Orcishness through a Human lens

[Odola]

Not so. The Old Testament saints were saved through their faith in a coming Redeemer. A Redeemer to place faith in is necessary; His having already come is not.

We are pre-Old Testament here. Hobbits have no idea about a Redeemer to come. What would that make them according to your statement above?

 

[JJ48]

We are pre-Old Testament here. Hobbits have no idea about a Redeemer to come. What would that make them according to your statement above?

Redeemable, obviously. Whether they have knowledge or not is irrelevant.

 

[Odola]

Redeemable, obviously. Whether they have knowledge or not is irrelevant.

So what's the difference to orcs, then?

 

[Deleted member 207]

But Christian theology is surely irrelevant?

 

[Odola]

But Christian theology is surely irrelevant?

For the "Redemption" question it is.
For the worldview of the Rohirrim, who only want to be remebered in songs, it isn't, at least not consciously.
For Aragorn it partially seems to be, but he thinks and feels far ahead.

 

[JJ48]

So what's the difference to orcs, then?

What's the similarity? The seeming irredeemability of Orcs is based on their treatment by characters and author alike, not their lack of knowledge.

 

[Odola]

What's the similarity? The seeming irredeemability of Orcs is based on their treatment by characters and author alike, not their lack of knowledge.

? How can treatment by others affect anybody's redeemability? If this were so Denethor's treatment of Faramir would render Faramir unredeemable. Makes no sense to me at all.

 

[JJ48]

? How can treatment by other affect anybody's redeemability?

It's not that the treatment CAUSES their status; but the treatment does inform us of their status. We read, and then draw conclusions from what we read. (In one sense, though I guess in a way, their treatment by Tolkien does actually cause their status.)

 

[Odola]

It's not that the treatment CAUSES their status; but the treatment does inform us of their status. We read, and then draw conclusions from what we read. (In one sense, though I guess in a way, their treatment by Tolkien does actually cause their status.)

So does Faramir's treatment by Denethor inform us about Faramir's status or Denethor's? Does how orcs are treated inform us about the orcs or the others? The autor does not treat orcs, he just reports how they are being treated.

(To your previous question about similarity between orcs and hobbits: there is some. Both cultures are those of self-centered fallen beings focused completely on their own needs and wants with a very limited wordview and a disdain for others. The difference is more in degree than in essence.)

 

[JJ48]

So does Faramir's treatment by Denethor's inform us about Faramir's status or Denethor's? Does how orcs are treated inform us about the orcs or the others? The autor does not treat orcs, he just reports how they are being treated.

Denethor's treatment of Faramir tells us much about Denethor, but only because we already know much about Faramir (and come to learn more). Without this knowledge, we would have no way of knowing whether Denethor's treatment was just or unjust.

With Orcs, it is much the same way. You've claimed before that Legolas and Gimli's game tells us more about them than it tells us about the Orcs, but this is not so. If Orcs are completely evil, then the game tells us simply that Legolas and Gimli don't fear them and are gung-ho about ridding the world of them (and this is perfectly fine and acceptable since the Orcs are completely evil). If Orcs are not completely evil, however, then the game tells us that Legolas and Gimli are monsters for whom terms like "hero" or even "good guy" are thoroughly inappropriate, and their boat sinking in a massive storm halfway to Valinor would be an end too good for them, curse their memory.

Now, it is true that this alone would not tell us which possibility is the true one. However, since the rest of the text shows us that Legolas and Gimli are, in fact, heroes--and since the game is presented in keeping with their heroic nature rather than a deviation from it--I prefer the former reading to the latter.

 

[Odola]

Denethor's treatment of Faramir tells us much about Denethor, but only because we already know much about Faramir (and come to learn more). Without this knowledge, we would have no way of knowing whether Denethor's treatment was just or unjust.

With Orcs, it is much the same way. You've claimed before that Legolas and Gimli's game tells us more about them than it tells us about the Orcs, but this is not so. If Orcs are completely evil, then the game tells us simply that Legolas and Gimli don't fear them and are gung-ho about ridding the world of them (and this is perfectly fine and acceptable since the Orcs are completely evil). If Orcs are not completely evil, however, then the game tells us that Legolas and Gimli are monsters for whom terms like "hero" or even "good guy" are thoroughly inappropriate, and their boat sinking in a massive storm halfway to Valinor would be an end too good for them, curse their memory.

Now, it is true that this alone would not tell us which possibility is the true one. However, since the rest of the text shows us that Legolas and Gimli are, in fact, heroes--and since the game is presented in keeping with their heroic nature rather than a deviation from it--I prefer the former reading to the latter.

That would assume that the elves who hunted down petty dwarves because they thought them to be animals are all to be damned also. Or Sam for his mistreatment of Gollum. Gimli and Ledolas are heros for their war deeds in the Rohirrim sence. Not for their accordance to human morals, which do not apply to them anyway, as they are not humans in the first place.
And by the way Saruman is treated with reverence untill his very last for what he once was. It does not mean he is redeemable, just because he is treated with dignity.

 

[JJ48]

That would assume that the elves who hunted down petty dwarves because they thought them to be animals are all to be damned also. Or Sam for his mistreatment of Gollum.

We should judge the elves for their mistreatment of the petty dwarves, and Sam's mistreatment of Gollum is a troubling part of his character (though, to his credit, he does seem to repent of it and even shows pity toward Gollum by the end).

Not for their accordance to human morals, which do not apply to them anyway, as they are not humans in the first place.

Aragorn would disagree with you. "Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."

