|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 12, 2006 13:13:37 GMT -6
Fredegar:
1. "What I always wondered the most about orcs is whether they were all evil, mindless brutes?"
2. "Is it possible that there were good orcs or at least, rebellious ones? Orcs that didn't go in for all that warfare and servitude to the Eye? Would such a thing be possible or are they not allowed enough independent thought?"
3. "In Mordor, a rebel orc wouldn't live too long, I grant you. But what about one living in the Misty Mountains or some other remote location?"
I think it was TR's Megn1 who first worked out the concept of "dual use" for the Orcs in Tolkien:
A) In the narrative tales the Orcs are seen largely from the perspective of their enemies -- Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits and Men -- and in the minds of these "good" folk, the Orcs were rapacious monsters, never to be trusted, never pitied, unredeemable and deserving only death.
B) But, when one views the recorded history of Middle-earth from a philosophical/ religious stance, the Orcs can no longer be seen as All Evil, complete automatons -- they are thinking beings with a good deal of independence, they MUST have souls, and they must (somewhere along the line) have at least the prospect of receiving a personal redemption.
Whether there were "good" Orcs is a tricky matter depending upon the definition of "good" one wishes to employ. Tolkien, I think, would prefer to say that there might be "less evil" Orcs out there, but that the mere identity of Orkishness carries with it certain traits and dispositions that would make even the best of Orcs "uncomfortable company" for a Hobbit or an Elf. Nonetheless, Orcs did have to "behave" themselves from time to time in order to associate with Dwarves, and Men -- both groups (according to Tolkien) traded with one another.
Certainly by the time Saruman was breeding Men and Orcs he was getting a hybrid "squint-eyed" sallow-faced, man-orc that could move with some social ease among the fully human types. As "evil" as these half-orcs might be, they still fit in well with such unsavory human types as Bill Ferny in Bree, arguing that there is indeed a hierarchy of behavioral positions and dispositions among the Orc-kind.
Orcs that "escaped" the direct control of Morgoth and Sauron, must have existed aplenty, if the conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat (Two Towers, pb, 431) is any indication. Both Morgoth and Sauron were largely "missing" for extended periods of time when it would be possible for Orc bands to set off on their own and establish tribal holds or even kingdoms that would be largely independent. In such enclaves tucked away in the far Grey Mountains, or hidden in the caves of the Misty Mountains, I think it quite reasonable to assume that Orcs could have evolved on their own, perhaps moving gradually away from their original "anti-social" patterns and developing a more cooperative mode of living. In which case, why could there not, eventually appear, a decent sort of Orc?
If/ when you get your Orc-tale written up, I'd sure like to read it!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 12, 2006 13:24:36 GMT -6
RE Stormrider's: "It is a shame that JRRT was not able to finalize The Silmarillion the way he wanted it published before he died."
I think Tolkien's last attempt to derive Orcs largely from Men would have answered a lot of his readers' concerns, and may have kept some of us from feeling so distressed that the Elves could be so "mistreated." But now, I find I am transferring my shock and dismay to the poor humans who would be caught, corrupted, and alterred into Orcs.
I wonder if some of the same considerations might not still plague JRRT even if he used Men as the primary source for Orcs? Orc babies should, if we are going to fair, have a chance for a life free of the contaigions of their parents -- shouldn't they? Orc-Men should still have a chance for redemption, etc, etc...
Maybe because we are Men (Women) ourselves, and we know how low our species can sink, we do not look with the same eyes of pity upon Man-Orcs as we would upon Elf-Orcs?
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Feb 12, 2006 16:37:13 GMT -6
Wow, great posts, Andorinha! I'm always amazed the way your structure these like an essay. Nice job.
Personally, I never had a problem with the idea of orcs being derived from elves. In folklore, goblins are usually said to be the dark cousins of faeries so in my mind, it made sense that orcs were related to elves.
I suppose the gradual move towards orcs being derived from men is simply because (as you say) we know how corrupt and cruel our species can be so the idea that we could fall even further and become orcs is not that much of a stretch. Tolkien seems to be wanting to keep the elves pure and uncorruptable in that later revision. But I prefer the earlier version. I think it's a powerful warning to both the Children of Iluvatar (men and elves alke) if even a noble and supernatural race like the Eldar can fall.
As for my story, the peaceful orc is but one character in it, not the star. I also have a pixie knight, a self-doubting elf, an over-the-top barbarian, a whiny kobold, etc. Various characters that kind of play around with fantasy stereotypes. I was thinking of posting part of the story in the TR Inklings section (like Androga did for his story). Would you guys be interested in that?
|
|
|
Post by Desi Baggins on Feb 12, 2006 18:44:59 GMT -6
I am always interested to read new stories, so post away...
I never had a problem with orcs coming from Elves...I can see how the corruption would shorten an orcs life though. I think it is good to demonstrate that even what you consider the purest being can be corrupted. I think that there is no perfect race, everyone has it's flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Feb 13, 2006 14:01:36 GMT -6
Okay, so Desi votes I should post a segment. Even if I just post Chapter 1 though, it'd be pretty long, not a short story like Androga's. Is that okay?
|
|
|
Post by Desi Baggins on Feb 13, 2006 16:10:53 GMT -6
it doesn't matter how long....though you might have to make several posts...I am not sure how many characters are allowed in one post....
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 12, 2009 18:21:29 GMT -6
The following posts have been retrieved from the old TR MSN group forum and added to this discussion.
This topic is from the Entities forum entitled "Orc Lore" begins with Reply #21 and ends with Reply#23:
Message 1 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 (Original Message) Sent: 3/10/2002 1:56 PM I have about a dozen messages concerning the Orcs that I copied down from the previous Barnes and Noble discussion. Would it be helpful to reproduce that topic line here, or should we start from scratch? The B&N line includes statements from DeadChickenMan, BillFuller, Karo6, SandySOS, Megn1, MusicMom (before she became GrandMusicMom).
Any thoughts on how to proceed here?
First Previous 2-16 of 43 Next Last Delete Replies Reply Recommend Delete Message 2 of 43 in Discussion From: Stormrider Sent: 3/10/2002 6:07 PM I am sure a review of our old thoughts would be an inspiration lighting our flames of passion for re-discussing this topic. A review would help refresh our memories as well. Stormrider
Reply Recommend Delete Message 3 of 43 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 3/10/2002 9:15 PM I'm always willing to beat a dead orc... Actually, I think I lost that argument in terms of the logical debate. But I'm stiff-necked, and will live in MY Middle Earth, where the orcs sole purpose is to be arrow-fodder. Perhaps some others would like to weigh in on this debate. Post away!
Reply Recommend Delete Message 4 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 9:59 PM Alright then, as I rest up from severe wounds inflicted upon my vanity by a wrathful DaleAnn, I'll lighten myself of these archived burdens regarding the mooted right of Orcs to claim the respect accorded other entities in Middle Earth. I'll place these down individually so that they may be later edited by their individual authors without their having to handle the entire corpus each time they made an emendation.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 5 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 10:03 PM From: DeadChickenMan
Date: 02/07/02 15:44 EST Subject: Race and Orcs
Message:
In a previous "blanket" of conversation, we arrived at a few conclusions (I think), but were left with a few questions about the relevance of our conclusions to the race of orcs. The question was... Did the Orcs ever have a chance for the nobility the numenoreons or "high" elves obtained? If not, does this imply that in Tolkiens mind there really could be inferior races that their fate is not in their own power? Could they ever become of "high-race" or "fair to look upon?" We know that the orcs were created by Melkor in his attempt to mimick Eru's life creating ability. We know that they were elves "corrupted" by Melkor's arts, just after the "firstborn" awoke. The troubling part is that they never seem to of had that enobling option that we have discussed. My own guess is that Tolkien considered them a "life-form" or animal that, although somewhat intelligent, was a result of the ultimate debasement of the firstborn. They were bread like animals, and infested the mountains "like maggots".
Any insight here? Maybe we can come to a conclusion that fits with our other thoughts. It seems to me that our other conclusions leave the Orcs out cold.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 6 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 10:07 PM From: BillFuller
Date: 02/07/02 22:04 EST Subject: re: Race and Orcs
Message:
We know that the orcs were created by Melkor in his attempt to mimick Eru's life creating ability. We know that they were elves "corrupted" by Melkor's arts, just after the "firstborn" awoke.
Inasmuch as the orcs are an artificially created race, I assume that they are what they are (apologies to Popeye) and do not have the ability or opportunity to become a "high race." By creating the orcs through his arts, Melkor locked them into the incarnation he made. They do not appear to evolve, except perhaps to become ever more corrupt and dangerous. Perhaps we can see them as somewhat analogous to Star Trek's race of Borg in terms of their artificiality and consequently unchanging nature. On the other hand, Jurassic Park tells us that "Nature will find a way," so if we want to play with future possibilities (though this leaves Tolkien behind), we can have the orcs become anything we wish. Actually, I was thinking of comparing the orcs to Boston terriers, another artificially created life form that superficially resembles a sort of natural canine, but I thought that would be needlessly cruel to any of our colleagues who might actually have some. (Ouch! Ouch! All you Boston owners let up now. I was just kidding, for Pete's sake!)
Bill d
Reply Recommend Delete Message 7 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 10:17 PM From: Karo6
Date: 02/08/02 15:13 EST
Subject: re:Race and Orcs
Orc Lore: Part I - Introduction
In order to understand how Tolkien envisioned the Goblin-Orcs of Middle Earth, and to make plausible statements regarding their "racial" status, their "moral" status, and determine their "redeemability" (if any) I found it both necessary and enjoyable to start the collecting of a treatise on Orc Lore. I would like to present it here before addressing specifically the questions of a philosophic-religious nature that the existence of the Orcs seems to provoke.
From the esteemed and learned DCM:
"Did the Orcs ever have a chance for the nobility the numenoreons or "high" elves obtained? If not, does this imply that in Tolkiens mind there really could be inferior races that their fate is not in their own power?"
From BillFuller, Megn1 and my less esteemable but vastly voluble self:
"Did Orcs choose to become Evil of their own will? Do they deserve to be treated as foul, and fully Evil beings worthy only of extermination? Are they a static, non-evolving race, an "artificial construct?" What is their likely end after the Rings lose all power, and the One is destroyed - do they vanish from the world, or simply amalgamate with Men and so influence the further wanning of mankind in the latter days of human domination? "
From the often satirical, but nonetheless astute and esteemable Billfuller who asks, among other questions: Do Orcs really resemble in character the smaller, more yappy, lap-dogish breeds of our canine pets?
Throughout the corpus of his Middle Earth publications Tolkien maintains the pleasant fiction that it is a very real place, with real peoples, and real histories. In his own mind, Tolkien did not so much "create" his characters, his dragons, Elves, Ents and Orcs as simply discover them in the many ancient manuscripts that were his "sources" of information. From these sources, acting as philologist, naturalist, historian and narrator, Tolkien often found multiple reasons, and diverse explanations for the detailed events, and personae of this world. In this sense we can rarely find a "definitive" answer for any of the deeper questions, and all our efforts at understanding the place of Orcs in the Middle Earth scheme are going to be highly interpretational. Tolkien himself often discriminates among these sources, finding some to be very persuasive and valid (the official annals of Gondor for example) while to others he gives lesser credence as being merely common rumours, fairy tales and half forgotten Hobbit myth.
So it is that an investigation into the Lore of Orcs reveals a tangled mass of many threads, some directly contradictory. In the "lighter toned" recollections of Bilbo's "There and Back Again," the origins of the Goblins is not a matter of much concern, and while we may learn a great deal from this source regarding their appearances, politics, technological preferences, dietary habits, and manners of daily comportment, we learn little of substance about their ancestry. They are a seperate "race" already in "The Hobbit," distinguished from Men, Elves, and Dwarves though having had a past history of contact and connexions with all these other Peoples of Middle Earth -- even invading the Shire on occasion (Battle of Greenfields, Shire Reckoning 1147). But the only hints from Hobbitish sources directly addressing the matter of Orcish "race" and ancestries comes in the form of "gossips." Tolkien tells us that the "more respectable" and settled of the Hobbits explained the unorthodox Tookish penchant for mad adventure as the result of some rumoured liasions which introduced a strain of the Fairy breed among them, or, more maliciously, a touch of the Goblin kind. (Tolkien-Gandalf scoffs quite openly at the chance of either of these interbreedings being likely.)
We are told in both the Hobbit and the LOTR that Dwarves, of the more suspiciously disreputable sort, had dealings with the Goblins/ Orcs, but such contacts seem to have been restricted to matters of mutual, monetary gain and I have found not even a hint or a suspicion that the closely guarded females of the Dwarves (Dis being the only named "Dwarvess" I have located) ever had anything to do with Orcs. Any interbreeding of Dwarf and Orc would most likely then involve renegade male Dwarves and whatever might pass as the female type of the Goblins. So among the "humane-looking" races (Tolkien's term for "humanoid") only the Elves and Men are ever definitely reported as having some connection, genetically, with each other, and with the Orcs.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 8 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 10:27 PM From: Karo6 Date: 02/08/02 16:12 EST Subject: re: Race and Orcs
Message: Orc Lore: Part II - Origins and Diversity
The Silmarillion recounts the origin of Orcs as coming from the malevolence of Melko-Morgoth in the Great Dark before the Sun and Moon. Melkor was the first of the Valar to find the Elves, just after their awakening (Sil. p. 49). His servants, in the guise of dark shadow-shapes stalked about or overflew the lands of Cuivienen, capturing some of the primal Quendi. The Elves believed at first that those thus lost were devoured, but later it was reported (Sil. p. 50) that none knew for certain the fate of these unfortunates:
"But of those unhappy ones who were ensnared by Melkor little is known of a certainty. ... Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressea, that all of those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno [his fortress] was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes."
In further explaining the Orcs, this source continues to detail that they did not come into existence from puddles of protoplasmic ooze (as do Jackson's celluloid Uruk Hai), but bred "after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar [the Elves]..." (Silmarillion p. 50) So here at least we have a source that takes for granted the sexual generation of the Orcs implying then that "Lady Orcs" (even less discussed and less visibly present than Dwarvish females?) were available from these early days onward.
Certainly "racial mixing" was possible in Middle Earth, as the Elves and Men could and did intermingle to produce viable offspring. Whether in the long dark year's of the clash between the Elves and Morgoth there were continual "forced unions" of Orcs and Elves, and later such unions between Orcs and Men, we are not told. But when Tolkien details the "Fall of Gondolin," he speaks metaphorically of the "rape and sack" of that city, and perhaps rape indeed might be seen here as a part of the sorry lot of those Elvish females (and males?) taken in such battles? Celebrian, daughter of Galadriel is taken and "tormented" by the Orcs without specific details given, but I suppose if the Orcs are sexual creatures, and driven by the evil of their creator, rape would again be a likely consequence which Tolkien, a product of more delicate times, did not see fit to enlarge upon.
Whether or not such "forced unions" were a common means for the Orcs to recruit and repair their numbers will remain an uncertain and dark speculation, but a likely one, for "breeding like maggots" while carrying the disgusting undertones of "insect-generation from the slime," nonetheless still implies a sexual union (after the fashion of the Children of Iluvatar) in the act of this reproduction.
In the LOTR we are given as one of the great evils of Saruman, his deliberate "breeding" program, blending the races of Orc and Man in a systematic fashion to produce his Uruk-Hai. Specifics are again lacking, but the creation of this "sub-species" would require sexual unions between Men and Orcs. And there are indications elsewhere that Saruman's program may not have been the first such mingling between Men and Orcs.
In "Unfinished Tales" Tolkien discusses the "Woses," the Druedain, of whom Ghan-buri-Ghan was one. These are Atani, Men, descendents of a female leader Haleth, and known to the Elves as the "Folk of Haleth," and having women as some of their best leaders and warriors. Among these Woses there are many peculiar traits that do not follow the norms expected for a race of Men. They were able to "sniff" out changes in the weather and were "... unlovely in looks: they were stumpy (some four foot high) but very broad, with heavy buttocks and short thick legs..." (Unfinished Tales - p377 ff).
Tolkien speculates on these strange physical aspects of the Woses, but never fully ascribes to any of the sources regarding these matters, he merely presents the data recovered from both the accounts of Gondor and of Rohan as they impinge upon the lore of the races. Here he focuses upon more than physical appearances, in which the Orcs and Woses share certain common elements. For he also finds unusual and significant the "implacable" hatred of the Druedain for the Orcs. Here he compares this hate to the similar Elvish, burning hatred of Orcs, and assumes these kindred intense hates had a similar foundation - a long and sorry history of forced interbreeding Tolkien, as narrator and interpreter of Middle Earth histories, relates the belief that this special hate of Wose for Orc came from some "remote kinship which accounted for their special enmity" (Unfinished Tales p.385).
Whatever the precise genetic mixings of the Orcs, Tolkien presents us with many sources that portray these sentient, sapient, speaking peoples as being extremely heterogenous. Orcs come in a wide range of body builds, heights, skin tones (some pale of face, other black), and a few having some peculiar biological-functional specializations as when the "nosers," the trackers, are refered to as possesing superb "sniffing" skills almost as though they were specially bred for that very purpose. The Orc Captain whom Aragorn slays in the Chamber of Mazarbul was almost man high, while other Orcs were scarcely larger than a Hobbit. Certainly Sam and Frodo could pass with remarkable ease as Orcs during their forced march across Mordor in the Goblin battalion that was racing to its muster before the battle at the Black Gate. Gollum is also portrayed in "The Hobbit" as having been able to hunt and devour the lesser Goblins, the "Imps." Perhaps these "Imps" were small adults, and perhaps they were the young of the Orkish kind?
So, do the Orcs count in Middle Earth as a People? Are they an example of a "pejoratively presented" race? Are they entitled to the same chances of redemption given an erring Saruman, a Grima Wormtongue, or a Gollum?
Part III - "Moral" Implications to follow.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 9 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 10:36 PM From: Megn1
DRAT! Somewhere in spouting all my usual steam and smoke I have lost the next message and have only my notes from which to re-construct it:
Megn1:
1) Middle Earth is/was a real place, and I am glad Tolkien discovered it.
2) Bad guys come in two categories a. totally evil and b. mixed evil with potential for good (however small).
3) Now, in the real world, there is no such thing as a purely evil enemy.
4) Whatever their origins, I think Tolkien's orcs are irredeemable because a good story needs a purely evil foe.
Reply Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Delete Message 10 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 10:53 PM From: Karo6
Subject: Race and Orcs
Message: Priming the Pump
Thank you Megn1 for joining the discussion, sigh, it gives me two new points to address in this closing section of my thoughts on DCM's thread "Race and Orcs." Here I will try to treat the following observations:
DCM:
1) Did the Orcs ever have a chance for the nobility the numenoreons or "high" elves obtained?
