Fantasy

[Pitchwife]

An afterthought:

Originally Posted by davem

there is no desire on Tolkien's part to have these rebels 'saved'

But did they ever actually rebel, or did they just talk and fantasize about it (the way a smoker may talk about quitting, because it would be reasonable/healthy/whatever, but without the will to actually try) ? The way I understand Tolkien's views, you have to make an effort if you want to be saved; dreaming is not enough. Again, it's the difference between paying lip-service to values and acting accordingly, see above.

[littlemanpoet]

Ah the taste of human blood
it is like the sweet smell of dung
like listening to keening mothers
weeping for their sons oh the delight
like swallowing a great gob of manflesh
like knives on the tongue
and another's gold in the hand
ah the taste ah the taste

[davem]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

An afterthought:


But did they ever actually rebel, or did they just talk and fantasize about it (the way a smoker may talk about quitting, because it would be reasonable/healthy/whatever, but without the will to actually try) ?.

But isn't it interesting that no 'bad guy' ever chooses to repent? Why does Tolkien not include a 'villain' who turns? And wouldn't it have been interesting if he had? It would have reinforced the message of hope, of the 'unexpected turn of events'. But it seems that once one has chosen evil one loses all real desire for the good. Certainly there is hope for the good guys even at the greatest extremity, at the Sammath Naur, but those who have chosen evil, like Gollum, Saruman, Denethor, Wormtongue, & the rest will not turn. What does this tell us about moral choices in Tolkien's world?

It may well be true that offering forgiveness & the chance of repentance to those who have chosen evil "enhances the wellbeing of the person doing the offering (assuming it was offerred with a compassionate frame of mind and not with ulterior motives)" but how long is it going to be before the good guys realise that its ultimately a futile exercise because the bad guys won't take up the opportunity?

Yet, one could argue that the knowledge that the bad guy won't repent actually makes offering the chance of repentance & forgiveness easier - if you know the monster won;t repent you know you won't have to deal with them, have them living among 'decent folk'. And wouldn't that have been the hardest thing - living with a reformed Gollum or Saruman after everything they'd done? Far harder than simply offering the chance of repentance in the first place. Much easier to offer a homeless ex-convict a room in your house if you know they'll reject it, but would you make the offer if you thought they might take you up on it?

Tolken 'deals' with evil by having it conveniently choose damnation, thereby avoiding any need for all that messy 'Truth & Reconciliation' stuff.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

But isn't it interesting that no 'bad guy' ever chooses to repent?

What of the Dunlendings, as a group, in the aftermath of Helm's Deep?

Why does Tolkien not include a 'villain' who turns? And wouldn't it have been interesting if he had? It would have reinforced the message of hope, of the 'unexpected turn of events'. But it seems that once one has chosen evil one loses all real desire for the good. Certainly there is hope for the good guys even at the greatest extremity, at the Sammath Naur, but those who have chosen evil, like Gollum, Saruman, Denethor, Wormtongue, & the rest will not turn. What does this tell us about moral choices in Tolkien's world?

I think that Gollum was an 'almost-was.' He was slowly, from the kindness of Frodo, turning back from his evil, and if the events of Ithilien had gone differently, he may have gotten over the threshold. That said, his journey took him, Frodo and Sam closer with each footstep *to* the physical source of evil in the world, and so Gollum may have not been able to break free. If, somehow, the three had been able to go West instead of East...

It may well be true that offering forgiveness & the chance of repentance to those who have chosen evil "enhances the wellbeing of the person doing the offering (assuming it was offerred with a compassionate frame of mind and not with ulterior motives)" but how long is it going to be before the good guys realise that its ultimately a futile exercise because the bad guys won't take up the opportunity?

I don't think that a thinking man allows others to dictate his course. The noble and/or heroic (me guesses) do what they do despite the consequences or however slim the chances. And that's why we read about them instead of those that give in or give up much sooner.

