Are Orcs That Bad?

[Lalwendë]

I was thinking about the other day about how the Orcs have never really scared me as 'baddies' in any way, shape or form. Yet the Cybermen still have me quaking in my boots because the very thought of humans modifying themselves so that they end up as a race of heartless, homogeneous cybernetic things is just horrible.

So that made me think about how the Orcs are clearly not just 'cannon fodder' either, a mindless, evil mass of enemies who must be put to the sword. Tolkien actually said that they were not beyond redemption, thus they're not such 100% dreadful things that they must be wiped out at all costs. Unlike Daleks (sorry to draw in another Whovian comparison, but hey....).

Then that brought me on to thinking about how Tolkien made it so that Morgoth could not create his own beings, he could only corrupt. That to me opens a whole can of worms because can you say that it's the fault of the Orcs that they behave so badly? Tolkien even muddies things by showing us Orcs chatting happily about retirement!

Tolkien toyed with having them just be mindless beasts, too, but that just doesn't work as a mindless, unintelligent enemy isn't really much of a threat.

Really, the only reason I want Aragorn & Co to hack off Orc heads is that they aren't the good guys, and I want the good guys to live. I don't actually hate the Orcs because there's not a lot of reason to do so. They're ugly, they eat man-flesh, they are cruel. But it's not really their fault, is it? Plus they're not beyond redemption either, so wiping a load of them out is hardly on a scale with Doctor Who sending an army of evil Daleks into the Void, is it?

Are the Orcs not that good at being bad guys, or is it that this notion of them being corrupted muddies the waters too much for them to be seen as really bad.

So. Do Orcs actually work as fictional Bad Guys?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So. Do Orcs actually work as fictional Bad Guys?

Yes, because it is because they are not pure evil that they are interesting. It gives things more perspective, and makes things more real. Of course, they are less redeemable than the races of men in the south, but that is because they are part of Morgoth's work. It's not their fault, but they still have unstoppable and unignorable traits that make them seem more evil. They are probably also [designed to be] more susceptible to being evil, and being selfish by nature they are more easily seduced (in the sense of luring) to the bad side. Greed gets in the way of them seeing what's Right or Wrong. And even more importantly, they are brought up in Mordor (or Isengard, or anywhere else with orcs). This means that being Bad is passed down, by parents (did Orcs have parents?) or at least everyone they knew or were friends (hmmm...) with.

The question is, would an orc brought up by "good" elves still be evil? Obviously, it doesn't seem that any elf would take one in, but you never know. Would they be more easily corrupted than all the elves they are around? I have a feeling Morgoth designed them to be more sensitive towards evil, and/or to be attracted to it.

On another note, the nature of good and evil (or if they even exist) is debatable, and so is greed and power-hunger.

[Lalwendë]

But does it work having an enemy that is not 'pure evil' when they are slaughtered on a massive scale? And does it actually make them frightening? The main way Orcs scare us is by sheer force of numbers against the good guys who we love, or even against slightly infuriating heroes like those we see in the Sil (as opposed to the more 'shiny' figures in LotR - but there's another thread in that one ).

Would it be better if Orcs were incapable of being redeemed? I think they would be much more frightening.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

One aspect that tends to make orcs interesting
(and clearly not totally evil) is when they are
personalized. Perhaps the best example is
Rosenkrantz and Gilderstern (i. e. Gorbag and
Shagrat), who seemed to have been in the
past friends and freelancers.

(Gorbag) "But anyway, if it (The War
of the Ring) does go well, there should be a lot
more room. What d'you say? - if 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".

And might the influence of the Ring have had an affect in
setting these (by Orcish standards) friends so violently
and quickly against each other?

[Morthoron]

There was always something disconcerting in the passage from "Over Hill and Under Hill" in The Hobbit:

It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them, and not working with their own hands more than they could help; but in those days, and those wild parts they had not advanced (as it is called) so far.

Now, what is particularly troubling is that they hadn't advanced so far as of yet. I do believe Tolkien is intimating that Orcs (or at least Orkishness) will continue to proliferate long after the time period of the tale (and, although it had not yet been written, far further than the events of the Lord of the Rings, which occurred a few score years after The Hobbit).