2) If not, does this imply that in Tolkiens mind there really could be inferior races that their fate is not in their own power? ... The troubling part is that they never seem to of had that enobling option that we have discussed.
3. They were bread like animals, and infested the mountains "like maggots". Any insight here?
*********
BillFuller:
1) Inasmuch as the orcs are an artificially created race, I assume that they are what they are ... and do not have the ability or opportunity to become a "high race."
2) By creating the orcs through his arts, Melkor locked them into the incarnation he made.
3) Borgs - Jurassic Park and the uncanny canine resemblances between "lap dogs" and Orcs.
***********
Megn1:
1) Middle Earth is/was a real place, and I am glad Tolkien discovered it.
2) Bad guys come in two categories: a. totally evil and b. mixed evil with potential for good (however small).
3) Now, in the real world, there is no such thing as a purely evil enemy.
4) Whatever their origins, I think Tolkien's orcs are irredeemable because a good story needs a purely evil foe.
Orc Lore: PART III - "Moral" Implications
These are extremely good insights from all of my colleagues and were I less perverse in my pesistent, personal "Evil," I would merely cut things short here, congratulate everyone, and go watch "Shrek" for the third time. But being "irredeemable" myself, I find I must continue my "brief" for the downtrodden, scorned, abused and maligned Peoples of Middle Earth. In short I will try to make the case for the Orkish Kind since none of them are (apparently) here to make it for themselves. I think that the Orcs do deserve some sort of possible redemption, and that there actually is a mechanism built into the historical dynamic of Middle Earth that makes this "redeeming" quite probable.
First we must be clear that there is actually something important at stake in this discussion. It centers on the question of Tolkien's potentially "pejoratively - bigoted - racism." As DeadChickenMan puts it, if Tolkien allows the Orcs to be viewed as "totally evil" and irredeemable he had better come up with good reasons for this stance, or "If not, does this imply that in Tolkien's mind there really could be inferior races" ... whose fates were NOT to be determined by their own "free-will" choices?
Here, I think we are agreed that a basic element of this discussion is whether or not the Orcs can be considered "People." In our previous discussion on racism in general, I pointed out that slavery, in our real world, was made acceptable by the development of a bigoted form of racism, under-pinned by the pseudo-science of Social Darwinism. The best defense for a system of slavery is to simply deny Human Status to the slave. Few of us, even today, find much "morally wrong" in our "enslavement" of horses, cows, pigs, chickens etc., because we have never granted them human status, human rights, and dignities.
This is one way out of our dilemma in the context of Middle Earth: we can deny "People" status to the Orcs. Then, no matter how poorly they fare in Tolkien's writings he cannot be charged with pejorative racism. Orcs as "Total Evil," or as an "artificial construct group," are not a real Race of People, and therefore there is no race prejudice involved in seeing them all "put to" Megn1's sword.
Orcs are not People! If this were so, the debate would end right here and no concern for their possible redemption need be proffered, and Tolkien would be showing no race bias by ignoring their plight in Middle Earth, because they are NOT a Race of People.
But as I tried to show in the "Origins Section," the Orcs ARE a people. They are sentient, sapient, self-aware and they have linguistic communications. They EVEN SING -- at least when they are at home and contemplating a good meal of fresh pony-meat. Their "DNA" may be malformed, but it is not a new and artificially created "DNA," the Orcs are twisted Elves, and possibly twisted Early Men from the Druidan group. They reproduce just as do the other "Children of Iluvatar," by sexual union. Their behaviour patterns may be exaggerated toward the more belligerent and selfish end of the Elvish-Mankind spectrum, but all the actions they perform are found among the other races of Middle Earth.
As Gandalf and Aragorn already know -- and as Merry, Pippin, Sam and Frodo soon find out from first hand, close experience -- the Orcs sweat, they eat, they drink (fouled substances if that is all there is available), and this Orc food and water can be choked down by Hobbits in dire need. The Orc "cordial" burns like raw alcohol in the throats and gullets of Pippin and Merry, but it does "restore" their vigour, just as the Orc-grease medication staunches Merry's wound, and prevents infection (though it leaves a disfiguring scar). Orcs show a need for clothing, a need for status and the status markers of rank. Orcs respond well to preferential treatment. They live in complex societies, and as even a brief acquaintance with Shagrat, Gorbag, and Grishnakh should show, Orcs have very well-developed, independent personalities - they are not "Borgs."
Two of the Orcs hunting Frodo and Sam "look forward" wistfully to improving their lots in life by going off, after the impending war, to "set-up on their own." Certainly this is a dandy bit of "free enterprizing" spirit? Orcs get tired, they complain, get cranky and slaughter each other, but can still drop all internecine arguments and unite in the face of a common foe. Are these not the characteristics of a People? Don't all these behaviours reproduce themselves in Men, in Dwarves, in Elves? There is a difference in the quantity and intensity of the evils that Orcs do - but not a qualitative difference. So if the "DNA" origins of the Orcs give them a "People" status, and if their activities are merely a more pronounced and pervasive form of the same "evil" found among the other Peoples, I find it very difficult to accept these Orcs as anything other than a valid, if squalid Race of People.
If we accept Orcs as a race, as a People, we are still left with DCM's primary question: were the Orcs so responsible for their own plight that they are to be considered irredeemable? The first Orcs resulted from an act of kidnapping, followed by "brainwashing," and physical tortures that must remain unimaginable to us. None of us will face alone, and unaided in our pliable first years, the full threat and horror of the greatest of the Valar (in terms of original power). How much control over their destinies were these "broken Elves" allowed, how many "free-will" choices did they get to make in the processes that saw them twisted from their original status to become these pitiful creatures of foul aspect and fouler deeds? It appears at this point, that Tolkien's treatment of the Orcs as a Race of People set aside, abandonned and left irredeemable through no choice or cause they could avoid, seems very unfair, and smacks of simple Race Prejudice.
But even at this low spot in the weary road, I see a glimmer of hope. BillFuller wonders if the Orcs are not a static, non-evolving group, perhaps some among them are, but others do "evolve." If an Orc is "totally evil" as Megn1 suggests, what happens when that Orc is bred with a human? The off-spring are, as Tolkien translates it, "half-orcs," sneering, whining, gangrel creatures (my sister!), but still one step further upward along the path toward the ennoblement of the morally, upwardly-mobile. The squint-eyed southerner, Bill Ferny's "friend," is half-orkish as were many dealt with at Orthanc and probably some others in the Shire at the time of the "Scouring". What is their fate in the brave new world of Mankind? While those Orcs who were too far gone in evil might have cast themselves into pits, or slaughtered each other in despair after Sauron's fall, what became of the survivors? As nasty as we humans seem to be today, I would think that they simply "ennobled" themselves through a bit of clever "evolving" by slipping unnoticed into the Human gene pool (Jurassic Park -"nature will find a way?").
So Megn1, if "MiddleEarth is/was a real place, and I am glad Tolkien discovered it." Why would you expect the Orcs to be unrealistically, totally evil? A Middle Earth that is so real surely has a place in it for realistic, redeemable Orcs? Why should the Orcs be any less real than the other Peoples and the other villains found there? Tolkien would have to be very prejudiced to single them out as the only irredeemables in Middle Earth. Morgoth got second chances, so did Sauron, Saruman, Grima, Boromir, Denethor, and even Gollum -- why deny the possibility of a redemption or an "ennobling evolution" for the Orcs, creatures who were twisted into great evil by outside powers of overwhelming force? The story works just as well if you hate the evil deeds Orcs do, and not the Orcs themselves. Tolkien continually shows his good characters as being motivated by pity, does it make Gollum's evil acts less evil, if Frodo and even Sam find some pity and understanding for him? Extend this gift to the Orcs, hug a dirty little Shagrat today! Not too much to ask is it? After all, he could be one of YOUR Middle Earth ancestors! Well...
The main loose end in all of this, for me, is still BillFuller's observation, that if Orcs may be validly comparable to "lap dogs" (your breed choice here) do they deserve a chance at redemption?
Dead Silence from me on that score... .
Reply Recommend Delete Message 11 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 10:57 PM From: SandySOS
Date: 02/09/02 08:15 EST
Subject: re: Race and Orcs Message:
<< The main loose end in all of this, for me, is still Bill Fuller's observation, that if Orcs may be validly comparable to "lap dogs" (your breed choice here) do they deserve a chance at redemption? >>
W/deep humility in light of your vast knowledge, eloquence & cogent mind, I will offer a brief perspective on this loose end.
Of course they do. Whether they were under a spell, as it were, or programmed, or genetically engineered to behave in vile ways, it all returns to the belief in a people's (& you did convince me, Karo6, that Orcs are a people....brava!) free will (one can change if one chooses to) & the gift that Tolkien's Christ gave..... forgiveness of foul play & the chance to redeem oneself.
What greater hero than the foul Orc who sees the error of her/his ways & sets up an Orc healing/recovery center? (only jesting but you see my point.)
SandySOS
Reply 0 recommendations Message 12 of 43 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 3/11/2002 10:59 PM This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 13 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 11:00 PM From: MusicMom
Date: 02/09/02 17:23 EST Subject: re: Race and Orcs Message:
Masterfully done and a very interesting read. Thanks.
One obeservation: Does anyone "deserve" a chance at redemption? It is a gift--not an entitlement and not earned. However, it does have to be accepted when it is offered (hence, Gollum's "fall.") According to many theologians (Catholics included) everyone is offered at least one chance for redemption.
Therefore, theoretically, if Orcs are People (and I think you have demonstrated they are) then they should have that chance. Of course, the catch is we don't always recognize the chance when it is offered--that is the power of evil (the Ring often "blinded" people to the good that was offered them).
(BTW--how do y'all get italics and bold on this board? I have needed them several times but have been unbale to find them.)
MusicMom
Reply Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Delete Message 14 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 11:06 PM From Karo6 Date: 02/10/02 21:20 EST
Subject: re:SandySOS and MusicMom
Message:
Although, at first blush, I might be tempted to smile at your "Orc Healing and Recovery Center," Sandy, I think that it is the logical outcome of the "pity and redemption motif" that I find throughout "The Hobbit" and the LOTR. As I think upon it now, mercy, pity and redemption would be crippled things if they were not given a universal scope -- what use would these concepts be if they were doled out in a stingy fashion? "Sorry Denethor, we've used up our quota of pity for the day in getting poor Gollum through his redemption, you'll just have to suffer!"
So I think that if pity, mercy, redemption are not to be things of cheap mockery, they should be available to all and sundry, even Orcs, and whether or not the All take advantage of the offers. Here I like MusicMom's statement that "we don't always recognize the chance when it is offered"but they still "should have that chance."
Following the idea that other stories remain to be discovered in Middle Earth, [what was Radagast doing, how did Bilbo's relative Isengar (1262-1360 Third Age) ever wind up on a sea voyage? (ROTK appendix C, p. 475)] there may well be a very good chance, that somewhere, somewhen in Middle Earth some Orc stopped one night just to stare in wonder at the stars above. Might not this gentler Orc even find the fragrance of the Elvish flowers pleasant? LOL
MusicMom, common html tags seem to work here [at Barnes and Noble] for boldface, italics, centering - not sure about colours... to get such features I use the < and > brackets around B for bold, "I" for italics, P for paragraph break and < cente> for centering. To end a given process with no extra spaces inside the brackets.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 15 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 11:09 PM From:SandySOS
Date: 02/11/02 12:00 EST Subject: re: Karo6:SandySOS and MusicMom
Message:
<< So I think that if pity, mercy, redemption are not to be things of cheap mockery, they should be available to all and sundry, even Orcs, and whether or not the All take advantage of the offers. >>
You are confusing me w/MusicMom I said that Orcs absolutely should be given a chance at redemption. MusicMom brought in the notion of a one-chance-only situation, which I disagree with. I believe that with every decision we make throughout each day, we are given the opportunity to redeem ourselves.
SandySOS
Reply Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Delete Message 16 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 11:12 PM From: MusicMom Date: 02/12/02 16:13 EST Subject: re: Karo6:SandySOS and MusicMom
Message:
Sandy, I think you misunderstood me. I said that everyone gets AT LEAST one chance (i.e. there is no one who does not get a chance for redemption). Therefore, if we accept Karo6's premise that orc's are "people" they definitely get offered a chance for redemption. They may get more than one chance, but they are guarenteed at least one. Again, redemption does depend on accepting that chance (or one if the chances if you are fortunate to get more).
MusicMom
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 12, 2009 18:27:29 GMT -6
Message 17 of 43 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 3/11/2002 11:13 PM This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Delete Message 18 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 11:17 PM FROM: Megn1
Date: 02/13/02 14:07 Subject: re: Race and Orcs
Message:
in response to part III - moral implications:
No. No. No. I don’t want to hear it.
Orcs, as people? But then we can no longer smile at Gimli’s contest with Legolas, or his saying that all he asks is a row of orc necks to hew.
When Sam witnesses death in a battle of men against men, he is saddened. He looks on the fallen enemy’s face, and wonders about his home and family, and what he would have preferred to be doing, instead of fighting this war. (Paraphrasing here, I’m doing this without my books!) Are we supposed to look at the dead orc and wonder what he might have been, if he had been given a chance? Are we supposed to try to make peace with the orcs ? help them to see the error of their ways?
I’m saying all this tongue-in-cheek, because I know that you are probably right. Of course I know that in the real world evil and good are always mixed in each person, so there is no pure enemy whom we can set out to exterminate. I think Tolkien knew that as well. It is precisely for the reason that I like my alternate worlds to have a pure evil. Give me some straight-forward adventure, with no question what to do about the bad guys.
So I’ll join Gimli, as soon as I get my axe. l
Reply 0 recommendations Message 19 of 43 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 3/11/2002 11:20 PM This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 20 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 3/11/2002 11:24 PM LOL - Last one in the archived batch Glorfindle - and feel free to remove any of these that are actually under my name, Karo6, and I guess the same, after consulting with each of the others listed above. I thought I had this cleared with Algamesh before B&N closed down, but I did not re-consult with him personally just now! Yikes! I'll clear out now!
TO Megn1:
I think I understand your point here, Megn1. Sometimes I heartily agree with it - let me have something simple once in a while, no torn loyalties, no conflicts of conscience, no guilt to come creeping upon me later...
In Tolkien's world we see examples of that same wish for simplification, it occurs throughout the trilogy, the tendency of Hobbits to fence themselves in, and fence the complexities of the larger world out.
I even view Galadriel as one who seeks to hold at arms length that which does not please her mind, that which does not fit her vision of a "proper" Elf kingdom. So Loth Lorien, under the protective girdle of her ring, becomes another shelter, another refuge, as does Rivendell. But the Elves who shelter there, pretending that they are still living in the Elder Days, are merely hiding on a reservation of sorts and as Treebeard puts it, they are dreaming in there and each year becoming less and less engaged in the wider world, "falling behind the times."
But Tolkien then reminds us that the price of maintaining such enclaves of pure simplicity, is the fostering of a sort of ignorance, an ignorance that leaves the Shire folk unsuited and unready to handle the complex subtleties of the larger world, an ignorance that leads to the relatively easy takeover by the manipulative, very complex, part evil, part good and very realistic Saurman.
Seems there is a realistic price to be paid for everything, even simplicity?
Reply 0 recommendations Message 21 of 43 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 3/11/2002 11:31 PM This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply 0 recommendations Message 22 of 43 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 3/11/2002 11:34 PM This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 23 of 43 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 3/11/2002 11:40 PM I agree Bill, the orcs soon became a 'high race' after their dalliance with the editors of the 'Harvard Lampoon'. Once the smoke cleared, the 'Uruk High' found themselves way 'left' of Mordor, and were considering a guest spot on 'Saturday Night Live'. To the consternation of Sauron, his 'mouth', raised his own funds, (mostly from writing campaign speeches for republicans) and decided to debate the fate of Middle-earth on the 'Capitol Gang'. Aaron Brown became enraged, not getting the exclusive, and tore his bad toupee off, casting it into the fires of Mt. Doom. This caused a chain reaction, and the members of congress suddenly grew pointed ears. Luckily, these too did not work. Meanwhile, back at the whitehouse, Grima was selling tickets to the 'Lincoln Bedroom', secretly raising gold for the 'Bring an Orc to work' fund. Not to be outdone, the Nazgul caught wind of the imminent passing of the campaign fund reform bill, and called a Filabuster. It was confusing at first, but once all nine began speaking at once, the house settled back into its usual contemplative state. Now, orcs are seen everywhere. They have thier own sit-coms, seats in both the senate and the house, (which is a quite similar thing), they are active in sports and the military (again, very similar), and just last nite, I caught Gorbag on Jay Leno. So, you see the debate about the Orcs and their ability to evolve into a 'higher, good race' is a moot point. Just ask Doubyaa! Glor
Reply Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Delete Message 24 of 43 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 3/12/2002 4:57 AM As much as I dislike taking "Little Smoky's" (Karo6) side in any argument, I must agree that Orcs are sapient and that they are not wholly evil. Tolkien addressed these issues in his Letters. Letter#153- "Treebeard does not say that the Dark Lord 'created' Trolls and Orcs. He says he 'made' them in counterfeit of certain creatures pre-existing. There is, to me, a wide gulf between the two statements, so wide that Treebeard's statement could (in my world) have possibly been true. It is not true actually of the Orcs - who are fundamentally a race of 'rational incarnate' creatures, though horribly corrupted, if no more so than many Men to be met today." Letter#183-"In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants..."
Reply Recommend Delete Message 25 of 43 in Discussion From: MusicMom Sent: 3/12/2002 8:39 AM Do you think that Tolkien's view of the Shire's not recognizing what evil lurked outside its boundaries might have been influenced by Britain's attitude toward Hitler when he was first coming to power--unwilling to recognize how great that evil would become? I somtimes think the USA took a similar attitude toward terrorism--"something the world would have to live with" until it struck so forcefully at home. I imagine the terrorists were taken by surprise by the magnitude of our response. Most of our responses to terrorism in the past had been more rhetoric than concerted action. We often would "treat the symptoms" as Gondor had been doing for years (a necessary function, I agree) but had not been willing to tackle the source (or sources) until we were so greatly provoked. Just a few serious thoughts--reading Tolkien seriously seems to have that effect on me! I believe Tolkien called it "applicability?" of his stories. MusicMom
Reply Recommend Delete Message 26 of 43 in Discussion From: DeadChickenMan Sent: 3/13/2002 5:01 PM Excellent point MusicMom! Ask yourself when was the last time we retaliated in force to an encroachment. I think that you would have to go back to the Reagan administration. Kobar (sp?) towers, The USS Cole, The two embasies... It has been almost 20 years since we have responded in a major way to their force. While I think Tolkien had the UK in mind when referring to Hobbits, I think our situation is closer to that of Gondor as you pointed out. I think you could easily say the USS Coal was our version of The Tower of the Moon being taken. DCM--PS. Its nice to see your name with us. I know this is kind of late but, I was afraid there when this first started that we would have to do without your silmaril like voice.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 27 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 5/15/2002 4:42 PM Some while ago we were discussing the entwined topics of racism in Tolkien and his use of "blackness" regarding the Orcs. Unable at that time to precisely locate my sources for the statement that Orcs came in a variety of skin hues (as well as sizes and specialized functions), I have now located the most pertinent passage -- at least concerning skin colour:
"The Letters of JRR Tolkien," H. Carpenter, # 210: June 1958 p274.
