LotR -- Book 3 - Chapter 03 - The Uruk-Hai

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

... it also expands and develops the character(s) of the hitherto subsidiary Hobbits....

Oh, I say! Some of the final passages here remind me of the idea that the Hobbits reflect some form of early English society. You know, stiff upper lip. Spit spot and I'm all right Jack.

And as they walked they compared notes, talking lightly in hobbit-fashion of the things that had happened since their capture. No listener would have guessed from their words that they had sufferred cruelly, and been in dire peril, going without hope towards torment and death; or that even now, as they knew well, they had little chance of ever finding friend or safety again.

"You seem to have been doing well, Master Took," said Merry. "You will get almost a chapter in old Bilbo's book, if ever I get a chance to report to him. Good work: especially guessing that hairy villain's little game, and playing up to him. But I wonder if anyone will ever pick up your trail and find that brooch. I should hate to lose mine, but I am afraid yours is gone for good."

"I shall have to brush up my toes, if I am to get level with you. Indeed Cousin Brandybuck is going in front now. This is where he comes in. I don't suppose you have much notion where we are; but I spent my time at Rivendell rather better. We are walking west along the Entwash. The butt-end of the Misty Mountains is in front, and Fangorn Forest."

"Lead on, Master Brandybuck!" said Pippin. "Or lead back! We have been warned against Fangorn...."

Shades of Boys Own and other empire reading material for the nation's youth. I find it interesting that Tolkien chooses the close the chapter with this bit of comic, light-hearted banter.

posted by SpM:

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.

I suspect that our venerable Mithadan was attempting such a resurrection with, among others, Grrralph in our very own REB.


But now I must borrow that can opener from Lalwendë.

Given Tolkien's great stature as a philologist and his knowledge of ancient myths, what are we to make of his choice of the name Uruk-hai?

The name Uruk, you see, belongs to a very ancient and venerable city of old Sumer and Babylonia. The site actually is not far from the current city of Baghdad and, in fact, the name Iraq is derived from Uruk.

There are some other interesting names in this link
link to Uruk in the Wikipedia See particularly Sargon, the "first person in recorded history to create an empire," in ancient Turkey. Or even Lugalzagesi.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

That's why, in a sense, difficulties are solved by supposition that Orkish leaders (as opposed to whole mass of 'beast-orcs') are, at least, not depraved of free will, but it does raise another difficulty – it is unmerciful to slaughter them, as they (assuming they have free will) are equals by rank of 'Good Chaps'

An appealing theory, HI. But it still, for me, leaves the problem that we never encounter an Orcish leader who, exercising his free will, has chosen to be good. Neither do the examples that we meet give us any cause to believe that such an individual might exist. Whether they are leaders or not, Orcs are portrayed as a cruel, vicious and brutal race. Full stop.

Also, I am afraid that I find the suggestion that rank and file Orcs are 'mere beasts' unconvincing. Even the 'minor' Orcs that we meet in this Chapter have some character and, more importantly, express thoughts disobedient to the 'will' of their masters. While it is possible to see the Orcs of Mordor and Isengard as being, to some degree, under the control of a 'greater will' (and there is evidence to support this at the Black Gate, when the Ring is destroyed), the 'Northerners' seem to be far more independently minded (and, hence, disorganised). Their purpose in joinng with Uglúk was to avenge the death of their kin in Moria. Like the Goblins in The Hobbit, they seem to be far more 'out for themselves'.

Orcs are a great device. They provide a cruel and brutal enemy over whom we need not concern ourselves when they are slaughtered in great numbers (and Grishnákh was speared intentionally by one of the Riders as he fled) because they are inherently evil. Yet, in a world where morality and goodness are derived from a single, omnipotent Deity, they (for me at least) present more difficult problems when one analyses their nature in greater depth.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh, I say! Some of the final passages here remind me of the idea that the Hobbits reflect some form of early English society. You know, stiff upper lip. Spit spot and I'm all right Jack.

Early English society, Bêthberry old bean?

I can see what you mean. But the passage is rather delightful, and speaks highly of these two redoubtable little fellows when one considers all that they have gone through: kickings, whippings, rough handling, enforced running at high speed, death threats and worse, and (perhaps worst of all) long periods of close acquaintance with the backs of Orcish heads. And it thoroughly bears out the observation made in the Prologue concerning the innate toughness of Hobbits:

Nonetheless, ease and peace had left this people still curiously tough. They were, if it came to it, difficult to daunt or kill; and they were, perhaps, so unwearyingly fond of good things not least because they could, when put to it, do without them, and could survive rough handling by grief, foe, or weather in a way that astonished those who did not know them well and looked no further than their bellies and their well-fed faces.

