Are Orcs That Bad?

[Boromir88]

What is fascinating to me about Tolkien's orcs is Tolkien asks the question that Sociologists (and Psychologists) are still trying to answer today. It is a question Tolkien throws out there, but doesn't answer, and one that we will probably never have an "answer" to. Is the person to blame for their own choices, or do we blame the system? Do we blame the individual orcs for their cruelty, or the evil purpose (and environment) that Morgoth had for them. I mean the purpose of the Orcs are to really be cruel agents of destruction. Afterall the Mouth of Sauron was said to have been "more" cruel than any orc, and that thought just sends down my spine.

I am not too familiar with The Silmarillion, because honestly I don't like it as a story, and I really was only able to finish it (from cover-to-cover) once. But, I do get a different impression about the Orcs in LOTR than from the Orcs in the Silmarillion. Maybe that is because Sauron made improvements to his Orcs, and we also get more into Sauron's Orcs' minds.

Morgoth's Orcs certainly seemed pathetic and much like Canon Fodder. Wave after wave would come, and they would be slaughtered by our heroes (yet more would keep coming!) I never got the impression that Sauron's Orcs were canon fodder. Afterall, unlike what the movies show (gotta love Hollywood) Sauron didn't seem to have an unlimitted supply of Orcs he could keep throwing out there. He had amassed a lot of forces, but the army he sent to Erebor was made up of Easterlings, arguably the majority of the army the Witch-King commanded (when sieging Gondor) was made up of Men (or in the very least the Orcs wouldn't have outnumbered them by much).

I think Sauron also had a much different approach to "conquest" than Morgoth did. Morgoth eventually just wanted to destroy everything, Sauron on the other hand seemed to avoid war, if he could or if it suited his interests. He sends an emissary to offer peace to the dwarves. The message was pretty much, tell me where the Ring is, stay out of my way, and I'll leave you alone. He does send the MoS out to talk terms with Aragorn et. all. We all knew the "talks" weren't going to be productive, but afterall this was an army that just defeated him and now marched right to his gate. This offers a reason to believe, that first Sauron had a wiser policy than Morgoth, but also Sauron really didn't have the unlimited resources (and Orcs) to spend on constant fighting.

I think his alliance with Saruman shows Sauron's policy the best. He doesn't trust Saruman, but he could use Saruman and when Saruman is useless, he'll deal with the little brat later. I'm sure if the Dwarves had agreed to Sauron's offer, Sauron would have dealt with them eventually. We see Sauron did have superior numbers, but he just didn't have the power to constantly be at war, thus any temporary peace he could make, he probably would.

So, where am I trying to go with all this, ahh Sauron's Orcs never appeared to be canon fodder to me. He couldn't tap into an unlimitted amount and keep throwing them at his enemy. Also, we see our heroes don't actually keep cutting down wave after wave of Orcs.

The fight in Moria, I wouldn't really even call a skirmish. The Fellowship didn't have the endurance to beat back the Orcs, and fight them for 10 minutes as the movies portrayed. The Fellowship high-tailed their butts out of the chamber as soon as they could. The Orc Leader was also one tough cookie:

With a thrus of his huge hide shield he turned Boromir's sword and bore him backwards, throwing him to the ground. Diving under Aragorn's blow with the speed of a striking snake he charged into the Company and thrus with his spear straight at Frodo.~The Bridge of Khazad-dum

Eventhough he was the titled the "orc-cheiftain" this is pretty darn impressive for something that is supposed to be canon fodder. He manhandles the strongest member of the Fellowship, and he has the agility to quickly duck below Aragorn's blow and strike Frodo. That is impressive.

Then at Helm's Deep, I can see an argument being made that Legolas and Gimli did slay over 80 baddies combined, that seems like Tolkien drawing from "classic" heroism. However, we do know that not all of Saruman's army were Uruk-hai (or Orcs), and this was a battle that lasted through the night. I have not the slightest idea the length of the battle, and there were breaks in between (a moment of "parley" too!) But, even a battle that lasts 3-4 hours, killing 40 baddies for one person definitely isn't like Hurin's last stand.

The only moment (to me) that seemed like the Orcs got mowed down easily was Boromir's last stand. Pippin does say all the arrows were aimed at Boromir and he does kill many of them. But, also consider Boromir kind of drove off the first attack, scared away the 2nd with a horn blow, and on the 3rd wave he was killed.

