And you have to admit, giant cat mounts would be awesome (just kidding, just kidding).
You say that "the Dwarves of Norse myth didn't have anything to do with those goats" (sorry, haven't figured out how to quote yet). However, Tolkien compiled myths from across Northern Europe. Tolkien took elements from myths that "didn't have anything to do" with each other and brought them together.
You say that "the Dwarves of Norse myth didn't have anything to do with those goats" (sorry, haven't figured out how to quote yet). However, Tolkien compiled myths from across Northern Europe. Tolkien took elements from myths that "didn't have anything to do" with each other and brought them together.
That's a vague generalisation. The thing is, myth and legend are not the apparent source of the trope of Dwarves riding goats, which comes from gaming unless I'm very much mistaken and the wilder modern fantasy that almost inevitably displays. Tolkien was rather traditionally-minded, whereas FRPGs are typically anything but. It's essentially no more than a case of gaming sensibilities overwhelming those of the game's parent fantasy.
That's a vague generalisation. The thing is, myth and legend are not the apparent source of the trope of Dwarves riding goats, which comes from gaming unless I'm very much mistaken and the wilder modern fantasy that almost inevitably displays. Tolkien was rather traditionally-minded, whereas FRPGs are typically anything but. It's essentially no more than a case of gaming sensibilities overwhelming those of the game's parent fantasy.
from the book Teutonic Mythology
note that Elberich is a dwarf king.
if its good enough for a dwarf king..its ok by me
from the book Teutonic Mythology
note that Elberich is a dwarf king.
if its good enough for a dwarf king..its ok by me
There's a reference I found in the full text of that which points out that:
"The Edda nowhere represents either alfar or dvergar as mounted, whilst our poems of the Mid. Ages make both Elberich and Laurin come riding."
Something to note is that it's not a giant goat at all, there, it's an ordinary goat being ridden by a very small Dwarf! It's characteristic of later versions of these Germanic tales that Elves and Dwarfs alike are imagined as being diminutive (much as in English folklore and fairy-stories), whereas originally they're the same sort of size that Tolkien describes them and which has thereby become customary in mainstream fantasy. That's because Tolkien borrowed his Dwarves directly from the Edda, not via late medieval poetry.
There's a reference I found in the full text of that which points out that:
"The Edda nowhere represents either alfar or dvergar as mounted, whilst our poems of the Mid. Ages make both Elberich and Laurin come riding."
Something to note is that it's not a giant goat at all, there, it's an ordinary goat being ridden by a very small Dwarf! It's characteristic of later versions of these Germanic tales that Elves and Dwarfs alike are imagined as being diminutive (much as in English folklore and fairy-stories), whereas originally they're the same sort of size that Tolkien describes them and which has thereby become customary in mainstream fantasy. That's because Tolkien borrowed his Dwarves directly from the Edda, not via late medieval poetry.
Google less, read more, maybe?
um..the part you found in the full text and quoted was in the part i used an image of.
and as for the size of the dwarf....ya and?
small is small..doesnt have to be exact...he borrowed, he didnt copy/paste.
as far as i know(not having read every scrap he has written) is that tolkien borrowed from norse mythology amongst others as a whole not just specific periods.
also..i only googled to find a way to get a copy of the text as i couldnt do that at the library where i found the book.
um..the part you found in the full text and quoted was in the part i used an image of.
and as for the size of the dwarf....ya and?
small is small..doesnt have to be exact...he borrowed, he didnt copy/paste.
Tolkien didn't borrow from later versions of such tales because he actively disliked how Elves were treated, in particular, as being diminutive. He chose to go back to the earliest versions, where in proper Norse myth the Elves are said to be tall and radiantly beautiful. As for the Dwarfs, while they were obviously neither tall nor beautiful in Norse myth, neither were they tiny midgets who rode around on goats. Stories with dinky little Elves and Dwarfs belong very much in the realm of folk-tales. Tolkien actively disliked how Elves appeared in English folklore; he wished to provide England with a surrogate mythology, so he had to roll back the clock to when tales of such supernatural beings suited the style of tale he wanted to tell. We already had our own folk-tales, so we really didn't need any more (and in particular, not Germanic imports with pint-sized Dwarfs on goats - when it came to German folk-tales, the Brothers Grimm already had that well covered!).
as far as i know(not having read every scrap he has written) is that tolkien borrowed from norse mythology amongst others as a whole not just specific periods.
Tolkien didn't borrow from later versions of such tales because he actively disliked how Elves were treated, in particular, as being diminutive. He chose to go back to the earliest versions, where in proper Norse myth the Elves are said to be tall and radiantly beautiful. As for the Dwarfs, while they were obviously neither tall nor beautiful in Norse myth, neither were they tiny midgets who rode around on goats. Stories with dinky little Elves and Dwarfs belong very much in the realm of folk-tales. Tolkien actively disliked how Elves appeared in English folklore; he wished to provide England with a surrogate mythology, so he had to roll back the clock to when tales of such supernatural beings suited the style of tale he wanted to tell. We already had our own folk-tales, so we really didn't need any more (and in particular, not Germanic imports with pint-sized Dwarfs on goats - when it came to German folk-tales, the Brothers Grimm already had that well covered!).
Well, then, you've learned something new today...
Please recite sources. You make bold statements declaring what Tolkien thought and were he borrowed from, but fail to provide us with proof that he thought and did these things. You like to make statements on what his intentions are but how is it possible for you to know every thought and intention that he had? Did you know him personally? Did you discuss your assumptions with him personally and he confirmed your theories? The fact is unless he specifically said a thing could not be or had to be a certain way, you are merely making assumptions. So unless you are going to provide us with specific citations in which Tolkien said riding goats could not be in Middle Earth you are merely giving your opinion not stating fact. You are entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to voice your opinion, but when you speak your opinion as if it is absolute you merely show everyone that your are pompous know-it-all.
Please recite sources. You make bold statements declaring what Tolkien thought and were he borrowed from, but fail to provide us with proof that he thought and did these things.
