. The last point is entirely new, I'd not even raised it before, you fraud.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Not only have you consistently failed to do any such thing but it's plain you didn't even read all the way through that post. The last point is entirely new, I'd not even raised it before, you fraud.
    Quite correct, I skimmed the post. After countless restatements of the same opinions, you finally managed to slip a new idea in there at the end of your post. (congrats on new potential evidence, I was beginning to think that you were incapable of it) In the future, if you have new ideas to posit, it would serve you well to posit them separately and not try to include them at the end of other redundancies.

    I will now answer your new idea. Yes, your new idea is adequate enough to be considered for verification purposes or to simply stand alone as opinion. It could easily be the case. I don’t guess we will ever know since Tolkien never addressed the issue. We can add it to the list of your potential proofs though.
    Last edited by RKL; Mar 01 2013 at 10:30 PM. Reason: spelling

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,293
    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    Quite correct, I skimmed the post. After countless restatements of the same opinions, you finally managed to slip a new idea in there at the end of your post. (congrats on new potential evidence, I was beginning to think that you were incapable of it) In the future, if you have new ideas to posit, it would serve you well to posit them separately and not try to include them at the end of other redundancies.

    I will now answer your new idea. Yes, your new idea is adequate enough to be considered for verification purposes or to simply stand alone as opinion. It could easily be the case. I don’t guess we will even know since Tolkien never addressed the issue. We can add it to the list of your potential proofs though.
    And now you're back to trolling again.

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    And now you're back to trolling again.
    No, I don’t think so. But I am unable/unwilling to prove that I am not trolling, so you are free to consider it to be unproven opinion on my part.

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,293
    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    No, I don’t think so. But I am unable/unwilling to prove that I am not trolling, so you are free to consider it to be unproven opinion on my part.
    And again...

  24. #99
    At this point, I can't tell if it's trolling/counter-trolling or if it's co-dependency...

    Entertaining, nonetheless.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Bauglin View Post
    At this point, I can't tell if it's trolling/counter-trolling or if it's co-dependency...

    Entertaining, nonetheless.
    I am not certain either. You raise some good points though.

    I don’t think the mods would be willing to allow us to explore the issue in this thread.

 

 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload