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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I must admit that I have always found the discussion about orcs and free will to be a bit of a red herring – I mean, really, there are no such things as orcs, so how can the question of free will even be relevant?

It becomes relevant when one considers that Middle-earth is said to be presided over by a single and fundamentally good God. Beore I came across Eru, I never gave it a moment's thought. But, armed with knowledge of His existence in the tale, the incapability of Orcs to repent (during their lives at least) presents for me an essential inconsitency in the portrayal of Good.

I don’t know if it’s ever come up in the Downs, but I don’t recall seeing anyone wonder about the free will or ‘redeemability’ of Smaug ...

It applies with regard to any sentient beings who have no choice but to serve evil. It is possible (if one posits that they were in origin Maian spirits, for example) that Dragons did have a choice. But if they didn't then, as far as I'm concerned, the same considerations (and problems) apply.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

It becomes relevant when one considers that Middle-earth is said to be presided over by a single and fundamentally good God. Beore I came across Eru, I never gave it a moment's thought. But, armed with knowledge of His existence in the tale, the incapability of Orcs to repent (during their lives at least) presents for me an essential inconsitency in the portrayal of Good.

I really don't see why it needs to. To cite Beowulf again, it's a poem that can be Christian, and there are sentient monsters; we can even go to something like Spenser's Faerie Queene which is as Christian as things get, and it has reasoning monsters that need destroying. What I mean when I say that orcs are a device is that they are, as monsters, no different from the other obstacles that the heroes encounter: the Watcher in the Water, Caradhras, Saruman, etc etc etc. All of these have been created ultimately be Eru, so all of them are either as problematic -- or not -- to the grand scheme of things. Why did Eru make orcs? I don't know, but why did he make the mountains?

This is the kind of red-herring that I'm talking about, for I'm sure that someone is going to address these sorts of questions -- in effect, to attempt to probe the mind of Eru/God, when what I think we need to be focusing on is the relation enacted in the story between the various elements: in this case, orcs/monsters and hobbits/heroes in their fairy-tale adventure.

[Lalwendë]

Fordim says:

there are no such things as orcs, so how can the question of free will even be relevant?

Yes, there are indeed no Orcs on earth, they are not one of our species, but they do exist within Middle Earth - so does this mean we then have to consider this in the context of morality in Arda, rather than our own world? And can we detach ourselves enough to achieve this? If I think about evil in our world, then I look at it from my moral relativist position, considering mitigating factors, but if I look at evil in Arda then should I suspend my own perspective? I know that if I do not, then the question of Orcs being by nature 'evil' can become difficult.

I don't believe in either inherent evil or inherent good, and from this perspective I've been troubled by some of the actions displayed by some of the characters, including the 'good' ones. I don't like to think that their actions, which in some cases I judged to be 'wrong', were condoned in any way. At first glance, Arda might appear to be a world divided along distinct good/bad lines, but it isn't. Elves do bad things, Gollum does good things, Gandalf offers his own peculiarly relativist advice, we are shown the Orcs behaving intelligently. This is uncomfortable, as we might expect a tale such as this should be clearly delineated along good/bad lines.

Sometimes I think Tolkien was playing with us a little in showing us Orcs who think the Rohirrim are evil 'brigands'. He was showing us how 'the enemy' view us. He was giving us a hint that Sauron's minions/slaves/victims (delete as appropriate, however you wish to apply your own moral position to the orcs' servitude) do have minds, feelings, desires, just as the 'good' characters do. And then he has them slaughtered. Of course, to have Aragorn, Gandalf, Frodo and all those on the 'good' side who we are rooting for suddenly have a crisis of conscience in the middle of battle would turn this into a wholly different type of tale. So, maybe we have to accept that the Orcs are going to be slaughtered, but after Tolkien's 'playing' we can't help but question it a little, with our non-Arda minds.

[drigel]

Good points Lalwende. A lot of conjecture would be eliminated if the author had more time to fill in the blank areas. It would have been nice to see an addtional appendix or two. "Relating to Orcish History" or "Of the orcs"... "Concerning Trolls"...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Why did Eru make orcs? I don't know, but why did he make the mountains?

Mountains aren't inherently evil sentient beings - although, if you count Caradhras as such, the same considerations apply. Similarly with the Watcher in the Water. Saruman, Balrogs and other such beings had a choice.

This is the kind of red-herring that I'm talking about, for I'm sure that someone is going to address these sorts of questions -- in effect, to attempt to probe the mind of Eru/God, when what I think we need to be focusing on is the relation enacted in the story between the various elements: in this case, orcs/monsters and hobbits/heroes in their fairy-tale adventure.

