Recently with my level 50 Dwarf, I found an axe that is describe curvy,I took it to Orc watch were a fellow Dwarf said it did belong to a Female Dwarf and ask me to find a building were females only went, I found it was a combination health spa and beauty salon. Apparently in the good old day female Dwarves came their to freshen up and gossip,as a reward I was given a female sword as a memento of the find.
A spa? I thought it was a nursery? Are you talking about the house in the Redhorn Lodes where the gredbyg are raising their young, or something else entirely?
Again, your OBSESSIVE desire to limit everyone to your myopic view of things is working against common sense in this matter. By your most literal interpretation of Tolkien lore (some of it never released in any official Tolkien-approved published source), there should never be any female Elf or Hobbit warriors of any kind, because their were none in Tolkien lore. There should be but a single human female warrior, as it was stated that she was the only of her kind.
Dwarves are the race in this world of which least is known. We have only a tiny handful of examples and specimens to go by throughout the entirety of Tolkien lore. Regardless of what he may have jotted down in notes regarding appearances and culture at some time, it is unnecessarily limiting to assume that every Dwarven female in the entirety of middle earth would look or act exactly the same as the single example in established lore.
That's just as far off the mark as last time you said it. It wasn't just Dis who was described that way, but Dwarven women in general and not just 'in notes' either but in something published during Tolkien's lifetime, in the Appendices to LOTR. He's absolutely consistent about it. You might as well argue about Elves never getting sick, because in much the same way that was true for all Elves, it was a singular characteristic of Dwarves that their men and women were so very much alike that others couldn't tell the difference. It's part of how they're characterised, it reinforces their essential difference to everybody else. So, what you're doing isn't creative, it's the exact opposite. That's plain enough from that drawing you did: as someone else pointed out a while back it looks like a stereotypical female warrior (not even a Dwarf!) with a fake beard stuck on.
That's just as far off the mark as last time you said it. It wasn't just Dis who was described that way, but Dwarven women in general and not just 'in notes' either but in something published during Tolkien's lifetime, in the Appendices to LOTR. He's absolutely consistent about it. You might as well argue about Elves never getting sick, because in much the same way that was true for all Elves, it was a singular characteristic of Dwarves that their men and women were so very much alike that others couldn't tell the difference. It's part of how they're characterised, it reinforces their essential difference to everybody else. So, what you're doing isn't creative, it's the exact opposite. That's plain enough from that drawing you did: as someone else pointed out a while back it looks like a stereotypical female warrior (not even a Dwarf!) with a fake beard stuck on.
Name for me the female Hobbit warrior in Tolkien lore?
Name for me the elven female warriors in Tolkien lore (not Arwen from the movies).
You can't because they don't exist. It doesn't mean they could not possibly EVER exist. We just didn't see them.
As for your continued insults of my sketch, you're entitled to your opinion, but as usual, your M.O. seems ever to be one to delight in tearing the work of others down while NEVER creating anything yourself. That seems to be a position of deep-seated insecurity and subsequent resentment.
Name for me the female Hobbit warrior in Tolkien lore?
Name for me the elven female warriors in Tolkien lore (not Arwen from the movies).
You can't because they don't exist. It doesn't mean they could not possibly EVER exist. We just didn't see them.
There had been so few male hobbit warriors, as such, that it's quite possible there had never been a female one. You keep forgetting how the different races are characterised: hobbits were extremely peaceful if left to themselves, never fought among themselves, were never warlike. Unlike Men, theirs wasn't a culture that bred warriors.
As for female Elves: the way Tolkien characterised them, they were typically disinclined to fight; it wasn't that they couldn't, and they certainly would in a last-ditch defence, but on the whole they left it up to the male Elves. However, note the word typically, there. Tolkien's description of them allowed for exceptions, just as there were some hobbits who went off on adventures, and so on. However, he makes no such exceptions for female Dwarves, he's absolutely definite about them. They hardly ever left the Dwarf-halls and wouldn't without some pressing reason, and they never went to war: it's a defining characteristic. So, one more time: Dwarves were different. Dwarves weren't like everybody else. Making them like everybody else doesn't add anything to them, it's just taking away the things that made them who they were.
As for your continued insults of my sketch, you're entitled to your opinion, but as usual, your M.O. seems ever to be one to delight in tearing the work of others down while NEVER creating anything yourself. That seems to be a position of deep-seated insecurity and subsequent resentment.
No, just profound dislike of that drawing in particular given what it's supposed to show. It wasn't me who made that comment about it, originally, although I heartily agreed with it. What I said about it had to do with the outfit, the sheer unlikeliness of it and how you couldn't even draw a long sword from that position. And more to the point, how it's direly stereotypical fantasy, because nobody would wear armour like that. Emphasising the female form is not what it's for.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Jan 16 2012 at 08:00 PM.
There had been so few male hobbit warriors, as such, that it's quite possible there had never been a female one. You keep forgetting how the different races are characterised: hobbits were extremely peaceful if left to themselves, never fought among themselves, were never warlike. Unlike Men, theirs wasn't a culture that bred warriors.
As for female Elves: the way Tolkien characterised them, they were typically disinclined to fight; it wasn't that they couldn't, and they certainly would in a last-ditch defence, but on the whole they left it up to the male Elves. However, note the word typically, there. Tolkien's description of them allowed for exceptions, just as there were some hobbits who went off on adventures, and so on. However, he makes no such exceptions for female Dwarves, he's absolutely definite about them. They hardly ever left the Dwarf-halls and wouldn't without some pressing reason, and they never went to war: it's a defining characteristic. So, one more time: Dwarves were different. Dwarves weren't like everybody else. Making them like everybody else doesn't add anything to them, it's just taking away the things that made them who they were.
No, just profound dislike of that drawing in particular given what it's supposed to show. It wasn't me who made that comment about it, originally, although I heartily agreed with it. What I said about it had to do with the outfit, the sheer unlikeliness of it and how you couldn't even draw a long sword from that position. And more to the point, how it's direly stereotypical fantasy, because nobody would wear armour like that. Emphasising the female form is not what it's for.
He makes no "exception" for dwarves because there has only ever been ONE female dwarf mentioned.
There have been exactly the same number of adventuring, martially-inclined female elves and hobbits in Tolkien lore as there have been dwarves.
Let's face it, Tolkien saw women save possibly elves (of all races) as inferior in most ways.
It is highly unlikely, even in his universe, that every individual, of every race behaves exactly the same.
As for the sketch, you have now mentioned how much you hate it, about eight times. We GET it. I simply don't care. The fact that someone with no artistic or creative ability whatsoever, hates my work means very little.
He makes no "exception" for dwarves because there has only ever been ONE female dwarf mentioned.
Wrong way round. There's only one female Dwarf mentioned because he makes no exceptions. It's only logical for male Dwarves to be the ones to put themselves in harm's way, because of that hugely imbalanced male to female ratio. Yet another example of a Dwarvish quirk which had big consequences, and something else it seems you prefer to ignore when it suits you.
There have been exactly the same number of adventuring, martially-inclined female elves and hobbits in Tolkien lore as there have been dwarves.
But there had been female Elves and hobbits who'd had adventures. I'm going to say it yet again, in hopes it might sink in this time: Dwarves were different from everybody else.
Let's face it, Tolkien saw women save possibly elves (of all races) as inferior in most ways.
Err... no. That would hardly fit with Eowyn killing the Witch-king, would it? What he did apparently dislike was the idea of women fighting, in general, but then he was only echoing the sentiments of his own time (and not just his own, either). The societies he describes would tend to think fighting was man's work, too. Besides that, as he'd seen the horrors of war first-hand, I think he's entitled to that opinion.
It is highly unlikely, even in his universe, that every individual, of every race behaves exactly the same.
There'd be a huge difference between a female Dwarf bucking the trend by wanting to see the world (which would make for an interesting character in RP) and the notion of a female Dwarf warrior who makes a point of seeking out danger.
As for the sketch, you have now mentioned how much you hate it, about eight times. We GET it. I simply don't care. The fact that someone with no artistic or creative ability whatsoever, hates my work means very little.
It wasn't your artistic ability I was commenting on, just what you'd chosen to draw. It's telling that what you drew wasn't a subtly feminine Dwarf, it was a stereotypical fantasy female with a beard stuck on.
Wrong way round. There's only one female Dwarf mentioned because he makes no exceptions. It's only logical for male Dwarves to be the ones to put themselves in harm's way, because of that hugely imbalanced male to female ratio. Yet another example of a Dwarvish quirk which had big consequences, and something else it seems you prefer to ignore when it suits you.