Yet, one could argue that the knowledge that the bad guy won't repent actually makes offering the chance of repentance & forgiveness easier - if you know the monster won;t repent you know you won't have to deal with them, have them living among 'decent folk'. And wouldn't that have been the hardest thing - living with a reformed Gollum or Saruman after everything they'd done? Far harder than simply offering the chance of repentance in the first place. Much easier to offer a homeless ex-convict a room in your house if you know they'll reject it, but would you make the offer if you thought they might take you up on it?

Much agreed, and it would have been interesting to see how that played out. What if Worm had walked away from Saruman? But then what interest to the story would he have been? He was Saruman's lackey sidekick, and with Theoden dead, what use he? Far better, I guess, for the story to have him turn on his master.

Tolken 'deals' with evil by having it conveniently choose damnation, thereby avoiding any need for all that messy 'Truth & Reconciliation' stuff.

Again, we are seeing a snapshot of these creatures' lives. Maybe the Balrog just wanted to be left alone, but no! Those pesky Dwarves wouldn't let him be.

[tumhalad2]

It might be interesting here to invoke Tom Shippey's essay, called Orcs, Wraiths, and Wrights-The Nature of Evil in Tolkien's Middle-earth

Though I dont have it with me, it deals with the very issue of the Shagrat and Gorbag episode. Shippey argues that indeed, the orcs are posessed of a moral compass, they are posessed of hopes, dreams and such, but only in a momentary sense

It's been a while since I've read it, but his essay argues that Tolkien is being quite deliberate in his characterisation here. Shippey argues that the episode is designed to elicit an empathetic response, at least initially. Indeed this is the central point-once this response has occured, the orcs subsequently effect the destruction of each other, revealing their base, fundementally animalistic natures-despite their 'humanity'

As I say I dont have the essay with me so I'm going off my (admittadly bad) memory.Shippey makes the point that the episode, rather than a mispaced modern insertion into an otherwise "morally simplistic" fable is designed to expose evil's absurd side-its fake, ultimately baseless morality.

Im not sure I have explained this very well; I dont have much time at the moment, but that is the gist of it

[davem]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Indeed this is the central point-once this response has occured, the orcs subsequently effect the destruction of each other, revealing their base, fundementally animalistic natures-despite their 'humanity'

Hmm...so its alright to slaughter them with impunity, then, because, although they seem to have emotions, hopes, fears - to be, in effect, just like us - they are in reality 'just animals'..... ?

Its not an analysis I accept - take the incident with Ghan buri Ghan & the Rohirrim, where he reveals that the Horse Lords routinely hunt the Woses like animals for sport. The Rohirrim are doing exactly what Shippey is saying Tolkien is doing - claiming that although the Woses may seem like people, they actually aren't - its an illusion, one which 'smart' people would not fall for?

What's interesting in this context is that we readers are so willing to accept Shippey's interpretation - & I can't help but feel that that's because it excuses our heroes' treatment of the enemy. If we were confronted with a 'human' enemy we would not feel as comfortable in our reading of the book. Hence, my own feeling that Tolkien actually did begin to present us with the 'human' side of the enemy, realised the devstating implications for his story of such a move, & drew back.

[tumhalad2]

Here's some analysis of Shippey's essay:

http://www.hatrack.com/svu/tolkien_lewis/al's%20Tolkienpaper.html

and the particularly relevant piece:

Shippey also makes an interesting point when he analyzes the discussion between Shagrat and Gorbag when they find Frodo at Cirith Ungol he says, “What the episode with Shagrat and Gorbag reveals is that orcs are moral beings, with an underlying morality much the same as ours.” However, if that is true, it seems that an underlying morality has no effect at all on actual behavior. How, then is an essentially correct theory of good and evil corrupted? If one starts from a sound moral basis, how can things go so disastrously wrong? It should require no demonstration to show that this is one of the vital questions raised with particular force during the twentieth century, in which the most civilized people have often committed the worst atrocities. Tolkien deserves credit for noting the problem, and refusing to turn his back on it, as so many of his canonical literary contemporaries did. Shippey also mentions that Tolkien “Insists in several places that evil has no great power. It ‘mocks’ and does not make.’”