I had always wondered, given that Tolkien later gave up on the idea that Orcs originally came from elvish stock, and rather arose from mortal men, that Orcs eventually blended into the human race. I know we discussed this somewhere before, but I still find the concept fascinating (and this is especially true when some people look downright Orkish, particularly when vehemently angry -- the distortions of the faces of folk in a frenzied mob look subhuman).

[Laurinquë]

I never really considered the Orcs to be intrinsically evil creatures, nothing is 100% evil like you said Lalwendë. They can't really help themselves, they were made to be evil and raised to be evil, they aren't really and truly evil if they don't understand that what they do is considered wrong. But then many villens don't think they are doing anything particularly bad, or that what they think they do right cancels out any other wrongs they make.

But whether they work as bad guys, of course they do. We love the good guys and anybody who threatens them is automatically made out as villens.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Now, what is particularly troubling is that they hadn't advanced so far as of yet. I do believe Tolkien is intimating that Orcs (or at least Orkishness) will continue to proliferate long after the time period of the tale (and, although it had not yet been written, far further than the events of the Lord of the Rings, which occurred a few score years after The Hobbit).

I had always wondered, given that Tolkien later gave up on the idea that Orcs originally came from elvish stock, and rather arose from mortal men, that Orcs eventually blended into the human race. I know we discussed this somewhere before, but I still find the concept fascinating (and this is especially true when some people look downright Orkish, particularly when vehemently angry -- the distortions of the faces of folk in a frenzied mob look subhuman).

I agree with what your saying. As I've stated elsewhere, I think it's a mistake to see Orcs as a distinct species from Men and/or Elves. Orcs are rather a representation of the dark side of humanity and they do nothing that Men haven't done a million times thoughout history, which is why they in my opinion are very convincing as the bad guys - much more so then if they were mindless killing machines.

The fact that there are Half-Orcs, Orc-Men and other mixed races that can blend into human societies unnoticed also suggest that Men and Orcs aren't different species like Men and Dwarves are, but rather different "races" that can be distinguished from each other only in the same way as can say caucasians, mongolians or blacks. The RPGs and movies have us seing Orcs as humaniod monsters with greenish skin, fangs, claws and cat-eyes. Tolkien, as far as I'm aware, described them as "degraded" forms of human beings. The difference between Orcs and Men is cultural more than biological and I certainly believe that an Orcling brought up into a nice fosterfamily in Lindon probably would grow up to be a fairly decent individual if is wasn't for that nasty Elvish habit of making fun of anyone who's different.

Now as for the orgins of Orcs this is a can of worms, as Tolkien also discovered. However, if we keep it simple Elves and Men share the same kind of physical body and can have children together so Orcs might have their orgins in both peoples.
It's when we start taking about the soul or fea we run into problems.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Laurinquë

I never really considered the Orcs to be intrinsically evil creatures, nothing is 100% evil like you said Lalwendë. They can't really help themselves, they were made to be evil and raised to be evil, they aren't really and truly evil if they don't understand that what they do is considered wrong.

There's another thing to consider...can they actually be evil if they have no choice in the matter? I think Tolkien considered this himself which is why he said they would be capable of redemption. However, that then also makes them less frightening...and pushes the matter of dealing with Orcs into questions of morality.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Now, what is particularly troubling is that they hadn't advanced so far as of yet. I do believe Tolkien is intimating that Orcs (or at least Orkishness) will continue to proliferate long after the time period of the tale (and, although it had not yet been written, far further than the events of the Lord of the Rings, which occurred a few score years after The Hobbit).

I had always wondered, given that Tolkien later gave up on the idea that Orcs originally came from elvish stock, and rather arose from mortal men, that Orcs eventually blended into the human race. I know we discussed this somewhere before, but I still find the concept fascinating (and this is especially true when some people look downright Orkish, particularly when vehemently angry -- the distortions of the faces of folk in a frenzied mob look subhuman).

Do you think this was Tolkien allowing too much of his own feelings about the real world to creep into his creation? I do. It's all very well setting it up that the worst traits of human (mis)behaviour stem from Orcish blood (and quite intriguing), however he neatly skips the fact that in his tales a lot of Elves, Men and Dwarves without a single drop of Orcish blood did plenty of bad things too. It lacks coherence.