"Why does Z* put beaks and feathers on Orcs!? (Orcs is not a form of Auks.) The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."
*Z = Morton Grady Zimmerman, a gentleman who had wanted to bring The Lord of the Rings to the big screen.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 28 of 43 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 6/19/2002 10:38 PM This thread has been dormant for a long time. And some might say that sleeping dogs should be allowed to lie. However, as I make my way through Tolkien’s Letters, I have found a few relevant passages.
From Letter #71, which was written by J.R.R. Tolkien to his son Christopher, while Christopher was training with the R.A.F. in South Africa during WWII. Evidently Christopher has been dealing with some trying people.
"I hope that you will have some more leave in genuine Africa, ere too long. Away from the ‘lesser servants of Mordor’. Yes, I think the orcs as real a creation as anything in ‘realistic’ fiction: your vigorous words well describe the tribe; only in real life they are on both sides, of course. For ‘romance’ has grown out of ‘allegory’, and its wars are still derived from the ‘inner war’ of allegory in which good is on one side and various modes of badness on the other. In real (exterior) life men are on both sides: which means a motley alliance of orcs, beasts, demons, plain naturally honest men, and angels. But it does make some difference who are your captains and whether they are orc-like per se!"
And from Letter #78, also written to Christopher in South Africa. Evidently in their correspondence they have used the term "Urukhai" to refer to particularly orc-like people.
"Urukhai is only a figure of speech. 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 (though I fear it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle.)"
The first quote, from letter #71, suggests that Tolkien understood his writings to be a "romance," which meant that even though it was not allegory, he did intend that it be a battle of "good" vs "evil." He knew, as we all do, that no real life battle is ever so cleanly defined. Even in his romance there was the possibility of evil infecting those on the side of good. And some who fought on the side of evil did so because they were misled or coerced, and had within them something of good. Nevertheless, good and evil can be clearly labeled, and found in a pure and unmixed form. This is an intentional departure from the real world.
The second quote clearly shows that the Uruks (orcs) are in a different category from fallen men. Tolkien implies that they were "made bad by the intention of their maker." This is somewhat confusing, because Ainulindale is clear that Melkor did not have the power to "make" anything with independent life. Yet clearly he crafted the orcs into what they became. And he intended them for evil.
Most importantly, as I read this latter quote, it seems to clearly imply that orcs are irredeemable. He is saying that bad men are not Uruks, because they are not irredeemable. If the redeemability of a bad man is what sets him apart from an orc, it follows that orcs are irredeemable.
So there!
Reply Recommend Delete Message 29 of 43 in Discussion From: Zauber Sent: 6/20/2002 10:56 AM "Hmmm," I says, pushing my rose-colored glasses back upon my nose, "I beg to disagree! For to me, Tolkien saying, 'There are no Uruks, that is folks made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable.' says there are very few people/orcs/humans, etc., that can not be redeemed.
Although Tolkien wrote in very black/white, either/or terms, I would guess that as a Christian he would think that all beings could be redeemed. Your thoughts, MegN, or anyone else?
Zauber
Reply Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Delete Message 30 of 43 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 6/20/2002 5:22 PM I've been thinking about this more, and I think I better understand the root of our problem: We are divided in our thinking about the redeemability of orcs because our dear Professor was divided. Here's the dilemma: As Zauber points out, Tolkien was a Christian. As has been noted in various quotes in this thread, he did indeed believe that all beings could be redeemed. He understood all of creation to have been the work of a good creator. Therefore nothing was created evil. Evil could only enter into creation through a "fall," as he showed in Melkor and Feanor. Therefore all evil beings have their roots in a basic goodness. That inherent goodness, no matter how deeply buried, is never erased. So the possibility of redemption always exists. That's how Tolkien viewed the real world. But his sub-created world wasn't the real world. It was what he called "romance." Romance is not allegory, with a one-to-one correspondence between symbol and thing symbolized. But romance is applicable, with lessons to be learned that apply to the real world. ******************************** Aside on allegory: For those who aren't sure what allegory is, take a glance at Pilgrim's Progress (by John Bunyan). It is a story peopled with such folk as "Great-Heart," "Faithful," and "Mrs. Timorous." The story line is artificial - constructed entirely to make a point. It's a classic, an interesting read, and very instructive. But it's poor story-telling. Tolkien hated that kind of thing. But in his letters Tolkien notes that the very best allegories are also good stories, and the very best stories will be inherently allegorical, because they will reflect the fundamental truths of the real world. Another way to describe the difference between Tolkien's "applicability" and pure "allegory" would be to compare Tolkien's images of redemption with the one found in Lewis's Narnia. In Narnia, Aslan is a figure of Christ. As nearly as possible, he fulfills for Narnia the exact same role that Christ fulfills in our world. Lewis uses Aslan to help us understand Christ. That's allegory. In Tolkien's writings we also find the theme of redemption. Characters who play the role of redeemer include Gandalf, Aragorn, and Earendil. Each of them teach us about redemption, and a Christian can apply that knowledge to the understanding of Christ. But none of them are a perfect parallel of the Christ figure. And there are many ways that the understanding gained from them can be used. That's applicability. ********************** Now, where were we... oh yes, orcs. In a romance story (as Tolkien used the term), it is possible to explore the nature of the real world by abstracting themes and elements of the world in new forms. In reality good and evil are always a muddy mixture, and therefore can be hard to distinguish. In romance we can separate them, and see what clear water and pure dirt might look like. This clarity then helps us to recognize the separate elements in their combined form in the real world. So Tolkien has quite rightly separated good and evil, and allowed them each to exist purely. This is, he admits, artificial. And not complete in all places - many of the most interesting bits happen when they overlap, as with Saruman or Boromir. But even though it is artificial, it is part of the beauty of the work, and one of the reasons why it has so much to offer us. For purposes of his romance, Tolkien needed pure evil. Because of his worldview, all beings must be redeemable. Alas, a dilemma. And so we each can find evidence to suit our point of view. Perhaps Tolkien would have said, if pushed to a wall, that a redeemed orc was possible... But there ain't no way he ever would have written about one!
Reply Recommend Delete Message 31 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 6/20/2002 7:01 PM Just More Dragon Talk:
Sigh, very saddened, in a fashion, by your latest message here Megn1. It opens avenues of analysis upon the poor, dear Professor that need at some point to be traversed by someone (not me, I plead!!!). I have long been avoiding, and hesitate even now to make a fuller investigative contemplation of certain matters regarding the Ea-Arda Middle-earth sub-creation of JRRT. My intutive leaps after reading, last February, the Letters you point out, and several others, went beyond my current mastery of the data, outpaced the sober movements of the academically designed techniques of critical analysis that I know, and allowed me to reach certain "tentative" conclusions that I did not like at all.
I stopped delving into these matters at that point, afraid of confirming in a more logical and rational way the conclusions reached so swiftly by the racing, intuitive portions of my mentation. At the time I excused myself on the grounds that no one here was yet ready to join in such a potentially rupturing discourse, and I had no right in breaching such matters on my own, this is afterall a gathering of Tolkien "fans, " by and large. LOL, pure intellectual cowardice on my part, of course, wanting to maintain the comforting veil of soft illusions ... I actually stopped posting here, and elsewhere at TR precisely because I foresaw a fundamental shift approaching in my basic appreciation of Tolkien the man, and to an extent a rifting shift in my ability to enjoy his works.
In fact, rather in need of the solacing comfort of some sort of belief system just now, I may still tuck my tail and run away from the stern duties of Truth-seeking (note abstracting capitalization!) and the unpalatabilities such searches often bring into the open. You have yourself suggested a plausible escape: "We are divided in our thinking about the redeemability of orcs because our dear Professor was divided." Wanna bet I take the easy way of all chickens, and use this escape? LOL! Well, Megn1, you have provoked me, again, to deeper levels of thinking and intellectual responsibility than my present state of mind would wish right now to assume... I believe I'll just resurrect some smaller sort of dragon instead, and dash off into the less distressing, more distracting pleasures of annoying all the others.
Keep digging Megn1, I both like (admire) and fear the way your mind is working! I'll try to get back to this after a while, but my brain hurts... Besides, I may be mis-interpreting you at this point, (yeah, a second escape route) and you may actually be tracing out some other, less disturbing (to me) pattern.
"Perhaps Tolkien would have said, if pushed to a wall, that a redeemed orc was possible...
But there ain't no way he ever would have written about one!"
Taking the Balrog by its putative horns (and hoping he turns out after all to be a mere Hobbit in disguise): just what sort of long-range, overarching implications would your closing statements have upon the understanding of Tolkien the Man?
We'll see if this may tumble you into the same dark paths I so recently fled! LOL! You being quite a different person from me, and your (in) sight working upon other principles, you may find them brightly lit after all!
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 12, 2009 18:28:35 GMT -6
Message 32 of 43 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 6/20/2002 8:45 PM Karo, I'm sorry. I guess it's time you knew. Tolkien did not find the Red Book, passed down through generations of Gamgee descendents. He wrote it. ... ... Read that tongue-in-cheek, of course. I know that's not the dark path you fear. But, no matter how many times I read your last post, I'm not sure what it is that you are avoiding considering. I won't push you to go where you don't want to go, but I am curious to hear more. In my personal journey with Tolkien, the most disturbing insights have been the times when I have realized how my thoughts and opinions have been shaped by him. Views that I cherished as my own were suddenly revealed to have come from Tolkien. Sometimes I have felt that he invaded my mind. The only solution was to get to know the man who had so profoundly shaped me. And the more I learn about him, the more comfortable I am with his influence. So I don't know what your current struggle is, but I have felt some of it myself. Resist the temptation to run. I suspect that whatever you find will more than compensate for whatever you lose. Reply Recommend Delete Message 33 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 7/7/2002 6:21 AM Megn1: In H. Carpenter's edited series of Tolkien letters check out (if you have not already) the material on Orcs and redemption, as well as Orcs and souls to be found in the massive Letter 153, especially page 195 ff... then contrast compare with Letter 269, p. 355. Then how do the statements (can't find the pages now!) that the Orcs "worshipped" Sauron figure in the debate on whether or not Orcs can have souls? I wonder if JRRT himself would be able to give us an answer without MAJOR revisions of his material? Reply Recommend Delete Message 34 of 43 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 7/7/2002 10:13 PM Yes, yes, yes... I had come upon these letters in my reading (I'm not quite finished with the book yet). I dutifully made notes on them, and marked them "for Karo6." But I had not yet written anything. You beat me to it. For those who do not own a copy of Letters, I'll quote #269 here. It is from a letter to W. H. Auden, on May 12, 1965. Auden had asked Tolkien if the notion of the Orcs, an entire race that was irredeemably wicked, was not heretical. Tolkien replied: With regard to The Lord of the Rings, I cannot claim to be a sufficient theologian to say whether my notion of orcs is heretical or not. I don't feel under any obligation to make my story fit with formalized Christian theology, though I actually intend it to be consonant with Christian thought and belief, which is asserted somewhere, Book Five, page 190, where Frodo asserts that the orcs are not evil in origin. We believe that, I suppose, of allhuman kinds and sorts and breeds, though some appear, both as individuals and groups to be, by us at any rate, unredeemable..." I now think that are difficulty lies in the distinction between the orcs role in the mythology, and their role in the story. * In the mythology, it is important that we be clear that they are not created evil, because nothing is created evil. Therefore there must be some good, however deeply buried. And theoretically that tiny spark could be fanned into a redeeming flame, in the right circumstances. But in the story we need monsters and bad guys and evil folk to strive against. Which brings us back to the purely selfish argument I've made all along - I want an enemy I can fight with a clean conscience. In reading through Tolkien's letters, I have discovered one passage which seems to explain how Tolkien dealt with my concerns. But it is very distressing to me, as it shatters one of my most cherished opinions about M.E. I'll tell you about it later... * Tolkien himself makes the distinction between myth and story in one of his letters - #212. He is speaking of the material that would become the Silmarillion, and he says, "it must be rememberd that mythically these tales are Elf-centered" (emphasis original), and he adds a footnote saying, "In narrative, as soons as the matter becomes 'storial' and not mythical, being in fact human literature, the centre of interest must shift to Men (and their relations with Elves or other creatures). We cannot write stories about Elves, whom we do not know inwardly; and if we try we simply turn Elves into men." Reply Recommend Delete Message 35 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 7/8/2002 7:00 AM Megn1: As usual, excellent work Megn1, and it provokes a post from me that is more a statement of "ideas" yet to be fully documented, than a finalized and completely reasoned-out, quotation-supported essay. But as I am not certain how often or even when I'll be at a computer, I thought I should at least let you know where (I think) I am eventually headed on this topic. This may give you, and any one else wishing to jump into this discussion, some time to react in your characteristically well-disciplined and scholastic fashion: Although we have often approached this particular topic regarding the redeemability of Orcs in a "half-baiting" and joking fashion (especially on the RP threads), it does contain material of a very serious import for Tolkien readers. At times the conclusions I draw from Tolkien's own personal messages are capable of arousing some feelings of deep distress for me. As I read, and now re-read The Letters I find certain places where my own value system clashes ever more eruptively with the rapidly altering perception of what I think his values must have been. I imagine that fairly soon, in order to maintain MY version of Middle-earth in a reasonably comfortable and tennable condition, I will have to develope "coping mechanisms" that will allow me to divorce the writer from his works. You are absolutely correct, Megn1, I think, to see that Tolkien probably sub-created his Orcs in a "Roman Catholic" fashion wherein, foul as they are, they cannot originate exclusively as creatures having been created by "Evil." At some point in time -- if Tolkien is to maintain the Catholic, monotheistic concept of creation and not fall into the "heresy" of dualism* -- all his Middle-earth "creatures" MUST have originated from acts of generation set in train by an Absolutely "Good," Creator God (Illuvatar) -- who, according to the dictates of the Roman Catholic Faith, cannot make purely Evil beings. So (maybe as a stop-gap measure that he might later revise?), Tolkien, needing a thoroughly horrible foe for his heroic "Good Guys" to slaughter, came up with the mechanism of Morgoth's corruption of the captured Elves. But this left the ambiguity we have long been discussing here: if the Orcs are conceived as Elves in the beginning, then they must still have whatever Elvish "souls" all Elves have. The soul in Tolkien's Roman Catholic Faith may be "corruptible" by free-will actions, but it is indestructible by all lesser powers than this Creator. Mogoth may deceive, torture and re-mold the captured Elves into Orcs, but he cannot destroy their original souls, cannot crush the last tiny spark of good within them. Which makes them, abstractly, redeemable creatures. So far, so good. My value system and Tolkien's, though arising from quite different sources, seemed congruent here: even my enemies are still just as human as I, and conflicts involving their deaths -- because their ideals, values, and desires differ from mine -- still do not make then any thing other than fellow members of my own species. Orcs, as created beings with a spark of the very soul-stuff of their all-good Creator, are therefore still, as I interpret it, fellow-creatures with the Elves even though the two groups engage in lethal conflict. For me this "fact" of their continued kinship made the Tales of Middle-earth all the more real and bittersweet. The Elf-Goblin Wars then became a matter of deepest tragedy, and illustrated in a bolder light just how far Melkor had fallen in becoming Morgoth and twisting Elves into Orcs just to set them to the tribulations of mutual slaughter. This type of "understanding" of Tolkien's creation fitted my own belief system, and I derived a great sense of "wholeness" of reality, and "rightness" from his tragic tales of this Fall and betrayal, of this "kinslaying" that went beyond the deaths at Aqualonde when Noldor killed Teleri. For me, whenever Orc killed Elf, and vice-versa, a greater and more horrible form of "kinslaying" was still taking place. To my way of thinking at this stage in my personal development, Tolkien had "maturely," realistically, and uncompromisingly created an epic that fit the real tragedies of this world to perfection. JRRT's works, interpreted in this light, fit in nicely with the other literature I was reading at that time: "Good Soldier Schwiek," "All Quiet on the Western Front," and "Catch 22." Great! It even tended to re-inforce what I was learning from my own "experiences" with warfare (support roles, not actual combat).These personal experiences have led me to believe, as a very shrewd, if not calloused truth, the often repeated statement -- found even in U.S. military manuals -- that most humans "baulk" when faced with the "battlefield necessities" of killing a fellow human being. Consequently there are routine training drills that seek to "de-personalize" such combat killings, and one of the most effective of these drills is to "de-humanize" the foe. I told myself frequently that should I ever be shifted to combat duties I would accept the personal responsibility for any "necessary" killings. I would not try to conceal my slaughtering of fellow humans behind the comfortable lie that my side was fighting for Peace, Freedom, Democracy and trying to rid the world of a purely "Evil," and thoroughly "non-human" foe. I would not excuse such acts of "necessary battlefield killing" as allowable and moral simply because I needed to escape personal guilt should the situation ever confront me. I even used what I thought was Tolkien's own supporting value system to stregthen my resolve in this matter. I would fight, I would kill, but I would always know and remember that I had killed fellow human beings, not monsters without souls. Of course, I have no idea how I would actually have responded had such a killing situation eventuated, most probably I would have sought the easy way out, would have accepted the "drill" that all the governmentally-designated foes of my nation were not really human after all, and so could be killed with little regard and no regrets. Now, as I learn more about Tolkien the "man," I find much that leaves me stumbling in the dazed attempt to salvage something of the comforting reassurances I once found in his works. If I am pursuing this new data from The Letters to a valid conclusion, I suspect I must soon come to accept your position, Megn1, that Tolkien's device of separating the generative "mythology" of the Orcs from their "story" role function, is just one more "drill" that allows this particlar enemy (the Orcs) to be de-personalized, and de-humanized** as totally "Evil" foes. This mechanism would allow both Tolkien and some of his readers to feel no disturbing compassion, no regrets, and no guilt when the Orcs are slaughtered mercilessly. I remember thinking that this seemed not only to violate my own value system, but that it seemed to contradict both Tolkien's personal history in his real combat situations of WW I, where his Letters make it clear that he regarded the propagandistic de-humanization of the Germans as appalling. But, even more importantly this episode seems to tell me (at least as I interpret it at this stage of my readings) that Tolkien's own committment to Roman Catholic values cannot be as full and firm as many would want to see it. I am provisionally thinking here, that Tolkien is Catholic when he wants to be, and apparently shuts off this Catholicity (subconsciously?) whenever it suits his story-line purposes, or whenever his deeper, personal, psychological value system comes into conflict with his Catholic values. To make a smoother tale, a simpler tale, he seems here, to me, to be willing to ignore some prime Roman Catholic teachings. This has, as I am thinking now, very serious and wide ramifications for interpreting Tolkien as a "Catholic" writer. If he ignores Catholic