Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver   << [1] [2]
Thanks Eldo- I hasten to add the cat in the pic is not mine- I have yet to resort to stuffing one of them in a bottle although the day I came home to find the kitten had torn down the curtains, ripped a sizeable chunk of wallpaper off and chewed its way through the cable on my wireless receiver (making me suspect it had grasped the concept of irony) I was tempted.
I had a cat temporarily in my care for a day or so, very sad and hungry. I'm not a cat person and I can't explain exactly why I succumbed! In the end, I was sad to see it go back to its ([i:3bl0zrzh]neglectful[/i:3bl0zrzh] :x :x ) owners! I hope you guys aren't influencing me... :? Cute cat, though! Eighteen years old and in desperate need of love... Old - and cute - and in need of love...? Hey! Maybe it wasn't you guys after all! Maybe I had a different connection with the poor thing altogether! (Mr Tyrant, there's so much irony going on, I should get the clothes basket out and make practical use of it! :ugeek: )
I know the feeling, petty. My cat has made a wreck of most of the furniture in our living room. My mother yells at him when she catches him in the act, but I can never bring myself to do it - he's just too cute! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
Bah humbug, Somehow a post of mine was lost to the ethers several hours ago :x .

My definition of Canon is not "unusual" Eldo, it is the [b:35bwazzj]literary[/b:35bwazzj] definition as opposed to the religious definition. The Silmarillion may have been edited by Christopher Tolkien (with a little help from Guy Kay), but as he himself says in the very foreword you quote from Eldo: "I have not burdened the book further with any sort of commentary or annotation." Thus the book is attributed to JRR Tolkien himself, rather than being a documentary of the evolution of JRR's work attributed to Christopher Tolkien like The History of Middle Earth series (in other words extra-textual works with Christopher's annotations and commentary). Thus the Silmarillion fulfills the literary definition of Canon. And thus the version of Orc Origins recorded in the Silmarillion are Canonical, even though they are not necessarily Tolkien's final thoughts on the matter.

My lost post went into much more detail regarding that point but I'm going to drop it for now out of sheer annoyance <img src='/images/smileys/vevil.gif' border='0' alt='Very Evil Smilie' /> .

On the subject of Orc immortality I also posted. In brief, I pointed out that based on Tolkien's evolving Cosmology from more Animist forms of Paganism to a blend of Classical Paganism and Catholicism, it would be highly unlikely in Tolkien's later conceptions that Orcs would be immortal. As "Broken" or "Fallen" Elves they were fully corrupted by "Sin" and their immortality lost--much like Adam and Eve in the Garden.

And i have to agree with Eldorion again; that there is no reason to assume that Orcs had no culture and no oral histories at the very least.

However there is no Canon material verifying one way or the other, so there is room for speculation on the topic. That Orcs had extended life-spans though, is a reasonable assertion given the Canon references.

Finally, Cats are Awesome :mrgreen: .

[b:35bwazzj]GB[/b:35bwazzj]
Eldorion wrote:

"The person making a positive claim must back up their claim. The "negative" in this case is merely the side arguing against the positive claim"

Eldo, this statement is absolutely correct however you are misidentifying which is the positive and which is the negative claim. I have had multiple university classes on statistics/hypothesis testing and can assure you it is a common error.

[b:30a1lnlr]In regard to the negative claim[/b:30a1lnlr]:
In this case the negative claim [u:30a1lnlr]is not[/u:30a1lnlr] based on the "not" in [orcs are not immortal] as you are saying
The negative claim [u:30a1lnlr]is[/u:30a1lnlr] based on the "not" in [orcs are not different from elves (orcs are immortal)]

[u:30a1lnlr]JUST BECAUSE A CLAIM HAS "NOT" IN IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT A NEGATIVE CLAIM[/u:30a1lnlr]
Remember, a negative claim always hypothesises "no change/difference"
So, since you are claiming the orcs lost their immortality, that would be a change, and is thus a positive claim and bares the burden of proof.
Actually, Ancalagon (and Eldorion) I don't think there is enough evidence for there to be either a "Positive" or a "Negative" claim in Canon insofar as it relates to Orc immortality. Extra-Canon evidence though, leans towards non-immortality for Orcs, though not definitively.