I personally think that had he allowed Morgoth to create the Orcs himself, Tolkien would have been free from ethical and moral concerns in creating the race. He could have made them mad, bad and dangerous to know, a relentless, ruthless and 'other' enemy that had to be dealt with. Of course, this would alter his ideas about sub-creation but then I think the Orc Problem kind of spoils that concept in any case.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I personally think that had he allowed Morgoth to create the Orcs himself, Tolkien would have been free from ethical and moral concerns in creating the race. He could have made them mad, bad and dangerous to know, a relentless, ruthless and 'other' enemy that had to be dealt with. Of course, this would alter his ideas about sub-creation but then I think the Orc Problem kind of spoils that concept in any case.

But had he done so the Orcs wouldn't have been nearly as convincing as they are now. As you already suggested, to be Evil one must clearly recognize Good and reject it. A creature born Evil without a chance of redemtion can't reject Good because it knows of no such thing and thus can't in fact be Evil either as it only is what it is and has no choice in the matter. Obviously Tolkien understood this clearly.

The other option to remove the moral concern regarding the slaughter of Orcs is viewing them as beasts. But that wouldn't be convincing either and this Tolkien also understood clearly. The quoted dialogue between Shagrat and Gorbag among many other examples show that Orcs in no way were beasts but rational and intelligent creatures just like other speaking folk.

So, although Tolkien seemed to have developed a distaste for the Elvish/Human orgins of Orcs, he was stuck with it as it was the only alternative that really made sense and was coherent with his creation.

[Lalwendë]

The shame is that Tolkien never showed us an Orc who might be redeemed, nor he did he put any in a position where they might be. The characters see them as bad through and through, and in fact we only know that an Orc might be redeemed by reference to a letter Tolkien drafted. We are shown Orcs who talk of retirement and might deduce from that, if we are so inclined, that Orcs are not mere killing machines, but the chance is never put in their way.

That to me makes them less effective as bad guys. They should be shown to have the power of choice over their destinies (and in so rejecting the choice to be good, demonstrate their 'badness') or they should be ruthless and designed to be bad. That to me makes a more effective enemy figure. We see Saruman and Gollum given their chances, why not an Orc or two?

I know this sounds nitpicky, but I've been thinking about it for a while (after being dazzled by the sheer horror of the Daleks and Cybermen - superb creations), and Tolkien never really resolved it to his own satisfaction either. I want to explore why they somehow do not work as an enemy which is truly frightening.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The shame is that Tolkien never showed us an Orc who might be redeemed, nor he did he put any in a position where they might be. The characters see them as bad through and through, and in fact we only know that an Orc might be redeemed by reference to a letter Tolkien drafted.

Although I see your point I don't fully agree. While most characters like for example Sam do see the Orcs as bad though and through this isn't the authors voice. Some of the wiser characters like Gandalf do express views that they in fact don't hate the minions of the enemy but rather feel sorry for them. After the War of the Ring Aragorn also pardons the enemy combatants (including the Orcs) and grants them lands where they will be free to make their own destiny, something he wouldn't have done if he considered them beyond redemtion.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That to me makes them less effective as bad guys. They should be shown to have the power of choice over their destinies (and in so rejecting the choice to be good, demonstrate their 'badness') or they should be ruthless and designed to be bad. That to me makes a more effective enemy figure. We see Saruman and Gollum given their chances, why not an Orc or two?

Well Orcs are bred to be ruthless and mean. The nice and plesant individuals don't stand much of a chance to reproduce and raise a bunch of well behaved kids, I'd guess. From a very young age the only thing they learn to value and fear is power. How could they be anything but mean and nasty?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I know this sounds nitpicky, but I've been thinking about it for a while (after being dazzled by the sheer horror of the Daleks and Cybermen - superb creations), and Tolkien never really resolved it to his own satisfaction either. I want to explore why they somehow do not work as an enemy which is truly frightening.

As I already said, the Orcs work perfectly fine as an enemy for me. Had they been pure evil and justifiable cannon-fodder I wouldn't buy it, it wouldn't be realistic (I know nothing about Daleks or Cybermen).

The naked lunch (borrowing a phrase from one of my favourite authors Bill Burroughs) is that Orcs are Men, simple as. That is also why they are very scary to me.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I want to explore why they somehow do not work as an enemy which is truly frightening.

I guess one reason for it is that the orcs in the end lack personality.