Where he borrowed from as regards Dwarves is well-established: he didn't just borrow the idea of Dwarves from the Eddas, he ended up lifting a lot of the names as well.
'this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Volüspá' - Tolkien, from a comment regarding The Hobbit
You should read Tolkien's essay 'On Fairy-stories'. He regarded the diminution of supernatural beings as having occurred in literature (an example of which would be those medieval German poems mentioned earlier), with the Elves shrinking into fairies and the Dwarves changing from the Eddaic kind into what you see in German folk-tales. He refers to 'the true tradition' of such tales, where the Elves in particular hark back towards how Germanic peoples originally imagined them. So, it's not at all hard to see where he's coming from and hence his Dwarves (as if you didn't know it already) are not pint-sized pipsqueaks small enough to ride a goat, they're his take on the originals from Germanic myth.
You like to make statements on what his intentions are but how is it possible for you to know every thought and intention that he had?
I don't have to know every thought and intention in order to know some of his thoughts and intentions because, oddly enough, he wrote some of them down.
So unless you are going to provide us with specific citations in which Tolkien said riding goats could not be in Middle Earth you are merely giving your opinion not stating fact. You are entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to voice your opinion, but when you speak your opinion as if it is absolute you merely show everyone that your are pompous know-it-all.
I hardly need to demonstrate that Tolkien's Dwarves didn't ride goats because they don't, in the books. The discussion was around the appropriateness of having his Dwarves riding goats, all of a sudden. You will not find any tradition of the original 'full-sized' Dwarves of Norse myth riding goats (see earlier discussion), and as Tolkien was borrowing heavily from that tradition it's strange to see them with goats. From German folk-stories we have pint-sized Dwarfs riding regular-sized goats, and then in some latterday fantasy and in FRPGs in particular we have regular-sized Dwarves riding outsized goats. Essentially, the goats in this game are modern fantasy being retrofitted onto Tolkien's work.
Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. Being rude won't cut it.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Jan 13 2012 at 04:49 AM.
Tolkien didn't borrow from later versions of such tales because he actively disliked how Elves were treated, in particular, as being diminutive. He chose to go back to the earliest versions, where in proper Norse myth the Elves are said to be tall and radiantly beautiful. As for the Dwarfs, while they were obviously neither tall nor beautiful in Norse myth, neither were they tiny midgets who rode around on goats. Stories with dinky little Elves and Dwarfs belong very much in the realm of folk-tales. Tolkien actively disliked how Elves appeared in English folklore; he wished to provide England with a surrogate mythology, so he had to roll back the clock to when tales of such supernatural beings suited the style of tale he wanted to tell. We already had our own folk-tales, so we really didn't need any more (and in particular, not Germanic imports with pint-sized Dwarfs on goats - when it came to German folk-tales, the Brothers Grimm already had that well covered!).
Well, then, you've learned something new today...
you say he didnt borrow from later versions, just from the edda.
yet...in the hobbit...the dwarves come a riding, just like in the middle age versions...not like in the edda.
seems to me like he took inspiration from later version also.
you say he didnt borrow from later versions, just from the edda.
yet...in the hobbit...the dwarves come a riding, just like in the middle age versions...not like in the edda.
seems to me like he took inspiration from later version also.
Typically, if you notice, Tolkien's Dwarves walk. They didn't ride into battle, either.
Besides, horses and ponies actually belong in the story. There were no outsized goats in those Germanic folk-tales, just very small Dwarfs! (Including one who rode a very small pony). So not only does the idea of the original 'Eddaic' Dwarves riding goats have no provenance whatsoever, but neither do the giant goats.
You've already demonstrated that you are not Tolkien himself- no need to keep reminding everyone
As the saying goes, one need not be Caesar in order to understand Caesar.
I'll be riding through Moria
The funny thing there is, that's something that could never be happening in the 'real' Middle-earth (not at the time the game is set, at least), and you mentioned it without realising that it didn't help make the goat look any better. Do try to tell game from books; this is a lore thread, after all.
If Radhruin could ever learn how to make a point WITHOUT coming across like a flaming d**chewaffle, he might find his arguments taking root in more fertile ground. As it is, every one of these threads follows the same pattern, whereby he proceeds to bash others over the head with his own EXTREMELY narrow interpretation of lore, much the same way Biblical literalists or Constitutional strict constructionists do.
If Radhruin could ever learn how to make a point WITHOUT coming across like a flaming d**chewaffle, he might find his arguments taking root in more fertile ground. As it is, every one of these threads follows the same pattern, whereby he proceeds to bash others over the head with his own EXTREMELY narrow interpretation of lore, much the same way Biblical literalists or Constitutional strict constructionists do.
Huh. It's not like it's anything subtle with you, as you ignore the books entirely whenever it suits you, as with that female Dwarf of yours. It wasn't a 'narrow interpretation' when I questioned that business of how you were claiming your Dwarf actually looked female. The books don't support that, the movies don't support that, not even the game supports that. And you didn't want to hear that at all, and so you got mad... and you're still mad, clearly, and making it personal in a way I don't.
Huh. It's not like it's anything subtle with you, as you ignore the books entirely whenever it suits you, as with that female Dwarf of yours. It wasn't a 'narrow interpretation' when I questioned that business of how you were claiming your Dwarf actually looked female. The books don't support that, the movies don't support that, not even the game supports that. And you didn't want to hear that at all, and so you got mad... and you're still mad, clearly, and making it personal in a way I don't.
It's not all that surprising that someone as utterly humorless as yourself would mistake my amusement at your sniveling and whining as being mad. There are a small handful of dwarves that have ever been discusses in Tolkien lore of any kind, extrapolating exactly what every single one of them will always be from that tiny sample size is ridiculous, especially in a game where hobbit and elf and human females have every ability their male counterparts do.
It's not all that surprising that someone as utterly humorless as yourself would mistake my amusement at your sniveling and whining as being mad. There are a small handful of dwarves that have ever been discusses in Tolkien lore of any kind, extrapolating exactly what every single one of them will always be from that tiny sample size is ridiculous, especially in a game where hobbit and elf and human females have every ability their male counterparts do.
