Orcishness through a Human lens

[JJ48]

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.

I'm not sure I'd really say "taking delight in the slaughter of people is wrong" is really THAT modern an idea. To put it in other words, "Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men."

 

[Odola]

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

I'm not sure I'd really say "taking delight in the slaughter of people is wrong" is really THAT modern an idea.

Say this to Tulkas or even Oromë.
When Glorfindel descents apon the Nazgul, his wrath is described as a good thing. Wrath is never good in a human. Because men are fallen, they simply cannot afford to hold certain attitudes, as that makes them extremely vulnerable spiritually. Other races might not have this problem.

 

[JJ48]

Say this to Tulkas or even Orome.

Tulkas enjoys fighting, not slaughter. Orome enjoys hunting, not slaughter.

Wrath is never good in a human.

Basis for this statement? Wrath can be misdirected, but it is possible to have a righteous wrath, too. Even within Tolkien's works, there appear to be numerous times when a mortal's wrath appears to be portrayed positively.

"He came alone, and in bear’s shape; and he seemed to have grown almost to giant-size in his wrath." (Beorn in The Hobbit)

"Swiftly he returned and his wrath was redoubled, so that nothing could withstand him, and no weapon seemed to bite upon him. He scattered the bodyguard, and pulled down Bolg himself and crushed him." (Beorn in The Hobbit)

"Suddenly, and to his own surprise, Frodo felt a hot wrath blaze up in his heart. ‘The Shire!’ he cried, and springing beside Boromir, he stooped, and stabbed with Sting at the hideous foot." (The Fellowship of the Ring)

"Aragorn smote to the ground the captain that stood in his path, and the rest fled in terror of his wrath." (The Fellowship of the Ring)

"There was some murmuring, but also some grins on the faces of the men looking on: the sight of their Captain sitting on the ground and eye to eye with a young hobbit, legs well apart, bristling with wrath, was one beyond their experience." (Sam in The Two Towers)

"And they fled before the wrath of Isildur, and did not dare to go forth to war on Sauron’s part; and they hid themselves in secret places in the mountains and had no dealings with other men, but slowly dwindled in the barren hills." (The Return of the King)

"For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them." (The Return of the King)

"The great wrath of his onset had utterly overthrown the front of his enemies, and great wedges of his Riders had passed clear through the ranks of the Southrons, discomfiting their horsemen and riding their footmen to ruin." (Eomer and his forces in The Return of the King)

"Few ever came eastward to Morgul or Mordor; and to the land of the Haradrim came only a tale from far off: a rumour of the wrath and terror of Gondor." (The Return of the King)

"These three were unscathed, for such was their fortune and the skill and might of their arms, and few indeed had dared to abide them or look on their faces in the hour of their wrath." (Aragorn, Eomer, and Imrahil in The Return of the King)

 

[Odola]

Tulkas enjoys fighting, not slaughter. Orome enjoys hunting, not slaughter.

Keeping scores does not constitute slaughter either.

Basis for this statement? Wrath can be misdirected, but it is possible to have a righteous wrath, too. Even within Tolkien's works, there appear to be numerous times when a mortal's wrath appears to be portrayed positively.

"He came alone, and in bear’s shape; and he seemed to have grown almost to giant-size in his wrath." (Beorn in The Hobbit)

"Swiftly he returned and his wrath was redoubled, so that nothing could withstand him, and no weapon seemed to bite upon him. He scattered the bodyguard, and pulled down Bolg himself and crushed him." (Beorn in The Hobbit)

"Suddenly, and to his own surprise, Frodo felt a hot wrath blaze up in his heart. ‘The Shire!’ he cried, and springing beside Boromir, he stooped, and stabbed with Sting at the hideous foot." (The Fellowship of the Ring)

"Aragorn smote to the ground the captain that stood in his path, and the rest fled in terror of his wrath." (The Fellowship of the Ring)