No one is saying there isn't a hugely imbalanced ratio or that male dwarves aren't more common in EVERY role because of it. This is not an issue.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
But there had been female Elves and hobbits who'd had adventures. I'm going to say it yet again, in hopes it might sink in this time: Dwarves were different from everybody else.
What is your source for female hobbit adventurers? I don't disagree that there likely were, but there are no canon sources for this. Your claim that it was likely there were at least some at some point really just proves my point. No matter how unlikely it might be or how rare it is, not every individual of every race is EXACTLY the same, even dwarves.
Regardless of what Tolkien's notes were at one point, it is clear that, compared to humans, elves and hobbits, dwarves are the least fully explored race in the Tolkien universe. They are painted with broad strokes of a broad brush, while the others are far more finely detailed with far more examples of individuals to flesh them out.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Err... no. That would hardly fit with Eowyn killing the Witch-king, would it? What he did apparently dislike was the idea of women fighting, in general, but then he was only echoing the sentiments of his own time (and not just his own, either). The societies he describes would tend to think fighting was man's work, too. Besides that, as he'd seen the horrors of war first-hand, I think he's entitled to that opinion.
No one said he wasn't entitled to his opinion, so stop with your strawmen arguments. Whether it was a reflection of the times or his own beliefs (of course it was both), it cannot be argued that, but for a select few exceptions, women in the Tolkien universe play no significant roles when it comes to deciding their own fate or the fates of others. Fairly or not, this has long been one of the few criticisms of his work.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
There'd be a huge difference between a female Dwarf bucking the trend by wanting to see the world (which would make for an interesting character in RP) and the notion of a female Dwarf warrior who makes a point of seeking out danger.
In the late Third Age, the world IS danger, so, for the most part, the two are one and the same.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
It wasn't your artistic ability I was commenting on, just what you'd chosen to draw. It's telling that what you drew wasn't a subtly feminine Dwarf, it was a stereotypical fantasy female with a beard stuck on.
It was both, but as I said, it matters not. It is your opinion. Art is subjective.
Last edited by Wyndelleu; Jan 17 2012 at 11:35 AM.
No one is saying there isn't a hugely imbalanced ratio or that male dwarves aren't more common in EVERY role because of it. This is not an issue.
It's not just a question of numbers, it's a matter of what that scarcity of female Dwarves did to their society. That's why the women stayed in their halls. The male Dwarves could do all the dealings with the outside world; most of them had no chance of marrying and so unless they were really good craftsmen, they were effectively expendable. It's an extreme form of division of labour by gender role.
What is your source for female hobbit adventurers?
The source for female hobbits going off on adventures is The Hobbit.
'Not the Gandalf who was responsible for so many quiet lads and lasses going off into the Blue for mad adventures?'
- 'An Unexpected Party'
Regardless of what Tolkien's notes were at one point, it is clear that, compared to humans, elves and hobbits, dwarves are the least fully explored race in the Tolkien universe. They are painted with broad strokes of a broad brush, while the others are far more finely detailed with far more examples of individuals to flesh them out.
The Dwarves were little known because they were clannish: very insular and secretive. Regardless of your 'broad brush' the fact that there's only one female Dwarf who's even so much as mentioned (and that in passing) underscores that the outside world only knew Dwarves by its dealings with the menfolk.
No one said he wasn't entitled to his opinion, so stop with your strawmen arguments. Whether it was a reflection of the times or his own beliefs (of course it was both), it cannot be argued that, but for a select few exceptions, women in the Tolkien universe play no significant roles when it comes to deciding their own fate or the fates of others. Fairly or not, this has long been one of the few criticisms of his work.
Okay, he underplays the role of women in general, but look at his influences. For example, there are a couple of female characters in Beowulf (aside from Grendel's mother), they're important people and they're presented in an exceedingly good light, but the role they have to play within their society doesn't include deeds of martial valour.
In any case, as the Dwarves were of course invented and Tolkien put his own spin on them as well (including some things which could be relied upon to make them behave differently to other peoples), you've no sound basis for second-guessing him. Nor when it comes to Elves, for that matter, but only for Men and even then, there's a difference between women playing a significant role in a tale and women going out and fighting.
In the late Third Age, the world IS danger, so, for the most part, the two are one and the same.
Demonstrating that any female Dwarves who were out and about would have picked a particularly lousy time to go for a walk, and nothing more.
It was both, but as I said, it matters not. It is your opinion. Art is subjective.
Whatever, it's certainly not an honest interpretation of one of Tolkien's Dwarves and has absolutely nothing to do with the game, even, let alone the books. When even Turbine are at pains to remain authentic to details like that, it leaves you way out on a limb.
It's not just a question of numbers, it's a matter of what that scarcity of female Dwarves did to their society. That's why the women stayed in their halls. The male Dwarves could do all the dealings with the outside world; most of them had no chance of marrying and so unless they were really good craftsmen, they were effectively expendable. It's an extreme form of division of labour by gender role.
As extreme as it is (and there is no doubt about that), with only a handful of specimens throughout the entirety of the history of Middle Earth, it's not reasonable to assume that every individual is the same.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
The source for female hobbits going off on adventures is The Hobbit.
'Not the Gandalf who was responsible for so many quiet lads and lasses going off into the Blue for mad adventures?'
- 'An Unexpected Party'
Hardly evidence, as the term "adventure" at that point in the story was considered to be anything even remotely 'unhobbitlike' like mucking about with boats or big folk. It's hardly evidence of female Hobbit adventures traveling the wider world, though I have no doubt there very well could have been - as there could be dwarves.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
The Dwarves were little known because they were clannish: very insular and secretive. Regardless of your 'broad brush' the fact that there's only one female Dwarf who's even so much as mentioned (and that in passing) underscores that the outside world only knew Dwarves by its dealings with the menfolk.
No, it actually means, he just wasn't as interested in exploring their history and personalities enough to detail them at all. His comments on dwarves are almost all painted in the broadest strokes possible. The idea that there could never, at any time, in the history of the world, be a dwarf female who decides to take a walk and see what else is out there, is frankly, absurd.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Okay, he underplays the role of women in general, but look at his influences. For example, there are a couple of female characters in Beowulf (aside from Grendel's mother), they're important people and they're presented in an exceedingly good light, but the role they have to play within their society doesn't include deeds of martial valour.
Underplays? Other than the exception of Galadriel, and to a lesser extent Eowyn, they play virtually no role whatsoever, and even in those roles are distinctly one-dimensional. Regardless, as I have stated before, you say that Tolkien dictates that society in his universe precludes females from pursuing deeds of martial valour. I (and pretty much everyone who plays this game) say that that kind of slavish literalism is unnecessarily myopic. It is the same as those who take every word in the bible to be the literal truth, or view the Constitution as a strict constructionist. You can take the words and the themes and work within that framework to evolve more detailed characters and still remain true to the overall Tolkien universe.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Demonstrating that any female Dwarves who were out and about would have picked a particularly lousy time to go for a walk, and nothing more.
You said that a female Dwarf bucking the trend by wanting to see the world, would, "make for an interesting character in RP." Well, what the hell is this about then!? You have already agreed with me in large part. The fact that walking the world in the late third age is decidedly dangerous, would certainly not be lost upon her. She may be inexperienced in the ways of the world, but she's not likely to be stupid.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Whatever, it's certainly not an honest interpretation of one of Tolkien's Dwarves and has absolutely nothing to do with the game, even, let alone the books. When even Turbine are at pains to remain authentic to details like that, it leaves you way out on a limb.
How can the interpretation be dishonest? The tale of a simple female dwarf from Erebor who seeks to see the world, can exist within the realm of Tolkien lore. To me, it smacks of elitist insecurity that you continue to choose to spend SO much time and effort in obsessively tearing this idea down (offering ZERO creativity of your own), especially when the game is replete with countless, "teenaged-elven vampires" and "supernatural dragons in disguise" or "super-powered elven ninjas" etc. that you seem to have less problem with than a character which is obviously highly detailed while still being plausible within the very broadly and lightly mapped segment of the universe it inhabits.
As extreme as it is (and there is no doubt about that), with only a handful of specimens throughout the entirety of the history of Middle Earth, it's not reasonable to assume that every individual is the same.
Not being the same is one thing, going around Middle-earth clad in mail and waving a sword about is quite another. Not to mention being supposedly very obviously female, too, something Tolkien categorically excludes. In just how many ways is she supposed to be radically different to every other female Dwarf?
