Öjevind Lång
2010-03-21 04:45:20 UTC
Discussion:
(too old to reply)
JJ
2010-03-21 10:11:09 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
For my own part, I particularly detest "Meat is back on the menu, boys!"
Öjevind
I thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt someFor my own part, I particularly detest "Meat is back on the menu, boys!"
Öjevind
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
Anonymous Student
2010-03-21 10:24:19 UTC
Post by JJ
I thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt some
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
"We hereby grant you permission to make a LotR film. Best of luck!"I thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt some
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
(Letter from S. Zaentz to Miramax Films, 1997)
Worst line ever. Got the whole heresy started.
No, seriously:
"We dwarves are natural sprinters."
Noel
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
2010-03-21 10:27:55 UTC
Post by Anonymous Student
"We hereby grant you permission to make a LotR film. Best of luck!"
(Letter from S. Zaentz to Miramax Films, 1997)
Worst line ever. Got the whole heresy started.
"We dwarves are natural sprinters."
Noel
My apologies. I hacked into Mr. A. Student's account yesterday to give"We hereby grant you permission to make a LotR film. Best of luck!"
(Letter from S. Zaentz to Miramax Films, 1997)
Worst line ever. Got the whole heresy started.
"We dwarves are natural sprinters."
Noel
him a few viruses as punishment for his anti-Tolkien behaviour, and
forgot to log off.
Noel
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-21 12:10:56 UTC
Post by Noel Q. von Schneiffel
him a few viruses as punishment for his anti-Tolkien behaviour, and
forgot to log off.
Well, Noel, what's your own most hated line from the film? God knows therePost by Anonymous Student
"We hereby grant you permission to make a LotR film. Best of luck!"
(Letter from S. Zaentz to Miramax Films, 1997)
Worst line ever. Got the whole heresy started.
"We dwarves are natural sprinters."
Noel
My apologies. I hacked into Mr. A. Student's account yesterday to give"We hereby grant you permission to make a LotR film. Best of luck!"
(Letter from S. Zaentz to Miramax Films, 1997)
Worst line ever. Got the whole heresy started.
"We dwarves are natural sprinters."
Noel
him a few viruses as punishment for his anti-Tolkien behaviour, and
forgot to log off.
are many to choose from. Théoden's whining at his son's grave is another
unfavourite of mine.
Öjevind
Derek Broughton
2010-03-21 13:13:08 UTC
Post by JJ
I thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt some
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
I don't begin to see the problem with the first. istr, we're told that OrcsI thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt some
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this line
seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
The second is weak, but hardly close to a "worst line". Yeah, Mortenson
went all American - not terribly surprising for an American - but is there
any particularly good reason why he should use English or Kiwi idiom
instead?
I agree with either Noel or A Student's choice of "dwarves are natural
sprinters" as at least among the worst. It's not only ridiculous out of the
mouth of a dwarf, but simply wrong. He didn't _mean_ "sprinter", he meant
"distance runner", unless perhaps there was a level of sarcasm that
completely escaped me through repeated viewings.
--
derek
derek
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-21 14:46:01 UTC
Post by Derek Broughton
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this line
seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
"Menus" in Middle-earth? Why not McDonald's franchises while one is at it?Post by JJ
I thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt some
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
I don't begin to see the problem with the first. istr, we're told that OrcsI thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt some
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this line
seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
Öjevind
TT Arvind
2010-03-21 15:13:53 UTC
Perhaps "Khazâd ai-mênu!" actualy means "Dwarves are on the menu"?
I loathed "If you want him, come and claim him" and "It is mine to
give to whom I will. Like my heart."
--
Arvind
I loathed "If you want him, come and claim him" and "It is mine to
give to whom I will. Like my heart."
--
Arvind
David Trimboli
2010-03-22 21:46:20 UTC
Post by TT Arvind
Perhaps "Khazâd ai-mênu!" actualy means "Dwarves are on the menu"?
I loathed "If you want him, come and claim him"
Yes, that's the one. Ugh.Perhaps "Khazâd ai-mênu!" actualy means "Dwarves are on the menu"?
I loathed "If you want him, come and claim him"
Or anything else spoken-I mean, whispered-by Liv Tyler.
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
Derek Broughton
2010-03-21 15:41:56 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
It's just a word (~200 years old in English) that means "list of offerings".Post by Derek Broughton
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this line
seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
"Menus" in Middle-earth? Why not McDonald's franchises while one is at it?Post by JJ
I thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt some
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
I don't begin to see the problem with the first. istr, we're told that OrcsI thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt some
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this line
seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
You're reading far too much into it when you extend it to restaurants. It's
undoubtedly not the word that Tolkien himself would have chosen, since he
wasn't very fond of French, but it's far from Jackson's most egregious sin.
--
derek
derek
Kristian Damm Jensen
2010-03-22 07:49:05 UTC
Post by Derek Broughton
offerings". You're reading far too much into it when you extend it to
restaurants. It's undoubtedly not the word that Tolkien himself
would have chosen, since he wasn't very fond of French,
And generally wasn't very fond of words with less that 5-800 years ofPost by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
It's just a word (~200 years old in English) that means "list ofPost by Derek Broughton
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this
line seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the
orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
"Menus" in Middle-earth? Why not McDonald's franchises while one is at it?Post by JJ
I thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt
some orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all
American?
I don't begin to see the problem with the first. istr, we're told that OrcsI thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt
some orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all
American?
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this
line seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the
orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
offerings". You're reading far too much into it when you extend it to
restaurants. It's undoubtedly not the word that Tolkien himself
would have chosen, since he wasn't very fond of French,
English history.
--
Venlig hilsen/Best regards
Kristian Damm Jensen
Children seldom misquote you. In fact, they usually repeat word for
word what you shouldn't have said.
Venlig hilsen/Best regards
Kristian Damm Jensen
Children seldom misquote you. In fact, they usually repeat word for
word what you shouldn't have said.
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-22 17:43:32 UTC
Post by Kristian Damm Jensen
English history.
Also, I have never heard of the word being used outside restaurants. PerhapsPost by Derek Broughton
offerings". You're reading far too much into it when you extend it to
restaurants. It's undoubtedly not the word that Tolkien himself
would have chosen, since he wasn't very fond of French,
And generally wasn't very fond of words with less that 5-800 years ofPost by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
It's just a word (~200 years old in English) that means "list ofPost by Derek Broughton
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this
line seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the
orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
"Menus" in Middle-earth? Why not McDonald's franchises while one is at it?Post by JJ
I thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt
some orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all
American?
I don't begin to see the problem with the first. istr, we're told that OrcsI thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt
some orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all
American?
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this
line seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the
orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
offerings". You're reading far too much into it when you extend it to
restaurants. It's undoubtedly not the word that Tolkien himself
would have chosen, since he wasn't very fond of French,
English history.
they used it at the French court of l'ancien régime, but that is a long way
from Middle-earth. Military units, to my knowledge, have never featured
menus.
I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
Öjevind
Derek Broughton
2010-03-22 19:52:51 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
It was uncommonly used until the 1980s. It is now one of the most commonPost by Kristian Damm Jensen
English history.
Also, I have never heard of the word being used outside restaurants.Post by Derek Broughton
It's just a word (~200 years old in English) that means "list of
offerings". You're reading far too much into it when you extend it to
restaurants. It's undoubtedly not the word that Tolkien himself
would have chosen, since he wasn't very fond of French,
And generally wasn't very fond of words with less that 5-800 years ofIt's just a word (~200 years old in English) that means "list of
offerings". You're reading far too much into it when you extend it to
restaurants. It's undoubtedly not the word that Tolkien himself
would have chosen, since he wasn't very fond of French,
English history.
four-letter words in computing. It's always been acceptable to use it for
any list of items.
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
Perhaps they used it at the French court of l'ancien régime, but that is a
long way from Middle-earth.
But it's a perfectly acceptable English use for 200 years. I wouldn't getPerhaps they used it at the French court of l'ancien régime, but that is a
long way from Middle-earth.
an eyeblink if I went home and asked what's on the menu (though I might get
a smack upside the head for expecting my wife to cook right after driving me
home from work...). The only quibble with its use in the film is that, from
Tolkien's view, it's a neologism. It doesn't begin to suggest McDonald's.
--
derek
derek
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-22 21:10:20 UTC
"Derek Broughton" <***@pointerstop.ca> skrev i meddelandet news:kduk77-***@morgen.pointerstop.ca...
[snip]
I should have added royal and aristocratic banquets.
shortass jokes and the "Band of Brothers" cant.
Öjevind
[snip]
I should have added royal and aristocratic banquets.
Post by Derek Broughton
It was uncommonly used until the 1980s. It is now one of the most common
four-letter words in computing. It's always been acceptable to use it for
any list of items.
I hope you aren't suggesting that Uglúk was a computer nerd?It was uncommonly used until the 1980s. It is now one of the most common
four-letter words in computing. It's always been acceptable to use it for
any list of items.
Post by Derek Broughton
That doesn't make it acceptable use in Tolkien's world.Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
Perhaps they used it at the French court of l'ancien régime, but that is a
long way from Middle-earth.
But it's a perfectly acceptable English use for 200 years.Perhaps they used it at the French court of l'ancien régime, but that is a
long way from Middle-earth.
Post by Derek Broughton
I wouldn't get
an eyeblink if I went home and asked what's on the menu (though I might get
a smack upside the head for expecting my wife to cook right after driving me
home from work...). The only quibble with its use in the film is that, from
Tolkien's view, it's a neologism. It doesn't begin to suggest McDonald's.
There we will have to disagree. To me, it's right down there with theI wouldn't get
an eyeblink if I went home and asked what's on the menu (though I might get
a smack upside the head for expecting my wife to cook right after driving me
home from work...). The only quibble with its use in the film is that, from
Tolkien's view, it's a neologism. It doesn't begin to suggest McDonald's.
shortass jokes and the "Band of Brothers" cant.
Öjevind
tcroyer
2010-03-22 23:02:15 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
What about the File, Edit, View, Insert, ... Whatevers (Menus?) at the topPost by Kristian Damm Jensen
English history.
Also, I have never heard of the word being used outside restaurants.Post by Derek Broughton
offerings". You're reading far too much into it when you extend it to
restaurants. It's undoubtedly not the word that Tolkien himself
would have chosen, since he wasn't very fond of French,
And generally wasn't very fond of words with less that 5-800 years ofPost by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
It's just a word (~200 years old in English) that means "list ofPost by Derek Broughton
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this
line seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the
orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
"Menus" in Middle-earth? Why not McDonald's franchises while one is at it?Post by JJ
I thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt
some orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all
American?
I don't begin to see the problem with the first. istr, we're told that OrcsI thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt
some orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all
American?
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this
line seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the
orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
offerings". You're reading far too much into it when you extend it to
restaurants. It's undoubtedly not the word that Tolkien himself
would have chosen, since he wasn't very fond of French,
English history.
of a display window?
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
Perhaps they used it at the French court of l'ancien régime, but that is a
long way from Middle-earth. Military units, to my knowledge, have never
featured menus.
I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a
lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
Öjevind
Perhaps they used it at the French court of l'ancien régime, but that is a
long way from Middle-earth. Military units, to my knowledge, have never
featured menus.
I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a
lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-23 10:52:43 UTC
[snip]
orcs were computer geeks? Anyway, that usage did not even exist at the time
when Tolkien wrote "The Lord of the Rings".
Öjevind
Post by tcroyer
What about the File, Edit, View, Insert, ... Whatevers (Menus?) at the top
of a display window?
As I have already have said to Derek Broughton, surely you don't think theWhat about the File, Edit, View, Insert, ... Whatevers (Menus?) at the top
of a display window?
orcs were computer geeks? Anyway, that usage did not even exist at the time
when Tolkien wrote "The Lord of the Rings".
Öjevind
TT Arvind
2010-03-23 13:09:04 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
As I have already have said to Derek Broughton, surely you don't think the
orcs were computer geeks?
Actually, they seem to be running a successful IT & SatelliteAs I have already have said to Derek Broughton, surely you don't think the
orcs were computer geeks?
communications business:
http://www.uruksat.com/company.asp
--
Arvind
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-23 13:25:11 UTC
Post by TT Arvind
http://www.uruksat.com/company.asp
Uruksat seems to be all clouded over. They probaboly started out as anPost by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
As I have already have said to Derek Broughton, surely you don't think the
orcs were computer geeks?
Actually, they seem to be running a successful IT & SatelliteAs I have already have said to Derek Broughton, surely you don't think the
orcs were computer geeks?
http://www.uruksat.com/company.asp
attempt to jam the mirror of Galadriel.
Öjevind
Derek Broughton
2010-03-23 13:33:57 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
[snip]
orcs were computer geeks? Anyway, that usage did not even exist at the
time when Tolkien wrote "The Lord of the Rings".
Of course we don't mean that. What you miss is the fact that "menu" was[snip]
Post by tcroyer
What about the File, Edit, View, Insert, ... Whatevers (Menus?) at the
top of a display window?
As I have already have said to Derek Broughton, surely you don't think theWhat about the File, Edit, View, Insert, ... Whatevers (Menus?) at the
top of a display window?
orcs were computer geeks? Anyway, that usage did not even exist at the
time when Tolkien wrote "The Lord of the Rings".
taken for use in computers because it _already_ was common English usage for
any list of items. I'm sure it's only jarring to you because English isn't
your first language, but I'm prepared to bet that none of the native English
speakers here had the same problem.
--
derek
derek
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-23 14:10:03 UTC
Post by Derek Broughton
taken for use in computers because it _already_ was common English usage for
any list of items. I'm sure it's only jarring to you because English isn't
your first language, but I'm prepared to bet that none of the native English
speakers here had the same problem.
Whatever the deficiencies of my English, "menu" is not a word that should bePost by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
[snip]
orcs were computer geeks? Anyway, that usage did not even exist at the
time when Tolkien wrote "The Lord of the Rings".
Of course we don't mean that. What you miss is the fact that "menu" was[snip]
Post by tcroyer
What about the File, Edit, View, Insert, ... Whatevers (Menus?) at the
top of a display window?
As I have already have said to Derek Broughton, surely you don't think theWhat about the File, Edit, View, Insert, ... Whatevers (Menus?) at the
top of a display window?
orcs were computer geeks? Anyway, that usage did not even exist at the
time when Tolkien wrote "The Lord of the Rings".
taken for use in computers because it _already_ was common English usage for
any list of items. I'm sure it's only jarring to you because English isn't
your first language, but I'm prepared to bet that none of the native English
speakers here had the same problem.
used in a pseudo-medieval fantasy context.
Ö. L.
Julian Bradfield
2010-03-23 14:23:03 UTC
On 2010-03-23, Derek Broughton <***@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
[ you = Öjevind Lång ]
uses are by extension from that, and with the exception of computers,
the extension is still recent enough that the primary meaning comes to
mind. If someone talks about "the menu of [student] courses", I feel
that as an overt analogy to meals.
I didn't see the film, so I can't say whether it was actually jarring
to me; but had I seen it, I think I would have found it jarring
because of the Orcs using a French word, the main meaning of which is
a concept which is most unlikely to have figured in Orkish society, or
indeed in any of the other societies of Middle-earth, apart from
Gondor, which may well have had the concept of a formal meal with an
elaborate array of dishes.
[ you = Öjevind Lång ]
Post by Derek Broughton
Of course we don't mean that. What you miss is the fact that "menu" was
taken for use in computers because it _already_ was common English usage for
any list of items. I'm sure it's only jarring to you because English isn't
your first language, but I'm prepared to bet that none of the native English
speakers here had the same problem.
I disagree. The primary use is the list of dishes at a meal. All otherOf course we don't mean that. What you miss is the fact that "menu" was
taken for use in computers because it _already_ was common English usage for
any list of items. I'm sure it's only jarring to you because English isn't
your first language, but I'm prepared to bet that none of the native English
speakers here had the same problem.
uses are by extension from that, and with the exception of computers,
the extension is still recent enough that the primary meaning comes to
mind. If someone talks about "the menu of [student] courses", I feel
that as an overt analogy to meals.
I didn't see the film, so I can't say whether it was actually jarring
to me; but had I seen it, I think I would have found it jarring
because of the Orcs using a French word, the main meaning of which is
a concept which is most unlikely to have figured in Orkish society, or
indeed in any of the other societies of Middle-earth, apart from
Gondor, which may well have had the concept of a formal meal with an
elaborate array of dishes.
Derek Broughton
2010-03-24 13:09:58 UTC
Post by Julian Bradfield
[ you = Öjevind Lång ]
I disagree that you disagree :-)[ you = Öjevind Lång ]
Post by Derek Broughton
Of course we don't mean that. What you miss is the fact that "menu" was
taken for use in computers because it _already_ was common English usage for
any list of items. I'm sure it's only jarring to you because English
isn't your first language, but I'm prepared to bet that none of the
native English speakers here had the same problem.
I disagree.Of course we don't mean that. What you miss is the fact that "menu" was
taken for use in computers because it _already_ was common English usage for
any list of items. I'm sure it's only jarring to you because English
isn't your first language, but I'm prepared to bet that none of the
native English speakers here had the same problem.
Post by Julian Bradfield
The primary use is the list of dishes at a meal. All other
uses are by extension from that,
Precisely. If a list of options as a "menu" didn't come from food, thenThe primary use is the list of dishes at a meal. All other
uses are by extension from that,
"meat is back on the menu" would have been wrong just as Öjevind says.
Post by Julian Bradfield
and with the exception of computers,
the extension is still recent enough that the primary meaning comes to
mind.
I'm not quite sure how to parse that, since computer usage is the _most_and with the exception of computers,
the extension is still recent enough that the primary meaning comes to
mind.
recent...
Post by Julian Bradfield
If someone talks about "the menu of [student] courses", I feel
that as an overt analogy to meals.
I didn't see the film, so I can't say whether it was actually jarring
to me; but had I seen it, I think I would have found it jarring
because of the Orcs using a French word,
And _that_ I've already said myself. It's the French word that's a problem,If someone talks about "the menu of [student] courses", I feel
that as an overt analogy to meals.
I didn't see the film, so I can't say whether it was actually jarring
to me; but had I seen it, I think I would have found it jarring
because of the Orcs using a French word,
not connotations of restaurants.
--
derek
derek
Paul S. Person
2010-03-23 18:15:45 UTC
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:52:43 +0100, Öjevind Lång
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
[snip]
orcs were computer geeks? Anyway, that usage did not even exist at the time
when Tolkien wrote "The Lord of the Rings".
Well, they were known for their interest in technology ...[snip]
Post by tcroyer
What about the File, Edit, View, Insert, ... Whatevers (Menus?) at the top
of a display window?
As I have already have said to Derek Broughton, surely you don't think theWhat about the File, Edit, View, Insert, ... Whatevers (Menus?) at the top
of a display window?
orcs were computer geeks? Anyway, that usage did not even exist at the time
when Tolkien wrote "The Lord of the Rings".
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Paul S. Person
2010-03-23 18:14:15 UTC
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
<***@bredband.net> wrote:
<snippo, the word is "menu">
areas.
I don't recall if the list of options was /called/ a "menu", but it
functioned as one.
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
Of course, as the legendarium developed they acquired a different
origin ... well, actually, at least two different origins, depending
on how the origin stories are counted.
<***@bredband.net> wrote:
<snippo, the word is "menu">
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
Also, I have never heard of the word being used outside restaurants. Perhaps
they used it at the French court of l'ancien régime, but that is a long way
from Middle-earth. Military units, to my knowledge, have never featured
menus.
US Army messhalls in the 70's offered options, at least in non-combatAlso, I have never heard of the word being used outside restaurants. Perhaps
they used it at the French court of l'ancien régime, but that is a long way
from Middle-earth. Military units, to my knowledge, have never featured
menus.
areas.
I don't recall if the list of options was /called/ a "menu", but it
functioned as one.
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
I'm not sure where you are getting "ape" and "non-human" from. TheI also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
Of course, as the legendarium developed they acquired a different
origin ... well, actually, at least two different origins, depending
on how the origin stories are counted.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Derek Broughton
2010-03-24 13:05:11 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
I wasn't, either. I eventually decided he meant _in the films_, in whichOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a
lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
I'm not sure where you are getting "ape" and "non-human" from.I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a
lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
case I can see where he's coming from, but don't really agree.
Post by Paul S. Person
The
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
And that is Tolkien's description. Clearly, Jackson's orcs don't look likeThe
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
_that_, but I don't think they are clearly anything else either. In any
case, what I meant by "just very crude humans" was their actions and
psychology more than their physical appearance - in both Tolkien's
descriptions and in Jackson's.
--
derek
derek
Paul S. Person
2010-03-24 18:10:45 UTC
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:05:11 -0300, Derek Broughton
be seeing them again in a few months), but basing JRRT's Orcs on how
PJ chose to make them look is ... wierd.
Just like the lower-class blokes (well, stereotypes) JRRT modelled
their behavior on.
Post by Derek Broughton
case I can see where he's coming from, but don't really agree.
It's been too long since I saw them (which, of course, means that I'llPost by Paul S. Person
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
I wasn't, either. I eventually decided he meant _in the films_, in whichOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a
lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
I'm not sure where you are getting "ape" and "non-human" from.I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a
lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
case I can see where he's coming from, but don't really agree.
be seeing them again in a few months), but basing JRRT's Orcs on how
PJ chose to make them look is ... wierd.
Post by Derek Broughton
_that_, but I don't think they are clearly anything else either. In any
case, what I meant by "just very crude humans" was their actions and
psychology more than their physical appearance - in both Tolkien's
descriptions and in Jackson's.
I would agree that they are "crude, rude, and socially unacceptable".Post by Paul S. Person
The
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
And that is Tolkien's description. Clearly, Jackson's orcs don't look likeThe
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
_that_, but I don't think they are clearly anything else either. In any
case, what I meant by "just very crude humans" was their actions and
psychology more than their physical appearance - in both Tolkien's
descriptions and in Jackson's.
Just like the lower-class blokes (well, stereotypes) JRRT modelled
their behavior on.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
TT Arvind
2010-03-24 22:56:00 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
Tolkien also describes Orcs in the LoTR as having fangs, and SamOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
I'm not sure where you are getting "ape" and "non-human" from. Theof ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
--
Arvind
calvin
2010-03-25 06:04:50 UTC
worst line: "You eat that Mr. Frodo", Sam referring to
nearly the last packet of Lembas, enough to keep them both
well-nourished for a month.
nearly the last packet of Lembas, enough to keep them both
well-nourished for a month.
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-25 12:06:06 UTC
Post by TT Arvind
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
And in one place, Tolkien expressly compares orcs climbing scaling-laddersPost by Paul S. Person
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
Tolkien also describes Orcs in the LoTR as having fangs, and SamOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
I'm not sure where you are getting "ape" and "non-human" from. TheI also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
to "apes in the forests of the south". Grishnákh's arms nearly reached to
the ground. On top of that, the orcs could see in the dark, a trait not
commonly associated with the Mongolian race.
It should perhaps be pointed out that Tolkien did not find all East Asian
looks repulsive, only some. Even so, that statement of his is one of a
number which indicate that he was not entirely free of racal prejuice. Few
Europeans (or Americans) of his generation were.
Öjevind
Paul S. Person
2010-03-26 01:23:17 UTC
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:06:06 +0100, Öjevind Lång
Does he do this as narrator or does one of the characters do it? If a
character, it had better be Aragorn or Gandalf, since, so far as I can
tell, none ot the others has ever been to the South. Any other
character would be relying on stories he was told as a child, and who
can say how accurate the statement would be then?
re: Grishnaks arms
So do mine if I bend over. Was Grishnak standing at the time?
And, is it a definite fact that /no/ human being has arms that long?
Or would it be more correct to say that those that do are both rare
and victims of a developmental mishap?
re: seeing in the dark
Night vision is a military skill and can be developed. At least, in
the late '60s it was, before starlight scopes and other night vision
devices became common. Of course, it will never match day vision, at
least in most people.
And the Elves, having traversed a continent in the dark (starlight
only -- no Moonlight, which can make a /lot/ of difference at night
when you are out in the woods) to reach Valinor, probably had pretty
good night vision as well. One theory of the Orcs origin is, of
course, that they came from Elves. Seeing in the dark would tend to
argue in favor of this theory.
re: Mongols
I was referring to the physical appearance of Orcs as reported by
Elvish loremasters. And I didn't say that Orcs were Mongols or that
Mongols were Orcs: I said that the physical appearance of Orcs appears
to be based on that of Mongols (or, perhaps better, a stereotype
thereof, created by Europeans who were in the act of fleeing them as
best they could at the time).
continental Europe is "not entirely free of racial prejudice" even
now. And the USA certainly is not, although at least the non-verbal
expression of racial prejudice ("hate crime") has become firmly
embedded in the popular culture as illegal (which is much more telling
than simply being on the books as illegal), as opposed to being
legally required, as some have claimed it was in the Old South.
