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

[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 ...

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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

But basically that's what I've tried to say, but obviously failed (right but no ability, blah-blah-blah)

Minus the main bulk of orcs (and I make such a proviso on the ground of Tolkien's later opinion (i.e. "Orcs are beasts and Balrogs Maiar"). Assumption that orkish leaders were exeption is, well, an assumption - but based on their obvious independence, and on 'historical precedent" - Boldog. Carven knife-handle of later chapters, which Aragorn 'held with disgust" adding up to an assumption (indeed, are beasts capable of Art?)

cheers

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

But was this episode written pre- or post LotR - don't have my books to hand?

Did the writing of episodes like this one in LotR change the Orcs of the Sil - was this change written back into the Silmarillion?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

Which really equates to no choice and therefore severely limited free will - through (as I have said) no (original) fault of their own. As you say, the position is not entirely satisfactory.

[Rimbaud]

If one were really to take the argument of repenting orcs seriously, you would then have to think about what would happen to such an orc. It seems unlikely that their immediate society would tolerate such reckless good behaviour and such a person would doubtless, and probably literally, be out on an ear in no time.

The same is roughly applicable in reverse to the Elves.

Thus, it is unlikely that such characters would turn up at any major events, being dead, or in hiding/exile. This may be glib, but it is less awkward than writing in the doubting orc who was somehow embraced by his bloodthirsty brethren.

[drigel]

...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.

Heren -

you were leading to the point I was going to make - that, free will or no, orcs did represent an aspect of mankind through their actions externally. To me they also represented a legacy of unfulfilled destiny. The players in LOTR being the inheritors of a failed struggle that they must resolve. The failure of elves, men, and Vala.

[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..