[Lalwendë]

From the beginning we see how Hobbits can be tough. In The Hobbit, Gandalf says of Bilbo:

"Excitable little fellow,"said Gandalf, as they sat down again. "Gets funny queer fits, but he is one of the best, as fierce as a dragon in a pinch."

If you have ever seen a dragon in a pinch, you will realize that this was only poetical exaggeration applied to any hobbit, even to Old Took's great-granduncle Bullroarer, who was so huge (for a hobbit) that he could ride a horse. He charged the ranks of the goblins of Mount Gram in the Battle of the Green Fields, and knocked their king Golfimbul's head clean off with a wooden club. It sailed a hundred yards through the air and went down a rabbit-hole, and in this way the battle was won and the game of Golf invented at the same moment.

But with so much mention of great Men and Elves, it could be very easy to 'overlook' such seemingly little people.

Shades of Boys Own and other empire reading material for the nation's youth.

Oh yes, Bethberry, very true, but then I think Tolkien himself admired that kind of character; not the blustering kind, but the honest, everyday courage that Hobbits (and by extension, ordinary people) can display.

Now for the wriggling, wormy topic of Orcs. Davem says:

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 areaware 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.

Some parallels could be drawn here to human conflict. In all wars there is an 'enemy', and yet wars are not fought by the leaders but by the ordinary people. Without getting into the subject of evil and morality - it is interesting that Tolkien has given his 'enemy' a voice, and real character, as a real life enemy would have. And yet they are shown to be thoroughly morally bad (I cannot think of a scene where an Orc 'repents'). Has Tolkien portrayed Orcs in a manner reminiscent of propaganda? By this I mean in the way that foreign troops were often portrayed in the world wars, as cunning and devious, and inherently bad? I think it is necessary to show such a mass of enemies, who are about to be slaughtered, in this light. To do otherwise would take the whole tale away from a good/evil conflict.

Finally, picking up on what Boromir 88 says, it makes you wonder exactly what was in Lembas, doesn't it :

Eating the lembas the hobbits had slipped off into this dream, similar to Lorien, they weren't in "reality" anymore. They couldn't hear the battle going on, they just sat and remained in this dream, then Tolkien uses the line

Pippin was the first to come back to the present.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

And who brewed the draught? And the 'antiseptic'? In other words, how 'advanced' is Orcish society? They do appear to have a moral value system - Gorbag's 'Regular Elvish trick' comment in response to finding Frodo lying in the pass. In other words, as far as he is concerned Elves are not moral beings in his eyes, as they behave in a contemptible way as regards their fallen comrades. It seems from Shagrat's response that he doesn't take this as being an ironic comment (Shippey goes into this in depth).

We also have comments in this chapter about orcs being 'good lads', which almost seems to imply that if they don't care about their own kind (in the sense of feeling compassion for them), they do value them in some way.

These don't seem to be the same Orcs we encounter in the Silmarillion. But do they have free will? And if they do, why don't they use it to behave in a more 'humane' way. The orcs in this chapter are not stupid, 'robotic' brutes (as in the movie), they are inteligent, reasoning thugs.

What interests me in this context is Tolkien' use of the term in relation to human beings - there's an example in George Sayer's essay 'Reflections of JRR Tolkien' (in the 1992 Centenary Collection:

Though he was generally interested in birds & insects, his greatest love seemed to be for trees. He had loved trees since childhood. He would often place his hand on the trunks of ones that we passed. He felt their wanton or unnescessary felling almost as murder. the first time I heard him say 'ORCS' was when we heard not far off the savage sound of a petrol-driven chain saw...

Did he really believe that the man using that chain saw was an 'ORC'? Did he really believe that he was no better than Grishnakh?

Are we getting an insight into Tolkien's own moral value system here? Is he showing us that the Orcs do have the capacity for moral thought, but have consciously rejected the 'Good' - & more importantly, did he believe that some human beings do exactly the same thing?