[b:il5xjku7]GB[/b:il5xjku7]
I always imagined Orcrist to look very similar to Glamdring, and while one in the hands of a wizard or elf, is a long sword, or even a hand and a half sword, to a dwarf it would be wielded as a two handed sword like a claymore or great sword
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3dh3rvzd]My definition of Canon is not "unusual" Eldo, it is the [b:3dh3rvzd]literary[/b:3dh3rvzd] definition as opposed to the religious definition.[/quote:3dh3rvzd]

In most if not all of the literary/cinematical uses of the word canon that I have seen, it refers to some authority: i.e., the author or the copyright holder. I don't want to get hung up on the definition, though, as I don't think it's the main issue here.

[quote:3dh3rvzd]Thus the book is attributed to JRR Tolkien himself, rather than being a documentary of the evolution of JRR's work attributed to Christopher Tolkien like The History of Middle Earth series (in other words extra-textual works with Christopher's annotations and commentary).[/quote:3dh3rvzd]

When I cite texts from The History of Middle-earth, I use the parts written by Tolkien and largely let the notes and comments alone. In this sense it is a 'purer' version of Tolkien since Christopher did not change or inject [i:3dh3rvzd]his own writing[/i:3dh3rvzd] into the main text, at least not as much. That's the thing, really: The Silmarillion as published was not written by Tolkien. The History of Middle-earth is such a messy (not meant as a put-down) anthology with internal contradictions that its not usable. In short, there isn't [b:3dh3rvzd]any[/b:3dh3rvzd] canon when it comes to the First Age. Unless we assume Christopher Tolkien knew all of his father's thoughts on the matter, allowing him to fill JRRT's shoes perfectly*, we need to make do with the imperfect situation we have.

[quote:3dh3rvzd]Finally, Cats are Awesome :mrgreen: .[/quote:3dh3rvzd]

I'm glad we agree on this. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />

* I think he was the best person for the job of compiling TS and THoMe, but he's not his father, and I think we need to read all of the posthumous texts with a grain of salt, which renders the very concept of canon irrelevant.
[quote="Ancalagon":1q94hqvz][u:1q94hqvz]JUST BECAUSE A CLAIM HAS "NOT" IN IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT A NEGATIVE CLAIM[/u:1q94hqvz]
Remember, a negative claim always hypothesises "no change/difference"[/quote:1q94hqvz]

I already spelled this out in my last post, but let me reiterate this; it's an important point. My use of the word negative was [i:1q94hqvz]only[/i:1q94hqvz] in relation to your (positive) claim - i.e., that Orcs are immortal. Your (mis)use of the Fallacy of Equivocation (using a word or phrase - in this case, negative claim, in a different way than it was previously used in a discussion) doesn't change your responsibility to provide evidence for your assertions under the principle of burden of proof. I quote [i:1q94hqvz]"The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position"[/i:1q94hqvz] (Attacking Faulty Reasoning, Sixth Edition by T. Edward Damer, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009).

[quote:1q94hqvz]So, since you are claiming the orcs lost their immortality, that would be a change, and is thus a positive claim and bares the burden of proof.[/quote:1q94hqvz]

I think you got so hung up on the phrase "positive claim" that the main point slipped by. You need to provide evidence for your assertion, not start talking about statistics.

EDIT: Tried to make this clearer and a bit nicer. I'm trying. :roll:
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":4w0awvtr]I don't think there is enough evidence for there to be either a "Positive" or a "Negative" claim in Canon insofar as it relates to Orc immortality.[/quote:4w0awvtr]

My point is only that Ancalagon made a claim and it his responsibility to provide evidence [b:4w0awvtr]for[/b:4w0awvtr] it, rather than challenging others to provide evidence [b:4w0awvtr]against[/b:4w0awvtr] it. Looking back, it would have been better if I had just said "claim" instead of "positive claim" so that we would have been spared the false equivocations with statistics.

EDIT: Removed some excessive snarkiness. Anyway, just see the edit to my preceding post for my thoughts on the matter.
Perhaps this sort of cattiness might be better placed on the Catchat Thread? :?

Oh Eldo, you've become a fierce feline lately. What with that ready paw in your holster - and very quick on the claw...! :shock:
Eldo <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />

I have no desire to continue a petty argument with you and will no longer try. I apologize to you and everyone else for being stubborn and bull headed.

However, for a final clarification I did not claim anything:

"I'm not sure myself, but [u:3t53ly0x]some believe[/u:3t53ly0x] that orcs, originating from elves, are immortal and may have actually been around during the first age"

It was you (and a few others) who then claimed this was false with only speculations.

