|
Post by Andorinha on Sept 30, 2008 21:59:08 GMT -6
I'd like to open a new topic here at TR, dedicated to the furtherance of our understanding of those "workhorse races" of the Dark Lord: the Orcs and Trolls.
Who are these creatures, where did they come from, what characteristics did Tolkien give them, and what roles did they play in his various Middle-earth narratives? How did Tolkien originally conceive them, how did their characteristics alter over time, and from text to text; and how did his readers actually interpret them from the published texts? Additionally, such matters as -- just how "human" these creatures were; how much independent action/ free will did they have; whether they were absolutely evil or merely relatively so; were they ensouled; and were they open to the grace of redemption -- might all be considered.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Oct 1, 2008 6:33:32 GMT -6
From reading The Silmarillion, Orcs were originally Elves who had been captured and corrupted by Melkor and twisted into his evil servants. This is from "Of the Coming of the Elves:The Orcs were made to mock the Elves being that they were the exact opposite of them. All that was beautiful, regal, peaceful in the Elves was ugly, lowly, and angry in the Orcs.
The quote above states that the Orcs hated their Maker and I can see why! They served him in fear. I wonder if the Orcs hated Sauron as much as they hated and feared Melkor. Melkor was a Valar and Sauron was a Maiar and I am sure the Orcs hated and feared Sauron, too, but he was not their Maker so maybe it was NOT as strong of a hate/fear relationship.
Later on, someone on the forum had mentioned they came across a topic somewhere (maybe in Letters?) that Tolkien was working on revising the Orcs' origin from Elves to Men as the race that was corrupted by Melkor. Does anyone remember this comment?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Oct 2, 2008 11:11:16 GMT -6
Hi Stormrider!
One of the important points you bring up here regards the ways in which Tolkien's own thought concerning the Orcs altered through time. It would be very profitable somewhere along the line to address this issue specifically: was Tolkien in his revisionary works (especially HOME vol. X Morgoth's Ring) starting to change the deivation of Orcs from an Elvish base to a Human (Man) base? I'm going to start some systematic research into this topic!
Meanwhile, I have some posts from the B&N discussion on Orcs that I'd like to present here, with the authors' pemissions, as the current platform there has some problems and I'd hate to see all the hard work done there go up into cyber-space smoke, the way our messages on the original 2000/ 2001 B&N University Course for Tolkien have now vanished...
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Oct 2, 2008 11:19:02 GMT -6
With the permission of the following authors,* I am transferring copies of their messages placed on a Barnes and Noble forum whose usability, stability, and longevity are matters of concern for some of the participants. This will provide a "back-up" to the current discussion concerning the nature of the Orcs/ Trolls in Tolkien's published works. Additionally, I view this venture as a cooperative experiment between the posters at Barnes and Noble, and the TR group -- not merely a storage place for old messages, I am hoping this topic will prove to be a source of new inspiration and interaction here at Tolkien's Ring.
Some of the messages are missing either because they deal with an alternate theme, the Orcs as used by Stan Nicholls (Bodyguard of Lightning, Legion of Thunder, and Warriors of the Tempest), or the author's have not yet responded with permission to transfer their messages here.
* My thanks to: Lorien, Ardo, TiggerBear, Nadine, Danaan, Fanuidhol, Dagor, Prunesquallor
_______________________
B&N Discussion Page 1 _______________________
lorien
07-25-2008 05:34 PM Reply 3 of 64 Viewed 1,431 times paulgoatallen wrote:
A: That's precisely it – their story had never been told. Orcs were always depicted as a mindless horde fit only to dash themselves against the heroes' blades. I got to pondering about how winners write the history books, and thought, "Suppose orcs just had bad press?" What if they were supreme warriors, and certainly capable of ruthlessness, but not actually evil? Suppose they had some kind of code of honor, albeit crude, and, dare I say it, even a certain nobility? Why shouldn't they have a history, a culture, hopes, fears, dreams, and beliefs, just like other fantasy races?
=======================================
I'm a bit in agreement here, even within LOTR. At the beginning and end of TT and the beginning RotK we do get to meet some orcs up close and personal. Especially at the end of TT we find out that even Tolkien's Orcs seem to have (kind of) "friends" and have dreams of going some place and setting up a new life after the war is over. They don't like their leaders much either. When the "good" guys are victorious in TT they spare the humans who had been led to believe that they would be killed and eaten but instead were treated fairly and sent on their way. They were lucky. They were human. The orcs are slaughtered without a thought. The orcs have been subjected to savage breeding and conditioning during their lives and don't know much more than they are mere hated fighting machines who must serve their masters.
Tolkien says they are a corruption of elves so they must have some spark of humanity in them. In the breeding and conditioning process there is statistically bound to be a "good" orc who questions some of his "belief systems." Maybe an orphaned orc, found and brought up by a kindly person and given some love and understanding might see there is more to life than cruelty.
________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
07-25-2008 11:42 PM Reply 6 of 64 Viewed 1,421 times Hi lorien!
Back when we all discussing orcs before this, I noted that in some of its more recent incarnations
[ in Fantasy novels, but also in those "Role-Playing Games" ] the idea of the "Orc" had been sometimes expanded or remodeled to give the image of a "Savage, but at the same time, noble race" ---
This puts me in mind of the Klingons and the Romulans on "Star Trek" - who [incidentally ] had evolved ( somehow ) from their early appearance as humans with reddish faces and "Fu Manchu" beards and mustaches into more grotesque, monstrous looking beings, [becoming more "orc-like" in appearance? ]Their take on concerns such as murder and torture [ and their "Moral Code" in general ] could considered quite the opposite from those of the "good guys" ( Earthlings & the "Federation" ) - being generally merciless, ruthless and cruel, etcetera - In either one of their guises, you still recieved the impression they had a code of Honor and ethics unique to themselves, even if foriegn and strange to us...
ardo
______________________ oldBPLstackdenizen
07-31-2008 08:33 PM Viewed 1,310 times Reply 13 of 64 Good Afternoon, Everyone --- I need to reiterate - everything I know about Orcs { aside from what I knew of them from LOTR } - I learned from that Wikipedia article about same. Apparently, the idea of the female Orc is a not totally new concept ( but then, of course, what is? ) - as that article mentions some versions of Orc societies that are matriarchal in their make-up... In LOTR, the female Orc ( and Troll ) does seem to somehow be entirely non-existent... Elves, Men, Hobbits, even Ents have their female counterparts - although, for much of the story, these are either barely mentioned, or vaguely in the background... ( & the "Entwives" are considered to be "long lost" - although I have often wondered if that rumor of the sighting of that "walking tree" up North a-ways, [ that was being discussed at The Green Dragon Inn one day ] might have been an allusion to an "Entwife" ) The Dwarf-Women get one slight mention, but we never get to meet one, so it's almost as though they didn't exist as well... ardo
_________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
08-01-2008 09:30 PM
Reply 15 of 64 Viewed 1,288 times Good Afternoon, Once More...
Although Tolkien did not "invent" Orcs all by himself, I think he is mainly responsible for creating the concept of regimented, vast armies of Orcs...
The last time we were discussing all this, there was a quote from one of Tolkien's Letter's
[ which was included in that Wikipedia article on "Orc" ] that I hesitated from bringing up [ in an effort to remain sensitive to other's feelings - as this all goes back to the whole "Race in Middle-earth" discussion ] - that I will reprint now:
Tolkien describes the Orcs as:
[ "...degraded and repulsive versions of the ( to Europeans ) least lovely Mongol Types..." ]
( Letter #210 )
I think Tolkien does betray, to a certain extent, his own "in-bred" racism in this statement - mainly in the way he tries NOT to be insulting to Asians - by where he includes ( in paranthesis ) that bit about "... to Europeans..." Which makes it sound like those "Mongol Types" might find what Europeans consider to be repulsive, ugly or unnatractive not so "bad as all that"---
Anyway, I'm wondering, could Tolkien have been partly inspired to create these "Armies Of Orcs" based on the European impressions of the ravaging hordes of Ghenghis Khan, or Tamarlane, the Mongols who really never got much further than the very outskirts of Europe, but may have left that lingering memory in the European "Collective Memory" - the terrifying armies of ruthless, violent, pillaging and destroying
Mongols, the ones who "struck fear into the hearts of those who heard they were coming"?---
Of course, the "Orcs" ( that Tolkien created ) were meant to be much less human ( and more "monstrous" ) than any possible actual human "precedents" taken from out of "The Mists Of Time" ---
ardo
________________________
TiggerBear
08-02-2008 07:34 AM
Reply 16 of 64 Viewed 1,277 times To be honest I've always thought the Easterlings repesented European dred at the Moorish invasions and musalim invasions.
__________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
08-05-2008 11:06 PM
Reply 18 of 64 Viewed 1,213 times TiggerBear wrote: To be honest I've always thought the Easterlings repesented European dred at the Moorish invasions and musalim invasions.
hi, TiggerBear!
First, just for the sake of clarity, let me make sure we were talking about two different things here - [ sort of an "apples and oranges" situation, I am assuming ] and that you were not including the Muslim/Moorish invaders in the same category with the "Mongol Hordes" I was speaking of... [ two very different items, altogether ]
I was thinking some about the "Easterlings", as well - and it does seem like they could be resonant of those Moorish invaders you speak of [ & they are depicted in a similar fashion ( of sorts ) that way in the movie LOTR versions ]...
I tend not to consider the "Easterlings" as much - perhaps as they don't really make an appearance until rather late in the LOTR story-line, and remain mainly in the background of the story [ or, more accurately, to say: "Off to the side of the background" in the story ] whereas we run into Orcs much sooner along the way - and get to meet them more up close and personal on a few occaisons... [however, when we run into them for the first time, in the Mines of Moria, they seem to be more like the "Goblins" of [ H ] - except with a new name - and the "Goblins" never really seemed to be evocative of either Moors or Mongol Warriors, but something else again, altogether ] ---
ardo
__________________________
TiggerBear
08-05-2008 11:28 PM
Reply 19 of 64 Viewed 1,211 times Mongols --- Roman Empire Age see all of Europe
Moors --- Middle Age see mostly Spain, Portugal
Muslim --- Late middle Age see Eastern Europe reference Transylvania, Romania, Hungarian Empire
Orcs are something else entirely.
_______________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
08-05-2008 11:31 PM
Reply 20 of 64 Viewed 1,210 times Just a continuation of thought...
Of course, this whole business of even just comparing aspects of Middle-earth to aspects of the history of Western Civilization [ over the last 2000 years ] gets rather murky, as everything about [ M-e ]
( in the "Third Age" ) is supposed to take place in that vague time period of "Sometime B.C." - All very Pre-Christian - perhaps even "Pre-Roman" - although there is no way it can be completely all drawn from that historical period - this vague "Time Setting" certainly pre-dates both Mongols and Moslems...
[ personally, I still prefer to think of LOTR & Middle-earth as existing in a "parallel universe" of its own, although I have come to learn that JRRT himself did not look at his creation in that same light ] ---
Aside from all this - check out the "Foxtrot" comic strip that was just published this Sunday -
08/03/08 - [ I read it in our Sunday Funnies in our Newspaper, but I assume it must be available on the Internet ]
A very funny gag that involves Orcs, "Role-Playing-Games" and etc --- ardo
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Oct 2, 2008 11:49:24 GMT -6
______________________________
B&N Discussion Page 2 _______________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
08-07-2008 09:31 PM
Reply 24 of 64 Viewed 837 times TiggerBear ---
I never meant to suggest that Orcs were anything other than "something else entirely" -
more simply brought up the possibility that they were "PARTLY inspired" by the Legend of the fierce, merciless "Mongol Hordes" ( who even the conquering Islamic nations were rightfully terrified of - on account of the Mongol's reputation for their fierceness and their propensity for sheer destructiveness and for cruel retribution [ such as massacring entire armies & populations of those that dared to defy them ] ) ---
a little bit more a little bit later --- ardo
___________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
08-08-2008 06:25 PM
Reply 25 of 64 Viewed 832 times TiggerBear wrote:
Mongols --- Roman Empire Age see all of Europe
Moors --- Middle Age see mostly Spain, Portugal
Muslim --- Late middle Age see Eastern Europe reference Transylvania, Romania, Hungarian Empire
Orcs are something else entirely.
Good Afternoon, TiggerBear ---
Please forgive me for this, but I have been itching to make some corrections and revisions to your
"Time-Line/Chronology" above... I realize I am about to be pedantic, but there are just a few adjustments that need to be applied for the sake of historical accuracy & perspective... ---
Before I begin, I need to comment that the terms "Moor" & "Muslim" are actually synomomous -
The "Moors" being the Arab Peoples of the Islamic Faith, who swept across the North of Africa in their expansion, & then enterred into Spain - & even made it into France, at one time...
The "Muslims" ( or "Moslems", as they used to be called ) who made their way into the Balkans & Hungary & so forth, would have been from the Ottoman Empire - another "branch" of Islamic culture & kindoms...