dogmas on this issue of the "re-deemability of the orcs" (ignores it in his actions by elevating his story-line needs for an absolutely "evil" foe above the guidelines of his mythological constructions, and his Roman Catholic Faith) are we justified in seeking other, equally impressive instances in his Middle-earth Epic where he abandons a Roman Catholic inspiration for his literary belief and value systems? If so, what implication does this "flexibility" in his actual use of non-Catholic values have for his own assertions, and the echoing assertions of his more vehemently Christian readers, that his Middle-earth tales are Catholic in nature? Apparently they are Catholic only where and when he chooses to stress that particular system of Christian values. If this is so -- and let me re-iterate that I have no conclusive, primary evidence yet that my constructions are "correct," just strong suspicions -- then, I think, we may legitimately find quite a number of his defining values, situations, episodes of action, characterizations of actors, and their rationalizing motives that are in fact non-Christian, and possibly derived from his familiarity with other traditions: pagan Finnish epics; pagan Anglo-Saxon epics like Beowulf; the pre-Christian Norse Sagas; Celtic Druidic sources; and the Pagan cults of the Graeco-Roman world. Sheesh, too tired to proof read, I do hope this makes sense, if not, sigh, I'll try to revise it. I think this also feeds into the current discussion on the ME&Spirituality boad. _________________ *Dualism: I am defining dualism here as a system of religion where Evil and Good are equal forces in the creation of the cosmos, and so creatures of "pure Evil" and others of "pure-Good" may both be generated, and then, by their very basic and fully opposite natures, they come into a long series of mutually anhiliating conflicts. ** I use "de-humanized" here because the more correct terms "de-Orcized" or "de-corrupted-Elfized," both sound too bizarre even for my taste in creative vocabulary formation!) Reply Recommend Delete Message 36 of 43 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 7/8/2002 11:41 AM Okay, this is a very interesting line of discussion. I don't have time to read everything in careful detail just now (I am off on a journey for the next week and more), but here's a thought to throw into the pot: If orcs and the bigger breed - Uruks - are essentially evil only, then interbreeding would be impossible in the first place. But Saruman used "half-orcs" to spy for him. They mingled with men unmarked, other than being noticeable by their unattractiveness. Because half-orcs exist, it follows that half-evil exists, ergo redemption. Reply Recommend Delete Message 37 of 43 in Discussion From: jerseyshore Sent: 7/8/2002 2:33 PM One of the chapters that most fascinated me in Shippey's Author of the Century was the discussion of the nature of evil. He talked about the idea that we can regard evil as an absence of good ( as dark is the absence of light), or as a force in itself, having an existence independent of its opposite. Shippey seemed to feel that Tolkien played it both ways in separate parts of his book. References to "shadows" and ringwraiths without substance seemed to indicate a lack of something. But evil also seemed to exist as an entity in its own right. Like Tolkien, I'm not sure how I feel about this question. Evil is hard to see as only a lack of good. Sometimes when reading of man's gross inhumanity to man, Evil as a force is all too easy to hypothesize. So where does this leave the Orcs? Are they only lacking in goodness? Are they examples of evil beings, despite their benign beginnings? Do they represent devils, led by the fallen angel Melkor? Any thoughts? Reply Recommend Delete Message 38 of 43 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 7/8/2002 11:32 PM Lots to respond to here, on one of my favorite threads. I'll take them in reverse order. Jerseyshore, Good insight on the two views of evil. So the question is: When Melkor corrupted the elves into orcs, did he take something out of them, or put something in? Do elves become orcs by having their morals, their love of the stars, their yearning for the light of the trees removed? Or is it by putting evil desires and ambitions into them? Or is it a combination? I'll have to ponder this more, before I can answer it. Merlin the Mad, I'm sorry to raise a really ugly image in your mind, but my sense of how the "half-orcs" came to be is different from yours. We are never told how these half-orcs came to be, only that it was Saruman's doing, and a dispicable deed. I never thought it came about by orcs blending in with humans, so unnoticably that someone would marry one. I assumed it happened by cruder methods, including rape and captivity. Far simpler, and more effective, since Saruman could then control the raising of the offspring. But now that we are on the subject, this raises a complex issue: if orcs are corrupted elves, they would be "immortal," so far as the life of Arda is concerned. But now they are being bred with mortals. What is the destiny of these half-orcs? For that matter, what is the destiny of orcs, when they are killed? Is there a section in the halls of Mandos for them? Karo, Thank you for sharing the source of your angst about this issue. I understand more clearly why this is so important to you. And I think you are right - for all that we have laughed and mocked each other, this is an important topic. And the deeper I go, the less certain I am where this investigation will lead. Let me just say that I agree with you absolutely on the subject of killing in battle in the real world. It may be a necessity, but it is also the killing of another human being, whose life is of equal worth and value as one's own - a life which, in another situation, you might risk your life to save. I have found nothing to suggest that Tolkien would disagree with us on that. Of course, he had the battle experience that we lack, and I'm sure it shaped him in ways we can never know. Interesting that the foundations of his myth were laid during war. But don't write off this distinction between myth and story too quickly. Think it through. When I read the hobbit, it feels like a stringing together of incidents, in a world which is as "chaotic" as most fantasy worlds - meaning the author pops into it whatever seems convenient for the story, without regard for how it all connects together. When he started it, Tolkien had no idea it was connected with his Silmarillion mythologies. So we have Beorn, and trolls, and talking thrushes. The Sil myths have to be stretched pretty far to put them in. Also we have goblins, spiders, wargs, and a dragon. These are the "bad guys." They play a role in the tale. They are sentient (more or less), but they are not human. In a fantasy world you can have evil creatures. In fact, you need them. This was no grand myth - it was a story. It wasn't meant to be analyzed deeply. LOTR is half-way between Sil and Hobbit, on the scale of myth and story. In it we ponder evil, as well as confront it. But still we have "good" characters delighting in the slaughter of other sentient (but evil) beings. In Silmarillion, I think we encounter the deep thoughts which you have conveyed, about the terrible sorrow of the corrupted elves. The nature of evil is thoroughly thought out here, and consistent within itself. Don't try to find an absolute consitency of mythical meaning in all of Tolkien's ME writings. Remember how they came to be, and the level of meaning that Tolkien gave to each. A question to investigate: at what point did Tolkien decide that orcs were corrupted elves? Was that original to his myths, or added later? The oldest myth is Turin, and I can't remember that orcs are central to that story. Next came Gondolin, and Luthien. Neither seem to hinge on the existence of orcs. Could orcs have been a later edition? Could they possibly have been added back into Sil, to explain the existence of "goblins" in the Hobbit? How can we discover this, and how would it shape our debate? Well, that's one of two answers I have for you. It's the simpler one. The other is harder (for me) to accept. I'll write it soon... I think. Reply Recommend Delete Message 39 of 43 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 7/10/2002 7:51 AM Oh YES! Things are hotting up again! LOL. jerseyshore: Good stuff from Shippey! I've got to read him soon! I think you probably have a good handle on the "nature of Evil" question: it does seem that Tolkien uses it as a definite "substantial" thing with its own properties rather than a "lack" of goodness, I'll need to think more on this one too! Merlin the mad and Megn1: The mingling of the "races" of Man and Orc does bring the redeemability issue into a new focus, certainly the "half-Orcs" would be at least "half-redeemable?" But as Megn1 points out, we are then confronted with the "immortality" issue as well. Would all the restrictions placed on Man-Elf minglings apply to Man-Orc combinations, at least where immortality is concerned? And what about the "immortality" of Orcs? Is an Orc a crippled Elf with a crippled immortality? Did pre-existing Elf souls, even if corrupted by Morgoth still win free of his Evil domination once the "flesh" died so that they could find healing in the Halls of Mandos and Lorien? Good questions! And just what evidence for longevity is there concerning Orcs? I think the only definite indication that Orcs have family lives comes from The Hobbit where Bolg is listed as the son of Azog. But as both these Goblin Kings come to violent ends it may be difficult to determine a "normal" Orkish life span to see how it compares to that of Elves and Men. We have no birth dates for either Azog or Bolg but we do have the dates of their deaths: Azog is slain at the Battle of Nanduhirion in 2799, and his son Bolg is slain at Erebor in 2941 which (my math is suspect, check it if you will!) gives 142 as a minimum life span for Bolg. This does not seem immortal in any way, but it is double the life span of a normal (non-Numenorean) Man! Megn1: Still thinking on many things here, I'll answer more fully soon! But yes, the story line concerns may indeed have to be kept separate from the mythological base, I'll work on looking things from that perspective and see if it helps... Thank You! Yes, it is going to be vital for us to get some sort of timeline where we can see just when Tolkien's conception of "Orcs as being derived from Elves" came into his conscious thought! Gasp, another project! Megn1, you definitely make a strong case for a "back-written" Goblin-as-Orc being put into The Silmarillion, as the Orcs rarely act in a manner that makes them irreplaceable elements in the early tales, but I think Tolkien would have been very busy rewriting a great many such pre-Hobbit tales to add Orcs to all the places where they do eventually show up, and I do not think he had that much time between the recognized success of the LOTR and the call for a publishable, revised Silmarillion. I am fairly certain that the Orcs existed in The Silmarillion before the writing of The Hobbit, and I am wondering here whether the "Goblins" were actually conceived by Tolkien to be a separate order of creature made specifically for The Hobbit and partaking of the more traditional, folkloric characteristics of Goblins as found in George MacDonald's books ("Curdie and the Goblins" and "The Light Princess"?). Certainly the two terms, Orc and Goblin have quite distinct etymologies, Orc = Old English demon; and Goblin = French from Middle Latin kobalos = a knave or mischievous sprite. In fact, between The Hobbit and The Silmarillion we have only one example of correspondence, I think, where Goblins are actually called Orcs in The Hobbit, possibly as a slip of his "pen"? I think at any rate that in the LOTR the Goblins of The Hobbit were altered and re-written to conform to his older, more malevolent Orc type from The Silmarillion -- but I'll have to pin this down with citations to be certain! Also intrigued with your "second, and harder to accept answer." But take your time and present it here when you are ready! LOL, plenty of time! Well, I shall work on these new questions as well as the old, and return to the points you three have raised, armed with citations, I hope! Good to see this line taking ever newer twists, THANKS TO ALL! Reply Recommend Delete Message 40 of 43 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 7/11/2002 9:58 PM Now that we have the ME&Spirituality board, I have single-handedly, in dictatorial fashion, decided to move this conversation. Imagine that we are at a party. In one room, there's a cool conversation about orcs and evil. In another are all these people talking about spirituality. I'm the one saying "hey you people, let's move into that room." So pick up your drinks, grab your snacks, and let's go... Reply Recommend Delete Message 41 of 43 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 3/13/2003 8:17 AM Well, it has been a bit since any was here. I found this link, and this should liven the place a bit. I do, however miss our Green Dragon, when I find something of this nature. Live well Karo! bbspot.com/News/2003/03/uruk-hai.html Iarwain Reply Recommend Delete Message 42 of 43 in Discussion From: Ruscosenda Sent: 3/13/2003 11:01 AM lol Reply Recommend Delete Message 43 of 43 in Discussion From: Fosco Baggins Sent: 3/13/2003 4:46 PM I agree Bill, the orcs soon became a 'high race' after their dalliance with the editors of the 'Harvard Lampoon'. Once the smoke cleared, the 'Uruk High' found themselves way 'left' of Mordor, and were considering a guest spot on 'Saturday Night Live'. To the consternation of Sauron, his 'mouth', raised his own funds, (mostly from writing campaign speeches for republicans) and decided to debate the fate of Middle-earth on the 'Capitol Gang'. Aaron Brown became enraged, not getting the exclusive, and tore his bad toupee off, casting it into the fires of Mt. Doom. This caused a chain reaction, and the members of congress suddenly grew pointed ears. Luckily, these too did not work. Meanwhile, back at the whitehouse, Grima was selling tickets to the 'Lincoln Bedroom', secretly raising gold for the 'Bring an Orc to work' fund. Not to be outdone, the Nazgul caught wind of the imminent passing of the campaign fund reform bill, and called a Filabuster. It was confusing at first, but once all nine began speaking at once, the house settled back into its usual contemplative state. Now, orcs are seen everywhere. They have thier own sit-coms, seats in both the senate and the house, (which is a quite similar thing), they are active in sports and the military (again, very similar), and just last nite, I caught Gorbag on Jay Leno. So, you see the debate about the Orcs and their ability to evolve into a 'higher, good race' is a moot point. Just ask Doubyaa!
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 12, 2009 18:42:36 GMT -6
The following posts have been retrieved from the old TR MSN group forum and added to this discussion.
This topic is from the Spirituality forum entitled "Good, Evil, and the Redeemability of Orcs" begins with Reply #24 and ends with Reply#28:
Message 1 of 74 in Discussion From: megn1 (Original Message) Sent: 7/11/2002 9:55 PM This thread is a continuation of a thread began on the "Entities of Arda" board, called "Orc Lore." It was begun there, because this board did not yet exist. I have decided it belongs here, and so I am moving that debate here. Actually, the discussion goes back to the original Barnes and Noble class, and is one of the reasons I got hooked on this particular group of people. If you haven't been following "Orc Lore," I recommend you brew yourself a nice cup of your favorite beverage, pull up a comfortable chair by your computer, kick back, and read all 39 posts in the thread (some quite long). There's good stuff there. Then, for a good laugh, read the thread called "A Warning to Karo6...Lol" on the General Board. But even without reading those threads, you can join in here...
First Previous 2-16 of 74 Next Last Delete Replies Reply Recommend Delete Message 2 of 74 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 7/11/2002 10:02 PM Means, Ends, and Battles Against Redeemable Beings The following will be a three-part dissertation (I think I am being overly influenced by Karo6). Part I will explain my long cherished belief about Tolkien's world. Part II is a quote from one of Tolkien's letters. Part III will discuss the conflict I see between Parts I and II, and how it applies to our discussion about orcs and what we do with them. Part I For years I have cherished the belief that one of the core values of Tolkien's world is that The Ends do NOT justify the Means. Put in LOTR terms, this translates: You cannot use the Enemy's ring to accomplish a good goal. I see this principle most clearly in Saruman. He starts out with good intentions. He wants to see Sauron overthrown. He wants what he thinks will be best for the beings of M.E. But somewhere along the way he takes a different route than Gandalf. He begins to have servants, and slaves, and to desire to control others. He wants power, and he wants short-cuts. The ring seems an ideal way to get to where he wants to go. His original goal, or "end" may have been good, but as soon as he begins to uses less-than-pure methods, or "means" to achieve that goal, the goal itself becomes impossible to obtain. He can no longer achieve good. He cannot overthrow Sauron - he has become a servant of Sauron. Another example of this principle is in Frodo's treatment of Smeagol. When Frodo and Sam first catch him, Frodo rightly realizes that the only safe action would be to kill Smeagol. As long as Smeagol is alive, Frodo is in danger of sudden, treacherous attack. Even so, to kill Smeagol would be cold-blooded murder, and Frodo perceives that it is wrong. The ends (keeping Frodo safe, and therefore able to continue is vital mission) do not make right, or justify, the means (murder). A corollary to this principle (the ends do not justify the means), is that the right course of action is always to do the right thing, regardless of how it may seem to effect your ultimate goal. In each moment one must choose the moral path, even though it may seem to lead away from where one is trying to go. The prime example of this is Aragorn's choice at Emyn Muil. He has three paths to choose from. One leads to his city and his people, where he hopes to become king. The city is in peril, and is in need of strong warriors and wise leaders. He knows that he must be king, if he is to achieve his heart's desire (Arwen), so it would seem that the course of action that will lead to his goal is to go to Gondor. The second choice is to follow Frodo and seek to help him. In Frodo's quest lies the fate of all of Middle Earth. That path, too, could lead to Aragorn's goal, since the success of the quest will bring Aragorn's success. The third path is to follow the orcs who have taken Merry and Pippin. In no way does this seem to further Aragorn's ultimate purposes. It takes him away from Gondor, and away from Frodo. But it is the path he chooses. Why? Because he can see no other help coming to the Hobbits - they are helpless in the hands of a cruel enemy. The right thing to do is to help the helpless, so Aragorn chooses the path that seems to lead away from his goal. Even then, he takes time to properly honor a valiant fallen comrade, and insure that his body will not be desecrated by wild animals or orcs. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. Sam functions entirely on this principle. He never really grasps the big picture, which makes it easier for him. In each situation, with each choice, he does what is right at that moment without a lot of thought for what comes next. His most difficult situation is when he believes Frodo is dead. He is torn between the clear duty of staying with Frodo, and finishing the quest alone. He chooses well, when he takes the ring from Frodo's body, but he also chooses correctly when he decides that his place is by Frodo's side. Merry and Pippin are also excellent examples of this principle. They are swept along through the great war, rarely understanding what is going on, but always choosing the path that is loyal and kind. This principle - that the ends never justify the means, and that the right thing to do is whatever is right - has been a guiding principle for my life. It is not always easy to live like this. There are frequent situations where a little lie would make things much easier. I was pulled over recently for speeding. A whole series of options ran through my mind, including mentioning my connections with the police chief of our small town. But I knew that I had been speeding, and as one who had broken the law I deserved a ticket. I admitted my fault, and have paid my fine. It was the right thing to do. When faced with a moral decision, or a situation where bending the rules or cutting corners would seem to help me, I remind myself that I cannot use the enemies ring to accomplish good - if I try, my intentions are corrupted and I lose the possibility of attaining my goal. My goal is to become the person I was created to be (whatever that may be - it's a journey). Part II will be a quote from Tolkien's letters that has been keeping me awake at nights.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 3 of 74 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 7/11/2002 10:08 PM Part II
From Tolkien's Letters, edited by Carpenter, #183, pp. 242-3 The title of this letter is given as "Notes on W.H.Auden's review of The Return of the King." The date is 1956. All italics in this passage are in the original letter. Tolkien has just been speaking of Grendel and Beowulf, and the conflict against evil. Of course, in 'real life' causes are not clear cut -- if only because human tyrants are seldom utterly corrupted into pure manifestations of evil will. As far as I can judge some seem to have been so corrupt, but even they must rule subjects only part of whom are equally corrupt, while many still need to have 'good motives', real or feigned, presented to them. As we see today. Still there are clear cases: e.g. acts of sheer cruel aggression, in which therefore right is from the beginning wholly on one side, whatever evil the resentful suffering of evil may eventually generate in members of the right side. There are also conflicts about important things or ideas. In such cases I am more impressed by the extreme importance of being on the right side, than I am disturbed by the revelation of the jungle of confused motives, private purposes, and individual actions (noble or base) in which the right and the wrong in actual human conflicts are commonly involved. If the conflict really is about things properly called right and wrong, or good and evil, then the rightness or goodness of one side is not proved or established by the claims of either side; it must depend on values and beliefs above and independent of the particular conflict. A judge must assign right and wrong according to principles which he holds valid in all cases. That being so, the right will remain an inalienable possession of the right side and justify its cause throughout.