I guess a quick summary if you want to skip all that, the Orcs in LOTR seem different in several ways than Morgoth's Orcs. I wanted to toss out some more things about Orcs and their possible redemption, but I must be off. I guess I will throw this out there, for when I do get a chance, but I was thinking about Orc women. Tolkien confirms in Letters (and it is consistant with the Silmarillion) that Orcs reproduce like the Children of Iluvatar, and thus there had to have been Orc women. But, alas, he doesn't entertain us with how orc childhood was like (under Sauron's regime). Did the Orc women stay at home and nurse their younglings...complete with a pleasant tomato garden and a white picket fence? (Eeh, that seems a little difficult to believe, and also tomatoes had no place in Middle-earth...hmm maybe cabbage).

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I guess a quick summary if you want to skip all that, the Orcs in LOTR seem different in several ways than Morgoth's Orcs.

First of all, welcome back to posting (haven't seen you around for a bit).

Second, I don't really think Morgoth's Orcs and Sauron's Orcs differed at all; what is definitely different was the caliber of enemy they faced. The Eldar and Edain were certainly greater warriors than the fading Dunedain in Gondor (and many Gondorions probably could only claim limited Dunedain bloodlines), and the Rohirrim. Even the Dwarves of the 1st Age were greater than their 3rd Age counterparts -- at least weapon and armor-wise -- after all, Azaghâl and his dwarves didn't back down from dragons; whereas the Dwarves of Erebor were soundly thrashed by Smaug. Plus, Morgoth didn't rely as much on Orcs as Sauron. After all, Morgoth's heavy hitters were Balrogs, dragons, trolls and then the Orcs coming...ummm...up the rear. And Morgoth was absolutely victorious against greater foes (until the Valar cavalry had to be called); whereas Sauron won many battles, but lost nearly every war he conducted.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I wanted to toss out some more things about Orcs and their possible redemption, but I must be off. I guess I will throw this out there, for when I do get a chance, but I was thinking about Orc women. Tolkien confirms in Letters (and it is consistant with the Silmarillion) that Orcs reproduce like the Children of Iluvatar, and thus there had to have been Orc women. But, alas, he doesn't entertain us with how orc childhood was like (under Sauron's regime). Did the Orc women stay at home and nurse their younglings...complete with a pleasant tomato garden and a white picket fence? (Eeh, that seems a little difficult to believe, and also tomatoes had no place in Middle-earth...hmm maybe cabbage).

Tolkien didn't mention tomato-tending Orc matrons who not-so-tenderly breast-fed their bawling brats (OWWW! those fangs!) because it's obvious Tolkien did not want to evince sympathy for Orcs. Tolkien was not one to offer multi-layered villains in his stories. If you were evil, you get no sympathetic rendering. Evil in Middle-earth always gets punished, doesn't it? Only if you atone, like Boromir, do you get the sympathetic touch (but then, of course, you must die anyway, sorry). Morgoth, Eol, Maeglin, Saeros, Feanor (he paid, precious, yes he did), Caranthir, Celegorm, Curufin (throw in Maglor and Maedhros as well), Mim, Turin (Tolkien's one great anti-hero), Sauron, Ar-Pharazon, Castimir the Usurper, the WiKi, Mouth of Sauron, Saruman (unrepentant up to the end), Denethor (he lost whatever sympathy he could have mustered), Gollum, etc., no one pays off the judge or has a get-out-of-jail free card (except perhaps Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, who gains sympathy in spite of herself).

No one gets to amass riches, kill wantonly and then retire to a seaside resort on the beaches of Umbar (like in real life).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

There is, of course, the original statement that the wise 'believed' Orcs to be descended from imprisoned, twisted Elves; however, that goes against Tolkien's references to Elves dying of sadness (a sort of emotional suicide), and rape being a cause of such death:

Yes that quote seems to make the Elvish orgin improbable. However, one could speculate that an Elf child abducted from his or her parents at a very young age would live on despite horrific conditions as it would know of nothing else.

Originally Posted by Eönwe

Are you suggesting Immortal Orcs?

Well, if we go into the Arda metaphysics, a soul (fea) is granted to a child directly by Eru and isn't a product of the two parents as is the body. The difference between a Man and an Elf is the soul, not the body. What happens then when an Elf and a Man produces a child? Well, it seems the child is granted either a Man's soul or an Elf's soul by choice (Elrond chose to belong to the Elves, his brother Elros chose to be a Man etc.).