[ note: I am going to go ahead & use the designation "AD" -
although I realize the newer label of "CE" ( "Common Era" ) is now considered to be more "P.C." ]
[ RISE OF ISLAM --- 600 AD - 1000 AD APPROXIMATELY ]
This time period is what is generally referred to as the Late Roman Age/also "Decline & Fall" of Rome, as well - & into what is known as "The Dark Ages" of Western Europe, as well ---
[ MONGOL EMPIRE --- 1200 AD - 1400 AD APPROXIMATELY ]
Mongols Ravage Asia & Europe...This time period is generally referred to as belonging
to "The Middle Ages" ( in Western Europe ) ---
[ MOORS ] In 732 AD - Moors are defeated by a Frankish Army led by Charles Martel - ending Moorish threat to France - but the Moors retain a foothold in Spain into the 1400's ---
[ OTTOMAN EMPIRE --- from around 1300 AD until 1922 ]
It is interesting to note that the whole Ottoman Empire business began when the Turkish Peoples were actually just trying to escape from the Mongols, who had invaded their native Turkistan...
Expanded into the Balkans & Hungary - at one time was a huge empire - but went into a long, slow decline after the death of Sulieman ("The Magnificient" ) in 1566 AD ---
I hope you don't mind my corrections & revisions ---
I Remain At Your Service,
Ardo Whortleberry
___________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
08-08-2008 07:07 PM
Reply 26 of 64 Viewed 831 times OK - I just have a little bit more to say about all this, and then I really am going to shut up - especially as none of this really has anything much to do with the subject of Orcs, anyway ---
I'm guessing that yes, the Western Europeans must have retained a certain "Dread" of invasion by the Moors & Moslems ( especially as it looks like that "threat" was present for a much longer span of time than what they had to put up with the ramapaging Mongols ) ---
I'm also guessing that a large part of this "dread" was probably enhanced by some kind of propoganda from the Church ( and other "Powers That Be" ) - where people's heads were filled with notions that it was the Moslems who would be cruel, merciless, inhuman monsters,"Godless and Souless" - and the Christianized peoples would have a genuine fear of losing their own souls and connection to God, in the event that the Moslems were to "take over" -
But of course, in many ways, this propoganda didn't always match up to the reality of the situation - when the Moors, for instance, "took over" - they treated their new subjects with fairness and humaneness - even allowed them to practice their own faith ( although I think those people would have to pay a special tax, or bear some other kind of restrictions ) ---
And I believe the Moors had a "Code of Honor" on the battlefield that the Western Europeans could relate to ---
The Mongols, on the other hand, were more of a pure "Warrior Culture" - Glory in Battle, Death and Destruction, were really more what they were "all about" -
They must of had their own "Code of Honor" of course - but, generally speaking, when it came to the battle ( or in many instances, more like the "pillaging and ransacking" ) and its aftermath, the rules of
"All bets are off " and "No holds barred" would apply ---
OK - like I said, me shut up now - ardo
________________________________
TiggerBear
08-10-2008 03:01 AM
Reply 27 of 64 Viewed 816 times Firstly, I was mearly sugesting that with the Easternlings there was enough European dread. I don't see why Tolkien would have felt the need for more. But if you take a middle earth Atlas and place the orcs, uruk-hai, easternlings, ect.. It places a nice creasent attack against Minas Tirath. One could look at it as expansion presures.
So secondly, when I was refering to the Monguls, I meant the actual march of Gengus Khan.
Third, excusing the Turks with preasure from the Monguls is inacurate, that conflict goes back to a breach of treaty with greeks and King Darius. See later fallout Xerse II and the 300 Spartans. It was an old grudge by the time of Ottoman expansion.
___________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
08-11-2008 05:57 AM
Reply 28 of 64 Viewed 797 times Dear TiggerBear ---
I feel like you may have misconstrued my purposes in compiling my little list of "corrections & additions" -- I was not trying to "disprove" any of your "theories" in any way - [ I might have been "padding" my own "arguments" a wee bit ] but my main intent was simply to add some more color and detail to your brief "outline" - which was mostly sound, but I believe some of the time periods were a little mixed-up
...Mainly where you've got the Mongols coming on the scene just a bit too soon - even if you were only referring to the "March of Genghis Khan" - that couldn't have taken place until after 1200 AD -
[ which is really more like "The Middle Ages" and when the "Roman Era" was already finished ] ---
I am also very confused by your comment about "excusing the Turks..." ---
I really wasn't trying to "excuse" anybody from anything.---
I just thought it was a very interesting "footnote" in History - that [ & this is my understanding ]
that the Ottoman Empire DID get its start on account of the Turkish people fleeing from the advancing, marauding Mongols [ that they were basically "refugees" at that point ] ---
These details about much earlier history with the Greeks and the Persians is all very interesting,
but I would think that the European "fear of invasion" would have been more directly related to that same Ottoman Empire, which didn't get it start until about 1300 AD ---
And I wasn't saying that this made any emnity between European peoples and the Turks any less formidable, nor was I trying to discount any of that aforementioned "European Dread" for either Moors or Turkish Moslems...
I'm sure there was always plenty of "Fear and Loathing" to go around ---
Witness the ferocity of "The Crusades" wherein the Western Europeans felt like they had an opportunity to "Turn the Tables" on those dreaded Moors and Moslems [ & where the Crusaders sometimes commited enough atrocities you would have to assume the people on the "other side" must have developed their own "Fear and Dread" of those ruthless Europeans ]
Ardo
________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
08-11-2008 06:45 AM
Reply 29 of 64 Viewed 795 times Dear TiggerBear ---
I think you have to admit that we have both gotten very far afield from the business at hand, which
was supposed to be "Orcs" - it sounds like it might be time to create yet another Thread yet again -
something like: "Real History Elements in LOTR" -
[ although there doesn't seem to be enough interest & enthusiasm to support something like that - at least, not this go-round ]
Actually, I've been fumbling around on alien ground here myself, as I always tended to enjoy LOTR & [ M-e ] in terms of its all seeming so entirely "disconnected" from almost any "Real World" History -
Everything taking place in a "Time That Never Was" ( except for in "Middle-earth" itself ) ---
I strongly feel like jumping back & forth from the settings in LOTR & comparisons in relatively modern-day history [ or even "Ancient History" ] & examining possible influences tends to all get very complicated & confusing - I feel like it's all sort of like trying to translate from a foriegn language by using The Periodic Table of Elements as a guide... [ & that's part of the whole problem to begin with, is that we don't have some kind of "Road Map" to reference everything with in this area - no set of "Ground Rules". ---
I still think my original idea about the possible PARTIAL influence on the formation of Tolkien's concept of the "Orc" coming from out of the "far-distant memory" of the terror of the marauding Mongols is a valid one - but I am not going to continue to bicker about it...
Here's Hoping for Peace Between Us,
ardo _______________________________
TiggerBear
08-12-2008 02:48 AM
Reply 32 of 64 Viewed 761 times oldBPLstackdenizen wrote:
Dear TiggerBear ---
I think you have to admit that we have both gotten very far afield from the business at hand, which
was supposed to be "Orcs" - it sounds like it might be time to create yet another Thread yet again -
something like: "Real History Elements in LOTR" -
[ although there doesn't seem to be enough interest & enthusiasm to support something like that - at least, not this go-round ]
Actually, I've been fumbling around on alien ground here myself, as I always tended to enjoy LOTR & [ M-e ] in terms of its all seeming so entirely "disconnected" from almost any "Real World" History -
Everything taking place in a "Time That Never Was" ( except for in "Middle-earth" itself ) ---
I strongly feel like jumping back & forth from the settings in LOTR & comparisons in relatively modern-day history [ or even "Ancient History" ] & examining possible influences tends to all get very complicated & confusing - I feel like it's all sort of like trying to translate from a foriegn language by using The Periodic Table of Elements as a guide... [ & that's part of the whole problem to begin with, is that we don't have some kind of "Road Map" to reference everything with in this area - no set of "Ground Rules". ---
I still think my original idea about the possible PARTIAL influence on the formation of Tolkien's concept of the "Orc" coming from out of the "far-distant memory" of the terror of the marauding Mongols is a valid one - but I am not going to continue to bicker about it...
Here's Hoping for Peace Between Us,
ardo
Of course there is! Was I bickering? Sorry Ardo, my bad. Chaotic month for me, might have made me cranky.
I wasn't even say you were wrong in the first place, just that there already was a more odvious expansion dread in the books handy. (shrug)
Real History Elements in LOTR, is a good idea. I'd wait until fall though. I'm getting the feeling this will pick back up them. Not mention when the first Hobbit movie comes out. We're going to be swamped. _______________________________
Danaan
09-07-2008 04:40 PM
Reply 33 of 64 Viewed 436 times oldBPLstackdenizen wrote: Tolkien describes the Orcs as: "degraded and repulsive versions of the ( to Europeans ) least lovely Mongol Types." ( Letter #210 )
Intriguing quote, Ardo! In all my readings of Tolkien's letters, I somehow missed that bit, and so I'll admit that I've always thought of the Orcs in terms of the denizens of Nazi Germany--perhaps not even those officially "in" the Nazi party, but those who (to quote Begley, Murr, and Rogers' Newsweek article "The Roots of Evil" ), "showed up at work, processed the papers that sent people to the crematoriums or the gulag, . . . and who in their spare time played with their children and had a soft spot for animals." Of course, to further discuss that thought as depicted in the Orcs would veer closer to the thread on "The Nature of Evil", so I'll save it for that!
Still, your reference has got me thinking about Scheps' viewpoint that good and evil in LOTR is often cartological--North and West = good (Hobbiton, Rivendell), and South and East = evil (Mordor). Morally ambiguous regions tend to be either in the middle, such as Isengard--initially good, but ultimately evil--or to combine two regions, such as Gondor in the Southeast, which straddles both good and evil in the forms of Denethor and Boromir until Faramir and ultimately Aragorn's kingship tip it firmly in the direction of good.
At any rate, if Tolkien did intend Orcs to be representatives of supposed "Mongol Types", it could perhaps be suggested that their map-related origins in the Far East of Middle-earth are also intended to reflect that representation, whether or not the evil of their actions is part of that reflection or not!
Rebecca Life is rather above the measure of us all (save for a very few, perhaps). ~ Tolkien, Letter 215
_______________________________
Nadine
09-07-2008 06:03 PM
Reply 34 of 64 Viewed 430 times Danaan wrote: Still, your reference has got me thinking about Scheps' viewpoint that good and evil in LOTR is often cartological--North and West = good (Hobbiton, Rivendell), and South and East = evil (Mordor). Morally ambiguous regions tend to be either in the middle, such as Isengard--initially good, but ultimately evil--or to combine two regions, such as Gondor in the Southeast, which straddles both good and evil in the forms of Denethor and Boromir until Faramir and ultimately Aragorn's kingship tip it firmly in the direction of good.
The geographical association with "good" and "evil" is an interesting angle. I wonder if there is some sort of mythical association with west-north and east-south. Of course Tolkein associated his own geographical and philosophical heritage with the north-west and that may have had something to do with it.
Oh, and by the way, welcome to the group, Rebecca -- both Tolkien north and Tolkien south. I'm happy to see you can navigate your way around this muddle. You obviously have a good foundation in Tolkein. I can already see you are going to be a great contributor of interesting lines of thought in the Silm.
_____________________________
Fanuidhol
09-07-2008 06:47 PM
Reply 35 of 64 Viewed 427 times Nadine wrote:
Danaan wrote: Still, your reference has got me thinking about Scheps' viewpoint that good and evil in LOTR is often cartological--North and West = good (Hobbiton, Rivendell), and South and East = evil (Mordor). Morally ambiguous regions tend to be either in the middle, such as Isengard--initially good, but ultimately evil--or to combine two regions, such as Gondor in the Southeast, which straddles both good and evil in the forms of Denethor and Boromir until Faramir and ultimately Aragorn's kingship tip it firmly in the direction of good.
Rebecca:The geographical association with "good" and "evil" is an interesting angle. I wonder if there is some sort of mythical association with west-north and east-south. Of course Tolkein associated his own geographical and philosophical heritage with the north-west and that may have had something to do with it.
Oh, and by the way, welcome to the group, Rebecca -- both Tolkien north and Tolkien south. I'm happy to see you can navigate your way around this muddle. You obviously have a good foundation in Tolkein. I can already see you are going to be a great contributor of interesting lines of thought in the Silm.
Actually, the original fortress of Evil in Middle-earth is in the uttermost North. So, even if "Scheps' viewpoint" is true for LotR, it is not true overall.
Nadine, Letter # 163 :" ...you must consult your roots, and a man of the North-west of the Old World will set his heart and the action of his tale in an immaginary world of that air, and the situation : with the Shoreless Sea of his innumerable ancestors to the West, and the endless lands (out of which enemies mostly come) to the East."