(I speak of causes, not individuals. Of course to a judge whose moral ideas have a religious or philosophical basis, or indeed to anyone not blinded by partisan fanaticism, the rightness of the cause will not justify the actions of its supporters, as individuals, that are morally wicked. But though 'propaganda' may seize on them as proofs that their cause was not in fact 'right', that is not valid. The aggressors are themselves primarily to blame for the evil deeds that proceed from their original violation of justice and the passions that their own wickedness must naturally (by their standards) have been expected to arouse. They at any rate have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted should not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.)
Similarly, good actions by those on the wrong side will not justify their cause. There may be deeds on the wrong side of heroic courage, or some of a higher moral level: deeds of mercy and forbearance. A judge may accord them honour and rejoice to see how some men can rise above the hate and anger of a conflict; even as he may deplore the evil deeds on the right side and be grieved to see how hatred once provoked can drag them down. But this will not alter his judgment as to which side was in the right, nor his assignment of the primary blame for all the evil that followed to the other side. This is the end of the quote. Next is Part III - implications.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 4 of 74 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 7/11/2002 10:09 PM Part III Each time I read the above passage, I understand it less. I need help. What I hear Tolkien saying is that what makes an action right or wrong is the cause for which it is done. This seems to say that the end will justify the means - the goal will determine the rightness of the methods. Is that what he's saying? If so, the whole orc question is easier to answer: Sure, the orcs are redeemable. They have a seed of potential goodness, buried deep within them. After all, they are in truth pitiable elves who have been tormented and tortured into this hideous state. But they are in the way of the goals of the people "in the right," so those people are free to kill the orcs without guilt. Not because killing an orc is a good thing, but because the cause for which they are killed is good. This is different from "de-humanizing" the enemy, as Karo6 described. The enemy can stay "human." The enemy can even be a good human, duped into fighting on the "evil" side. As long as your cause is right, you can kill without guilt or doubt. Surely that's not what Tolkien is saying here! But that's how I interpret this letter. Someone show me I am wrong!
Reply Recommend Delete Message 5 of 74 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 7/11/2002 10:25 PM I am more than alittle confused myself. First let me start by trying to get at some clarity in the basics. I have always thought the Orcs were BRED in mockery of the Elves. Not that they were actually Elves at some point, that were tortured and demented or cross bred. I always assumed that Orcs were simply meant to look like distorted versions of Elves or maybe to mock the Elves in their very antithesis of moral. Can someone please enlighten me as to the exact words by Tolkien where it can be extrapolated as to thier EXACT origin being the abused genetic code of Elves? Once I am clear on this matter, I will feel better informed, and more able to comment clearly on the redeemability factor. Thanks for the insights Meg! Glor
Reply Recommend Delete Message 6 of 74 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 7/11/2002 10:43 PM Here also, was my satiric reply to redeemability of Orcs, also re-located, to this thread. I agree Bill, the orcs soon became a 'high race' after their dalliance with the editors of the 'Harvard Lampoon'. Once the smoke cleared, the 'Uruk High' found themselves way 'left' of Mordor, and were considering a guest spot on 'Saturday Night Live'. To the consternation of Sauron, his 'mouth', raised his own funds, (mostly from writing campaign speeches for republicans) and decided to debate the fate of Middle-earth on the 'Capitol Gang'. Aaron Brown became enraged, not getting the exclusive, and tore his bad toupee off, casting it into the fires of Mt. Doom. This caused a chain reaction, and the members of congress suddenly grew pointed ears. Luckily, these too did not work. Meanwhile, back at the whitehouse, Grima was selling tickets to the 'Lincoln Bedroom', secretly raising gold for the 'Bring an Orc to work' fund. Not to be outdone, the Nazgul caught wind of the imminent passing of the campaign fund reform bill, and called a Filabuster. It was confusing at first, but once all nine began speaking at once, the house settled back into its usual contemplative state. Now, orcs are seen everywhere. They have thier own sit-coms, seats in both the senate and the house, (which is a quite similar thing), they are active in sports and the military (again, very similar), and just last nite, I caught Gorbag on Jay Leno. So, you see the debate about the Orcs and their ability to evolve into a 'higher, good race' is a moot point. Just ask Doubyaa! Glor
Reply Recommend Delete Message 7 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 7/12/2002 6:09 AM Megn1, I was up late (at a Rush concert) and my brain can only understand short sentences this morning. (Just from tiredness. I like to remember the concerts I go to.) So, I can't even attempt your post this morning. I just want to add my quandry to the mix. Do Orcs have souls? For that matter do Elves? Karo6 mentioned the word "souls" in a couple of his replies, which got my opinion on the redeemability question all muddled up.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 8 of 74 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 7/12/2002 11:09 AM Wow! Two very intense revelations in one thread, and both very touchy subjects, I must put on my hot mitts to handle my keyboard. First I'll address DaleAnn. I don't believe it, A woman who likes Rush! I didn't think any exisited. I always thought it had somthing to do with Geddy's high falseto singing that set women on edge, and caused them to hit me if I were to turn the volume up. I love Rush, hope it was a great show. Now on to the easy one. I too remember reading this letter and becoming very confused Megn. It seems to me it is a contradiction to the Tales, but also I sense a bit of rationalization on Tolkien's part. He of course served in the military during World War I and was witness to the horrors of one of the worst and bloodiest wars in our short history. I know he lost two very dear friends in this war, but I have yet to see mention if he was ever called upon to use lethal force during his tour. So that became my rational about this letter. He, I am assuming, did have have to in fact sink to the very depths of our humanity to survive and in doing so has difficulty justifying his actions to himself. So he accounts his "cause" as his justification. I'm afraid the values he gave in the story, the black and white/ good and evil, were values he wished dearly for in this world. But alas he knew them to be fantasy and in his life he percieved the same subtle shades of grey we all have to rationalize our actions of our lives through. Example: Two people.The love of your life, and an innocent child you do not know are drowning. You only have time to save one, and the other will surely drown. Whom would you save? Please don't answer this, for there is no right answer. Whatever choice it would carry with it a lifetime of justifications for your actions and a lifetime of what-ifs. I hope none of us my friends, will ever have to make choices such as this. But it takes the point to the extreme, and asks the question is there sometimes no right action? I hope someone has a more upbeat way of looking at this conundrum. I tend to fall into cynicism when looking at the morals of our race. I like to believe Tolkien was an optimist so my view is probably not the best in this issue. Namárië, Iarwain
Reply Recommend Delete Message 9 of 74 in Discussion From: jerseyshore Sent: 7/12/2002 3:45 PM Megn: I think Tolkien is speaking out here against moral relativism, the idea that "It all depends upon your point of view." Instead he is repeating the dogmatic view that there is such a thing as a moral right and a moral wrong, which exist regardless of the views of individuals. He further states that it is possible to do the right thing for the wrong purpose and the wrong thing for the right purpose. The individual is right or wrong in his actions, but the character of the purpose does not change. It is still right/wrong, good/evil in itself. I don't really find a contradiction in this. He is recognizing that there is such a thing as moral law, and that human beings are bound by it. At the same time he recognizes that most human beings are not wholly good or wholly evil. We are much too complicated for that. Whether he meant for some of his creations ( like the Orcs) to be simpler is a question we'll be debating for a long time yet! Kathy C.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 10 of 74 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 7/12/2002 4:09 PM Just some quick points and citations: 1. Megn1: WOW! Lots more to talk about here, will marshal my thoughts after the day's caffeine-assist jolts the grey cells into awareness. 2. Glorfindle: Interesting... I know that the original Orcs are full-blooded, garden-variety Elves captured in and around the vale of Cuivienen along the shores of the Inland Sea (remnant = Sea of Rhun, I think). From this original recruit-group of Elves the Orcs are then generated by common sexual propagation, hence the term "bred" that Tolkien uses. What this implies in terms of how much specific Elvish "DNA" is still left in the Orcs -- after generations and Ages of further, "refining" twists -- is probably far beyond what Tolkien was thinking about as he wrote. 3. DaleAnn: The stuff about "souls" (psyche), or "spirits" (pneuma) and the Orcs is another point that Tolkien appears to have overlooked in his initial construction of his Middle-earth "entities." But for his readers it soon became a matter of discussion and while he was still alive Tolkien was forced by inquiries to try to deal with this issue, and many others! Letter # 153: especially page 195 is very important here in understanding how Tolkien was thinking about this matter. It also, as I interpret the philosophical sophistries of this page, brings up his attempt to divorce soul and spirit from the "sub-creative" realm of the Valar, but this still leaves open the question of Orcs having souls because the original "inspiriting" act of Elven creation came as a direct and sole act by Eru, not the associated Valar. I get the feeling here that Tolkien would like to say that Orcs have no souls, because then they fit his story-line purpose better and they may be killed without engndering a sense of moral obligation or guilt in the "good" guys who slay them. But when viewed logically, the matter seems quite impossible to circumvent: if the captured Elves who are used to sub-create the Orcs have souls, and if the making and "gifting" of soul-stuff is the preogative of the Creator god Eru, then only an act of Eru's (or some higher power*) would be capable of expelling that "soul-stuff." Even a tormented Hurin points out that Morgoth has power over the flesh, and maybe the minds of Men and Elves, but that after death their souls-spirits, un-touchable by Morgoth, go freely straight to Eru, or to the Halls of Mandos(Lost Tales vol. 2 and Unfinished Tales and Silmarillion, various versions of "Turin Turambar"). Here in Letter 153, Tolkien points out that the corruptions worked upon the Elves to form the Orcs are "Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would [result] in creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far.)" It seems, according to my understanding of general religious forms and the Roman Catholic Faith specifically, that "things" which have no soul would be beyond the scope of redemption, so this potential "redeemability" of Orcs, as Tolkien puts it, would seem to be indicative of their possessing souls? But Tolkien seems at this point to move away fom a direct line of logical reasoning in the next paragraph where he once more tries to divide the concept of "inspiritation" (possession of souls) from his general discourse on "redeembility:" "... Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good). But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth** at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them." What all this finally boils down to, is, I think, an addmission by Tolkien that he did not from the beginning try to make his own mythology fully consistnt and concordant with Roman Catholic forms, and as he directly states elsewhere, much of the "Christianity" of a Catholic nature in his works is a result of his secondary revisions just prior to publication. So where DaleAnn is seeing lots of Roman Catholic material in the Middle-earth corpus, it may be from his secondary attempts to more fully "Catholicize" his writings in the last 20 years or so of his life? ______ *Tolkien's monotheistic use of Eru as THE ONE seems to preclude there being some as yet still hidden but higher god. **Here Tolken may give himself an "out" by switching, whenever necessary, from a strictly Roman Catholic interpretational apparatus to thought systems that are his own; and in his mythology, perhaps he would say souls are forfeited if the possessor works enough egregious and consistent Evil? Megn1 and I were looking at this device of separating "story line" needs fom the controlling influence of the mythic structure (something I think is a "cop-out") and I believe we will both have something further yet to say concerning this thought.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 11 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 7/13/2002 7:15 AM Iarwain: I didn't say that I like Rush. My husband dragged me there, kicking and screaming. LOL You hit the nail on the head with Geddy Lee's voice. But, it was an AWESOME show. I highly recommend fans to see them play. But, leave the poor wives and girlfriends at home. Jerseyshore: I admire your succinct explanation to Megn1's question. I agree. Karo6: You wrote: Here in Letter 153, Tolkien points out that the corruptions worked upon the Elves to form the Orcs are "Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would [result] in creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far.)" The next few sentences, in the paragraph after those cited by Megn1, in Letter # 183: "In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil." These are the few lines that state (coinciding with my personal beliefs) redemption is possible for most of the evil creatures of Middle Earth. Then you had to mention the word 'soul'....I am searching through the later volumes of HoME to see if there are other answers there. I just discovered Morgoth's Ring contains an essay/s about Orcs. Do you have that volume? I'll have to get back to this once I read it.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 12 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 7/15/2002 4:19 PM The letters written to Tolkien in the 50's, inspired him to take a closer look at the origins of Orcs and the nature of Evil. He did this through a several essays found in Morgoth's Ring under the chapter Myths Transformed. Tolkien seems to have run through some ideas about Orcs, trying to come up with one that seemed best. I'm going to list these ideas as it seems easiest: 1) Out of the discord, (not directly from the Themes of Music), evil things appeared, including Orcs (part of the Elf and Men gone wrong). They were not made/nor corrupted by Melkor. 2) "Only Eru could make creatures with independent wills and with reasoning powers...therefore they must be corruptions...Eru would not sanction the work of Melkor so as to allow the independence of the Orcs. (Not unless Orcs were ultimately remediable, or could be amended and 'saved'?)" pg 409. The next paragraph after this quote Tolkien states that Melkor could not pervert a whole group of people and make it heritable. It must be an act of Eru. 3) The first Orcs were Maiar, becoming bound in physical bodies by the act of procreation. 4) "Orcs were beasts of humanized shape...they had just as much independence as...dogs....This talking was largely echolic (cf. parrots)....." pg 410 5) Elvish strain of Orcs. Their lifespan would be shorter. "They would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End." pg. 411 6) Morgoth is the source of Orc-wills. They can rebel against Sauron "without losing their irremediable allegiance to evil." pg 411 7) Orks (different spelling) from the base (o)rok denotes anything that causes fear or horror. So Orks could be of mixed origin, which would include Elves, Men and minor spirits. 8) First Orcs were spirits, then later (because of the chronology) corrupted Men. Interesting quote from pg 419: "...but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost."
Reply Recommend Delete Message 13 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 7/16/2002 6:41 PM My last reply should have been titled: Part I --Possible Origins of Orcs This part can be titled: Part II --Why Did Tolkien Drive Himself Crazy Over the Origins of Orcs Tolkien had at least two reasons to consider changing the origins of Ors. One was physiological (lifespan) and the other was their "souls." In Letter #153, Tolkien writes about Trolls, "...when you make Trolls speak you are giving them a power, which in our world (probably) connotes the possession of a 'soul'." This created a problem for Tolkien not only with Trolls and Orcs. He had a talking dog and eagles. These could be Maiar, except that the Eagles in the 3rd Age are descendants of those in the 1st Age. He debated whether or not Eru would give 'souls' to Huan and the Eagles or if their language was taught to them by the Valar, but still without souls. Obviously, any corruption of Elf or Man implied a 'soul' attached to the body. A Spirit, Maiar or not, would not have a 'soul'. A 'will'-less puppet as in #6 above and a speaking beast as in #4 above would not have a 'soul'. Why did Tolkien go through this? He was obviously struggling with the 'soul' concept and by association the redeemability question.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 14 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 7/18/2002 2:10 PM My word! This thread produces very LONG postings. I have read through it, most of it, and the only things I can add are: 1- Tolkien seems to have been aware of Mormon theology: for instance, the doctrine that there is ONE God our Father, yet many gods (his children) who helped create the world etc. The implications are very apropos to Middle-earth theology, because in Mormon theology humanity in a "preexistence" helped create the world and is destined - as children of God the Father - to become like him and live with him forever: even to the point of becoming gods ourselves and enjoying all of his creative powers and knowledge (but not, however, equalling or surpassing him in glory: he will always be the God we worship). Eternity is sufficient "time" to learn all of that! 2- In Mormon doctrine also, the spirit, soul, "intelligence," is the same thing: with the "soul" being intelliegence/spirit clothed in flesh: and we have always been gender distinctive. 3- If Tolkien was using any of this, it means that orcs/trolls are subhuman, and therefore their ultimate fate is unknown to us (only Eru knows what will be done with them). Can we say, for instance, that the bestial-shaped humanoids found by paleantologists possessed "spirits" as we would try and define ourselves? Only human beings have spirits and souls: the pure definition of a spirit/soul being: a living entity which has the freedom to choose. Animals/beasts do not choose, they react. Orcs seem to react rather than choose anything. Trolls also. Even the talking beasts of Middle-earth do not choose, they only act. And all of them act consistently. (Has anyone come across evil Ents or Eagles? Or nice, friendly, helpful Trolls?) 4- The questions raised about the origin of orcs are never going to be resolved, because, as the postings thus far have shown, Tolkien himself was uncertain about how orcs came to be. My opinion is that they were elves, corrupted in the first generation into bestial forms in mockery of their original beauty: but all succeeding generations of orcs were basically beasts, not humans. The terrible evil wrought upon the captured elves made procreation with humans possible (but apparently only under the most strictly controlled conditions). The hybrids of these unions (half-orcs) were more human than orcish: in other words, the human genes dominated. At some point in this "upgrading" of orcs, their children would begin to possess souls: ie. would be considered humans who know enough to choose and not simply react. Again, Eru is the only one who knows the individual worth of a living thing, and whether or not that individual creature has a soul. 5- Tolkien was quite certain in his own mind that in virtually every war there is a wrong and a right side. He would perhaps refrain in most cases from calling either side "good" or "evil." I reckon, having been through a terrible war himself, that he knew very well how both traits reside in every person. His Middle-earth therefore did not follow strictly the real world, being a mythology of deeds and causes and effects, ie. lessons to be learned. His gods and demons are very black and white; as are their minions for the main part. Humanity, on the other hand, moves about in Middle-earth, the only race of creatures who have to make choices (and GET to make choices). In his letters (quoted in this thread) I see nothing of "the end justifies the means." Rather, the individuals in a war are bound to remain true to their feelings: they must do what is RIGHT. No one else can judge them fairly. For instance, Robert E. Lee chose to defend his actual, physical homeland of Virginia during the American Civil War, rather than defend the concept of Union. He has been upheld and criticized for doing so. There was no wrong or right in his choosing: he simply had to make a choice and did so according to his heart. That is the bottom line for me. Never lie to yourself.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 15 of 74 in Discussion From: fallohide Sent: 7/24/2002 3:22 AM I've finally also taken the time to read through this thread, and frankly I'm just floored by how much so many of you (DA, Karo6, Megn 1, to name a few) know about 'the man and the myth.' I think Ive got to do some catch up reading before I can really keep up. But, I will pose yet another question to add to the subject, if I can think how best to phrase it. If the Orcs are like people, and have souls, does this really affect how the heroes should react to killing them? ( I suspect DaleAnn just established that Tolkien ultimately decied that they don't have souls, and I'm just being thick headed. ) Anyway, back to my question. Here is a related one. What about the men who fight under Sauron. Presumably they have souls. Do the good people in the stories react any differently to killing these evil men in battle then they do the orc? My point is that basically the orcs in the stories force the heroes in most cases to kill them or be killed. So, even if they had killed many orcs or men, it is not really reasonable for us to feel that the heroes should feel more remorse then they do, weather or not the Orcs are redeemable. And so perhaps there is not such as gap as it seems between the orc's mythical role and thier role in the story? I'm not sure. Basically I'm saying that the good characters in the stories would feel it their duty to act the same way in these battles were they given a chance to do it over. Perhaps I'm just rationalising? But in what alternate way would we want the heroes to react to having to kill Orcs, if the Orcs have souls, and we want the heroes behavior to be good and compassionate? Merlin the Mad, I agree with you that this Orc question probably will be unresolved, but it was a rewarding inquiry in any case. Still tying to take some of this thread in ~ fallohide
Reply Recommend Delete Message 16 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 7/24/2002 12:20 PM Fallohide: Don't you see connections now between this subject, as you have underscored it, and the observations being made on the "Iarwain's toys" thread you started? I do. Compassion toward a "mad dog" is certainly going to be different than that extended to deluded human beings with souls. Note the mercy extended to the Dunlendings who surrendered at Helm's Deep. Orcs, on the other hand, are killed indiscriminately. At the Field of Celebrant in TA 2510, the armies of Gondor and the future Rohirrim concentrated their revenge upon the Balchoth and seemed to ignore the orcs once the rout started (at least the narrative strongly suggests this). This was because the Balchoth at that time were by far the most dangerous foe: they were pursued across Calenardhon to total destruction. The desperate situation warranted a "no mercy" posture. Gondor couldn't risk it. Gandalf, with more insight as to the actual strategic situation during the War of the Ring, knew that the Dunlendings no longer posed a threat. He let them live and return without punishment to their homes. But I think the correct attitude when taking life (animal or human) should be regret. War, inasmuch as it is the ultimate calamity, should be ended as quickly as possible, by whatever means possible, while saving as much life as possible. And in the end, the words of Wellington ring true forever: "Next to a battle lost, the saddest thing is a battle won."