PEACE Eldo, we're on the same team here after all :lol:
[quote="Ancalagon":7fg0rbzq]I have no desire to continue a petty argument with you and will no longer try. I apologize to you and everyone else for being stubborn and bull headed.[/quote:7fg0rbzq]


Used to be Mr Tyrant's role, but lately he's become or warm and fuzzy and cuddly (cyberactively-speaking), so the job of Stubborn Bullhead would be appear to be Vacant at the moment, Mr Ancalagon. You are welcome to apply. Mind you, Eldo has become a little hardened lately - so we might have to hold job interviews! And, of course, Mr Tyrant might just be resting his crabbit, but Mr Tyrant, no one is indispensable... :?:
[quote="Ancalagon":1lbmcrt1]I apologize to you and everyone else for being stubborn and bull headed.[/quote:1lbmcrt1]

Accepted, gladly. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> I myself apologize for reacting the way I did.

[quote:1lbmcrt1]It was you (and a few others) who then claimed this was false with only speculations.[/quote:1lbmcrt1]

I pointed out that I didn't deny that it was [i:1lbmcrt1]possible[/i:1lbmcrt1], only that it was not certain or canon. So in a way we partially agree.

Peace!
JRR Tolkien's name is on the cover of The Silmarillion...isn't that Canon enough for you Eldo :x ?

There, stubborn and pigheaded, job filled. :P

<img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> :mrgreen: :lol:

[b:1iexzxtn]GB[/b:1iexzxtn]
GB!!! :shock:

Let's let this cool off a little bit :lol:
Yes...yes...where were we...? :?

[b:1yuahj46]GB[/b:1yuahj46] <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3ulnu30r]JRR Tolkien's name is on the cover of The Silmarillion...isn't that Canon enough for you Eldo :x ?[/quote:3ulnu30r]

It's almost 2 AM here so my sarcasm detector is offline. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> If you're being serious ... well, let me know and I'll have a response after several hours of sleep. If you're not, thanks for filling the stubbornness quota. :lol:
Obnoxious on the inside, with clever honeyed coatings! I might have known. Ah! All of you Stubbornheads... just waiting to jump out armed with blunt adjectives! Tricky to choose from this field! Mr Tyrant will have to [i:25n9v7x1]really[/i:25n9v7x1] perform to keep his job... We shall name the winner thus: Orcist - The Goblin Cleaver.... :ugeek:
Well my Sarcasm Projector was working overtime, so sleep well Eldo :lol: .

[b:3s7n495v]GB[/b:3s7n495v]
Nothing worse than people trying to steal your job, I don't know, come here from foreign boards, after our women (keep a careful eye out Tin!) trying to out stubborn people. Its a disgrace, they should all go back where they came from! (And I do hope everyone's sarcasm detector is working fine here).
Anyone who wants to challenge me to a debate on the issues of why PJ shoud be tried for High, Low and every other sort of Treason against Tolkien meet me in the LoTR threads. I'l damn well show you stubbornness and crabbitness-you're all claimed :twisted:
You make me look soft and cuddly, petty. :lol:
Bring it Purists!!!! :P

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[b:3lcutgpt]GB[/b:3lcutgpt]
Now now folks, steady down! Someone will blow a circuit...! (Mmm...I shouldn't like a BIG vicious fight to start. Nonetheless, don't put up with them, Mr Tyrant - most of them are pussies! I've even seen their photos - just avatars? Yeah... right....! Oh you're a pussy too....? :? Ermm.. a [i:15cekn3v]vicious[/i:15cekn3v] pussy.... yes, that's it! Like Python's rabbit, only [i:15cekn3v]viciouser[/i:15cekn3v]! I'm right, aren't I, Mr Tyrant, you're not a [i:15cekn3v]Tame[/i:15cekn3v] Animal are you? You arer a [i:15cekn3v]Wild[/i:15cekn3v] Animal, surely! :? )
Between Odo's pussy and orc sex I'm afraid this forum is taking a turn towards NSFW. :shock:
My goodness... there is a naughty lobe in your brain, Eldo! :oops: :oops: :oops: 'Pussy' is short for 'pussy cat.' And Mr Tyrant was at pains to explain what he meant by orc-sex. It's a serious subject for discussion. Shame on you... you naughty person! :roll:
  << [1] [2]