Orcishness through a Human lens

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.

I mean, we don't have the specific origin story, but the text explicitly tells us he wasn't evil from the get-go in the very next sentence.

"For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so."
 
lol yes, this is a very good point. I was thinking of the specific origins.
 
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?
I think he just modelled orcs after some kinds of humans he knew in real live. So he wanted to make the connection between orcs and humans more visible and explain how some orcish traits seem to be still part of humanity today. But this similarity can imho be explained by both being to different degrees corrupted Eruhíni and also by the later Saruman's half-orc breeding project. No need to destroy the imho "literary elegant" elves-to-orc explanation over that.
 
Last edited:
I think he just modelled orcs after some kinds of humans he knew in real live.

I think originally they were very much just the kind of goblins and kobolds of folklores. But as he developed them they became far more
 
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.

Not automatically.they don't have to.Mandos does not force spirits to go to his halls nor does Illuvatar.

I am unsure on the souls of men.
 
I think originally they were very much just the kind of goblins and kobolds of folklores. But as he developed them they became far more
Yup. He addresses this pretty specifically in letter 144:

"They are not based on direct experience of mine; but owe, I suppose, a good deal to the goblin tradition (goblin is used as a translation in The Hobbit, where orc only occurs once, I think), especially as it appears in George MacDonald, except for the soft feet which I never believed in."
 
Yup. He addresses this pretty specifically in letter 144:

"They are not based on direct experience of mine; but owe, I suppose, a good deal to the goblin tradition (goblin is used as a translation in The Hobbit, where orc only occurs once, I think), especially as it appears in George MacDonald, except for the soft feet which I never believed in."

Exactly. Tolkien definitely put in depth into his stories that resonate on human levels, but he very actively avoided allegory and trying to read it as allegory leads to confusing interpretations. Orcs are orcs
 
Exactly. Tolkien definitely put in depth into his stories that resonate on human levels, but he very actively avoided allegory and trying to read it as allegory leads to confusing interpretations. Orcs are orcs
No allegory needed here. ;-)

Tolkien to Christopher in Letter 71:
"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."


;-) This clearly describes humans he knew in real life in the war context.
 
Oh sure, you can reflect backwards on an idea and see similarities. I think the difference with allegory is that it's an intentional connection from the outside. It's one thing to look back on your life and compare elements of your own story to elements of a secondary world you have created (Tolkien connecting humans to his created orcs). It's another to create a secondary world with the express purpose of drawing direct correlations to proselytise (to unequivocally tell the reader that orcs are stand-ins for X type of person).
 
Oh sure, you can reflect backwards on an idea and see similarities. I think the difference with allegory is that it's an intentional connection from the outside. It's one thing to look back on your life and compare elements of your own story to elements of a secondary world you have created (Tolkien connecting humans to his created orcs). It's another to create a secondary world with the express purpose of drawing direct correlations to proselytise (to unequivocally tell the reader that orcs are stand-ins for X type of person).
Yes, but still this connection - even if drawn "in hindsight" - might be stong enough to cause Tolkien later to wish to "honor" this connection more by making the link between orcs and men stronger in the legendarium than he has originally intended.
 
letter 144:

"They are not based on direct experience of mine; but owe, I suppose, a good deal to the goblin tradition (goblin is used as a translation in The Hobbit, where orc only occurs once, I think), especially as it appears in George MacDonald, except for the soft feet which I never believed in."
Specifically, The Princess and the Goblin, which was part of a Corey Olsen class back in 2012. Podcasts still available! This was the "WC Faerie Course", sessions 23, 24 and 25:

9cec8749-65fb-4692-831c-8a7c43f9b2f5.mp3
698539a7-668c-4b53-90d8-1870b7104e6b.mp3
fc62e680-d9ba-4096-84c8-a2081d0e9bab.mp3
 
Interesting. I thought at the time Goblins still were small, old looking, hairy or bearded guys in capes... well they still WERE in Macdonald, but he seems to have quasi invented an evolutionary backgroundstory for them by making them the descendants of humans who went to live underground and be ame hardened and cruel...
 
Back
Top