"There was some murmuring, but also some grins on the faces of the men looking on: the sight of their Captain sitting on the ground and eye to eye with a young hobbit, legs well apart, bristling with wrath, was one beyond their experience." (Sam in The Two Towers)

"And they fled before the wrath of Isildur, and did not dare to go forth to war on Sauron’s part; and they hid themselves in secret places in the mountains and had no dealings with other men, but slowly dwindled in the barren hills." (The Return of the King)

"For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them." (The Return of the King)

"The great wrath of his onset had utterly overthrown the front of his enemies, and great wedges of his Riders had passed clear through the ranks of the Southrons, discomfiting their horsemen and riding their footmen to ruin." (Eomer and his forces in The Return of the King)

"Few ever came eastward to Morgul or Mordor; and to the land of the Haradrim came only a tale from far off: a rumour of the wrath and terror of Gondor." (The Return of the King)

"These three were unscathed, for such was their fortune and the skill and might of their arms, and few indeed had dared to abide them or look on their faces in the hour of their wrath." (Aragorn, Eomer, and Imrahil in The Return of the King)

O.k. I do concede being wrong on the" wrath" issue.
But this only strengtens my point about dehumanisation of the enemy not being such a big thing in ME, as wrath dehumanizes the enemy per default.

 

[JJ48]

But this only strengtens my point about dehumanisation of the enemy not being such a big thing, as wrath dehumanizes the enemy per default.

How so?

 

[Odola]

How so?

Wrath makes one see the enemies as just a mass to be slaughted, there is no personhood seen in them anymore altogether at all.

 

[JJ48]

Wrath makes one see the enemies as just a mass to be slaughted, there is no personhood seen in them anymore altogether at all.

I wonder. The definitions I've seen of "wrath" often mention vengeance or just punishment as a driving force of the anger. It seems to me the goal is usually perceived justice more than slaughter.

 

[Odola]

I wonder. The definitions I've seen of "wrath" often mention vengeance or just punishment as a driving force of the anger. It seems to me the goal is usually perceived justice more than slaughter.

The definitions include "extreme anger" and "rage, fury". "Divine wrath" descibes events like the deluge, plagues or force of nature catastrophes which are indiscriminative and randomly kill everything in their way.

 

[Deleted member 207]

Wrath makes one see the enemies as just a mass to be slaughted, there is no personhood seen in them anymore altogether at all.

Replace ‘wrath’ with ‘war’ perhaps?

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,

I’m not sure it makes them monsters. It highlights more complex aspects of them that are wholly undesirable. But I’m not sure we judge their characters entirely based on isolated actions. War seems to push people down strange paths. Same could potentially be true for orcs IMO. But yes, perhaps it does help us question whether we should cling to the ideas of ‘heroes’ or ‘good guys’ in war.

The whole premise is that ‘if orcs are innately evil there is no wrong in slaughtering them en mass’. But I a.) am not sure we see evidence to support they are wholly evil. Legolas and Gimli may perceive them as such by ignorance should not vindicate them. And b.) I still think taking joy or pride or feeling a sense of positive accomplishment in ending the life of another creature (whether you believe it ‘just’ or ‘necessary’) can only come from a place of devaluing that being as a lifeform. Othering. For them, they believe the beings to be entirely evil. But even then, they don’t seem to be remorseful that they’ve they’ve had to kill so many living things. Even if it’s to end evil, they’ve had to kill. Something we know textually is not intended for created beings and should not sit easily. The counting game comes from a mindset borne of those who’ve been educated (even indirectly and unconsciously through culturally osmosis) to not question the deaths of these beings. Which ties back to point A. I feel that, even without knowing the ‘truth’ of orcs (point a) we are still receiving an education on Gimli and Legolas’ mindsets (point b).

To the point of orcs through a human lens, and not that authorial intent is always the best measure of what a work actually conveys, but I do think Tolkien’s assertion that there were ‘orcs on both sides’ of his war, speaks to his goal with the work perhaps aligning with the idea that we can’t solely assess individuals always by their wartime deeds nor that any ‘enemy’ group should be presented as the living embodiment of everything the other party stand against. Life is complicated. Of course, as I said, an author’s thoughts, and even thoughts about their own work, can be the worst way of considering what a work actually says in its own right.