I'm not extrapolating anything, only repeating what Tolkien actually said abut them. All of them. As opposed to making excuses for making them less distinctive by making them just like everybody else, which is decidedly uncreative and dare I say it, downright boring.
It doesn't matter what hobbit, elf or humen females are like. Dwarves were different, made to be different because their creator had some idiosyncratic ideas about what people should be like.
Sorry for reviving this, but I have to say something that's bugging me. Wyndelleu, I was almost inclined to agree with you on the female dwarf thing, but as I read through, it does appear you aren't reading the whole thing clearly, or at least understanding it completely.
A writer does not need to give multiple examples of a creature-type to make details of the creature-type as a whole known. Stating something as simple as all wolves have fur, no one would have to search for multiple instances of that creature-type to make sure that the writer explicitly mentioned wolves often, and just as explicitly mentioned that they all do in fact have fur. Tolkien mentions that no non-dwarf can tell the difference between a male and a female dwarf, by any means. It is not an observation by a character that they themselves never saw any female dwarves, or that he couldn't tell of his own accord, it is an overall observation of a facet of dwarven nature that the females are indistinguishable from the males.
I might tend to agree on interpretation where something is unclearly stated, but unless you can find a conflicting statement elsewhere in Tolkien's own work, rather than sources Tolkien may have used to base his work on or sources that may be somehow based on Tolkien's work, your arguments are invalid.
As to the original topic of this thread, it's been a good while since I read the books, and about as long since I saw the movies, but I recall something about dwarves not liking to ride anything, that they prefer their own two feet (this is me paraphrasing, since I can't recall the exact wording).
Sorry for reviving this, but I have to say something that's bugging me. Wyndelleu, I was almost inclined to agree with you on the female dwarf thing, but as I read through, it does appear you aren't reading the whole thing clearly, or at least understanding it completely.
A writer does not need to give multiple examples of a creature-type to make details of the creature-type as a whole known. Stating something as simple as all wolves have fur, no one would have to search for multiple instances of that creature-type to make sure that the writer explicitly mentioned wolves often, and just as explicitly mentioned that they all do in fact have fur. Tolkien mentions that no non-dwarf can tell the difference between a male and a female dwarf, by any means. It is not an observation by a character that they themselves never saw any female dwarves, or that he couldn't tell of his own accord, it is an overall observation of a facet of dwarven nature that the females are indistinguishable from the males.
I might tend to agree on interpretation where something is unclearly stated, but unless you can find a conflicting statement elsewhere in Tolkien's own work, rather than sources Tolkien may have used to base his work on or sources that may be somehow based on Tolkien's work, your arguments are invalid.
As to the original topic of this thread, it's been a good while since I read the books, and about as long since I saw the movies, but I recall something about dwarves not liking to ride anything, that they prefer their own two feet (this is me paraphrasing, since I can't recall the exact wording).
Well, that's fine, but it's still a matter of interpretation. You are perfectly entitled to yours, and maybe the most literal interpretation is the easiest way to view it. I don't believe it is the most sensible - given all we know of the Tolkien universe
Tolkien says that "in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of the other peoples cannot tell them apart."
He does not specifically state how and why this is, only that when they go on a journey they are not distinguishable from males. "Appearance" could mean many things, and journey implies traveling from one specific location to another, not living among others. He does not state whether this appearance is entirely natural or at least partially by choice. Perhaps they try to appear identical to males so as not to make themselves appear weaker and thus targets. On a journey, since they dress like males and sound masculine and have beards, it should not take much for them to "appear" male to other races. They probably would appear so to most without any other distinctly masculine attributes. If you saw a small, stocky, gravelly-voiced, bearded figure, even if the body had a slightly different shape, you'd probably think it was a male. This phrasing also leaves open the possibility that they could appear female should they wish - otherwise, why make the distinction that they appear this way when they "go on a journey?" If they were not traveling, and instead lived for an extended time in one place around others (which I agree would be exceedingly rare), they may not attempt to appear quite so masculine.
So, Tolkien states they are rare, have beards and look like males to others. I don't have a problem with that. I will grant that that is the cultural default position. But in such an otherwise richly described and detailed universe the Dwarven appearance, history and culture is almost completely unknown. In some writings, Tolkien states that he sees Dwarves as analogous to the Jewish people being dispossessed of their homeland and living among other groups whilst retaining elements of their own culture. Clearly there's a lot more to them than he ever got around to writing. Therefore, to me, it seems silly to rely upon a single example of a Dwarven female as the only possible rendition - an unyielding archetype of which all other characters must be exact replicas in both form and function.
Last edited by Wyndelleu; Apr 06 2012 at 12:17 AM.
Well, that's fine, but it's still a matter of interpretation. You are perfectly entitled to yours, and maybe the most literal interpretation is the easiest way to view it. I don't believe it is the most sensible - given all we know of the Tolkien universe
Tolkien says that "in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of the other peoples cannot tell them apart."
He does not specifically state how and why this is, only that when they go on a journey they are not distinguishable from males. "Appearance" could mean many things, and journey implies traveling from one specific location to another, not living among others. He does not state whether this appearance is entirely natural or at least partially by choice. Perhaps they try to appear identical to males so as not to make themselves appear weaker and thus targets. On a journey, since they dress like males and sound masculine and have beards, it should not take much for them to "appear" male to other races. They probably would appear so to most without any other distinctly masculine attributes. If you saw a small, stocky, gravelly-voiced, bearded figure, even if the body had a slightly different shape, you'd probably think it was a male. This phrasing also leaves open the possibility that they could appear female should they wish - otherwise, why make the distinction that they appear this way when they "go on a journey?" If they were not traveling, and instead lived for an extended time in one place around others (which I agree would be exceedingly rare), they may not attempt to appear quite so masculine.
This is wilful misreading rather than interpretation. There's a quote elsewhere that substantiates what's said in LOTR and agrees with it totally, confirming that all Dwarves had beards and appeared masculine to everybody else.
