[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This chapter tells us something of the nature of Hobbits.

Indeed it does. And Pippin's comparison of himself, at the beginning of the Chapter, to a piece of baggage waiting to be claimed puts us right back in a 'Hobbity' frame of mind. Where might one find baggage and the concept of baggage reclaim? Certainly not in a land of epic tales and 'Anglo-Saxon' horsemen! No, this takes us back to the charmingly 'anachronistic' feel of the Shire, with its mantle-clocks and postal service. The juxtaposition with the heroic atmosphere and language of the preceding Chapter is striking.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Tolkien does not leave Merry and Pippin out of the tale, as some writers may have done, choosing instead to focus on Frodo and Sam's bravery only; Tolkien makes sure we know just how all Hobbits have this strength within them.

Although I am biased (Pippin being my second favourite character - second only to Bilbo), it is nice to see Merry and Pippin getting some story. Apart from a few incidents (critical thought they are), Merry and Pippin have almost been like spare baggage since the Fellowship’s departure from Rivendell. It seems clear to me that, wary of the danger that they might have continued as such, Tolkien made a conscious decision to give them a central role in this part of the story. With Frodo and Sam absent (for now), Merry and Pippin were the obvious candidates for him to continue developing a theme that was important to him: the ennoblement of the humble. It is a theme that Tolkien touches on a number of times in his letters. For example:

Anyway, I myself saw the value of Hobbits, in putting earth under the feet of 'romance', and in providing subjects for 'ennoblement' and heroes more praiseworthy than the professionals ... [Letter #163]

There are of course certain things and themes that move me specially. The inter-relations between the 'noble' and the 'simple' (or common vulgar) for instance. The ennoblement of the ignoble I find specially moving. [Letter #165]

In similar vein, despite its importance to him, Tolkien placed the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices ...

... because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric'. that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble. [Letter #181]

Although Frodo was his primary subject for 'ennoblement', Merry and Pippin fill in admirably in the 'non-Frodo and Sam' sections of the book. Their development as the story progresses is one of the most appealing aspects of the book to me (but then, I'm a 'hobbito-centric' person ).

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Pippin is the active hobbit in this chapter, with seemingly small heroic actions that save them in the end, with the unbidden vision of Strider prompting him to drop his Elven brooch, and with the idea of hinting to Grishnákh about the Ring. Merry, who was the planner at the beginning of their journey, is fairly passive.

True, but the Chapter also highlights their different approach to situations. In some ways, Pippin is the more passive since his action is dictated by more by intuition than by rational thought. The Chapter opens with his dream. And, although he displays resourcefulness in first freeing his hands and then making a break for it to drop the brooch, the latter action seems, as Estelyn suggests, to have been inspired by his visions of Strider following their trail. Similarly, it is suggested that his ploy with Grishnákh is prompted by him having picked up on the Orc's thoughts.

This aspect of Pippin is explored in more depth in this wonderful thread started by Kalimac: Pippin's Sixth Sense. As suggested there, there seems to be a link here with Pippin's curious attraction to the well in Moria and his fascination with the Palantir of Orthanc. In any event, it seems clear to me that Pippin works far more on intuition, whereas Merry is the more practical of the two - as indicated by his studies in Rivendell.

And so on to the Orcs.

In this Chapter, we have some wonderful characterisations of them. We have the 'Isengarders', typified by Uglúk - a proud, arrogant and brutal leader. In Grishnákh, we have a sly, calculating and chilling individual. And the ‘Northeners’ display the more cowardly and less organised aspects of Orcish character. In these Orcs, and those at Cirith Ungol, we have our only real glimpse of the ‘character‘ of evil. Sauron remains a dark, remote and shadowy presence throughout, while we only really meet Saruman in one Chapter (prior to the destruction of the Ring). We are not privy to any discussions involving the Balrog, and we only see the Nazgul and the Mouth of Sauron interacting with those who seek to oppose them.

