We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 101 to 105 of 105
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    I think what this thread needs is to get back on subject. To that end I will repost the original post of the thread and respond to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elricgodslayer View Post
    Orcs are ruined, disfigured and corrupted Elves, so it stands to reason that there would be females, and that Orc reproduction works in the same way as with any other mammal. So where are the female Orcs?


    Quote Originally Posted by Elricgodslayer View Post
    I have two theories that make any sense to me:

    -One is that the females are kept at the Orc strongholds, like Mordor, Isengard or Moria, to be used specifically as breeders.

    -The other is that since the Orcs are so warped and ruined, that the females actually co-mingle and even go to war alongside their male counterparts, physically appearing utterly indistinguishable from the males.
    These are both good ideas. I can see either one of them as being acceptable to individual people, depending upon their needs/inclinations or absence of either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elricgodslayer View Post
    I know there is that scene in the movies where Orcs are being pulled out of membraneous mud-pits, but if one reads the Silmarillion, this is not canonical. Plus, in the movies, it seemed as though all the Orcs "born" this way were Uruk-Hai, and therefore crossbreeds of Orcs and "Goblin-Men", so I can see that as being some kind of foul sorcery applied by Saruman.

    What do you guys think?
    I think you have raised some good questions.
    Last edited by RKL; Mar 05 2013 at 10:44 PM.

  2. #102
    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.
    In the case of Luthien I hardly think gender was relevant, she was half Maia, therefore blessed with abilities far more powerful than any human, male or female.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelwyn View Post
    Thanks for the replys to my post guys. But please leave me out of it. All I ever wanted was to see the contents of the letter so to make an informed judgement.
    My apologies Evelwyn. May you find your information; and may the hairs of your feet always curl skyward so as not to disturb the dust of the road you are traveling on. Assuming you are a hobbit of course.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    As I recall, Tolkien said that he disliked allegory in any form.
    Quote Originally Posted by husaragi View Post
    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.
    Stories can have inner meanings and broad themes without being allegorical.

    His dislike of allegory was in the foreward of LOTR. He also said (of LOTR) in Letter #203 that "There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory" and "That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is." Note the word conscious. He disliked people trying to associate his writing as subtle disguised commentary on real places, people or events. That does not mean his writings contain nothing beyond the simple tale it tells.

    In my opinion Tolkien disagrees with you. Let's look at what Tolkien himself said....

    Letter # 181. "But, of course, if one sets out to address 'adults' (mentally adult people anyway), they will not be pleased, excited, or moved unless the whole, or the incidents, seem to be about something worth considering, more e.g. than mere danger and escape: there must be some relevance to the 'human situation' (of all periods). So something of the teller's own reflections and 'values' will inevitably get worked in. This is not the same as allegory. We all, in groups or as individuals, exemplify general principles; but we do not represent them." "Of course, in fact exterior to my story, Elves and Men are just different aspects of the Humane, and represent the problem of Death as seen by a finite but willing and self-conscious person."

    Letter # 183. "In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour."

    Letter # 186. "Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for Domination)." "I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story... The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality"

    It seems to me that there is more 'about' this book than you realize. Have you read it and how many times? Perhaps that makes a difference?

    This is the sort of thing I am referring to. Of course any reader is free to divine their own meanings and inner truths from any tale and no one else needs to agree in order for it to be valid to that reader. In fact that is what makes a book worth reading. Take this out of writing and you are left with something about as sterile and soulless as an encyclopedia.
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS]"You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81


    [/FONT]

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by tuor66 View Post
    Stories can have inner meanings and broad themes without being allegorical.

    His dislike of allegory was in the foreward of LOTR. He also said (of LOTR) in Letter #203 that "There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory" and "That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is." Note the word conscious. He disliked people trying to associate his writing as subtle disguised commentary on real places, people or events. That does not mean his writings contain nothing beyond the simple tale it tells.

    In my opinion Tolkien disagrees with you. Let's look at what Tolkien himself said....

    Letter # 181. "But, of course, if one sets out to address 'adults' (mentally adult people anyway), they will not be pleased, excited, or moved unless the whole, or the incidents, seem to be about something worth considering, more e.g. than mere danger and escape: there must be some relevance to the 'human situation' (of all periods). So something of the teller's own reflections and 'values' will inevitably get worked in. This is not the same as allegory. We all, in groups or as individuals, exemplify general principles; but we do not represent them." "Of course, in fact exterior to my story, Elves and Men are just different aspects of the Humane, and represent the problem of Death as seen by a finite but willing and self-conscious person."

    Letter # 183. "In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour."

    Letter # 186. "Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for Domination)." "I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story... The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality"

    It seems to me that there is more 'about' this book than you realize. Have you read it and how many times? Perhaps that makes a difference?

    This is the sort of thing I am referring to. Of course any reader is free to divine their own meanings and inner truths from any tale and no one else needs to agree in order for it to be valid to that reader. In fact that is what makes a book worth reading. Take this out of writing and you are left with something about as sterile and soulless as an encyclopedia.

    In the end, all that matters is what we, as individuals, get out of it. Whether we read a religious text or Tolkien, or Krishnamurti or Watts, or a dictionary or an encyclopedia - or listen to Dylan or Mozart or Bach - or just sit before a wall in a cave for 20 years watching our thoughts come and go: it would all seem to lead to the same source. The vehicle can be discarded once the destination is in sight. Once we arrive at truth, we see it in all things and no longer have the need to seek for it. Light does not seek for more light; it is already light. But we all know this is a matter of great debate, so I will leave it here.
    Last edited by RKL; Mar 05 2013 at 10:36 PM.

 

 
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

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