Yet, not all human beings behave in an Orcish fashion, but [i]all/i] Orcs do. I suppose it coould be argued that Tolkien isn't presenting us here with a fully developed race of beings, good, bad & indifferent - as he is with Elves & Men - but with a 'type' of human being he had encountered in 'real' life. 'Orcs' are the 'enemy' for Tolkien, because in a sense they were his primary world enemy in a mythological setting. They were the 'chain saw wielding tree-murderers' he heard while walking that day with George Sayer.

And the more interesting, but more difficult, question is, did Tolkien believe those foresters were equally beyond redemption? Perhaps that's the real 'moral' question here: not how an entire race could be iredeemably evil & deserving of death, but what they symbolised for Tolkien, & whether he felt some people really were 'Orcs'.

Perhaps if we can answer that we can make a stab at the 'Orcish question'. Elves & Men are aspects of the 'Human' as Tolkien said - & we can accept that easily enough, but if Orcs aren't simply the 'bad guys', the necessary 'two dimensional' enemy for his heroes to slaughter without worrying about the morality of the act (as they certainly deserved what they got), but are also an aspect of the 'human' for Tolkien what does that tell us about him?

[HerenIstarion]

have some character and, more importantly, express thoughts disobedient to the 'will' of their masters.

Well, counter-argument may be made that their masters are not their Ultimate Master - i.e. Morgoth, so they may be disobedient to those 'lesser' evil lords whilst retaining loyalty to Morgoth. Very same argument being brought forth by Tolkien himself in his later writings, but such a theorem is incalculable by reading LoTR on its own, without drawing outer resources, so I'll drop it.

What is calculable, though*is that if theory be true, Grishnákh's still slain by chance - indeed even if Rohirrim knew about such fine distinctions between individual orks as to discern which were beasts and which 'human', the different action (i.e, taking Grishnákh captive, per instance) would not have been possible unless initiative were on Grishnákh's side, if only he surrendered (So your remark about not seeing such 'orks freely choosing to be good' around is to the ten point)

And again, (with provisos and desclaimers - its a personal theory (speculation), I have arguments pro and contra, but it can not become axiom (by me and now at least), it just seems plausible), I may dare to suppose that, as Elves, on one hand, may be seen as a reflection of Unfallend Humanity, so the Orcs, on another (apart from those of beast origin, i.e. majority) may be, from one angle, be seen of what ultimately Fallen Humanity may be like - not, finally, irredeemable, but utterly unable to repent on their own (at least unless released from their hroar. And as hroar affect fëar, the repentance is not possible unless fëar is let off)

Or, to dive into analogies (the vice I'm prone to) - Suppose there is a public pool near my premises where everybody has a right to swim. Another supposition would be that I'm legless and armless depraved invalid. Now, having a right to swim in a pool I lack capacity to do it, and though my rights are not infringed upon at all, nobody yet have seen me near aforementioned container of liquid, ever.

So, beast orks (majority of them all) lack right and capacity, 'human' orks have right but lack capacity

But I seem to be straying into things this chapter does, indeed, hint about, but in so an obscure way, you won't guess it unless told So hush now

___
* this paragraph being 'Spear re:' entry at the same time (and yes, o'course - first arrow just made him drop the scimitar. And yes, I know Shagrat and Gorbag did not literally kill each other off, Shagrat surviving Slips of the tongue, my precous-s-s, it was-s-sn't we, it's-s-ss all Baggins-sses fault, yes-s-ss. my precious-ss) . But if seriously, my apologies - Fey (haste) mood was upon me, but now it passed...

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Given Tolkien's great stature as a philologist and his knowledge of ancient myths, what are we to make of his choice of the name Uruk-hai?

I mentioned this info in an old, old post, and dug it up to repost here:

I came across this interesting bit [while reading Joseph Campbell] about an ogre figure in South African mythology called the Hai-uri (very close to Uruk-hai, inverted, eh?). “This monster is a hunter of men, whom it tears to shreds with cruel teeth as long as fingers. The creature is said to hunt in packs.” Compare with, “We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat.”

[Aiwendil]

HerenIstarion wrote:

That's why, in a sense, difficulties are solved by supposition that Orkish leaders (as opposed to whole mass of 'beast-orcs') are, at least, not depraved of free will, but it does raise another difficulty – it is unmerciful to slaughter them, as they (assuming they have free will) are equals by rank of 'Good Chaps'

But there is no real evidence of this (at least I don't think so) in LotR. We do not see some Orcs behaving as though they have free will and others as though they are 'mere beasts'. And later on we do have at least one Orc that is clearly not a leader and yet has a speaking part not much different from Ugluk or Grishnakh - that is the Snaga in Mordor.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

But it still, for me, leaves the problem that we never encounter an Orcish leader who, exercising his free will, has chosen to be good.