I mean, yes there are a few scenes like the one between Gorbag and Shagrat already quoted here where one gets to have a glance into their personalities but they are rare and few and there is no consistent personal character of whom we could read through the book, see him develop to some direction, to see how his dreams and fears play out with the general unfolding of the tale, how their relations to other known characters develop etc...

Also, almost all depicted orcs are not that good fighters or otherwise fearsome opponents as the main characters seem to be able to kill them by tens if not by hundreds. One gets afraid of them most when they threathen hobbits without a human, elf or dwarf to help them out as to hobbits they stand as real threats (but even here Tolkien gives the hobbits the strengtht and guts to beat them when it counts).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Also, almost all depicted orcs are not that good fighters or otherwise fearsome opponents as the main characters seem to be able to kill them by tens if not by hundreds. One gets afraid of them most when they threathen hobbits without a human, elf or dwarf to help them out as to hobbits they stand as real threats (but even here Tolkien gives the hobbits the strengtht and guts to beat them when it counts).

That's a good point and one I never liked as an adult. As a kid though I always felt comforted by always knowing that the good guys in the end had the strenght to fend off the Orcs. But yeah, it's silly that Orcs always seem to be weaker, more cowardly and less skilled then the heroes when there's no coherent reason for it being so.

Presumably, Orcs train at warfare and fighting all of their life and would therefore be better warriors than most free men with other interests. Also, Morgoth and Sauron would have an interest in breeding big Orcs, yet they are much smaller than the Men and Elves they spring from. Perhaps Eru's prank that?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I think portraying orcs as poor fighters can be
exagerated. Remember, in LOTR orcs are
gewnerally seen going against the best of the best
of the good guys, Gondor and Rohan in the Third
Age were increasingly militarized societies with highly
trained warriors and systems of warfare, and Sauron
seems to have deliberately bred orcs of various sizes
and capabilities (for example, the tracker orc and his
companion patrolling in Mordor after Frodo and the
"great elf warrior" escaped into Mordor).

[Morthoron]

As Lalwende, skip spence and others have inferred, I believe Orcs presented as much of a problem to Tolkien as it does to we, the readers. 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:

Originally Posted by "Laws and Customs of the Eldar," Morgoth's Ring, History of Middle-Earth.

"Among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos. Guile or trickery in this matter was scarcely possible, for the Eldar can read at once in the eyes and voice of another whether they be wed or unwed."

Would an elf submit to such abomination as procreating at the behest of Morgoth? It seems unlikely.

Then we pass to the odd mention of Bolg being the son of Azog, which I believe is the only reference to familial relations of orcs anywhere in Tolkien's work. With whom was Azog doing his begetting? I bet Mrs. Azog was a real looker.

We then pass on the the squint-eyed Southerner, half-orcs and Uruk-hai of Lord of the Rings (as well as Tolkiens later assessment that orcs rose from men and not elves). Granted, Saruman was not the first to breed Uruk-hai (that was Sauron's genetic breakthrough, as well as the Olog-hai), but I always thought it comical the way Peter Jackson presented the Uruk's birthing in mud hatcheries. But really, Tolkien gives such an incomplete view of Orkish domesticity and breeding, that it's really all up to conjecture. One wonders what really was going on in the subterranean vaults of Orthanc or Barad-dur. It's certain that it wasn't pleasant.

P.S. Sorry, I didn't complete my thought (my resident eight year-old Elf princess demanded an audience).

It would seem that Tolkien chose a Jekyll and Hyde approach to Orcs, wherein the overall genetic pattern of Orcs was totally given over to the Hyde aspect of humanity: cruelty, mercilessness, bestiality, thievery and profanity. But I believe somewhere in Tolkien's letters (can't recall where and am too busy to look it up) he speaks of Orkish redeemability and questions whether or not Orcs have souls (I believe I read that somewhere, but not conclusively). When I have time I'll look it up (or perhaps some other enterprising soul can find it).

It seems that Orcs were indeed cannon fodder for Tolkien to handily pile before the bright swords of the righteous, and they are indeed not up to snuff as far as bravery and skill in comparison to their elf, dwarf and mannish enemies; in fact, when Barad-dur collapses the Orcs retreat in chaos, whereas there remain bold groups of Easterlings who bravely fight on to the last man against Aragorn's army. It was perhaps a strategic mistake on the part of both Sauron and Morgoth to rely on Orcs to fill the bulk of their legions.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It's all very well setting it up that the worst traits of human (mis)behaviour stem from Orcish blood (and quite intriguing), however he neatly skips the fact that in his tales a lot of Elves, Men and Dwarves without a single drop of Orcish blood did plenty of bad things too. It lacks coherence.