As for the issue of our heroes being made monsters by the counting game: I don’t understand a reading that requires our protagonists to be consistently correct and justified in every deed and action. The thing is, this is really all down to interpretation and there are no solid truths when it comes to literature, the story is owned by the reading. There are always certain obvious elements you can become appraised of but I think we are now getting into the weeds of personal experience which is perhaps where we will not make headway and may have to concede there is a richness of interpretation to be found. It’s fun to debate obviously, but I think we are getting into individual takes.

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.

Sorry, a bit lost again. Not sure what you mean that as readers we can’t have responses to characters’ actions? Additionally, let’s not confuse the quote from Aragorn for anything other than a quote from Aragorn. Yes, he has a lot of heft to his opinions, but it is still opinion.

 

[Odola]

Sorry, a bit lost again. Not sure what you mean that as readers we can’t have responses to characters’ actio?

No, we should be able to judge their actions (here it is more the attitude than action itself actually) as not o.k. for us. But saying their boat should sink on the way to Valinor is something only for the Valar to decide. I doubt the Valar would count attitude problems this much. They have stomached far worse before.
There are other things which are not o.k. for humans but fine with elves. E.g. inviding the privacy of another mind uninvated would be not o.k. by human standard and Boromir imho rightfully objects to it. But Galadriel has no problem whatsoever in doing so.

 

[Deleted member 207]

Yes, but it’s a story. So we can judge whatever we want lol it is written to elicit emotional response

Perhaps humans in the story shouldn’t judge, but we can feel however we like about the characters, no?

 

[Odola]

Yes, but it’s a story. So we can judge whatever we want lol it is written to elicit emotional response

Perhaps humans in the story shouldn’t judge, but we can feel however we like about the characters, no?

No problem with that approach ;-)

 

[Deleted member 207]

No problem with that approach ;-)

To clarify, I don’t wish everyone drowns on the way to Valinor lol

All I meant was, to judge characters we need to use what we see of them in the text and invariably our own judgement (which is when it all gets subjective), not necessarily what the text tells others to judge individuals by.

Im reminded of an English class where a student said they just hated Hamlet and the teacher told them they weren’t allowed and berated them in front of the class. And in retrospect, that teacher was not only mean but also didn’t seem to understand how stories work.

Man, I don’t have many ‘I wish I’d said XX at the time’ thoughts but those I do involve putting old teachers in their place when they incorrectly berated other pupils lol

EDIT: just to say, I’m not comparing anyone here to those old teachers. Just venting

 

[Odola]

All I meant was, to judge characters we need to use what we see of them in the text and invariably our own judgement (which is when it all gets subjective), not necessarily what the text tells others to judge individuals by.

Actually I think what the passage shows us is the similiarity between Gimli and Legolas. It is their shared narrow-mindedness that they actually bond over. Kind of cute. ;-)

 

[Deleted member 207]

Actually I think what the passage shows us is the similiarity between Gimli and Legolas. It is their shared narrow-mindness that they actually bond over. Kind of cute. ;-)

Oh absolutely. I feel the way dwarves perceive wood elves with disdain that wood elves perceive dwarves is a very intentional choice to show how they’re basically the same. And makes their overcoming of that prejudice so satisfying as we as the reader see how pointless it is. I think the Newline films really excellently captured the joy of seeing that friendship flourish

 

[Odola]

Oh absolutely. I feel the way dwarves perceive wood elves with disdain that wood elves perceive dwarves is a very intentional choice to show how they’re basically the same. And makes their overcoming of that prejudice so satisfying as we as the reader see how pointless it is. I think the Newline films really excellently captured the joy of seeing that friendship flourish

Year, they just find a common enemy they both disdain even more. Kind of Battle of Five Armies repeated in small scale.

 

[Deleted member 207]

Year, they just find a common enemy they both disdain even more. Kind of Battle of Five Armies repeated in small scale.