We also see very few Elves that, exercising their free will, choose to be evil. Maeglin does go rather bad. Eol and the sons of Feanor both do some evil things, though I wouldn't classify them as simply evil. And presumably there is a lot more external pressure on the Orcs to remain evil than there was on those Elves to remain good.

I think that the fictional "truth" of the matter must simply be that Orcs do have free will but due to the strength of the external influences upon them none (or at least none that we hear of) choose to be good. It is an unfortunate fact that this kind of thing does happen - there have been situations where large populations of people have committed or allowed clearly immoral acts (like the Holocaust). The case of the Orcs is certainly an exaggeration of this, but after all this is a fantasy world.

I do admit, though, that that answer is not entirely satisfactory, and I think that the nature of Orcs is one of the few real foundational problems in the legendarium.

Davem wrote:

We also have comments in this chapter about orcs being 'good lads', which almost seems to imply that if they don't care about their own kind (in the sense of feeling compassion for them), they do value them in some way.

These don't seem to be the same Orcs we encounter in the Silmarillion.

What makes you say this? We have few glimpses in the Silmarillion material of Orcs in anything like the kind of detail afforded by this chapter; but I have always felt that the glimpses we do have do match up rather well with the depiction in LotR. For example, consider the Orc-captain in the "Lay of Leithien" who boasts about killing Barahir and decides to keep the Ring of Felagund for himself, since Sauron, in his view, has enough trinkets already. This is exactly the sort of thing one can imagine a LotR Orc doing; even the manner of the Orc's speech (aside from the octosyllabic couplets) is very similar to that of the Orcs here.

[The Saucepan Man]

Just a quick post to highlight some more passages from the Letters relevant to the current discussion of Orcs.

... the Orcs - who are fundamentally a race of 'rational incarnate' creatures, though horribly corrupted, if no more so than many Men to be met today. [Letter #153]

The letter is a draft (to Peter Hastings) dated September 1954. So at this stage Tolkien regarded Orcs as rational beings. And, as davem has noted, he also regarded them as representing a certain aspect of human behaviour. There are similar references earlier on, in his letters to his son, Christopher:

There seem no bowels of mercy or compassion, no imagination, left in this dark diabolic hour. By which I do not mean that it may not all, in this present situation, mainly (not solely) created by Germany, be necessary or inevitable. But why gloat! We were supposed to have reached a stage of civilization in which it might still be necessary to execute a criminal, but not to gloat, or to hang his wife and child by him while the orc-crowd hooted. [Letter #96: January 1945]

Not that in real life things are as clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side .... Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai [Letter #66: May 1944]

Although the comparison of Orcs and Men was by reference to their nature rather than its origin:

Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folks made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable (though I fear that it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemably bad short of a special miracle, and there are probably abnormally many of such creatures in Deutschland and Nippon - but certainly these unhappy countries have no monopoly: I have met them, or thought so, in England's green and pleasant land).[Letter #78: August 1944]

Must dash now. It's late ...

[Bêthberry]

posted by SpM
Early English society, Bêthberry old bean?

I must apologise, Sauce, for my whisper dry humour.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I mentioned this info in an old, old post, and dug it up to repost here:

I came across this interesting bit [while reading Joseph Campbell] about an ogre figure in South African mythology called the Hai-uri (very close to Uruk-hai, inverted, eh?). ?This monster is a hunter of men, whom it tears to shreds with cruel teeth as long as fingers. The creature is said to hunt in packs.? Compare with, ?We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat.?

Yes indeed, Mr. Underhill, I know that passage from Campbell. I have always thought it a great pity that the Letters we have are incomplete, for there is no mention, that I recall or that a quick review can find, of either South African myths or Gilgamesh in any of the discussions of the orcs. I am half-tempted to write to Christopher Tolkien or to John Carpenter to inquire.