Well, not really. The Orcs just do more of the bad stuff that Elves and Men (Dwarves aren't connected- or are they. Originally they were all going to be evil, according to the BoLT, at least I think) do. If elves/men were there ancestors, then I just think that Morgoth brought out their bad side, so much so that it unbalanced the good side. And what about the Evil Men? Thousands of them are killed, and they are the normal humans. I think it makes them more scary when they are enslaved by someone evil, even though they have the capacity to be good.

Originally Posted by skip spence

if we keep it simple Elves and Men share the same kind of physical body and can have children together so Orcs might have their orgins in both peoples.
It's when we start taking about the soul or fea we run into problems.

Are you suggesting Immortal Orcs?

Originally Posted by skip spence

While most characters like for example Sam do see the Orcs as bad though and through this isn't the authors voice. Some of the wiser characters like Gandalf do express views that they in fact don't hate the minions of the enemy but rather feel sorry for them. After the War of the Ring Aragorn also pardons the enemy combatants (including the Orcs) and grants them lands where they will be free to make their own destiny, something he wouldn't have done if he considered them beyond redemtion.

You would feel sorry for someone that was enslaved to do evil if they couldn't do aything else.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Also, almost all depicted orcs are not that good fighters or otherwise fearsome opponents as the main characters seem to be able to kill them by tens if not by hundreds. One gets afraid of them most when they threathen hobbits without a human, elf or dwarf to help them out as to hobbits they stand as real threats (but even here Tolkien gives the hobbits the strengtht and guts to beat them when it counts).

But during the first book, the only hobbit to kill an orc was Sam. And once in a while, an orc chieftain comes along, and then there's trouble.

Originally Posted by skip spence

That's a good point and one I never liked as an adult. As a kid though I always felt comforted by always knowing that the good guys in the end had the strenght to fend off the Orcs. But yeah, it's silly that Orcs always seem to be weaker, more cowardly and less skilled then the heroes when there's no coherent reason for it being so.

Presumably, Orcs train at warfare and fighting all of their life and would therefore be better warriors than most free men with other interests. Also, Morgoth and Sauron would have an interest in breeding big Orcs, yet they are much smaller than the Men and Elves they spring from.

But in Tolkien's work, all the really tall CoI (Children of Ilúvatar- ooh! Another abbreviation) are good. Look at the Númenoreans (and so, Tuor). And Turgon. But then Thingol could have been better. Anyway, evil characters are often portrayed as being smaller, weaker, cowering/crouching/stooping creatures. And anyway, what about Uruks? (and I'm not talking about Saruman's). Anyway, since Morgoth made so many, he probably didn't care (or were they "Spartan" in their selection of warriors?).

And then again, there is the free will and intelligence question. An intelligent slave would be more capable. Of course, there is the question of rebellion, but maybe being isolated stopped that. Like in Moria, in the Chamber of Mazarbul, once the chieftain died the others ran off (they came back with reinforcements, but that's not the point. In fact, this points even more to the fact that they are more effective). If they had been mindless "machines" then they would have just gone straight to their death. They know when they're outnumbered and get suport. In this way they are more effective, and less die that way. Being selfish just makes them more formidable, as they are less likely to die.
Anyway, it is said that those that fight because they are forced to/payed to will be worse in battle, as they don't really need to win the fight- the only thing that affects them is whether or not they die in the battle itself. The orcs don't need to fight, unlike the "good guys" who would otherwise get invaded and killed.

And orcs are brought up to kill and torture for fun, in the same way as people nowadays are brought up to play sports/other games for fun. This is just another sport for them. And some people say that sport is just the body's natural instinct to make people feel superior to others (the ones they beat) and to keep the body fit and ready to fight/kill. And what better way to establish your superiority than to kill someone. Just like when people go hunting (just so you know, I don't know anyone who does so I don't know how it feels) they establish their superiority and skill over other animals. Also, when it was still legal, being able to hunt creatures that were able to kill Man (like lions, tigers, certain bears, wolves, etc) was considered as a sign of power. Anyway, orcs did find pleasure in making people suffer, especially their most powerful enemies.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It was perhaps a strategic mistake on the part of both Sauron and Morgoth to rely on Orcs to fill the bulk of their legions.