Hardly evidence, as the term "adventure" at that point in the story was considered to be anything even remotely 'unhobbitlike' like mucking about with boats or big folk. It's hardly evidence of female Hobbit adventures traveling the wider world, though I have no doubt there very well could have been - as there could be dwarves.
That's terrible logic, because hobbits and Dwarves were different. You seem to be having real trouble with the idea that Dwarves were meant to be different to everybody else; all you do is look for excuses for making them the same.
No, it actually means, he just wasn't as interested in exploring their history and personalities enough to detail them at all. His comments on dwarves are almost all painted in the broadest strokes possible. The idea that there could never, at any time, in the history of the world, be a dwarf female who decides to take a walk and see what else is out there, is frankly, absurd.
If you recall, I didn't exclude taking a walk and neither, in fact, did he. Your character, however, is quite obviously an adventuress who intends to deliberately put herself in harm's way, with this talk of going to Moria, and that's a different matter entirely.
Underplays? Other than the exception of Galadriel, and to a lesser extent Eowyn, they play virtually no role whatsoever, and even in those roles are distinctly one-dimensional. Regardless, as I have stated before, you say that Tolkien dictates that society in his universe precludes females from pursuing deeds of martial valour. I (and pretty much everyone who plays this game) say that that kind of slavish literalism is unnecessarily myopic. It is the same as those who take every word in the bible to be the literal truth, or view the Constitution as a strict constructionist. You can take the words and the themes and work within that framework to evolve more detailed characters and still remain true to the overall Tolkien universe.
Yes, underplays. There are significant female characters in the book. If you look back at history, women have very often been excluded from warfare, so that women had to disguise themselves if they wanted to become soldiers. Tolkien wasn't dictating anything, he was simply being realistic about gender roles. Or are you going to deny that those were often very firmly entrenched, in the past?
You aren't remaining true to anything, here: everywhere there's a line that doesn't suit you, you step over it. Female Dwarves didn't either look or sound female to other peoples? Gone. Female Dwarves left the fighting to their menfolk? Gone. And this talk of 'one-dimensional' characters is hypocritical given that you're demolishing the things that differentiated Dwarves from everyone else and replacing them with nothing but generic fantasy. And worse, you seem to think this is creative, to come up with a character who's really just like any female adventurer, ever.
You said that a female Dwarf bucking the trend by wanting to see the world, would, "make for an interesting character in RP." Well, what the hell is this about then!? You have already agreed with me in large part. The fact that walking the world in the late third age is decidedly dangerous, would certainly not be lost upon her. She may be inexperienced in the ways of the world, but she's not likely to be stupid.
That still stops way short of where you're going with this character. If she's still wandering out and about when there's war looming then she is being stupid.
How can the interpretation be dishonest? The tale of a simple female dwarf from Erebor who seeks to see the world, can exist within the realm of Tolkien lore.
Because she is plainly not a 'simple female Dwarf', nor just out to see the world. That's what's dishonest about it: you're using that as an excuse for her being not just a traveller (which would be unusual enough) but an adventuress who goes around in mail with a sword by her side, and even has ambitions of seeing Moria (one of the most dreaded places in the whole of Middle-earth). Big difference.
Not being the same is one thing, going around Middle-earth clad in mail and waving a sword about is quite another. Not to mention being supposedly very obviously female, too, something Tolkien categorically excludes. In just how many ways is she supposed to be radically different to every other female Dwarf?
It's not that big of a stretch that, setting out on her own, in a dangerous land in a dangerous time, she'd take protection, especially since female dwarves are every bit as capable physically as male dwarves.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
That's terrible logic, because hobbits and Dwarves were different. You seem to be having real trouble with the idea that Dwarves were meant to be different to everybody else; all you do is look for excuses for making them the same.
No. I simply refuse to be constrained by the few lines of published text used to define them by those who are too creatively deficient to realize that dwarves in Tolkien's universe are not nearly as fleshed out as the other races. This character is nothing like a hobbit or a man or an elf. You cannot see that, because you think everyone who carries a weapon and travels from one location to another is the same!
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
If you recall, I didn't exclude taking a walk and neither, in fact, did he. Your character, however, is quite obviously an adventuress who intends to deliberately put herself in harm's way, with this talk of going to Moria, and that's a different matter entirely.
And so far, all she has done, is take a walk and talk about what she would LIKE to do. Only someone as ignorant as yourself would see this as "lore-breaking." Even if she actually tried to follow through, it would simply mean she is more adventurous than most of her kind.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Yes, underplays. There are significant female characters in the book. If you look back at history, women have very often been excluded from warfare, so that women had to disguise themselves if they wanted to become soldiers. Tolkien wasn't dictating anything, he was simply being realistic about gender roles. Or are you going to deny that those were often very firmly entrenched, in the past?
So, according to you, there should be NO female adventurers in the game, period. That seems reasonable *eyeroll*
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
You aren't remaining true to anything, here: everywhere there's a line that doesn't suit you, you step over it. Female Dwarves didn't either look or sound female to other peoples? Gone. Female Dwarves left the fighting to their menfolk? Gone. And this talk of 'one-dimensional' characters is hypocritical given that you're demolishing the things that differentiated Dwarves from everyone else and replacing them with nothing but generic fantasy. And worse, you seem to think this is creative, to come up with a character who's really just like any female adventurer, ever.
Incorrect on every level. Just because she travels and carries a weapon does not make her "like every adventurer ever." We have all met human women who look a little masculine, some to the point where they could be mistaken for men. By that criteria, it could be said that they look much the same to others. She didn't leave to fight, but as you established, the late third age is a rough time, so it only makes sense that she'd be as prepared as she possibly could. I interpret Tolkien's words differently than you. Most reasonable people see that a completely literal and utterly inflexible interpretation of the VERY few notes on the subject is simply unreasonable, especially in an environment where a member of this race is intended to be a well-rounded character in its own right - something it is not clear any dwarf save perhaps Thorin, and to a lesser extent, Gimli, ever was.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
That still stops way short of where you're going with this character. If she's still wandering out and about when there's war looming then she is being stupid.
Then LET HER BE THAT WAY! I prefer to think that her need for more of a life overrides her fear of the outside world. Perhaps the realization of those fears, and others she was too ignorant to even have, will cause her to rethink her decision, but the point is, that's the character's development, not yours.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Because she is plainly not a 'simple female Dwarf', nor just out to see the world. That's what's dishonest about it: you're using that as an excuse for her being not just a traveller (which would be unusual enough) but an adventuress who goes around in mail with a sword by her side, and even has ambitions of seeing Moria (one of the most dreaded places in the whole of Middle-earth). Big difference.
We've already covered this. Talk and action are different things. Even if she attempted to realize this, however, there is nothing wrong with it, as she is an individual.
It's not that big of a stretch that, setting out on her own, in a dangerous land in a dangerous time, she'd take protection, especially since female dwarves are every bit as capable physically as male dwarves.
'Setting out on her own' is not all she's doing. She's becoming an adventuress, which is several long steps past anything that's credible in this setting for a female Dwarf.
No. I simply refuse to be constrained by the few lines of published text used to define them by those who are too creatively deficient to realize that dwarves in Tolkien's universe are not nearly as fleshed out as the other races. This character is nothing like a hobbit or a man or an elf. You cannot see that, because you think everyone who carries a weapon and travels from one location to another is the same!
In which case Tolkien was 'creatively deficient' too, and you fancy yourself more creative... apparently for simply eliminating some of the defining characteristics he ascribed to his Dwarves, and which make them differ from the generic fantasy variety. Essentially, any Dwarf that doesn't look and sound like a gruff, heavily bearded bloke is way out of place here. Even the game, casual as it often is about lore, respects that. That you can't be bothered to is not 'creative', because the end result is something so generic that it could appear in pretty much any fantasy game, ever, apart from this one.
It's like playing an Elf and saying she's got blue skin and nine-inch pointy ears, goes by the name of Buttercup and lives in a hole in the Shire.
As we both agreed, walking very far from your front door in the late Third age can be seen as "adventuring" simply because it's a dangerous world. There is nothing "beyond credible" in that.
For everyone apart from female Dwarves.
Again, you are a slave to a fantastically restrictive literal INTERPRETATION of a few notes painting an entire race with incredibly broad and general strokes. It is far more creative to create an actual individual based on that rough template, adding similarities and differences from the baseline norm as you go. Unike with elves, men and hobbits, dwarves have MUCH less written about them and far fewer actual examples to go by, so individual characters will seem more outside the 'norm' unless they simply have no distinguishing features whatsoever.