I would find it incredible if Tolkien was not familiar with Gilgamesh even if he did not like it or was uninterested in its particular world vision of creation myths. (Which personal taste he is of course allowed.) After all, it contains a Flood narrative that is probably one of the literary precursors for the Noah story and we know the significance of flood narratives for Tolkien. The clay tablets and the deciphering of the cuneiform alphabet were an English find, part of the great hoard of the British Museum's artefacts. The deciphering led to greater knowledge of ancient languages. More specifically, the final quest of Gilgamesh is a quest for an elixir of immortality, in order to escape the doom of death which took his dearest and greatest friend. And besides the name "Uruk", here are some of the gods of Gilgamesh: Anu, the sky god and father of the gods; Ea, who Stephen Mitchell (the latest translator of the text) calls "The cleverest of the gods, god of intellect, creation, wisdom, magic, and medicine"; and Lugalbanda, said to be either the father of Gilgamesh or the guardian deity of Uruk.

Are these names coincidental? Who knows for sure? Still, I think that even if Tolkien took "Uruk-hai" from the South African tale, it suggests a certain degree of insensitivity to the Uruk of the Gilgamesh quest (if he knew it).

posted by davem:
Perhaps if we can answer that we can make a stab at the 'Orcish question'. Elves & Men are aspects of the 'Human' as Tolkien said - & we can accept that easily enough, but if Orcs aren't simply the 'bad guys', the necessary 'two dimensional' enemy for his heroes to slaughter without worrying about the morality of the act (as they certainly deserved what they got), but are also an aspect of the 'human' for Tolkien what does that tell us about him?

This question really pits our different approaches I think, for davem's perspective is to search always for the Author's mind. Mine is to consider textual and cultural issues. For instance, I would not say that Tolkien was consciously and deliberately placing the precursors of Moorish culture in a 'bad light'. But I would consider the effect of his working within a cultural system of values which made it easier to ascribe evilness to an eastern empire. And I suspect Tolkien's constant reworking and re-explaining of the nature of orcs represents his own, maybe even unconscious, unease with this cultural factor.

[davem]

Perhaps there is some 'echo' of the episode in the epic where Gilgamesh & Enkidu fight & slay the monster Humbaba in the Last Alliance union of Gil-galad & Elendil & their defeat of Sauron..

[Aldarion Elf-Friend]

Originally Posted by davem

And who brewed the draught? And the 'antiseptic'? In other words, how 'advanced' is Orcish society? They do appear to have a moral value system - Gorbag's 'Regular Elvish trick' comment in response to finding Frodo lying in the pass. In other words, as far as he is concerned Elves are not moral beings in his eyes, as they behave in a contemptible way as regards their fallen comrades...

We also have comments in this chapter about orcs being 'good lads', which almost seems to imply that if they don't care about their own kind (in the sense of feeling compassion for them), they do value them in some way.

I don't think that it's that hard to imagine Orcish society. I see shamans capable of putting together potions and "draughts". They would have learned some lore from their masters and stolen some from other sources. Remember that while the orcs are an extremely warlike race, there have to be other functions taking place - gathering of food, reproduction, just to name two. We also have examples of Orcish art:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Carven knife-handle of later chapters, which Aragorn 'held with disgust" adding up to an assumption (indeed, are beasts capable of Art?)

As for Orcs being intellegent (multilingual, for example), there were many intellectuals that took part in the holocaust.

But enough of that. I was fascinated, especially in the chapters in book 6, where Tolkein seems to "humainze" the orcs. They complain about their lot and how the higher-ups are screwing things up and they're likely to pay the price. Definitely a picture of normal people at wars. At the same time, he always balances this almost sympathetic image with their unbeliveably cruel side, always wanting to have "sport" with the prisoners, meaning, I can only assume, cruel torture for the sake of influcting pain, rather than punishment or extracting information.

So, anyone have the Silm handy? I think that a quick look into the brief passage about the origins of Orcs might shed some small light on this. I don't remember of Orcs are "mutated" elves, or what. Obviously they have to be some sort of perversion of existing creation since it was forbidden for Melkor to create anything himself.

Great discussion - I always wonder what topics the next chapter might hold, thinking that we've run the gamit, and I'm never disappointed.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aldarion

Remember that while the orcs are an extremely warlike race, there have to be other functions taking place - gathering of food, reproduction, just to name two. We also have examples of Orcish art:

As for Orcs being intellegent (multilingual, for example), there were many intellectuals that took part in the holocaust.