What about Orcs then? Do they have a soul? I suppose so, as they are not beasts but rational beings capable of procreating in the manner of the Children of Illuvatar. A body (hroa) can not live without a soul (fea) and Melkor could not create life on his own. To my mind the only (somewhat) logical solution is that Orcs either are descended from Elves and thus have an Elvish soul granted by Eru and are immortal, or that they are of human stock and are mortal. Like Morthoron I'm leaning towards the latter alternative which is, I believe, Tolkiens last known position on the matter.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

...they are also hyper intelligent and could easily come up with their own solutions. But my point is it's their sheer ruthlessness and them being unable to be 'redeemed' that makes them so interesting and frightening.

But how can a being be hyperintelligent, able to come up with its own solutions and at the same time unredeemable, ie born "evil"? Someone who is intelligent can choose to torture and kill for the fun of it or choose not to, there's no way around that. A whole people that's all bad and completely unredeemable isn't plausable to me. There can be no such thing.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Like I've said, if Orcs are breeding in the normal way, then this reduces the likelihood that their home culture is inherently violent. If you look at the most ruthless of soldiers, they must still retain some basic emotions such as caring for their comrades, for if they didn't, then who would care for them if they were injured?

The Uruk Hai chapter clearly demonstrates that the Orcs were skilled healers in their ways and certainly took care of their own. There was plenty of comradeship too and all the fighting was between the different fractions, not within them, as was the case in Cirith Ungol. In fact, their behaviour is human through and through, although they also are cruel and wicked.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Well, if we go into the Arda metaphysics, a soul (fea) is granted to a child directly by Eru and isn't a product of the two parents as is the body. The difference between a Man and an Elf is the soul, not the body. What happens then when an Elf and a Man produces a child? Well, it seems the child is granted either a Man's soul or an Elf's soul by choice (Elrond chose to belong to the Elves, his brother Elros chose to be a Man etc.).

What about Orcs then? Do they have a soul? I suppose so, as they are not beasts but rational beings capable of procreating in the manner of the Children of Illuvatar. A body (hroa) can not live without a soul (fea) and Melkor could not create life on his own. To my mind the only (somewhat) logical solution is that Orcs either are descended from Elves and thus have an Elvish soul granted by Eru and are immortal, or that they are of human stock and are mortal. Like Morthoron I'm leaning towards the latter alternative which is, I believe, Tolkiens last known position on the matter.

I actually think the idea that Orcs were originally Elves works much better. For one, as soon as the Elves awoke, Morgoth was out there capturing them like a human-catcher in Planet of the Apes, so there had to be Elvish ones. And then there's this question of Eru granting fear to his unborn Children. Would Eru keep granting Fear to new 'mortal' Orcs? It puts him in a sticky wicket. Thinking of Tolkien's own position on Eru, I think he would have been better off staying with the idea that Orcs were originally Elves.

Even if Morgoth got around the problem that only Eru could issue 'souls' by having had some way of recycling Fear into recycled and fixed-up Hroa (which might explain the Orcs' physical ugliness) once an Orc had croaked, then there would be no way he could recycle the Fear of Men as by their nature they leave the world, whereas Elven ones do not.

Though what I actually prefer is not to know exactly what they were, as it leaves it more interesting to have them possibly being Elves and/or Men originally.

I tend not to like a lot of Tolkien's very late stage tinkerings anyway. They muddy things far too much alas.

But how can a being be hyperintelligent, able to come up with its own solutions and at the same time unredeemable, ie born "evil"? Someone who is intelligent can choose to torture and kill for the fun of it or choose not to, there's no way around that. A whole people that's all bad and completely unredeemable isn't plausable to me. There can be no such thing.

If it is by nature evil then it can be like that.

The Uruk Hai chapter clearly demonstrates that the Orcs were skilled healers in their ways and certainly took care of their own. There was plenty of comradeship too and all the fighting was between the different fractions, not within them, as was the case in Cirith Ungol. In fact, their behaviour is human through and through, although they also are cruel and wicked.

Exactly, Orcs must have at least that shred of humanity.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If it is by nature evil then it can be like that.

No, it can't, and I guess it's here our views differ. You seem to want Tolkien to show beyond a doubt that Orcs are bad to the bone and deserve to be put to the sword? As I don't believe a creature like this can exist I would find such a fantastical creation dull and not very scary (again, I'm not familiar with Daleks or Cybermen and might change my mind if I were).