Fan _____________________________ Nadine
09-07-2008 07:00 PM
Reply 36 of 64 Viewed 425 times I did a bit of skimming ahead in the Sil and didn't the race of mortal Men awaken in the east? I wonder if this doesn't say something of their nature. _______________________________
Nadine
09-08-2008 12:12 AM
Reply 38 of 64 Viewed 402 times LordRuthven wrote: " I saw 'Orcs' earlier this weekend and want to read it. From childhood, for some reason I always liked Orcs and thought it would be interesting to see them depicted more objectively. The "Queen of the Orcs" trilogy that came out last year looked interesting as well."
I didn't know this was out already! But your are right it is September 8 and not only is it out but my local B&N store has it. I thought I read an excerpt from this but now I can't remember where. But I did find it interesting -- the "good" orc and with orc women. We've had some lengthy discussions in Tolkien on the nature of orcs, where they came from, are they human, do they have souls and are they redeemable, etc. This book seemed an interesting take on the orcs
I think the core of a story like this might be developed from the orc scene at the end of the Two Towers where the orcs dream of living a better life. Tolkien gave them a bit of ambiguity there that could lead to conceiving of them as redeemable and maybe there being basically good orcs among the bad as there are with any group of people be they orc, Man, elf or dwarf. They were brainwashed, mistreated. selectively bred and turned into something mean and ugly but deep down they were originally elves.
I'll can pick this up in the next few days and read it. I hope others might join me. It is an 800 page book and so I can't read it over night. But maybe we can make it our October New Release in Fantasy. How about it Paul? We already have 36 postings into the discussion and can build on those. And I'm sure we can have a lot of preliminary discussion before we jump into the book. Message Edited by Nadine on 09-08-2008 12:16 AM
_______________________________ Prunesquallor
09-08-2008 03:39 AM
Reply 39 of 64 Viewed 391 times Danaan wrote: oldBPLstackdenizen wrote: Tolkien describes the Orcs as: "degraded and repulsive versions of the ( to Europeans ) least lovely Mongol Types." ( Letter #210 )
Intriguing quote, Ardo! In all my readings of Tolkien's letters, I somehow missed that bit, and so I'll admit that I've always thought of the Orcs in terms of the denizens of Nazi Germany--perhaps not even those officially "in" the Nazi party, but those who (to quote Begley, Murr, and Rogers' Newsweek article "The Roots of Evil" ), "showed up at work, processed the papers that sent people to the crematoriums or the gulag, . . . and who in their spare time played with their children and had a soft spot for animals." Of course, to further discuss that thought as depicted in the Orcs would veer closer to the thread on "The Nature of Evil", so I'll save it for that!
Still, your reference has got me thinking about Scheps' viewpoint that good and evil in LOTR is often cartological--North and West = good (Hobbiton, Rivendell), and South and East = evil (Mordor). Morally ambiguous regions tend to be either in the middle, such as Isengard--initially good, but ultimately evil--or to combine two regions, such as Gondor in the Southeast, which straddles both good and evil in the forms of Denethor and Boromir until Faramir and ultimately Aragorn's kingship tip it firmly in the direction of good.
At any rate, if Tolkien did intend Orcs to be representatives of supposed "Mongol Types", it could perhaps be suggested that their map-related origins in the Far East of Middle-earth are also intended to reflect that representation, whether or not the evil of their actions is part of that reflection or not!
Rebecca
___________________________
Hi, Rebecca.
I think Tolkien created most of his "bad guys" a good deal before World War II, a good deal before the Weimar German republic was overthrown, so he would not have been able to use the Nazis as models for his Orcs, Trolls, evil Men and Sauron. Nonetheless, from our point of view in the 21st century, the Nazis certainly show some strong behavioral resemblances to Orcs, as do the Stalinists, even the KKK of the good old USA.
I guess, we can all see the applicabilities of comparing Tolkien's evil persons with whatever group we most detest ourselves? Would the Blacks caught up in the nets of the English slave trade view the British as Orcs? Could the Cowboys and Indians view each other as Orcs? Does Osama Bin Ladin see Bush as Sauron, and vice-versa?
It might be informative to see what Tolkien (a German in his own ancestry) felt on this issue. I think there are some letters where he talked about his mythology as being endlessly applicable, but that it should not be read as a modern allegory of the 20th century, and certainly not an allegory of WW II? __________________________
Prunesquallor
09-08-2008 03:56 AM
Reply 40 of 64 Viewed 391 times Fanuidhol wrote "Actually, the original fortress of Evil in Middle-earth is in the uttermost North. So, even if "Scheps' viewpoint" is true for LotR, it is not true overall."
The Nazgul Lord also had a kingdom (Angmar) in the north west of Middle-earth, right next to the northerrn Dunedain kingdom of Arnor, and the northern chain of the Grey Mountains was a major homeland of the Goblins in both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Both the Elves and Men were first born (awakened) deep in the east of Middle-earth, the waters of Cuivienen was supposed to be near, or part of the eastern, inland sea of Rhun. So even in his later works, Tolkien did not have a strict west and north = good, east and south = bad.
Also, I wonder, can the "west" be called the west in the early days of the First Age? There was another continent sized chunk of land, Beleriand, to the west of Arnor/ Eriador, and Gondor, maybe making the Shire lands truly Middle Eastern at that time? (Grin.) Then we also have Numenor, western-most of the lands inhabited by Men. In the Second Age, under a line of usurper kings (ending with Ar-Pharazon) Numenor itself became a place of great evil, and a center of Sauron's corruption which led to the eventual sinking of that Atlantis. Apparently, anywhere that Men can live, can become an evil place?
To many real people who lived along the Atlantic seaboard in medieval Europe, the place of the dead was in the west, the place where spirits and fantastic monster "lived," the place where the sun died daily. Tolkien's created races may also have seen the west as the place where the dead all go, but not at first with the connotation of death as being an evil thing, though that seems to be the eventual trend in the thought of Tolkien's Men. Faced with the Gift of Death and gradually coming to see this Gift as a Curse, death becomes Evil for them, and the far west (Valinor) becomes a place of dread. Only where the Elves have contact with Men, and teach them the true nature of the Valar and Valinor, does the west retain its original status as a Blessed Realm? Maybe, if we could take a poll, even the common Shire folk would fear and shun any westward journey as being synonymous with death?
Message Edited by Prunesquallor on 09-08-2008 04:10 AM
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Oct 2, 2008 12:24:13 GMT -6
_________________________________
Barnes and Nobel Discussion Page 3 _________________________________
Danaan
09-08-2008 10:45 PM
Reply 41 of 64 Viewed 588 times Prunesquallor wrote: "I think Tolkien created most of his "bad guys" a good deal before World War II, a good deal before the Weimar German republic was overthrown, so he would not have been able to use the Nazis as models for his Orcs, Trolls, evil Men and Sauron. Nonetheless, from our point of view in the 21st century, the Nazis certainly show some strong behavioral resemblances to Orcs, as do the Stalinists, even the KKK of the good old USA.
"I guess, we can all see the applicabilities of comparing Tolkien's evil persons with whatever group we most detest ourselves? Would the Blacks caught up in the nets of the English slave trade view the British as Orcs? Could the Cowboys and Indians view each other as Orcs? Does Osama Bin Ladin see Bush as Sauron, and vice-versa?
"It might be informative to see what Tolkien (a German in his own ancestry) felt on this issue. I think there are some letters where he talked about his mythology as being endlessly applicable, but that it should not be read as a modern allegory of the 20th century, and certainly not an allegory of WW II?"
_______________
Perhaps I should clarify--by my statement, I certainly don't mean to imply that Tolkien meant his evil characters to be allegorical representations of WWII's key players or that he had somehow modeled them on those players--far from it! He made it perfectly clear on multiple occasions through his letters that he despised the very concept of allegory! That being said, though, he himself not only saw the connections (read: similarities, not purposeful symbols) that could be drawn between LOTR (begun, as he says, "about 1937, and [which] had reached the inn at Bree before the shadow of the second war" [Letter #226]) and WWII but even emphasized those connections in his correspondence, particularly with his son.
I won't quibble over whether the two years between 1937 and the start of WWII in September 1939 constituted a "good deal" of time or not, but I am thinking in particular of the letter Tolkien wrote to his son in 1944 when Christopher was serving in WWII (Letter #66), which talks about the horrors of serving in a wartime military and states unequivocally "we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed. But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs." Obviously Tolkien didn't design Sauron to represent Hitler, or Mussolini, or Stalin--or Pol Pot, or Idi Aminh, or insert-name-here--but that doesn't mean that the connections can't be drawn.
I quite agree with you that it is Tolkien's representation of evil characters that keeps his work relevant today. As I've stated elsewhere, it is in particular those shaky lines between free will and fate, between the idea of a doom of birth (to a "good" family of Elves or an "evil" family of Orcs) and the idea of a shared capacity for good and evil that maintains that applicability. That the circumstances of WWII lend themselves to LOTR connections is not meant to suggest that the killing fields of Pol Pot or the genocide in Darfur, for example, are not equally applicable.
Tolkien's idea was that in life, there are always orcs, and that these orcs can be on either side--ostensibly good, or ostensibly evil. Delving into this topic is one of the things I find most fascinating about LOTR!
Rebecca
Life is rather above the measure of us all (save for a very few, perhaps). ~ Tolkien, Letter 215 _______________________________________________
Prunesquallor
09-09-2008 12:07 AM
Reply 42 of 64 Viewed 580 times Rebecca's "Perhaps I should clarify--by my statement, I certainly don't mean to imply that Tolkien meant his evil characters to be allegorical representations of WWII's key players or that he had somehow modeled them on those players--far from it! He made it perfectly clear on multiple occasions through his letters that he despised the very concept of allegory! That being said, though, he himself not only saw the connections (read: similarities, not purposeful symbols) that could be drawn between LOTR (begun, as he says, "about 1937, and [which] had reached the inn at Bree before the shadow of the second war" [Letter #226]) and WWII but even emphasized those connections in his correspondence, particularly with his son."
"I won't quibble over whether the two years between 1937 and the start of WWII in September 1939 constituted a "good deal" of time or not ..." _____________________
The point I was trying to make concerning the chronology involves the fact that the Orcs appear as early as the first sketches of his mythology, 1910 - 1914. Morgoth/ Melkor is also created a good deal before Hitler was anything other than a failing, Austrian post card painter. Sauron is a bit later, early to mid 1920s, if we count him as the Evil Cat, Tevildo, in the "Book of Lost Tales," (1923-25). So these creatures of evil were already fairly well set in Tolkien's Middle-earth "a good deal" before the rise of the Nazis. That Tolkien saw the suitability of associating his creatures of evil with the Nazis after their rise, is not disputed -- though here, as you re-emphasize, even in the dark war years of 1940-44, he did not "allegorize" a Nazi-Orc connection, simply pointed out the "applicability" of such a comparison.
Unfortunately, in Tolkien discussion circles, too many readers (not you, Rebecca!) DO make the assumption that LotR IS the story of World War II, and the Germans ARE the Orcs, Trolls, Nazgul and Sauron. So, thank you for making your position on this matter clear enough that even I can grasp it! I believe we are in fundamental agreement now (on this matter!).
Rebecca's: "Tolkien's idea was that in life, there are always orcs, and that these orcs can be on either side--ostensibly good, or ostensibly evil. Delving into this topic is one of the things I find most fascinating about LOTR!"
RIGHT ON! ____________________________________________________
Danaan
09-12-2008 11:10 PM
Reply 43 of 64 Viewed 527 times Glad we more agree than disagree on this, Prunesquallor!
To return to the previous talk on the Orcs' value system, the discussion reminded me of Michael Martinez's article "Beware that Baker in the Kitchen", which hashed out many of the same points. In addition to noting that the Orcs had very definite values, albeit few aligning with ostensibly "civilized" morals, he points out that "the Orcs lived their lives according to the will of their masters. They could not know there was an absolute standard of good and evil, ultimately derived from the values of Iluvatar."
Martinez's point, I believe, is that this lack of knowledge is what caused the Orcs' resulting value system to clash with the system of the "good" races in Middle-earth. Interestingly, his view echoes that of church father Irenaeus who termed this God-given knowledge "magnanimitatem" and saw it as an internal knowledge that made mankind acountable for their actions (an innate "knowing better", so to speak), and the lack of which accordingly negated that accountability.
Tolkien doesn't really make clear if the Orcs have received a Middle-earth version of magnanimitatem or not, but I'm inclined to believe that he meant them to have. He writes that "there are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable" (Letter #78), and the idea of being redeemable necessarily assumes that there is something within, some seed of good, that can be redeemed.
Are the Orcs wholly and irredeemably evil, or are they (as I again believe), simply victims of "the spirit of Mordor", as Frodo expresses it (ROTK, 216)? I would submit that they are condemned the way evildoers have been condemned for thousands of years; they are relegated to the Side of Evil, to the Middle-earth branch of "Cain's clan," as the Beowulf poet terms such a group, and are equally "outlawed / and condemned as outcasts" by the forces of good.
Of course, their actions would seem to prove exile a wise choice; those who "do harm with delight to all things that [can] suffer it, and . . . [are] restrained only by lack of power, not by either prudence or mercy" (TNS, 414) can certainly not be introduced into polite company. But at first glance, the Orcs seem to be victims of the fact that they were never taught any better. They may have that seed of redeemable good somewhere within, but they've never been taught how to access it, and circumstances have far from let that seed flourish.