And I don't believe I said that JRRT found East Asian faces repulsive.
Unless he addressed the issue at some point, I have no way of knowing.
The claim that Orcs were "part monkey" or "part ape" was, perhaps
inadvertently, presented in such a way that it appeared to be a
statement with significant meaning. A very high percentage of human
genes are common to humans, apes, and monkeys (I'm sure the
percentages are readily available online). So, humans can be said to
be part ape and part monkey, and this would be true of Orcs as well.
The problem, then, may not be that this claim is inaccurate, but
rather that it is inane.
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
to "apes in the forests of the south". Grishnákh's arms nearly reached to
the ground. On top of that, the orcs could see in the dark, a trait not
commonly associated with the Mongolian race.
re: orcs compared to apesPost by TT Arvind
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
And in one place, Tolkien expressly compares orcs climbing scaling-laddersPost by Paul S. Person
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
Tolkien also describes Orcs in the LoTR as having fangs, and SamOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
I'm not sure where you are getting "ape" and "non-human" from. TheI also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
to "apes in the forests of the south". Grishnákh's arms nearly reached to
the ground. On top of that, the orcs could see in the dark, a trait not
commonly associated with the Mongolian race.
Does he do this as narrator or does one of the characters do it? If a
character, it had better be Aragorn or Gandalf, since, so far as I can
tell, none ot the others has ever been to the South. Any other
character would be relying on stories he was told as a child, and who
can say how accurate the statement would be then?
re: Grishnaks arms
So do mine if I bend over. Was Grishnak standing at the time?
And, is it a definite fact that /no/ human being has arms that long?
Or would it be more correct to say that those that do are both rare
and victims of a developmental mishap?
re: seeing in the dark
Night vision is a military skill and can be developed. At least, in
the late '60s it was, before starlight scopes and other night vision
devices became common. Of course, it will never match day vision, at
least in most people.
And the Elves, having traversed a continent in the dark (starlight
only -- no Moonlight, which can make a /lot/ of difference at night
when you are out in the woods) to reach Valinor, probably had pretty
good night vision as well. One theory of the Orcs origin is, of
course, that they came from Elves. Seeing in the dark would tend to
argue in favor of this theory.
re: Mongols
I was referring to the physical appearance of Orcs as reported by
Elvish loremasters. And I didn't say that Orcs were Mongols or that
Mongols were Orcs: I said that the physical appearance of Orcs appears
to be based on that of Mongols (or, perhaps better, a stereotype
thereof, created by Europeans who were in the act of fleeing them as
best they could at the time).
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
It should perhaps be pointed out that Tolkien did not find all East Asian
looks repulsive, only some. Even so, that statement of his is one of a
number which indicate that he was not entirely free of racal prejuice. Few
Europeans (or Americans) of his generation were.
Events in France and Germany over the past decade suggest thatIt should perhaps be pointed out that Tolkien did not find all East Asian
looks repulsive, only some. Even so, that statement of his is one of a
number which indicate that he was not entirely free of racal prejuice. Few
Europeans (or Americans) of his generation were.
continental Europe is "not entirely free of racial prejudice" even
now. And the USA certainly is not, although at least the non-verbal
expression of racial prejudice ("hate crime") has become firmly
embedded in the popular culture as illegal (which is much more telling
than simply being on the books as illegal), as opposed to being
legally required, as some have claimed it was in the Old South.
And I don't believe I said that JRRT found East Asian faces repulsive.
Unless he addressed the issue at some point, I have no way of knowing.
The claim that Orcs were "part monkey" or "part ape" was, perhaps
inadvertently, presented in such a way that it appeared to be a
statement with significant meaning. A very high percentage of human
genes are common to humans, apes, and monkeys (I'm sure the
percentages are readily available online). So, humans can be said to
be part ape and part monkey, and this would be true of Orcs as well.
The problem, then, may not be that this claim is inaccurate, but
rather that it is inane.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Steve Morrison
2010-03-26 04:39:12 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
re: orcs compared to apes
Does he do this as narrator or does one of the characters do it? If a
character, it had better be Aragorn or Gandalf, since, so far as I can
tell, none ot the others has ever been to the South. Any other
character would be relying on stories he was told as a child, and who
can say how accurate the statement would be then?
As narrator, about halfway through the chapter "Helm's Deep".re: orcs compared to apes
Does he do this as narrator or does one of the characters do it? If a
character, it had better be Aragorn or Gandalf, since, so far as I can
tell, none ot the others has ever been to the South. Any other
character would be relying on stories he was told as a child, and who
can say how accurate the statement would be then?
Post by Paul S. Person
re: Mongols
I was referring to the physical appearance of Orcs as reported by
Elvish loremasters. And I didn't say that Orcs were Mongols or that
Mongols were Orcs: I said that the physical appearance of Orcs appears
to be based on that of Mongols (or, perhaps better, a stereotype
thereof, created by Europeans who were in the act of fleeing them as
best they could at the time).
Tolkien himself definitely said, in /Letters/, that the appearance ofre: Mongols
I was referring to the physical appearance of Orcs as reported by
Elvish loremasters. And I didn't say that Orcs were Mongols or that
Mongols were Orcs: I said that the physical appearance of Orcs appears
to be based on that of Mongols (or, perhaps better, a stereotype
thereof, created by Europeans who were in the act of fleeing them as
best they could at the time).
Orcs /was/ based on that of Mongols:
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human'
form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes:
in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans)
least lovely Mongol-types.
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-26 08:07:51 UTC
"Steve Morrison" <***@toast.net> skrev i meddelandet news:***@posted.toastnet...
[snip]
to more than once (the long arms, for example), as well as the fangs and the
night vision show that is would be an oversimplification to simply regard
the orcs as calqued on East Asians. Certainly the mental image most people
get when reading about the orcs is of big apes, not of Mongols or Chinese.
Öjevind
[snip]
Post by Steve Morrison
Tolkien himself definitely said, in /Letters/, that the appearance of
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human'
form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans)
least lovely Mongol-types.
Well, the Letters are not always reliable. And the apelike features referredTolkien himself definitely said, in /Letters/, that the appearance of
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human'
form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans)
least lovely Mongol-types.
to more than once (the long arms, for example), as well as the fangs and the
night vision show that is would be an oversimplification to simply regard
the orcs as calqued on East Asians. Certainly the mental image most people
get when reading about the orcs is of big apes, not of Mongols or Chinese.
Öjevind
Paul S. Person
2010-03-26 16:38:18 UTC
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:07:51 +0100, Öjevind Lång
Some people, however, clearly do.
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
[snip]
to more than once (the long arms, for example), as well as the fangs and the
night vision show that is would be an oversimplification to simply regard
the orcs as calqued on East Asians. Certainly the mental image most people
get when reading about the orcs is of big apes, not of Mongols or Chinese.
I have severe doubts about "most people".[snip]
Post by Steve Morrison
Tolkien himself definitely said, in /Letters/, that the appearance of
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human'
form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans)
least lovely Mongol-types.
Well, the Letters are not always reliable. And the apelike features referredTolkien himself definitely said, in /Letters/, that the appearance of
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human'
form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans)
least lovely Mongol-types.
to more than once (the long arms, for example), as well as the fangs and the
night vision show that is would be an oversimplification to simply regard
the orcs as calqued on East Asians. Certainly the mental image most people
get when reading about the orcs is of big apes, not of Mongols or Chinese.
Some people, however, clearly do.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Derek Broughton
2010-03-27 14:02:27 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:07:51 +0100, Öjevind Lång
Certainly not me - but then I've never been "most people" :-)On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:07:51 +0100, Öjevind Lång
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
Well, the Letters are not always reliable. And the apelike features
referred to more than once (the long arms, for example), as well as the
fangs and the night vision show that is would be an oversimplification to
simply regard the orcs as calqued on East Asians. Certainly the mental
image most people get when reading about the orcs is of big apes, not of
Mongols or Chinese.
I have severe doubts about "most people".Well, the Letters are not always reliable. And the apelike features
referred to more than once (the long arms, for example), as well as the
fangs and the night vision show that is would be an oversimplification to
simply regard the orcs as calqued on East Asians. Certainly the mental
image most people get when reading about the orcs is of big apes, not of
Mongols or Chinese.
Sure thinking of them as Asian is an oversimplification. Bill Ferny's
Southern friend was described that way, and we don't even know for certain
that he had orc blood. The suggestion that he did simply implies that orcs
might have certain features that we would expect to see in some Asian
people. otoh, I always thought that however different orcs might seem from
people, that they were more like humans than anything else we know of, and
find it hard to imagine that "most" people actually have an image of orcs as
a kind of big ape.
--
derek
derek
Paul S. Person
2010-03-26 16:37:20 UTC
Post by Steve Morrison
OK, time for the fallback position:Post by Paul S. Person
re: orcs compared to apes
Does he do this as narrator or does one of the characters do it? If a
character, it had better be Aragorn or Gandalf, since, so far as I can
tell, none ot the others has ever been to the South. Any other
character would be relying on stories he was told as a child, and who
can say how accurate the statement would be then?
As narrator, about halfway through the chapter "Helm's Deep".re: orcs compared to apes
Does he do this as narrator or does one of the characters do it? If a
character, it had better be Aragorn or Gandalf, since, so far as I can
tell, none ot the others has ever been to the South. Any other
character would be relying on stories he was told as a child, and who
can say how accurate the statement would be then?
When I was growing up in the 50's, and perhaps even today, saying that
some climbed like an ape would not have been taken to mean that that
person was descended from an ape.
Indeed, "little monkey" was, when applied to small children,
especially active small children, a term of endearment.
However, in both cases, this only applies within one's own so-called
"race". Using either with someone of a different ethnic background was
an insult and possibly a comment on ancestry.
So, the statement (that Orcs climibing ladders looked like apes
climbing trees) as such is not racist. Interpreting it as implying
that the Orcs were actually created (in whole or in part) from apes,
however, does have discernable racist overtones.
Post by Steve Morrison
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human'
form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans)
least lovely Mongol-types.
Well, now we know where I got /that/ from!Post by Paul S. Person
re: Mongols
I was referring to the physical appearance of Orcs as reported by
Elvish loremasters. And I didn't say that Orcs were Mongols or that
Mongols were Orcs: I said that the physical appearance of Orcs appears
to be based on that of Mongols (or, perhaps better, a stereotype
thereof, created by Europeans who were in the act of fleeing them as
best they could at the time).
Tolkien himself definitely said, in /Letters/, that the appearance ofre: Mongols
I was referring to the physical appearance of Orcs as reported by
Elvish loremasters. And I didn't say that Orcs were Mongols or that
Mongols were Orcs: I said that the physical appearance of Orcs appears
to be based on that of Mongols (or, perhaps better, a stereotype
thereof, created by Europeans who were in the act of fleeing them as
best they could at the time).
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human'
form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans)
least lovely Mongol-types.
If I expressed myself in such a way as to appear to be claiming that
this was some great discovery on my part, I apologize. I have long
known that, since I read so much (and read even more in the past), my
"ideas" are often those of others, the source being forgotten and left
in the mists of time. In fact, I have very few original ideas,
although I will occasionally put things together in an original way.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Paul S. Person
2010-03-26 00:53:09 UTC
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:56:00 -0700 (PDT), TT Arvind
Merry or Pippin.
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
"Fang" could have meant "large, prominent tooth". Some peoples' teeth
are larger and/or more prominent (especially when they bare them while
leaning down from twice your height to intimidate you) than others.
And bow-legs and long arms are not unknown among humans.
JRRT did vary in his description of where Orcs came from. He dithered
between Elf and Man. He dithered on whether Morgoth himself created
them or whether that was delegated to Sauron. He suggested that some
Orc leaders might be Maiar in Orcish bodies (he did this to "solve"
the problem of Orc leaders with the same name appearing to live a long
long time). He agonized over whether they had souls (fëar) or were
automatons.
He also indicated that they had been tampered with by whoever
developed them. Although not known at the time, I believe the current
theory is that, in terms of body development, genes as such do not
matter nearly as much as when, where, and for how long they are
expressed.
And, so far as I can recall, JRRT /never/ suggested that they were
derived, in whole or in part, from animals. Feel free to quote /JRRT/
(not a character in a narrative story, although an Elvish loremaster
would probably work) stating that Orcs were derived from animals if
you can find such a statement somewhere.
Post by TT Arvind
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
I wasn't aware that Tolkien was a character in /LOTR/. Surely you meanPost by Paul S. Person
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
Tolkien also describes Orcs in the LoTR as having fangs, and SamOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0100, Öjevind Lång
I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
I'm not sure where you are getting "ape" and "non-human" from. Theof ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
physical descriptions suggest that they were, originally, modelled on
Mongols: prominent teeth, sallow (yellow) skin, faces that didn't look
nice (that is, that look like East Asians rather than Northern
Europeans).
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
Merry or Pippin.
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
"Fang" could have meant "large, prominent tooth". Some peoples' teeth
are larger and/or more prominent (especially when they bare them while
leaning down from twice your height to intimidate you) than others.
And bow-legs and long arms are not unknown among humans.
JRRT did vary in his description of where Orcs came from. He dithered
between Elf and Man. He dithered on whether Morgoth himself created
them or whether that was delegated to Sauron. He suggested that some
Orc leaders might be Maiar in Orcish bodies (he did this to "solve"
the problem of Orc leaders with the same name appearing to live a long
long time). He agonized over whether they had souls (fëar) or were
automatons.
He also indicated that they had been tampered with by whoever
developed them. Although not known at the time, I believe the current
theory is that, in terms of body development, genes as such do not
matter nearly as much as when, where, and for how long they are
expressed.
And, so far as I can recall, JRRT /never/ suggested that they were
derived, in whole or in part, from animals. Feel free to quote /JRRT/
(not a character in a narrative story, although an Elvish loremaster
would probably work) stating that Orcs were derived from animals if
you can find such a statement somewhere.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
TT Arvind
2010-03-26 08:44:23 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:56:00 -0700 (PDT), TT Arvind
Merry or Pippin.
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this.
In relation to the first, Tolkien has the narrator say this (I thinkOn Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:56:00 -0700 (PDT), TT Arvind
Post by TT Arvind
Tolkien also describes Orcs in the LoTR as having fangs, and Sam
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
I wasn't aware that Tolkien was a character in /LOTR/. Surely you meanTolkien also describes Orcs in the LoTR as having fangs, and Sam
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
Merry or Pippin.
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this.
"Tolkien describes" is acceptable shorthand for "the narrator of the
Lord of the Rings describes"). Here is the passage in question, from
Chapter 3 of Book III ("The Uruk-hai"):
"'If I had my way, you'd wish you were dead now,' said the other. 'I'd
make you squeak, you miserable rat.' He stooped over Pippin bringing
his yellow fangs close to his face."
And again in Chapter 1 of Book VI ("The Tower of Cirith Ungol"):
"Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran
crouching, reached to the ground. But one arm hung limp and seemed to
be bleeding; the other hugged a large black bundle. In the red glare
Sam, cowering behind the stair-door, caught a glimpse of his evil face
as it passed: it was scored as if by rending claws and smeared with
blood; slaver dripped from its protruding fangs; the mouth snarled
like an animal."
The "protruding fangs" make it sound more than metaphorical. Also,
the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
--
Arvind
JJ
2010-03-26 11:18:31 UTC
The "protruding fangs" make it sound more than metaphorical. Also,
the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
--
Arvind
Except that apes don't run like this - they are quadruped.the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
--
Arvind
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-26 11:32:12 UTC
Post by JJ
I've seen apes move with their arms reaching the ground. Whether they "run"Post by TT Arvind
The "protruding fangs" make it sound more than metaphorical. Also,
the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
--
Arvind
Except that apes don't run like this - they are quadruped.The "protruding fangs" make it sound more than metaphorical. Also,
the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
--
Arvind
or not is a minor point in this context.
Öjevind
TT Arvind
2010-03-26 12:33:20 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
or not is a minor point in this context.
Yes, "knuckle-walking", I think it's called. That's exactly what thePost by JJ
I've seen apes move with their arms reaching the ground. Whether they "run"The "protruding fangs" make it sound more than metaphorical. Also,
the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
Except that apes don't run like this - they are quadruped.the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
or not is a minor point in this context.
passage reminded me of.
--
Arvind
TT Arvind
2010-03-26 12:30:23 UTC
Post by JJ
Fair enough, and apes don't have fangs either or walk upright as weThe "protruding fangs" make it sound more than metaphorical. Also,
the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
Except that apes don't run like this - they are quadruped.the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
know the orcs do. My point wasn't really that orcs *were* apes, but
that they have some human characteristics, some ape-ish
characteristics, and some generally beast-ish characteristics.
--
Arvind
Raven
2010-03-26 15:10:51 UTC
Post by TT Arvind
Fair enough, and apes don't have fangs either or walk upright as we
know the orcs do. My point wasn't really that orcs *were* apes, but
that they have some human characteristics, some ape-ish
characteristics, and some generally beast-ish characteristics.
Apes have fangs. Certainly males do. If you look up some of the latestFair enough, and apes don't have fangs either or walk upright as we
know the orcs do. My point wasn't really that orcs *were* apes, but
that they have some human characteristics, some ape-ish
characteristics, and some generally beast-ish characteristics.
on Ardipithecus you will see theorizing that losing large canines in males,
or alternatively not developing them, was one of the traits unique to our
human lineage within the hominins (the youngest common ancestor to both
humans and chimps and bonobos, and the extant and extinct descendants of
that ancestor - the other two extant species of ape are not hominins).
However, apes do knuckle-walk. They are capable of explosive bursts of
speed, but it takes our unique erect gait to maintain speed across large
distances - humans are built for endurance, and a well-trained human (not I)
can outrun a horse on the long chases.
It would certainly interfere with the suspense of my disbelief if Uglúk
and his band of extremely enduring distance runners were described as having
the gait of a chimp. :-)
Jon Lennart Beck.
Derek Broughton
2010-03-26 14:31:36 UTC
Post by JJ
Er, I'm in the not-apes camp, but still - one would think that an ape-likePost by TT Arvind
The "protruding fangs" make it sound more than metaphorical. Also,
the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
Except that apes don't run like this - they are quadruped.The "protruding fangs" make it sound more than metaphorical. Also,
the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
human would not run quite like either an ape or a human.
--
derek
derek
Paul S. Person
2010-03-26 16:57:24 UTC
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:44:23 -0700 (PDT), TT Arvind
either to Frodo for inclusion in the Red Book, or when writing that
section himself. That is how I would understand this: as what the
/character/ experienced.
As noted elsewhere, /my/ arms reach the floor when I bend over.
Shagrat is "crouching"; if he stood up, the arms would (probably) not
reach the ground.
re: fangs
This is what Sam saw. It is, therefor, what Sam described to Frodo. It
is how a Hobbit of the Shire would describe it.
However, if you wish to argue that /no/ human being has protruding
teeth that might be mistaken for fangs, you may feel free to do so.
re: snarl
That was interesting: according the /American Heritage/ dictionary, a
"snarl" is a vicious sound combined with bared teeth. So, Shagrat was
growling fiercely and baring his teeth. People have been known to do
that too, especially in battle.
re: like
Implicit in the phrase "like an animal" is the fact that Shagrat was
not an animal.
incapacitated. Running hunched over when fleeing isn't that uncommon;
he isn't in a Track and Field event or a Marathon, after all; he is
running down stairs, and a low center-of-gravity is probably a good
idea. He may also be trying to minimize his cross-section so as to
avoid getting hit by any arrows that may be headed in his direction.
Or building up momentum to use his head as a ram to get through his
comrades and exit the Tower.
Post by TT Arvind
"Tolkien describes" is acceptable shorthand for "the narrator of the
Lord of the Rings describes"). Here is the passage in question, from
"'If I had my way, you'd wish you were dead now,' said the other. 'I'd
make you squeak, you miserable rat.' He stooped over Pippin bringing
his yellow fangs close to his face."
However, this can also be understood as how Pippin described it,Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:56:00 -0700 (PDT), TT Arvind
Merry or Pippin.
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this.
In relation to the first, Tolkien has the narrator say this (I thinkOn Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:56:00 -0700 (PDT), TT Arvind
Post by TT Arvind
Tolkien also describes Orcs in the LoTR as having fangs, and Sam
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
I wasn't aware that Tolkien was a character in /LOTR/. Surely you meanTolkien also describes Orcs in the LoTR as having fangs, and Sam
suggests they have bow-legs and long arms. The latter two have always
suggested a non-human, ape-ish build and gait to me.
Merry or Pippin.
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this.
"Tolkien describes" is acceptable shorthand for "the narrator of the
Lord of the Rings describes"). Here is the passage in question, from
"'If I had my way, you'd wish you were dead now,' said the other. 'I'd
make you squeak, you miserable rat.' He stooped over Pippin bringing
his yellow fangs close to his face."
either to Frodo for inclusion in the Red Book, or when writing that
section himself. That is how I would understand this: as what the
/character/ experienced.
Post by TT Arvind
"Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran
crouching, reached to the ground. But one arm hung limp and seemed to
be bleeding; the other hugged a large black bundle. In the red glare
Sam, cowering behind the stair-door, caught a glimpse of his evil face
as it passed: it was scored as if by rending claws and smeared with
blood; slaver dripped from its protruding fangs; the mouth snarled
like an animal."
re: long arms"Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he ran
crouching, reached to the ground. But one arm hung limp and seemed to
be bleeding; the other hugged a large black bundle. In the red glare
Sam, cowering behind the stair-door, caught a glimpse of his evil face
as it passed: it was scored as if by rending claws and smeared with
blood; slaver dripped from its protruding fangs; the mouth snarled
like an animal."
As noted elsewhere, /my/ arms reach the floor when I bend over.
Shagrat is "crouching"; if he stood up, the arms would (probably) not
reach the ground.
re: fangs
This is what Sam saw. It is, therefor, what Sam described to Frodo. It
is how a Hobbit of the Shire would describe it.
However, if you wish to argue that /no/ human being has protruding
teeth that might be mistaken for fangs, you may feel free to do so.
re: snarl
That was interesting: according the /American Heritage/ dictionary, a
"snarl" is a vicious sound combined with bared teeth. So, Shagrat was
growling fiercely and baring his teeth. People have been known to do
that too, especially in battle.
re: like
Implicit in the phrase "like an animal" is the fact that Shagrat was
not an animal.
Post by TT Arvind
The "protruding fangs" make it sound more than metaphorical. Also,
the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
He is carrying Frodo's cloak and sword in one arm and the other arm isThe "protruding fangs" make it sound more than metaphorical. Also,
the description of Shagrat running is one of the things that makes me
think of apes rather than humans when I read of the orcs - the
description of someone running crouching with arms reaching the ground
really doesn't sound very human to me.
incapacitated. Running hunched over when fleeing isn't that uncommon;
he isn't in a Track and Field event or a Marathon, after all; he is
running down stairs, and a low center-of-gravity is probably a good
idea. He may also be trying to minimize his cross-section so as to
avoid getting hit by any arrows that may be headed in his direction.
Or building up momentum to use his head as a ram to get through his
comrades and exit the Tower.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
TT Arvind
2010-03-26 20:06:47 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
However, this can also be understood as how Pippin described it,
either to Frodo for inclusion in the Red Book, or when writing that
section himself. That is how I would understand this: as what the
/character/ experienced.
Well, everything in the Red Book can from that point of view beHowever, this can also be understood as how Pippin described it,
either to Frodo for inclusion in the Red Book, or when writing that
section himself. That is how I would understand this: as what the
/character/ experienced.
understood as how various characters experienced things. For that
matter if we read a Gondorian loremaster's description of an orc, it's
still how *Frodo* as a hobbit of the Shire understood a Gondorian
loremaster's words. In other words, virtually nothing in the text of
the LoTR can be understood as anything other than a Hobbit's
perception.
Post by Paul S. Person
As noted elsewhere, /my/ arms reach the floor when I bend over.
Shagrat is "crouching"; if he stood up, the arms would (probably) not
reach the ground.
As do mine, but I couldn't run when I was that bent over. Shagrat,As noted elsewhere, /my/ arms reach the floor when I bend over.
Shagrat is "crouching"; if he stood up, the arms would (probably) not
reach the ground.
seemingly, could.