Personally I don't think there's such a thing as Evil or Good in any absolute sense; these concepts are defined by a certain society in a certain time, place and context and are ever changing. Tolkien appeared to have belived in these absloute values however but he also understood that in order to be Evil, or do what is Evil rather, you would need to have a choice, there would need to be a fall. If you are born irredeemably Evil you have no choice in the matter and are not in fact Evil either. In Tolkien's world Eru, who is Good, created the world, and not even Melkor (or Nerwen) was evil in the beginning.

I can buy that Dragons, Balrogs and such are completely malicious, but even they are ancient spirits who once in the depths of time "fell" under the influence of Melkor.

The real enemy in Tolkien's world are by the way not the Orcs but Evil itself, personified by Melkor or Sauron and his Ring.

[Lalwendë]

I also don't think absolute Good and Evil exist - in the real world.* However, if you are going to have an enemy which is slaughtered on a massive scale (because if you don't then they will slaughter you on a massive scale) then this brings in doubts as to whether it is right to kill them. And it does make them less frightening.

It actually brings me back around to davem's Fantasy thread, because I start to question if it was morally right that Tolkien should show Orcs, who are not 'pure evil', being slaughtered in such a light fashion. I'm starting to think that gives a slightly dodgy impression (kind of along the lines of "these guys have souls too and are like us, but it's alright if we put them to the sword because they aren't on our side") and that davem may be right in stating Tolkien ought to have shown us more of the grim realities of war, especially if he was going to frame his enemy as being more like a real world enemy than like the traditional fantasy/sci-fi ruthless enemy.




*In all normal circumstances. However at the very extremes of survival I think such notions fly right out of the window.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Personally I don't think there's such a thing as Evil or Good in any absolute sense; these concepts are defined by a certain society in a certain time, place and context and are ever changing.

How typical 7th age liberal & educated view that is! And I do completely agree on it.

But as was dicussed earlier in this thread, we need to keep in mind that the way we educated people of the 21st century think of things may not be the only criteria with which we should interpret fictional worlds... Looking at Tolkien's own worldview it's quite plausible his world could be "metaphysically absolutist". But there are problems even there.

Originally Posted by Skip

Tolkien appeared to have belived in these absloute values however but he also understood that in order to be Evil, or do what is Evil rather, you would need to have a choice, there would need to be a fall. If you are born irredeemably Evil you have no choice in the matter and are not in fact Evil either. In Tolkien's world Eru, who is Good, created the world, and not even Melkor (or Nerwen) was evil in the beginning.

The interesting question here to me is, can something merely just "fallen from grace" be absolutely evil? Wouldn't absolute evil require an autonomous evil principle from where it stems just like the absolut Good emanates from Eru? It's easy to see where the fascination towards Manichean thought comes from be it in the context of the early church or today's power politics...

But if Eru is the sole absolute power there is in the universe then he is in the last stance responsible also of the evil of Melkor and all the other evil...

Btw. did Eru make a choice to be good in the first place? Did Eru have a choice or is his goodness based on his nature or necessity? If Eru made a choice it's not absolute Good he represents but if his godness is necessary then he's not actually Good...

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

How typical 7th age liberal & educated view that is! And I do completely agree on it.

*phew* (if Nogrod agrees with me I know I'm on the right track)

Originally Posted by Nog

The interesting question here to me is, can something merely just "fallen from grace" be absolutely evil? Wouldn't absolute evil require an autonomous evil principle from where it stems just like the absolut Good emanates from Eru? It's easy to see where the fascination towards Manichean thought comes from be it in the context of the early church or today's power politics...

You're right, in Tolkien's world there is no absolute evil (maybe I was sloppy expressing myself before). Eru is Good and the norm and as everything comes from him there can be no autonomous evil principle. Or can it? Not so sure about that actually, couldn't he have created that too just because? Well. in theory perhaps but not in Arda...

Originally Posted by Nog

But if Eru is the sole absolute power there is in the universe then he is in the last stance responsible also of the evil of Melkor and all the other evil...

Btw. did Eru make a choice to be good in the first place? Did Eru have a choice or is his goodness based on his nature or necessity? If Eru made a choice it's not absolute Good he represents but if his godness is necessary then he's not actually Good...

I suppose that whichever choice Eru made it was still Good as he is the norm. Eru makes no mistakes as there is no-one above him with the authority to judge him.

[Boromir88]

Morthoron, thank you, it's nice to be back.

No one gets to amass riches, kill wantonly and then retire to a seaside resort on the beaches of Umbar (like in real life).