The Naugrim were ever, as they still remain, short and squat in stature; they were deep-breasted, strong in the arm, and stout in the leg, and their beards were long. Indeed this strangeness they have that no Man nor Elf has ever seen a beardless Dwarf – unless he were shaven in mockery, and would then be more like to die of shame than of many other hurts that to us would seem more deadly. For the Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike; nor indeed can their womenkind be discerned by those of other race, be it in feature or in gait or in voice, nor in any wise save this: that they go not to war, and seldom save at direst need issue from their deep bowers and halls.
- 'Concerning the Dwarves', as published in The War of the Jewels
So there we have what Tolkien considered 'appearance' to include. Masculine features, long beard, gruff voice, their gait, everything.
We also know from that quote you have bothered with that male and female Dwarves were effectively alike in voice and appearance AND that when they went on a journey the women evidently dressed just like the men. Yes, that was likely a defensive measure. As written, however, it doesn't imply that the female Dwarves were ever less masculine in appearance, or in any way easy to tell apart in themselves, just that when at home they might have worn something different to the men.
So, Tolkien states they are rare, have beards and look like males to others. I don't have a problem with that. I will grant that that is the cultural default position. But in such an otherwise richly described and detailed universe the Dwarven appearance, history and culture is almost completely unknown. In some writings, Tolkien states that he sees Dwarves as analogous to the Jewish people being dispossessed of their homeland and living among other groups whilst retaining elements of their own culture. Clearly there's a lot more to them than he ever got around to writing. Therefore, to me, it seems silly to rely upon a single example of a Dwarven female as the only possible rendition - an unyielding archetype of which all other characters must be exact replicas in both form and function.
That's a strawman argument: Tolkien doesn't describe any particular Dwarven female in those terms, and so nobody is relying on any such thing. He describes them all in such terms; Dis is presented simply as the only named female Dwarf, and the text doesn't say that she in particular looked like that but that female Dwarves in general were like that.
As Estennel suggested, if Tolkien was inconsistent on any of this then you'd have some wiggle room but as it is, he wasn't and so you don't. You simply dislike Tolkien's version. If indeed you are allowing for 'all we know of the Tolkien universe' than you can't ignore either his consistency on this point or how that gainsays your position.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Apr 06 2012 at 01:49 PM.
We can go round and round on this as long as you like. You are not changing my mind. I don't care to change yours.
You are like those who read the bible and say there is only one possible meaning to "6 days and 7 nights" and no other interpretation can ever be extrapolated.
That's perfectly within your rights. I don't have to see things the same way.
I suggest you move on to something more productive.
Last edited by Wyndelleu; Apr 06 2012 at 02:12 PM.
We can go round and round on this as long as you like. You are not changing my mind. I don't care to change yours.
You are like those who read the bible and say there is only one possible meaning to "6 days and 7 nights" and no other interpretation can ever be extrapolated.
That's perfectly within your rights. I don't have to see things the same way.
I suggest you move on to something more productive.
You had the nerve to tell someone who was absolutely right that he was welcome to his interpretation, while pretending that was all it was, rather than him having simply read Tolkien's perfectly plain English and having drawn an entirely reasonable conclusion. Not to mention posting that strawman argument about Dis for the umpteenth time, despite having been put straight on that point several times. That's insufferable: it's not any sort of interpretation, it's wilful misreading of the text.
If you try to push your particular brand of revisionism on someone else in a lore thread then there's only one sort of reply you deserve. If you want to talk about Dwarves who look or sound feminine, lore threads are not the place to do it. Tolkien's Dwarves are certainly odd, but that's explained as their having been a separate creation, brought into being by a Vala who had his own idiosyncratic notions about what people should be like. As a result, these Dwarf-women don't have to accord at all with our own concepts of femininity; you're being unimaginative by trying to make them more conventional, against the author's clear intent.
You don't get to lecture me about what's 'constructive', either, because I don't see you letting this go. You're the one who brought the subject up again.
You had the nerve to tell someone who was absolutely right that he was welcome to his interpretation, while pretending that was all it was, rather than him having simply read Tolkien's perfectly plain English and having drawn an entirely reasonable conclusion. Not to mention posting that strawman argument about Dis for the umpteenth time, despite having been put straight on that point several times. That's insufferable: it's not any sort of interpretation, it's wilful misreading of the text.
If you try to push your particular brand of revisionism on someone else in a lore thread then there's only one sort of reply you deserve. If you want to talk about Dwarves who look or sound feminine, lore threads are not the place to do it. Tolkien's Dwarves are certainly odd, but that's explained as their having been a separate creation, brought into being by a Vala who had his own idiosyncratic notions about what people should be like. As a result, these Dwarf-women don't have to accord at all with our own concepts of femininity; you're being unimaginative by trying to make them more conventional, against the author's clear intent.
You don't get to lecture me about what's 'constructive', either, because I don't see you letting this go. You're the one who brought the subject up again.
It IS absolutely his interpretation. I also didn't "bring the subject up again." I responded, and you can't deal with that.
You are the only person here who seems to believe that unless everyone believes 100% exactly the same unimaginative, literal interpretation you do that it's somehow your job to attack them. It's pure fundamentalism.
You don't have to believe what I do, and I don't have to see things the way you do.
It IS absolutely his interpretation. I also didn't "bring the subject up again." I responded, and you can't deal with that.
His is a reasonable interpretation, yours is not. That line of yours about Dis, in particular. Tolkien said that Dis was Thorin's sister and then following that he starts going on about what female Dwarves were like (generalised), as supposedly having been explained by Gimli, and you try to counter that by talking as if everything he said was solely about Dis. It's not. You're misrepresenting it. That's not a legitimate interpretation, you've been told that, but you keep repeating it. Ergo, you are not being reasonable.
It goes: "Dis was the daughter of Thrain II. She is the only dwarf-woman named in these histories." and then continues "It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They are in voice and appearance..." etc.
Note the 'they', there. So nobody is relying on any single example, just what Tolkien says about them collectively. That other quote, the one from HoME, is entirely in general terms. So just who do you think you're kidding? I don't see why anyone should have to put up with you making stuff up to suit yourself.