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 12, 2009 18:43:48 GMT -6
Message 17 of 74 in Discussion From: fallohide Sent: 7/24/2002 2:57 PM Merlin, Your right about the different treatment for the men. I had forgotten that. I do agree with your mad dog senario from the Iarwains toys thread, I was just talking about restraint when its reasonalbe. more on this later, I've been mulling over this. I'm being driven off the computer. ~ fallohide
Reply Recommend Delete Message 18 of 74 in Discussion From: fallohide Sent: 7/26/2002 9:27 PM Hello, Back to this thread, I've been thinking about what others have said here, and came up with this. Tolkien's stories inherit some things from the old tales he drew from, Beowulf, and Greek stories, and others people have mentioned. One thing present in these tales is glorification or perhaps honoring of war and warriors. Whats interesting is that in Tolkien's stories, this element is mixed with a more realistic understandig about the horror of war. As others have mentioned, Tolkien's war experiances probably affected his writing, even if it was never meant to be allegorical. After WWI, of course, you start getting poets like Wilfred Owen and people writing realistic war novels like All Quiet on the Western Front. However, these were very different from the stories Tolkien was drawing from. It think this might be one of the underlying reasons why there are discrepancies with the Orcs. Here is a quote on fighting from C. S. Lewis. I'm not arguing Lewis's point here, but I think this is helpful to see where Tolkien was (possibly) coming from. It seems from LOTR that Tolkien might have had similiar views- if somewhat odd to us post-vietnam era people (me, in fact a lot later), even without Lewis's specific Christian context. This is somewhat long, but its easier to understand with a bit more of it. " The idea of the knight - the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause - is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semipacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is a feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the Service of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage - a kind of gaity and wholeheartedness. I have often thought to myself how it would have been if, when I served in the first world war, I and some young German had killed each other simultaneously and found ourselves together a moment after death. I cannot imagine that either of us would have felt any resentment or even any embarrassment. I think we might have laughed over it." Now, I don't think you could place "Orc" where it says "German" here, I am talking about Tolkiens possible additude toward fighting in general. But, this kind of perspective leaves lots of room for Orc killing contests. ~ fallohide
Reply Recommend Delete Message 19 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 7/26/2002 10:22 PM Great stuff, Fallohide. "I like a man who grins when he fights." (Churchill said that somewhere, or words to that effect. Does anybody know where? I would like to find out, so I can refresh my memory.)
Reply Recommend Delete Message 20 of 74 in Discussion From: Amaranth Sent: 7/27/2002 3:45 AM > Great stuff, Fallohide. "I like a man who grins when he fights." > (Churchill said that somewhere, or words to that effect. Does anybody > know where? I would like to find out, so I can refresh my memory.)
You have the quote right, but I don't know, and can't find, any context.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 21 of 74 in Discussion From: Tumnus Sent: 9/22/2002 12:03 AM Too much for me to think about here! When I was at message # 30 on the Orc Lore board, I thought, "Whew, only 10 more messages to go. But then the tricksiee megn1ssee had to post that last message." And so I was suckered into reading more than I can understand. Lol. But there is a treasure here, I have drunk the wine of the TR chalice of profundity, and am now in a pleasant yet confused mood. And in this drunken and feverish state, I've decided to post a few thoughts - although they are tangential at best, and don't really solve anything. The first thought is another quote from Lewis, and it only reinforces ideas already presented. On Lewis: "There is, however, one piece of false criticism which had better be answered; the complaint that the characters are all either black or white. Since the climax of Volume I was mainly concerned with the struggle between good and evil in the mind of Boromir, it is not easy to see how anyone could have said this. I will hazard a guess. 'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' asks someone in Volume II. 'As he has ever judged,' comes the reply. 'Good and ill have not changed ... nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men.' This is the basis of the whole Tolkienian world. I think some readers, seeing (and disliking) this rigid demarcation of black and white, imagine they have seen a rigid demarcation between black and white people. Looking at the squares, they assume (in defiance of the facts) that all the pieces must be making bishops' moves which confine them to one colour. But even such readers will hardly brazen it out through the two last volumes. Motives, even in the right side, are mixed. Those who are now traitors usually began with comparatively innocent intentions. Heroic Rohan and imperial Gondor are partly diseased. Even the wretched Smeagol, till quite late in the story, has good impulses; and (by a tragic paradox) what finally pushes him over the brink is an unpremeditated speech by the most selfless character of all." It would be a bit hasty to say that Lewis is saying that Tolkien considered Orcs to be redeemable, but at least we can all agree that they are capable of good (although Lewis doesn't say that either, I think that it is a reasonable conclusion for our purposes). For me, I accept that they might be redeemable, but the bottom line is that they aren't redeemed in Tolkien's story. On Melkor: As I've read through this board, I've come across the idea that Melkor also was redeemable. This is an important idea, because if Melkor is redeemable, then certainly orcs ought to be redeemable (assuming that they have souls of course). As I recall, there seemed to be two reasons for this; firstly, he got second chances to act rightly, and so it follows that the will of 'The One' (as exemplifed thru the mandates of Manwe) must be trying to allow him the chance to redeem himself. Secondly, he was not Absolute Evil because he was created good by Eru, and so it follows that he has the ability to choose goodness over evil, and thus to be redeemed. On point one: Just because someone has a second chance to act rightly, does that redeem the first 'sinful' action, which caused a fall from perfect goodness? I think that this is not so - in the case of Melkor. As a fallen angel prototype, his rejection of Eru during the creation songs vitiated him forever. While this view is my presupposition, it is reasonable in that it conforms to Tolkien's Catholic belief system. Are orcs really given second chances? I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, so perhaps this is evidence (ie - not much is expected of them) that orcs are lessers beings. And since their sins are not as great, they may be in a position to be redeemed. Melkor, on the other hand, was allowed second chances in order to increase his final judgement. Sounds harsh - but after all, he did reject Eru in a completely different setting, a setting outside of ME. Furthermore, in ordered to be redeemed, there has to be a redeemer. In Tolkien's Catholic theology, the Redeemer is of course Christ. As has been said before, there are no direct references to Christian theology (although this point has been argued on the 'Gandalf's Death' board) in LOTR. Along this line of questioning, the question becomes, 'Is any creature in ME redeemable?' (Like I said, I'm not really solving anything here!) As MusicMom said, redemption is a gift. It is a gift because it is necessary for a holy being (a being that requires all things to be just) to somehow come up with a solution to evil, a solution that justifies evil. Perhaps we should suppose that a Redeemer will come along at some later point in time, or that the indirect references to sacrifice are sufficient knowledge for the hope of redemption (ie - the sacrifices of Frodo, Gandalf, Boromir, etc. Recall that Gandalf declares Boromir as having 'escaped' something when he died trying to save Pip & Merry) Perhaps the best view as to why there is no redeemer is just a simple acknowledgement that Tolkien was trying put a distance between his mythological story, and an allegorical story. On point two: This view presupposes that everything is redeemable because everything was created good. When Melkor started singing to his own tune, he created a disharmony, a separation between himself and Eru. And that was his 'fall,' or if you will - his spiritual death (ie - separation from Eru). As a singer and auger himself, Melkor tainted his own song and was therefore himself forever tainted, how could he be redeemed? He rejected the perfection of Eru, and Eru honored that rejection by allowing him to not be involved in perfection. Hence, Melkor naturally chose to descend into Arda. The song however was redeemed before the actual creation of Arda, and orcs, being a part of the song and not singers, may be capable of redemption. As I recall, Eru sang so that Melkor's songs fit into the overall tapestry of that heavenly symphony. Therefore, if Eru or a good Valar were to sing one of the orc-notes of Melkor, then that note (orc) might be redeemed. This also proves that the Eru taught the good Valar jazz and music theory. Hopefully, these points shed some light on letter #183 (quoted in message # 24 on the Orc Lore board). On Orcs and Half-Orcs and Letter# 78: I'll start off with a quote (letter #78) from message #28 on the Orc Lore board: "Urukhai is only a figure of speech. 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 (though I fear it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle.)" The question that immediately ocurred to me is, 'How can Tolkien consider someone to be irredeemable?' I will propose my own personal answer to this question (based on the faith that I mostly share w/ Tolkien), but also point out that Tolkien's theology is not necessarily the same as my own. I should not want to be so arrogant as to claim that Tolkien's belief is such and such because my belief is such and such. Yet it is possible that he and I agree on this point. Sorry about all the disclaimers, when you read what I have to say, you'll understand. It can be a touchy subject, since redemption means that we must be redeemed from something. Rom. 9:17-18 may be apposite here. "For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.' Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." There's a lot more to these verses, and you can read the context of it if you want to look them up. But the main idea is that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. This causes a lot of confusion for a lot of people, mostly because people don't remember the story of Pharaoh as well as they should. If you backtrack to Exodus & the Ten Plagues, you'll find that Pharaoh hardened his own heart before each plague was administered on his people. It was only on the last plagues that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. My belief is that Pharaoh reached a point where he could not turn towards God. In other words, rejecting God repeatedly is a slippery slope, and once one goes off the edge, God is in a position to harden one's heart. However, that invisible slope is not known to us, so we should not judge people (ie - Paul persecuted early Christians, but later became an apostle). I say all this only to help explain letter #78, and to suggest that Orcs, as the counterfeit beings they are, start their miserable lives having already slid off the slope before they were even born (unlike Elves & Men), hence they are not capable of redemption. Perhaps we should consider Orcs to have been outside of Eru's song, or did all the notes become a part of his song? Perhaps someone who has read the "Letters," can comment on this? I've only just started reading the "Letters. I think that it is pertinent that orcs are never called 'Children of Illuvator,' as are Elves and Men. Saying it in another way, orcs are ignorant kinda like Adam & Eve were innocent; therefore, they may not need redemption. As you probably noticed, I am assuming that Orcs are a separate race from Elves, and therefore am disregarding the importance as to whether or not they have souls. As further evidence that orcs are a separate race from elves, has said that Melkor "'made' Orcs in counterfeit of certain creatures'" (quoting letter #153, from DA's message #24 on the Orc Lore board) in order to distinguish between 'creating' and 'counterfeiting.' Can a counterfeit coin, and a real dime both both be considered to be 'dimes,' or for that matter, can they both be considered to be worth ten cents? No, they are not even both considered to be money. Similarly, having no responsibility, nothing should be required of orcs. However, on the subject of half-orcs, I would consider it necessary (although not likely) for them to be redeemed. It is a Biblical idea that different levels of knowledge or responsibility require equivalent levels of accountability. For example, Jesus tells the Pharisees in one of the gospels that it will better for Sodom & Gomorah on the day of judgement than it will be for them. This is a wild guess on my part once again; I know that half-orc redemption has already been discussed, and I'm making the daring assumption here that my theology is the same as Tolkien's. I can't remember all of what was said, so I won't muddy the waters on half-orc persuasions any more than they already are. Wow! I didn't know I had all that in me. I started with only a couple of ideas, which then spawned an effluence of other ideas. Dangerous board this is.
Reply 0 recommendations Message 22 of 74 in Discussion From: Tumnus Sent: 9/22/2002 12:37 AM This message has been deleted by the author.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 23 of 74 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 9/22/2002 12:39 AM Tumnus! I am impressed - first that you would wade through all that has been said, and then your post is thoughtful and carefully documented. Thank you for adding your thoughts to this LONG debate. I'm going to need to think, and read your post through again, before I can reply in detail. But as moderator of this board, I want to point out to everyone that Tumnus has freely admitted that he is touching on some controversial issues in his post. I hope that this is a place where that is safe to do. It will only be safe if those who disagree with him are as careful in their response as he is in his post. If, as you read Tumnus' words, you could feel your blood pressure rise and your fingers itch to start typing, please take a walk and some deep breaths before you reply. Thanks!
Reply Recommend Delete Message 24 of 74 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 9/22/2002 1:07 AM Hats off to Tumnus. If you are looking for the Karo6, long winded, psuedo intellectual rants and ravings of a madman award, you got it, Toyoto! Seriously though folks, I think Tumnas may give Karo a run for his money, in the most educated and coherent expose we have seen in a while. WTG, Tumnus.! The length is perfect, but we need ibids and opcits, not to mention, such an extensive bibliography, as those that have finally reached the end of the internet, can attest to. See Karo for details, Glor
Reply Recommend Delete Message 25 of 74 in Discussion From: Tumnus Sent: 9/22/2002 1:09 AM Got a couple of slight changes here, In the third paragraph under 'On Melkor,' I said "a solution that justifies evil." Actually, I think that there is no solution that justifies evil except that it is condemned. However, I meant "a solution that would justify beings with evil hearts." In the second to last paragraph under 'Of Orcs...,' I said "It is a Biblical idea that different levels of knowledge of responsibility require equivalent levels of accountability." I meant 'corresponding' levels of accountability. I should have spent more time proof-reading. Sorry to dig up the old bones of this board, but with my truculent disposition, the temptation to violate this forgotten gravesite was just too much to bare. Your most mischievious faun, Tumnus
Reply Recommend Delete Message 26 of 74 in Discussion From: Karo6 Sent: 9/22/2002 4:00 AM A Parting Challenge
I will be leaving TR soon,* (real life demands have caught up with me!) and would like to simply point out that a genuine "intellectual" opportunity exists here -- for those who may be interested.
That you, Tumnus, Fallohide, and Merlin the Mad saw fit to read through the long tumbled mass of data, speculation, and raw opinion gathered under the Orc Lore topics is fantastically heartening! It needs at some point to be systematized, the rawer opinions based on our prejudices winnowed out, the conflicting statements resolved, everything cross referenced with the source material, and then a final, sober, synthesis prepared (yes Glor, footnotes would be required). Among all the serious minded posters here, including DA, Megn1, Iarwain, etc, etc, the TR group should be able to accomplish this task and produce an important, very necessary bit of primary, Tolkien research -- publishable, and not just on the internet. Of all the contentious topics I can think of, this issue of how Tolkien treats the Orcs, allows the fastest, deepest, and surest means of penetrating JRRT's own attempts to deploy a Roman Catholic philosophy in his corpus of fantasy writings. It also should allow, if you follow up DA's material on Tolkien's late revisions, an understanding of the ways in which his own veiling prejudices affected the courses he chose in his attempts to "correct" the deeper inconsistencies he had originally written into the Silmarillion and so many of his other pre-LotR sources.
Such a project would of course demand discipline, dedication, teamwork, and a willingness to let personal egotisms, and cherished points of faith take a back seat to the logical, rational explication of the data. But I think that all who would be willing to engage in such a project would find the final rewards*, in personal growth alone, absolutely astounding.
It has been a wonderful pleasure to have met so many intriguing, caring, perceptive and gifted people here. Best of luck to all of you individually, and communally, may your TR site prosper even more!
______________
*I hope to be able to work up some guideline/ background notes to send as E-mails to the Beowulf Study coordinators before I drop completly off line.
**No Glor, LOL, nothing financial here, we pseudo intellectuals make very little, even in payments from advances on royalties.
ö
Reply Recommend Delete Message 27 of 74 in Discussion From: Lord_Algamesh Sent: 9/22/2002 7:05 AM Karo6 ... , You know ... I got up this morning and thought I'd hit TR early to see what was going on with the "Long Expected Party" engagement. Little did I know that I was going to be FLOORED by the ANNOUNCEMENT in your first sentence: "I regret to announce that - though, as I said, eleventy-one years is far too short a time to spend among you - this is the END. I am going. I am leaving NOW. GOOD-BYE!" I am really utterly speechless! I finally know how the Hobbits felt on that September 22nd evening. They lost the most exciting Hobbit that they had ever known in all their years in the community. It looks like we will be losing ours ... . I am sorry to hear of your departure. It has been a pleasure to look at these boards everyday and see something there that you have meticulously constructed. I will miss you dearly, my friend! I assume this is a permanent Holiday because you made no mention of a return. If this is the case, I wish you the best in whatever life has to bring. You have truly been one of the beating hearts in this Group and you have my respect, my admiration, and most of all ... my eternal friendship at need. I'm sure that I speak for the Group in all these matters ... Managers ... if you wish to move this portion of the thread to another location ... go ahead. I am a bit distraught at the moment and I haven't the heart to deal with it further. The grief is too near ... Algamesh
Reply Recommend Delete Message 28 of 74 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 9/22/2002 8:26 AM Karo, Algamesh speaks the truth, it will be our loss. I certainly wish only the best for you, and hope when time allows you might reappear and charbroil a debate or two with your firery Dragon wit. I have learned much from you, and have enjoyed all your works. I think you at one time mentioned being an author, but were unsure if your work merited the attempt. Go for it, your quite the entertaining writer my friend! Let me know if you publish, or will you use the penname Karo 6? It should be easy to keep an eye out for your works then. LOL! Well I would try to move this to the general board, but I think I'll leave it to the pros, too important for me to risk. Namárië Arotorno ar Eldamelda, enomentielva. Abanna gáia mínallava avad Toron Urulócë násan. Irënyava vandallava alaquet vanwaoialë ar tulosta yallumë. Iarwain
Reply Recommend Delete Message 29 of 74 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 9/22/2002 11:14 AM Karo, NO! Don't leave altogether! At least promise to drop by for an occassional essay or minor treatise. To no longer hear your voice on these boards is a profound loss to all, and we are much diminished by it. I will even promise to stop teasing, drop Popo, and switch to the dragon side!! please re-consider, Glor
Reply Recommend Delete Message 30 of 74 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 9/22/2002 12:58 PM Dear friends - please help! When I clicked on Karo's name, to access his member profile and try to get an email address for him, I got the message that he is no longer a member of this community. Does anyone have an email address for him? Please email me with any contact information you have. I need to at least say good-bye to my friend...