That was truly delightful to read, and a good point, Tolkien's baddies to get their come uppance. However, I will say while they do get what they deserve, some of those baddies you list (Gollum, Grima, Denethor) I personally feel sympathetic towards, because there are still good traits I see in them. They are without question evil (and Denethor's case is more grey), but as Gandalf says about Gollum: "I think it is a sad story." Hmm...I wonder if Gandalf would say that about the Orcs?

I agree Sauron doesn't treat them as cannon fodder, but Tolkien does.~Lalwende

I guess if Tolkien needed baddies for our heroes to hack down, then that would make the Orcs cannon fodder. But by knowing Tolkien entertained the idea of orc redemption, that doesn't strike sympathy in me. Orcs were vile, cruel, and liked to use torture for their own sport. (Let's not forget the capture and torment of Celebrian). Also, just how "redeemed" are we talking about here.

Lal mentions Gorbag and Shagrat discussing retirement, but to borrow some words from Morthoron, it's not like Tolkien wanted his baddies to retire on a seaside resort on the beaches of Umbar.

"They would," grunted Gorbag. "We'll see. But anyway, if it does go well, there should be a lot more room. What d'you say? - of we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses."
"Ah!" said Shagrat. "Like old times."~The Choices of Master Samwise

Shagrat and Gorbag's "retirement" plan is to simply escape the Big Bosses and go out on their own. They would still stick to their orcish habits, but there would be no one like Morgoth or Sauron controlling them.

“The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted / converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their ‘talking’ was really reeling off ‘records’ set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellion critical words - he knew about them.”~Morgoth’s Ring; Myths Transformed

Tolkien's Orcs were capable of rebellious thoughts against their Big Bosses, but were they capable of living peacefully and being contributors to society? I doubt it. The absense of Morgoth or Sauron would not suddenly dissolve their wickedness. I'll get back to that, but let me kind of jump ahead to Letter 153:

They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad (I nearly wrote ’irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimatly good.)~Letter #153

So, there it is, but Lalwende you mentioned how Tolkien's later writings often muddy the waters, and I'm sorry I'm going to have to do some more muddying. As Bethberry ended up bringing to my attention that Letter 153 was actually a draft that was never sent. This letter was intended for Peter Hastings, a Catholic, but as Carpenter adds in at the end of the draft:

[The draft ends here. At the top, Tolkien has written: 'Not sent,' and has added: 'It seemed to be taking myself too importantly.']

I had brought up in the Modernism thread that Tolkien's friend Norman Cantor argues Tolkien's letters are his conscious thoughts after writing the story. So, it's interesting to hear the author's thoughts and opinions, but they do tend to muddy things up. While they are interesting to read, his Letters are not authoritative. Or as Tolkien puts it in Letter 211 (ironic isn't?):

I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.

I find it interesting that in Letter 153 he stops himself, and never does send out the letter. Going back to my first post, Tolkien asks us the question sociologists and psychologists have been trying to answer for years. Even more fascinating is Sociology and Psychology were not big sciences pre-WWI. But post-war there was a huge boom and now it seems like half the people I meet are psych-majors.

...maybe I am churlish in that he doesn't fully pull off either having an effectively scary, amoral enemy nor an enemy which has been corrupted to be that way and is to be pitied.

An interesting thought, for me Tolkien did pull of an effectively scary, amoral enemy. I'm sorry, I don't find anything to like about the Orcs, anyone who captures, torments, poisons...etc other people for their own sport, is evil. I don't think that Tolkien struggled with whether the Orcs were evil or not, but I do think he struggled with does he blame the Orc or the system? (A question we all struggle to ask ourselves today) I will point out one more thing...when the Big Boss (Sauron) was finally destroyed, and the Orcs have an oppurtunity to sue for pardon, do they? No, Tolkien draws a remarkable comparison to ants losing their queen.

[Boromir88]

Nogrod, perhaps it would interest you to know that Tolkien didn't believe in absolute evil:

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil.~Letter 183

And critics are always complaining that Tolkien was such a conservative.

Edit: aha I found it...here's an older thread that might interest you, skip and Nogrod.

Absolutely Evil

[Lalwendë]

Yeah it all comes back to Eru and Tolkien's desire to keep Eru as a force of ultimate Good and that all which stems from him being, ultimately, Good too. Which means of course the Orcs have to be able to be redeemed (and have to be given a chance at redemption) or we could rightly ask why Eru permitted them to exist. But then you start wondering why they never get a chance at redemption. Then of course you also wonder where the Evil which Morgoth turned to actually comes from if Eru created everything...

Remind me if I ever write a fantasy epic not to bother with an Eru figure