You are the only person here who seems to believe that unless everyone believes 100% exactly the same unimaginative, literal interpretation you do that it's somehow your job to attack them. It's pure fundamentalism.
Nah, you're just having a failure of imagination. While Tolkien's Dwarves as written are an odd bunch to be sure, that's nonetheless how he pictured them; you're unhappy with that for whatever reason and you try to argue that female Dwarves could look or sound feminine in some way despite the fact that he repeatedly and consistently says otherwise. You're not coming up with anything new, original or interesting; you're wanting to break with something that in this case differs from the more run-of-the-mill fantasy you seem to prefer. This so-called interpretation of yours has no place in a lore thread for the very simple reason that it's not lore, it's just you wishing it was different. It's not even relevant to the game, let alone anything else.
You don't have to believe what I do, and I don't have to see things the way you do.
No, I'm simply saying your attempts to pretend your interpretation as in any way reasonable or legitimate have failed. All you're doing is contradicting the author. You can think whatever you like to yourself, I don't give a hoot about that but if you insist on talking about it here like it means something, you shouldn't complain if people take issue with it.
You are the only person here who seems to believe that unless everyone believes 100% exactly the same unimaginative, literal interpretation you do that it's somehow your job to attack them. It's pure fundamentalism.
I'm still following this thread, there is much win to this.
I wouldn't exactly called Tolkiens works unimaginative, in fact, the exact opposite. These dwarves, when you step back and look at it, or a lot different than most. The unimaginative works lie in World of Warcraft, Warhammer, and some campaigns of DnD (But, I suppose at the time, it was original).
Also, if you want to keep this thread going, I'd avoid the religion topic. That is a sure fire way to get this thread locked.
Drobur Graventongue, Caravan-Master of the Mîmshol Trading Company
His is a reasonable interpretation, yours is not. That line of yours about Dis, in particular. Tolkien said that Dis was Thorin's sister and then following that he starts going on about what female Dwarves were like (generalised), as supposedly having been explained by Gimli, and you try to counter that by talking as if everything he said was solely about Dis. It's not. You're misrepresenting it. That's not a legitimate interpretation, you've been told that, but you keep repeating it. Ergo, you are not being reasonable.
It goes: "Dis was the daughter of Thrain II. She is the only dwarf-woman named in these histories." and then continues "It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They are in voice and appearance..." etc.
Note the 'they', there. So nobody is relying on any single example, just what Tolkien says about them collectively. That other quote, the one from HoME, is entirely in general terms. So just who do you think you're kidding? I don't see why anyone should have to put up with you making stuff up to suit yourself.
You are right, it continues in GENERAL terms. I am making nothing up. I just interpret it differently than you do, but even is I was, no one "has to put up with it." I don't FORCE you to read any of this, let alone RP with me (which you wouldn't do anyway because you don't know how, lacking even basic imagination as you do)
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Nah, you're just having a failure of imagination. While Tolkien's Dwarves as written are an odd bunch to be sure, that's nonetheless how he pictured them; you're unhappy with that for whatever reason and you try to argue that female Dwarves could look or sound feminine in some way despite the fact that he repeatedly and consistently says otherwise. You're not coming up with anything new, original or interesting; you're wanting to break with something that in this case differs from the more run-of-the-mill fantasy you seem to prefer. This so-called interpretation of yours has no place in a lore thread for the very simple reason that it's not lore, it's just you wishing it was different. It's not even relevant to the game, let alone anything else.
My Dwarf does not often look or act feminine by the standards of other races, even if she is an anomaly to her own people. She can be, and often is, easily mistaken for a male. If she chooses to be an eccentric exception due to her time living apart from other Dwarves that is MY CHOICE, not yours. You can disagree with it all you like, but it will never stop me from expanding the character beyond the utterly inflexible carbon-copy of an inconsequential archetype.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
No, I'm simply saying your attempts to pretend your interpretation as in any way reasonable or legitimate have failed. All you're doing is contradicting the author. You can think whatever you like to yourself, I don't give a damn about that but if you insist on talking about it here like it means something, you shouldn't complain if people take issue with it.
They've only failed to you. Tally is a very well-received character among the heavy RP crowd on Landroval and I have yet to meet anyone who did not enjoy getting to know her and her eccentricities. WE ALL understand that you have dedicated your entire existence on these forums (since you don't even play the game) to attacking this one character who has become your singular obsession, but this has gone on long enough.
Let me make this as clear as possible for you. This is VERY VERY simple. You say, "I don't agree and this is why." Then I say, "Well, that's fine, but this is how I see it and I am going to continue interpreting it this way" and we agree to disagree.
That's it.
Anything else on your part is sheer desperation for attention.
Last edited by Wyndelleu; Apr 06 2012 at 07:29 PM.
You are right, it continues in GENERAL terms. I am making nothing up. I just interpret it differently than you do, but even is I was, no one "has to put up with it." I don't FORCE you to read any of this, let alone RP with me (which you wouldn't do anyway because you don't know how, lacking even basic imagination as you do)
Only if by 'interpret' you mean 'deliberately ignore'.
"...nor indeed can their womenkind be discerned by those of other race, be it in feature or in gait or in voice, nor in any wise save this: that they go not to war, and seldom save at direst need issue from their deep bowers and halls."
The meaning of that is crystal clear. Nobody can reasonably interpret that to mean that female Dwarves could look feminine to other peoples. The whole point is that others could only infer which Dwarves might be women by indirect means. But of course, you're also ignoring the bit about them seldom leaving their halls and never going out to fight, aren't you?
My Dwarf does not often look or act feminine by the standards of other races, even if she is an anomaly to her own people. She can be, and often is, easily mistaken for a male. If she chooses to be an eccentric exception due to her time living apart from other Dwarves that is MY CHOICE, not yours. You can disagree with it all you like, but it will never stop me from expanding the character beyond the utterly inflexible carbon-copy of an inconsequential archetype.
