[The Saucepan Man]

I posted this quote from Osanwe-kenta in one of your threads (over a year and a half ago, titled 'Is there any hope for redemption ...?').

Hehe! I had forgotten about that thread. Preoccupied with the idea of redemption? Me? Nah!

Although that thread came to be more concerned with the idea of whether characters who act "wrongly" redeem themselves in the eyes of the reader, there are some points discussed there which touch upon this discussion. Here is the link, if anyone is interested: Is there any hope for redemption ...?

The point was just that they could repent, in theory and in practice.

It's all very well Tolkien saying this, but my point is that some beings appear to have had less opportunity to do so than others. Surely, an Orc who has been brought up to behave in a brutal and hateful manner has far less opportunity to repent of a wrongful deed than say a Hobbit who has been brought up with a firm moral grounding. Indeed, the Hobbit is infinately less likely to commit the wrongful act in the first place. They are not starting off on an equal footing. Is it fair to blame an Orc for not repenting when to do so is wholly alien to his culture?

aren't orcs destined to be orcs? How much freedom do they have to act outside the confines of the Music?If they have no such freedom, they can't be held accountable for their choices, & so have no need to repent.

But, assuming that Orcs have fea, isn't this again an indication that they are not starting out on a level playing field? Why should their spirits be denied the opportunity to repent simply because they happen to be born as Orcs?

(Sorry for labouring the point, Mr Fordim sir, but it does seem to me to be relevant to the portrayal of evil in Middle-earth by reference to Tolkien's "Monsters". Why should some creatures be born, or created, or become, in effect, irredeemably evil? What is it, in the context of "good v evil", that makes this "fair"?)