I think this is the point Tolkien is making. These Orcs are not simple brutes. They have plans & desires:

For a moment Pippin was silent. Then suddenly in the darkness he made a noise in his throat: gollum, gollum. 'Nothing, my precious," he added. The hobbits felt Grishnakh's fingers twitch. 'O ho!" hissed the goblin softly. "That's what he means, is it? Oho! Very ve-ry dangerous, my little ones." 'Perhaps," said Merry, now alert and aware of Pippin's guess. 'Perhaps; and not only for us. Still you know your own business best, Do you want it, or not? And what would you give for it?" 'Do I want it? Do I want it?" said Grishnakh, as if puzzled; but his arms were trembling. "What would I give for it? What do you mean?"

'Do I want it? This is not a souless 'robot' but a fully sentient being who can imagine himself with the Ring in his possession, a ruler. And perhaps this is the moment he awakes to that realisation. The Ring can work on his precisely because he is a self-conscious individual.

But for some reason this self-consciousness doesn't bring with it a capacity for empathy & compassion - which is what we're taught should happen. So, the Orcs are 'closed off' from that aspect of 'humanity'.

If these Orcs are slaves they are willing slaves - but then why would Gandalf say he pities even Sauron's slaves? Or isn't he including Orcs in this? But then the question arises: aren't there any Men who are slaves of Sauron who are as bad as Orcs? Who have sacrificed their humanity & enjoy the suffering they inflict?

This just leaves us with SpM's question - What is the difference between 'bad' Orcs & equally 'bad' men?

Perhaps its not that Tolkien messed up & couldn't work out a viable explanation for Orcs; perhaps it goes deeper, into issues of metaphysics, into the mystery of Good & Evil, & so, cannot be explained away. Good is & so is Evil - even if it is a 'corruption' it isn't nothing. After all, one could say that Orcs are a 'corruption' of Elves in the same way - yet they are not 'nothing'.

Perhaps its not a 'question' after all, perhaps its a 'statement'. Orcs are all evil, & that's simply a Mystery beyond us (& beyond Tolkien). Tolkien won't offer us any easy answers because there aren't any.

[drigel]

Perhaps its not a 'question' after all, perhaps its a 'statement'. Orcs are all evil, & that's simply a Mystery beyond us (& beyond Tolkien). Tolkien won't offer us any easy answers because there aren't any.

Sins of Morgoth...Facinating! I see the primary difficulty in understanding, as referenced earlier in this thread (Letter 153), orcs are "born bad", while we are not. We become bad.

It is interesting to consider that, if these creatures are as long lived (or close to) as elves, yet they seemingly do not have the "wisdom" that one assumes would accumulate in such a long lived entity. Some of these creatures were fighting elves before mankind even awoke - many thousands of years prior...This, to me is the nature of orcish behavior: eternally enthralled. Ever fixated on the maintainence and domination of an order that is not theirs, but their masters.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

If these Orcs are slaves they are willing slaves - but then why would Gandalf say he pities even Sauron's slaves? Or isn't he including Orcs in this?

I wouldn't say that they are willing, since that implies that they have a choice. Rather, they act in the way that they do (and delight in doing so) because they know know no other way - and, more worryingly perhaps, have no capacity to know any other way. On that basis, I can see how Gandalf might pity them.

This just leaves us with SpM's question - What is the difference between 'bad' Orcs & equally 'bad' men?

Since I do not believe that anyone, in our world, is born evil, and assuming that Orcs are, in Middle-earth, inherently evil, there is a world of difference. But, if we are to say that Orcs are evil as a result of environmental pressures (nurture rather than nature), then an analogy might be drawn with those whose abusive behaviour is a product of having been abused in childhood (the cycle of abuse) or fear of the consequences of disobedience (as in the holocaust). But, even then, the analogy breaks down when one considers that there are examples of those who have undergone the same pressures and yet not committed the same attrocities. There are few in this world who I would class as being, like Orcs, devoid of any vestige of 'humanity', and then we are getting into the realms of psychotic behaviour.

Perhaps its not that Tolkien messed up & couldn't work out a viable explanation for Orcs; perhaps it goes deeper, into issues of metaphysics, into the mystery of Good & Evil, & so, cannot be explained away. Good is & so is Evil - even if it is a 'corruption' it isn't nothing.

Yet the question remains: how can Good be good if it allows Evil to manifest itself in sentient beings which have no choice in the matter? I think that this troubled Tolkien.

But there are, as you say, no easy answers.