It's not an 'archetype', it's how Tolkien imagined them. All of them. You might as well argue about Orcs being ugly or hobbits being small; his take was that female Dwarves were inevitably seen as being male by other peoples because of the way they looked and sounded. It's not as if this is solely a 'book' thing either, it's a 'movie' thing and in this case a 'game' thing too. There's just you, stuck out on a limb, off-topic with respect to books and game alike for no reason other than that you don't like what Tolkien imagined and wrote down. This 'expanding' of yours is simply out of place, borrowed from elsewhere. It's no different to someone imagining Elves with green or purple hair and foot-long pointy ears.
They've only failed to you. Tally is a very well-received character among the heavy RP crowd on Landroval and I have yet to meet anyone who did not enjoy getting to know her and her eccentricities. WE ALL understand that you have dedicated your entire existence on these forums (since you don't even play the game) to attacking this one character who has become your singular obsession, but this has gone on long enough.
Says the person who likewise plainly can't let the matter rest. Pot, meet kettle. It's not like it's just me who sees problems with your 'interpretation', in any case. Acceptance on Landroval does not mean your notions are either legit or reasonable in themselves; it's not like your character actually looks female in any way, in-game, for all you wish that she did.
What needs to stop is you keeping on about this in lore threads, because whatever else it isn't lore. It's not even relevant to the game.
Let me make this as clear as possible for you. This is VERY VERY simple. You say, "I don't agree and this is why." Then I say, "Well, that's fine, but this is how I see it and I am going to continue interpreting it this way" and we agree to disagree.
I don't agree to disagree because your interpretation is fundamentally unreasonable. Keep your own counsel and don't post about it, and there'll be no more posts from me. Keep trying to pretend it's a reasonable interpretation, and you'll get more of this. Your choice.
LOL Apparently you're going to keep arguing that no one can interpret anything differently than you. Alright. Since you refuse to let this go:
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Only if by 'interpret' you mean 'deliberately ignore'.
"...nor indeed can their womenkind be discerned by those of other race, be it in feature or in gait or in voice, nor in any wise save this: that they go not to war, and seldom save at direst need issue from their deep bowers and halls."
The meaning of that is crystal clear. Nobody can reasonably interpret that to mean that female Dwarves could look feminine to other peoples. The whole point is that others could only infer which Dwarves might be women by indirect means. But of course, you're also ignoring the bit about them seldom leaving their halls and never going out to fight, aren't you?
They SELDOM leave their bowers and halls. Also, with no individual dwarf females ever described, we cannot know if the intent was that they literally ALL looked exactly the same or not. It's rather unreasonable to assume such. Certainly they appear masculine to other races. Certainly they will be mistaken as males, but if you take those words LITERALLY, they'd have to be exactly the same as males, right down to their reproductive organs...otherwise they are different. That does not seem reasonable.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
It's not an 'archetype', it's how Tolkien imagined them. All of them. You might as well argue about Orcs being ugly or hobbits being small; his take was that female Dwarves were inevitably seen as being male by other peoples because of the way they looked and sounded. It's not as if this is solely a 'book' thing either, it's a 'movie' thing and in this case a 'game' thing too. There's just you, stuck out on a limb, off-topic with respect to books and game alike for no reason other than that you don't like what Tolkien imagined and wrote down. This 'expanding' of yours is simply out of place, borrowed from elsewhere. It's no different to someone imagining Elves with green or purple hair and foot-long pointy ears.
You might as well write about female hobbit warriors or women adventurers. The former were not described in Tolkien's universe and only one of the latter was ever mentioned. It is wholly unreasonable to think that a character (of ANY race) must behave, be motivated, and even LOOK EXACTLY the same as every other member of its race. My dwarf is a female dwarf who lives among men near Bree and has taken to IDENTIFYING herself as more distinctly feminine because of that proximity to other races with their more clearly defined genders. Just because there is not an example of that in lore does not make it implausible any more than female hobbit or men characters.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Says the person who likewise plainly can't let the matter rest. Pot, meet kettle. It's not like it's just me who sees problems with your 'interpretation', in any case. Acceptance on Landroval does not mean your notions are either legit or reasonable in themselves; it's not like your character actually looks female in any way, in-game, for all you wish that she did.
My point was simply: there is literally NOTHING you can say or do that will change my character or how I express it, so unless you want to keep going with this into perpetuity, it would behoove you to find a more constructive use of your time, because the months long obsessive personal attacks you have levied at me simply for having a different interpretation than you is not helping you.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
What needs to stop is you keeping on about this in lore threads, because whatever else it isn't lore. It's not even relevant to the game.
That's your opinion. Mine is different. I am going nowhere.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
I don't agree to disagree because your interpretation is fundamentally unreasonable. Keep your own counsel and don't post about it, and there'll be no more posts from me. Keep trying to pretend it's a reasonable interpretation, and you'll get more of this. Your choice.
LOL I will post whenever and wherever I want. You just can't deal with the fact that there's nothing you can do about it except spend MONTHS obsessively raging about a character you detest.
LOL I will post whenever and wherever I want you arrogant piece of ____. You just can't deal with the fact that there's nothing you can do about it except gnash your teeth and rip out your hair as you spend MONTHS obsessively raging about a character you detest.
/sigh
You seem to be the one raging here my friend. Anyway, Radhruin is absolutely right. There is no room for dwarves in dressing prancing about Middle Earth. Female dwarves were indistinguishable from male dwarves, end of story.
You seem to be the one raging here my friend. Anyway, Radhruin is absolutely right. There is no room for dwarves in dressing prancing about Middle Earth. Female dwarves were indistinguishable from male dwarves, end of story.
You can have that interpretation if you like. I choose not to have every single character who happens to be a Dwarf look exactly the same at all times. If my character wishes to spend time away from traditional Dwarven homelands like males do, she can, and if she chooses to occasionally dress in a manner that distinguishes her as more feminine, she can as well. After all, Tolkien makes the distinction of saying they dress as makes when TRAVELING.
Oh, and also, when making a point, try to speak English.
You can have that interpretation if you like. I choose not to have every single character who happens to be a Dwarf look exactly the same at all times. If my character wishes to spend time away from traditional Dwarven homelands like males do, she can, and if she chooses to occasionally dress in a manner that distinguishes her as more feminine, she can as well. After all, Tolkien makes the distinction of saying they dress as makes when TRAVELING.