You haven't created an 'actual individual' based on that template, as you've based it on how you would prefer female Dwarves to be rather than how Tolkien actually imagined them. And besides, merely being a female Dwarf who's out and about would be quite enough of a distinguishing feature. The rest is just your distaste for some of Tolkien's ideas, and your questionable preference for generic fantasy. It's always funny to see someone who thinks the devs didn't make LOTRO generic enough.
You know why all that's so daft? Because Terry Pratchett parodied Tolkien by having his own Dwarfs being unable to readily tell who was male or female themselves, and then deftly subverted it further by having Cheery 'Cheri' Littlebottom 'coming out' as female (to the utter horror of traditionally-minded Dwarfs!). That wouldn't have been half so funny if it hadn't been for the obvious reference. So, Pratchett didn't see it as 'fantastically restrictive', he saw it as comedy gold. Now that's being creative.
You both have fairly valid points, although I'd agree with Radhuin mostly, Females Dwarves would never venture far from Halls. They only time I could think of a Female dwarf possibly travelling is a pressing issue, like the Exile of Erebor (I generally consider a giant red dragon smothering your home in fire to be fairly pressing, not a good time to go On Break or make strange artifacts with images of cheese on it. (Sorry could help myself with the references )).
However, dwarves are a practical people. Should the need truly arise, they will use females as warriors (but decommission them after). But one must realize that dwarves treasure their women. They cannot spare one. They are easily triple the amount of dwarven males as their are females. They should keep them as far as possible from harms way. The death of one woman is the death of another possible handful of much needed women.
Very nice female dwarf sketch, by the way.
Last edited by Celestrata; Jan 22 2012 at 12:52 AM.
Reason: Removed community guidelines violations
Drobur Graventongue, Caravan-Master of the Mîmshol Trading Company
You both have fairly valid points, although I'd agree with Radhuin mostly, Females Dwarves would never venture far from Halls. They only time I could think of a Female dwarf possibly travelling is a pressing issue, like the Exile of Erebor (I generally consider a giant red dragon smothering your home in fire to be fairly pressing, not a good time to go On Break or make strange artifacts with images of cheese on it. (Sorry could help myself with the references )).
However, dwarves are a practical people. Should the need truly arise, they will use females as warriors (but decommission them after). But one must realize that dwarves treasure their women. They cannot spare one. They are easily triple the amount of dwarven males as their are females. They should keep them as far as possible from harms way. The death of one woman is the death of another possible handful of much needed women.
Very nice female dwarf sketch, by the way.
These are all your INTERPRETATIONS. They are perfectly okay, but they are clearly not the only way to view things.
You state that dwarves would use female warriors in need but decommission them afterwards. I would tend to agree with you, in most cases, but that's an interpretation.
You say there are easily triple the number of dwarven males as there are females. Again, I'd agree that's likely, but also again, it's an interpretation of very limited and broadly brushed notations on the subject.
In the most literal interpretation of a few lines of text in unpublished notes, dwarf females are said to be different (even physically) from males only in that they do not go to war. Well, you may think that's cut and dry, but like the Constitution or the Bible or most elements of broadly written text, there are many ways to interpret that.
For instance, what does "go to war" really mean? Did it mean no dwarven females ever took up arms for any reason and nor could they ever do so - even if they were traveling in lands that were hostile, or did it mean that no dwarven females marched in the Battle of Five Armies, but that some dwarven females may have carried a blade at some point when the need arose - even if only to ward off unfriendly wildlife or discourage brigands?
Is the line about appearance meant to imply that dwarven females are literally EXACTLY the same in appearance as dwarven males, including their reproductive organs (assuming they have them)? Or is it meant to imply that, by the standards of other races, dwarven females are decidedly masculine in appearance, so much so that they are often mistaken as male? Is this a description of the normative, leaving room for exceptions, or are those lines meant to imply that there are never any differences between dwarven females of any kind at any time?
It's a matter of interpretation. And it comes down to what the reader thinks is more reasonable and logical in the Tolkien universe.
Last edited by Wyndelleu; Feb 07 2012 at 02:08 PM.
Again, I'd agree that's likely, but also again, it's an interpretation of very limited and broadly brushed notations on the subject.
Umm, no.
'It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people.'
- LOTR Appendix A
That isn't one of those 'it is said' things that are open to interpretation, it's attributed directly to a Dwarf and not just any Dwarf at that. And since a Dwarf should have a pretty good idea how many Dwarf-women there were, you've not got a leg to stand on there.
In the most literal interpretation of a few lines of text in unpublished notes, dwarf females are said to be different (even physically) from males only in that they do not go to war. Well, you may think that's cut and dry, but like the Constitution or the Bible or most elements of broadly written text, there are many ways to interpret that.
But not without accounting for the near-total lack of named female Dwarves, or the fact that even the one who is mentioned is only of note because she was Thorin's sister. We only ever hear of deeds of valour by male Dwarves, unsurprisingly enough given that we're told female Dwarves seldom so much as went outside without some very good reason. So, unless you can reasonably account for that evident lack of warrior female Dwarves then again, you've not got a leg to stand on. You can't pretend that Dwarven society was run solely for the benefit of the men, because Tolkien said otherwise in LOTR Appendix A: Dwarf-women had rights.
For instance, what does "go to war" really mean? Did it mean no dwarven females ever took up arms for any reason and nor could they ever do so - even if they were traveling in lands that were hostile, or did it mean that no dwarven females marched in the Battle of Five Armies, but that some dwarven females may have carried a blade at some point when the need arose - even if only to ward off unfriendly wildlife or discourage brigands?
Using arms at need would obviously fit, but no going to war effectively rules out martial adventuring. No looking for trouble. No deliberately going into places full of foes, like Moria. And with the War of the Ring on, an implied need to find somewhere safe to wait it out, like any civilian would.
Is the line about appearance meant to imply that dwarven females are literally EXACTLY the same in appearance as dwarven males, including their reproductive organs (assuming they have them)? Or is it meant to imply that, by the standards of other races, dwarven females are decidedly masculine in appearance, so much so that they are often mistaken as male? Is this a description of the normative, leaving room for exceptions, or are those lines meant to imply that there are never any differences between dwarven females of any kind at any time?
No differences in voice and appearance. No differences in garb when dressed for travel. The eyes and ears of other peoples could not tell them apart. Again, that's not 'it is said' stuff but straightforward statements of fact, and not from notes either but LOTR. It's reasonable to assume that if you stripped a Dwarf naked, there'd be some anatomical differences to be seen but whatever they might have been, they evidently didn't show through clothing. It's implied that if you hung around a Dwarf-hall, you'd be able to spot female Dwarves by what they wore there (I imagine some sort of comfy robe, myself) but if they went outside, it seems they all dressed the same as a defensive measure. Hence, we're told, there came about the story among Men that there were no Dwarf-women. Tolkien's intent there is perfectly clear.
It's a matter of interpretation. And it comes down to what the reader thinks is more reasonable and logical in the Tolkien universe.
No, because there are clear factual statements there from canon. You are not entitled to your own facts.
'It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people.'
- LOTR Appendix A
That isn't one of those 'it is said' things that are open to interpretation, it's attributed directly to a Dwarf and not just any Dwarf at that. And since a Dwarf should have a pretty good idea how many Dwarf-women there were, you've not got a leg to stand on there.
That he knew of. He also doesn't even know where all dwarven communities are, let alone know their specific demographic makeup.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
But not without accounting for the near-total lack of named female Dwarves, or the fact that even the one who is mentioned is only of note because she was Thorin's sister. We only ever hear of deeds of valour by male Dwarves, unsurprisingly enough given that we're told female Dwarves seldom so much as went outside without some very good reason. So, unless you can reasonably account for that evident lack of warrior female Dwarves then again, you've not got a leg to stand on. You can't pretend that Dwarven society was run solely for the benefit of the men, because Tolkien said otherwise in LOTR Appendix A: Dwarf-women had rights.
LOL so because of the handful of named dwarves, only one is a female, therefore, no females can ever do anything? Pitiful reasoning as usual. There are no hobbit women warriors. There has never been one named in the Tolkien universe, so I suppose they cannot possibly exist as characters either.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Using arms at need would obviously fit, but no going to war effectively rules out martial adventuring. No looking for trouble. No deliberately going into places full of foes, like Moria. And with the War of the Ring on, an implied need to find somewhere safe to wait it out, like any civilian would.