At any rate, here's my point: when glimpses of that capacity for good do appear in their value system, such as their loyalty (albeit to the likes of Saruman and Sauron), I would argue that it appears precisely because Tolkien wants to make it clear that the Orcs have the same capacity for--and corresponding responsibility to do--good as defined by Iluvatar. I believe that he wanted his Orcs to be held to the standard set by Iluvatar, just as the Hobbits, Elves, Men, etc. were. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a fair fight!
What do you all think about the Orcs' value system? Is it significant when it is similar to those of the ostensibly good denizens of Middle-earth, or just serendipity?
Rebecca
Life is rather above the measure of us all (save for a very few, perhaps). ~ Tolkien, Letter 215 _______________________________________________
Prunesquallor
09-14-2008 01:09 PM
Reply 44 of 64 Viewed 493 times First let me congratulate you on presenting us with a very well-written, and thought provoking message, Rebecca. There's a lot of good stuff here that should keep us busy for days and days! THANKS!
So, how did Tolkien himself view the issue of Orc Redeemabilty? Does the presence of a "soul" automatically make one redeemable, and if so, do the Orcs have souls? These are questions that, I believe, never occurred to JRRT as he was writing his mythology, and still had not really gripped his mind until after LOTR was published. I think "reader demand" forced this issue into the open, and in his attempts to answer reader inquiries Tolkien was at last confronted with another of his inconsistencies. If his mythology was to be "congruent" with Christianity then all sentient/ sapient beings MUST have been created by the One God, and all such creatures MUST have souls. All ensouled creatures MUST be open to the Grace of Redemption. But it seems, JRRT had no such original design in his mind for the Orcs/ Trolls, and the way he used them in his narratives showed little concern with their potential redemption.* They mainly act as creatures of absolute evil, as the tools of their masters, as proper sword fodder for the heroes of the tale. When did Tolkien start to reconsider the issue of Orc Redemption? If I am reading your meaning correctly here, Rebecca, you see evidence of this as early as Letter # 78, 12 August, 1944. I get the feeling from your further treatment of this Letter # 78 that you assume JRRT is saying even the Uruk-hai of his mythology were "not made bad by the intention of their maker...", and such an interpretation would then allow us to use this passage as one of those which tend to show that the Orcs must therefore be redeemable in Tolkien's thought. Is this how you view this passage? If so, I am not at all comfortable with this interpretation.
I am suggesting here that the 1944 date of Letter 78 seems a bit early for Tolkien to actually be addressing the redeemability of the Orcs. It is my understanding that JRRT came rather late to this point, sometime in the mid 1950s after the publication of LOTR in 1954, and this process culminated with the crucial Letter # 269 in 1965. ( see Letters # 144, 153, and especially 269 ) I think it was actually his readers who forced Tolkien to move away from his earliest position on the Orcs -- that they had no souls, and were the simple tools of their masters, functioning like automatons, and hence they were not considered redeemable. They served as "sword fodder" so that his heroes could demonstrate their physical prowess by slaughtering numbers of them. Yet, we as readers need feel no shock, and horror at all this ruthless bloodshed as the Orcs were not on the same plane of existence or worth as Men/ Elves/ Dwarves/ Hobbits/ Ents/ Beoring were-bears/ talking Eagles. His heroes need feel no regret, no guilt -- a dead Orc was simply one less dangerous "machine" in the world, and the sensitive reader need feel no shock at the "barbarous" head-counting game enjoyed by Legolas and Gimli.
Here, I must admit, things get "interpretational" as JRRT is not present to give us certitude on the specific meaning/ implications of Letter # 78, but in my scheme, it only deals with Christopher Tolkien's experiences in World War II, and says nothing about the redemption of Orcs. Apparently Chris (see Humphrey's Biography) was a fairly strait-laced fellow who had some difficulty adjusting to such things as the "gutter-talk" and endless sexual discussions/ innuendoes of his fellow warriors. Gradually Chris found it "easier to rub along," he was simply losing his sensitivity to such episodes, and was "getting used" to the coarse expressions of public vulgarity. But, being a sincere "altar boy type" he was still anxious lest the "toughening" of his character in accepting this vulgarity would leave behind a callousness that might degrade him permanently. JRRT remarked, reassuringly, that just because Chris was becoming immune to this coarseness (something that might actually be useful in a world that seemed headed toward increased public vulgarity rather than less) it did not necessarily mean that CT was becoming a moral degenerate himself. JRRT then goes on to use the image of the Uruk-hai as an explanatory device, but just what does he mean here?
As I understand it (possibly I am incorrect here?) JRRT is simply telling Chris that although his fellow soldiers are acting like barbarous, irredeemable Orcs, these 20th century humans are not really irredeemable, because in our reality "there are no genuine Uruk-hai." So, while in Middle-earth there ARE creatures (the Orcs) who ARE made bad by the intention of their maker [Morgoth**] -- in the British camps of World War II there are no individuals who are as equally irredeemable no matter how degraded and Orc-like they may seem. Because these British soldiers are Men, they, unlike the genuine Uruk-hai, are open to redemption because our Christian God does not create genuine Uruks.
What this has meant to me (personal interpretation only) is that initially Tolkien DID consider the Orcs to be beyond the action of redemption. Redemption had no meaning for them, they were the tools of their maker, Morgoth; they were automata, things machinelike and clever in the repertory of their responses to their environment, but still souless, robotic devices. Redemption of such creatures was irrelevant.
To my way of thinking, this entire episode concerning the nature of Orcs underscores my belief that Eru IS NOT an exact replica of Jehovah, at least in the early development of the mythology. When later confronted with this issue (redeemability of Orcs) by Christian readers who wanted to see Eru as Jehovah, Tolkien stated that he did NOT feel constrained to give a strict "Christian" interpretation to his Orcs: "I don't feel under any obligation to say whether my notion of orcs [souless, therefore non-redemptive] is heretical or not. I don't feel under any obligation to make my story fit with formalized Christian theology..." (Letter # 269, p. 355, 12 May 1965).
While in his later years he did work to more fully "Christianize" his Middle-earth, originally the Orcs were not to be viewed under the rubric of Christian theology, and Irenaean theories of "magnanimitatem" would not apply to them. I think that gradually under pressure from readers, JRRT was moving toward the acceptance of souls in orcs, and was beginning to realize that it was another inconsistency in his mythology to keep them isolated as automata.*** The speeches between the Orcs Gorbag and Shagrat (Two Towers, "The Choices of Master Samwise" pp 346- 347, hb ver.) demonstrated to most readers the full independence of Orcs from their master, and if Orcs could act individually, and if they were ultimately derived from Elves who had souls, then Orcs must also have souls (as Morgoth never had the power to remove the souls from his victims). Grudgingly, I think, JRRT came to accept this train of logic as presented by his readers,**** and he came to realize that this was one more point where major revisions were necessary -- Orcs must be granted souls, and therefore given a chance at redemption. How he would have worked this new conception back into his mythology, and his LOTR narratives, is open to speculation... _____________
* At the Battle of the Hornburg, the Men who fought for Saruman, the Dunlendings, were made captive, were forced to swear that they would no longer march with the foes of the West, and were then released on parole. All of the Orcs were killed, no prisoners, no chance for redemption.
** Here, JRRT seems to overlook the chain of "creation" forced upon him by using a monotheistic concept wherein all creation flows from the One God Eru, and later "alterations" are merely sub-creations, in this case perversions, corruptions of Elves into Orcs. Or does he simply mean that Morgoth was the "maker" of Orcs in the sense that he took the created Elves, and then twisted them (made them) into something quite different, something diametrically opposed to the original Elf character?
***Later, as LOTR was being finished he created a new breed of Trolls, the Olog Hai, Trolls with little or no speech, little or no sentience/ sapience, and NO individuality. These Trolls, quite unlike William, Bert, and Tom (who actually display the moral virtue of compassion for Bilbo), were to act as automata, only moving when the directing will of their master was focussed upon them. Here, I think, JRRT was responding to the crisis of the Orcs, and was attempting to show how a creature of flesh and blood could be souless. Would he, in some future revision of LOTR have altered the Orcs to fit this pattern?
**** See especially Letter #153, p. 195 where Tolkien does finally admit that saying the Orcs are absolutely "'irredeemably bad' ... would be going too far." Even here, however, he seems still to be clinging to his original notion that they are souless: "But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question..."
Message Edited by Prunesquallor on 09-14-2008 01:51 PM
_____________________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
09-20-2008 07:58 AM
Reply 45 of 64 Viewed 404 times Hello, Prunes! ---
Regarding the presence of a degree of compassion among trolls, it should be noted that it was only William, not Tom or Bert, who felt any degree of pity or compassion towards Bilbo - and apparently, William was heavily influenced by his state of well-contented satisfaction with his dinner - perhaps with the general sense of well-being induced by the degree of his satedness...
[ ....."Poor little blighter," said William. He had already had as much supper as he could hold; also he had lots of beer. "Poor little blighter! Let him go!"..... ]
--- From "The Hobbit" Chapter II , "Roast Mutton" ---
It also sounds as there may have been some of that bleary-eyed "I love you guys" stuff going on with William there, as well --- Of course, Tom, Bert and William seem far more "human" than any trolls that came after them, but I still think some of that has to do with the style and form that [ H ] was delivered in - namely that of a "Children's Book" -
Ardo
________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
09-20-2008 08:40 AM
Reply 46 of 64 Viewed 402 times Hello Rebecca!
I just now got a look at your letter ( posted on 09/07/2008 ) ---
Yes, as a general rule, "Good" seems to reside in the West ( and North ) and "Evil" in the East ( and South ) in LOTR ---
If I am reading JRRT's summary of "The Silmarillion" more or less correctly, the "Ultimate West" was the source of the "Ultimate Good" - and yet at the same time, the "Ultimate Evil" also came out of the "Ultimate West" ( but then "settled" and built strongholds mainly in the east of "Middle-earth" ) --- The kingdom of the Witch-King of Angmar was located in the North, however - and ( I'm not clear on this yet ) was not Morgoth's kingdom also somewhere in the northern regions of Middle-earth? --- But, as far as LOTR goes, that North/West = Good, South/East = Bad Equation seems to stand up, overall, as a Rule of Thumb ( although there can be "remnants" of Evil located in areas that are mostly "Good Neighborhoods" ( such as the Barrow-Wights ) and Evil does manage to find its way and insinuate itself into places that had been free from its influence before ( "The Scouring Of The Shire" ) ---
These North/West vs. East/South theories actually back up TiggerBear's ideas about the Easterlings ( and "Southerlings" ) being somewhat analagous to the North/West Christian Europe feeling the "dread" of invasion from the Moors or the Turks ( from the South and from the East ) [ when comparing
"Middle-earth History" to "Real World History" at least as far as where Tolkien might have gotten some of his "ideas" from - if only on a "subconcious" level, possibly ] ---
But I think the main reason that quote from JRRT about the "Mongolish" Orcs made me think about Genghis Khan and so forth was more on account of their "legendary" reputation love of battle, for bloodlust, sadistic cruelty, the sheer "terror" that preceeded their coming, etcetera... Of course, though, "Orcs" march only on foot ( unless riding on Wargs ) and are not horsemen...
Ardo
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Oct 2, 2008 12:32:13 GMT -6
____________________________________
Barnes and Noble Discussion Page 3B _____________________________________
Danaan
09-23-2008 10:08 PM
Reply 47 of 64 Viewed 338 times Interesting thoughts, Prunesquallor (try as I might, I just can’t make myself call you “Prunes”!) I’ll admit your interpretation of “genuine Uruk-hai” is a convincing one, and I can certainly see where Tolkien might draw the line between irredeemable Uruk-hai in his self-created world and redeemable—and thus not “genuine”—Uruk-hai in the real world. Consider me a convert!
You’re also not alone in arguing that Tolkien’s original conception of Orcs presented them as “creatures of absolute evil”. Edmund Wilson in his “Oo, Those Awful Orcs” review of LOTR presented much the same viewpoint, concluding that, to him, soulless Orcs meant an altogether too simplistic presentation of good versus evil in the story. JRRT himself even expressed that lines in his story were very “clear cut” compared to real life (Letter #66) and placing Orcs firmly on the side of irredeemable Evil with no hope of switching sides would arguably be the most conspicuous way to streamline, so to speak, what he intended to be a “hobbito-centric” (Letter #181), not Orc-centric, work.
Yet I’m not convinced that reference to the Orcs in this early letter is entirely opposite to that expressed in later letters such as #153. Tolkien references the concept of “slowly turn[ing] Men and Elves into Orcs” during wartime in #66, which to my mind bears striking resemblance to the thought expressed in #153, when he again compares their situation (specifically Iluvatar’s seeming tolerance of Melkor’s twisted sub-creation) to “the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today.” These similarities suggest, to my mind, that though Tolkien may have been clarifying his presentation of the Orcs in the years after LOTR was published (again, fully agree that reader and critical opinion were likely the catalyst), these later clarifications were based in part on views of evil and good that he already held.