But orcs come cheap (or in fact, for free). It takes much more effort (and gold or force) to get allies if you are a Dark Lord.

Also, in addition to they end of my previous post, about orcs enjoying murdering and torturing, I found just one of many examples:

Originally Posted by UT, The Drúedain

[The Drúedain's] losses were heavy in their feud with the Orcs, who returned their hatred and delighted to capture them and torture them.

The only reason I used that was because I was just reading it, as there are doubtless an almost infinite quotes of this nature.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It seems that Orcs were indeed cannon fodder for Tolkien to handily pile before the bright swords of the righteous, and they are indeed not up to snuff as far as bravery and skill in comparison to their elf, dwarf and mannish enemies; in fact, when Barad-dur collapses the Orcs retreat in chaos, whereas there remain bold groups of Easterlings who bravely fight on to the last man against Aragorn's army. It was perhaps a strategic mistake on the part of both Sauron and Morgoth to rely on Orcs to fill the bulk of their legions.

That's what I feel. Orcs are just meat for the killing. Obviously there must be some enemy to be slaughtered in a fantasy novel (or must there? Hmmm...), but the Orcs are just too anonymous, too weak and almost pathetic. Again comparing them with Daleks (it was the frightening superiority of Daleks over humans that brought this into my mind - sorry if you don't know what they are......yet ), Orcs also seem a little bit thick. And this all stacks up to a bit of an unsatisfying enemy.

I have to note though, that the Orcs we see in LotR are very different to those in the Hobbit and again very different to those in the Sil/UT etc. There's very little to show us how 'evil' these Orcs actually are in LotR. On the contrary, they don't seem all that bad, really, talking of retirement and not just killing Merry and Pippin.

Originally Posted by Eonwe

And orcs are brought up to kill and torture for fun, in the same way as people nowadays are brought up to play sports/other games for fun. This is just another sport for them. And some people say that sport is just the body's natural instinct to make people feel superior to others (the ones they beat) and to keep the body fit and ready to fight/kill. And what better way to establish your superiority than to kill someone.

My reservation here is that would it be actually possible to have a functioning society, one with a breeding population, women/females and Orc babies if there was a culture where slaughtering one another proved 'worth'?

Must run, as Shrek 3 has just started and I've been dying to see it!

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That's what I feel. Orcs are just meat for the killing. Obviously there must be some enemy to be slaughtered in a fantasy novel (or must there? Hmmm...), but the Orcs are just too anonymous, too weak and almost pathetic. Again comparing them with Daleks (it was the frightening superiority of Daleks over humans that brought this into my mind - sorry if you don't know what they are......yet ), Orcs also seem a little bit thick. And this all stacks up to a bit of an unsatisfying enemy.

But Daleks and cyberman are actually (well, at least partly, but then there is the brain) machines. They have no emotion. They are all part of a whole killing machine. They are the ultimate robotic, patterned movement. There is no variation, no difference. They are effective killing machines, but only as effective as their leader. An orc would run away if about to be killed, a robot would not. Maybe Morgoth liked that idea- that they could fend for themselves when not in use. Orcs are living, breathing beings. Not immortal metal bodis. They are both scary, but in different ways. Daleks and Cybermen are the pinnacle of organistaion, whereas orcs are more like a rabble. But often the come up with their own, horrible solutions.

What I am saying is that they are different types of evil. One works as a whole (Daleks and Cybermen), one works in different ways, but in the same direction.

And anyway, would the Daleks be so interesting if there weren't those "special" ones? There are quite a few episodes devoted to them, just like in LOTR when you get to find out what the orcs really think.

[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).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

But Daleks and cyberman are actually (well, at least partly, but then there is the brain) machines. They have no emotion. They are all part of a whole killing machine. They are the ultimate robotic, patterned movement. There is no variation, no difference. They are effective killing machines, but only as effective as their leader. An orc would run away if about to be killed, a robot would not. Maybe Morgoth liked that idea- that they could fend for themselves when not in use. Orcs are living, breathing beings. Not immortal metal bodis. They are both scary, but in different ways. Daleks and Cybermen are the pinnacle of organistaion, whereas orcs are more like a rabble. But often the come up with their own, horrible solutions.