 

[Odola]

We should judge the elves for their mistreatment of the petty dwarves, and Sam's mistreatment of Gollum is a troubling part of his character (though, to his credit, he does seem to repent of it and even shows pity toward Gollum by the end).



Aragorn would disagree with you. "Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."

" It is a man’s part to discern them" - it is for men to tell them apart, I do completely agree. This is a task given to men.

 

[JJ48]

" It is a man’s part to discern them" - it is for men to tell them apart, I do completely agree. This is a task given to men.

Significantly, with a lower-case "m", presumably indicating that "man" is being used in its generic, non-racial-specific sense. (For precedent, see the usage of "raftmen" to describe Elves in The Hobbit.)

 

[Odola]

Significantly, with a lower-case "m", presumably indicating that "man" is being used in its generic, non-racial-specific sense. (For precedent, see the usage of "raftmen" to describe Elves in The Hobbit.)

Then it would exclude women. Aragorn could have said "all" here, but he didn't.

 

[JJ48]

Then it would exclude women. Aragorn could have said "all" here, but he didn't.

No, "man" in its generic sense includes any person, regardless of age or gender. In Middle-earth, that just seems to include Elves and Dwarves, too.

The choice for "a man's part" rather than "the part of all" could be partially due to the fact that the latter might make it sound like a collective decision, whereas the former emphasizes each individual. There may be other ways this could have been worded that would do the same, but the fact that "Men" is capitalized in the one sentence and "man" is not in the other, I think, makes it clear that the one is racial, and the other isn't.

 

[Odola]

No, "man" in its generic sense includes any person, regardless of age or gender. In Middle-earth, that just seems to include Elves and Dwarves, too.

The choice for "a man's part" rather than "the part of all" could be partially due to the fact that the latter might make it sound like a collective decision, whereas the former emphasizes each individual. There may be other ways this could have been worded that would do the same, but the fact that "Men" is capitalized in the one sentence and "man" is not in the other, I think, makes it clear that the one is racial, and the other isn't.

I think man cannot be capitalised because it is in singular, so it cannot be generic. "Person" or "one" would have resolved the issue. Either the man in question is specifically Boromir, or it refers to one random representant of Men as an individual, or it is any adult male of any race ready to bear arms (this would exclude women, children and maybe even hobbits, as we see in the killing of the Witchking.)

We should judge the elves for their mistreatment of the petty dwarves...

I disagree. Elves (and dwarves) are clearly not our jurisdiction. Elves would oppose Men killing Maglor for his many misdeads, and rightly so imho. Elves and dwarves can be judged by Men for crimes against men only.

 

[JJ48]

I disagree. Elves (and dwarves) are clearly not our jurisdiction. Elves would oppose Men killing Maglor for his many misdeads, and rightly so imho. Elves and dwarves can be judged by Men for crimes against men only.

Within the fictional universe, maybe. As readers, we can judge any characters as applicable.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Denethor's treatment of Faramir tells us much about Denethor, but only because we already know much about Faramir (and come to learn more). Without this knowledge, we would have no way of knowing whether Denethor's treatment was just or unjust.

With Orcs, it is much the same way. You've claimed before that Legolas and Gimli's game tells us more about them than it tells us about the Orcs, but this is not so. If Orcs are completely evil, then the game tells us simply that Legolas and Gimli don't fear them and are gung-ho about ridding the world of them (and this is perfectly fine and acceptable since the Orcs are completely evil). If Orcs are not completely evil, however, then the game tells us that Legolas and Gimli are monsters for whom terms like "hero" or even "good guy" are thoroughly inappropriate, and their boat sinking in a massive storm halfway to Valinor would be an end too good for them, curse their memory.

Now, it is true that this alone would not tell us which possibility is the true one. However, since the rest of the text shows us that Legolas and Gimli are, in fact, heroes--and since the game is presented in keeping with their heroic nature rather than a deviation from it--I prefer the former reading to the latter.

I can’t accept this as a binary condition. I see at least a third option: As Legolas and Gimli don’t have access to objective truth, they believe that Orcs are irredeemably evil and therefore feel justified in conducting their game. Unbeknownst to them there is scope for redemption of the Orcs, but it’s not until their arrival in Valinor that they find out, at which point they repentantly seek and are granted absolution for their behaviour.

 

[Odola]

" It is a man’s part to discern them" - it is for men to tell them apart, I do completely agree. This is a task given to men.

I can’t accept this as a binary condition. I see at least a third option: As Legolas and Gimli don’t have access to objective truth, they believe that Orcs are irredeemably evil and therefore feel justified in conducting their game. Unbeknownst to them there is scope for redemption of the Orcs, but it’s not until their arrival in Valinor that they find out, at which point they repentantly seek and are granted absolution for their behaviour.

It is not the behaviour itself, as they are just killing enemies in a battle, but their attitude doing it actually that is problematic. To the killed orcs it makes no difference if they are counting them or not. They are just "dehumanising" them. As none of the sides involved in this really IS human, the problem is overrated imho. There is a certain respect that is expected from a human to a other human. (But even Frodo is at the beginning unsure, if this includes "Big People" for him.) There is an even greater one from an elf to an elf. I cannot tell much about dwarves in this regard. To a lesser degree all "Free Peoples" are to show some degree of basic respect towards the others member of the "Free Peoples". But the exact extend of this respect is unclear. Orcs are not member of this group and pay no respect to anybody (even themselves) but their masters.

Within the fictional universe, maybe. As readers, we can judge any characters as applicable.

We can judge their attitude as problematic for a human to have towards another by our modern standard, yes. But this is as far as I would go with it. I would not even meassure Rohirrim with our modern standard.