I believe that Tolkien consistently saw his Orcs as twisted, sub-created beings—significant because his concept of Melkor-type sub-creation is also fairly consistent, even when not expressed in terms of the Orcs specifically. He relates his love of Germanic mythology to “understand[ing] the good in things, to detect the real evil” (#45), and this idea of evil arising from good roots appears throughout his letters and is embodied in the various “falls” of the peoples in his works. Good and evil are not mutually exclusive, he continuously stresses, which is why he found problematic the unequivocal “writing-off” of the entire German nation by some of his countrymen during WWII. NOT that the Germans = Orcs (we’ve had this conversation before!); however, I believe his treatment of the “German question” reflects a way of thinking that was also expressed through his ostensibly evil characters, and I believe that the good that he allowed to be glimpsed in his characters was also significant for that very reason.
The Orcs may be treated as written-off creatures throughout LOTR (though I would say that the “head-counting” of Legolas and Gimli seems more an example of a wartime coping mechanism than an evidence of the Orcs’ irredeemability), but I think this primarily shows how far they have fallen—and how far people like the Men of Dunland could fall. Had the Dunlendings not accepted the terms of their parole, would they have been slaughtered like the Orcs the next time? I’m inclined to think that in time they would have been—and that the Orcs, having fallen so much earlier, have been given so many paroles in the meantime that the death penalty seems not merely a more viable option but the only one.
But enough judicial metaphors! I think we’re in agreement that Tolkien did not originally see his Orcs as redeemable. But the fact that he didn’t doesn’t mean, to my mind, that the discussion is moot—my question regarding the "good" in Orc value systems still remains. Does it bear any significance at all when Orc value systems coincide with those of Hobbits and Men? That is, if a soulless Orc feels loyalty, is it mere happenstance, or is it a remnant of the values set in place by Iluvatar ages before?
I referenced magnanimitatem not to imply that Tolkien meant Middle-earth to represent Christendom nor to assume that Christian theology necessarily applies in the world of “Arda marred”—only to reference that concept of accountability. Are the Orcs, if seen as irredeemable, thus not accountable for their actions? I certainly hope not! This seems to me a very dangerous viewpoint, and one that I am not at all convinced Tolkien held.
Rebecca
Life is rather above the measure of us all (save for a very few, perhaps). ~ Tolkien, Letter 215 ________________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
09-24-2008 07:55 AM
Reply 48 of 64 Viewed 325 times This is a not-so-serious aside ---
I noticed that the "head-counting game" between Legolas and Gimli has been brought up in several postings... Reflecting back on the days of my youth ( and I believe this was the same feeling or reaction that my friends who shared in the enjoyment of LOTR had at that time ) - this "game" only provoked a reaction in me of a kind of perverse pleasure - or at least, the entire business just seemed to be very humorous and also an aspect that gave the story-telling a pronounced "edge" - it was exciting and exhilirating - insofar as you realized ( at the very same time ) that this was the kind of thing that could only happen in a fantasy world - that, naturally, there could never, ever, be any justification for doing something like that to actual human people in the Real World... ---
Of course, up into my early teens, I still had no understanding of the true suffering that was caused by War, the real horror of combat - the "War Movies" that I saw were the same as those "Westerns" - people died cleanly - even if they were getting machine-gunned to death ( there were no bullet-holes ) - if soldiers were getting blown up by grenades, you didn't see limbs flying about...---
In light of Tolkien's own experiences in a real-life war, perhaps Legolas and Gimli's little "game" could be considered to be something of a "coping mechanism" --- But I tend to still think of it all in terms of simply making "thrilling narrative" ( and injecting a bit of "black humor" into the narration, as well ) --- I guess I must be speaking from my "inner child" in this matter, however - I'm not trying to theorize or postulate as to whether or not orcs have souls, are redeemable or irredeemable, and so forth... ---
Ardo _________________________________
TiggerBear
09-24-2008 07:22 PM
Reply 49 of 64 Viewed 309 times A small comment on your aside Ardo.
Fighter pilots, even currently paint kills on the sides of their planes. They always have.
Ever seen gun notches?
Kill trophies. Both gruesome and not.
My father in law has a lot of patches from his tours in nam. Some are his, some came form groups his company worked with or escorted. And some got cut off dead VC.
Gimli and Legolas were just acting like soldiers. ______________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
09-24-2008 09:37 PM
Reply 50 of 64 Viewed 300 times
Hi Tigger! ---
Going back to a time centuries removed from our present day real world and modern society- the violent "War Culture" of the ancient Celts ( I'm thinking mainly of the ones who lived in what was to become England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland ) the taking off of heads ( and also the retaining of those heads as "War Trophies" ) was a common ( even revered ) practice - and part of this paractice included the concept of "retaining" one's enemy's "essence" of intelligence, cunning, bravery, etcetera for oneself by "owning" the victim's head ( I assume they made some sort of connection between the head and the mind - that the head was the "repository" for one's mind, memory and intelligence, etcetera ) ---
I doubt, however, if these same ancient Celts were concerned so much about "dehumanizing" their enemies in their own minds, so they could "bring themselves" to do the actual killing -- ( inotherwords, I don't think the concept of killing another human being was so abhorent to them, that they had to make the enemy "nameless and faceless" before they could "go through with it" - my feeling is that they considered all this killing business to be part of the "natural order of things" - and anyone who was afraid to either face death himself or else kill his enemy was nothing more than a spineless "weenie" - ( I'm glad attitudes have changed somewhat since those times - at least, sometimes we all assume that those attitudes have changed! ) ---
Ardo
________________________________________
Prunesquallor
09-25-2008 12:39 PM
Reply 51 of 64 Viewed 275 times
Hullo, Ardo.
There are, I suppose, several ways of regarding the Three Trolls' "compassionate" nature:
1. As you point out, this is The Hobbit, a very different book from both The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings. Perhaps JRRT deliberately "toned-down" Bilbo's tale, making it an acceptable fantasy venture that would not unduly disturb the supposed sensibilities of 1938's model, English child. Therefore, we can see this "Troll compassion" as an isolated example of "compassion," a Fairy Tale conceit, which we should avoid using in our analyses of the mythology and LotR. Maybe...
Sigh, yes, the Troll tummies were full, yes, they were "tippsy," but "compassion" is still compassion, and the mere fact that this emotion is within the scope of troll behavior is the important issue. Later trolls (drunk or not) in the published version of LotR simply do not have this sort of reaction available as a behavioral option.
2. On the other hand, we might view The Hobbit as integral to Tolkien's work -- so much of its narrative is the base from which the later developments of LotR spring. In this sense, the "compassion" of the trolls may become very important in that it shows us that Tolkien had alternatives: his LotR trolls did NOT necessarily have to be dumb, speechless brutes; did NOT necessarily have to be the Olog-hai automata. Tolkien DID have the examples of William, Tom, and Bert -- he could have further developed this style of troll in LotR. He chose not to. Why?
3. Getting back then to the ostensible theme of this topic -- Orcs! -- do we have a proper parallel? I think Tolkien likewise developed several different models for these creatures. The "Goblins" of The Hobbit, just like the Trolls of The Hobbit, seem, in my mind, to represent significantly different characters than the Orcs of the early versions of the mythology; and again, they seem to be rather distinct even from the Orcs of LotR (and the later revisions of the mythology). Again the question: if he did have alternative Trolls and Goblins available, with different "moral" and "social" capacities (more "human" in tone), then why did JRRT finally choose a markedly dehumanized version for both these "species" in LotR? Additionally, when did he make this decision (if it ever was a conscious alteration)?
Regarding this latter question, The Return of the Shadow, representing the first draft versions of The Fellowship of the King, has some interesting passages:
"In the very ancient days the Ring-lord made many of these Rings: and sent them out through the world to snare people. He sent them to all sorts of folk -- the Elves had many, and there are now many elfwraiths in the world, but the Ring-lord cannot rule them; the goblins got many, and the invisible goblins are very evil and wholly under the Lord; the dwarves I don't believe had any; some say the rings don't work on them: they are too solid. Men had a few, but they were most quickly overcome and ...... the men-wraiths are also servants of the Lord." (emphasis mine)
(Gandalf to Bingo -- later name changed to Frodo, The Return of the Shadow, p. 75)
A) Note that in these early drafts of LotR the "Orcs" were referred to as "Goblins," just as they were in The Hobbit. Note also that the Goblins are here classed as "people," as one of the various "folk" groups of Middle-earth. They not simply classed as "enemies."
B) These Goblins were not "very evil" (what does that imply?!) and Sauron had to force his control over them by corrupting the Goblin leaders with rings of power that reduced these chiefs to the condition of wraiths, slaves to The Dark Lord's will. Here, as I interpret these passages, Tolkien started LotR with independent Goblins, and Goblins who are only "relatively" (vrs "very" ) evil, Goblins (using the goblin-model from The Hobbit) who might be said to have a certain sense of moral obligation, an appreciation of the rudiments of legality/ fairplay,* and a measure of social altruism -- at least as regarded their own kind.
But later, all (or most?) of this Orc-independence and Orc-sociability , and "relative-evil"** seems to have been removed from the developing narrative of LotR. Why? Do we have an actual case of "demonization" and "dehumanization" here? In the published version LotR (1954-56) is Tolkien deliberately creating a class of alien "Others?" If so, why? _____________
* The Goblins were even able to "cooperate" with some of the less "nice" dwarves, so the rules of "just reciprocity," legal contract, etc, must have been known to them. See The Hobbit, p. 70: "in some parts wicked dwarves had even made alliances with them."
**Likewise the independence and "relative-evil" displayed by the Trolls of The Hobbit, is finally removed with the creation of the Olog-hai in LotR. See Appendix F, RotK, p. 410 for Olog-hai Trolls. _____________
Ardo, we are having a similar discussion at Tolkien's Ring, do you mind if I "cut-and-paste" your message there? Otherwise I can just sort of paraphrase you, so my reply there has some context... Message Edited by Prunesquallor on 09-25-2008 01:54 PM
_____________________________________
Prunesquallor
09-25-2008 02:33 PM
Reply 52 of 64 Viewed 257 times Rebecca, Great post! Requires some careful "digestion." I find your points very informative/ useful in this investigation, trying now to see how they apply in the clarification of my own thoughts for this topic material -- "Growing Up Orc in Tolkien's Middle-earth."
LOL, grocery store has high quality Turkey Pot Pies, 2 fer $3.00, "I'll be back." Message Edited by Prunesquallor on 09-25-2008 02:37 PM ________________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
09-25-2008 09:12 PM
Reply 53 of 64 Viewed 236 times Good Afternoon, Prunes!
Just some brief thoughts:
Actually, there was only one of the three trolls, William ( in [ H ] ) who had a very full stomach and was a little drunk, the other two, Bert and Tom, were in no mood to be compassionate in any way, shape or form...
But I wasn't arguing that the trolls in [ H ] were not much more "human" ( or at least, exhibited what we tend to consider as more "human-like behavior" ) than any trolls that came after them ( in LOTR )...( actually, I agreed yes, they definitely were more "human" than any of their "relatives" that we met later on )...
Concerning your point ( #2 ) ---
My own personal feeling on this is mainly that LOTR is written in such a different style ( for the most part ) than [ H ] was, it's really like the [ H ] version of Trolls ( and many other things ) just never would have "fit in" in the new "vision" of Middle-earth - ... LOTR tended to be so much more serious in tone, and to have "switched gears" in its outlook so much ( from the simpler tale of Bilbo Baggins ) that you could say LOTR really is a "grown-up" version of Middle-earth, ( as compared to [ H ] ) ---
And, the transformations include not just making the Trolls "less human" - but almost everything else that was originally included in [ H ] is "revealed" to be different than in the initial story -
Elves are much more serious, deeply mystical people than the way they were portrayed in [ H ] -
The Great Eagles don't hold conversations with people, either, except for Gwaihir the Windlord having some very brief words with Gandalf ( and, in those cases, one could argue that Gwaihir and Gandalf were communicating "telepathically", and that no actual "speech" was exchanged - or, at least, that Gwaihir only spoke in his "Eagle-Tongue" and Gandalf was able to understand it ) ( although this is just an assumption on my part, this is not exactly explicit in the text ) ---
I can see that I should have said "a few brief-ish thoughts..." instead!
I'll have to come back....
Ardo ________________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
09-25-2008 09:40 PM
Reply 54 of 64 Viewed 229 times
Hello, once more, Prunes ...
I tend to think of [ H ] as more of a "moment frozen in Time", whereas LOTR is so much concerned with
"History" - and sort of pinpointing the events that take place in LOTR in their proper position in the long
"advance" of all the cumulative events in the long history of Middle-earth - this whole idea of the "waning days" of the "Third Age" and it's "blending" into "Dawn of a New Age" - is also a completely different outlook that LOTR posesses ( as compared to [ H ] ) and also has to do with why there are so many differences between the way things are concieved and represented in [ H ] than the way this happens in LOTR ...