That's YOUR INTERPRETATION. It is not a fact. I like to go adventuring all around the world in my real life. I have yet to end up in a war (came close twice). The War of the Ring is not a monolithic world conflict. It is a centuries long (longer depending on when you interpret it beginning), series of events that led to isolated outbreaks of conflict that would only be seen as an interconnected whole to a handful of the very wise. Those shorter-lived individuals, would NEVER say, "Oh...there's a great War of the Ring on outside, I better stay in...for my entire LIFE or until someone wins it, which ever comes first?" That'd be ridiculous. At the very worst, they'd feel a vague sense of darkening in the wider world or the effects of a local issue. It would be unlikely to cause anyone to refuse to live their life unless it was an area immediately being affected. A Dwarf female deciding to leave the isolation of Lonely Mountain and eventually making her way to Bree is not even close to "going to war." Your continued attempts to cast it as such are beyond silly.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
No differences in voice and appearance. No differences in garb when dressed for travel. The eyes and ears of other peoples could not tell them apart. Again, that's not 'it is said' stuff but straightforward statements of fact, and not from notes either but LOTR. It's reasonable to assume that if you stripped a Dwarf naked, there'd be some anatomical differences to be seen but whatever they might have been, they evidently didn't show through clothing. It's implied that if you hung around a Dwarf-hall, you'd be able to spot female Dwarves by what they wore there (I imagine some sort of comfy robe, myself) but if they went outside, it seems they all dressed the same as a defensive measure. Hence, we're told, there came about the story among Men that there were no Dwarf-women. Tolkien's intent there is perfectly clear.
That is your interpretation. You assume there's a difference in naked dwarves because you think it seems logical. That's an interpretation of text that you seem to think can only be read a single way. Then you decide to backtrack by stating that they are only seen as the same by the clothes they wear, trying to make people believe that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE that any female dwarf could ever wear anything that might tip off her gender to an outsider at ANY time, while IMAGINING (read interpreting) that they wear different clothes at home. LOL Perfectly Clear...as the Dead Marshes. You are welcome to your interpretation (as illogical as it is), but you cannot provide any clear evidence that my interpretation (or that of so many others) is invalid.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
No, because there are clear factual statements there from canon. You are not entitled to your own facts.
This very thread is indication that you have utterly failed at trying to tear down every other interpretation of this issue save your own ridiculously literal and utterly inflexible view of the text. You are like a person trying to convince a group of astrophysicists that the world is 6,000 years old because a text you see as 100% literal says so.
That he knew of. He also doesn't even know where all dwarven communities are, let alone know their specific demographic makeup.
It would apply to all Dwarven communities in the game, though, so you have no leg to stand on. Besides, why should that ratio be different elsewhere? You'd have to come up with a very good reason for that, not just "because I desperately need it to be". It wouldn't be legitimate interpretation in any case but a deliberate decision to ignore Tolkien.
LOL so because of the handful of named dwarves, only one is a female, therefore, no females can ever do anything? Pitiful reasoning as usual. There are no hobbit women warriors. There has never been one named in the Tolkien universe, so I suppose they cannot possibly exist as characters either.
Well spotted! No, there shouldn't be any female hobbit warriors. That's not the same thing as female hobbits not existing as characters, though, as you should well know.
That's YOUR INTERPRETATION. It is not a fact. I like to go adventuring all around the world in my real life. I have yet to end up in a war (came close twice). The War of the Ring is not a monolithic world conflict. It is a centuries long (longer depending on when you interpret it beginning), series of events that led to isolated outbreaks of conflict that would only be seen as an interconnected whole to a handful of the very wise. Those shorter-lived individuals, would NEVER say, "Oh...there's a great War of the Ring on outside, I better stay in...for my entire LIFE or until someone wins it, which ever comes first?" That'd be ridiculous. At the very worst, they'd feel a vague sense of darkening in the wider world or the effects of a local issue. It would be unlikely to cause anyone to refuse to live their life unless it was an area immediately being affected. A Dwarf female deciding to leave the isolation of Lonely Mountain and eventually making her way to Bree is not even close to "going to war." Your continued attempts to cast it as such are beyond silly.
'Centuries long'? It's a specific period of a few months when there's war pretty much everywhere east of the Misty Mountains. If there's a real war on, nobody in their right mind goes wandering into the middle of it. I didn't say visiting Bree was going to war, either, so that's an obvious strawman. I've always said that visiting the outside world was okay but that going looking for trouble was not. Turbine have extended the scope of the war to Eriador (and brought the effective start of it forward in time) with all that Angmar business. It'd hardly be any time for anyone to be going sight-seeing.
That is your interpretation. You assume there's a difference in naked dwarves because you think it seems logical.
Yes, that bit is my interpretation but Tolkien's statement that non-Dwarves couldn't tell by looking at or listening to Dwarves they met is not. That bit is perfectly clear, and phrased by him as a statement of fact.
That's an interpretation of text that you seem to think can only be read a single way. Then you decide to backtrack by stating that they are only seen as the same by the clothes they wear, trying to make people believe that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE that any female dwarf could ever wear anything that might tip off her gender to an outsider at ANY time, while IMAGINING (read interpreting) that they wear different clothes at home.
It's implied they wore different clothes at home because Tolkien said there was no difference to be seen 'in garb if they must go on a journey'. So, not something I've simply plucked out of thin air. In the outside world, they not only looked alike but dressed alike as well. So, RP-wise no female Dwarf would make a point of standing out. Nor can you excuse that: it's be acting out of character just because you want to make a point of your character being female, the same way she seemingly has to break with Tolkien's version on every single point just because you don't like the way he imagined them to be.
This very thread is indication that you have utterly failed at trying to tear down every other interpretation of this issue save your own ridiculously literal and utterly inflexible view of the text. You are like a person trying to convince a group of astrophysicists that the world is 6,000 years old because a text you see as 100% literal says so.
You're just griping because the facts don't suit you, and trying to make out they're only 'interpretation' when they're not. So sorry that neither Tolkien's imagination nor the choices the devs have made re Dwarves in LOTRO are to your taste. Oh, and it was referred to in the movies, as well. Might I recommend WoW, instead? The female Dwarves there are very obviously female, and as warlike as anyone could ever wish for.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Feb 07 2012 at 06:06 PM.
It would apply to all Dwarven communities in the game, though, so you have no leg to stand on. Besides, why should that ratio be different elsewhere? You'd have to come up with a very good reason for that, not just "because I desperately need it to be". It wouldn't be legitimate interpretation in any case but a deliberate decision to ignore Tolkien.
How would it apply to all communities everywhere if he has no knowledge of them? Gimli is not omnipotent nor omnipresent. He would simply not know for sure. It is your interpretation that the words of his CHARACTER must be infallible. You don't know what the demographics of every dwarven community is because that information is not ever given. You have decided to believe that it is the same everywhere as you have decided to believe that every single dwarven female is exactly the same.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Well spotted! No, there shouldn't be any female hobbit warriors. That's not the same thing as female hobbits not existing as characters, though, as you should well know.
So now female dwarves should not even exist as characters? You have clearly displayed your agenda of attacking anyone who plays a character that differs from YOUR personal interpretation of a subject upon which only a few lines are written and only a single example exists, despite the clear fact that several differing interpretations are commonplace among Tolkien fans.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
'Centuries long'? It's a specific period of a few months when there's war pretty much everywhere east of the Misty Mountains. If there's a real war on, nobody in their right mind goes wandering into the middle of it. I didn't say visiting Bree was going to war, either, so that's an obvious strawman. I've always said that visiting the outside world was okay but that going looking for trouble was not. Turbine have extended the scope of the war to Eriador (and brought the effective start of it forward in time) with all that Angmar business. It'd hardly be any time for anyone to be going sight-seeing.
There is not "war everywhere" at any point in the War of the Ring. There are battles being fought in multiple locations in the later stages, but most people were not directly affected by those. As usual, you choose to ignore the simple fact that people in the Tolkien universe in many locations, for the most part, continued to live their lives unaware of the greater events unfolding around them. As for the supposed "strawman" of the character that you are so ridiculously obsessed with destroying (and never will), she never "adventured" beyond leaving home and making her way to Bree where she set up her own blacksmith shop and continues to live, DREAMING of seeing the fabled mines of Moria like many of her kind. As I have said, DOZENS of times, in MULTIPLE threads, if you had ever bothered to RP in game, you'd understand that her role is mostly that of a glorified den-mother to those dwarves who stop in Breetown and treat her kindly. She just happens to possess a finely crafted weapon and a suit of mail that she brought with her from Lonely Mountain, as one who had access to such things would logically do upon setting out on a long journey without a specific destination.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Yes, that bit is my interpretation but Tolkien's statement that non-Dwarves couldn't tell by looking at or listening to Dwarves they met is not. That bit is perfectly clear, and phrased by him as a statement of fact.