Reply Recommend Delete Message 31 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 9/22/2002 4:25 PM Well....poop. There he goes, and I was just beginning to really enjoy him. I hate it when people do that. Farewell, Karo6, whoever you REALLY are. And I hope you enjoy a fun time always learning
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 12, 2009 18:45:27 GMT -6
Message 32 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 9/22/2002 4:35 PM Tumnus, this has thus far been my favorite board. I am glad you reopened it. You said "...in order to be redeemed, there has to be a redeemer." And I say, Who better to do this than Christ himself? Tolkien was making Middle-earth an early, unrecorded age of our own world (unless I am sadly mistaken all these years). Ergo, all souls who live here are redeemable by the great Redeemer of us all. Even (perhaps especially) pagans and heathens and heretics. Now, if this doesn't "make someone's blood begin to boil," nothing I have said, or may say yet, ever will. But I will supply the required disclaimer, and admit that this supposition is all my own and not based upon anything that I recall hearing that the Professor said on the subject. Reply Recommend Delete Message 33 of 74 in Discussion From: fallohide Sent: 9/22/2002 4:44 PM Oh, TR friends, ......I'm in tears, and I didn't even know Karo6 very long. Fallohide Reply 0 recommendations Message 34 of 74 in Discussion From: Amaranth Sent: 9/22/2002 9:42 PM This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. Reply Recommend Delete Message 35 of 74 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 9/22/2002 10:12 PM Karo has removed himself from membership. So in proper consideration of his privacy, I am removing the post with his e-mail address on it. Lets have Algy or Meg, ask him first if he wants it publically known. If he rather not, perhaps correspondence can be related to him thru a trusted third party. Sorry if this upsets anyone, but our members privacy needs to be secure. Glor Reply Recommend Delete Message 36 of 74 in Discussion From: Illadria Sent: 9/23/2002 3:35 PM Karo6, I hope you will still pop in occasionally to at least read what is posted here and elsewhere at TR. These boards will not be the same without your Wit and Wisdom. You've made us laugh and you've inspired us to think, and to stretch our imaginations and our vocabularies. Please hurry back as soon as you are able. ~Illadria Reply Recommend Delete Message 37 of 74 in Discussion From: Amaranth Sent: 9/24/2002 3:21 AM > Karo has removed himself from membership. So in proper consideration > of his privacy, I am removing the post with his e-mail address on it. Oops. Sorry! Nah, no hard feelings :-) I should've thought better of it. Or thought -- period! Diana Reply Recommend Delete Message 38 of 74 in Discussion From: sparrow Sent: 9/28/2002 8:19 PM Dear Karo6, After having been away from TR for a few days, I returned to find you had left. I missed the chance to say farewell. Another thing I wanted to tell you is how much I have enjoyed your posts. I find them intellectually stimulating and conducive to seeking answers together. Several times you said kind things to me, and I never told you how good that made me feel. I will really miss you. RL demands I understand. I wish you all the best. I hope we will meet again, maybe in Rivendell. With best regards, Sparrow Reply Recommend Delete Message 39 of 74 in Discussion From: sparrow Sent: 12/6/2002 11:22 AM After all this discussion, perhaps the answer to the question of the redeemability was right before our eyes. Prof. Tolkien himself commented on this point, and wouldn't he be the final word? In discussion Melkor's corruption of the Elves into Orcs, he wrote: "They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilefe, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.) The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, no. 153, emphasis added. Reply Recommend Delete Message 40 of 74 in Discussion From: megn1 Sent: 12/8/2002 9:59 PM I can live with that. But does that mean I have to be nice to orcs? Or can they be "redeemed" with a sword... Reply Recommend Delete Message 41 of 74 in Discussion From: sparrow Sent: 12/9/2002 10:52 AM LOL, Megn! You are certainly entitled to defend yourself and others from orc agression! I will let you know if the letters say anything about being nice to them. I think perhaps you would not have to befriend them until they are in fact redeemed. Then again, should we do what we can to promote their redemption? And if so, how? Reply Recommend Delete Message 42 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 12/9/2002 4:16 PM Being "tolerant" is VERY politically correct; or at least it was until last year. Now the first thing we should do is still not condemn an entire race or religion because of what some of them have done to US. In the history of mankind, we see numerous examples of "bad" guys turning into "good" guys later on. And nobody is altogether good or bad ever. However, in Middle-earth, orcs (and later Uruk-hai) are NEVER good. They are filled with hate toward all forms of life, not excluding themselves. Their influence in the earth is thoroughly destructive. Therefore the only good orc is a dead one, or at least one far, far away, beating up other orcs. If there was ever a case for "kill them all and let God sort them out" this is it. But having said as much, the moral person would not look for them, nor would he kill them slowly or torture them in any way. Killing would be done as swiftly and efficiently as possible. Like exterminating vermin. Their very origins preclude any "toleration" or "mercy" when they are in your power. They are treacherous and utterly without conscience. Now orcs, as evolved by later writers, may not entirely fit this mould: but I want someone to show me ANYWHERE that Tolkien himself painted any different picture than what I have here. Reply Recommend Delete Message 43 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 12/10/2002 6:40 AM Merlin the Mad wrote: They are treacherous and utterly without conscience. While I totally agree with the first part of the statement, the second part is false. Orcs are "corrupted" Elves. Is it possible to corrupt someone that is without a moral conscience? Orcs do have a moral code. Having a conscience does not mean that one will follow it all of the time, however. I've read a number of things on the nature of Orcs. The examples below are from www.google.com/search?q=cache:WsPgcYD411kC:www.uni-klu.ac.at/~jkoeberl/Courses/Tolkien/l_07_themes.pdf+Lotr:+Some+themes%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 starting w/page 3 through 6. Sam pulled "a regular elvish trick" by leaving Frodo behind during the Choices of Master Samwise chapter of TTT. This statement in quotes implies two things to me: 1) Orcs believe that Elves are evil. Perhaps, in their view "The only good Elf is a dead Elf." 2) Orcs have a moral code that states not to leave a fallen Orc behind. (However, they did leave one of their own to Shelob.) Orc leaders call the Orcs under them "Lads". This gives me a sense of loyalty and comradship among groups of Orcs. Orcs are vehemently against cannabalism. A couple of pages into the chapter The Uruk-hai in TTT, Grishnakn makes the statement about Ugluk and the Uruk-hai "It's Orc-flesh they eat, I'll warrant." This is the point that the argument got very heated and weapons were drawn. Orcs have a sense of loyalty to their "country". Those that are against them are called "rebels." ---DA Reply Recommend Delete Message 44 of 74 in Discussion From: Redha Sent: 12/10/2002 9:45 PM Hmm... seems to me that orcs are based on classic, pressed into service, wretched, British army and navy "lads". Ugluk is the ugly, awful, brutal, master-sergeant you see in so many bad adventure novels. The kind without the heart of gold. Kipling might have written this charater. The only loyalty orcs of any kind have is to the strongest leader and the master they absolutely fear. Pride? Only in being the strongest. Morals? Do as ya like, just don't get caught. Laugh at others misfortune because they ain't you. Beat your subordinates into submission. Join up with the strongest and you might survive. Get what you can 'cause if you don't someone else will get it. As to the "orc-flesh" remark, well he is saying that they are too weak and worthless to get man-flesh. A gargantuan insult. Merlin the Mad, I guess I am with you on this. I have no sympathy for the devil. Redha Reply Recommend Delete Message 45 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 12/11/2002 12:44 AM Orcs are corrupted Elves, or Men, according to later revisions by Tolkien (as I read it in that link DaleAnn provided: very interesting). That means, of course, that having once been good, their turn to evil plunges them much farther into debauchery and lack of morals of all kinds. It is a fact, that evil has more rules and constraints upon evil society than good does. The rules are openly followed and secretly betrayed constantly as the "rebels" believe the rewards for disobedience are worth the risks. Rule breakers are punished far more severely than in good societies. Morals do not exist at all: only an outward seeming, in accordance with the rules, to show legitimacy. Evil people depend very much upon legitimacy: without it, the only way they can remain in power is to knock off the opposition. this is very expensive and risky, and is only to be used in the last extremity. Orcs are not stupid. To hold up examples of human-like interrelating as evidence of their lack of evil nature is falacious imho. Just because they ape human camaraderie does not mean that they have affection for each other. It is must meant to put the other off their guard, by acting nonthreatening and obsequious. The calling of your fellows "lads" is nothing more than an aping of more civilized behavior amongst Elves, Dwarves and Men. There is no more solidarity to it than in a wolf pack: and of course the strongest win the respect/fear of the rest. The only question I have relates to a point made before: that orcs, being originally from Elves (and, or, Men) had souls and most likely still do. The fact that in The Silmarillion orcs are nowhere portrayed as homey, gruff inidividuals, as they are in The Hobbit and TLOTR, is probably only a development of Tolkien's changing view of his creation: but it could also indicate an "evolution" upward of the orcish race. By the Fourth Age, orcs were capable of exhibiting initiative, striking off on their own and rebeling against their masters. The "rebels" referred to must be orcs never - or no longer - under the iron thumb of Sauron or Saruman. If the race of orcs down the ages did not entirely die out (and there is no evidence that it did), then Tolkien's surmise is that orcish blood exists in the human race as we know it. That might explain the natural ugliness which unfortunate individuals are cursed with from birth: and as well, might explain the degraded behavior tendencies of individuals in society. If any of this was in Tolkien's mind, then at least he was offering an imaginative excuse for such low-class appearance and behavior! (It is singular evidence of this, that Tolkien drew heavily from the Icelandic Sagas for his names, culture and characters: and in the Sagas, it is a common feature that strong characters are either very becoming to look upon, or brutish, troll-like and yet never stupid. Sounds very much like orcish decent to me.) MtM Reply Recommend Delete Message 46 of 74 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 12/13/2002 10:54 PM I have for the most part, skirted this in-depth yet merry war which has existed since the founding of this site. In truth one might consider it one of the founding discussions, "if you take my meaning". But today while trying to discover the answer to a lore question I stumbled over some of Tolkien's own words with regards to this statement. I don't recall it being brought up previously. Now Dale Ann in message (12) originally uncovered the proving letter # 153 In Carpenters "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien" and back then when I read the argument I felt it had sort of a finality to it I never really looked into it. In fact I had only read this particular letter all the way through once until now, and had only focused upon the Bombadil section. So I'm lazy, you got me! So I'm dropping in on Megn's and MTM side and saying Orcs cannot be redeemable. Granted the first Avari whom were captured by Melkor and enslaved and tortured into the sires of Orcs may be allowed redemption, or into the Halls of Mandos. (This was one of Tolkien’s musings as DA originally wrote in message (12) of this post, from "Morgoth’s Ring" page 114.) This deserves looking at again, because it is not so much a history of Orcs, as it is a sort of a Geneva Convention of the Elves wartime rules in dealing with Orcs being worked out in Tolkien's mind. Anyhow I had an epiphany after re-reading all these post combined with the re-reading of letter #153. The Orcs are irredeemable because they have no freewill! That is to say they are only tools of Melkor and later Sauron they exist solely to do there masters bidding, and left to their own they would simply be small insignificant copies of their creator. Seems Merlin the Mad had it right all along! I’m still open to debate on this issue, but I think their lack of true free will is the determining factor in the great debate of Orc redemption. Namárië, Iarwain
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 12, 2009 18:46:06 GMT -6
Message 47 of 74 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 12/13/2002 10:56 PM Apologies for the HTML code, need to work on that! Iarwain
Reply Recommend Delete Message 48 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 12/15/2002 6:41 AM Et Tu, Iarwain.... I'll have to re-read everything to give an answer to this. Stay tuned. But, in the meantime, I believe that Tolkien wanted Orcs to be irredeemable, which is why he worked on trying to find a way, which is documented in Morgoth's Ring. These writings were after publication of at least some of LotR. The title of the chapter Myths Transformed provides a clue. He wanted to transform what he had already written. Orcs were not the only thing he wanted to change in later years..... ----DA
Reply Recommend Delete Message 49 of 74 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 12/15/2002 6:26 PM I await with baited breath (just had anchovy pizza) your rebuttal DA. And knowing there might be more evidence buried elsewhere, I to will be looking. Namárië, Iarwain
Reply Recommend Delete Message 50 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 12/16/2002 10:43 PM Me too! I would enjoy reading how Tolkien's ideas changed later in life: what he would like to have written differently had he created Middle-earth later in life. About orcs, and extending my last observation: I believe orcs as such are mentally/spiritually more like animals, but are shown to be progressing back toward having a recognizable free will. Throughout the ages of Middle-earth, individual orcs could have had a higher intellect, and been individually responsible before Ilúvatar for their acts in life: whereas the race as a whole is outside of judgment because of a lack of free will. Only those beings which comprehend a law can be judged by it. If God's purposes include all life in a final plan or destiny, then orcs fit into it as well: and while not redeemable during Middle-earth, this doesn't assume that their lives do not have some purpose after death. If that were true, then Ilúvatar would surely have stopped their coming into existence in the beginning. MtM
Reply Recommend Delete Message 51 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 12/17/2002 6:24 AM MtM and Iarwain: The Myths Transformed chapter is a difficult one to read because it is a series of divergent essays that were either abandoned or in process. What makes it more difficult, for me, is that later in life Tolkien thought about abandoning much of the cosmogony: for instance, the Sun and Moon already in existence before the Elves appeared. There are other ideas that are equally distressing to me...if you really want me to post about them, it needs a different thread. In that chapter, I am now reading Tolkien's ideas about the psychology/philosophy of Morgoth vs Sauron. I would like to share what I found in a different thread. So I've been rereading to get the important points. This section has peripheral bearing on Orcs. I promise that I am slowly working my way to the Orc section. MtM: I had noticed that you believe that Orcs are more like animals. I, however, believe that most Orcs retained their Elvish essense (if only looking at what Tolkien published, not later ideas). I think that is where our differences lie... ---DA
Reply Recommend Delete Message 52 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 12/17/2002 5:14 PM So do you feel they are just fallen elves then? They were forced to fall, ergo they did not choose to fall. I think that would destroy most of their elvishness. And if not elves any longer, then what? Brutes is how they behave consistently. And the brute is a beast. An animal. MtM
Reply Recommend Delete Message 53 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 12/17/2002 8:16 PM MtM, in your real life world, does a human being lose their essence, their soul, when they commit crimes, even the most heineous ones? In my real world, they do not. I believe Tolkien, in giving Elves their souls, could not take them back from Orcs. I have yet to come upon anything written about the exact process by which an Elf (or Man) could become an Orc. It is written somewhere that Orcs reproduced in the manner of Elves. Is the child born of such a union already an Orc, or is that child born an Elf and twisted and mutilated after its birth? One of the problems Tolkien had was making Orcishness heritable. He felt that only Eru could do such a thing. I'll get the exact citation tomorrow. It's in the Myths Transformed chapter. ---DA
Reply Recommend Delete Message 54 of 74 in Discussion From: Elanor Sent: 12/17/2002 9:05 PM I have ventured here in pursuit of the answer to "Are Orc's immortal like elves". I have yet to fully read this thread. Which makes me very afraid to post. I have decided to brave the lions and give it a go. Be gentle on me... Anyway, DaleAnn, In regard to if offspring are born Orcs or Elves... If they were to be born elves, I think that the power of socialization and the environment in which they are raised would quickly transform them into true Orcs. keep shining elanor
Reply Recommend Delete Message 55 of 74 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 12/18/2002 10:05 AM Elanor, I really enjoy a question that has been left at the wayside, and yours of "Orcs mortality" is one such one. Apologies if I read too much into your question. It is my way to take things literally, otherwise I would forever be trying to devine the uncovered meaning. After all evey statement or question ever uttered has more than one meaning. "Accept my Life, except my Life, except my life." -Hamlet- So perhaps again I read too much into your querry, but this has been a long running debate within other groups I assoicate with. The best information I have found is contained within "Morgoths Ring" from the HoMe books. There is a complete Geneva Convention of Elvish wartime laws being tossed about in Tolkien's head, so here are one of the highlights that a whole list was posted within this thread by Daleann: "Elvish strain of Orcs. Their lifespan would be shorter. "They would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End." pg. 411" So in therory based on this one obscure Tolkien musing we can be lead to assume that the Orcs were not immortal, but only long lived as in the case of the Númenóreans with there mixed blood. Now interesting enough in "The Letters of J.R.R.Tolkien" from page 193: "Tuor weds Idril the daughter of Turgon King of Gondolin; 'and it is supposed' (not stated) that he is a unique exception receives the Elvish limited Immortality: an exception either way." So from this quote one can gleen as Tolkien expresses within his tales all life is indeed transitory. Even the Elves are indeed doomed to die, either through great hurt, or a growing weary of life itself, they are not completely immortal as compared to the Valar, Maiar, or Ilúvatar. But even in the case of the Valar and Maiar they gave up their true immortality as well when they decided to come to Arda."The Simarillion" page 8: "But this condition Ilúvatar made, or it is necessity of their Love, that their power thenceforth be contained and bounded in the world, to be within it for ever, until it is complete, so that they are it's life and it is theirs. And therefore they are named the Valar, the powers of the World." So again we are stuck on assumptive reasoning: Does "forever" imply that at the last / second singing of the song of Ilúvatar that all whom were a part of Arda (the Earth) will, at the end of the song be no more? Perhaps it is more metaphorical in the idea of thought, or memory. Perhaps the memory of the song is eternal just as the first vision of Arda was from the Ainulindalë, and therefore it's eternal melody offers immortality to all involved within the vast thought of Eru. So are Orcs immortal? Hmmmmm, I think the question needs a bit more clarification. What is the essence of immortality? How long is forever? Is Eru himself the only immortal? However if any of the information is of any help, I'm glad to be of service. Now Merlin, I will agree that Orc's indeed had no freewill and were therefore irredeemable, however I see them as "tools" more that animals. My heart can't separate Mankind from "Beastkind" I see all of us as a group of animals with each having varying degrees of comprhension, and yes freewill. With Orcs however I see them as less than animals. Only organic machines if you will, programed to follow a masters bidding. Perhaps you might agree knowing you to have Horses in your stewardship. Could any Orcs compare to the nobility and strength of a Horse? Truely no Orc could compare to the Dogs I have befriended within my life. Am I just taking this too literally? LOL! Namárië, Iarwain