I'm sorry, I seem to being off in ten different directions at once in my last two postings - and I too, am called away by the Real World right now - have to get back later -
[ P.S. - If you want to transfer my postings over to the "Tolkien's Ring" group-site, it is fine with me... I hope to come over there sometime, anyway, but I just haven't "registered" yet..]
Ardo __________________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
09-26-2008 09:11 AM
Reply 55 of 64 Viewed 213 times
TiggerBear wrote:
A small comment on your aside Ardo.
Fighter pilots, even currently paint kills on the sides of their planes. They always have.
Ever seen gun notches?
Kill trophies. Both gruesome and not.
My father in law has a lot of patches from his tours in nam. Some are his, some came form groups his company worked with or escorted. And some got cut off dead VC.
Gimli and Legolas were just acting like soldiers.
Hello, Tigger! ---
If you don't mind doing a little digging around in the "graveyard" - there is something I wrote way back in March of this year, which relates to all this -
You can find it on page 2 of the "Inhabitants of Middle-earth" Thread -
Reply #28
You don't have to read the entire longish letter - just about halfway will do - to the end of that story of the soldier who was in WWII ---
Ardo _________________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
09-26-2008 10:15 AM
Reply 56 of 64 Viewed 206 times Hello Again, Prunes...
I'm afraid I bit off a little more than I could chew when I was trying expound on the fundemental differences between [ H ] and LOTR ( and as you had already said, "The Hobbit" is a very different kind of book than LOTR )..---
I guess what I was driving at is ( in my own opinion ) it was probably not a concious, deliberate decision on
Tolkien's part ( at some particular point along the way ) to turn Trolls who were before at least capable of the feeling compassion into mindless robots - but Trolls who were mindless robots just made more sense in light of the grown-up, more serious outlook on Middle-earth ---
To have Trolls that are comic figures ( like the Trolls in [ H ] ) pop up in LOTR just would not "fit" - not "make sense" --- In a children's book like [ H ] even though the Trolls are scary figures, and say all sorts of gruesome and frightening things, some of the "edge" gets taken off by presenting them as kinds of buffoons - and instead of having to violently kill them, they get tricked into their demise by the clever Gandalf ( when he turns their own quarrelsome and violent natures against each other to make them defeat themselves ) ---
Even some of the scenes with the Goblins, the Wargs, the Giant Spiders, have a touch of humor about them, although being frightening at the same time - but in LOTR, there can't be so much fooling around - terrifying things are meant to be taken more seriously - monsters are not going to sit around and have a conversation with you ( or among themselves ) before they decide how to carve you up - they are just going to go straight for your throat, with out so much as a "how do you do?" ---
I also tend to think of the "Goblins" of [ H ] as not being all that different from the Orcs in LOTR (although there are differences, of course ) - the main difference that strikes me is that in [ H ], they seem to be a more "autonomous" people - they have their own rulers ( "The Great Goblin" ) whereas in LOTR, they are either under the sway ( or, if you prefer, "in the employ" ) of either Saruman or Sauron... This seems to go along with other "Evil Creatures" that we encounter both in [ H ] and in LOTR, as well -
In [ H ], they tend to be evil just because it is in their natures to be so, "evil for the sake of evil" - but in LOTR, they have either formed an alliance with a powerful figure of evil ( like Sauron ) or else have been "called" to his side, by some means or other...
In [ H ], evil creatures "consort" with each other - and they might assist each other in ways that are mutually beneficial to each other - but in LOTR, they are all ( mostly ) "in league" with each other - they often mostly all seem to be of one "mind" - and it appears as though they are often being "driven" by some force larger than themselves - or having their minds and wills controlled by this same outside force, ( and there are exceptions to this rule, Shelob, for instance ) --- and there are also some instances where the Orcs in LOTR display some behavior that is reminiscent of their "forebears" of [ H ] ---- ( this was explored by someone other than me, in another thread at another time - I will try and see if I can hunt that particular post down, and I can then reference it for you ) ---
Ardo ________________________________
Prunesquallor
09-29-2008 02:56 PM
Reply 57 of 64 Viewed 130 times Hi, Ardo.
Working my way through your posts here, more, later, but in the meantime, this is presented somewhat tongue-in-cheek:
RE Ardo's: "Actually, there was only one of the three trolls, William ( in [ H ] ) who had a very full stomach and was a little drunk, the other two, Bert and Tom, were in no mood to be compassionate in any way, shape or form..." (my emphasis)
Hmmm, the main point of course is simply that Trolls had the ability to feel "compassion" for other creatures, whether ONE troll or all THREE is not that material. But, I think we differ even in our interpretations of the germane passage:
" 'Poor little blighter,' said William. He had already had as much supper as he could hold; also he had had lots of beer. 'Poor little blighter! Let him go!' 'Not till he says what he means by lots and none at all,' said Bert. 'I don't want to have me throat cut in me sleep! Hold his toes in the fire, till he talks!' " ( H. p. 48 pbv )
Here, ALL the Trolls have been eating and drinking, all are presumably groggy and warmed by their feasting, and Bert seems quite willing to let Bilbo go free, just so long as the potentially threatening "lots and none at all" is satisfactorily explained...
Contrast these "compassionate" Trolls with the speechless Cave Troll in Moria (LotR).
Yeah, I think we agree that LotR is presented in a much more "serious" fashion than the "light-hearted" Hobbit, nonetheless, the Orc/ Troll material does not have to be handled in a "dehumanizing," "demonizing" fashion. JRRT (in The Hobbit) had given himself alternatives, he could have treated both Orcs and Trolls in a fashion similar to the way he treated the Dunlendings, and the dead Southron that Sam pities during the "Battle of the Oliphant" in Itihlien.* Is there ANY passage in LotR that has any of the "good guy" characters express a similar form of "pity" in relation to the Orcs/ Trolls? Faramir tells us that he would not lie, even to an Orc, but I don't think that is out of concern for the Orcs, just a proof that this Captain of Gondor does NOT lie under any circumstance.
Concerning the Eagles, they talk in LotR to Galadriel, but they were not particularly chatty even in The Hobbit, lol. Of course, JRRT would want to keep Eagles in the background as much as possible in LotR, otherwise the readers might wonder why they could not carry Frodo (escorted by Gandalf) directly to Mount Orodruin -- of course that would spoil the narrative, the adventure would be over quickly, maybe three to seven days of flying, and a quick toss of the Ring (with Gandalf's assistance if required). ____________
* "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 and threats had led him on the long march from his home..." (TT, hbv, 269) _____________________________________
TiggerBear
09-29-2008 03:12 PM
Reply 58 of 64 Viewed 125 times May I interject something that seems to be missing.
There are several types of trolls in Tolkien's writing. Stone Trolls, Cave Trolls, Hill Trolls, Mountian Trolls, and Snow Trolls. However you have the Trollshaws of Eriador (Bert and company) who for centurys feed upon the villiages of Eriador. Considered mental giants from Troll standards, the spoke the language of man and had a rough if faulty knowlege of arithmetic. It's never adressed really if they were so intelligent that they survived that long or if because they survived that long that they were so intelligent.
__________________________________
Prunesquallor
09-29-2008 04:30 PM
Reply 59 of 64 Viewed 113 times TiggerBear wrote:
"May I interject something that seems to be missing. There are several types of trolls in Tolkien's writing. Stone Trolls, Cave Trolls, Hill Trolls, Mountian Trolls, and Snow Trolls. However you have the Trollshaws of Eriador (Bert and company) who for centurys feed upon the villiages of Eriador. Considered mental giants from Troll standards, the spoke the language of man and had a rough if faulty knowlege of arithmetic. It's never adressed really if they were so intelligent that they survived that long or if because they survived that long that they were so intelligent."
Hullo, TiggerBear!
Good points!
I think we researched this once on another forum, and came up with the possibility of no more than three Troll types --
1. Stone Trolls (including the Hill Trolls/ Mountain Trolls / Snow Trolls, and Cave Trolls as being synonymous).
2. The Olog-hai trolls
3. Multiple-headed trolls.
There was some discussion reflecting that most of the troll terms simply referred to the places where trolls were found, and did not designate separate troll species/ races. A mountain troll is a Stone Troll who happens to live on a mountain; a cave troll is a Stone Troll who is encountered in a cave, etc. The Stone Trolls, were classified as creatures who were originally made of stone, and who would turn back into stone if they were ever struck by sunlight. ( see H. p. 52 pbv, "... for trolls, as you probably know, must be underground before dawn, or they go back to the stuff of the mountains they are made of, and never move again. That is what happened to Bert, and Tom, and william." )
The second Troll type would be the Olog-hai of LotR, who might not be from the Stone Troll stock at all: the new trolls might have been highly modified Orcs, but the matter is left open by JRRT (see appendix F, p. 410 RotK).*
There is a bare possibility that a third type of troll was present in Middle-earth, though I think it likely that they represent just another variation of the Stone Troll type: multiple-headed trolls. "Yes, I am afraid trolls do behave like that, even those with only one head each." (H. p. 46, pbv)
Were Tom, Bert, and William the "mental giants" of the Troll race? An interesting point, TiggerBear! Unfortunately we know very little about them, not even a good guess as to how long they had been roaming the Trollshaws. One of the trolls may be giving us an indication that they were new to the area: " 'Never a blinking bit of manflesh have we had for long enough,' said a second [troll]. 'What the 'ell William was a-thinkin' of to bring us into these parts at all, beats me...' " H. p. 46, pbv, my emphasis)
William does tell us that they came "down from the mountains," so it seems they've been in the region of the Trollshaws for much less time than "centuries." Extrapolation from the RotK appendix B, p. 370 hbv, might help us here: in the year 2930 III Age, Aragorn's father, Arador was slain by trolls. Was this in the Trollshaws? Did William, Bert, and Tom kill Aragorn's father? If so, these trolls had been in the Trollshaws area around Rivendell some 11 years before they ran into Bilbo in 2941. _________
* "But at the end of the Third Age a troll-race not before seen appeared in southern Mirkwood and in the mountain borders of Mordor. Olog-hai they were called in the Black Speech. That Sauron bred them none doubted, though from what stock was not known. Some held that they were not Trolls but giant Orcs; but the Olog-hai were in fashion of body and mind quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind... Trolls they were ..." RotK, appendix F, 410) This appendix note on the Olog-hai also mentions that this new type was able to walk in broad daylight (unlike the Stone Trolls) and was more "cunning" than the older forms. Does that mean Olog-hai were more intelligent than William, Bert, and Tom? This seems contradicted when JRRT also states that they "spoke little," but maybe "speech" is not a direct measurement of intelligence?
A h, yes -- troll family structure may be implied by the fact that William is called "Bill Huggins" -- is Huggins his family name?! (H. p. 48, pbv )
Message Edited by Prunesquallor on 09-29-2008 04:42 PM
__________________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
09-30-2008 05:19 AM
Reply 60 of 64 Viewed 83 times Greetings, Prunes! ( and Everybody ) ---
I needs must revise some of my earlier assertions concerning our trio of Trolls under scrutiny...
Of course all three Trolls, Tom, Bert and William, had all been eating and drinking - but it appeared as though perhaps William was the most well-satisfied ( from the fare they had been consuming that night ) - at any rate, I think this "argument" needs to be put in context - let's go back to an earlier passage in the chapter -
[ ... "What's a burrahobbit got to do with my pocket, anyways?" said William.
"And can yer cook 'em?" said Tom.
"Yer can try," said Bert, picking up a skewer.
"He wouldn't make above a mouthful," said William,
who had already had a fine supper,
"not when he was skinned and boned."
"P'raps there are more like him round about, and we might make a pie," said Bert.... ]
{ "The Hobbit", Chapter 2, "Roast Mutton" } ---
My feeling is that, when Bert suggests holding Bilbo's toes in the fire, he really has no intention of letting him go afterwords - but merely intends to torture Bilbo until he gets the information he desires out of Bilbo, then dispose of Bilbo ( perhaps by making him the first burrahobbit to go in the Burrahobbit-Pie ) ---
I believe I already agreed that the Trolls in [ H ] were more sentinent beings ( and were at least capable of having compassion and other human-like feelings and emotions ) - ( compared to the silent monsters we encounter in LOTR ) - and I would agree that Tolkien chose to make the Trolls in LOTR devoid of humanity, but I still feel that this mainly goes back to [ H ] being a "Children's Book" ( as opposed to LOTR being an "Adult Novel" ) - the "nightmare creatures" in [ H ] are scary enough to frighten us, but the same "nightmare creatures" in LOTR are supposed to be ten times scarier...
Yes, perhaps the Eagles are not all that "chatty" in [ H ], but Bilbo does have a brief conversation with his "ride" - the eagle who is transporting him back down to the river-valley ( from the mountain-tops ) ---
We had a discussion ( just about halfway through the second half of the FOTR discussion ) concerning: Why couldn't they have just flown the Ring into Mordor and done things the easy way? But somebody came up with a list of reasonable responses to that query - which showed that was not really a viable option ---
I Remain At Your Service,
Ardo Whortleberry
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Oct 2, 2008 12:43:06 GMT -6
_________________________
Barnes and Noble Discussion Page 4 _________________________
Prunesquallor
09-30-2008 02:40 PM
Reply 62 of 64 Viewed 67 times
Hi, Ardo!