Post by Paul S. Person
However, if you wish to argue that /no/ human being has protruding
teeth that might be mistaken for fangs, you may feel free to do so.
My point is that fangs feature repeatedly in descriptions of differentHowever, if you wish to argue that /no/ human being has protruding
teeth that might be mistaken for fangs, you may feel free to do so.
orcs in the LoTR. If the Men of Bree were repeatedly described as
having fangs, I'd assume it was a characteristic of the men of Bree.
YMMV.
Post by Paul S. Person
Implicit in the phrase "like an animal" is the fact that Shagrat was
not an animal.
As I've said a number of times, I'm not arguing that orcs were apes.Implicit in the phrase "like an animal" is the fact that Shagrat was
not an animal.
I don't think there's much point continuing this conversation.
--
Arvind
Paul S. Person
2010-03-27 17:33:17 UTC
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:06:47 -0700 (PDT), TT Arvind
like Apes", we must instead say that "Tolkien says that Frodo recorded
that the Orcs climbed ladders like Apes, something he was tolk long
after the event". Well, unless that part was written by Merry.
IIRC, the parts in the Red Book reflecting Elvish Loremasters were
done by Bilbo, not Frodo. He had 17 years to do this, in Rivendell, in
the book. In the film, of course, he had perhaps, oh, a few weeks.
many others are there? How many times do Orcs appear /without/ being
described (by a Hobbit or anyone else) as having "fangs"?
Some people in this thread appear to be. At least one poster has
claimed that "most" people see them that way. Sorry if I confused you
with someone else, but then, you did appear to be defending their
position, which depends on the same reports you cited.
Post by TT Arvind
understood as how various characters experienced things. For that
matter if we read a Gondorian loremaster's description of an orc, it's
still how *Frodo* as a hobbit of the Shire understood a Gondorian
loremaster's words. In other words, virtually nothing in the text of
the LoTR can be understood as anything other than a Hobbit's
perception.
Which means that we cannot say that "Tolkien says Orcs climb laddersPost by Paul S. Person
However, this can also be understood as how Pippin described it,
either to Frodo for inclusion in the Red Book, or when writing that
section himself. That is how I would understand this: as what the
/character/ experienced.
Well, everything in the Red Book can from that point of view beHowever, this can also be understood as how Pippin described it,
either to Frodo for inclusion in the Red Book, or when writing that
section himself. That is how I would understand this: as what the
/character/ experienced.
understood as how various characters experienced things. For that
matter if we read a Gondorian loremaster's description of an orc, it's
still how *Frodo* as a hobbit of the Shire understood a Gondorian
loremaster's words. In other words, virtually nothing in the text of
the LoTR can be understood as anything other than a Hobbit's
perception.
like Apes", we must instead say that "Tolkien says that Frodo recorded
that the Orcs climbed ladders like Apes, something he was tolk long
after the event". Well, unless that part was written by Merry.
IIRC, the parts in the Red Book reflecting Elvish Loremasters were
done by Bilbo, not Frodo. He had 17 years to do this, in Rivendell, in
the book. In the film, of course, he had perhaps, oh, a few weeks.
Post by TT Arvind
seemingly, could.
Now try it with someone shooting at you ...Post by Paul S. Person
As noted elsewhere, /my/ arms reach the floor when I bend over.
Shagrat is "crouching"; if he stood up, the arms would (probably) not
reach the ground.
As do mine, but I couldn't run when I was that bent over. Shagrat,As noted elsewhere, /my/ arms reach the floor when I bend over.
Shagrat is "crouching"; if he stood up, the arms would (probably) not
reach the ground.
seemingly, could.
Post by TT Arvind
orcs in the LoTR. If the Men of Bree were repeatedly described as
having fangs, I'd assume it was a characteristic of the men of Bree.
YMMV.
IIRC, two instances have been cited (one each for Pippin and Sam). HowPost by Paul S. Person
However, if you wish to argue that /no/ human being has protruding
teeth that might be mistaken for fangs, you may feel free to do so.
My point is that fangs feature repeatedly in descriptions of differentHowever, if you wish to argue that /no/ human being has protruding
teeth that might be mistaken for fangs, you may feel free to do so.
orcs in the LoTR. If the Men of Bree were repeatedly described as
having fangs, I'd assume it was a characteristic of the men of Bree.
YMMV.
many others are there? How many times do Orcs appear /without/ being
described (by a Hobbit or anyone else) as having "fangs"?
Post by TT Arvind
I don't think there's much point continuing this conversation.
Since we are in agreement on this point, evidently not.Post by Paul S. Person
Implicit in the phrase "like an animal" is the fact that Shagrat was
not an animal.
As I've said a number of times, I'm not arguing that orcs were apes.Implicit in the phrase "like an animal" is the fact that Shagrat was
not an animal.
I don't think there's much point continuing this conversation.
Some people in this thread appear to be. At least one poster has
claimed that "most" people see them that way. Sorry if I confused you
with someone else, but then, you did appear to be defending their
position, which depends on the same reports you cited.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Troels Forchhammer
2010-03-28 10:10:45 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:44:23 -0700 (PDT), TT Arvind
either to Frodo for inclusion in the Red Book, or when writing
that section himself. That is how I would understand this: as what
the /character/ experienced.
Within the narrative conceit of the story, you are of course rightOn Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:44:23 -0700 (PDT), TT Arvind
Post by TT Arvind
In relation to the first, Tolkien has the narrator say this (I
think "Tolkien describes" is acceptable shorthand for "the
narrator of the Lord of the Rings describes"). Here is the
"'If I had my way, you'd wish you were dead now,' said the other.
'I'd make you squeak, you miserable rat.' He stooped over Pippin
bringing his yellow fangs close to his face."
However, this can also be understood as how Pippin described it,In relation to the first, Tolkien has the narrator say this (I
think "Tolkien describes" is acceptable shorthand for "the
narrator of the Lord of the Rings describes"). Here is the
"'If I had my way, you'd wish you were dead now,' said the other.
'I'd make you squeak, you miserable rat.' He stooped over Pippin
bringing his yellow fangs close to his face."
either to Frodo for inclusion in the Red Book, or when writing
that section himself. That is how I would understand this: as what
the /character/ experienced.
that _everything_ in the book is a subjective account (something
which would apply doubly to _The Hobbit_) written down by Bilbo,
Frodo and Sam based on the accounts of their friends -- primarily
these three themselves as well as Merry and Pippin, but if you leave
the narrative for a moment, it is clearly _Tolkien_ who is saying
these things in the narrative voice -- there are statements made in
that voice, for instance statements made about Shelob, that no one
could know, not even a Fourth Age loremaster in Gondor would be able
to know these details. To this should of course also be added
Tolkien's conviction that the story must take itself seriously --
what is told _must_ be _true_ within the story itself. It doesn't
matter who is supposedly experiencing it and retells it to Frodo who
then writes it in the book: it must be true within the story -- that
is one of the points Tolkien stresses in 'On Fairy-Stories' that "tt
is at any rate essential to a genuine fairy-story, [...], that it
should be presented as 'true.'" (in the discussion of fairy-story).
I honestly believe it is a mistake to take the narrative conceit to
the point that you could argue with any statement in the narrative
voice and claim that it is possible that someone else would have
experienced it differently. It was natural to Tolkien to build into
his narrative a tradition of its transmission, but this should not
question the objective veracity (within the sub-creation) of the
story.
Post by Paul S. Person
As noted elsewhere, /my/ arms reach the floor when I bend over.
Shagrat is "crouching"; if he stood up, the arms would (probably)
not reach the ground.
But, as TT has already pointed out, not human would be able to runPost by TT Arvind
"Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he
ran crouching, reached to the ground. But one arm hung limp and
seemed to be bleeding; the other hugged a large black bundle. In
the red glare Sam, cowering behind the stair-door, caught a
glimpse of his evil face as it passed: it was scored as if by
rending claws and smeared with blood; slaver dripped from its
protruding fangs; the mouth snarled like an animal."
re: long arms"Behind him came Shagrat, a large orc with long arms that, as he
ran crouching, reached to the ground. But one arm hung limp and
seemed to be bleeding; the other hugged a large black bundle. In
the red glare Sam, cowering behind the stair-door, caught a
glimpse of his evil face as it passed: it was scored as if by
rending claws and smeared with blood; slaver dripped from its
protruding fangs; the mouth snarled like an animal."
As noted elsewhere, /my/ arms reach the floor when I bend over.
Shagrat is "crouching"; if he stood up, the arms would (probably)
not reach the ground.
like that. I have never taken it to suggest anything approaching the
knuckle-walk of apes, but this is, in my opinion, a very clear way of
stating that the Orcs had notably longer arms relative to their body
height than what is normal for humans (or, to stay in the language of
the story, longer arms than what is otherwise known among the
Children of Ilúvatar).
Grishnákh is, by the way, also described as having 'long arms that
hung almost to the ground' and the Orc that catches Pippin when he
had dropped the brooch is merely described as 'long arms and hard
claws'.
Post by Paul S. Person
re: fangs
This is what Sam saw. It is, therefor, what Sam described to
Frodo. It is how a Hobbit of the Shire would describe it.
And it is clearly a trait of the Orcs -- certainly adding fangs tore: fangs
This is what Sam saw. It is, therefor, what Sam described to
Frodo. It is how a Hobbit of the Shire would describe it.
his cannon-fodder servants would be the first thing any Dark Lord
worth his salt would think of ;-) Seriously, though, I've always
found that fangs is an obvious modification for the Orcs, though I
think the fangs often shown in e.g. roleplaying products are way too
large for Tolkien's Orccs. I doubt, for instance, that the fangs of
the Orcs would be visible when the Orc closed their mouth.
Post by Paul S. Person
However, if you wish to argue that /no/ human being has protruding
teeth that might be mistaken for fangs, you may feel free to do so.
We actually all have at least the remains of fangs. Presumably ElvenHowever, if you wish to argue that /no/ human being has protruding
teeth that might be mistaken for fangs, you may feel free to do so.
teeth are similar to human, and it thus doesn't matter from what
stock the Orcs were originally bred: there would be some pre-
existing, but very small and whimpy, 'fangs' that could be enlarged
through a carefully magic-enhanced breeding programme.
Post by Paul S. Person
re: snarl
That was interesting: according the /American Heritage/
dictionary, a "snarl" is a vicious sound combined with bared
teeth. So, Shagrat was growling fiercely and baring his teeth.
People have been known to do that too, especially in battle.
Nevertheless both 'snarl' and 'growl' carry animal connotations. Veryre: snarl
That was interesting: according the /American Heritage/
dictionary, a "snarl" is a vicious sound combined with bared
teeth. So, Shagrat was growling fiercely and baring his teeth.
People have been known to do that too, especially in battle.
appropriate to a group that is in general portrayed as a degenerate
version of humanoids.
Tolkien is carefully attributing many bestial traits to the Orcs. All
of the above qualities are some that we associate with beasts rather
than with humans (or Eruhíni), but this is really just saying that it
was an essential part of the breeding of the Orcs to make them more
bestial in both appearance and behaviour -- in more modern
evolutionary terms, the Orcs represent a reversal of evolution to a
more primitive, more ape-like, stage in our evolution (but without
significantly compromising intelligence).
In that infamous statement from the 1958 letter regarding the
Zimmerman story-line (#210), Tolkien doesn't just say that the Orcs
look like certain Asians. He says:
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the
'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were)
squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths
and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of
the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.
The Orcs are here described as _degraded_ versions even of the humans
they resemble most -- a degradation that is also implied in the
repeated attributions of bestial traits. Story externally we might
even say that the attribution to the Orcs of fangs, long arms and
other _physical_ beastial attributes is merely a way of emphasizing
the bestial behaviour of the Orcs, but within the narrative we must
accept these as true: the Orcs did have fangs, they did have
disproportionately long arms, they were prone to beastial growling or
snarling even when speaking, and above all they were behaving as
beasts.
'Squat', by the way, is defined by the AskOxford site as 'short or
low, and disproportionately broad or wide' -- so even arms of normal
length would appear disproportionately long on Orcs.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A common mistake people make when trying to design
something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
ingenuity of complete fools.
- Douglas Adams, /Mostly Harmless/
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A common mistake people make when trying to design
something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
ingenuity of complete fools.
- Douglas Adams, /Mostly Harmless/
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-28 13:06:52 UTC
[snip]
perceives something in a particular way ("He thought William's vocie was
cold and indifferent"), then one must assume that the author stands behind
the description. This goes for all literature.
Öjevind
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Within the narrative conceit of the story, you are of course right
that _everything_ in the book is a subjective account (something
which would apply doubly to _The Hobbit_) written down by Bilbo,
Frodo and Sam based on the accounts of their friends -- primarily
these three themselves as well as Merry and Pippin, but if you leave
the narrative for a moment, it is clearly _Tolkien_ who is saying
these things in the narrative voice -- there are statements made in
that voice, for instance statements made about Shelob, that no one
could know, not even a Fourth Age loremaster in Gondor would be able
to know these details. To this should of course also be added
Tolkien's conviction that the story must take itself seriously --
what is told _must_ be _true_ within the story itself. It doesn't
matter who is supposedly experiencing it and retells it to Frodo who
then writes it in the book: it must be true within the story -- that
is one of the points Tolkien stresses in 'On Fairy-Stories' that "tt
is at any rate essential to a genuine fairy-story, [...], that it
should be presented as 'true.'" (in the discussion of fairy-story).
I honestly believe it is a mistake to take the narrative conceit to
the point that you could argue with any statement in the narrative
voice and claim that it is possible that someone else would have
experienced it differently. It was natural to Tolkien to build into
his narrative a tradition of its transmission, but this should not
question the objective veracity (within the sub-creation) of the
story.
I completely agree. Unless we are specifically told that a characterWithin the narrative conceit of the story, you are of course right
that _everything_ in the book is a subjective account (something
which would apply doubly to _The Hobbit_) written down by Bilbo,
Frodo and Sam based on the accounts of their friends -- primarily
these three themselves as well as Merry and Pippin, but if you leave
the narrative for a moment, it is clearly _Tolkien_ who is saying
these things in the narrative voice -- there are statements made in
that voice, for instance statements made about Shelob, that no one
could know, not even a Fourth Age loremaster in Gondor would be able
to know these details. To this should of course also be added
Tolkien's conviction that the story must take itself seriously --
what is told _must_ be _true_ within the story itself. It doesn't
matter who is supposedly experiencing it and retells it to Frodo who
then writes it in the book: it must be true within the story -- that
is one of the points Tolkien stresses in 'On Fairy-Stories' that "tt
is at any rate essential to a genuine fairy-story, [...], that it
should be presented as 'true.'" (in the discussion of fairy-story).
I honestly believe it is a mistake to take the narrative conceit to
the point that you could argue with any statement in the narrative
voice and claim that it is possible that someone else would have
experienced it differently. It was natural to Tolkien to build into
his narrative a tradition of its transmission, but this should not
question the objective veracity (within the sub-creation) of the
story.
perceives something in a particular way ("He thought William's vocie was
cold and indifferent"), then one must assume that the author stands behind
the description. This goes for all literature.
Öjevind
Paul S. Person
2010-03-28 17:51:42 UTC
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:10:45 +0100, Troels Forchhammer
<snippo, Ch3 bk III Pippin describes a close encounter of the third
kind -- with an Orc>
Sorry to break it off, but, really, I think your point is made in the
above.
Yes, some things might fall into the category of "only the Narrator
could know this", where the Narrator is JRRT, but the passage cited
later.
Sometimes I wonder if anyone else really takes seriously the idea that
the Red Book was written by Bilbo and Frodo -- that is, that /TH/ and
/LOTR/ (at least) were written by JRRT /as if they had been written by
Hobbits/ and so that what we read in them represents that Hobbit
viewpoint, and not necessarily that of the Author. JRRT did not
necessarily agree with every single thing that he wrote from the
viewpoint of the Hobbits -- had he done so, Gandalf would just be a
wandering magician famed for his fireworks. That is what the Hobbits
thought; JRRT thought otherwise.
There is, of course, a difference between what may be loosely called
the "Silmarillion material", including most of /HOME/ (the /HOLOTR/
and the later partly-done stories being the exception): Bilbo was
dealing with these issues long after the fact, and in condensed form,
and so did not have to contend with the emotional nature of, say,
Pippin's memory of the encounter recorded above.
<snippo>
another. He was not running in a marathon. Do you really think
soldiers run around at full height on the battlefield?
2. The Orcs are said to have been altered from Eruhini. JRRT was, of
course, vague on how this was done. If I understood the articles in
/Science News/ I have read over the last few years correctly, length
of arms is likely to have more to do with the pattern of gene
expression than with the genes themselves.
3. This topic began with a clear claim:
| I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
|of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
in message <***@mid.individual.net>
Note the absense of qualifiers: no "in my opinion"; no "I think that";
no "They look like" at the start of the second sentence. Just an
unqualified statement of fact.
The topic is, then, not whether the Orcs are described as being "like
apes", but whether they were /formed, at least in part, from apes/.
(or both) -- he just never decided which, just as he never decided
whether Morgoth or Sauron made them, or when they were made. But they
were definitely /not/ derived from animals: had they been derived from
animals, then there would have been no question of their having, or
not having, fëar.
and not something derived from Ape.
Orcs -- not even by terrified Hobbits -- that is "animal" in the sense
that Men do not exhibit it. Even the famous "long arms" may be a known
(but rare) trait of Men, albeit a developmental aberration.
are /definitely/ not derived from animals and are based on extreme
Mongol stereotypes.
possibility that terrified Hobbits, who have never seen an Orc up
close, may be relying on the tales they were told in the days of their
youth, including the stereotypes of Orcs that represent the only
knowledge they have of them. As I have noted before, that is how
stereotypes work: you see what you expect to see, and ignore anything
else.
We know that such knowledge existed in the Shire, because Sam was able
to identify an Oliphaunt using it. Suppose there was something like
this in the same collection of poems:
Short and squat
Yellowish skin
Long of fang
Arms to the ground
Claws on my arms
Snarling I run
Orc am I
Eat you I will
I apologize for the quality; I simply am not a poet. But a young
terrified Hobbit raised on such a verse might see Orcs as having those
characteristics whether they were present or prominent or not. Large,
protruding teeth become "fangs"; long fingernails become "claws"; a
battle-cry through exposed teeth becomes a "snarl", and so on.
And, given, JRRT's description, it can be said, as it can always be
said of stereotypes, that there is some truth to it. The problem with
stereotypes is not that they are false (well, until they get so
exaggerated as to be clearly rediculous); the problem is that they are
invariably negative and so negatively affect interactions on the one
hand and that they do not apply to any specific individual or, rather,
that individuals to which they apply are few and far between. They are
denials of individuality and, like all components of racism, have the
effect of treating the subjects as non-humans by treating them as all
the same.
And that is the problem with the claim "There is a lot of ape in them
as well": it is not necessarily racist, but statements of that sort
have been used by racists in the past. A certain amount of caution is
needed in considering them.
I do not believe that there is any more "ape" in an Orc than there is
in a Man. As I have noted before, if this is simply a statement of
shared DNA between Orc and Ape, then, as long as it is affirmed that
Orcs are derived from Man or Elf or both, the statement is not so much
wrong as inane. And, if it is inane, it is not racist.
expected to see (really long arms) and what they did see (normal-sized
arms on squat bodies).
<snippo, Ch3 bk III Pippin describes a close encounter of the third
kind -- with an Orc>
Post by Troels Forchhammer
that _everything_ in the book is a subjective account (something
which would apply doubly to _The Hobbit_) written down by Bilbo,
Frodo and Sam based on the accounts of their friends -- primarily
these three themselves as well as Merry and Pippin, but if you leave
the narrative for a moment, it is clearly _Tolkien_ who is saying
these things in the narrative voice -- there are statements made in
that voice, for instance statements made about Shelob, that no one
could know, not even a Fourth Age loremaster in Gondor would be able
to know these details.
<snippo>Post by Paul S. Person
However, this can also be understood as how Pippin described it,
either to Frodo for inclusion in the Red Book, or when writing
that section himself. That is how I would understand this: as what
the /character/ experienced.
Within the narrative conceit of the story, you are of course rightHowever, this can also be understood as how Pippin described it,
either to Frodo for inclusion in the Red Book, or when writing
that section himself. That is how I would understand this: as what
the /character/ experienced.
that _everything_ in the book is a subjective account (something
which would apply doubly to _The Hobbit_) written down by Bilbo,
Frodo and Sam based on the accounts of their friends -- primarily
these three themselves as well as Merry and Pippin, but if you leave
the narrative for a moment, it is clearly _Tolkien_ who is saying
these things in the narrative voice -- there are statements made in
that voice, for instance statements made about Shelob, that no one
could know, not even a Fourth Age loremaster in Gondor would be able
to know these details.
Sorry to break it off, but, really, I think your point is made in the
above.
Yes, some things might fall into the category of "only the Narrator
could know this", where the Narrator is JRRT, but the passage cited
Post by Troels Forchhammer
This is /entirely/ what Pippin saw. Or rather, remembered he saw,Post by Paul S. Person
"'If I had my way, you'd wish you were dead now,' said the other.
'I'd make you squeak, you miserable rat.' He stooped over Pippin
bringing his yellow fangs close to his face."
"'If I had my way, you'd wish you were dead now,' said the other.
'I'd make you squeak, you miserable rat.' He stooped over Pippin
bringing his yellow fangs close to his face."
later.
Sometimes I wonder if anyone else really takes seriously the idea that
the Red Book was written by Bilbo and Frodo -- that is, that /TH/ and
/LOTR/ (at least) were written by JRRT /as if they had been written by
Hobbits/ and so that what we read in them represents that Hobbit
viewpoint, and not necessarily that of the Author. JRRT did not
necessarily agree with every single thing that he wrote from the
viewpoint of the Hobbits -- had he done so, Gandalf would just be a
wandering magician famed for his fireworks. That is what the Hobbits
thought; JRRT thought otherwise.
There is, of course, a difference between what may be loosely called
the "Silmarillion material", including most of /HOME/ (the /HOLOTR/
and the later partly-done stories being the exception): Bilbo was
dealing with these issues long after the fact, and in condensed form,
and so did not have to contend with the emotional nature of, say,
Pippin's memory of the encounter recorded above.
<snippo>
Post by Troels Forchhammer
like that. I have never taken it to suggest anything approaching the
knuckle-walk of apes, but this is, in my opinion, a very clear way of
stating that the Orcs had notably longer arms relative to their body
height than what is normal for humans (or, to stay in the language of
the story, longer arms than what is otherwise known among the
Children of Ilúvatar).
1. The Orc in question was running /downstairs/ from one fight intoPost by Paul S. Person
re: long arms
As noted elsewhere, /my/ arms reach the floor when I bend over.
Shagrat is "crouching"; if he stood up, the arms would (probably)
not reach the ground.
But, as TT has already pointed out, not human would be able to runre: long arms
As noted elsewhere, /my/ arms reach the floor when I bend over.
Shagrat is "crouching"; if he stood up, the arms would (probably)
not reach the ground.
like that. I have never taken it to suggest anything approaching the
knuckle-walk of apes, but this is, in my opinion, a very clear way of
stating that the Orcs had notably longer arms relative to their body
height than what is normal for humans (or, to stay in the language of
the story, longer arms than what is otherwise known among the
Children of Ilúvatar).
another. He was not running in a marathon. Do you really think
soldiers run around at full height on the battlefield?
2. The Orcs are said to have been altered from Eruhini. JRRT was, of
course, vague on how this was done. If I understood the articles in
/Science News/ I have read over the last few years correctly, length
of arms is likely to have more to do with the pattern of gene
expression than with the genes themselves.
3. This topic began with a clear claim:
| I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a lot
|of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
in message <***@mid.individual.net>
Note the absense of qualifiers: no "in my opinion"; no "I think that";
no "They look like" at the start of the second sentence. Just an
unqualified statement of fact.
The topic is, then, not whether the Orcs are described as being "like
apes", but whether they were /formed, at least in part, from apes/.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Grishnákh is, by the way, also described as having 'long arms that
hung almost to the ground' and the Orc that catches Pippin when he
had dropped the brooch is merely described as 'long arms and hard
claws'.
Described by terrified Hobbits.Grishnákh is, by the way, also described as having 'long arms that
hung almost to the ground' and the Orc that catches Pippin when he
had dropped the brooch is merely described as 'long arms and hard
claws'.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Tolkien himself definitely said, in /Letters/, that the appearance of
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human'
form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans)
least lovely Mongol-types.