Reply Recommend Delete Message 56 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 12/30/2002 6:11 AM Over the Christmas holidays, my children "helped" by "cleaning up" and therefore lost my book, Morgoth's Ring. Neither one could remember touching it. So, after searching and searching, looking even into my paper recycling bin, I was pretty sure it got tossed out with the garbage. But, yesterday, while looking for a particular cookbook, guess what I found? No one will admit to putting it there.... But, now I am back in business. I re-read everything I could find on the origin of Orcs. The last thing written which C. Tolkien believes was from around 1959 -1960, in a nearly complete and finished essay starts on page 416 of Morgoth's Ring called Text X (10). The following is what I gleaned from it: Paragraph 2: The Orcs from later wars were living creatures, not Spirits. The first Orcs that the Elves encountered were Spirits. Paragraph 3 and 4: Orcs were probably corrupted from Men, even though there is a problem of chronology. "But if he had indeed attempted to make creatures of his own in imitation or mockery of the Incarnates, he would, like Aule, only have succeeded in producing puppets: his creatures would have acted only while the attention of his will was upon them" Paragraph 5: "...his [Melkor] dominion was by fear...They were indeed so corrupted that they were pitiless...but this was the corruption of independent wills, and they took pleasure in their deeds." Papragraph 6: Orcs lived and bred even when Morgoth was overthrown. [So much for my idea of each individual Orc being twisted and corrupted directly by Morgoth/Sauron.] "They had other characteristics of the Incarnates also." They had languages of their own and developed into different breeds. They needed food and rest. "...they appear to have been by nature short-lived compared with the span of Men of higher race, such as the Edain." [There is the definitive answer, Elanor.]Paragraph 7: Some Orc-captains were Spirits taking Orc form. Boldog, for instance. Paragraph 8: Men and Orcs could be made to interbreed which was rediscovered by Saruman. Paragraph 9: "...the Wise of the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law." A footnote to this paragraph includes this: "For one thing Morgoth had achieved was to convince the Orcs beyond refutation that the Elves were crueller than themselves, taking captives only for 'amusement', or to eat them (as the Orcs would do at need)." [See, MtM, the only good Elf is a dead Elf.] Paragraph 10: Morgoth's domination of Orcs caused them to be "almost witless" when he was overthrown. Paragraph 11: "This servitude to a central will...was seen more plainly...under Sauron." Though Sauron was operating on a smaller scale than Morgoth, he inherited some problems with Orcs. Some time after Morgoth was overthrown, the Orcs recovered and set up petty kingdoms and "had become accustomed to independence." Sauron had his own trained armies of Orcs that were completely under his will and in time united the rest. He was also skillful in corrupting Men. Paragraph 12 and 13: Though Melkor concieved the idea of breeding Orcs as a defilement of Elves and Men, the details were left to Sauron. This fixes the chronology problem as corruptions of Men -- meaning later in Time -- rather than Elves. Paragraph 14: During Melkor's captivity, Sauron witnessed and encouraged the breeding of Orcs to create the army of Morgoth when he returned. Separate section from C. Tolkien: "This...was my father's final view of the question: Orcs were bred from Men... ...But, as always it is not quite so simple. Accompanying one copy of the typescript of this essay...[written after Nov.1969] is a note..." "Those orks [Tolkien considered changing the spelling of orc to ork] who dwelt long under the immediate attention of his will...would act like herds, obeying instantly....And as seen when Morgoth was at last overthrown and cast out, those orks that had been so absorbed scattered helplessly..." "Other originally independent creatures, and Men among them (but neither Elves or Dwarves), could also be reduced to a like condition...In any case the number of orks that were thus absorbed was always only a small part of their total." Brackets are mine. Parentheses within quotes are part of the quote. ---DA
Reply Recommend Delete Message 57 of 74 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 12/30/2002 9:29 AM DaleAnn Those darn children! I told them to hide it somewhere you wouldn't find it ! LOL! Well from the looks of your final qoute there, the book seems to be agreeing that they are simply "Tools" and without a master become scattered and lost. Lack of "Freewill" and therefore neither accountability no redeemability would be theirs. I'm still combing through "The Peoples of Middle-earth" it looked promising with a chapter called "Late Writings" but I have found nothing new to fuel either side of this as yet. Thanks for sticking to your guns! And I am glad you found your book, it's such a pain to have to replace something one already has! Namárië, Iarwain
Reply Recommend Delete Message 58 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 12/30/2002 10:23 AM Iarwain wrote: Well from the looks of your final qoute there, the book seems to be agreeing that they are simply "Tools" and without a master become scattered and lost. Lack of "Freewill" and therefore neither accountability no redeemability would be theirs. Iarwain, if you look again at that last quote with the emphasis on the boldface: "Those orks [Tolkien considered changing the spelling of orc to ork] who dwelt long under the immediate attention of his will...would act like herds, obeying instantly....And as seen when Morgoth was at last overthrown and cast out, those orks that had been so absorbed scattered helplessly..." "Other originally independent creatures, and Men among them (but neither Elves or Dwarves), could also be reduced to a like condition...In any case the number of orks that were thus absorbed was always only a small part of their total." Only a small number were under the type of contorl you refer to. Others did act independently. Further indication of this can be found in Paragraph 5 and 11. ---DA
Reply Recommend Delete Message 59 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 12/31/2002 11:56 AM Thanks Daleann! I noticed several points where my conclusions agree with the Professor's clarifications: I had always assumed that orcs were bred from both elves and men, elves first naturally because they were on the earth a long time before men, and men later in preference to elves, being far more numerous and easier to corrupt: ergo, the lifespan of orcs and goblins is only about the same as men, or even perhaps shorter (they certainly give the impression of breeding faster than men, and nature would limit this somewhat by giving the race a shorter span of years). The idea that orcs and men can interbreed and were intended to do so puts my mind at rest regarding their being redeemable: he mentions "They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men)," which can only mean that no amount of "missionarying" amongst the fallen orcish race would ever have any success. The only redemption possible comes through the influence of Eru Ilúvatar; and since orcs and men interbreed, and since only a small part of the total race of orcs/half-orcs ever fell under the total domination of Sauron, it follows that they, in their independent kingdoms, and through the passing of centuries, would come to resemble men more and not less. Where your quotations surprised me was in the reversing of the proportion: I had always assumed that the vast majority of orcs were under the Shadow: but apparently the opposite is true. What I do not understand is the Professor's reference - "The Orcs from later wars were living creatures, not Spirits." He makes this distinction between the physical and non physical orgins, and insinuates that there are two kinds of orcs; some individuals being Spirits - e.g. "Some Orc-captains were Spirits taking Orc form. Boldog, for instance." It sounds as tho the orcs of the earlier wars of Beleriand were not physically corrupted, but somehow Morgoth actually took them as spirits and stuffed them - after being wholly corrupted to his will - into some physical form: or it could equally be interpreted that the earlier orcs were not physical forms but spirits only (but then how do you "kill" a spirit orc, as the Noldor and Sindar so obviously do?). I do not know what Tolkien means by this. I think it is a Catholic doctrine creeping in: wherein the Spiritual has no direct connection with the fallen-physical (but is meant to dwell with the "angels?"): ergo, if corrupted Spirit, that particular orc would be a very bad fellow indeed and without redemption. I don't know. "Tom": I don't know what I said that you read to give you the idea that I ever thot of orcs as irredeemable creatures, or that they NEVER had any freewill: the elves certainly had freewill but it was corrupted to be utterly subservient to Morgoth's: it seems that whether corrupted elves or men, once out from under the evil influence they slowly regain their freewill again: thus the need for an end to the wars and throwing down of such an all encompassing evil reign of darkness - under which the plan of salvation, which requires free will, cannot go forward. And although your idea that they are more like organic machines and even lower than animals is well stated, I cannot go along with that. MtM
Reply Recommend Delete Message 60 of 74 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 12/31/2002 8:44 PM Oy! Now the debate turns on me, I knew I should have just kept my mouth shut and threw only comments in for the side lines. So when we discuss redeemability what are we saying? 1. Orcs would morph into a more Human/Elf like state or personality? One that Humans or Elfs would be willing to accept in their midst and allowed to date their daughters? The question of redeemabilty needs to be addressed towards our own acceptance then. Or........ 2. Orcs would be allowed by Eru to become part of the Final singing of the Theme of Iluvatar (Not that they aren't a part of that song already) When all disharmony would be removed (I suspect Melkor won't be there then) and the true thought of Iluvatar will be made known to all. Which in this case we might disscuss the vengeful nature of Iluvatar in his treatment of errant Nuemenorian's during the Akllabeth and ask: Why were they not redeemable. and last.... 3. With regards to the fine research you've offered DaleAnn I think it might be so much of Tolkien's after thoughts that he wished to have added into his universe that was not there to begin with. Take for example the above listed Paragraph 9: the Wise of the Elder Days were taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. (Rehashing or prehashing of Gandalfs "Nothing is in the begining Evil") They might have become IRredeemable (at least by Elves and Men). but they remained within the Law." But by whose Law I ask, Eru's? Elves', Man's, Reader's, or Tolkien's. Namárië, Iarwain
Reply Recommend Delete Message 61 of 74 in Discussion From: Glorfindle Sent: 1/1/2003 1:35 AM When you close the cover of the book, sit back, and with eyes closed, think about what you read......only you and you are there.......
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 12, 2009 18:47:06 GMT -6
Message 62 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 1/2/2003 5:10 PM Iarwain wrote: But by whose Law I ask, Eru's? Elves', Man's, Reader's, or Tolkien's. Sorry about that, Iarwain. I should have been specific about what "laws" that were being talked about. Call them the "Geneva Convention of M-e" laws: Orcs are not to be tortured. If an Orc asked for mercy, it was to be granted. Etc....
Reply Recommend Delete Message 63 of 74 in Discussion From: sparrow Sent: 1/2/2003 8:17 PM It seems like when I was looking for something else I came across a passage in Book 6 of LotR or maybe in one of the Appendices that said Aragorn alloted a certain portion of land in which to dwell. Now that I am looking for it I can't find it, not even using the index. Does anyone else recall this passage?
Reply Recommend Delete Message 64 of 74 in Discussion From: Storrmrider Sent: 1/3/2003 7:43 AM Do you think an Orc would actually ask for mercy? After reading the chapter in the Two Towers where the Orcs take Frodo into custody, I have to admit that they do seem to have their own Orcish-kind of good/bad moral code; but would they be able to adjust to a normal code of ethics and would they even think to ask to be given that chance? Or would it just be a last ditch effort on their part to escape death, judgment, punishment, or whatever with the eventual hope that maybe they can escape and go back to their own ways? Sparrow, interesting question about Aragorn alloting some land for the Orcs to dwell in. I will try and look for that passage, too. Stormrider
Reply Recommend Delete Message 65 of 74 in Discussion From: Elanor Sent: 1/3/2003 10:58 AM Wow, what a wealth of information to complicate things. :-) I always visualized Orcs as elves that had gone bad, then continued to stay bad because they were raised in an evil environment. I think that the Orcs had free will, they just had a very warped sense of what right and wrong was, simply because they didn't know any better. Even DA's article says that they were taught that elves were more evil than themselves. DA's notes even suggest that the Orcs were capable of setting up their own government and "petty kingdoms." So for now, I'm sticking to my socialization theory. I think that if Saraun is overthrown that they will develop their kingdoms and establish their own code of behavior. They would no longer need to kill except for food and to defend their land. There would also probably be a few Outlaws and pirates that couldn't forget their lifelong trade to kill all in their path. (were there not outlawed men that also did this) While, I think it would take a very long time before the Orcs were open to it, I think the "missionaries" have hope. Furthremore, I think the Valor have a better chance of forgiving the Orcs sins than the Nuemenorion's because later had full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. The Orcs that were probably alive when Sauron was destroyed were only evil becuase they'd never been taught anything else. The Valor welcomed back the elves who did not take the Oath and I reckon he would also welcome back Orcs. What would be an interesting test of this theory is if an Orc baby was adopted by an elf or a man. I think he would turn out ok, maybe just a little ugly. As for if Orcs are immortal... When I asked the question originally, I was asking if they were immortal in the way their elven forfathers would be immortal. They could still be slain etc. But now as it seems that some, maybe all Orcs, descended from men, that at most they could hope for a long lifespan. If I've opened myself for the kill, be gentle on me. I hope you all had a wonderful holiday season! keep shining elanor
Reply Recommend Delete Message 66 of 74 in Discussion From: samualwheatley Sent: 1/3/2003 11:52 AM As to origins of Orcs. They have been in middle-earth since the first age. They were first bred by Morgoth the Enemy during the war for the Great Jewels (simarills). they were the soldiery of this father of evil. Now Morgoth never had true creative power, so he took existing creatures and ruined and perverted them for his own purposes. He made them evil filled with his dark will. They cannibalistic and cruel, they feared the sun from there beginning coming out to attack only at night. Or at time when there master (Sauron or Morgoth) cast the Great Darkness apon the lands. After the fall of Morgoth they fled mostly to the north living underground in great caves. They were called to the will of Sauron in the second age. Sauron in proved the breed in the third age. He had Saruman breed them with men. Giving him a breed which would be more trustworthy and loyal. They could fight under the sun for they did not fear it. They were called the Uruk-hai which in the black speech of mordor means "the orcs". Most of this breed perished at the battle of the Hornburg. As to there nature they were Morgoth's creation despite there elf origins. They were evil beyond redeming. In short they are born of evil completely.
Reply Recommend Delete Message 67 of 74 in Discussion From: Storrmrider Sent: 1/3/2003 12:27 PM Sparrow: I found this passage in Book 6, Chapter V--The Steward and the King: "In the day that followed his crowning, the King sat on his throne in the Hall of the Kings and pronounced his judgements. An embassies came from many lands and peoples, from the East and the South, and from the borders of Mirkwood, and from Dunland in the west. And the King pardoned the Easterlings that had given themselves up, and sent them away free, and he made peace with the peoples of Harad; and the slaves of Mordor he released and gave to them all the lands about Lake Núrnen to be their own." Would Orcs be considered slaves of Mordor or were they willing members of his army? It does not specifically say "Orcs" but then, it could take into consideration many types of creatures that were slaves of Sauron. Stormrider
Reply Recommend Delete Message 68 of 74 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 1/3/2003 3:07 PM Not at all Elanor,
We here aren't vicious just driven. I for the longest time avoided this debate like the plauge and I am still regretting my side of it. But as any Libra with honor knows I'll switch sides when I've proven my point! LOL! Good to have another input.
Namárië,
Iarwain
Jay Siebert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
Reply Recommend Delete Message 69 of 74 in Discussion From: sparrow Sent: 1/4/2003 12:26 AM Stormy, That is the passage I was thinking of. Thanks for finding it for me. I couldn't find it because I jumped ahead of that chapter! I just assumed slaves of Mordor referred to the orcs. Regards, Sparrow
Reply Recommend Delete Message 70 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 1/5/2003 6:33 AM MtM, sorry I did not get back to you quickly. The "Spirit Orcs" were those that were around before Men appeared in Middle-earth. They were Maia or lesser spirits corrupted by or attracted to Melkor and bound to physical form (as Melian was). This may account for their ability to be slain. The "Spirit Orc Captain" was invented because certain Orcs had a much longer lifespan than the usual Orcs. The added plus to this was they had more power to keep others in line. Stormy, Very few, if any, Orcs asked for mercy, since they were taught that Elves were evil. Better to die quickly than be tortured and eaten. Spparow, I seem to recall that Aragorn's men spent years tracking down Orcs and killing them. I can't remember where I read this. It could it be somewhere in the appendices or in the History of M-e series. I'll have to go hunt for it. ---DA
Reply Recommend Delete Message 71 of 74 in Discussion From: DaleAnn Sent: 1/5/2003 6:36 AM Nothing like proof-reading after the fact....sorry Sparrow. ---DA
Reply Recommend Delete Message 72 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 1/5/2003 12:40 PM Then are the Maiar mostly not on a level with Gandalf the Balrogs and other Wizards? If you had hordes of "spirit orcs" that had the same tenacity as a Wizard or Balrog, then I cannot see how the battles would work out: mere Elves would have a real problem killing off large numbers of such creatures. But if the main body of those spirit beings known as Maiar are not any more powerful than the average Elf, Man or Dwarf Spirit, then it would make sense. The Balrogs and Wizards are simply the most powerful (Melian too of course) Maiar and are therefore very exceptional and rare beings. MtM
Reply Recommend Delete Message 73 of 74 in Discussion From: IarwainBen-adar1 Sent: 1/5/2003 6:24 PM When the first born of Iluvatar were young they were indeed quite powerful. The Noldor and Vanyar in particular as they had seen the light of the Two Tress. Consider if you will Melian married Thingol(He had indeed seen the light, but when returning to get his tribe, found Melian and stayed in M-e) he must of had something going for him. Also Feanor his creation of the Silmarils, and so firey a spirit, that his body was consumed at his death by it.. And who could forget Fingolfin who challenged Morgoth to single combat and wounded him seven times before he ultimately was killed by him. I like to think of the Elves of the light as akin to Maiar, and only slighly less powerful. However in the Third Age only Galadriel "cheifly", Glorfindle, and possibly Celeborn(His origins are ever in question) would be the only Elves left of such stature. Namárië, Iarwain
Reply Recommend Delete Message 74 of 74 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 1/5/2003 9:29 PM Yes, but Men in the First Age are not a whit behind Elves as warriors. Túrin, a mere Man, is THE hero fighter of the Silmarillion. They don't go up in flames when they die, but Men are capable of the most stupendous exploits: e.g. Húrin at the rearguard on the fen of Serech - following the battle of Nirnaeth Arnoediad - is only overcome after slaying scores of enemies after he was alone. MtM
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 25, 2024 14:30:00 GMT -6
ANDY & FREDDIE!! THERE ARE ORCS WHO HAVE CHANGED THEIR EVIL WAYS AND ARE BEING NICE AND TRYING TO LIVE A DECENT LIFE!They live in Jeb Khatel in Kaf*gur of the Shield Isles of Umbar. <== the * is supposed to be an A but I can't change it--I've tried 5 times and it returns to the * !! Sandwen & Twizzle must not have gotten through all the Gundabad quests because I don't remember rescuing these Orcs!
|
|