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

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

This thing troubles me in this chapter:

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

[HerenIstarion]

I suppose it is white due to tradition - Saruman was white for so long, he grew accustomed to the title.

Besides, the white is more close to colourless, which is what Saruman, in fact, became, than any particular colour.

Orcs re:

Ahem. 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'

And Tolkien obviously tries to solve the problem by a side exit. See:

1. Grishnákh is killed by stray arrow, following his own evil actions (Chance. Maybe even a suicide?)
2. Uglúk is slain in fair fight, as equal, by [dismounted] Éomer.
3. Shagrat and Gorbag kill each other off

Beast-orcs, requiring direct control of Sauron’s will, disperse by themselves once there is no Sauron around to drive them, and ‘free-willed’ leaders are almost always given a chance – I can’t claim its truth, I can’t back myself up, but I always had a feeling that if only Uglúk prayed for mercy, he had a chance of being spared.

Some meditations on the subject can be found on the main site: All About Orcs

[Rimbaud]

This chapter also opens up the possibility for fascinating discourse on orcish draught.

As has been mentioned, this chapter is illuminative in several areas. Not only does it shed light on the true nature of the orcs – I agree, it also creates many further questions, but knowing more about something necessarily brings realisation that there is more to know – but it also expands and develops the character(s) of the hitherto subsidiary Hobbits.

--As an aside here, this is one piece of theatrical editing that the cinematic version failed on. The EE release shows M & P fighting alongside the doomed Boromir, with some skill and bravery, as the book suggests. The theatrical release, unfortunately, shows them practically jumping into the arms of their captors. --

So now we know, that not only can Hobbits fight a bit, which is a needed set-up for later acts of heroism (Pelennor et al), as previously it had seemed that a halfling would be redundant in a real battle, but that they can think practically at times of crisis. Pippin’s development is the greater here, which I think is indicative of JRRT’s intention in this chapter to develop these two – and he thought Merry had had the better build-up of the two already.

The dropped-brooch scenario has always been a favourite moment of mine, as it shows the Hobbits in a rather different light.

[Lalwendë]

This thing troubles me in this chapter:
Why is the badge of Saruman white? Why not a rainbow? Or anything multi-coloured?

Pass me the tin opener, I've some more worms to let loose.

Why the White Hand? I’ve been trying to figure that one out for a while, and came across a few dead ends. I know it is a symbol in Islam, and it is also related to Moses as a prophet. Unfortunately I have never read the Koran nor do I have much knowledge of the symbolism surrounding Moses.

However, I have found that the symbol of the wide open hand was commonly used. In a text from 1898 entitled The Magic of the Horse-Shoe with other folk lore notes, I found the following interesting passages:

It is worthy of note that the symbol of an open hand with extended fingers was a favorite talisman in former ages, and was to be seen, for example, at the entrances of dwellings in ancient Carthage. It is also found on Lybian and Phoenician tombs, as well as on Celtic monuments in French Brittany.

A white hand-print is commonly seen upon the doors and shutters of Jewish and Moslem houses in Beyrout and other Syrian towns; and even the Christian residents of these towns sometimes mark windows and flour-boxes with this emblem, after dipping the hand in whitewash, in order to “avert chilling February winds from old people and to bring luck to the bin.”

In Germany a rude amulet having the form of an open hand is fashioned out of the stems of coarse plants, and is deemed an ample safeguard against divers misfortunes and sorceries. It is called “the hand of Saint John,” or “the hand of Fortune.”

[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...

[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.