It depends what approach one wants to adopt to the story. It has been suggested on a number of occasions that Tolkien is, to a degree, setting out his 'moral manifesto' in the story. Even if that's not the case, it clearly concerns issues of Good and Evil and what these concepts involve. For me, the existence of inherently evil sentient beings (be they Orcs, Dragons or whatever) goes to the very heart of these issues. Of course, not everyone will find the nature of Orcs (and this is one of the few Chapters where we get a real glimpse of their nature) relevant to these issues, but that does not make the question a red herring. It is, I think, one worth raising and discussing, even though I don't think that there really is a satisfactory solution.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I know that if I do not, then the question of Orcs being by nature 'evil' can become difficult.

For me, the issue is a difficult one within the context of the perspective presented to us by Tolkien - precisely because of that perspective (ie single God being the foundation of Good).

Edit: Incidentally, I don't believe that Tolkien was playing with his readers in this regard at the time that he wrote LotR. The Orcs simply presented an effective enemy that do not require us to consider the moral qualms that we might have if they were not inherently evil. Had he been playing, I don't think that he would have had the concerns about their nature that he clearly did have later in life.

[Lalwendë]

For me, the issue is a difficult one within the context of the perspective presented to us by Tolkien - precisely because of that perspective (ie single God being the foundation of Good).

Perhaps that concept has to be accepted, as we are in a different world here and applying our own perceptions might cause problems in that world. Maybe we have to accept that in Arda there is one God, whether we believe in Him or not. Or do we?

I might argue that much of what is 'good' in Middle Earth comes from the humblest people themselves, the Hobbits. Are they being guided by a greater force, or are they simply being 'good' because that is how they are, that is what they have learned? There is no belief system in Middle Earth, so how could they have learned that this was Eru's will? Who taught them this? What on Middle Earth does Tolkien mean by this?

Not only are the men with the white coats coming running, but now the theologists will be after me. These are difficult and dangerous questions, indeed, but I'm fascinated by exactly what the nature of Eru was intended to be. If I knew that, I might be able to decide if Orcs are inherently evil or not in the context of Arda.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Perhaps that concept has to be accepted, as we are in a different world here and applying our own perceptions might cause problems in that world. Maybe we have to accept that in Arda there is one God, whether we believe in Him or not. Or do we?

For the answer to this question (and many many more) you can go have a look at the. . .oh no. . .no!. . .NO!! It can't be, not again, not the. . .the. . .

CANONICITY THREAD!!!

*DUM dum dummmmmm*

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

For the answer to this question (and many many more) you can go have a look at the. . .oh no. . .no!. . .NO!! It can't be, not again, not the. . .the. . .

CANONICITY THREAD!!!

*DUM dum dummmmmm*

Well, i'm sure we're all grateful to Fordim for that.. Though I would like to take this opportunity to remind him of the possibility of getting negative rep on these boards.

I'd also like to ask for sympathy here from all my fellow downers, as I just spent nearly an hour writing a post on the symbolism of the Dragon as 'Death' & how the Orcs are different in the sense that they are potential victims of this cosmic 'fact' - hence the Dragon would not need to 'repent'. The Orcish question arises only if Evil is a corruption of Good, not if it is a fact in itself. If Evil is an equal & opposite force then Orcs would be a physical manifestation of it as elves & men are of Good. Hence the opportunity for repentance is only necessary if the Orcs need a chance to return to what they had been created to be, not if they are what they were intended to be.

So the question Tolkien confronts us with is about our own beliefs - whether we are Manichaeans or Boethians....

Or something like that - all I can say is that it was up to my usual standard, & if anyone wants to rep me on it out of sympathy I won't be too proud to accept. Aragorn's court is getting too crowded now with the usual riff-raff & I need my privacy to compose my beautiful posts....

Which then get lost forever!!!!!!

(wanders off into the night sulking & looking for spiders to stamp on.......)

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Since it seems that all other things about this chapter fade into the background of this discussion, I have come to chip in my single share of Citybank stocks (which won't be worth 2 cents unless another Great Depression comes *knocks on wood*)

Nothing is evil from the beginning, yes, but after their moment of conception, the Orcs were conditioned for evil purposes. Their mindsets regarding the outside world were controlled (the two Orcs' conversation in The Land of Shadow reminds me too much of media suppression in totalitarian countries).