What you cannot prove is that those comments were meant to be literal in all ways. You have shown in your own comments, that the writing is so limited that you extend your interpretation to that which you THINK would be logical in the Tolkien universe.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
It's implied they wore different clothes at home because Tolkien said there was no difference to be seen 'in garb if they must go on a journey'. So, not something I've simply plucked out of thin air. In the outside world, they not only looked alike but dressed alike as well. So, RP-wise no female Dwarf would make a point of standing out. Nor can you excuse that: it's be acting out of character just because you want to make a point of your character being female, the same way she seemingly has to break with Tolkien's version on every single point just because you don't like the way he imagined them to be.
Again, as in all of these very limited examples, you cannot tell if this is meant to be literal, or if these refer to a normative that allows some divergence, but however you interpret it, claiming that a dwarven female is physically INCAPABLE of wearing clothes that differ from that of her compatriots is just about the most asinine argument I have ever seen on these forums. Even Tolkien himself would likely laugh at you for that one.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
You're just griping because the facts don't suit you, and trying to make out they're only 'interpretation' when they're not. So sorry that neither Tolkien's imagination nor the choices the devs have made re Dwarves in LOTRO are to your taste. Oh, and it was referred to in the movies, as well. Might I recommend WoW, instead? The female Dwarves there are very obviously female, and as warlike as anyone could ever wish for.
You're just crying (and have been for weeks in multiple threads), because you can't stand the fact that someone whose interpretation of an infinitesimally small and almost completely undeveloped area of Tolkien lore has created a character which most people (even heavy RP and lore-knowledgeable people) accept readily and enjoy interacting with in game. Might I recommend you find something better to do with your time than feebly attempt to tear down the creations of others while creating nothing of your own? If you put HALF of the energy into creating something as you do attempting to destroy things you hate, you might manage to do something worthwhile for once.
Last edited by Wyndelleu; Feb 07 2012 at 06:56 PM.
Ladies, Gentlemen, Dwarves ... please cool it with the aggressive tone in here. I know lore issues tend to get heated and this topic in particular. But there's no need to attack or belittle anyone.
How would it apply to all communities everywhere if he has no knowledge of them? Gimli is not omnipotent nor omnipresent. He would simply not know for sure. It is your interpretation that the words of his CHARACTER must be infallible. You don't know what the demographics of every dwarven community is because that information is not ever given. You have decided to believe that it is the same everywhere as you have decided to believe that every single dwarven female is exactly the same.
All the Dwarves we deal with in the game are from Houses that Gimli was familiar with. As for Dwarf-women being all exactly the same, that's a strawman. I'm only stressing points of commonality that Tolkien decided for himself. For example, there is no reason whatsoever why any female Dwarf should ever look female to other peoples. That still allows for considerable variation (just as with the males), it was just that to everybody else, all Dwarves looked male. End of.
So now female dwarves should not even exist as characters? You have clearly displayed your agenda of attacking anyone who plays a character that differs from YOUR personal interpretation of a subject upon which only a few lines are written and only a single example exists, despite the clear fact that several differing interpretations are commonplace among Tolkien fans.
I didn't say that, either. Another strawman. As I said earlier, some wandering about in the world would be okay so if you wanted to RP a female Dwarf as someone simply visiting Bree, that'd be fine. It'd be deliberately wandering around in places full of horrid enemies that'd be off. The fact is, you're ignoring Tolkien even when he states things as plain fact, being definite about it without any of the usual 'it is said' type phrasing he uses to denote something that might not have been true.
There is not "war everywhere" at any point in the War of the Ring. There are battles being fought in multiple locations in the later stages, but most people were not directly affected by those. As usual, you choose to ignore the simple fact that people in the Tolkien universe in many locations, for the most part, continued to live their lives unaware of the greater events unfolding around them. As for the supposed "strawman" of the character that you are so ridiculously obsessed with destroying (and never will), she never "adventured" beyond leaving home and making her way to Bree where she set up her own blacksmith shop and continues to live, DREAMING of seeing the fabled mines of Moria like many of her kind. As I have said, DOZENS of times, in MULTIPLE threads, if you had ever bothered to RP in game, you'd understand that her role is mostly that of a glorified den-mother to those dwarves who stop in Breetown and treat her kindly. She just happens to possess a finely crafted weapon and a suit of mail that she brought with her from Lonely Mountain, as one who had access to such things would logically do upon setting out on a long journey without a specific destination.
Not so: Gimli had only brought a mail-shirt with him, not even a hauberk. No helm, either (movie notwithstanding). Full harness would be too cumbersome to lug around on such a journey, and it'd only be needed if you were expecting to have to go to war. The one thing that female Dwarves did not do. Gimli only got properly tooled up for war when they were at Edoras.
What you cannot prove is that those comments were meant to be literal in all ways. You have shown in your own comments, that the writing is so limited that you extend your interpretation to that which you THINK would be logical in the Tolkien universe.
Let's see: is Tolkien definite about it? Yes.
Does he leave any real room for doubt as to his meaning? No.
Does he equivocate or use words that imply it might not have been true? No.
Is it confirmed in more than one place in his writings? Yes.
Is it fully consistent where it appears? Yes.
Is is stated in things published in his lifetime? Yes.
What's the supposed source of the information? Gimli himself. Straight from the horse's mouth.
Is there anything illogical about a non-human race not conforming to human expectations? No.
Again, as in all of these very limited examples, you cannot tell if this is meant to be literal, or if these refer to a normative that allows some divergence, but however you interpret it, claiming that a dwarven female is physically INCAPABLE of wearing clothes that differ from that of her compatriots is just about the most asinine argument I have ever seen on these forums. Even Tolkien himself would likely laugh at you for that one.
Another strawman. Do you really think those fool anyone? I said that there is no reason why a female Dwarf would want to stand out by announcing that she's female to the whole wide world. That's just you wanting to do that so everyone can see it.
You're just crying (and have been for weeks in multiple threads), because you can't stand the fact that someone whose interpretation of an infinitesimally small and almost completely undeveloped area of Tolkien lore has created a character which most people (even heavy RP and lore-knowledgeable people) accept readily and enjoy interacting with in game. Might I recommend you find something better to do with your time than feebly attempt to tear down the creations of others while creating nothing of your own? If you put HALF of the energy into creating something as you do attempting to destroy things you hate, you might manage to do something worthwhile for once.
Actually, I rather think I have torn it down. People are more tolerant in-game (yes, even me!) but out here, I say what I think. You might find a better use of your time than to continue trying to argue the point. Remember, you started the argument up again by responding to Thaimli's post like that, when you could just have left it well enough alone.
All the Dwarves we deal with in the game are from Houses that Gimli was familiar with. As for Dwarf-women being all exactly the same, that's a strawman. I'm only stressing points of commonality that Tolkien decided for himself. For example, there is no reason whatsoever why any female Dwarf should ever look female to other peoples. That still allows for considerable variation (just as with the males), it was just that to everybody else, all Dwarves looked male. End of.
I don't think you actually know what a strawman is, as you have used it incorrectly now at least three times. You have, on multiple occasions, indicated that every dwarf female should be the same, and that there is ZERO variance between individuals, from the way outsiders see them and the way dwarves see them. Now, all the sudden, you're backtracking to say that it's only how others view them that matters - that, though everyone of them looks and acts EXACTLY the same, with no differences whatsoever, that they are, somehow, full individuals in the eyes of other dwarves. I (and most others) interpret Tolkien's very limited descriptions of dwarves to indicate that the females looked masculine enough that other races IN GENERAL had difficulty determining if they were female or not. This can be so with some level of variation between individuals. It comes down to whether or not you interpret that to be an individual (and thus completely static description that requires all individuals to look exactly the same regardless of gender or clan), or whether you interpret that to be a collective, and thus broad and general indication of how the typical dwarf appears. Given that male dwarves seem to have somewhat varied appearances, I'd argue that the latter seems most likely. Finally, I know it's difficult for someone of your limited vocabulary, but DO try to use actual sentences in your arguments.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
I didn't say that, either. Another strawman. As I said earlier, some wandering about in the world would be okay so if you wanted to RP a female Dwarf as someone simply visiting Bree, that'd be fine. It'd be deliberately wandering around in places full of horrid enemies that'd be off. The fact is, you're ignoring Tolkien even when he states things as plain fact, being definite about it without any of the usual 'it is said' type phrasing he uses to denote something that might not have been true.