Originally Posted by davem

In short, these creatures are not simple stupid savages, but intelligent creatures. So, Tolkien is clearly wanting to disabuse us of any idea that they ‘don’t know any better’. They are vicious & cruel & take pleasure in the fear & suffering they inflict, & they know full well what they’re doing.

Why is it necessary for Tolkien to make this so clear - possibly because we are about to witness the wholesale slaughter of these creatures by our ‘heroes’, but more likely because Tolkien wants us to understand the real nature of ‘Evil’ - that Evil is not something that arises from ignorance, from not really knowing what you’re doing. Evil beings in Middle earth are aware of what they’re doing, & its that very awareness, that deliberate infliction of suffering on others in full consciousness, that makes it necessary for our ‘heroes’ to stand against them - its a moral necessity to oppose that evil.

I agree. Apart from adding great 'flavour' to the story, the characterisation of the Orcs in this Chapter allows us to see exactly what it is that the good characters are up against. They are, as davem says not mere beasts, but rational beings.

But, that being the case, the question arises: Do Orcs have any choice in being evil?

Oops! There it is. Can opened and worms wriggling everywhere.

This is an issue that has been explored on may threads (Inherent Evil and Evil things to name but two), but it is one which still troubles me.

It seems to me that Orcs in Middle-earth are inherently evil. While they might delight in their evil deeds, they have no choice but to act evilly. Who ever heard of a good Orc? And while it is conceivable that such a being might exist, it would seem to fly in the face of the way that they are presented throughout Tolkien's (published) works.

Tolkien himself wrote:

But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be', even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other 'rational' creatures like Elves or Men. They would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.) [Letter #153]

Tolkien held back from describing them as 'irredeemably bad', but saw them himself as 'naturally bad', which suggests that their only opportunity of repentance and redemption would occur following their deaths. And this still leaves, for me, the question of how a just and merciful God can allow the creation and perpetuation of a sentient race of beings who have no choice (during their lives at least) but to behave in an evil manner? It might be asserted that it is not for us to question Eru's plan, but it still seems dreadfully unjust to me (as a reader) that Orcs are doomed to live out such vicious and brutal lives through no choice (and therefore no real fault) of their own.

And it seems that this is an issue which troubled Tolkien too in subsequent years, since (as I understand it) he began to re-think his ideas on the nature of Orcs - suggesting, for example, that they were in fact 'mere beats' directed by a greater evil will. But this idea does not square at all with the characterisation of the Orcs here and in the Cirith Ungol Chapters which add great 'colour' to the story and which, for the reasons that davem states, are important elements in helping us to understand just what it is that our protagonists are up against.

Any ideas?

A few further thoughts before I go.

Do we see 'Orcish magic' in action here? While clearly not as wholesome or as pleasant, the Orc draught and Uglúk's medicine would appear to share some of the same properties as Elvish provisions. The draught revives the Hobbits and gives them a temporary burst of great stamina, while the medicine heals Merry's wound with unnatural speed. Are they perhaps the remnants of Elvish craft retained by the Orcs, albeit twisted versions (assuming that Orcs were, in their origins, corrupted Elves - wherein lies another can o' worms).

The observation that Merry carried a brown scar to the end of his days is an interesting one, as it suggests to the reader that Merry is going to survive for some time yet. Although I never picked up on it before seeing it pointed out on another thread, it might somewhat lessen the suspense for the perceptive first-time reader.

And, finally, I am impressed with Tolkien's description of the tactics used by the Rohirrim against the Orcs - the way that they drive them along the line of the river, surround them and then tempt them into wasting their arrows while minimising their own losses. He is similarly effective in describing ’medieval’ tactics elsewhere (the Battles of the Fords of Isen in Unfinished Tales, for example). I wonder how much he had studied tactics, since he seems well-versed in the subject. Possibly, despite the very different nature of the war, cavalry tactics remained part of the training regime during his service in WW1. Or perhaps he picked up his knowledge in this regard from his studies of epic literature.