JRRT also was clear that the Orcs were based either on Elves or MenTolkien himself definitely said, in /Letters/, that the appearance of
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human'
form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans)
least lovely Mongol-types.
(or both) -- he just never decided which, just as he never decided
whether Morgoth or Sauron made them, or when they were made. But they
were definitely /not/ derived from animals: had they been derived from
animals, then there would have been no question of their having, or
not having, fëar.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
his cannon-fodder servants would be the first thing any Dark Lord
worth his salt would think of ;-) Seriously, though, I've always
found that fangs is an obvious modification for the Orcs, though I
think the fangs often shown in e.g. roleplaying products are way too
large for Tolkien's Orccs. I doubt, for instance, that the fangs of
the Orcs would be visible when the Orc closed their mouth.
Good point -- as long as it is clearly a modification of Elf or Man,Post by Paul S. Person
re: fangs
This is what Sam saw. It is, therefor, what Sam described to
Frodo. It is how a Hobbit of the Shire would describe it.
And it is clearly a trait of the Orcs -- certainly adding fangs tore: fangs
This is what Sam saw. It is, therefor, what Sam described to
Frodo. It is how a Hobbit of the Shire would describe it.
his cannon-fodder servants would be the first thing any Dark Lord
worth his salt would think of ;-) Seriously, though, I've always
found that fangs is an obvious modification for the Orcs, though I
think the fangs often shown in e.g. roleplaying products are way too
large for Tolkien's Orccs. I doubt, for instance, that the fangs of
the Orcs would be visible when the Orc closed their mouth.
and not something derived from Ape.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
teeth are similar to human, and it thus doesn't matter from what
stock the Orcs were originally bred: there would be some pre-
existing, but very small and whimpy, 'fangs' that could be enlarged
through a carefully magic-enhanced breeding programme.
Or direct manipulation of (if I have the term right) the homeobox.Post by Paul S. Person
However, if you wish to argue that /no/ human being has protruding
teeth that might be mistaken for fangs, you may feel free to do so.
We actually all have at least the remains of fangs. Presumably ElvenHowever, if you wish to argue that /no/ human being has protruding
teeth that might be mistaken for fangs, you may feel free to do so.
teeth are similar to human, and it thus doesn't matter from what
stock the Orcs were originally bred: there would be some pre-
existing, but very small and whimpy, 'fangs' that could be enlarged
through a carefully magic-enhanced breeding programme.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
appropriate to a group that is in general portrayed as a degenerate
version of humanoids.
Men do both.Post by Paul S. Person
re: snarl
That was interesting: according the /American Heritage/
dictionary, a "snarl" is a vicious sound combined with bared
teeth. So, Shagrat was growling fiercely and baring his teeth.
People have been known to do that too, especially in battle.
Nevertheless both 'snarl' and 'growl' carry animal connotations. Veryre: snarl
That was interesting: according the /American Heritage/
dictionary, a "snarl" is a vicious sound combined with bared
teeth. So, Shagrat was growling fiercely and baring his teeth.
People have been known to do that too, especially in battle.
appropriate to a group that is in general portrayed as a degenerate
version of humanoids.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Tolkien is carefully attributing many bestial traits to the Orcs. All
of the above qualities are some that we associate with beasts rather
than with humans (or Eruhíni), but this is really just saying that it
was an essential part of the breeding of the Orcs to make them more
bestial in both appearance and behaviour -- in more modern
evolutionary terms, the Orcs represent a reversal of evolution to a
more primitive, more ape-like, stage in our evolution (but without
significantly compromising intelligence).
I don't think so, not at all. I haven't seen /any/ trait assigned toTolkien is carefully attributing many bestial traits to the Orcs. All
of the above qualities are some that we associate with beasts rather
than with humans (or Eruhíni), but this is really just saying that it
was an essential part of the breeding of the Orcs to make them more
bestial in both appearance and behaviour -- in more modern
evolutionary terms, the Orcs represent a reversal of evolution to a
more primitive, more ape-like, stage in our evolution (but without
significantly compromising intelligence).
Orcs -- not even by terrified Hobbits -- that is "animal" in the sense
that Men do not exhibit it. Even the famous "long arms" may be a known
(but rare) trait of Men, albeit a developmental aberration.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
In that infamous statement from the 1958 letter regarding the
Zimmerman story-line (#210), Tolkien doesn't just say that the Orcs
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the
'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were)
squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths
and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of
the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.
The Orcs are here described as _degraded_ versions even of the humans
they resemble most -- a degradation that is also implied in the
repeated attributions of bestial traits.
To you, perhaps. Not to me. To me, it implies what it says: that theyIn that infamous statement from the 1958 letter regarding the
Zimmerman story-line (#210), Tolkien doesn't just say that the Orcs
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the
'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were)
squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths
and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of
the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.
The Orcs are here described as _degraded_ versions even of the humans
they resemble most -- a degradation that is also implied in the
repeated attributions of bestial traits.
are /definitely/ not derived from animals and are based on extreme
Mongol stereotypes.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Story externally we might
even say that the attribution to the Orcs of fangs, long arms and
other _physical_ beastial attributes is merely a way of emphasizing
the bestial behaviour of the Orcs, but within the narrative we must
accept these as true: the Orcs did have fangs, they did have
disproportionately long arms, they were prone to beastial growling or
snarling even when speaking, and above all they were behaving as
beasts.
You must, perhaps. I, on the other, am willing to consider theStory externally we might
even say that the attribution to the Orcs of fangs, long arms and
other _physical_ beastial attributes is merely a way of emphasizing
the bestial behaviour of the Orcs, but within the narrative we must
accept these as true: the Orcs did have fangs, they did have
disproportionately long arms, they were prone to beastial growling or
snarling even when speaking, and above all they were behaving as
beasts.
possibility that terrified Hobbits, who have never seen an Orc up
close, may be relying on the tales they were told in the days of their
youth, including the stereotypes of Orcs that represent the only
knowledge they have of them. As I have noted before, that is how
stereotypes work: you see what you expect to see, and ignore anything
else.
We know that such knowledge existed in the Shire, because Sam was able
to identify an Oliphaunt using it. Suppose there was something like
this in the same collection of poems:
Short and squat
Yellowish skin
Long of fang
Arms to the ground
Claws on my arms
Snarling I run
Orc am I
Eat you I will
I apologize for the quality; I simply am not a poet. But a young
terrified Hobbit raised on such a verse might see Orcs as having those
characteristics whether they were present or prominent or not. Large,
protruding teeth become "fangs"; long fingernails become "claws"; a
battle-cry through exposed teeth becomes a "snarl", and so on.
And, given, JRRT's description, it can be said, as it can always be
said of stereotypes, that there is some truth to it. The problem with
stereotypes is not that they are false (well, until they get so
exaggerated as to be clearly rediculous); the problem is that they are
invariably negative and so negatively affect interactions on the one
hand and that they do not apply to any specific individual or, rather,
that individuals to which they apply are few and far between. They are
denials of individuality and, like all components of racism, have the
effect of treating the subjects as non-humans by treating them as all
the same.
And that is the problem with the claim "There is a lot of ape in them
as well": it is not necessarily racist, but statements of that sort
have been used by racists in the past. A certain amount of caution is
needed in considering them.
I do not believe that there is any more "ape" in an Orc than there is
in a Man. As I have noted before, if this is simply a statement of
shared DNA between Orc and Ape, then, as long as it is affirmed that
Orcs are derived from Man or Elf or both, the statement is not so much
wrong as inane. And, if it is inane, it is not racist.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
'Squat', by the way, is defined by the AskOxford site as 'short or
low, and disproportionately broad or wide' -- so even arms of normal
length would appear disproportionately long on Orcs.
Another good point -- the difference between what terrified Hobbits'Squat', by the way, is defined by the AskOxford site as 'short or
low, and disproportionately broad or wide' -- so even arms of normal
length would appear disproportionately long on Orcs.
expected to see (really long arms) and what they did see (normal-sized
arms on squat bodies).
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Derek Broughton
2010-03-28 20:48:52 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
| I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a
| lot
|of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
Note the absense of qualifiers: no "in my opinion"; no "I think that";
no "They look like" at the start of the second sentence. Just an
unqualified statement of fact.
The topic is, then, not whether the Orcs are described as being "like
apes", but whether they were /formed, at least in part, from apes/.
Context is everything - those lines were from an argument between me and| I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a
| lot
|of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
Note the absense of qualifiers: no "in my opinion"; no "I think that";
no "They look like" at the start of the second sentence. Just an
unqualified statement of fact.
The topic is, then, not whether the Orcs are described as being "like
apes", but whether they were /formed, at least in part, from apes/.
Ojevind, and while I disagreed with him, I never imagined that it
necessarily meant Orcs were formed from apes (though it equally doesn't mean
it couldn't be so). Any more than I expect Ojevind thought I meant Orcs
were formed entirely from humans (which again, could be so - but we know it
might not be, depending on how Tolkien was feeling at the time anyone
asked). When I said orcs were very crude humans, I was referring to
Tolkien's discussions of them, in which he mentions patterning their speech,
at least, on the lower classes he encountered (those would have been my
grandparents...). I felt Jackson had got that right, Ojevind felt he hadn't
(no surprise there) and that they were more apelike - but nobody would
suggest Jackson had actually envisioned some mad scientist merging ape DNA
with theirs because (a) he doesn't have that much imagination, and (b) he's
already showing us the Uruk Hai at least being sucked out of the earth.
Post by Paul S. Person
No good reason why they should be, really. They probably have a mouthful ofPost by Troels Forchhammer
We actually all have at least the remains of fangs. Presumably Elven
teeth are similar to human,
We actually all have at least the remains of fangs. Presumably Elven
teeth are similar to human,
molars, and chew side-to-side...
Post by Paul S. Person
I do that to the cat when he particularly annoys me...Post by Troels Forchhammer
Post by Paul S. Person
re: snarl
That was interesting: according the /American Heritage/
dictionary, a "snarl" is a vicious sound combined with bared
teeth. So, Shagrat was growling fiercely and baring his teeth.
People have been known to do that too, especially in battle.
re: snarl
That was interesting: according the /American Heritage/
dictionary, a "snarl" is a vicious sound combined with bared
teeth. So, Shagrat was growling fiercely and baring his teeth.
People have been known to do that too, especially in battle.
Post by Paul S. Person
I don't think so, not at all. I haven't seen /any/ trait assigned to
Orcs -- not even by terrified Hobbits -- that is "animal" in the sense
that Men do not exhibit it. Even the famous "long arms" may be a known
(but rare) trait of Men, albeit a developmental aberration.
That I completely agree with.I don't think so, not at all. I haven't seen /any/ trait assigned to
Orcs -- not even by terrified Hobbits -- that is "animal" in the sense
that Men do not exhibit it. Even the famous "long arms" may be a known
(but rare) trait of Men, albeit a developmental aberration.
Post by Paul S. Person
are /definitely/ not derived from animals and are based on extreme
Mongol stereotypes.
On extremities of human genotypes in general. I have no reason to believePost by Troels Forchhammer
In that infamous statement from the 1958 letter regarding the
Zimmerman story-line (#210), Tolkien doesn't just say that the Orcs
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the
'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were)
squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths
and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of
the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.
The Orcs are here described as _degraded_ versions even of the humans
they resemble most -- a degradation that is also implied in the
repeated attributions of bestial traits.
To you, perhaps. Not to me. To me, it implies what it says: that theyIn that infamous statement from the 1958 letter regarding the
Zimmerman story-line (#210), Tolkien doesn't just say that the Orcs
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the
'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were)
squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths
and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of
the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.
The Orcs are here described as _degraded_ versions even of the humans
they resemble most -- a degradation that is also implied in the
repeated attributions of bestial traits.
are /definitely/ not derived from animals and are based on extreme
Mongol stereotypes.
that the Orcs Tolkien envisaged were any less human-like than Jackson's,
though it's possible, but however inhuman Jackson's were, they were _all_
instantly recognizable as humans (as, of course, were the Elves and Istari)
to us. Because nothing _he_ did to them was outside the extremities of
human experience.
Post by Paul S. Person
Which is the crux - and for the life of me I can't quite decide who'sPost by Troels Forchhammer
Story externally we might
even say that the attribution to the Orcs of fangs, long arms and
other _physical_ beastial attributes is merely a way of emphasizing
the bestial behaviour of the Orcs, but within the narrative we must
accept these as true: the Orcs did have fangs, they did have
disproportionately long arms, they were prone to beastial growling or
snarling even when speaking, and above all they were behaving as
beasts.
Story externally we might
even say that the attribution to the Orcs of fangs, long arms and
other _physical_ beastial attributes is merely a way of emphasizing
the bestial behaviour of the Orcs, but within the narrative we must
accept these as true: the Orcs did have fangs, they did have
disproportionately long arms, they were prone to beastial growling or
snarling even when speaking, and above all they were behaving as
beasts.
arguing what. The orcs _act_ bestially. That doesn't _make_ them beasts.
Post by Paul S. Person
We know that such knowledge existed in the Shire, because Sam was able
to identify an Oliphaunt using it. Suppose there was something like
Short and squat
Yellowish skin
Long of fang
Arms to the ground
Claws on my arms
Snarling I run
Yoda am IWe know that such knowledge existed in the Shire, because Sam was able
to identify an Oliphaunt using it. Suppose there was something like
Short and squat
Yellowish skin
Long of fang
Arms to the ground
Claws on my arms
Snarling I run
--
derek
derek
Paul S. Person
2010-03-29 17:24:25 UTC
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:48:52 -0300, Derek Broughton
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
Post by Derek Broughton
Ojevind, and while I disagreed with him, I never imagined that it
necessarily meant Orcs were formed from apes (though it equally doesn't mean
it couldn't be so). Any more than I expect Ojevind thought I meant Orcs
were formed entirely from humans (which again, could be so - but we know it
might not be, depending on how Tolkien was feeling at the time anyone
asked). When I said orcs were very crude humans, I was referring to
Tolkien's discussions of them, in which he mentions patterning their speech,
at least, on the lower classes he encountered (those would have been my
grandparents...). I felt Jackson had got that right, Ojevind felt he hadn't
(no surprise there) and that they were more apelike - but nobody would
suggest Jackson had actually envisioned some mad scientist merging ape DNA
with theirs because (a) he doesn't have that much imagination, and (b) he's
already showing us the Uruk Hai at least being sucked out of the earth.
Indeed it is. Thanks for the clarification.Post by Paul S. Person
| I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a
| lot
|of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
Note the absense of qualifiers: no "in my opinion"; no "I think that";
no "They look like" at the start of the second sentence. Just an
unqualified statement of fact.
The topic is, then, not whether the Orcs are described as being "like
apes", but whether they were /formed, at least in part, from apes/.
Context is everything - those lines were from an argument between me and| I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There is a
| lot
|of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits.
Note the absense of qualifiers: no "in my opinion"; no "I think that";
no "They look like" at the start of the second sentence. Just an
unqualified statement of fact.
The topic is, then, not whether the Orcs are described as being "like
apes", but whether they were /formed, at least in part, from apes/.
Ojevind, and while I disagreed with him, I never imagined that it
necessarily meant Orcs were formed from apes (though it equally doesn't mean
it couldn't be so). Any more than I expect Ojevind thought I meant Orcs
were formed entirely from humans (which again, could be so - but we know it
might not be, depending on how Tolkien was feeling at the time anyone
asked). When I said orcs were very crude humans, I was referring to
Tolkien's discussions of them, in which he mentions patterning their speech,
at least, on the lower classes he encountered (those would have been my
grandparents...). I felt Jackson had got that right, Ojevind felt he hadn't
(no surprise there) and that they were more apelike - but nobody would
suggest Jackson had actually envisioned some mad scientist merging ape DNA
with theirs because (a) he doesn't have that much imagination, and (b) he's
already showing us the Uruk Hai at least being sucked out of the earth.
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
calvin
2010-03-29 18:03:23 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
...
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
Good, then maybe we can get back to the worst lines in the films....
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
I always refuse to read any posts about Tolkien's supposed
racism. Orcs are orcs, an inferior race. Deal with it.
Morgoth's Curse
2010-03-29 19:54:17 UTC
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT), calvin
thousands of years to exterminate orcs and never quite succeeded and
that they managed to flourish in spite of their mutual antipathy, I
would have to say that Orcs were probably one of the most versatile
and resilient races in any mythology. ^_^
In fact, that is perhaps one of the few legitimate criticisms of the
LoTR. Orcs are much too easily slain even though we know that they
are capable of incredible feats of endurance and cunning. It is
interesting to speculate on how Tolkien might have improved the tale
if he had been as interested in the villains as he was in the
heroes/heroines.
Morgoth's Curse
Post by calvin
I always refuse to read any posts about Tolkien's supposed
racism. Orcs are orcs, an inferior race. Deal with it.
Inferior? Considering that every other race in Middle-earth tried forPost by Paul S. Person
...
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
Good, then maybe we can get back to the worst lines in the films....
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
I always refuse to read any posts about Tolkien's supposed
racism. Orcs are orcs, an inferior race. Deal with it.
thousands of years to exterminate orcs and never quite succeeded and
that they managed to flourish in spite of their mutual antipathy, I
would have to say that Orcs were probably one of the most versatile
and resilient races in any mythology. ^_^
In fact, that is perhaps one of the few legitimate criticisms of the
LoTR. Orcs are much too easily slain even though we know that they
are capable of incredible feats of endurance and cunning. It is
interesting to speculate on how Tolkien might have improved the tale
if he had been as interested in the villains as he was in the
heroes/heroines.
Morgoth's Curse
calvin
2010-03-29 20:35:04 UTC
On Mar 29, 3:54 pm, Morgoth's Curse
goodness Tolkien lived and wrote before the advent of
political correctness.
Post by Morgoth's Curse
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT), calvin
thousands of years to exterminate orcs and never quite succeeded and
that they managed to flourish in spite of their mutual antipathy, I
would have to say that Orcs were probably one of the most versatile
and resilient races in any mythology. ^_^
In fact, that is perhaps one of the few legitimate criticisms of the
LoTR. Orcs are much too easily slain even though we know that they
are capable of incredible feats of endurance and cunning. It is
interesting to speculate on how Tolkien might have improved the tale
if he had been as interested in the villains as he was in the
heroes/heroines.
Morally inferior at any rate, and certainly ugly. ThankOn Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT), calvin
Post by calvin
I always refuse to read any posts about Tolkien's supposed
racism. Orcs are orcs, an inferior race. Deal with it.
Inferior? Considering that every other race in Middle-earth tried forPost by Paul S. Person
...
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
Good, then maybe we can get back to the worst lines in the films....
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
I always refuse to read any posts about Tolkien's supposed
racism. Orcs are orcs, an inferior race. Deal with it.
thousands of years to exterminate orcs and never quite succeeded and
that they managed to flourish in spite of their mutual antipathy, I
would have to say that Orcs were probably one of the most versatile
and resilient races in any mythology. ^_^
In fact, that is perhaps one of the few legitimate criticisms of the
LoTR. Orcs are much too easily slain even though we know that they
are capable of incredible feats of endurance and cunning. It is
interesting to speculate on how Tolkien might have improved the tale
if he had been as interested in the villains as he was in the
heroes/heroines.
goodness Tolkien lived and wrote before the advent of
political correctness.
Derek Broughton
2010-03-30 01:52:25 UTC
Post by Morgoth's Curse
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT), calvin
Maybe we should have included some racism, so that you wouldn't have readOn Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT), calvin
Post by calvin
I always refuse to read any posts about Tolkien's supposed
racism. Orcs are orcs, an inferior race. Deal with it.
Post by Paul S. Person
...
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
Good, then maybe we can get back to the worst lines in the films....
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
I always refuse to read any posts about Tolkien's supposed
racism. Orcs are orcs, an inferior race. Deal with it.
it. It really burns me when people want to stifle Usenet discussion because
it's drifted from the original topic. THIS discussion is far more
interesting that "Worst Line in the Films?"
Post by Morgoth's Curse
Inferior? Considering that every other race in Middle-earth tried for
thousands of years to exterminate orcs and never quite succeeded and
that they managed to flourish in spite of their mutual antipathy, I
would have to say that Orcs were probably one of the most versatile
and resilient races in any mythology. ^_^
Indeed. We've been talking about them being "degraded" and "bestial". IInferior? Considering that every other race in Middle-earth tried for
thousands of years to exterminate orcs and never quite succeeded and
that they managed to flourish in spite of their mutual antipathy, I
would have to say that Orcs were probably one of the most versatile
and resilient races in any mythology. ^_^
don't think anybody said "inferior".
--
derek
derek
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-30 10:03:37 UTC
Post by Derek Broughton
it. It really burns me when people want to stifle Usenet discussion because
it's drifted from the original topic. THIS discussion is far more
interesting that "Worst Line in the Films?"
I don't think one can deny that Tolkien had some racial prejudices of a kindPost by Morgoth's Curse
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT), calvin
Maybe we should have included some racism, so that you wouldn't have readOn Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT), calvin
Post by calvin
I always refuse to read any posts about Tolkien's supposed
racism. Orcs are orcs, an inferior race. Deal with it.
Post by Paul S. Person
...
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
Good, then maybe we can get back to the worst lines in the films....
We appear to agree (with, perhaps, a few minor differences in
emphasis) on everything else.
I always refuse to read any posts about Tolkien's supposed
racism. Orcs are orcs, an inferior race. Deal with it.
it. It really burns me when people want to stifle Usenet discussion because
it's drifted from the original topic. THIS discussion is far more
interesting that "Worst Line in the Films?"
typical for people of his generation. There is too much talk about blood and
bloodlines and how they affected the way people behaved, even the way they
were, for a denial of that to be credible. This is *not* to say that Tolkien
was a rabid racist or supported apartheid or anythinglike that.
Öjevind
calvin
2010-03-30 13:07:56 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I don't think one can deny that Tolkien had some racial prejudices of a kind
typical for people of his generation. There is too much talk about blood and
bloodlines and how they affected the way people behaved, even the way they
were, for a denial of that to be credible. This is *not* to say that Tolkien
was a rabid racist or supported apartheid or anythinglike that.
The most obnoxious thing to hear about Tolkien isI don't think one can deny that Tolkien had some racial prejudices of a kind
typical for people of his generation. There is too much talk about blood and
bloodlines and how they affected the way people behaved, even the way they
were, for a denial of that to be credible. This is *not* to say that Tolkien
was a rabid racist or supported apartheid or anythinglike that.
what you just wrote. Tolkien is very interested in the
various characteristics of the races of the peoples of
Middle-earth. That does not mean that he had any
racial prejudices whatever.
Write what you like in reply to this. I won't see it. I
just can't stand this willful misapprehension of Tolkien,
and I will not participate in it further.
Michael Ikeda
2010-03-30 21:59:22 UTC
Post by calvin
ind
and
y
ien
The most obnoxious thing to hear about Tolkien is
what you just wrote. Tolkien is very interested in the
various characteristics of the races of the peoples of
Middle-earth. That does not mean that he had any
racial prejudices whatever.
I think it is nearly impossible for anyone to have grown up whenind
and
y
ien
The most obnoxious thing to hear about Tolkien is
what you just wrote. Tolkien is very interested in the
various characteristics of the races of the peoples of
Middle-earth. That does not mean that he had any
racial prejudices whatever.
and where Tolkien did without absorbing at least some of the racial
prejudices that were pervaded all of society.
Saying that Tolkien had some racial prejudices is not obnoxious in
any sane sense. It simply means that he was human and grew up at a
time when certain racial prejudices were practically universal in
the social circles he lived in.
--
Michael Ikeda ***@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Michael Ikeda ***@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
calvin
2010-03-30 22:11:38 UTC
Post by Michael Ikeda
and where Tolkien did without absorbing at least some of the racial
prejudices that were pervaded all of society.
Saying that Tolkien had some racial prejudices is not obnoxious in
any sane sense. It simply means that he was human and grew up at a
time when certain racial prejudices were practically universal in
the social circles he lived in.
If Tolkien was racist, then so much the better for racism.Post by calvin
The most obnoxious thing to hear about Tolkien is
what you just wrote. Tolkien is very interested in the
various characteristics of the races of the peoples of
Middle-earth. That does not mean that he had any
racial prejudices whatever.
I think it is nearly impossible for anyone to have grown up whenThe most obnoxious thing to hear about Tolkien is
what you just wrote. Tolkien is very interested in the
various characteristics of the races of the peoples of
Middle-earth. That does not mean that he had any
racial prejudices whatever.
and where Tolkien did without absorbing at least some of the racial
prejudices that were pervaded all of society.