Once again, you fail to comprehend the meaning of the term strawman, as the original objection to this character (other than the sketch which you have cried about now for almost a month), is the fact that she was a "sword-swinging she-warrior," which simply proves that you have limited reading skills to go with your even more limited reasoning skills. The idea that anything Tolkien says that could be open to any interpretation is preceded by or followed by the words, "it is said," is truly idiotic.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Not so: Gimli had only brought a mail-shirt with him, not even a hauberk. No helm, either (movie notwithstanding). Full harness would be too cumbersome to lug around on such a journey, and it'd only be needed if you were expecting to have to go to war. The one thing that female Dwarves did not do. Gimli only got properly tooled up for war when they were at Edoras.
Gimli was traveling to Rivendell, with an entourage. He was not planning on going to battle, though he was still well-armed. Had he known how long and far he was to be traveling, he would very likely have come with more protection. Even so, he had a mail shirt that he wore at almost all times, which is more protection than most of his companions had. Of all the gear she took with her on her journey from Erebor to Bree, Tally wore a mail hauberk and carried a sword, and she took that because she knew not when she would return nor exactly were her road would take her. That is completely appropriate. That you believe otherwise shows just how many straws you are now grasping at to try to destroy a creation you, for some reason (most likely insecurity and loneliness) detest with every fiber of your being.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Let's see: is Tolkien definite about it? Yes.
So you say. But that does not make it so.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Does he leave any real room for doubt as to his meaning? No.
Again, you assume the literal interpretation is the ONLY interpretation.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Does he equivocate or use words that imply it might not have been true? No.
Again, you cannot tell if he is speaking of a normative or an immutable constant. You cannot also tell if he is using hyperbole. Keep in mind, many of these notes that you are basing your completely literal interpretation upon were never published by him.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Is it confirmed in more than one place in his writings? Yes.
Some elements are alluded to in the LOTR, but they are from the point of view of a character who would not know of all communities and who might very well be prone to hyperbole himself.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Is it fully consistent where it appears? Yes.
It may be consistent, but it is still open to interpretation. That's the great thing about art.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Is is stated in things published in his lifetime? Yes.
VERY little was EVER written on dwarves at all. They are CLEARLY the least thought out and fleshed-out race in the Tolkien universe. What is written are very brief comments that are so limited that they can be seen as either the cookie-cutter template of rock solid, unyielding, utterly banal conformity or the rough guidelines upon which an entire race of people should be based. You see the former as most logical in the otherwise vast, detailed and varied universe Tolkien created. I (and many others) see it differently. You're just going to have to learn to accept the fact that not everyone is as creatively stunted as you are.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
What's the supposed source of the information? Gimli himself. Straight from the horse's mouth.
We've already been through this one.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Is there anything illogical about a non-human race not conforming to human expectations? No.
But there is much illogical about assuming that every single individual of a race or gender (or both), must be exactly the same, with absolutely zero variance or allowance for even the slightest bit of atypical appearance or behavior. While the limited writing on the subject may seem to indicate otherwise when taken purely literally, the incredible level of detail and imagination he put into most of his universe would indicate that Dwarves were either not that important to him, or he simply did not get around to fully fleshing them out (or most likely the latter because of the former).
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Another strawman. Do you really think those fool anyone? I said that there is no reason why a female Dwarf would want to stand out by announcing that she's female to the whole wide world. That's just you wanting to do that so everyone can see it.
Seriously kid, you need to learn what a strawman actually is before you try to use it for the 100th time. When you say something, and then I refute exactly the same thing you stated, it's not a strawman. Just because you dislike the fact that you have no valid response does not make my comment directly refuting your own, diversionary. The character does not live in a dwarven community. By your own admission (actually, your own speculation), dwarven females wore more gender specific clothing at home. Her home is currently among men and hobbits and a few other dwarves far from their ancestral homes, so she has taken to wearing clothes that do not cause her to simply blend in with the males.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Actually, I rather think I have torn it down. People are more tolerant in-game (yes, even me!) but out here, I say what I think. You might find a better use of your time than to continue trying to argue the point. Remember, you started the argument up again by responding to Thaimli's post like that, when you could just have left it well enough alone.
Well, you can THINK that you have faerie wings and can fly too, but that doesn't make it so. All you have torn down is the facade that you ever actually cared about whether something was or was not plausible in the Tolkien universe, and have instead, displayed for all to see, the fact that your insecurity leads you to spend hours, days, weeks, even MONTHS obsessively tearing at the creations of those by whom you are threatened.
I don't think you actually know what a strawman is, as you have used it incorrectly now at least three times.
Deliberately misrepresenting an argument in order to be able to knock it over, that being something you try all the time.
You have, on multiple occasions, indicated that every dwarf female should be the same, and that there is ZERO variance between individuals, from the way outsiders see them and the way dwarves see them.
I did not say there could be 'zero variance' between individuals; there just couldn't have been variance of the specific sort you want. There's no reason why female Dwarves should ever look in the least bit female to other peoples, because the Dwarves were a separate creation from Men and Elves and their creator had his own ideas about what his chosen people should be like. Got that now? They're not human. They don't have to fit in with human expectations or perceptions. That doesn't mean they wouldn't vary amongst themselves, just as male Dwarves did, but the variance wouldn't be of the sort you imagine, into feminine appearance other peoples could perceive. The Dwarves simply didn't display that, because Aulë hadn't made them that way. To everybody else's eyes, they all looked and sounded male.
Once again, you fail to comprehend the meaning of the term strawman, as the original objection to this character (other than the sketch which you have cried about now for almost a month), is the fact that she was a "sword-swinging she-warrior," which simply proves that you have limited reading skills to go with your even more limited reasoning skills. The idea that anything Tolkien says that could be open to any interpretation is preceded by or followed by the words, "it is said," is truly idiotic.
There you go again; it's not just the 'it is said' thing, that's one example of how he phrases things when he wants to make it clear it may not be true. Sorry, but when Tolkien actually states a fact, from such an obviously reliable source, then you can't claim to interpret that differently. You're entitled to interpretation where there's legitimate scope for interpretation, but when Tolkien is so definite about a fact you are not entitled to simply ignore that because it doesn't suit you and go about inventing your own facts.
Gimli was traveling to Rivendell, with an entourage. He was not planning on going to battle, though he was still well-armed. Had he known how long and far he was to be traveling, he would very likely have come with more protection.
If you look in the book, it says quite specifically that the Fellowship took little war-gear with them on purpose because they were looking to avoid fights, not preparing for them. Nobody else in the Fellowship was wearing mail then (apart from Frodo and his mithril mail-shirt) because it'd have been too heavy to lug around all that way and fatiguing to wear. A mail-shirt was no great burden to Gimli but that doesn't mean that more armour wouldn't have been, as they were all having to carry other gear as well (supplies, cooking-gear and other camping equipment, water, spare clothing, all that).
So you say. But that does not make it so.
As any reasonable person would say. You are simply being unreasonable.
Again, you assume the literal interpretation is the ONLY interpretation.
Clearly stated fact, not open to interpretation.
Again, you cannot tell if he is speaking of a normative or an immutable constant. You cannot also tell if he is using hyperbole. Keep in mind, many of these notes that you are basing your completely literal interpretation upon were never published by him.
Certainly looks like a given to me (and not just me, either). And in this case I'm not referring to notes but LOTR Appendix A, it's canon lore.
Some elements are alluded to in the LOTR, but they are from the point of view of a character who would not know of all communities and who might very well be prone to hyperbole himself.
'It is because of the fewness of women among them that the kind of the Dwarves increases slowly, and is in peril when they have no secure dwellings.'
- LOTR Appendix A
Given how it's thereby tied into other things, things that are observable within the legendarium, it's all of a piece; you can't just drop one bit in isolation because you don't care for it. It was why there weren't a lot more Dwarves, and why they eventually went into a terminal decline. It's part of the overall logic of the setting, how Elves and Dwarves alike decline to make way for Men.
It may be consistent, but it is still open to interpretation. That's the great thing about art.
A change unredeemed by any artistry on your part, as you're only dragging generic fantasy in here by doing it.