AND:

FROM: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...4f77b?lnk=raot

They are cruel, they are greedy and they are selfish.


They also take delight in the degradation and humiliation of others,
and they derive pleasure from hurting and torturing others.


> But we also see that they are capable of an inner social structure,


But so are ants and other animals, so that fact alone doesn't really
make much of a difference, I'd say. The important thing must be the
nature of that social structure, and in the matter of the Orcs, their
social structure seems to be strictly a hierarchical pecking order
with the strongest in the top, cruelly dominating the rest.


> and as Tolkien insists that they breed like all other beings on
> Middle Earth, there must also be mothers, youngsters, etc.

[tumhalad2]

I have found the essay and I can here present some of the relevant informations:
[I]
Orcs, Wraiths, Wrights: Tolkien's Images of Evil[/I

"...Shagrat sees nothing wrong with Gorbat's use of "elvish" and Gorbat has no quarrel with Shagrat's sense of humour.

The subtle irony makes a point that is repeated again and again in the orcish conversation we hear, and which in its wider implications is important for Tolkien to stress again and again...Briefly what the episode of Shagrat and Gorbag reveals is that orcs are moral beings, with an underlying reality much the same as ours. But if that is true, it seems that an underlying morality has no effect of actual behaviour. If one starts from a sound moral basis, how can things go disastrously wrong? It should require no demonstration that this is one of the vital questions raised with particular force during the twentieth century, in which the worst atrocities have often been committed by the most civilized people...Orcs in fact place a high theoretical value on mutual trust and loyalty. "Rebel" is another one of their pejorative words...Snaga says to Shagrat "I've fought for the Tower against those stinking Morgul-rats", which shows a kind of limited loyalty. Another favourite word among the orcs is "lads", a word that implies male bondage and good fellowship...It should be pointed out that Gorbag and Shagrat soon fall out, and their ideal of being "trusty" is ironic because Shagrat says "I don't trust all my lads, and none of yours, nor you neither, when you're mad for fun"...nevertheless Mauhar and his lads do turn up and make an attempted rescue. The orcs furthermore, -to say the best one can of them-understand the concept of parley...Saruman's orcs show great pride in their boast, many times repeated "We are the fighting Uruk-hai".

Although all orcs appear to be man eaters, they do not appear to be cannibalistic, but reserve that catagorisation for orcs who eat other orcs...

It would be tedious to point out all the ways in which these claims are systematically disproved or ironized...But the point remains, the orcs recognize the idea of goodness, appreciate humour, value loyalty, trust, group cohesion, and the ideal of a higher cause than themselves, and condemn failings from these ideas in others. So, if they know what is right, how does it happen that they persist in wrong? The question becomes more persistant in that the orcish behaviour is also perfectly clearly human behaviour...

After all, if all evil creatures in the beginning were good...what justice is there in condemning them irrivocably to perdition? Could there not be some way of saving them? Tolkien never took up the challenge of finding some way of educating or "rehabilitating" the orcs, though he was aware of it [Shippey points to Morgoth's Ring] and though he did spend considerable time on the possibility of rehabilitating Gollum...Orcish behaviour, whether in orcs or in humans, has its root not in an inverted morality, which sees bad as good and vise versa, but as a kind of self centredness that sees indeed what is good-like standing by one's comerads and being loyal to one's mates-but is unable to set one's behavior on the right place in this accepted scale...

To summarise: There is in Tolkien's presentation of orcs a quite deliberate realism. Orcish behavior is human behavior, and their inability to judge their actions by their own moral criteria is a problem all too sadly familiar."


That's about as much as I could find that's relevant....interesting take on things