What I am saying is that they are different types of evil. One works as a whole (Daleks and Cybermen), one works in different ways, but in the same direction.

And anyway, would the Daleks be so interesting if there weren't those "special" ones? There are quite a few episodes devoted to them, just like in LOTR when you get to find out what the orcs really think.

I believe the Daleks actually turned on their creator, Davros at one point (and there is something interesting in the series just finished that I dare say no more on for those who haven't seen it yet). And 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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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 find a lot of characters and creations a LOT more frightening than the Orcs - I could make a list rating scariness (might be a fun thread) and scarier than Orcs would be: the Nazgul, Gollum, Shelob, the Balrog, the Watcher in the Water etc etc....

Now onto cannon fodder...Morgoth seems to seek nothing more than annihilation, negation, and his Orcs are far more crazed, whereas Sauron seeks domination and his Orcs are more ordered. I agree Sauron doesn't treat them as cannon fodder, but Tolkien does.

It's possible he was stuck between a rock and a hard place in that he had to have an enemy army to be put to the sword, and like has been said, he literally struggled with the moral implications of that need...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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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).

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? How would they know their comrades didn't have them in their sights instead of the enemy? Even Daleks must retain the sense of comradeship at the very least.

And to raise even a tough little Orcling there has to be a fair degree of care - do Orclings need nappy changes, feeding and amusement? I'd imagine so. It's possible there were Orc nurseries and female Orcs lived in thralldom, but it still means at least 50% of Orcs must have been capable of caring

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I believe the Daleks actually turned on their creator, Davros at one point (and there is something interesting in the series just finished that I dare say no more on for those who haven't seen it yet). And 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 then there was that whole controversy, wasn't there? And anyway, didn't they go for the one who saved their creator? If my creator was saved by one of his/her/other created, I would also go against them.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I find a lot of characters and creations a LOT more frightening than the Orcs - I could make a list rating scariness (might be a fun thread) and scarier than Orcs would be: the Nazgul, Gollum, Shelob, the Balrog, the Watcher in the Water etc etc....

But the orcs are meant to be the weakest of Sauron's (and even more so Morgoth's troops). They are definately more cannon fodder than the others.

[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...

[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

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

..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.

This you can certainly debate. I for one find some episodes in JRRTs work rather distasteful, such as Gimli and Legolas' lighthearted killing contest in Helm's Deep and the brutal slaughter of Orcs in the Silmarillion ("to the last and least" - was that really nessesary?).

Then again, one of the main things I enjoy about Tolkien is his ability to create an illusion that this once happened, that his myths are a part of out own history here on earth, not just something he made up about Elves and Dragons. Completely righteous good guys fighting amoral irredeemable enemies is to me more unrealistic than magic, Elves and Dragons and therefore I have no real problem with the slaughter of Orcs (after all, as you said, it's them or you really).
And they are real nasty critters too, torturing for sport like Boro88said.

The good guys are no saints either. Just consider the Rohirrim's treatment of the Pukelmen and the Dunlendings, The Elves hunting of the Petty-Dwarves or the Numenorians chasing away and killing the Dark Men in Tal-Elmar (sp?).

Originally Posted by Boro88 quoting JRRT

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

This, as I remember at least, is a failed attemt from JRRT to morally justifiy the slaughter of Orcs and it is my opinion that he realised it himself, going back to the twisted Men and/or Elves-theory.

[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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Then again, one of the main things I enjoy about Tolkien is his ability to create an illusion that this once happened, that his myths are a part of out own history here on earth, not just something he made up about Elves and Dragons. Completely righteous good guys fighting amoral irredeemable enemies is to me more unrealistic than magic, Elves and Dragons and therefore I have no real problem with the slaughter of Orcs (after all, as you said, it's them or you really).
And they are real nasty critters too, torturing for sport like Boro88said.

This is true. It would be a terribly boring read if we just had an uber-prig of an Aragorn killing Orcs. However, what I mean is not that they should be 100% Good Guys killing complete Bad Guys, but as davem suggested in his Fantasy thread, maybe seeing some of the gore involved in battle, and some of the fallout, would make these images of slaughter somehow more important.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

...but as davem suggested in his Fantasy thread, maybe seeing some of the gore involved in battle, and some of the fallout, would make these images of slaughter somehow more important.