RE Ardo's: "My feeling is that, when Bert suggests holding Bilbo's toes in the fire, he really has no intention of letting him go afterwords - but merely intends to torture Bilbo until he gets the information he desires out of Bilbo, then dispose of Bilbo ( perhaps by making him the first burrahobbit to go in the Burrahobbit-Pie ) "
LOL, yep, here, I must admit the tale is open to individual interpretation. The text is not explicitly clear concerning just how far we may trust in the "mercies" of trolls, even those in The Hobbit. ____________________
Regarding Letter # 153 pp187- 196, JRRT to Peter Hastings Sept 1954
Ardo, there is some interesting material in Letter # 153 to Peter Hastings, dated September 1954 (post LotR). In it JRRT covers some of the same ground we are currently traveling over. Apparently Hastings has pointed out the inconsistencies in the treatment accorded the trolls of LotR when these creatures are compared to the three trolls found in The Hobbit. Here, I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that, once again, JRRT is forced to defend his Middle-earth universe against reader perceptions that it is inconsistent. Tolkien usually defends himself in two distinct ways: 1. ME is inconsistent because even our real life universe seems (to the human mind) to be inconsistent. 2. ME is inconsistent because it was rushed into publication and the entire corpus, starting with The Silmarillion, working through The Hobbit and then through The Lord of the Rings, needs a sweeping revision to produce a more consistent final text.
Hastings was particularly concerned with the apparent sentient/ sapient natures of both the Orcs and the Trolls, postulating, as Christians must, that their independence of action (free-will), their social habits (however degraded from our drawing room manners) and the fact that original creation must have been by Eru, the One True God all argued that these creatures MUST have souls, and therefore must be afforded the grace of redemption.
At this point, 1954, Tolkien had left the "Happy Singing Goblins" and "Compassionate Troll" narrations of The Hobbit far behind him, and he was now steeped in the LotR mold where Trolls were only represented as Olog-hai automata, and the Goblins were now become the nearly absolute agents of Evil, the Orcs. JRRT was stuck here. He could not deny that he wanted the value system of Christianity to suffuse his Middle-earth universe, but he still did not want to admit the Orcs and Trolls to the "human" plane of existence as ensouled beings capable of redemption. Hastings pointed out this great inconsistency, and a defensive Tolkien reacted as best he could. He does gradually admit that the Orcs must be considered on a par with human beings in our own universe today: "... the Orcs -- who are fundamentally a race of 'rational incarnate' creatures, though horribly corrupted, if no more so than many Men to be met today." (L. # 153, p. 190, emphasis mine)
But, if Tolkien could view Orcs as "souls incarnated," he still hedge on the Trolls. He does admit that the three Trolls in The Hobbit were so portrayed that they must be accepted as near analogues to humanity, they have a rough society with its cooperative aspects, they have names and possible family lineages (Bill Huggins), and they even show a certain degree of human compassion. But, in 1954, to discredit this apparent "humanlike" status, JRRT first argues that the trolls of The Hobbit are not the same as those found in LotR: "But there are other sorts of Trolls beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested. Of course (since inevitably my world is highly imperfect even on its own plane nor made wholly coherent -- our Real World does not appear to be wholly coherent either... ) when you make Trolls speak you are giving them a power, which in our world (probably) connotes the possession of a 'soul'." (Letter # 153, p. 191)
So, JRRT is aware that the "talking trolls" Bert, William, and Tom should have souls, given the characteristics of their nature as displayed in The Hobbit. It was precisely to pare away the "souls" of trolls that Tolkien altered them from the fairy-tale, standard, speaking troll to his new Olog-hai first deployed in LotR. Now, the trolls have no, or very limited speech capacity, and they move through the sunlight (unlike the Stone Trolls) when their master's will is focussed on them, they move as automata, things, not beings -- and now they are devoid of soul.
In "refuting" Hasting's argument that the trolls showed a human form of pity for Bilbo, Tolkien hit upon a scheme to retroactively degrade even these trolls of The Hobbit -- a scheme, Ardo, that fits well with your own statements regarding the "compassion" of these three: "But I do not agree ... that my trolls show any sign of 'good', strictly and unsentimentally viewed. I do not say William felt pity -- a word to me of moral and imaginative worth ... and I do not think he showed Pity."
Then Tolkien launches a complex defense in which he "splits more hairs" than I have left upon my aging pate in his attempt to correct the impression that William was capable of showing pity. First, he strips William of his name, a significant part of any "human's" basic identity, and then he degrades William to the status of a non-sapient animal, a mere predacious carnivore: "I might not (if The Hobbit had been more carefully written, and my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression 'poor little blighter', just as I should not have called the troll William. But I discerned no pity even then, and put in a plain caveat. Pity must restrain one from doing something immediately desirable and seemingly advantageous. There is no more 'pity' here than in a beast of prey yawning, or lazily patting a creature it could eat, but does not want to, since it is not hungry." (Letter # 153, p. 191)
HUMPFF!!! I say, poor old Tolkien doth protest too much! He wrote The Hobbit in one distinct frame of mind and mood. It included the troll characters done up in typical Fairy-tale fashion, trolls with a range of emotions that included compassion and pity. Later, in the LotR narrative, such "happy Trolls" (and the "happy, singing Goblins" ) no longer fit the style, mood, and motivating set of values he felt appropriate for the more serious adventures of Frodo. In LotR, he debased again both these races, as best he could, but, of course, by then he was simply compounding his own inconsistencies so that his readers (like Hastings -- and I suppose even like us?) would have something to argue about ever-after... Do Orcs and Trolls have souls? Message Edited by Prunesquallor on 09-30-2008 02:50 PM _______________________________________
oldBPLstackdenizen
10-01-2008 10:00 PM
Reply 63 of 64 Viewed 36 times
A Fine Good Evening To You, Prunes, ( And To All, As Well ) ---
You have ( in your last post ) covered this whole matter rather extensively and thoroughly...
( and I really have no points to argue ) ---
I do think part of Tolkien's "dilemma" ( that seems to have been provoked by the percieved "inconsistencies" by some of his readers ) did result from "The Hobbit" being basically an "accident" - Tolkien had been working ( in his spare time ) on building his "subcreation" of Middle-earth for years before [ H ] was published, and I don't think, before this, that Tolkien ever expected such a clamor for more "stories concerning hobbits" ( and for more glimpses into his imagined world of [ M-e ] ) ---
Furthermore, he could not ( or could not bring himself to ) write LOTR in the same fashion that [ H ] was constructed, in the generally more simplistic and light-hearted "Children's Fairy-Tale Style", but he still needed to refer to [ H ] as a starting point, a basis, as a door or window from which to enter into the more serious world of LOTR ( it could almost be suggested that Tolkien was "working his way backward" from the less-serious world of [ H ] to the much more serious world of "The Silmarillion" but via the world of LOTR - but only because [ H ] happened to have come first - and, as I just said before, JRRT had never really expected his private pastime to be taken so seriously and to become so widely enjoyed and studied - things went from [ H ] quickly becoming a "Children's Classic" to LOTR becoming a huge phenomenon, to the point of being considered ( or, at least, "nominated" to be) a "Classic" of Adult Literature, Literature ( even in JRRT's own lifetime ) - and he suddenly found all his works being taken VERY seriously, indeed. ---
Also, JRRT was often his own harshest critic, as a result of his own self-imposed "rules" relating to the necessity for inherent consistency in a "sub-created" fantasy-world ...( and his desire to "obey" those same "rules" that he had formulated ) ---
Ardo
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Oct 3, 2008 0:11:11 GMT -6
Yikes, that's a lot of material. I've tried to skim most of it.
We had another thread about orcs in the Creatures section and my position was that orcs were not absolutely evil and could theoretically be redeemed. In practice though, this was not likely to happen given the circumstances of their life and environment.
All the orcs we encountered were in the service of either Sauron or Saruman and were bred as fodder for their armies. Living in such a brutish warlike culture, there was little to no hope for a "good" (or at least neutral) orc to survive. In a remote area away from other orcs and during a time of relative peace in Middle-earth....maybe. But this wasn't something Tolkien ever showed or seemed interested in exploring.
I find the notion of a good orc irresistible and have played around with it in my writing. Aside from the fun reversal element of it, I can't believe that a whole species would be evil. This seems to go against Tolkien's own beliefs. I believe the orcs had some measure of independent thought and culture but the deck was stacked against them to weed out any that weren't absolute killing machines.
Trolls are another matter entirely. Even in the stories, they never came across as purely evil to me. Just big, stupid, and hungry. The trolls always seemed like victims to an extent, enslaved and duped by the Dark Lords into being manual labor. Yes, they're carnivorous and maneaters and not good in the sense that we'd define it. But I didn't see them as being that different from any other large predator.
Some of that carries over into the movies as well. The Cave Troll the Fellowship fights in Moria seemed very confused and angry and was being drawn by a chain by the orcs. He didn't look like he wanted to be there and was mostly lashing out in anger. Similarly, the trolls we see in Mordor were being driven by whips to move the war machines. Again, they're little more than slave labor.
Trolls, I think, are a slight step above animals. I'm not sure they could be "redeemed" per se because their nature is to eat flesh. But I didn't see them as doing it out of malice or hate for the Free Peoples of the West.
As for what these races were and where they came from, I do recall something about Tolkien wanting to change the orc "root race" from Elves to Men. I disagree with that idea. There is precedence in folklore for goblins being the dark cousins of faeries and elves. Often, terms like hobgoblin, bogey, sprite, and faerie are even used interchangeably. In a lot of tales, supernatural races of aren't purely good or evil, just "other," and the differences between them tend to blur. As such, it makes a lot more sense to me for the orcs to be a corrupted sub-race of elves.
Trolls, if I recall, were formed by Morgoth out of stone (hence their return to that element when exposed to the light of the sun). I believe Tolkien said that they were meant as a mockery of the Ents -- a giant-sized race that was monstrous and brutal and formed from a much harsher aspect of nature than the peaceful tree-folk. Again, I think this supports my position that the trolls were beasts of nature and not "evil" per se. They could be turned to evil purposes by a higher will due to their natural tendencies. But it was largely like training an attack dog. It's vicious and cruel but can you really call it evil when it's acting on instinct and training?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Oct 4, 2008 10:27:04 GMT -6
Hi, Fredegar!
LOL, yep, a lot of material...
RE Fredegar's: "All the orcs we encountered were in the service of either Sauron or Saruman and were bred as fodder for their armies. Living in such a brutish warlike culture, there was little to no hope for a 'good' (or at least neutral) orc to survive. In a remote area away from other orcs and during a time of relative peace in Middle-earth.... maybe. But this wasn't something Tolkien ever showed or seemed interested in exploring.
Yeah, what would the Orcs be like on their own? More like the "singing" Goblins of The Hobbit I suppose, where they had an independent seeming set of 'kingdoms." Certainly, in both The Hobbit and LotR, the Goblins/ Orcs never really do anything that we humans have not already done -- yet we still allow our species to be "ensoulled," and capable of redemption. So, it has always bothered me that Tolkien seemed blind to the "plight of the Orcs." I guess I sort of thought that Tolkien, with all the advantages of a classical, humanist-liberal education, would have been sensitive to this issue. Certainly MANY of his U.S. readers (after the 1965 paperback publication of LotR) picked up on the apparent "injustice" done to Orc-kind. I'm wondering if the then current Civil Rights Movement influenced our thinking on this matter: did those events in Selma/ Birmingham/ Detroit/ Los Angeles/ Newark sensitize us to situations of race-discrimination so that it was easier for us "children of the sixties" to ask such questions: "What about the Orcs?" LOL, I think, in some ways, Tolkien WAS careful to show that humans, especially Men from the south and east, and the Dunlendings were not absolutely evil even though they might oppose the will of the West -- but he could not grant the same dispensation to the Orcs.
Re Fredegar's: "Trolls are another matter entirely. Even in the stories, they never came across as purely evil to me. Just big, stupid, and hungry. The trolls always seemed like victims to an extent, enslaved and duped by the Dark Lords into being manual labor. Yes, they're carnivorous and maneaters and not good in the sense that we'd define it. But I didn't see them as being that different from any other large predator."
Yeah, I had not thought along these lines, had not in my mind stressed the "predatory animal" condition of the trolls, including William, Bert and Tom. The trolls of The Hobbit also seemed to me quite like the common highway robber/ murderers of 18th century England (bar the cannibalic aspect, though I think Georgian England even shows a few examples of this culinary taste as well). The movie trolls were, I think, based on the Olog-hai forms developed specifically for LotR in the late 40s and 1950s, and I agree with you, the movie portrayal seemed to fit this type nicely!