Saying that Tolkien had some racial prejudices is not obnoxious in
any sane sense. It simply means that he was human and grew up at a
time when certain racial prejudices were practically universal in
the social circles he lived in.
The way he was, whatever the way he was, produced
his writings. I wouldn't have them written any other way.
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-31 07:05:05 UTC
"calvin" <***@windstream.net> skrev i meddelandet news:fc92032a-17bc-4ca0-a8bf-***@u32g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
obsessed with bloodlines and "blood" in general.
Öjevind
[snip]
Post by calvin
If Tolkien was racist, then so much the better for racism.
The way he was, whatever the way he was, produced
his writings. I wouldn't have them written any other way.
I love LotR, but it would have been an even better book if he hadn't been soIf Tolkien was racist, then so much the better for racism.
The way he was, whatever the way he was, produced
his writings. I wouldn't have them written any other way.
obsessed with bloodlines and "blood" in general.
Öjevind
calvin
2010-03-31 13:38:25 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
obsessed with bloodlines and "blood" in general.
You are the one who is obsessed.Post by calvin
If Tolkien was racist, then so much the better for racism.
The way he was, whatever the way he was, produced
his writings. I wouldn't have them written any other way.
I love LotR, but it would have been an even better book if he hadn't been soIf Tolkien was racist, then so much the better for racism.
The way he was, whatever the way he was, produced
his writings. I wouldn't have them written any other way.
obsessed with bloodlines and "blood" in general.
Taemon
2010-03-31 07:22:21 UTC
Post by calvin
If Tolkien was racist, then so much the better for racism.
The way he was, whatever the way he was, produced
his writings. I wouldn't have them written any other way.
Uhm, I would personally burn the original manuscript of Lord of the Rings ifIf Tolkien was racist, then so much the better for racism.
The way he was, whatever the way he was, produced
his writings. I wouldn't have them written any other way.
it'd give us a racism-free world. I really hope you didn't mean that.
T.
Clams Canino
2010-03-30 22:18:25 UTC
Post by Michael Ikeda
Saying that Tolkien had some racial prejudices is not obnoxious in
any sane sense. It simply means that he was human and grew up at a
time when certain racial prejudices were practically universal in
the social circles he lived in.
Agreed.Saying that Tolkien had some racial prejudices is not obnoxious in
any sane sense. It simply means that he was human and grew up at a
time when certain racial prejudices were practically universal in
the social circles he lived in.
He was far less "racist" than the Europe around him overall.
-W
Derek Broughton
2010-03-30 13:04:10 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I don't think one can deny that Tolkien had some racial prejudices of a
kind typical for people of his generation. There is too much talk about
blood and bloodlines and how they affected the way people behaved, even
the way they were, for a denial of that to be credible. This is *not* to
say that Tolkien was a rabid racist or supported apartheid or anythinglike
that.
I wonder if it's even possible to judge from here where Tolkien would fallI don't think one can deny that Tolkien had some racial prejudices of a
kind typical for people of his generation. There is too much talk about
blood and bloodlines and how they affected the way people behaved, even
the way they were, for a denial of that to be credible. This is *not* to
say that Tolkien was a rabid racist or supported apartheid or anythinglike
that.
on a "racist scale" compared to other Englishmen of his time. I still
squirm to think of some of the things that came out of my father's mouth,
and he was a generation later, and yet my father, when dealing with
individuals, was probably the most egalitarian person I've ever known.
Compared to another well known individual of his time - Winston Churchill -
Tolkien was a saint.
--
derek
derek
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-30 13:34:19 UTC
Post by Derek Broughton
on a "racist scale" compared to other Englishmen of his time. I still
squirm to think of some of the things that came out of my father's mouth,
and he was a generation later, and yet my father, when dealing with
individuals, was probably the most egalitarian person I've ever known.
Compared to another well known individual of his time - Winston Churchill -
Tolkien was a saint.
Oh, no argument there. He could have been much worse. I just said that hePost by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I don't think one can deny that Tolkien had some racial prejudices of a
kind typical for people of his generation. There is too much talk about
blood and bloodlines and how they affected the way people behaved, even
the way they were, for a denial of that to be credible. This is *not* to
say that Tolkien was a rabid racist or supported apartheid or
anythinglike
that.
I wonder if it's even possible to judge from here where Tolkien would fallI don't think one can deny that Tolkien had some racial prejudices of a
kind typical for people of his generation. There is too much talk about
blood and bloodlines and how they affected the way people behaved, even
the way they were, for a denial of that to be credible. This is *not* to
say that Tolkien was a rabid racist or supported apartheid or
anythinglike
that.
on a "racist scale" compared to other Englishmen of his time. I still
squirm to think of some of the things that came out of my father's mouth,
and he was a generation later, and yet my father, when dealing with
individuals, was probably the most egalitarian person I've ever known.
Compared to another well known individual of his time - Winston Churchill -
Tolkien was a saint.
did have some prejudices, and I know you agree. I also think he should have
been a little less obsessed with bloodlines. If that had been the case, he
would have let Aragorn marry Èowyn, as he had he originally intended to,
instead of suddenly producing Arwen out of a hat, at a point when the book
was mostly written and there simply wasn't enough space to properly
introduce Arwen as anything other than a trophy bride. I believe many
readers have a more or less pronounced feeling of "wrongness" when it comes
to the interaction of Aragorn and Éowyn, and it is due to this change of
plot line by Tolkien. Simply put, his genealogical preoccupations overcame
his artistic instincts.
There is a rather interesting parallel between this error of judgment and
the case of Rebecca and Rowena in "Ivanhoe", though Sir Walter Scott can't
be blamed in the same way. His mistake was that he began to take a vivid and
sympathetic and interest in Rebecca, (as has every reader of the book after
him) and give her a bigger role than he had in all likelihood intended to.
It is clear that at first, he simply introduces Isaac of York and his
beautiful daughter in order to make a statement against anti-Semitism and
intolerance. He then lets Rebecca offer to pay for Ivanhoe's knightly
equipment if Ivanhoe will sport her favour; that shows will-power,
initiative and a refusal to "know one's place". Then the most villainous of
the Knights Templars becomes enamoured of Rebecca, kidnaps her and offers to
do anything for her if only she will become his lover. Nobody pays Rowena
that compliment! Rebecca rejects his pleas and threats with fortitude and
courage; not a whimper is heard from her. Then Ivanhoe has to free her from
getting burned at the stake and they ride off together. And then Ivanhoe has
to marry Rowena instead! We have hardly met Rowena; she is just the prize at
the end of the book. At the end of a book in which the readers has come to
care for and root for Rebecca.
Of course, Ivanhoe and Rebecca simply couldn't marry each other. He
couldn't convert to Judaism (it would have meant death, and anyway he is
presumably a believeing Christian), and if Rebecca were to convert to
Christianity, that would undercut the whole message of religious tolerance
Scott meant to convey. So we have to accept that Ivanhoe marries the wrong
bride, and it is noticeable how briefly Scott deals with their marriage.
Öjevind
Clams Canino
2010-03-30 19:24:40 UTC
Post by Derek Broughton
I wonder if it's even possible to judge from here where Tolkien would fall
on a "racist scale" compared to other Englishmen of his time. I still
squirm to think of some of the things that came out of my father's mouth,
and he was a generation later, and yet my father, when dealing with
individuals, was probably the most egalitarian person I've ever known.
Compared to another well known individual of his time - Winston Churchill -
Tolkien was a saint.
Well we do know from "letters" that at the time The Hobbit was set toI wonder if it's even possible to judge from here where Tolkien would fall
on a "racist scale" compared to other Englishmen of his time. I still
squirm to think of some of the things that came out of my father's mouth,
and he was a generation later, and yet my father, when dealing with
individuals, was probably the most egalitarian person I've ever known.
Compared to another well known individual of his time - Winston Churchill -
Tolkien was a saint.
publish in Germany - he thought them Nazis to be a rather silly lot with all
thier racist ideas.
W
Troels Forchhammer
2010-03-29 19:21:36 UTC
<snip>
clearly omnivores just as we are (we know they both hunted and ate
bread), and we could interbreed with them, suggesting that we were
in most respects alike. However, the only point of this was to avoid
the discussion of the origin of the Orcs, so it doesn't really
matter ;-)
<snip>
the Jackson films is reasonable except for the ears (which are
mainly just silly, IMO & YMMV) and skin-colour (which I think takes
'sallow' a tone or two too far). An example of this:
<Loading Image...
>
I certainly think they got the 'fangs' part just about right.
And as a counter-example to that, an orc-portrait I do _not_ think
is appropriate for Tolkien's orcs:
<Loading Image...
>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/l9pb9z>
(this is, of course, not created to be one of Tolkien's orcs, but
the very common picture of orcs with extremely large fangs that
stretch nearly to the eyes even with a closed mouth is so common
that I can't help but believe that it is ultimately based on
Tolkien's descriptions, though I would say that it is a
misinterpretation.)
Right -- having just a bit of extra time today, I did a search for
orc images by some of the best known Tolkien artists.
John Howe:
<http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/details.php?image_id=1050>
<http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/details.php?image_id=109>
Slightly exaggerated, perhaps, as one might expect in an artistic
rendering, but I think it stays within what I would see as
acceptable parameters.
Ted Nasmith.
<Loading Image...
>
<Loading Image...
>
I'm not completely certain that the enemies in the last one is
really orcs, but I think they are. Though I often have some
reservation with respect to Nasmith's characterization of people, I
think his orcs are pretty much spot-on. First class job, IMO.
Alan Lee:
<Loading Image...
>
<Loading Image...
>
<Loading Image...
>
The first picture goes, IMO, a bit too far in dehumanizing the orcs
(presumably the Uruk and the tracker orc that Frodo and Sam see in
the Morgai vale in Mordor), but the other two pictures are, I think,
quite fine depictions -- as with Howe there's the occasional bit of
exaggeration, but it stays within reasonable limits.
Well, even if it doesn't help the discussions, I've had a lot of fun
finding these pictures ;-)
I don't really think that Paul and I disagree on the beastiality of
the Orcs (though of course he ought to be allowed to have a say on
my latest message).
The Orcs in LotR do certainly _not_ have any animal (whether ape or
other) DNA in them.
They are portrayed as humanoids (i.e. of the same class of creatures
as Elves, Dwarves and Men), but degraded, degenerate and evil. A
part of this portrayal is to attribute to them certain traits which,
while they stay within the extremes of actual human variation, are
nevertheless commonly associated with something beast-like. This
includes traits that are, in real human beings, described as
atavistic, and which therefore invite the 'ape' similes and the use
of 'ape-like' alongside 'beast-like' to describe the Orcs.
The primary literary purpose of this, however, is IMO to describe
Orkish _behaviour_ is beastial -- the attribution of bestial /
atavistic traits to them is merely a means to that end, the literary
equivalent of showing rather than telling.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
- Frodo and Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Post by Derek Broughton
mouthful of molars, and chew side-to-side...
I think there are good reasons why they should be -- the Elves werePost by Paul S. Person
No good reason why they should be, really. They probably have aPost by Troels Forchhammer
We actually all have at least the remains of fangs. Presumably
Elven teeth are similar to human,
We actually all have at least the remains of fangs. Presumably
Elven teeth are similar to human,
mouthful of molars, and chew side-to-side...
clearly omnivores just as we are (we know they both hunted and ate
bread), and we could interbreed with them, suggesting that we were
in most respects alike. However, the only point of this was to avoid
the discussion of the origin of the Orcs, so it doesn't really
matter ;-)
<snip>
Post by Derek Broughton
On extremities of human genotypes in general. I have no reason to
believe that the Orcs Tolkien envisaged were any less human-like
than Jackson's, though it's possible, but however inhuman
Jackson's were, they were _all_ instantly recognizable as humans
(as, of course, were the Elves and Istari) to us. Because nothing
_he_ did to them was outside the extremities of human experience.
I agree entirely. Overall I think that the portrayal of the Orcs inOn extremities of human genotypes in general. I have no reason to
believe that the Orcs Tolkien envisaged were any less human-like
than Jackson's, though it's possible, but however inhuman
Jackson's were, they were _all_ instantly recognizable as humans
(as, of course, were the Elves and Istari) to us. Because nothing
_he_ did to them was outside the extremities of human experience.
the Jackson films is reasonable except for the ears (which are
mainly just silly, IMO & YMMV) and skin-colour (which I think takes
'sallow' a tone or two too far). An example of this:
<Loading Image...
>I certainly think they got the 'fangs' part just about right.
And as a counter-example to that, an orc-portrait I do _not_ think
is appropriate for Tolkien's orcs:
<Loading Image...
><http://preview.tinyurl.com/l9pb9z>
(this is, of course, not created to be one of Tolkien's orcs, but
the very common picture of orcs with extremely large fangs that
stretch nearly to the eyes even with a closed mouth is so common
that I can't help but believe that it is ultimately based on
Tolkien's descriptions, though I would say that it is a
misinterpretation.)
Right -- having just a bit of extra time today, I did a search for
orc images by some of the best known Tolkien artists.
John Howe:
<http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/details.php?image_id=1050>
<http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/details.php?image_id=109>
Slightly exaggerated, perhaps, as one might expect in an artistic
rendering, but I think it stays within what I would see as
acceptable parameters.
Ted Nasmith.
<Loading Image...
><Loading Image...
>I'm not completely certain that the enemies in the last one is
really orcs, but I think they are. Though I often have some
reservation with respect to Nasmith's characterization of people, I
think his orcs are pretty much spot-on. First class job, IMO.
Alan Lee:
<Loading Image...
><Loading Image...
><Loading Image...
>The first picture goes, IMO, a bit too far in dehumanizing the orcs
(presumably the Uruk and the tracker orc that Frodo and Sam see in
the Morgai vale in Mordor), but the other two pictures are, I think,
quite fine depictions -- as with Howe there's the occasional bit of
exaggeration, but it stays within reasonable limits.
Well, even if it doesn't help the discussions, I've had a lot of fun
finding these pictures ;-)
Post by Derek Broughton
who's arguing what. The orcs _act_ bestially. That doesn't
_make_ them beasts.
Exactly :-)Post by Paul S. Person
Which is the crux - and for the life of me I can't quite decidePost by Troels Forchhammer
Story externally we might even say that the attribution to the
Orcs of fangs, long arms and other _physical_ beastial attributes
is merely a way of emphasizing the bestial behaviour of the Orcs,
but within the narrative we must accept these as true: the Orcs
did have fangs, they did have disproportionately long arms, they
were prone to beastial growling or snarling even when speaking,
and above all they were behaving as beasts.
Story externally we might even say that the attribution to the
Orcs of fangs, long arms and other _physical_ beastial attributes
is merely a way of emphasizing the bestial behaviour of the Orcs,
but within the narrative we must accept these as true: the Orcs
did have fangs, they did have disproportionately long arms, they
were prone to beastial growling or snarling even when speaking,
and above all they were behaving as beasts.
who's arguing what. The orcs _act_ bestially. That doesn't
_make_ them beasts.
I don't really think that Paul and I disagree on the beastiality of
the Orcs (though of course he ought to be allowed to have a say on
my latest message).
The Orcs in LotR do certainly _not_ have any animal (whether ape or
other) DNA in them.
They are portrayed as humanoids (i.e. of the same class of creatures
as Elves, Dwarves and Men), but degraded, degenerate and evil. A
part of this portrayal is to attribute to them certain traits which,
while they stay within the extremes of actual human variation, are
nevertheless commonly associated with something beast-like. This
includes traits that are, in real human beings, described as
atavistic, and which therefore invite the 'ape' similes and the use
of 'ape-like' alongside 'beast-like' to describe the Orcs.
The primary literary purpose of this, however, is IMO to describe
Orkish _behaviour_ is beastial -- the attribution of bestial /
atavistic traits to them is merely a means to that end, the literary
equivalent of showing rather than telling.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
- Frodo and Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-29 19:45:40 UTC
"Troels Forchhammer" <***@ThisIsFake.invalid> skrev i meddelandet news:***@130.133.4.11...
[snip]
mini-orcs. If that's what they really looked like, I can understand that
Treebeard wanted to stomp on them. I'm just amazed that he managed to resist
the temptation.
do you mean by "dehumanizing" the orcs? They weren't human, merely humanoid.
where Elrond has *very* long ears - like a rabbit.
long, apelike arms, fangs, sallow or brown skins, slanted eyes that could
see in the dark, wide nostrils and so on, and there's no reason to think
that those descriptions are symbolical; but it is of course a valid point
that they might be depicted thus in order to reflect what their minds were
like.
Perhaps I should state, just to make things absolutely clear, that of
course I do *not* believe that the orcs really were apes or derived from
ape-stock, merely that in some ways, they rather looked and behaved like
apes.
Öjevind
[snip]
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Right -- having just a bit of extra time today, I did a search for
orc images by some of the best known Tolkien artists.
<http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/details.php?image_id=1050>
<http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/details.php?image_id=109>
Slightly exaggerated, perhaps, as one might expect in an artistic
rendering, but I think it stays within what I would see as
acceptable parameters.
Agreed, but I never imagined them wearing so much armour.Right -- having just a bit of extra time today, I did a search for
orc images by some of the best known Tolkien artists.
<http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/details.php?image_id=1050>
<http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/details.php?image_id=109>
Slightly exaggerated, perhaps, as one might expect in an artistic
rendering, but I think it stays within what I would see as
acceptable parameters.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Ted Nasmith.
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr2/TN-Boromirs_Last_Stand.jpg>
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-Storming_the_Bank.jpg>
I'm not completely certain that the enemies in the last one is
really orcs, but I think they are. Though I often have some
reservation with respect to Nasmith's characterization of people, I
think his orcs are pretty much spot-on. First class job, IMO.
I'm mostly struck by how nasty Merry and Pippin look - like veritableTed Nasmith.
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr2/TN-Boromirs_Last_Stand.jpg>
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-Storming_the_Bank.jpg>
I'm not completely certain that the enemies in the last one is
really orcs, but I think they are. Though I often have some
reservation with respect to Nasmith's characterization of people, I
think his orcs are pretty much spot-on. First class job, IMO.
mini-orcs. If that's what they really looked like, I can understand that
Treebeard wanted to stomp on them. I'm just amazed that he managed to resist
the temptation.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee44.jpg>
<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee39.jpg>
<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee34.jpg>
The first picture goes, IMO, a bit too far in dehumanizing the orcs
(presumably the Uruk and the tracker orc that Frodo and Sam see in
the Morgai vale in Mordor), but the other two pictures are, I think,
quite fine depictions -- as with Howe there's the occasional bit of
exaggeration, but it stays within reasonable limits.
I think those depictions are pretty good, including the first one. And what<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee44.jpg>
<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee39.jpg>
<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee34.jpg>
The first picture goes, IMO, a bit too far in dehumanizing the orcs
(presumably the Uruk and the tracker orc that Frodo and Sam see in
the Morgai vale in Mordor), but the other two pictures are, I think,
quite fine depictions -- as with Howe there's the occasional bit of
exaggeration, but it stays within reasonable limits.
do you mean by "dehumanizing" the orcs? They weren't human, merely humanoid.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Well, even if it doesn't help the discussions, I've had a lot of fun
finding these pictures ;-)
My favourite Tolkien picture on the Internet is the one drawn by some kidWell, even if it doesn't help the discussions, I've had a lot of fun
finding these pictures ;-)
where Elrond has *very* long ears - like a rabbit.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
You won't get an argument about that from me. We are told that the orcs hadPost by Troels Forchhammer
Story externally we might even say that the attribution to the
Orcs of fangs, long arms and other _physical_ beastial attributes
is merely a way of emphasizing the bestial behaviour of the Orcs,
but within the narrative we must accept these as true: the Orcs
did have fangs, they did have disproportionately long arms, they
were prone to beastial growling or snarling even when speaking,
and above all they were behaving as beasts.
Story externally we might even say that the attribution to the
Orcs of fangs, long arms and other _physical_ beastial attributes
is merely a way of emphasizing the bestial behaviour of the Orcs,
but within the narrative we must accept these as true: the Orcs
did have fangs, they did have disproportionately long arms, they
were prone to beastial growling or snarling even when speaking,
and above all they were behaving as beasts.
long, apelike arms, fangs, sallow or brown skins, slanted eyes that could
see in the dark, wide nostrils and so on, and there's no reason to think
that those descriptions are symbolical; but it is of course a valid point
that they might be depicted thus in order to reflect what their minds were
like.
Perhaps I should state, just to make things absolutely clear, that of
course I do *not* believe that the orcs really were apes or derived from
ape-stock, merely that in some ways, they rather looked and behaved like
apes.
Öjevind
Troels Forchhammer
2010-03-29 21:08:25 UTC
<snip>
[...]
Yes. Nasmith, in my highly subjective opinion, is often not very
good at drawing people -- I can't really put my finger at what is
wrong, but his persons often strike me as somehow 'off' -- but his
sceneries (where people are mostly just shapes) are stunningly
wonderful:
<Loading Image...
>
<Loading Image...
>
<Loading Image...
>
<Loading Image...
>
[...]
and Elves, and so it becomes a question of how distorted, which will
inevitably be a subjective matter. I merely feel that the first of
these pictures take it a bit too far -- it is mostly the smaller of
the orcs that I think is taken a bit too far from the human/elvish
origin -- the bigger warrior orc is quite good.
I should add a note of gratitude to both Howe and Nasmith for making
so much of their wonderful artwork available in good resolutions on
their own websites. I have not been able to find a personal website
for Alan Lee, and of course I cannot really know if the Swedish site
is actually authorized to post them, but given that it is using the
Swedish top level domain (.se) I choose to believe that it is posted
with Lee's permission, for which I am also grateful.
[...]
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
veritable mini-orcs. If that's what they really looked like, I can
understand that Treebeard wanted to stomp on them. I'm just amazed
that he managed to resist the temptation.
<laughing>Though I often have some reservation with respect to Nasmith's
characterization of people, I think his orcs are pretty much
spot-on. First class job, IMO.
I'm mostly struck by how nasty Merry and Pippin look - likecharacterization of people, I think his orcs are pretty much
spot-on. First class job, IMO.
veritable mini-orcs. If that's what they really looked like, I can
understand that Treebeard wanted to stomp on them. I'm just amazed
that he managed to resist the temptation.
Yes. Nasmith, in my highly subjective opinion, is often not very
good at drawing people -- I can't really put my finger at what is
wrong, but his persons often strike me as somehow 'off' -- but his
sceneries (where people are mostly just shapes) are stunningly
wonderful:
<Loading Image...
><Loading Image...
><Loading Image...
><Loading Image...
>[...]
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
[...]The first picture goes, IMO, a bit too far in dehumanizing the orcs
(presumably the Uruk and the tracker orc that Frodo and Sam see
in the Morgai vale in Mordor),
(presumably the Uruk and the tracker orc that Frodo and Sam see
in the Morgai vale in Mordor),
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I think those depictions are pretty good, including the first one.
And what do you mean by "dehumanizing" the orcs? They weren't
human, merely humanoid.
The Orcs are supposed to be distortions of the humanoid shape of MenI think those depictions are pretty good, including the first one.
And what do you mean by "dehumanizing" the orcs? They weren't
human, merely humanoid.
and Elves, and so it becomes a question of how distorted, which will
inevitably be a subjective matter. I merely feel that the first of
these pictures take it a bit too far -- it is mostly the smaller of
the orcs that I think is taken a bit too far from the human/elvish
origin -- the bigger warrior orc is quite good.
I should add a note of gratitude to both Howe and Nasmith for making
so much of their wonderful artwork available in good resolutions on
their own websites. I have not been able to find a personal website
for Alan Lee, and of course I cannot really know if the Swedish site
is actually authorized to post them, but given that it is using the
Swedish top level domain (.se) I choose to believe that it is posted
with Lee's permission, for which I am also grateful.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science
is blind.
- Albert Einstein
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science
is blind.
- Albert Einstein
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-30 13:40:01 UTC
[snip]
"Presently two orcs came into view. One was clad in ragged brown and was
armed with a bow of horn; it was of a small breed, black-skinned, with wide
and snuffling nostrils: evidently a tracker of some kind."
The tracker-orc seems quite apelike, if you'll pardon the expression.