Oh, and also, when making a point, try to speak English.
It's not an "interpretation". It's absolute fact. Female dwarves stayed at home, looked like male dwarves, and didn't run around the deepest dungeons of ME vanquishing enemies.
As to my spelling, I could have sworn I typed "dresses". Oh well, misspelling a word doesn't change the validity of my argument.
LOL Apparently you're going to keep arguing that no one can interpret anything differently than you. Alright. Since you refuse to let this go:
I'm saying your particular 'interpretation' of this particular subject is utterly worthless because it flat out contradicts Tolkien and it's even out of step with the game.
They SELDOM leave their bowers and halls. Also, with no individual dwarf females ever described, we cannot know if the intent was that they literally ALL looked exactly the same or not. It's rather unreasonable to assume such. Certainly they appear masculine to other races. Certainly they will be mistaken as males, but if you take those words LITERALLY, they'd have to be exactly the same as males, right down to their reproductive organs...otherwise they are different. That does not seem reasonable.
Of course they didn't all look 'exactly the same', no more than the men did. But they all looked male, so far as anybody else could tell. I'm sure if they were naked there'd be some anatomical differences to be seen, but those wouldn't have to be apparent when they were clothed. Naked Dwarves would be an obvious and perfectly reasonable exception, since it wasn't something that outsiders would ever normally see, was it? But that's the only exception that's needed.
You might as well write about female hobbit warriors or women adventurers. The former were not described in Tolkien's universe and only one of the latter was ever mentioned. It is wholly unreasonable to think that a character (of ANY race) must behave, be motivated, and even LOOK EXACTLY the same as every other member of its race. My dwarf is a female dwarf who lives among men near Bree and has taken to IDENTIFYING herself as more distinctly feminine because of that proximity to other races with their more clearly defined genders. Just because there is not an example of that in lore does not make it implausible any more than female hobbit or men characters.
Playable hobbits and adventurous women are an arguable necessity in a mass-market game. Feminine-looking Dwarves are not, and sure enough the game doesn't feature them. And enough of that 'look exactly the same' line already; just because they all looked male doesn't mean they'd all look exactly the same as one another. Or act exactly the same, or have the exact same motivations. They can have things in common without all the rest being the same.
How would a female Dwarf make herself look 'distinctly' feminine, anyway? Whatever she did, she'd still look like a really short, stocky, muscular and heavily bearded guy and she'd still have a gruff voice. Trying to act feminine as we understand it while looking and sounding like that would seem to me to be asking to become a figure of fun, rather than anything else. Who's to say what 'feminine' behaviour would be like among the Dwarves, anyway? Beyond seldom leaving their halls and never going out to fight.
In any case, it'd be acting out of character. If female Dwarves were given to revealing themselves in that manner, then people would hardly have believed that there were no female Dwarves and certainly wouldn't have come up with that wild notion that Dwarves just sprang out of the ground. Ignoring that is as much of a failure of characterisation as playing a flirty, promiscuous Elf; Dwarves were a very private people and kept their secrets to themselves.
My point was simply: there is literally NOTHING you can say or do that will change my character or how I express it, so unless you want to keep going with this into perpetuity, it would behoove you to find a more constructive use of your time, because the months long obsessive personal attacks you have levied at me simply for having a different interpretation than you is not helping you.
You've been the one who's been making the personal attacks. As for the rest, all I would prefer you do would be to keep this nonsense out of lore threads. It's not lore, and so you're off-topic every time you post about it.
That's your opinion. Mine is different. Suck it up buttercup. I am going nowhere.
My opinion is based on something solid; we have Tolkien's word on it. Yours is based on nothing. No amount of bluster will make evidently female Dwarves the least bit relevant to either the books or this game.
LOL I will post whenever and wherever I want you arrogant piece of ____. You just can't deal with the fact that there's nothing you can do about it except gnash your teeth and rip out your hair as you spend MONTHS obsessively raging about a character you detest.
If that's any sample, it seems that whatever rage there might be is happening entirely at your end.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Apr 07 2012 at 04:49 PM.
It's not an "interpretation". It's absolute fact. Female dwarves stayed at home, looked like male dwarves, and didn't run around the deepest dungeons of ME vanquishing enemies.
As to my spelling, I could have sworn I typed "dresses". Oh well, misspelling a word doesn't change the validity of my argument.
It's not absolute fact. It's your interpretation - one that is the equivalent of reading the bible and castigating anyone who does not believe every word of it is literal. This character does not run around the deepest dungeons vanquishing enemies, but you didn't bother to find that out, did you?
She lives in Bree and works a small smithy and hopes one day to see more of the world.
It's not absolute fact. It's your interpretation - one that is the equivalent of reading the bible and castigating anyone who does not believe every word of it is literal. This character does not run around the deepest dungeons vanquishing enemies, but you didn't bother to find that out, did you?
She lives in Bree and works a small smithy and hopes one day to see more of the world.
It IS absolute fact. There is no wiggle room. Yes, not everything in LOTR is meant to be taken literally, but this is!
I'm saying your particular 'interpretation' of this particular subject is utterly worthless because it flat out contradicts Tolkien and it's even out of step with the game.
My interpretation is every bit as valid as yours. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to agree with it or even read it.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Of course they didn't all look 'exactly the same', no more than the men did. But they all looked male, so far as anybody else could tell. I'm sure if they were naked there'd be some anatomical differences to be seen, but those wouldn't have to be apparent when they were clothed. Naked Dwarves would be an obvious and perfectly reasonable exception, since it wasn't something that outsiders would ever normally see, was it? But that's the only exception that's needed.