Yeah, I agree. Tolkien perhaps felt that grown-up readers would be able to discern the message without the gory details that would be too grisly for younger readers to stomach? And he certainly had a penchant for glorifying battles too, with swords shining in the morning sun, banners flying high and men dying almost happily on the battlefield, praised ever after in song and verse.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by skip spence

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.

I think he is more above Good and Evil than any in particular. He sees Melkor as just making it more interesting, so I think he is just standing back and watching the experiment (otherwise known as the life-forms of ME).

[Anárion Cúthalion]

Originally Posted by skip spence

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



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...



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.

I believe it was the theologist Sorenson who said that evil as we understand it is merely "shadow", that evil is not a separate comcept by a twisted version of good. Perhaps Tolkien was influenced in some manner by that thought.

[Boromir88]

...but as davem suggested in his Fantasy thread, maybe seeing some of the gore involved in battle, and some of the fallout, would make these images of slaughter somehow more important.~Lal

And he certainly had a penchant for glorifying battles too, with swords shining in the morning sun, banners flying high and men dying almost happily on the battlefield, praised ever after in song and verse.~skip

And it's interesting that the one time we really experience the pain of war (on the baddies side) is Sam's first encounter, of war, with the dead Haradrim soldier:

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace - ...~Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit

Before this, Mablung and Damrod were "cursing" the Southrons, for joining with Sauron. Sam steps in as much like an independent narrator, who just got his first look of "Men against Men."

Perhaps also part of the glorifying is because of the value both the Men of Gondor and Rohan place on battle:

"...For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end; and though we still hold that a warrior should have more skills and knowledge than only the craft of weapons and slaying, we esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above men of other crafts. Such is the need of our days. So even was my brother, Boromir: a man of prowess, and for that he was accounted the best man in Gondor..."~The Window on the West

[Nogrod]

There seems to be an interesting and uneasy combination of massacre and romantic warfare intertwined in Tolkien's writing.

Just maybe it has to do with the WW1 experiences? Just think of the gap between the literature & ideals Tolkien had read and honoured and the brutal industrially efficient killing of the war. And even if I'm no WW1 historian even I have read descriptions of courageous captains and soldiers who tried to live with some quasi-chivalric code in that war and we all know what happened to them... Polish cavalry even tried it against the Wehrmacht panzers in the second world war!!! (they were probably the last "knights" of Western warfare)

So maybe Tolkien was trying to combine these two? Or maybe he wished to reinstate the chivalry but the reality overtook him as he wrote the battle scenes? Or maybe he wished us to become uneasy in just this way thinking about the uneasy co-existence of chivalric ideas and modern warfare... Whatever.

Originally Posted by Anárion Cúthalion

I believe it was the theologist Sorenson who said that evil as we understand it is merely "shadow", that evil is not a separate comcept by a twisted version of good. Perhaps Tolkien was influenced in some manner by that thought.

The idea stems from an early church-fathers consil (I'm not sure if it was the famous Nichaean consil or some other one they held in the first centuries A.D.) where Manicheanism - which said there are autonomous principles of Good and Evil which fight in the world and thus limit each other - was judged to be a heretical way of thinking. After that it has been more or less the official dogma of Christianity that evil is just lack of goodness or twisted goodness if you wish. Even if it has been challenged every now and then during the history.

In this sense I think Tolkien was an orthodox-christian - not meaning a Greek-Catholic but one following the "right doctrine" (orthos doxa). And all the problems that follow from the "orthodox" Christian position follow with Eru as well. That was the reason of my lighthearted playfulness in my last post. Sorry. But I couldn't resist the temptation there and not to bring the theodicea-problem forwards with Eru...

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

And it's interesting that the one time we really experience the pain of war (on the baddies side) is Sam's first encounter, of war, with the dead Haradrim soldier:

True that. The Hobbits never see any glamour in war as far as I can remember. Bilbo's account of the Battle of Five Armies is his 'least favourite part of the adventure' and although no symphathy is evoked for the Goblins there's little or no glorification of the rout either.

Btw, I quickly browsed the Absolute Evil thread and and it does interest me.