Öjevind
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Yes. Nasmith, in my highly subjective opinion, is often not very
good at drawing people -- I can't really put my finger at what is
wrong, but his persons often strike me as somehow 'off' -- but his
sceneries (where people are mostly just shapes) are stunningly
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-Gandalf_Rides_to_Minas_Tirith.jpg>
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-The_Glittering_Caves.jpg>
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-At_the_Court_of_the_Fountain.jpg>
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-The_End_of_the_Age.jpg>
I agree. Beautiful.Yes. Nasmith, in my highly subjective opinion, is often not very
good at drawing people -- I can't really put my finger at what is
wrong, but his persons often strike me as somehow 'off' -- but his
sceneries (where people are mostly just shapes) are stunningly
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-Gandalf_Rides_to_Minas_Tirith.jpg>
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-The_Glittering_Caves.jpg>
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-At_the_Court_of_the_Fountain.jpg>
<http://www.tednasmith.com/lotr3/TN-The_End_of_the_Age.jpg>
Post by Troels Forchhammer
[...]
and Elves, and so it becomes a question of how distorted, which will
inevitably be a subjective matter. I merely feel that the first of
these pictures take it a bit too far -- it is mostly the smaller of
the orcs that I think is taken a bit too far from the human/elvish
origin -- the bigger warrior orc is quite good.
Still, the description of the smaller orc is quite inhuman, so to speak:[...]
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
[...]Post by Troels Forchhammer
The first picture goes, IMO, a bit too far in dehumanizing the orcs
(presumably the Uruk and the tracker orc that Frodo and Sam see
in the Morgai vale in Mordor),
The first picture goes, IMO, a bit too far in dehumanizing the orcs
(presumably the Uruk and the tracker orc that Frodo and Sam see
in the Morgai vale in Mordor),
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I think those depictions are pretty good, including the first one.
And what do you mean by "dehumanizing" the orcs? They weren't
human, merely humanoid.
The Orcs are supposed to be distortions of the humanoid shape of MenI think those depictions are pretty good, including the first one.
And what do you mean by "dehumanizing" the orcs? They weren't
human, merely humanoid.
and Elves, and so it becomes a question of how distorted, which will
inevitably be a subjective matter. I merely feel that the first of
these pictures take it a bit too far -- it is mostly the smaller of
the orcs that I think is taken a bit too far from the human/elvish
origin -- the bigger warrior orc is quite good.
"Presently two orcs came into view. One was clad in ragged brown and was
armed with a bow of horn; it was of a small breed, black-skinned, with wide
and snuffling nostrils: evidently a tracker of some kind."
The tracker-orc seems quite apelike, if you'll pardon the expression.
Öjevind
Taemon
2010-03-31 07:25:40 UTC
Thought I'd contribute that apes don't necessarily see better in the dark
than we do. They don't have slanted eyes, either.
T.
than we do. They don't have slanted eyes, either.
T.
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-31 07:32:58 UTC
Post by Taemon
Thought I'd contribute that apes don't necessarily see better in the dark
than we do. They don't have slanted eyes, either.
True. Of course, I didn't mean that they were blow-by-blow copeis of apes.Thought I'd contribute that apes don't necessarily see better in the dark
than we do. They don't have slanted eyes, either.
Öjevind
Taemon
2010-03-31 12:19:35 UTC
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
I know, but I've seen "sees in the dark" as an argument in this discussion.Post by Taemon
Thought I'd contribute that apes don't necessarily see better in the
dark than we do. They don't have slanted eyes, either.
True. Of course, I didn't mean that they were blow-by-blow copeis of apes.Thought I'd contribute that apes don't necessarily see better in the
dark than we do. They don't have slanted eyes, either.
It's not relevant. It wasn't aimed at anyone personally.
T.
Derek Broughton
2010-03-30 02:07:59 UTC
Post by Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
clearly omnivores just as we are (we know they both hunted and ate
bread), and we could interbreed with them, suggesting that we were
in most respects alike. However, the only point of this was to avoid
the discussion of the origin of the Orcs, so it doesn't really
matter ;-)
LOL. I should by now have learned that facetiousness will always bite me<snip>
Post by Derek Broughton
mouthful of molars, and chew side-to-side...
I think there are good reasons why they should be -- the Elves werePost by Paul S. Person
No good reason why they should be, really. They probably have aPost by Troels Forchhammer
We actually all have at least the remains of fangs. Presumably
Elven teeth are similar to human,
We actually all have at least the remains of fangs. Presumably
Elven teeth are similar to human,
mouthful of molars, and chew side-to-side...
clearly omnivores just as we are (we know they both hunted and ate
bread), and we could interbreed with them, suggesting that we were
in most respects alike. However, the only point of this was to avoid
the discussion of the origin of the Orcs, so it doesn't really
matter ;-)
here... But now you've really piqued my interest. I had forgotten that we
do in fact have an actual hunt in /The Hobbit/, but surely the description
of fare in Lothlorien is purely vegetarian.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
the Jackson films is reasonable except for the ears (which are
mainly just silly, IMO & YMMV) and skin-colour (which I think takes
'sallow' a tone or two too far).
Ah - but not the Uruk Hai!<snip>
Post by Derek Broughton
On extremities of human genotypes in general. I have no reason to
believe that the Orcs Tolkien envisaged were any less human-like
than Jackson's, though it's possible, but however inhuman
Jackson's were, they were _all_ instantly recognizable as humans
(as, of course, were the Elves and Istari) to us. Because nothing
_he_ did to them was outside the extremities of human experience.
I agree entirely. Overall I think that the portrayal of the Orcs inOn extremities of human genotypes in general. I have no reason to
believe that the Orcs Tolkien envisaged were any less human-like
than Jackson's, though it's possible, but however inhuman
Jackson's were, they were _all_ instantly recognizable as humans
(as, of course, were the Elves and Istari) to us. Because nothing
_he_ did to them was outside the extremities of human experience.
the Jackson films is reasonable except for the ears (which are
mainly just silly, IMO & YMMV) and skin-colour (which I think takes
'sallow' a tone or two too far).
Post by Troels Forchhammer
<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee44.jpg>
<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee39.jpg>
<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee34.jpg>
The first picture goes, IMO, a bit too far in dehumanizing the orcs
(presumably the Uruk and the tracker orc that Frodo and Sam see in
the Morgai vale in Mordor), but the other two pictures are, I think,
quite fine depictions -- as with Howe there's the occasional bit of
exaggeration, but it stays within reasonable limits.
Actually I really like that first one - the tracker is probably the least<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee44.jpg>
<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee39.jpg>
<http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/Tolkien/lee34.jpg>
The first picture goes, IMO, a bit too far in dehumanizing the orcs
(presumably the Uruk and the tracker orc that Frodo and Sam see in
the Morgai vale in Mordor), but the other two pictures are, I think,
quite fine depictions -- as with Howe there's the occasional bit of
exaggeration, but it stays within reasonable limits.
human-like of all the orcs we encounter (or at least has always seemed so to
me).
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Well, even if it doesn't help the discussions, I've had a lot of fun
finding these pictures ;-)
Thanks. Interesting variations.Well, even if it doesn't help the discussions, I've had a lot of fun
finding these pictures ;-)
--
derek
derek
Troels Forchhammer
2010-03-29 19:20:24 UTC
I guess we all know the feeling of hitting 'send' and five minutes
later slapping your forehead and wondering 'why did I put it like
that' or 'this was completely nonsense' or (perhaps more commonly)
'why didn't I say'. Well, I tried to stall this, and this is my
second attempt to respond to this (though I have my first attempt to
refer to where the argumentation is still, in my view, valid) -- then
we'll see if it makes any difference ;-) (I will inevitably still
repeat myself, but I hope to keep it at a lower level than it would
otherwise have been)
I've rearranged things slightly to achieve what I believe is a better
order -- I hope this is OK.
I will also add that everything, in particular when it comes to
literary interpretation and analysis, is very much 'in my opinion'
whether or not I remember to say this at every turn (sometimes one
does tend to forget to put in that 'I am convinced that' or just
'IMO').
the part that you didn't snip below this. This is because I think
this issue is really the main point of disagreement between the two
of us, and I'd like to explore this a little further. The issue that
I am referring to is particularly the interpretation of the narrative
conceit, and in particular the factual status of statements made in
the narrative voice.
not just to individual passages. What you are suggesting appears to
me to be a kind of pick and choose that is far more subjective (in
particular since it is based on what is really ad hoc arguments) --
you cannot IMO just arbitrarily decide that this passage is
objectively true (within the sub-created Secondary World) and that
the other is a subjective impression that is objectively untrue -- if
we accept that the narrative voice in one place is really that of
Tolkien, then this must extend to the whole book -- that the
narrative voice is Tolkien's (or, if you wish to stay within the
narrative conceit, that Tolkien supports and validates the narrative
voice by making it his own).
I don't think so. It is clearly _exactly_ what Pippin saw, but not in
the sense of 'how he later remembered it'. The whole point is that
this, in my considered opinion, is meant to be the objective truth of
the story. You have a valid point when it comes to statements made in
dialogue[#], but I am convinced that it is a mistake to apply this
also to the narrative voice.
[#] 'Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he
has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of
the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or
understand. (_Letters_ #153 to Peter Hastings, September 1954)
Tolkien wrote the book as if from the viewpoint of the hobbits is
_not_ the same as saying that it is not 'true' within the story --
that the orc did not actually stoop over Pippin, that the orc did not
have yellow fangs or that these fangs were not brought close to
Pippin's face. The viewpoint part has nothing to do with the
objective truth of the narrative, but with the _focus_ -- Aragorn
might have focused on the orc's eyes, but Pippin focuses on his
yellow fangs, but the orc unquestionably had both eyes and fangs.
If you claim that narrative focus (or viewpoint) makes the narrative
subjective in the sense that the veracity of certain elements can be
doubted, then I have to disagree strongly. The use of narrative focus
is a way to narrow which part of the sub-created reality that is
presented in the story, but it is[*] _not_ a way to present a 'this
is what the character remembers' account of the events: that kind of
subjectivity is presented in dialogue instead. The fact that Tolkien
also provided his stories with a tradition of transmission doesn't
change this -- they are still stories within a narrative tradition in
which the narrative voice is absolutely reliable.
If I have understood you correctly, then this is really at the heart
of any disagreement. I don't think that our views on Orcs are all
that different, though we may put it differently, but here I perceive
a real difference of opinion. So I will repeat my main position here:
I insist that the idea of narrative focus that Tolkien uses does not
make the narrative voice a subjective account in the sense that the
veracity of its statements can be doubted. The effect is that the
subjectively merely facilitates a choice of which facts to relate,
not the factual status of that which is related.
[*] At least in general -- there may very well be clear exceptions
to this, but Tolkien is not one of them.
In _The Hobbit_ Tolkien saw Gandalf as just the wandering magician
that was famed for his stories, his firework and for the magic
diamond studs he had given to the Old Took. Consequently that is how
he is portrayed throughout that book.
In _The Lord of the Rings_ Gandalf is never described as just a
wizard -- he is the Grey Wizard throughout, but this is also how he
is seen by the hobbit narrators.
In neither case is there any discrepancy between the views of the
author and of the focus character(s) -- Tolkien applies his own
knowledge to the narrator regardless of whom that, whithin the
narrative conceit, might be.
affected by emotion, but when you try to extend that to the final
narrative you are, in my honest opinion, making a mistake.
Moving on to the discussion of Tolkien's Orcs, starting with a
Within Tolkien's sub-creation neither of the races from which they
may derive (i.e. Elves and/or Men) are evolved from apes[%] and so
the Orcs are certainly _not_ derived from apes in any sense.
I doubt, however, that Öjevind meant the above statement in this way
-- I read it rather as an acknowledgement of the bestial traits that
are clearly attributed to the Orcs throughout the story -- adding
beastial traits to humanoids inevitably, at least to me, invokes some
ape-like traits, which is what I understood Öjevind to refer to.
If the above, however, is the idea that you are arguing against
(whether or not it was the idea Öje or anyone else intended to
propound), then we are certainly in full agreement in this respect,
and I understand your anxiety to refute it even if I believe you have
misinterpreted the intention.
[%] I am aware that it is an oversimplification of the view of modern
biology to say that humans descend from apes, but the main point
should be clear enough without going into the intricacies of the
evolution of the hominids.
I will try to cut down the discussion on individual traits take a
step back to look at the bigger picture.
<snip>
gone through all the book) described as having long arms at several
occasions (at least one of these orcs are so described more than once
-- unfortunately I don't now recall which one it was, though probably
it was Grishnákh) and in the narrative voice.
There are lots of this kind of bestial[&] references attributed to
Orcs in the book that hasn't yet been quoted in this thread, but I am
sure that you can keep coming up with ad Hoc reasons why the
narrative voice in each instance is not really a reliable witness, so
I don't think it will make much sense to go into these details.
I therefore urge that we try to take one step back and look not at
the individual statements, but at the mass of statements that apply
such bestial attributes to the Orcs: fangs, long arms, snarling,
growling, claws or that use beast similes for them: 'like apes',
'maggots' etc. The total effect is that the Orcs are very clearly
being portrayed in the narrative voice as having some beast-like
traits. This is not the same as saying that they are in any way
themselves beasts (though Tolkien also did consider that possibility)
or that they are derived from beasts -- it is merely that there is a
confluence of purposes here. Tolkien's literary purposes (portraying
the Orcs as degraded and evil) converges with Morgoth / Sauron's
purpose in creating them as fearsome and terrifying warriors.
[&] By 'bestial' in this context I don't mean that these traits
cannot be found among human beings, but that they nevertheless
in general do carry connotations of degeneration, degradation
and bestiality when applied to humans.
<snip>
me greater detail than this. I am imagining something rather like the
traditional breeding programmes of lifestock meant to emphasize
certain desirable traits, but combined with magic to speed it up and
probably to emphasize the desired traits further than would otherwise
have been possible.
The traits that Melkor and/or Sauron would want to emphasize would be
those that made the Orcs more efficient as soldiers: strength,
aggression, stamina, but also traits that simply made them more
terrifying to their opponents; such as fangs or longer arms.
<snip>
Men _do_ occasionally display bestial traits: their canine teeth may
be enlarged to look like fangs, their arms may be abnormally long,
they may growl or snarl, they may even have abnormal amounts of body
hair (not that this applies to Orcs) and other traits. Often such
traits when found in humans are described as atavisms[€], and this is
precisely what I mean. All these traits are normally considered
bestial traits even when found in humans, and by applying so many of
them to his Orcs, Tolkien does achieve the effect he wants -- the
Orcs are described as the debased, degraded and _bestial_ humanoids
(and certainly not 'humanoid beasts' whatever Tolkien might elsewhere
have considered).
The growling and snarling is another good example of this. You
rightly point out that both words are used also about humans, but in
both cases an appropriate reaction might be to tell the person to
'Stop that! You behave like a beast.' It is the animal behaviour that
is the basis for both words -- _dogs_ growl and snarl, and from there
has been applied to Men who behave like beasts.
You can't tell a person with disproportionately long arms to 'stop
that', but there will, in my opinion, be a clear prejudice against
such a person because this trait will be seen as bestial. This is
very often the case with atavistic conditions -- the people who
suffer from such a condition often find themselves the victims of a
strong prejudice that they are somehow more beast-like than normal
humans.
I believe that Tolkien is playing with some of these prejudices when
he attributes some of these bestial or atavistic traits to his Orcs.
[€] It took me ages to find the correct term here -- I had heard it,
but couldn't remember it :-)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism>
<snip>
stereotypes -- Tolkien himself invokes this particular stereotype in
his descriptions of the Orcs when he uses the ape simile at the
Battle of the Hornburg or when he has the orcs themselves use 'ape'
as an insult to other orcs.
In my view, however, you misapply it slightly when you apply it to
the narrative voice. This kind of prejudices by the characters are
not in my experience expressed in the narrative voice, but in
dialogue. The real 'target' here is the reader -- Tolkien attributes
his orcs with these bestial traits in order precisely to utilize the
stereotypes that this will invoke in his reader and therefore he
gives his orcs the attributes that will invoke the desired
stereotypes.
Given that genetics is put out of force by the direct creation by Eru
of Men and Elves, I would say that, genetically, there is less ape in
an Orc than there is in a real man, and exactly as much as there is
in a Middle-earth Man. That is, none.
But I don't think this is a matter of genetics at all. We are not
dealing with actual creatures, but with creatures in a tale, and they
can be attributed bestial or atavistic traits without changing the
genetics: it is a way to portray the degradation of the creatures to
attribute to them certain bestial traits, and with humanoids the
attribution of bestial traits often invokes the image of apes: the
picture of a best-like man is not so terribly far from the picture of
a man-like beast, an ape.
This doesn't mean that I think the Orcs are 'derived from apes' or
otherwise looks like apes above and beyond what has already been
discussed (long arms, fangs -- even descriptions of their hands as
'claws', though surely that, like the other attributes, is not meant
to be above and beyond what can in extreme cases be observed in
humans).
The whole point is that that Tolkien deliberately invokes the various
beast attributes for a literary purpose, but he cannot do that within
his narrative without reflecting back into the narrative. Invoking
these bestial attributes literarily, he also has to attribute them to
his Orcs within the story.
later slapping your forehead and wondering 'why did I put it like
that' or 'this was completely nonsense' or (perhaps more commonly)
'why didn't I say'. Well, I tried to stall this, and this is my
second attempt to respond to this (though I have my first attempt to
refer to where the argumentation is still, in my view, valid) -- then
we'll see if it makes any difference ;-) (I will inevitably still
repeat myself, but I hope to keep it at a lower level than it would
otherwise have been)
I've rearranged things slightly to achieve what I believe is a better
order -- I hope this is OK.
I will also add that everything, in particular when it comes to
literary interpretation and analysis, is very much 'in my opinion'
whether or not I remember to say this at every turn (sometimes one
does tend to forget to put in that 'I am convinced that' or just
'IMO').
Post by Paul S. Person
the above.
As you can see, I have re-inserted part of what you snipped, and putPost by Troels Forchhammer
I honestly believe it is a mistake to take the narrative conceit
to the point that you could argue with any statement in the
narrative voice and claim that it is possible that someone else
would have experienced it differently. It was natural to Tolkien
to build into his narrative a tradition of its transmission, but
this should not question the objective veracity (within the sub-
creation) of the story.
Sorry to break it off, but, really, I think your point is made inI honestly believe it is a mistake to take the narrative conceit
to the point that you could argue with any statement in the
narrative voice and claim that it is possible that someone else
would have experienced it differently. It was natural to Tolkien
to build into his narrative a tradition of its transmission, but
this should not question the objective veracity (within the sub-
creation) of the story.
the above.
the part that you didn't snip below this. This is because I think
this issue is really the main point of disagreement between the two
of us, and I'd like to explore this a little further. The issue that
I am referring to is particularly the interpretation of the narrative
conceit, and in particular the factual status of statements made in
the narrative voice.
Post by Paul S. Person
Narrator could know this", where the Narrator is JRRT, but the
passage cited isn't one of them (my thanks to TT Arvind for
My point was that this IMO extends to _all_ of the narrative voice,Post by Troels Forchhammer
Within the narrative conceit of the story, you are of course right
that _everything_ in the book is a subjective account (something
which would apply doubly to _The Hobbit_) written down by Bilbo,
Frodo and Sam based on the accounts of their friends -- primarily
these three themselves as well as Merry and Pippin, but if you
leave the narrative for a moment, it is clearly _Tolkien_ who is
saying these things in the narrative voice -- there are statements
made in that voice, for instance statements made about Shelob,
that no one could know, not even a Fourth Age loremaster in Gondor
would be able to know these details.
Yes, some things might fall into the category of "only theWithin the narrative conceit of the story, you are of course right
that _everything_ in the book is a subjective account (something
which would apply doubly to _The Hobbit_) written down by Bilbo,
Frodo and Sam based on the accounts of their friends -- primarily
these three themselves as well as Merry and Pippin, but if you
leave the narrative for a moment, it is clearly _Tolkien_ who is
saying these things in the narrative voice -- there are statements
made in that voice, for instance statements made about Shelob,
that no one could know, not even a Fourth Age loremaster in Gondor
would be able to know these details.
Narrator could know this", where the Narrator is JRRT, but the
passage cited isn't one of them (my thanks to TT Arvind for
not just to individual passages. What you are suggesting appears to
me to be a kind of pick and choose that is far more subjective (in
particular since it is based on what is really ad hoc arguments) --
you cannot IMO just arbitrarily decide that this passage is
objectively true (within the sub-created Secondary World) and that
the other is a subjective impression that is objectively untrue -- if
we accept that the narrative voice in one place is really that of
Tolkien, then this must extend to the whole book -- that the
narrative voice is Tolkien's (or, if you wish to stay within the
narrative conceit, that Tolkien supports and validates the narrative
voice by making it his own).
Post by Paul S. Person
Yes -- precisely!Post by Troels Forchhammer
This is /entirely/ what Pippin saw.Post by TT Arvind
"'If I had my way, you'd wish you were dead now,' said the
other. 'I'd make you squeak, you miserable rat.' He stooped over
Pippin bringing his yellow fangs close to his face."
"'If I had my way, you'd wish you were dead now,' said the
other. 'I'd make you squeak, you miserable rat.' He stooped over
Pippin bringing his yellow fangs close to his face."
I don't think so. It is clearly _exactly_ what Pippin saw, but not in
the sense of 'how he later remembered it'. The whole point is that
this, in my considered opinion, is meant to be the objective truth of
the story. You have a valid point when it comes to statements made in
dialogue[#], but I am convinced that it is a mistake to apply this
also to the narrative voice.
[#] 'Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he
has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of
the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or
understand. (_Letters_ #153 to Peter Hastings, September 1954)
Post by Paul S. Person
Sometimes I wonder if anyone else really takes seriously the idea
that the Red Book was written by Bilbo and Frodo -- that is, that
/TH/ and /LOTR/ (at least) were written by JRRT /as if they had
been written by Hobbits/ and so that what we read in them
represents that Hobbit viewpoint, and not necessarily that of the
Author.
There is still a significant difference as I see it. To say thatSometimes I wonder if anyone else really takes seriously the idea
that the Red Book was written by Bilbo and Frodo -- that is, that
/TH/ and /LOTR/ (at least) were written by JRRT /as if they had
been written by Hobbits/ and so that what we read in them
represents that Hobbit viewpoint, and not necessarily that of the
Author.
Tolkien wrote the book as if from the viewpoint of the hobbits is
_not_ the same as saying that it is not 'true' within the story --
that the orc did not actually stoop over Pippin, that the orc did not
have yellow fangs or that these fangs were not brought close to
Pippin's face. The viewpoint part has nothing to do with the
objective truth of the narrative, but with the _focus_ -- Aragorn
might have focused on the orc's eyes, but Pippin focuses on his
yellow fangs, but the orc unquestionably had both eyes and fangs.
If you claim that narrative focus (or viewpoint) makes the narrative
subjective in the sense that the veracity of certain elements can be
doubted, then I have to disagree strongly. The use of narrative focus
is a way to narrow which part of the sub-created reality that is
presented in the story, but it is[*] _not_ a way to present a 'this
is what the character remembers' account of the events: that kind of
subjectivity is presented in dialogue instead. The fact that Tolkien
also provided his stories with a tradition of transmission doesn't
change this -- they are still stories within a narrative tradition in
which the narrative voice is absolutely reliable.
If I have understood you correctly, then this is really at the heart
of any disagreement. I don't think that our views on Orcs are all
that different, though we may put it differently, but here I perceive
a real difference of opinion. So I will repeat my main position here:
I insist that the idea of narrative focus that Tolkien uses does not
make the narrative voice a subjective account in the sense that the
veracity of its statements can be doubted. The effect is that the
subjectively merely facilitates a choice of which facts to relate,
not the factual status of that which is related.
[*] At least in general -- there may very well be clear exceptions
to this, but Tolkien is not one of them.
Post by Paul S. Person
JRRT did not necessarily agree with every single thing
that he wrote from the viewpoint of the Hobbits -- had he done so,
Gandalf would just be a wandering magician famed for his
fireworks. That is what the Hobbits thought; JRRT thought
otherwise.
I am honestly perplexed here -- I don't understand what you mean.JRRT did not necessarily agree with every single thing
that he wrote from the viewpoint of the Hobbits -- had he done so,
Gandalf would just be a wandering magician famed for his
fireworks. That is what the Hobbits thought; JRRT thought
otherwise.
In _The Hobbit_ Tolkien saw Gandalf as just the wandering magician
that was famed for his stories, his firework and for the magic
diamond studs he had given to the Old Took. Consequently that is how
he is portrayed throughout that book.
In _The Lord of the Rings_ Gandalf is never described as just a
wizard -- he is the Grey Wizard throughout, but this is also how he
is seen by the hobbit narrators.
In neither case is there any discrepancy between the views of the
author and of the focus character(s) -- Tolkien applies his own
knowledge to the narrator regardless of whom that, whithin the
narrative conceit, might be.