Re Fredegar's "Trolls, I think, are a slight step above animals. I'm not sure they could be 'redeemed' per se because their nature is to eat flesh. But I didn't see them as doing it out of malice or hate for the Free Peoples of the West."
Interesting. Here, I think "speech" is the main clue, even as Tolkien realized it: "... when you make Trolls speak you are giving them a power, which in our world (probably) connotes the possession of a 'soul'." (Letter # 153, p. 191) No speaking trolls in LotR, therefore no soul, nothing to redeem.
Re Fredegar's: "As for what these races were and where they came from, I do recall something about Tolkien wanting to change the orc 'root race' from Elves to Men. I disagree with that idea. There is precedence in folklore for goblins being the dark cousins of faeries and elves. Often, terms like hobgoblin, bogey, sprite, and faerie are even used interchangeably. In a lot of tales, supernatural races of aren't purely good or evil, just 'other,' and the differences between them tend to blur. As such, it makes a lot more sense to me for the orcs to be a corrupted sub-race of elves."
Good points! I think you are right on the money here, Fredegar, I'll bet JRRT was quite well aware of the historical precedents when he originally derived Orcs from Elves, and I like the basic concept that there is NO absolute-evil "race," just various examples of "the other." Here, I think Tolkien treats the Orcs in the narrative episodes exactly as if they were just a particularly nasty group of human people, but in his Letters, where he more deeply discusses the Orc character, he becomes more conservative and tries, for a while, to deny them souls.
In one sense, of course, the Orcs, Dwarves, Hobbits, Elves, Talking Eagles, Trolls (of The Hobbit) are ALL based on JRRT's understanding of us, his own species. So, of course, they all reflect various aspects and types of human behaviour. I think this is what JRRT was trying to work out in HOME vol. X, Morgoth's Ring when he started to revise the origin-stock of Elves. World War II showed JRRT just how closely we humans resemble his Orcs, even if this new derivation of Orcs from Men went against the historical Fairy-tale motif.
Re Fredegar's: "I think this supports my position that the trolls were beasts of nature and not 'evil' per se. They could be turned to evil purposes by a higher will due to their natural tendencies. But it was largely like training an attack dog. It's vicious and cruel but can you really call it evil when it's acting on instinct and training?"
Ooo! Yeah, I LIKE this! Full agreement here!
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Oct 4, 2008 22:44:05 GMT -6
There is a lot of information from all the B&N posting! Whew! I am still wading thru it all.
But I don't like the idea of Tolkien considering making Men the origin of his Orcs either. Melkor created the Orcs to spite Ilúvatar and made them a mockery of Ilúvatar's fairest and favorite children. The Men were created more rugged and crude to begin with so what fun would Melkor have had corrupting Men into Orcs? Taking the fair elves and corrupting them served Melkor's purpose much more creatively!
I don't think Tolkien really thought about Orcs having souls nor being capable of redemption because he created them just to be evil servants. He wanted them to be disqusting, hated, and vile with no apparent desire for redemption.
However, the idea Fredegar mentioned above regarding Orcs not having the chance to be on their own to see how they would react in their own race for survival would have been interesting. I had always thought that King Elessar had given the Orcs their own land when he pronounced all his judgments after the War of the Ring, but (I think it was) Andorinha who said that was not true (and I am sure you came up with evidence to that fact) but I can't remember the whole discussion. I'm going to try a search of the forum.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Oct 5, 2008 8:22:27 GMT -6
No luck on that search for Andorinha's evidence. Unless it is on the " Creatures of ME" forum located here: tolkiensring.proboards30.com/index.cgi?board=Creatures&action=display&thread=264 Notice we upgraded Orcs to "Peoples" of ME from their lowly status of "Creatures" of ME! Anyway here is the quote from The Steward and The King chapter of The Return of the King that I was referring to:bold is my emphasis I assume that the slaves of Mordor would include the Orcs and Trolls. Therefore, they had their own land now to live as they would be inclined to live on their own without Sauron's influence and control. However, it sounds like ALL the slaves were sent to that land which would include Trolls, Orcs, Uruk-hai, and any other (human--like the Mouth--although he was killed) slave. I wonder how the differing races managed to live together. There are many instances in LOTR where the different races clashed and fought. Not only that, the Orcs are a flesh eating race. I wonder how those evil human slaves fared in this land! I would not have relished living among the Orcs and Trolls. Would Orcs and Trolls be able to learn to live off animals for their meat or would they continue to want man flesh?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Oct 5, 2008 10:52:37 GMT -6
"SLAVES OF MORDOR!"
That's the passage, Stormrider.
I guess, as you point out, this all hinges on how we interpret the word "slave." Anyone under the control/ command of Sauron could metaphorically be called a "slave" of Sauron's, but I don't think that is how JRRT is using the word in this passage. Otherwise the Dunland folk would be called "slaves," the Easterlings, the Haradrim etc. as they were all under Sauron's influence/ control/ command. But here JRRT distinguishes the allies of Sauron from the actual "slaves" of Sauron. The allies are sent back to their homelands, but the "slaves" have no real homeland, so they get the less environmentally wasted zones of Mordor near Lake Nurnen.
Were the Orcs and Trolls "slaves?" In the general, metaphorical sense, yes, but they seem often to be quite independent, sent out on missions where they could easily escape if they wanted to -- remember Shagrat and Gorbag at the Tower of Cirith Ungol? Trolls like the Stone troll variety (William, Bert, Tom) were certainly a free independent group, but I think the Olog-hai, tied more closely to the will of Sauron, might be seen more as "slaves" to their master's will. But, it was my understanding that these "automaton" trolls died soon after Sauron's collapse, and I wonder if JRRT meant for us to think that the Orcs likewise died?
"The Captains bowed their heads; and when they looked up again, behold! their enemies were flying and the power of Mordor was scattering like dust in the wind. As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope." (RotK "The Field of Cormallen," p. 227 hbv, 279-80 pbv, emphasis mine)
The passage above, does not specifically say that ALL Orcs everywhere died like "witless ants," but it certainly implies they were not around after the last battle to give any significant resistance to the will of the new King. Then, the quote you give us from "The Steward and the King" makes careful mention of the Men: Dunlendings, Easterlings, Haradrim, and peoples of the South (Swertings and "Southrons," I suppose) but does not mention Orcs or Trolls. Why this omission?
Well, we still have the catchall category "slaves of Mordor:" are these Orcs/ Trolls? Not trolls I think, as they would have been the Olog-hai type of troll, and were not capable of independent action as they required Sauron's living mind to give them purpose and focus, Sauron goes out, these trolls go out. But maybe Orcs? Maybe...
So, do we have any other source material on "slaves" in this region of Mordor? The only passage I can find that connects the Lake of Nurnen with "slaves" comes on page 201 (hard-back version) RotK: "Neither he [Sam] nor Frodo knew anything of the great slave-worked fields away south in this wide realm, beyond the fumes of the Mountain by the dark sad waters of Lake Nurnen; nor of the great roads that ran away east and south to tributary lands, from which the soldiers of the Tower brought long wagon-trains of goods and booty and fresh slaves." (my emphasis)
From this passage, we find the source of the Lake Nurnen slaves to be the lands of the Easterling folk, and the Southrons, Men -- unless we want to assume there were independent Orc kingdoms out east and south, and Sauron was enslaving them, something for which Tolkien gives us no hint at all.
A second source of "slaves" is also found in RotK where these slaves are said to be captives from Gondor taken in border raids and set to work rowing the galleys of the Haradrim. " 'And then to each of the great ships that remained Aragorn sent one of the Dunedain, and they comforted the captives that were aboard, and bade them put aside fear and be free.' " (Rotk, "The Lat Debate," p. 152 hbv) And also: " 'That night we rested while others laboured. For there were many captives set free, and many slaves released who had been folk of Gondor taken in raids...' " (Rotk, p. 153).
So, Stormrider, regarding the "Slaves of Mordor..." I always took this to mean humans, Men folk taken in the long years of raiding-warfare. Some would be men and women of Gondor, some would be unfortunates from the Haradrim who ran afoul of their own leaders or Sauron's emissaries; but the great mass would be "recruited" from the Easterlings and Southrons. No where does JRRT mentioned enslaved Orcs and Trolls working in the agricultural fields of the Nurnen district, though nowhere does he specifically tell us there were no Orc farmer-slaves. I just don't see Orcs as making good farmers, even under the lash of strict overseers...
It does make good sense to me, that Aragorn would grant these human slaves of Mordor, the Southrons and the Easterlings, the very lands where they had been toiling as slaves. Does it make sense that Aragorn would allow the establishment of an agricultural Orc kingdom upon his eastern borders? Why would Tolkien fail to tell us specifically about so important and strange a situation? Well, I suppose, Orc farmers in Nurnen is still possible, but I just don't think it likely given the way Orcs are treated elsewhere in the Silmarillion texts and LotR.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Oct 5, 2008 13:46:45 GMT -6
After destroying the Lamps and after the Battle of the Powers when Melkor was defeated and chained for three ages, his servants continued multiplying and growing in strength in the pits of Angband where they hid after its destruction. How long is an age? Anyway, they had plenty of time to multiply without Melkor. I assume Sauron took over in his absence to cultivate these servants so they would be ready when Melkor was released. Later on in the Third Age, after Morgoth's overthrow, tribes of Orcs continued to multiply in the Misty Mountains, Mordor, Minas Morgul, Mirkwood, and Khazad-dûm. Were the Orcs living in the Misty Mountains during Bilbo's and the Dwarves' adventure under Sauron's control? Or were they living on their own there? They were under the finger of the Goblin King Robert Foster says: Huh? This is difficult to picture (at least to me) but in a way I guess it makes sense since there is no mention of female Orcs. I guess the eggs would be laid in some swampy, murky, stagnant pond to incubate. Anyway, what I am trying to say is: Orcs did not need Melkor or Sauron around to watch out for them. I think they would be very capable of not dying out without the direction of any evil Master. They ate human flesh, their own flesh, and even horse flesh. So they could survive on other animal meats if they really wanted to make a better life for themselves. But would they consider being more human a better way of life for themselves?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Oct 5, 2008 21:25:44 GMT -6
We have, I think, three separate questions here:
1. Did Aragorn include Orcs and possibly Trolls in the land-grant of the Lake Nurnen district?
2. Could/ did Orcs survive the last battle of the Third Age when Sauron was defeated?
3. How do Orcs procreate?
___________________
1. For the reasons I stated in Slaves of Mordor, above, it is my personal estimate that Orcs were not included in the Nurnen grants.
2. Here, Stormrider, you have an excellent set of points. I was thinking along the same lines. Apparently the Orcs survived quite well without Morgoth, but then they always had Sauron throughout the Second Age. Later, for extended periods of time they were without Sauron's direct/ active control (when Isildur took the One Ring). But we might argue that the loss of the Ring to Isildur reduced Sauron far less than its eventual destruction at the end of the Third Age. Perhaps some "sustaining" spirit of evil was constantly present during the Third Age, even though Sauron was diminished for a good portion of that time. But when the Ring was finally, fully destroyed by Gollum's misstep, Sauron was vastly more reduced than he had ever been. Perhaps the sustaining "will of his evil" then sank to such low levels that the Orcs could no longer live?
But, I don't think so. I see no real persuasive evidence for thinking that ALL Orcs were wiped out when the One Ring was unmade. I assume some, maybe those living far to the north in the Grey Mountains, maybe even those of Moria and some of Saruman's Orcs could have survived in hidden places. What then would be their later fates? Perhaps without the over-riding evil influence from Sauron, they would gradually grow less nasty, become more and more like the Goblins of The Hobbit, more like some of the nastier tribes of Men? They might eventually marry into some of the folk groups of mankind, and so leave their taint on all of us? That would explain why we today in the Fourth Age (or are we now the Fifth!?) are so bloody horrible to each other and to our environments? So, looking at ourselves in the mirror -- WE are the Orcs.
3. Tolkien mentioned somewhere in the Letters, I think, that no creature propagated except by the normal fashion: Orcs, descended of Elves, or even descended of Men, would still have sexual reproduction. Just as the Dwarves had their own women -- few, seldom recorded, and hard to distinguish from the males (Dis, sister of Thorin was the only named Dwarf female I know of, mother of Fili and Kili) -- so too the Orcs MUST have had females. Perhaps many of the smaller Orcs were females? I imagine JRRT just left Orc females out of the discussion, too messy to think about Orc motherhood, and maybe they so closely resembled the males only an Orc could tell the gender difference. We do know from the appendix of dates and The Hobbit that Bolg at Erebor, was directly descended from Azog of Moria -- though no mother's name is given. It's hard to see Azog reproducing by fission, or laying a self-fertilized egg.
I'll see if I can find the actual quote where Tolkien says that his speaking, humanoid creatures had to have sexual reproduction. Spawn, is just an old fashioned way of saying "gave birth to" -- we use it now mostly of fish and frogs, who fertilize the eggs externally, but even there, it is still bisexual reproduction from the joining of a male and a female.
Sigh, wish JRRT were still around, we'd keep him busy filling in the details for a hundred years!
|
|