Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

The forthcoming Hobbit movie
User avatar
pettytyrant101
Posts: 1383

Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Post#51 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:45 pm

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.

User avatar
Odo Banks
Posts: 1883

Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Post#52 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:47 pm

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 (neglectful :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: )

User avatar
Eldorion
Posts: 2121
Contact:

Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Post#53 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:13 pm

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! :D

User avatar
Gandalfs Beard
Posts: 2311

Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Post#54 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:56 pm

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 literary 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 :evil: .

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: .

GB

User avatar
Ancalagon
Posts: 66

Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Post#55 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:39 pm

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.

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

JUST BECAUSE A CLAIM HAS "NOT" IN IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT A NEGATIVE CLAIM
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.

User avatar
Gandalfs Beard
Posts: 2311

Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Post#56 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:50 pm

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.

GB

rodu
Posts: 22

Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Post#57 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:09 pm

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

User avatar
Eldorion
Posts: 2121
Contact:

Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Post#58 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:32 pm

Gandalfs Beard wrote:My definition of Canon is not "unusual" Eldo, it is the literary definition as opposed to the religious definition.


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.

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).


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 his own writing 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 any 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.

Finally, Cats are Awesome :mrgreen: .


I'm glad we agree on this. :D

* 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.

User avatar
Eldorion
Posts: 2121
Contact:

Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Post#59 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:36 pm

Ancalagon wrote:JUST BECAUSE A CLAIM HAS "NOT" IN IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT A NEGATIVE CLAIM
Remember, a negative claim always hypothesises "no change/difference"


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 only 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 "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" (Attacking Faulty Reasoning, Sixth Edition by T. Edward Damer, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009).

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.


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:

User avatar
Eldorion
Posts: 2121
Contact:

Orcrist - The Goblin Cleaver

Post#60 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Gandalfs Beard wrote: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.


My point is only that Ancalagon made a claim and it his responsibility to provide evidence for it, rather than challenging others to provide evidence against 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.

Return to “The Hobbit (Movie)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest