Of Orcs and Elves - Mirror Image Opposites or Not?

[tom the eldest]

I dont see that as a sign of honour.to me its just orcs asociating sam with common elvish traits:ambushing orcs when they not suspected it.

[Ivriniel]

We know from The Hobbit that Orcs "make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones." This doesn't necessarily mean that they lacked a culture, however. Consider the design on Grishnákh's knife, as discovered by Gimli: a "carved handle: it had been shaped like a hideous head with squinting eyes and leering mouth." Evidently Orcs did not produce purely functional things.

Here, I wanted to begin the discussion-proper about beauty and truth. In the Tolkienian mythological universe, there is a tacit assumption made, I argue, about beauty. We are seduced into a singular appreciation of beauty, in a sense, (to borrow Tolkien's own use of the term 'seduced' as he so often attributes it to being deceived by the call to power, where another evil is disguised by things that 'seem' beautiful). I think like at least some of us, I did not see the obfuscation until much later in life, where--scratch the surface of Elven artifacts, and life--there are the same banes of humanity the reader projects into the idealisation of beauty in Elvish imperial life. Prejudice, stereotyping, egoism, collective racial narcissism, xenophobia, greed, objectification of the 'diminished other' and esteeming the 'self' - Elves do it best - Do They?

If you argue that Feanor, for example, seduced the Eldar into the Oath, but attribute the whole of the Darkening of Valinor to Morgoth, then does it not follow that Elvish 'beauty' in Middle Earth disguises Morgoth's Evil.

So--now look at Grishnákh's knife (that's such a great quotation, but I didn't find it, I borrowed it from Zigur)

...as discovered by Gimli: a "carved handle: it had been shaped like a hideous head with squinting eyes and leering mouth."...

This, to me, is so openly announcing a kind of capacity of Orc-dom to declare motivation in knife-carving, that is a very honest truth. A knife, is a vehicle to slay the adversary. The knife borne, in this way, by the Orc, is honestly expressing an orientation of being towards targets in battle. It slays Elves with the pleasure of removing, what to an Orc, is a Bane of Elvendom. Pleasure in deposing the oppressor is actually, arguably, also an expression of a moral code, but declared very honestly. How is honesty, then, suddenly an immorality?

By contrast, Elvish blades do seem so very beautiful on the surface, but they are deadly things. They do not show Elvish intention of the Blade, though, for example, the hotly blue glow of Sting perhaps certainly does. A Blade that, silently, instead, makes Elves pleasured for killing Orcs. Celebrations of victory. Eagerness in carving. This idea about Elvish blades having a semblance of Elvish ego/intention is a common theme in the major weapon artefacts (e.g. Gil Galad's spear. Sting. Orcrest and Glamdring).

I share two ideas, then, about Orcs, that do imply some kind of moral code for their existence.

1. They do have an appreciation of beauty--e.g. that certain kinds of hatred are beautiful. Elf slaying and honest weapon carvings declaring open intention.
2. The beauty of cleverness, where that cleverness may be appreciated in the subjective sense.

And - note, by absence, ideas in the mythology

1. The orcish perspective, as told from the orc about power, subordination, cruelty and their master's malice.
2. What would this race be like, or what potential do they have, when they do not have a Sauronic mind beating down upon them.

They reproduce "after the manner of the Children of Illuvatar". This is an act of creation, through Birth. I cannot see how the Orcish race have an incapacity to love, at least to some level. And I don't see we ever find out if that capacity can be enhanced.

[Ivriniel]

....so, in a sentence:

Nature-nurture ideas, on the one hand, and ideas about moral relativism on the other. I think, to simply be sentient enough to use the word "rebel" in attribution to Elvendom implies a moral code, quite clearly.

This also, for me, opens a discussion about compassion. Elvish slaying bears no compassion for the deposed, does it? The mirror image opposite, also true of Orcs. They like killing each other.

Where is the wisdom in this? And where, anywhere, does any Elf--the being attributed to the greater wisdom--ever consult with Eru/Illuvatar about the place of Elvish compassion in a bearing towards the slaying of Orc. I would have thought, that at the very least, a compassionate slaying of the Orc, would recognise that the Elf was slaying some facet or feature of the Elf (assuming Orcs were Elves, once).

Or else, the way I see it, the Elf is the greater liar than the Orc. For trying to dissemble motivations--you can't have it both ways, Mr Elf. Either you are, or you are not slaying a part of yourself by slaying the Orc, and if you are not acknowledging this, then how are you morally superior to the Orc?

[Mithadan]

I agree that Orcs have an appreciation of their own cleverness and their own works of their hands. Beauty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Of course there is the question of objective versus subjective beauty. Tolkien attempts to apply "objective" standards of beauty to Orcs and their works and thus they are interpreted (and presented) as ugly.

With regards to your form follows function argument that Orcish adornment of their weapons is essentially more honest than the Elven practice of making their works, including their weapons, beautiful (Objectively? Subjectively?), there are two principles in play. First is Tolkien's admiration of the hero, even if the hero is flawed). The Elves, generally being "heroic" (and no I do not wish to debate the morality of Feanor, etc.) posess mighty and wonderous weapons. The Orcs, as "villians" (Objectively? Subjectively?) bear hideous weapons that only an Orc or one of their ilk could admire.

Second, the Elves, as part of their nature, imbue a degree of their essence and world view into everything they make. A sword need not be beautiful, but it can be so it should be.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

I agree that Orcs have an appreciation of their own cleverness and their own works of their hands. Beauty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Of course there is the question of objective versus subjective beauty. Tolkien attempts to apply "objective" standards of beauty to Orcs and their works and thus they are interpreted (and presented) as ugly.

With regards to your form follows function argument that Orcish adornment of their weapons is essentially more honest than the Elven practice of making their works, including their weapons, beautiful (Objectively? Subjectively?), there are two principles in play. First is Tolkien's admiration of the hero, even if the hero is flawed). The Elves, generally being "heroic" (and no I do not wish to debate the morality of Feanor, etc.) posess mighty and wonderous weapons. The Orcs, as "villians" (Objectively? Subjectively?) bear hideous weapons that only an Orc or one of their ilk could admire.

Second, the Elves, as part of their nature, imbue a degree of their essence and world view into everything they make. A sword need not be beautiful, but it can be so it should be.

What we don't see, though, are the annals of the Orcs, and those actions they considered heroic. Though I concede this is only within a framework of moral relativism: Tolkien binds Evil to something that can be made tangible, touched, seen and discerned. That's more about moral universalism or moral absolutism.

Orcs and valour are not used synonymously, though Azog, is a name that I'm sure was a folk hero for the Orcs in their songs under their own mountain. Gundabad is a great, long lasting stronghold that we know very little about. And Carn Dum, Tharbad and some other places, where acts of Orcish heroism would have been fashioned.

On the second idea--that's my core point. If you argue that Melkor was responsible for Feanor's fall (and on an aside--it's a spectacular fall from heroism--he gets a mention in the Second Prophesy where he bears the Silmarils to Yavanna, who breaks them to rebirth the Two Trees)--then Elven imperial living in Middle Earth disguises evil with Elvish beauty.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

...and no I do not wish to debate the morality of Feanor, etc...

Why not? Just curious to understand.

Speaking only for myself, I've always had mixed feelings about him. I wonder about Tolkien's positioning of him in the mythology, and don't doubt the flawed hero is an important part of the mystery of his works. Frodo--took me a long time to re-identify with him. I had no compassion for his 'failure' in my youth, but later grew to appreciate that his valour was not about being incorruptible. False beliefs in impervious and perfect heroes, I think, cuts to the heart of Tolkien's idea about 'the who' was most corruptible by The Ring. Frodo--as a true hero--is flawed and made it further than any of Mankind....just some thoughts