VERY little was EVER written on dwarves at all. They are CLEARLY the least thought out and fleshed-out race in the Tolkien universe. What is written are very brief comments that are so limited that they can be seen as either the cookie-cutter template of rock solid, unyielding, utterly banal conformity or the rough guidelines upon which an entire race of people should be based. You see the former as most logical in the otherwise vast, detailed and varied universe Tolkien created. I (and many others) see it differently. You're just going to have to learn to accept the fact that not everyone is as creatively stunted as you are.
It seems that despite the fact that he had clearly thought something out, it's not good enough for you. This talk of creativity is a joke: Tolkien went with something idiosyncratic but you simply prefer mainstream fantasy, so you insist on grinding his originality underfoot while substituting nothing original of your own.
Seriously kid, you need to learn what a strawman actually is before you try to use it for the 100th time. When you say something, and then I refute exactly the same thing you stated, it's not a strawman. Just because you dislike the fact that you have no valid response does not make my comment directly refuting your own, diversionary. The character does not live in a dwarven community. By your own admission (actually, your own speculation), dwarven females wore more gender specific clothing at home. Her home is currently among men and hobbits and a few other dwarves far from their ancestral homes, so she has taken to wearing clothes that do not cause her to simply blend in with the males.
You said, and I quote "claiming that a dwarven female is physically INCAPABLE of wearing clothes that differ from that of her compatriots is just about the most asinine argument I have ever seen on these forums". I did not claim any such thing, you made that up to have a go at what I said about clothing. That's a strawman. Again, do you imagine anyone else reading this wouldn't notice a bare-faced lie like that?
When at home, among other Dwarves, safe and secure in a Dwarf-hall, it seems they may have worn something that could have been considered as women's clothing (whatever that might have meant to Dwarves). What I said was not just speculation because it's strongly implied by what Tolkien said himself. The point of wearing clothing identical to the males when going among outsiders was evidently defensive, and your character would be among outsiders in Bree. And Bree, in case you've forgotten, was not entirely safe: it was not the sort of 'secure dwellings' where Dwarves didn't have to worry about a thing.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Feb 08 2012 at 05:19 AM.
While I really do appreciate the vigor and fervour that you're approaching this subject with, this seems to be getting a little too heated. Both of you seem like reasonable individuals, and it seems that your discussion has come to an impasse. Neither of you are going to have their minds changed by the other party.
With that in mind, can we take a break from this? Agree to disagree, and move along.
Seraphina Brennan -- Turbine Community Specialist "When in doubt, reach for the stars. That way you'll never come up short."
Don't forget about our Facebook page! and Twitter page! =^_^= Questions on our policies? Read the community guidelines! I try to answer all of my PMs, but I get a lot! Sometimes I may not get back to you, but I have read your mail!
While I really do appreciate the vigor and fervour that you're approaching this subject with, this seems to be getting a little too heated. Both of you seem like reasonable individuals, and it seems that your discussion has come to an impasse. Neither of you are going to have their minds changed by the other party.
With that in mind, can we take a break from this? Agree to disagree, and move along.
That is what I have been saying for months, but the guy simply won't let it be. He cannot stand the fact that others may have a different interpretation than he does.
Ladies and Gentleman I am not sure we have been introduced formally, though you may have seen me around on Snowy. I tend to get noticed for some reason. I once joined a random fellowship grouping to be greeted by "OMG a celebrity".
I can usually be found dancing badly and full of incredible amounts of ale at festival times. I tend to get either lots of hugs and/or slaps from little equally drunk hobbits.
I had a nightmare the other night that my beard dissapeared and I was looking for it in Moria.
Fight on my dwavern sisters! May the orc blood always wash right out your frilly dresses.
Having a female dwarf is cool if yu find the interpretation important,but 2 things:
1-I doubt female dwarf would utilise long bears,i would say they only utilise little beards.
2-I don't think females should be tank,im not machist but beeing a guardian(i think)is only for men.
Having a female dwarf is cool if yu find the interpretation important,but 2 things:
1-I doubt female dwarf would utilise long bears,i would say they only utilise little beards.
Not according to JRRT - there was no such ready way to spot a female Dwarf. So, no: Dwarves were even born with beards, having a proper beard was an important part of their identity. There's a quote:
'The Naugrim [Dwarves] were ever, as they still remain, short and squat in stature; they were deep-breasted, strong in the arms, and stout in the leg, and their beards were long.'
- from 'The words of Pengelod concerning the Naugrim', as published in 'The War of the Jewels' (HoME vol.11)
2-I don't think females should be tank,im not machist but beeing a guardian(i think)is only for men.
And they didn't go in for fighting, so that's a moot point.
Not according to JRRT - there was no such ready way to spot a female Dwarf. So, no: Dwarves were even born with beards, having a proper beard was an important part of their identity. There's a quote:
'The Naugrim [Dwarves] were ever, as they still remain, short and squat in stature; they were deep-breasted, strong in the arms, and stout in the leg, and their beards were long.'
- from 'The words of Pengelod concerning the Naugrim', as published in 'The War of the Jewels' (HoME vol.11)
And they didn't go in for fighting, so that's a moot point.
They could have whatever length beards they like...just like the men. And they could go where ever they like as well.
I do have two female dwarves and I enjoy playing them and dressing them up. Not for the sake of having a female dwarf, but just because I like dresses and other girlie things. I always seem to bump into Rosiebelle as soon as there is a possibility to acquire a new dress, a fancy circlet or other girlie stuff. I even have a dwarf flirt who loves my dwarf minstrel and I always seem to run out of pink dye as soon as I get my hands on it.
About the beard discussion, my dwarves have long beards as that just looks better on them. Preferably one with a little braid in it. I'm still hoping there will be more beard-options introduced that I like, so I can go to the barber and get another beard I like
I notice how everyone keeps bringing up "A Feminine Curve", but no one actually took a look at what dwarves call a feminine curve... you get a sword called "Feminine Curve" as a quest reward there. The quest starts with a "lady axe", but I see no reason not to assume that the quest reward is called "feminine curve" because just like the axe it is a lady's weapon. Here it is:
I did that quest recently after having read a bit of this thread, so I took that screenshot. A dwarf describes it:
Look at the delightfully feminine curve of the steel! And this playful little spike right here! The curve of that decorative etching imitates the distinctive handle of a fine-toothed beard-comb, such as only a high-born lady would use.
So there you go, THAT is what dwarves think of as delicate, feminine curves. I shudder to think what their dresses look like But seriously: why is it so hard to just take Tolkien dwarves as what they are - a different species whose culture and taste cannot just be reduced to "smaller than humans and females with beard". It doesn't do them justice, even in this Turbine interpretation.
By the way, all dwarves in that quest act as if encountering female items was something really extraordinary. It doesn't give the impression that female dwarves go around adventuring or resettling ancient ruins all that often.
I love that blade and the quest-chain associated with it!
Originally Posted by Autistic_Cucoo
So there you go, THAT is what dwarves think of as delicate, feminine curves. I shudder to think what their dresses look like
But we do know what dwarven dresses look like, in-game. See?
With short-sleeves to offer that tantalizing view of a well-shaped arm of a lady... alas, those pictures show the dresses off as worn by an elf-maiden.
And to be nitpicky, they're 'merely' dwarf-make dresses. Frankly, though, I'm not sure what would be the difference...
Originally Posted by Autistic_Cucoo
By the way, all dwarves in that quest act as if encountering female items was something really extraordinary. It doesn't give the impression that female dwarves go around adventuring or resettling ancient ruins all that often.
I agree, the Dwarves do seem excited about it...
However, that whole quest chain? It begins because there was a female Dwarf as part of Balin's expedition. That doesn't give the impression that they were cordoned off from dangerous, some might even say insane, ventures, either.
Perhaps individuality counts?
They are so few in number that they rarely venture out and are highly protected. When they do come out, they dress as men. That's made obvious by the jokes about never seeing a dwarf female. Most of the info on female dwarves is in the Simarillion. If a female dwarf were out for some reason, she wouldn't be running around in a dress and acting like a human female.
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Originally Posted by Paco105
Grand Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
)).
Guard of the Citadel Online status:
Turbine Community Team Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Re: Female Dwarfs Appreciation Blog
Junior Member Online status:
Junior Member Online status:
Neana
Member Online status:
Century Member Online status:
But seriously: why is it so hard to just take Tolkien dwarves as what they are - a different species whose culture and taste cannot just be reduced to "smaller than humans and females with beard". It doesn't do them justice, even in this Turbine interpretation.
Poster of Note Online status:
Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