Of course, those who venture (or live) out in the outside world could be helped by their "enemies", but:

Of course, to have Aragorn, Gandalf, Frodo and all those on the 'good' side who we are rooting for suddenly have a crisis of conscience in the middle of battle would turn this into a wholly different type of tale. (Lalwendë)

Plus there's this tidbit from our real-world history. Did the Crusaders bother preaching Christianity to the Saracens they attacked? Do the Muslim fundamentalists of today try to convert instead those they blow up? No. Perhaps this Orcs against the Eruhíni thing is another vile echo of Morgoth's theme: the "good guys" do not even pause to consider the possibility that these enemies can be redeemed--their sufficiently muddled origins and their not-exactly-pretty looks don't help.

So, perhaps they could be redeemed, but Arda is marred oh-so much by Morgoth that nobody even wants to try. How could Eru allow this? I don't know. For that matter, how could God allow suffering in this world? Where does He put people who die before they ever hear of the Gospel? There are much things we do not know in this world, and in Middle-earth. Take Bombadil, for example. Doesn't he ever run out of words to fit in to that silly tune of his???

[Formendacil]

I have been, very slowly, rereading The Lord of the Rings this summer (so much less free time than when I was half-employed...) and, having both pushed on into "Treebeard" and having found myself pining for meaty Barrow-discussion, I thought I'd dig up this old thread. Nor have I been disappointed.

There are nuggets aplenty in here, and a few that have me wondering/thinking.

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

This thing troubles me in this chapter:

Why is the badge of Saruman white? Why not a rainbow? Or anything multi-coloured?

There's a bit of speculation here, but I wonder if there might have been more--this might have almost warranted a thread in itself! (Assuming such a thing did not exist back in the day--after all, this was before I even joined the Downs!)

The reason this comment struck me with particular reference to the chapter at hand, however, is this: the whole thread revolves around orks. They are the centrepiece of the chapter and thus of the discussion, and even taking into account "The Choices of Master Samwise" and "The Tower of Cirith Ungol," this is the most substantial account of them we have, encompassing the entire chapter and three different branches of their kind (Northern, Isengarder, and Mordorian--Grishnákh has always seemed clearly distinct from the Northerners to me, a point that I think the movies have somewhat obscured.)

Anyway, this chapter is all about the orks, and the picture is vivid: orks are not pleasant. Yet, in connection with the comment of Master Felagund quoted above, I have to wonder if the Isengarders at least might not be clean. The white page, says Saruman, can be overwritten, and I say that the white car gets muddy easily, and I can't imagine the White Hand being much better. Yet the Uruk-hai, with their martial pride, seem likely to want to keep their emblems clear. Does this mean they're likely a rather clean people?

On a related note, perhaps it's only those who hold that "cleanliness is next to godliness" that would have a problem with this connection in the first place.

Originally Posted by davem

...the symbolism of the Dragon as 'Death' & how the Orcs are different in the sense that they are potential victims of this cosmic 'fact' - hence the Dragon would not need to 'repent'. The Orcish question arises only if Evil is a corruption of Good, not if it is a fact in itself. If Evil is an equal & opposite force then Orcs would be a physical manifestation of it as elves & men are of Good. Hence the opportunity for repentance is only necessary if the Orcs need a chance to return to what they had been created to be, not if they are what they were intended to be.

So the question Tolkien confronts us with is about our own beliefs - whether we are Manichaeans or Boethians....

It's a pity davem lost the original draft of that post, because, ten years later, I would like to read it; the surviving redaction is intriguing. I like the comparison to dragons, and I agree that the reason free will crops up so much with orks and not so much with dragons may well have to do with the utterness of their evil. Tolkien himself, in all his post-LotR attempts to niggle an answer to the "Problem of Ork-Evil" does not seem to have minded that dragons, as sentient beings, ought on the face of it to have a similar free will problem.

(Mind you, there are other issues that bear on it, such as the fact that dragons could far more plausibly be bodies incarnated by evil Maiarin spirits, or the fact that Orks are meant to be a deliberate perversion of the Eruhini and thus fraught with extra complications dragons are free from, but I think the basic idea here still has merit to consider.)


Turning to the chapter itself, rather than this distilled brandy of a discussion, it struck me in reading just how creepy Grishnákh is. More so than any other ork, and possibly more so than any other villain in The Lord of the Rings, Grishnákh seems wicked. By contrast, Uglúk seems almost honest--Grishnákh's contempt for him makes the Uruk-hai seem almost like noble warriors.

...but then I catch myself remembering, at the end of the chapter, how Merry and Pippin feel about the prospect of the Uruk-hai winning the battle against the Riders. To them, it is clear, Uglúk and his ilk are every bit as bad as Grishnákh; it is only me, as the reader, that sees Uglúk as markedly better. A reminder, perhaps, that the lesser of two evils still looks pretty evil.