So you admit to anatomical differences between males and females? Then they do not look the same unless all of those differences are internal only. Outsiders would see a naked dwarf if they were robbed and had their clothing taken. Their clothing were burned away or they were caught bathing. Therefore, it's not really intellectually honest to say that no non dwarf could NEVER see female Dwarf for what she is, is it, as there ARE scenarios in which differences could be quite visible. Because of this, it is clear that Tolkien could not have possibly meant that no one EVER, under any circumstance, could EVER determine which Dwarves were male and which were female.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Playable hobbits and adventurous women are an arguable necessity in a mass-market game. Feminine-looking Dwarves are not, and sure enough the game doesn't feature them. And enough of that 'look exactly the same' line already; just because they all looked male doesn't mean they'd all look exactly the same as one another. Or act exactly the same, or have the exact same motivations. They can have things in common without all the rest being the same.
LOL oooh so it's okay as long as it fits within a "mass-market game?" If they don't have to look the same, act the same or have the same motivations, my character, who is eccentric to be sure, is not lore-breaking.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
How would a female Dwarf make herself look 'distinctly' feminine, anyway? Whatever she did, she'd still look like a really short, stocky, muscular and heavily bearded guy and she'd still have a gruff voice. Trying to act feminine as we understand it while looking and sounding like that would seem to me to be asking to become a figure of fun, rather than anything else. Who's to say what 'feminine' behaviour would be like among the Dwarves, anyway? Beyond seldom leaving their halls and never going out to fight.
Despite having the short stocky build, beard, and gruff voice similar to males, one can identify more with, and therefore express, feminine qualities. She will still often be mistaken for a male by other races as Dwarven females are, but her adaptation of more human styles of femininity has alleviated that confusion somewhat
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
In any case, it'd be acting out of character. If female Dwarves were given to revealing themselves in that manner, then people would hardly have believed that there were no female Dwarves and certainly wouldn't have come up with that wild notion that Dwarves just sprang out of the ground. Ignoring that is as much of a failure of characterisation as playing a flirty, promiscuous Elf; Dwarves were a very private people and kept their secrets to themselves.
Given that she is typically the only female Dwarf anyone has ever seen (both IC and out), her existence would hardly be enough to quash all rumors about Dwarven females (or a lack there of).
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
You've been the one who's been making the personal attacks. As for the rest, all I would prefer you do would be to keep this nonsense out of lore threads. It's not lore, and so you're off-topic every time you post about it.
I have told you now at LEAST 10 times that I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it, and that your disapproval will not now, nor ever, change my interpretation or character. That you choose to continue this means that it IS personal for you. I will defend myself and my character. You are forever on the attack.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
My opinion is based on something solid; we have Tolkien's word on it. Yours is based on nothing. No amount of bluster will make evidently female Dwarves the least bit relevant to either the books or this game.
Again, that is simply your opinion. You are welcome to it, as I am mine.
I say to you again, we will have to agree to disagree.
If that's any sample, it seems that whatever rage there might be is happening entirely at your end.[/QUOTE]
My interpretation is every bit as valid as yours. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to agree with it or even read it.
Making excuses for ignoring what Tolkien had to say about Dwarves hardly makes for a valid interpretation. Your version doesn't match either what he said or the game's interpretation of it.
So you admit to anatomical differences between males and females? Then they do not look the same unless all of those differences are internal only. Outsiders would see a naked dwarf if they were robbed and had their clothing taken. Their clothing were burned away or they were caught bathing. Therefore, it's not really intellectually honest to say that no non dwarf could NEVER see female Dwarf for what she is, is it, as there ARE scenarios in which differences could be quite visible. Because of this, it is clear that Tolkien could not have possibly meant that no one EVER, under any circumstance, could EVER determine which Dwarves were male and which were female.
Yes, and I already suggested what that circumstance might be. However, given that female Dwarves only seldom left their halls, the chances of those 'scenarios' happening would be very, very small. Contrived circumstances don't disprove the general case, which is that female Dwarves away from home would not only look and sound male but be dressed just like male Dwarves, too. So, unless your character is going to parade around Bree stark naked, it doesn't get you out of that hole you've dug for yourself.
LOL oooh so it's okay as long as it fits within a "mass-market game?" If they don't have to look the same, act the same or have the same motivations, my character, who is eccentric to be sure, is not lore-breaking.
That doesn't make contrived, out-of-character 'motivations' any better. Not just anything will do. Someone who was playing an Elf as flirty and promiscuous or otherwise demonstrably OOC might make the exact same excuse of being 'eccentric'.
Despite having the short stocky build, beard, and gruff voice similar to males, one can identify more with, and therefore express, feminine qualities. She will still often be mistaken for a male by other races as Dwarven females are, but her adaptation of more human styles of femininity has alleviated that confusion somewhat
You've said that before; I asked you how someone who looked and sounded like that could 'express feminine qualities' without looking and sounding absurd. There's also the question of why on earth she would want to. As just another Dwarf, looking male to outsiders, she'd be respected as such. As an openly female Dwarf she'd be the object of endless, importunate curiosity and mirth. It'd be truly miserable, like being a circus freak. Add to that the sad spectacle of her trying to appear 'feminine' by the standards of Men (as opposed to whatever was considered feminine among Dwarves) and that character would be the object of general ridicule. Probably scorn or pity from other Dwarves, too, through making such an exhibition of herself.
It seems you've not thought this through at all. As I recall, this character supposedly fled Erebor because she'd gone against her father's wishes that she should marry; if she wasn't of strong enough character to stay and tough it out there, then why on earth would she go to Bree (rather than Thorin's Hall, say) and live among Men while going out of her way to invite endless attention? And this is after all supposed to be a Dwarf, a member of a people who placed great stock on their privacy and always maintained a certain distance from outsiders. All told, this character is very badly drawn - utterly improbable and wildly inconsistent - and that on top of your casual attitude to lore means that I see no reason to respect your opinion.
Given that she is typically the only female Dwarf anyone has ever seen (both IC and out), her existence would hardly be enough to quash all rumors about Dwarven females (or a lack there of).
Are you kidding? Word would get around. 'Strange as news from Bree', as the saying went in parts of the Shire.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Apr 08 2012 at 06:02 AM.
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Grand Member Online status:
Reputation:
Originally Posted by Himodhur
Poster of Note Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Junior Member Online status:
Member Online status:
Century Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