Post by Paul S. Person
There is, of course, a difference between what may be loosely
called the "Silmarillion material", including most of /HOME/ (the
Bilbo was dealing with these issues long after the fact, and in
condensed form, and so did not have to contend with the emotional
nature of, say, Pippin's memory of the encounter recorded above.
It seems unlikely that Pippin's memory of the encounter would not beThere is, of course, a difference between what may be loosely
called the "Silmarillion material", including most of /HOME/ (the
Bilbo was dealing with these issues long after the fact, and in
condensed form, and so did not have to contend with the emotional
nature of, say, Pippin's memory of the encounter recorded above.
affected by emotion, but when you try to extend that to the final
narrative you are, in my honest opinion, making a mistake.
Moving on to the discussion of Tolkien's Orcs, starting with a
Post by Paul S. Person
| I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There
| is a lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human
| traits.
Note the absense of qualifiers: no "in my opinion"; no "I think
that"; no "They look like" at the start of the second sentence.
Just an unqualified statement of fact.
The topic is, then, not whether the Orcs are described as being
"like apes", but whether they were /formed, at least in part, from
apes/.
I have not, nor will I, claim that the Orcs are derived from apes.| I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There
| is a lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human
| traits.
Note the absense of qualifiers: no "in my opinion"; no "I think
that"; no "They look like" at the start of the second sentence.
Just an unqualified statement of fact.
The topic is, then, not whether the Orcs are described as being
"like apes", but whether they were /formed, at least in part, from
apes/.
Within Tolkien's sub-creation neither of the races from which they
may derive (i.e. Elves and/or Men) are evolved from apes[%] and so
the Orcs are certainly _not_ derived from apes in any sense.
I doubt, however, that Öjevind meant the above statement in this way
-- I read it rather as an acknowledgement of the bestial traits that
are clearly attributed to the Orcs throughout the story -- adding
beastial traits to humanoids inevitably, at least to me, invokes some
ape-like traits, which is what I understood Öjevind to refer to.
If the above, however, is the idea that you are arguing against
(whether or not it was the idea Öje or anyone else intended to
propound), then we are certainly in full agreement in this respect,
and I understand your anxiety to refute it even if I believe you have
misinterpreted the intention.
[%] I am aware that it is an oversimplification of the view of modern
biology to say that humans descend from apes, but the main point
should be clear enough without going into the intricacies of the
evolution of the hominids.
I will try to cut down the discussion on individual traits take a
step back to look at the bigger picture.
<snip>
Post by Paul S. Person
You have at least three orcs (there might well be others -- I haven'tPost by Troels Forchhammer
Grishnákh is, by the way, also described as having 'long arms that
hung almost to the ground' and the Orc that catches Pippin when he
had dropped the brooch is merely described as 'long arms and hard
claws'.
Described by terrified Hobbits.Grishnákh is, by the way, also described as having 'long arms that
hung almost to the ground' and the Orc that catches Pippin when he
had dropped the brooch is merely described as 'long arms and hard
claws'.
gone through all the book) described as having long arms at several
occasions (at least one of these orcs are so described more than once
-- unfortunately I don't now recall which one it was, though probably
it was Grishnákh) and in the narrative voice.
There are lots of this kind of bestial[&] references attributed to
Orcs in the book that hasn't yet been quoted in this thread, but I am
sure that you can keep coming up with ad Hoc reasons why the
narrative voice in each instance is not really a reliable witness, so
I don't think it will make much sense to go into these details.
I therefore urge that we try to take one step back and look not at
the individual statements, but at the mass of statements that apply
such bestial attributes to the Orcs: fangs, long arms, snarling,
growling, claws or that use beast similes for them: 'like apes',
'maggots' etc. The total effect is that the Orcs are very clearly
being portrayed in the narrative voice as having some beast-like
traits. This is not the same as saying that they are in any way
themselves beasts (though Tolkien also did consider that possibility)
or that they are derived from beasts -- it is merely that there is a
confluence of purposes here. Tolkien's literary purposes (portraying
the Orcs as degraded and evil) converges with Morgoth / Sauron's
purpose in creating them as fearsome and terrifying warriors.
[&] By 'bestial' in this context I don't mean that these traits
cannot be found among human beings, but that they nevertheless
in general do carry connotations of degeneration, degradation
and bestiality when applied to humans.
<snip>
Post by Paul S. Person
Something like that ;-) I am not a biologist, so please don't ask ofPost by Troels Forchhammer
We actually all have at least the remains of fangs. Presumably
Elven teeth are similar to human, and it thus doesn't matter from
what stock the Orcs were originally bred: there would be some pre-
existing, but very small and whimpy, 'fangs' that could be
enlarged through a carefully magic-enhanced breeding programme.
Or direct manipulation of (if I have the term right) the homeobox.We actually all have at least the remains of fangs. Presumably
Elven teeth are similar to human, and it thus doesn't matter from
what stock the Orcs were originally bred: there would be some pre-
existing, but very small and whimpy, 'fangs' that could be
enlarged through a carefully magic-enhanced breeding programme.
me greater detail than this. I am imagining something rather like the
traditional breeding programmes of lifestock meant to emphasize
certain desirable traits, but combined with magic to speed it up and
probably to emphasize the desired traits further than would otherwise
have been possible.
The traits that Melkor and/or Sauron would want to emphasize would be
those that made the Orcs more efficient as soldiers: strength,
aggression, stamina, but also traits that simply made them more
terrifying to their opponents; such as fangs or longer arms.
<snip>
Post by Paul S. Person
to Orcs -- not even by terrified Hobbits -- that is "animal" in
the sense that Men do not exhibit it. Even the famous "long arms"
may be a known (but rare) trait of Men, albeit a developmental
aberration.
Sorry, I clearly didn't make my intention very clear.Post by Troels Forchhammer
Tolkien is carefully attributing many bestial traits to the Orcs.
All of the above qualities are some that we associate with beasts
rather than with humans (or Eruhíni), but this is really just
saying that it was an essential part of the breeding of the Orcs
to make them more bestial in both appearance and behaviour -- in
more modern evolutionary terms, the Orcs represent a reversal of
evolution to a more primitive, more ape-like, stage in our
evolution (but without significantly compromising intelligence).
I don't think so, not at all. I haven't seen /any/ trait assignedTolkien is carefully attributing many bestial traits to the Orcs.
All of the above qualities are some that we associate with beasts
rather than with humans (or Eruhíni), but this is really just
saying that it was an essential part of the breeding of the Orcs
to make them more bestial in both appearance and behaviour -- in
more modern evolutionary terms, the Orcs represent a reversal of
evolution to a more primitive, more ape-like, stage in our
evolution (but without significantly compromising intelligence).
to Orcs -- not even by terrified Hobbits -- that is "animal" in
the sense that Men do not exhibit it. Even the famous "long arms"
may be a known (but rare) trait of Men, albeit a developmental
aberration.
Men _do_ occasionally display bestial traits: their canine teeth may
be enlarged to look like fangs, their arms may be abnormally long,
they may growl or snarl, they may even have abnormal amounts of body
hair (not that this applies to Orcs) and other traits. Often such
traits when found in humans are described as atavisms[€], and this is
precisely what I mean. All these traits are normally considered
bestial traits even when found in humans, and by applying so many of
them to his Orcs, Tolkien does achieve the effect he wants -- the
Orcs are described as the debased, degraded and _bestial_ humanoids
(and certainly not 'humanoid beasts' whatever Tolkien might elsewhere
have considered).
The growling and snarling is another good example of this. You
rightly point out that both words are used also about humans, but in
both cases an appropriate reaction might be to tell the person to
'Stop that! You behave like a beast.' It is the animal behaviour that
is the basis for both words -- _dogs_ growl and snarl, and from there
has been applied to Men who behave like beasts.
You can't tell a person with disproportionately long arms to 'stop
that', but there will, in my opinion, be a clear prejudice against
such a person because this trait will be seen as bestial. This is
very often the case with atavistic conditions -- the people who
suffer from such a condition often find themselves the victims of a
strong prejudice that they are somehow more beast-like than normal
humans.
I believe that Tolkien is playing with some of these prejudices when
he attributes some of these bestial or atavistic traits to his Orcs.
[€] It took me ages to find the correct term here -- I had heard it,
but couldn't remember it :-)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism>
<snip>
Post by Paul S. Person
And, given, JRRT's description, it can be said, as it can always
be said of stereotypes, that there is some truth to it. The
problem with stereotypes is not that they are false (well, until
they get so exaggerated as to be clearly rediculous); the problem
is that they are invariably negative and so negatively affect
interactions on the one hand and that they do not apply to any
specific individual or, rather, that individuals to which they
apply are few and far between. They are denials of individuality
and, like all components of racism, have the effect of treating
the subjects as non-humans by treating them as all the same.
And that is the problem with the claim "There is a lot of ape in
them as well": it is not necessarily racist, but statements of
that sort have been used by racists in the past. A certain amount
of caution is needed in considering them.
I don't really disagree with anything that you say here aboutAnd, given, JRRT's description, it can be said, as it can always
be said of stereotypes, that there is some truth to it. The
problem with stereotypes is not that they are false (well, until
they get so exaggerated as to be clearly rediculous); the problem
is that they are invariably negative and so negatively affect
interactions on the one hand and that they do not apply to any
specific individual or, rather, that individuals to which they
apply are few and far between. They are denials of individuality
and, like all components of racism, have the effect of treating
the subjects as non-humans by treating them as all the same.
And that is the problem with the claim "There is a lot of ape in
them as well": it is not necessarily racist, but statements of
that sort have been used by racists in the past. A certain amount
of caution is needed in considering them.
stereotypes -- Tolkien himself invokes this particular stereotype in
his descriptions of the Orcs when he uses the ape simile at the
Battle of the Hornburg or when he has the orcs themselves use 'ape'
as an insult to other orcs.
In my view, however, you misapply it slightly when you apply it to
the narrative voice. This kind of prejudices by the characters are
not in my experience expressed in the narrative voice, but in
dialogue. The real 'target' here is the reader -- Tolkien attributes
his orcs with these bestial traits in order precisely to utilize the
stereotypes that this will invoke in his reader and therefore he
gives his orcs the attributes that will invoke the desired
stereotypes.
Post by Paul S. Person
I do not believe that there is any more "ape" in an Orc than there
is in a Man.
This depends, I would say, completely on what you mean by 'in' . . .I do not believe that there is any more "ape" in an Orc than there
is in a Man.
Given that genetics is put out of force by the direct creation by Eru
of Men and Elves, I would say that, genetically, there is less ape in
an Orc than there is in a real man, and exactly as much as there is
in a Middle-earth Man. That is, none.
But I don't think this is a matter of genetics at all. We are not
dealing with actual creatures, but with creatures in a tale, and they
can be attributed bestial or atavistic traits without changing the
genetics: it is a way to portray the degradation of the creatures to
attribute to them certain bestial traits, and with humanoids the
attribution of bestial traits often invokes the image of apes: the
picture of a best-like man is not so terribly far from the picture of
a man-like beast, an ape.
This doesn't mean that I think the Orcs are 'derived from apes' or
otherwise looks like apes above and beyond what has already been
discussed (long arms, fangs -- even descriptions of their hands as
'claws', though surely that, like the other attributes, is not meant
to be above and beyond what can in extreme cases be observed in
humans).
The whole point is that that Tolkien deliberately invokes the various
beast attributes for a literary purpose, but he cannot do that within
his narrative without reflecting back into the narrative. Invoking
these bestial attributes literarily, he also has to attribute them to
his Orcs within the story.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind. -
/Reaper Man/ (Terry Pratchett)
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind. -
/Reaper Man/ (Terry Pratchett)
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-29 19:53:07 UTC
[snip]
apes or somehow formed from ape stock. When I wrote: "There
is a lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits", I
referred to how they are depicted - arms almost reaching to the ground,
fangs like caricatured gorillas, the recurring comparisons to apes, the rest
of it - and certainly not making some kind of claim about their ancestry.
How could I? Tolkien made different and contradictory statements about their
origins, but he never said they were apes or the descendants of apes.
Öjevind
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Moving on to the discussion of Tolkien's Orcs, starting with a
Within Tolkien's sub-creation neither of the races from which they
may derive (i.e. Elves and/or Men) are evolved from apes[%] and so
the Orcs are certainly _not_ derived from apes in any sense.
I doubt, however, that Öjevind meant the above statement in this way
-- I read it rather as an acknowledgement of the bestial traits that
are clearly attributed to the Orcs throughout the story -- adding
beastial traits to humanoids inevitably, at least to me, invokes some
ape-like traits, which is what I understood Öjevind to refer to.
If the above, however, is the idea that you are arguing against
(whether or not it was the idea Öje or anyone else intended to
propound), then we are certainly in full agreement in this respect,
and I understand your anxiety to refute it even if I believe you have
misinterpreted the intention.
You have summed it up very well. Of course I did not mean that the Orcs wereMoving on to the discussion of Tolkien's Orcs, starting with a
Post by Paul S. Person
| I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There
| is a lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human
| traits.
Note the absense of qualifiers: no "in my opinion"; no "I think
that"; no "They look like" at the start of the second sentence.
Just an unqualified statement of fact.
The topic is, then, not whether the Orcs are described as being
"like apes", but whether they were /formed, at least in part, from
apes/.
I have not, nor will I, claim that the Orcs are derived from apes.| I also disagree that the orcs are just "very crude humans". There
| is a lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human
| traits.
Note the absense of qualifiers: no "in my opinion"; no "I think
that"; no "They look like" at the start of the second sentence.
Just an unqualified statement of fact.
The topic is, then, not whether the Orcs are described as being
"like apes", but whether they were /formed, at least in part, from
apes/.
Within Tolkien's sub-creation neither of the races from which they
may derive (i.e. Elves and/or Men) are evolved from apes[%] and so
the Orcs are certainly _not_ derived from apes in any sense.
I doubt, however, that Öjevind meant the above statement in this way
-- I read it rather as an acknowledgement of the bestial traits that
are clearly attributed to the Orcs throughout the story -- adding
beastial traits to humanoids inevitably, at least to me, invokes some
ape-like traits, which is what I understood Öjevind to refer to.
If the above, however, is the idea that you are arguing against
(whether or not it was the idea Öje or anyone else intended to
propound), then we are certainly in full agreement in this respect,
and I understand your anxiety to refute it even if I believe you have
misinterpreted the intention.
apes or somehow formed from ape stock. When I wrote: "There
is a lot of ape in them as well, in addition to other non-human traits", I
referred to how they are depicted - arms almost reaching to the ground,
fangs like caricatured gorillas, the recurring comparisons to apes, the rest
of it - and certainly not making some kind of claim about their ancestry.
How could I? Tolkien made different and contradictory statements about their
origins, but he never said they were apes or the descendants of apes.
Öjevind
Derek Broughton
2010-03-30 01:48:58 UTC
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Yes -- precisely!
I don't think so. It is clearly _exactly_ what Pippin saw, but not in
the sense of 'how he later remembered it'. The whole point is that
this, in my considered opinion, is meant to be the objective truth of
the story. You have a valid point when it comes to statements made in
dialogue[#], but I am convinced that it is a mistake to apply this
also to the narrative voice.
[#] 'Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he
has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of
the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or
understand. (_Letters_ #153 to Peter Hastings, September 1954)
Tolkien wrote the book as if from the viewpoint of the hobbits is
_not_ the same as saying that it is not 'true' within the story --
that the orc did not actually stoop over Pippin, that the orc did not
have yellow fangs or that these fangs were not brought close to
Pippin's face.
No, but I think you _must_ accept that this story is supposed to be whatYes -- precisely!
I don't think so. It is clearly _exactly_ what Pippin saw, but not in
the sense of 'how he later remembered it'. The whole point is that
this, in my considered opinion, is meant to be the objective truth of
the story. You have a valid point when it comes to statements made in
dialogue[#], but I am convinced that it is a mistake to apply this
also to the narrative voice.
[#] 'Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he
has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of
the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or
understand. (_Letters_ #153 to Peter Hastings, September 1954)
Post by Paul S. Person
Sometimes I wonder if anyone else really takes seriously the idea
that the Red Book was written by Bilbo and Frodo -- that is, that
/TH/ and /LOTR/ (at least) were written by JRRT /as if they had
been written by Hobbits/ and so that what we read in them
represents that Hobbit viewpoint, and not necessarily that of the
Author.
There is still a significant difference as I see it. To say thatSometimes I wonder if anyone else really takes seriously the idea
that the Red Book was written by Bilbo and Frodo -- that is, that
/TH/ and /LOTR/ (at least) were written by JRRT /as if they had
been written by Hobbits/ and so that what we read in them
represents that Hobbit viewpoint, and not necessarily that of the
Author.
Tolkien wrote the book as if from the viewpoint of the hobbits is
_not_ the same as saying that it is not 'true' within the story --
that the orc did not actually stoop over Pippin, that the orc did not
have yellow fangs or that these fangs were not brought close to
Pippin's face.
Bilbo, Frodo and Sam wrote, mostly from their own recollections, and from
those of their friends where they weren't present. If we are to accept that
the narrator has any power to say anything that is not part of their
recollections is to discard that whole premise. This is why we're
uncomfortable with the talking fox - because we KNOW that none of the
contributors to the Red Book actually heard him.
--
derek
derek
Paul S. Person
2010-03-30 18:30:15 UTC
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:48:58 -0300, Derek Broughton
<snippo>
I would also point out that, between the Field of Cormallen and the
return to the Shire, the Hobbits had several months in which to
discuss their adventures with the Wise. Thus, for example, it is not
impossible that much of the material on Shelob that a Hobbit would not
have known is something that the Wise (Gandalf the White, Elrond,
Galadriel, perhaps Glorfindel and various loremasters if they
accompanied Elrond) could have surmised, and discussed with Frodo.
But I do agree that some items /are/ pure JRRT, and the talking
(thinking) fox is one of them.
I think a list of items that we are /not/ told about because nobody in
the story could possibly have known them can be made:
1. Saurman's conversations with Sauron.
2. Denethor's interactions with Sauron.
3. Whether Aragorn's revealing himself to Sauron resulted in Sauron's
revealing him to Denethor, putting Denethor in a lose-lose situation
(lose Gondor to Sauron or lose rule of Gondor to Aragorn) -- which
might help explain his attitude and behavior.
4. Whether Pippin woke Sauron from a good night's sleep when he
called.
5. If so, what sort of 'jammies and/or slippers Sauron was wearing.
6. With very few exceptions, just exactly what Sauron was up to during
the bulk of the story.
and, from /TH/,
1. What actually happened when the White Council moved against the
Necromancer.
No doubt others can be identified, if anyone wishes to make the
effort.
<snippo>
Post by Derek Broughton
Bilbo, Frodo and Sam wrote, mostly from their own recollections, and from
those of their friends where they weren't present. If we are to accept that
the narrator has any power to say anything that is not part of their
recollections is to discard that whole premise. This is why we're
uncomfortable with the talking fox - because we KNOW that none of the
contributors to the Red Book actually heard him.
Well put.Post by Troels Forchhammer
Tolkien wrote the book as if from the viewpoint of the hobbits is
_not_ the same as saying that it is not 'true' within the story --
that the orc did not actually stoop over Pippin, that the orc did not
have yellow fangs or that these fangs were not brought close to
Pippin's face.
No, but I think you _must_ accept that this story is supposed to be whatPost by Paul S. Person
Sometimes I wonder if anyone else really takes seriously the idea
that the Red Book was written by Bilbo and Frodo -- that is, that
/TH/ and /LOTR/ (at least) were written by JRRT /as if they had
been written by Hobbits/ and so that what we read in them
represents that Hobbit viewpoint, and not necessarily that of the
Author.
There is still a significant difference as I see it. To say thatSometimes I wonder if anyone else really takes seriously the idea
that the Red Book was written by Bilbo and Frodo -- that is, that
/TH/ and /LOTR/ (at least) were written by JRRT /as if they had
been written by Hobbits/ and so that what we read in them
represents that Hobbit viewpoint, and not necessarily that of the
Author.
Tolkien wrote the book as if from the viewpoint of the hobbits is
_not_ the same as saying that it is not 'true' within the story --
that the orc did not actually stoop over Pippin, that the orc did not
have yellow fangs or that these fangs were not brought close to
Pippin's face.
Bilbo, Frodo and Sam wrote, mostly from their own recollections, and from
those of their friends where they weren't present. If we are to accept that
the narrator has any power to say anything that is not part of their
recollections is to discard that whole premise. This is why we're
uncomfortable with the talking fox - because we KNOW that none of the
contributors to the Red Book actually heard him.
I would also point out that, between the Field of Cormallen and the
return to the Shire, the Hobbits had several months in which to
discuss their adventures with the Wise. Thus, for example, it is not
impossible that much of the material on Shelob that a Hobbit would not
have known is something that the Wise (Gandalf the White, Elrond,
Galadriel, perhaps Glorfindel and various loremasters if they
accompanied Elrond) could have surmised, and discussed with Frodo.
But I do agree that some items /are/ pure JRRT, and the talking
(thinking) fox is one of them.
I think a list of items that we are /not/ told about because nobody in
the story could possibly have known them can be made:
1. Saurman's conversations with Sauron.
2. Denethor's interactions with Sauron.
3. Whether Aragorn's revealing himself to Sauron resulted in Sauron's
revealing him to Denethor, putting Denethor in a lose-lose situation
(lose Gondor to Sauron or lose rule of Gondor to Aragorn) -- which
might help explain his attitude and behavior.
4. Whether Pippin woke Sauron from a good night's sleep when he
called.
5. If so, what sort of 'jammies and/or slippers Sauron was wearing.
6. With very few exceptions, just exactly what Sauron was up to during
the bulk of the story.
and, from /TH/,
1. What actually happened when the White Council moved against the
Necromancer.
No doubt others can be identified, if anyone wishes to make the
effort.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Paul S. Person
2010-03-30 18:16:09 UTC
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:20:24 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
<snippo all>
I'm sorry, but this is getting a bit overwhelming.
Which is a bit odd, since we appear to be in agreement, at least in
general.
<snippo all>
I'm sorry, but this is getting a bit overwhelming.
Which is a bit odd, since we appear to be in agreement, at least in
general.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
JJ
2010-03-26 11:20:06 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
Cats? Dogs? Foxes? All mentioned in LotR ...In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
Julian Bradfield
2010-03-26 11:47:13 UTC
Post by JJ
Hmmm, so why are there no large predators, or even medium sizedPost by Paul S. Person
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
Cats? Dogs? Foxes? All mentioned in LotR ...In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
predators, in the Shire? Or come to that, no large ruminants.
Were they all hunted to extinction during the Arnorian era?
Paul S. Person
2010-03-26 17:27:12 UTC
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:47:13 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield
the time of /TH/ or /LOTR/.
The largest wild animal in the Shire appears to be a fox. But, of
course, foxes must eat, so smaller herbivores (rabbits, squirrels)
must have been around as well.
I seem to recall a reference to "ham and eggs"; if we take this
seriously, then chickens and pigs are implied. Of course, if these
were rarities, they could have been imported.
Then again, given the reference to "fish and chips", it is not clear
how seriously "ham and eggs" is to be taken, if present.
I don't recall what the clothes were made of. If of wool, sheep would
be indicated. Or the cloth could have been imported.
Of course, the Shire, if it was to import anything, had to be
producing /something/ that it could export; that's simple economics.
So we can't attribute /everything/ to imports!
And, to some extent, of course, tobacco was exported.
I don't think it made it into /LOTR/ as published, but some of the
earlier versions in /HOME/ stated that the Shire was originally a
Royal Hunting Preserve (in effect, those words were not actually
used), and that one of the conditions placed on the Hobbits was that
the Royal Hunt would still be allowed. (If so, this right was
relinquished by Aragorn at the end of /LOTR/.)
The Royal Hunt would, of course, have been a major production, with
the entire court in attendance and living in tents ("pavilions") as
they moved about in the Shire for a month or more. The Hobbits,
presumably, would be expected to know where the hunting was good; and
the economy, presumably, benefitted from an influx of silver (if not
gold) to purchase supplies.
The Shire is described as a bucolic rural agricultural community. It
is possible that, after the Kings vanished and so no longer came to
hunt, the Hobbits cleared the Shire of any larger wild animals,
especially the carnivores, or, perhaps, destroyed enough habitat to
convince them to move on.
So, while it seems unlikely that the King would allow animals suitable
for the Royal Hunt to go extinct during his reign, afterwards they
appear to have disappeared, for one reason or another.
Post by Julian Bradfield
predators, in the Shire? Or come to that, no large ruminants.