And they are able to see a representative of the other race over an extended period and in multiple situations this seeing them as an individual and finding merits in them.

Tying back perhaps to the issues with judging only based on one setting.

And back to the little we know of orcs.

Of course, of you partner an orc with a human there’s a troubling chance that what you end up with is Bright.

 

[Jim Deutch]

They are only a 'problem' once we know a lot more from the legendarium. They then become a 'problem' because they don't fit the theology of the legendarium. Of course, that could be easily fixed by JRRT, if he had been willing to alter the theology. However, he was not willing to alter the theology in a way that diverged from his Catholic beliefs. Neither the Orcs of TLOTR, nor the Orcs of 'The Silmarillion' fit well with the theology of the legendarium.

Ah, Flammifer, I truly hesitate to write this for fear of stepping on any religious toes, and because I am so far from being expert on such subjects, but I think the theology of the LOTR is itself inconsistent, even at war with itself, throughout the book.

The two views of Evil, Boethian/Catholic (evil is merely the absence of good) and Manichaean/Pagan (evil is an active force in the world) are inextricably mixed in the LOTR. Gandalf espouses Boethian views ("nothing is evil in the beginning"), but oh, that Sauron, and those Ringwraiths, and most of all The Ring! The Ring is "utterly evil", according to Gandalf. And nobody has any problem with orc-killing; orcs are never shown the slightest mercy. And yet Frodo's gain in Wisdom by the end has turned him fully Boethian: he counsels no killing at the Scouring. And by the end, orcs have demonstrated that they do know some basic values, such as loyalty to one's comrades, though they apply this inconsistently: they deride the "Elvish warrior" for leaving Frodo by the opening to Shelob's lair as "a regular Elvish trick", but they did exactly the same to their own comrade who they found bound alive in her webs. And laughed about it.

Evil is clearly an active force in LOTR -- that's what Sauron and the Ring ARE -- and yet at the same time, "nothing is evil in its beginning", mercy should be shown to all (speaking peoples, especially), and Frodo's growth in Wisdom is towards Boethianism.

These two views of Evil are irreconcilable, and are in constant conflict throughout the book, yet both are necessary to the development of the Tale. Without this unresolvable tension between two theologies, the book would be sorely impoverished.

 

[Deleted member 207]

I think you are correct that there are inconsistencies in the wider legendarium and while its nature in LOTR can be debated (and it's certainly and interesting debate) I think it is at least a little clearer in that closed narrative.

As far as Sauron goes, we don't know his origins in LOTR. The fact that 'nothing was evil in the beginning' becomes a tasty little morsel. It begs us to ask the question as to whether Sauron was evil from the start. Of course, the legendarium confirms he was not. But a reader of LOTR doesn't have that knowledge. This doesn't make it an inconsistency, it just creates an unanswered mystery. A topic to ponder. The same is true of the orcs. The ring is a different matter. It is, by its nature, evil. But then again, that nature is Sauron's. And as has been hinted, perhaps he was not evil from the outset.

Perhaps it is more accurate to think of Gandalf's words about the origins of evil as being targeted more at living beings. Equally, the ring is a product of Sauron's creativity and ingenuity. And that was not evil in the beginning.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Jim,

I agree with your comments on the complexities of evil in TLOTR.

The theology of evil is not the theology of the Legendarium which I think is at the heart of 'The Orc Problem'. The theology which is at the heart is the theology of the creation of the Children of Illuvatar, and their redeemability.

If they are twisted Elves, they will go to the Halls of Mandos when they die in Middle-earth, and should be able to be redeemed. Also, there is no reason why Elves or Istari should not try to redeem them in Middle-earth. If they are twisted Men, well, that may make things 'easier' theologically, as they can just go straight to wherever evil Men go that the Elves (and Valar) know nothing about. However, although JRRT toyed with this idea, by the time he did, he had already written that Orcs were corrupted Elves, so perhaps was trapped by precedent?