Were they all hunted to extinction during the Arnorian era?
Wolves were known from past incursions, but, IIRC, were not present atPost by JJ
Hmmm, so why are there no large predators, or even medium sizedPost by Paul S. Person
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
Cats? Dogs? Foxes? All mentioned in LotR ...In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
predators, in the Shire? Or come to that, no large ruminants.
Were they all hunted to extinction during the Arnorian era?
the time of /TH/ or /LOTR/.
The largest wild animal in the Shire appears to be a fox. But, of
course, foxes must eat, so smaller herbivores (rabbits, squirrels)
must have been around as well.
I seem to recall a reference to "ham and eggs"; if we take this
seriously, then chickens and pigs are implied. Of course, if these
were rarities, they could have been imported.
Then again, given the reference to "fish and chips", it is not clear
how seriously "ham and eggs" is to be taken, if present.
I don't recall what the clothes were made of. If of wool, sheep would
be indicated. Or the cloth could have been imported.
Of course, the Shire, if it was to import anything, had to be
producing /something/ that it could export; that's simple economics.
So we can't attribute /everything/ to imports!
And, to some extent, of course, tobacco was exported.
I don't think it made it into /LOTR/ as published, but some of the
earlier versions in /HOME/ stated that the Shire was originally a
Royal Hunting Preserve (in effect, those words were not actually
used), and that one of the conditions placed on the Hobbits was that
the Royal Hunt would still be allowed. (If so, this right was
relinquished by Aragorn at the end of /LOTR/.)
The Royal Hunt would, of course, have been a major production, with
the entire court in attendance and living in tents ("pavilions") as
they moved about in the Shire for a month or more. The Hobbits,
presumably, would be expected to know where the hunting was good; and
the economy, presumably, benefitted from an influx of silver (if not
gold) to purchase supplies.
The Shire is described as a bucolic rural agricultural community. It
is possible that, after the Kings vanished and so no longer came to
hunt, the Hobbits cleared the Shire of any larger wild animals,
especially the carnivores, or, perhaps, destroyed enough habitat to
convince them to move on.
So, while it seems unlikely that the King would allow animals suitable
for the Royal Hunt to go extinct during his reign, afterwards they
appear to have disappeared, for one reason or another.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
JJ
2010-03-27 17:05:52 UTC
Post by Julian Bradfield
predators, in the Shire? Or come to that, no large ruminants.
Were they all hunted to extinction during the Arnorian era?
The same reason that they don't exist in England: they were got ridPost by JJ
Hmmm, so why are there no large predators, or even medium sizedPost by Paul S. Person
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
Cats? Dogs? Foxes? All mentioned in LotR ...In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
predators, in the Shire? Or come to that, no large ruminants.
Were they all hunted to extinction during the Arnorian era?
of, or hunted out.
Derek Broughton
2010-03-26 14:26:47 UTC
Post by JJ
Surely you just make Paul's point - none of those have "fangs" of anyPost by Paul S. Person
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
Cats? Dogs? Foxes? All mentioned in LotR ...In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
significance. I would consider a fang to be a tooth that extends well
outside the mouth - which applies just barely to cats (you rarely notice
them, but when a cat rubs against your hand it becomes obvious), and only in
some breeds of dogs. I'm sure it must not apply to foxes, or they'd lisp
when they talk.
--
derek
derek
Paul S. Person
2010-03-26 17:05:03 UTC
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:26:47 -0300, Derek Broughton
last wolf incursion.
Wolves probably explain why the concept of "fang" was known; but it
was abstract knowledge, and there is no reason to believe that a
Hobbit would be able to distinguish between an actual fang and a
large, prominent tooth. Especially when terrified by the large,
prominent tooth's possessor.
And, since there is no record of Orcs being in the Shire, any
description of Orcs (such as: fanged, walks stooped over, arms reach
the ground, climbs like an ape) learned by Hobbits in their youth
might have influenced how they viewed the actual Orcs they
encountered. That's how stereotypes work: you see what you expect to
see and ignore the rest.
Post by Derek Broughton
significance. I would consider a fang to be a tooth that extends well
outside the mouth - which applies just barely to cats (you rarely notice
them, but when a cat rubs against your hand it becomes obvious), and only in
some breeds of dogs. I'm sure it must not apply to foxes, or they'd lisp
when they talk.
Wolves, on the other hand ... but, IIRC, it had been awhile since thePost by JJ
Surely you just make Paul's point - none of those have "fangs" of anyPost by Paul S. Person
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
Cats? Dogs? Foxes? All mentioned in LotR ...In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
significance. I would consider a fang to be a tooth that extends well
outside the mouth - which applies just barely to cats (you rarely notice
them, but when a cat rubs against your hand it becomes obvious), and only in
some breeds of dogs. I'm sure it must not apply to foxes, or they'd lisp
when they talk.
last wolf incursion.
Wolves probably explain why the concept of "fang" was known; but it
was abstract knowledge, and there is no reason to believe that a
Hobbit would be able to distinguish between an actual fang and a
large, prominent tooth. Especially when terrified by the large,
prominent tooth's possessor.
And, since there is no record of Orcs being in the Shire, any
description of Orcs (such as: fanged, walks stooped over, arms reach
the ground, climbs like an ape) learned by Hobbits in their youth
might have influenced how they viewed the actual Orcs they
encountered. That's how stereotypes work: you see what you expect to
see and ignore the rest.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
JJ
2010-03-27 17:10:47 UTC
Post by Derek Broughton
significance. I would consider a fang to be a tooth that extends well
outside the mouth - which applies just barely to cats (you rarely notice
them, but when a cat rubs against your hand it becomes obvious), and only in
some breeds of dogs. I'm sure it must not apply to foxes, or they'd lisp
when they talk.
--
derek
A cat is a small person with fur and fangs (Garfield). A tooth whichPost by JJ
Surely you just make Paul's point - none of those have "fangs" of anyPost by Paul S. Person
In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
Cats? Dogs? Foxes? All mentioned in LotR ...In other words, JRRT had a /character/ say this. That character, if it
was a Hobbit from the Shire, most likely would have known "fangs" only
from stories. I mean, just what animal would he have seen in the Shire
with fangs? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh, my!
significance. I would consider a fang to be a tooth that extends well
outside the mouth - which applies just barely to cats (you rarely notice
them, but when a cat rubs against your hand it becomes obvious), and only in
some breeds of dogs. I'm sure it must not apply to foxes, or they'd lisp
when they talk.
--
derek
extends well outside the mouth is a tusk, I would have thought? Lift
Fido's or Tibbles' lip and you will see fangs aplenty - long pointed
teeth for rending flesh.
And the famous fox didn't talk, even with a lisp; just thought?
Paul S. Person
2010-03-21 18:16:24 UTC
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:13:08 -0300, Derek Broughton
<***@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
<snippo>
to be that Dwarves are sprinters and /not/ long-distance runners?
Dubious as the claim to be sprinters (natural or unnatural) might be,
is this not intended as Gimli's excuse for why he can't keep up?
<***@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
<snippo>
Post by Derek Broughton
I agree with either Noel or A Student's choice of "dwarves are natural
sprinters" as at least among the worst. It's not only ridiculous out of the
mouth of a dwarf, but simply wrong. He didn't _mean_ "sprinter", he meant
"distance runner", unless perhaps there was a level of sarcasm that
completely escaped me through repeated viewings.
It's been a while since I saw the film, but isn't the /point/ supposedI agree with either Noel or A Student's choice of "dwarves are natural
sprinters" as at least among the worst. It's not only ridiculous out of the
mouth of a dwarf, but simply wrong. He didn't _mean_ "sprinter", he meant
"distance runner", unless perhaps there was a level of sarcasm that
completely escaped me through repeated viewings.
to be that Dwarves are sprinters and /not/ long-distance runners?
Dubious as the claim to be sprinters (natural or unnatural) might be,
is this not intended as Gimli's excuse for why he can't keep up?
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Derek Broughton
2010-03-22 14:16:37 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:13:08 -0300, Derek Broughton
<snippo>
to be that Dwarves are sprinters and /not/ long-distance runners?
Dubious as the claim to be sprinters (natural or unnatural) might be,
is this not intended as Gimli's excuse for why he can't keep up?
I may very well have missed the whole point - but if a joke needs to beOn Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:13:08 -0300, Derek Broughton
<snippo>
Post by Derek Broughton
I agree with either Noel or A Student's choice of "dwarves are natural
sprinters" as at least among the worst. It's not only ridiculous out of the
mouth of a dwarf, but simply wrong. He didn't _mean_ "sprinter", he meant
"distance runner", unless perhaps there was a level of sarcasm that
completely escaped me through repeated viewings.
It's been a while since I saw the film, but isn't the /point/ supposedI agree with either Noel or A Student's choice of "dwarves are natural
sprinters" as at least among the worst. It's not only ridiculous out of the
mouth of a dwarf, but simply wrong. He didn't _mean_ "sprinter", he meant
"distance runner", unless perhaps there was a level of sarcasm that
completely escaped me through repeated viewings.
to be that Dwarves are sprinters and /not/ long-distance runners?
Dubious as the claim to be sprinters (natural or unnatural) might be,
is this not intended as Gimli's excuse for why he can't keep up?
explained, it wasn't a very good one.
I thought he was saying that he was lagging behind for now, but would
eventually pass the others.
--
derek
derek
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
2010-03-22 20:31:18 UTC
Post by Derek Broughton
explained, it wasn't a very good one.
I thought he was saying that he was lagging behind for now, but would
eventually pass the others.
I understood it the way Mr. Person did - as cheap excuse, and braggingPost by Paul S. Person
It's been a while since I saw the film, but isn't the /point/ supposed
to be that Dwarves are sprinters and /not/ long-distance runners?
Dubious as the claim to be sprinters (natural or unnatural) might be,
is this not intended as Gimli's excuse for why he can't keep up?
I may very well have missed the whole point - but if a joke needs to beIt's been a while since I saw the film, but isn't the /point/ supposed
to be that Dwarves are sprinters and /not/ long-distance runners?
Dubious as the claim to be sprinters (natural or unnatural) might be,
is this not intended as Gimli's excuse for why he can't keep up?
explained, it wasn't a very good one.
I thought he was saying that he was lagging behind for now, but would
eventually pass the others.
at the same time. "Sorry, I'm a wimp and can't keep up with you on
this long distance. I'd beat you all on a 100m run, though. You
wouldn't stand a chance! I would totally destroy you! Har har! Hey...
gasp gasp... wait for me!!!"
Oh, and then there's his line from Helm's Deep: "Toss me!"
Noel
Paul S. Person
2010-03-23 18:18:57 UTC
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:31:18 -0700 (PDT), "Noel Q. von Schneiffel"
or more. Aragorn could not possibly toss him far enough; it would take
a ballista rated for stones that heavy to do it.
Post by Noel Q. von Schneiffel
at the same time. "Sorry, I'm a wimp and can't keep up with you on
this long distance. I'd beat you all on a 100m run, though. You
wouldn't stand a chance! I would totally destroy you! Har har! Hey...
gasp gasp... wait for me!!!"
Oh, and then there's his line from Helm's Deep: "Toss me!"
Yes, that was stupid: in his armor, Gimli must have weighed 500 poundsPost by Derek Broughton
explained, it wasn't a very good one.
I thought he was saying that he was lagging behind for now, but would
eventually pass the others.
I understood it the way Mr. Person did - as cheap excuse, and braggingPost by Paul S. Person
It's been a while since I saw the film, but isn't the /point/ supposed
to be that Dwarves are sprinters and /not/ long-distance runners?
Dubious as the claim to be sprinters (natural or unnatural) might be,
is this not intended as Gimli's excuse for why he can't keep up?
I may very well have missed the whole point - but if a joke needs to beIt's been a while since I saw the film, but isn't the /point/ supposed
to be that Dwarves are sprinters and /not/ long-distance runners?
Dubious as the claim to be sprinters (natural or unnatural) might be,
is this not intended as Gimli's excuse for why he can't keep up?
explained, it wasn't a very good one.
I thought he was saying that he was lagging behind for now, but would
eventually pass the others.
at the same time. "Sorry, I'm a wimp and can't keep up with you on
this long distance. I'd beat you all on a 100m run, though. You
wouldn't stand a chance! I would totally destroy you! Har har! Hey...
gasp gasp... wait for me!!!"
Oh, and then there's his line from Helm's Deep: "Toss me!"
or more. Aragorn could not possibly toss him far enough; it would take
a ballista rated for stones that heavy to do it.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
2010-03-24 22:48:11 UTC
Post by Paul S. Person
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:31:18 -0700 (PDT), "Noel Q. von Schneiffel"
Yes, that was stupid: in his armor, Gimli must have weighed 500 pounds
or more. Aragorn could not possibly toss him far enough; it would take
a ballista rated for stones that heavy to do it.
The truth is, movie-Gimli had his head full of hot air. That gave himOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:31:18 -0700 (PDT), "Noel Q. von Schneiffel"
Yes, that was stupid: in his armor, Gimli must have weighed 500 pounds
or more. Aragorn could not possibly toss him far enough; it would take
a ballista rated for stones that heavy to do it.
enough updraft that a man could lift him.
But while we are at the subject of tossing:
"You have elected... the way... of PAIN!!!"
(Saruman, whilst flinging Gandalf up through a suddenly surprisingly
hollow Orthanc)
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-25 12:19:20 UTC
Post by Noel Q. von Schneiffel
enough updraft that a man could lift him.
Noel, you are a genius! But it seems you don't know that the original planPost by Paul S. Person
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:31:18 -0700 (PDT), "Noel Q. von Schneiffel"
Yes, that was stupid: in his armor, Gimli must have weighed 500 pounds
or more. Aragorn could not possibly toss him far enough; it would take
a ballista rated for stones that heavy to do it.
The truth is, movie-Gimli had his head full of hot air. That gave himOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:31:18 -0700 (PDT), "Noel Q. von Schneiffel"
Yes, that was stupid: in his armor, Gimli must have weighed 500 pounds
or more. Aragorn could not possibly toss him far enough; it would take
a ballista rated for stones that heavy to do it.
enough updraft that a man could lift him.
was to give Gimli the Ring and let him float into Mordor and drop the Ring
in the Crack of Doom. A few flattering words woud have sufficed to make him
go aloft.
Of course, I find the dwarf-tossing references far too late 20th century
anyway, truly stuff that makes me wince. Anyone who thinks Gimli or Legolas
capable of saying such things, or that Dwarf-tossing could be a recognizable
element in the cutural and moral ambience of Tolkien's world, has clearly
shown himself unable to grasp the most elementary things about it - and
about Tolkien.
Post by Noel Q. von Schneiffel
"You have elected... the way... of PAIN!!!"
(Saruman, whilst flinging Gandalf up through a suddenly surprisingly
hollow Orthanc)
I had forgotten that one. In fact, the gormless lines in the films are"You have elected... the way... of PAIN!!!"
(Saruman, whilst flinging Gandalf up through a suddenly surprisingly
hollow Orthanc)
probably too many to memorize. Even so, when Harry Knowles from Ain't It
Cool News posted some script drafts in the Tolkien newsgroups, the reactions
here apparently helped deepsix a few inanities. For example, the idea of
letting Arwen sneak up on Aragorn from behind *on horseback* without him
hearing anything.
Öjevind
JJ
2010-03-22 12:52:41 UTC
Post by JJ
I thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt some
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
I don't begin to see the problem with the first. istr, we're told that OrcsI thought that was quite funny ... my worst one was 'Lets go hunt some
orc!' Was this really scripted or did Mortensen go all American?
_do_ have a sense of humor, of a particularly crude sort, and this line
seems perfectly appropriate to me. Generally, I thought the orcs were done
pretty well - they were, essentially, very crude humans. Just what Tolkien
described.
The second is weak, but hardly close to a "worst line". Yeah, Mortenson
went all American - not terribly surprising for an American - but is there
any particularly good reason why he should use English or Kiwi idiom
instead?
NZ actors speak English Received Pronunciation: American accents
sound rediculous in historical or fantasy films. An American accent
was fine for Luke Skywalker or Han Solo but not for Aragorn (or Robin
Hood).
Actually, we had this discussion years ago when the films were first
announced; the Americans on the forum felt all rejected and
miffed! :o)
Clams Canino
2010-03-22 20:04:52 UTC
"JJ" <***@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38cd58f8-af17-439f-98b8-
Probably the reason why Jackson made all the American, Australian and
NZ actors speak English Received Pronunciation: American accents
sound rediculous in historical or fantasy films. An American accent
was fine for Luke Skywalker or Han Solo but not for Aragorn (or Robin
Hood).
Actually, we had this discussion years ago when the films were first
announced; the Americans on the forum felt all rejected and
miffed! :o)
I totally agree.
And I can't come up with a "worst line" per se.
It seems I put all the bad ones in the same bag and try to forget them.
-W
news:38cd58f8-af17-439f-98b8-
Probably the reason why Jackson made all the American, Australian and
NZ actors speak English Received Pronunciation: American accents
sound rediculous in historical or fantasy films. An American accent
was fine for Luke Skywalker or Han Solo but not for Aragorn (or Robin
Hood).
Actually, we had this discussion years ago when the films were first
announced; the Americans on the forum felt all rejected and
miffed! :o)
I totally agree.
And I can't come up with a "worst line" per se.
It seems I put all the bad ones in the same bag and try to forget them.
-W
Troels Forchhammer
2010-03-22 23:27:03 UTC
In message <news:***@earthlink.com>
"Clams Canino" <cc-***@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
<snip>
Neither can I, really.
I can come up with a 'worst moment' without hesitation (Frodo sending
Sam away), but this has nothing to do with the quality of the lines
(neither in terms of the script nor the acting).
But of course, if I was to sit through the films for the purpose of
finding bad lines, I could doubtlessly come up with a fair bunch that
are bad for various reasons :-)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Scientific reasoning works only with measurements: only
when we have a number and a unit. Thus, topics for which
we have no measurements, scientific investigation is not
useful. No math, no science. When we do have
measurements, scientific reasoning cannot be ignored.
- Dr Nancy's Sweetie on usenet
Message-ID: <ds159c$p45$***@pcls4.std.com>
"Clams Canino" <cc-***@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
<snip>
Neither can I, really.
I can come up with a 'worst moment' without hesitation (Frodo sending
Sam away), but this has nothing to do with the quality of the lines
(neither in terms of the script nor the acting).
But of course, if I was to sit through the films for the purpose of
finding bad lines, I could doubtlessly come up with a fair bunch that
are bad for various reasons :-)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Scientific reasoning works only with measurements: only
when we have a number and a unit. Thus, topics for which
we have no measurements, scientific investigation is not
useful. No math, no science. When we do have
measurements, scientific reasoning cannot be ignored.
- Dr Nancy's Sweetie on usenet
Message-ID: <ds159c$p45$***@pcls4.std.com>
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-23 10:56:22 UTC
Post by Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
Neither can I, really.
I can come up with a 'worst moment' without hesitation (Frodo sending
Sam away), but this has nothing to do with the quality of the lines
(neither in terms of the script nor the acting).
The episode you mention is really bad, but I think there are others which<snip>
Neither can I, really.
I can come up with a 'worst moment' without hesitation (Frodo sending
Sam away), but this has nothing to do with the quality of the lines
(neither in terms of the script nor the acting).
are at least as bad. How about Denethor, the Gluttonous Roman Emperor,
telling Faramir, without looking up from his meal of chicken, that he wants
him to recapture Osgiliath? Or Denethor on the pyre, suddenly discovering
that he is on fire (you can actually see him think: "Oh, shit! I'm
burning!") and running to a convenient breach in the parapet to jump out?
That one makes me think of Monty Python.
Öjevind
TT Arvind
2010-03-23 13:11:27 UTC
Or Denethor on the pyre, suddenly discovering that he is on fire
(you can actually see him think: "Oh, shit! I'm burning!") and
running to a convenient breach in the parapet to jump out?
That one makes me think of Monty Python.
The scene that made me think of Monty Python was the battle between(you can actually see him think: "Oh, shit! I'm burning!") and
running to a convenient breach in the parapet to jump out?
That one makes me think of Monty Python.
Aragorn and Lurtz. I swear I expected Lurtz to say "It's only a flesh
wound" as Aragorn kept hacking bits of him off.
--
Arvind
Öjevind Lång
2010-03-23 13:26:16 UTC
Post by TT Arvind
Aragorn and Lurtz. I swear I expected Lurtz to say "It's only a flesh
wound" as Aragorn kept hacking bits of him off.
If only PJ had let him shout after Aragorn: "Come back, you coward!"Or Denethor on the pyre, suddenly discovering that he is on fire
(you can actually see him think: "Oh, shit! I'm burning!") and
running to a convenient breach in the parapet to jump out?
That one makes me think of Monty Python.
The scene that made me think of Monty Python was the battle between(you can actually see him think: "Oh, shit! I'm burning!") and
running to a convenient breach in the parapet to jump out?
That one makes me think of Monty Python.
Aragorn and Lurtz. I swear I expected Lurtz to say "It's only a flesh
wound" as Aragorn kept hacking bits of him off.
Öjevind
Paul S. Person
2010-03-23 18:20:57 UTC
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:26:16 +0100, Öjevind Lång
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
Both ideas would certainly have, er, enhanced the experience.Post by TT Arvind
Aragorn and Lurtz. I swear I expected Lurtz to say "It's only a flesh
wound" as Aragorn kept hacking bits of him off.
If only PJ had let him shout after Aragorn: "Come back, you coward!"Or Denethor on the pyre, suddenly discovering that he is on fire
(you can actually see him think: "Oh, shit! I'm burning!") and
running to a convenient breach in the parapet to jump out?
That one makes me think of Monty Python.
The scene that made me think of Monty Python was the battle between(you can actually see him think: "Oh, shit! I'm burning!") and
running to a convenient breach in the parapet to jump out?
That one makes me think of Monty Python.
Aragorn and Lurtz. I swear I expected Lurtz to say "It's only a flesh
wound" as Aragorn kept hacking bits of him off.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Troels Forchhammer
2010-03-23 17:36:40 UTC
In message <news:***@mid.individual.net>
Öjevind Lång <***@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
<snip>
disagree on what exactly was 'worst' (or just 'bad') about the films
goes, I am sure, to show something about something, but I'm not
exactly sure what it shows about what ;-)
While I quite agree that the scenes you mention feel wrong to me,
they are still, to me, far less problematic to the Frodo-sending-Sam-
away scene (which, I'm slightly ashamed to admit, I usually leave the
room to avoid having to watch).
I think that regardless of which deviation from the original that one
is to choose, you can find some Tolkien enthusiast who is willing to
declare it the worst atrocity of them all, in which case the only way
to keep _all_ Tolkien enthusiasts happy would have been to stick 100%
to Tolkien's word -- which is exactly what we (or most of us -- or at
least myself) say isn't what we want. While I cannot really condone
the big changes in the characters and the very different portrayals
of Good and Evil that are propounded in the films, I nevertheless can
understand why it can be difficult for Jackson fans to take the
criticism from Tolkien enthusiasts seriously (just as the widely
differing views on what is good about the films make it difficult to
take such attempts at cinematographic praise seriously).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thouroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.
- Piet Hein, /The Eternal Twins/
Öjevind Lång <***@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
<snip>
Post by Ãjevind LÃ¥ng
The episode you mention is really bad, but I think there are
others which are at least as bad.
The way in which 'we' (the whole group, not necessarily 'us two') canThe episode you mention is really bad, but I think there are
others which are at least as bad.
disagree on what exactly was 'worst' (or just 'bad') about the films
goes, I am sure, to show something about something, but I'm not
exactly sure what it shows about what ;-)
While I quite agree that the scenes you mention feel wrong to me,
they are still, to me, far less problematic to the Frodo-sending-Sam-
away scene (which, I'm slightly ashamed to admit, I usually leave the
room to avoid having to watch).
I think that regardless of which deviation from the original that one
is to choose, you can find some Tolkien enthusiast who is willing to
declare it the worst atrocity of them all, in which case the only way
to keep _all_ Tolkien enthusiasts happy would have been to stick 100%
to Tolkien's word -- which is exactly what we (or most of us -- or at
least myself) say isn't what we want. While I cannot really condone
the big changes in the characters and the very different portrayals
of Good and Evil that are propounded in the films, I nevertheless can
understand why it can be difficult for Jackson fans to take the
criticism from Tolkien enthusiasts seriously (just as the widely
differing views on what is good about the films make it difficult to
take such attempts at cinematographic praise seriously).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thouroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.
- Piet Hein, /The Eternal Twins/