Orcs and the cycle of abuse

While Corey is right that there is no perfect solution to the orc problem, here is the one I've settled on, which, as far as I've seen, has yet to be brought up.

Basically it comes down to the difference between redemption being a theoretical possibility and a practicable reality. While, in an abstract theological sense, it is impossible to corrupt any Child of Illuvatar to the point that they are beyond redemption, Tolkien's legendarium does contain several cases which demonstrate the fact that individuals can become functionally iredeeemable (Morgoth, Sauron, Feanor, Saruman) If this principle can hold true for "major" villains (or fallen heroes) why, then can it not apply to orcs? The obvious objection which will be raised is that these major figures all progressed along a clear path to damnation marked at each stage by their free choice, wheras orcs, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, had badness thrust upon them. While this is an important distinction, it calls up the real world parallel of the cycle of abuse. Most abusers engage in such behavior because they themselves were abused, an experience which they did not choose any more than orcs chose to be corrupted. Thus, obviously, they are to be pitied, and, as Elrond would say, were not evil in the beginning. I speak from experience, however, (both my own and that of friends I have seen go through similar experiences) when I say that immoderate pity can often be the very millstone that ties a victim to their abuser. It was only through accepting that my abuser's damage, while tragic, was both not my fault and beyond my ability to fix (and, in a practical sense, probably unfixable, save by an act of God) that I was able to let go of my guilt and my martyr complex and remove myself from a toxic situation. Of course, I must acknowledge that there is obviously a vast gulf between cutting off contact with someone and gleefully decapitating them, I will also point out, however, that my abuser never tried to kill me, as orcs frequently do. If we take the transformation from elf to orc as a visible representation of the slide into the worst kind of victim-turned-victimiser, then perhaps the Free Peoples' attitudes become slightly more understandable.

Further, on snaring orcs with falsehoods, I can attest, that I often had to engage in dishonest behavior such as giving a promise I knew I would have to break in order to escape a situation. While, morally, I may not be culpable, because the promise was exacted under duress, it still made me uncomfortable, as I am normally scrupulously honest. In every case, however, I knew that, for my own safety, I had to tell the person what they wanted to hear, n order to get out of the situation. To quote West Wing "If you can't take their money, drink their booze, and then turn around and do what you were gonna do anyway, you don't belong in this business" It was primarily the fact that I was dealing with a fundamentally untrustworthy and unstable being (witness: Donald Trump) that taught me that I needed to be willing to bend some of my own rules of honesty in order to survive. Such, I imagine, would be the nature of dealing with an orc.

Fnally, we know that, while Morgoth/Sauron are alive and kicking, the wills of the orcs are (to an admittedly uncertain extent) dominated by their masters. As such, even if orcs are, under normal circumstances, as easy to redeem as humans, does this state of domination not render them something akin to demoniacs in the throes of a violent possession, with the most significant difference being that it is impossible to exorcise them until their master is defeated? In that case, while it may be regrettable that they are in such a state, it is both clearly necessary, and, perhaps, merciful to kill them. One can not reasonably expect them to reform until they are no longer dominated, and, if their potentially good souls are trapped in a body they cannot control, is it not good to free them from such torment? I will close by saying that I see the problematic parallels between these arguments and racist ones, and the strontger parallel is part of why I dislike the second argument compared to the first, but I hope that it is clear that none of my arguments are meant to justify the killing of anyone in the real world. I am simply engaging in a thought experiment and playing with secondary belief.
 
There are positive and negative applications of all psychological principles. The "cycle of abuse" is just one example of the continuity of consciousness that we consider to be the essence of identity.

Not just Orcs, but if we are to be honest, the Elves are, or at least were, also "possessed". It's clear from the over-all story arc in The Silmarillion that Melkor is not the only Vala exceeding the original plans of Iluvatar. The "good guys" also over-reached in many ways. Aule is so eager for students to teach his lore to that he creates the Dwarves without sanction of Iluvatar and is directly admonished by him even though only Manwe normally has direct contact. Yet his wish is granted, with a delay. And then when the Quendi are found to have appeared in Arda, the Valar decide to bring them to Aman instead of letting them find their own way in the greater world. The comment by Mandos makes it clear that this was not a good idea, as does the narrator comment. Perhaps it was as much of a deviation from Iluvatar's original intent as the creation of the Dwarves? Is it appropriate or "good" to overwhelm the will of lesser beings with 'good' spiritual power any less than with evil? Are the 'good guys' even genuinely 'good' if they are overwhelming? This brings the question of free-will of Elves in relation to the Music into relation to the question of Orc free-will.

Then again the Valar were gathered in council, and they were divided in debate. For some, and of those Ulmo was the chief, held that the Quendi should be left free to walk as they would in Middle-earth, and with their gifts of skill to order all the lands and heal their hurts. But the most part feared for the Quendi in the dangerous world amid the deceits of the starlit dusk; and they were filled moreover with the love of the beauty of the Elves and desired their fellowship. At the last, therefore, the Valar summoned the Quendi to Valinor, there to be gathered at the knees of the Powers in the light of the Trees for ever; and Mandos broke his silence, saying: “So it is doomed.” From this summons came many woes that afterwards befell.
[Of the Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor, in The Silmarillion]

Fëanor is critical of the Valar in the published Silmarillion, pointing out that they cannot even protect their own realm, but he is much more direct about their misconduct in relation to the Quendi in The Lost Tales.
"Lo, now do we know the reason of our transportation hither as it were cargoes of fair slaves! Now at length are we told to what end we are guarded here, robbed of our heritage in the world, ruling not the wide lands, lest perchance we yield them not to a race unborn.
["The Theft Of Melko And The Darkening Of Valinor" in The Lost Tales, Volume I]

A little further on in that chapter, the narrator comments again make clear that this is not entirely the imagining of Fëanor, nor even of Melko(r):
In sooth it is a matter for great wonder, the subtle cunning of Melko -- for in those wild words who shall say that there lurked not a sting of the minutest truth, nor fail to marvel seeing the very words of Melko pouring from Feanor his foe, who knew not nor remembered whence was the fountain of these thoughts;
["The Theft Of Melko And The Darkening Of Valinor" in The Lost Tales, Volume I]

So was Fëanor's apparent greed and self-will really expressing his own nature, or was he suffering an overload of 'power' (in psychological terms, inflation) in reaction to the environment he had grown up in? Direct exposure to the 'gods' is said to be too dangerous for mortal Men quite a few times in the Numenor story. Was it necessarily a 'good' thing for the Elves, either? (Note that the Elves who return to Aman do not go all the way to Valinor, they remain at Eldamar, outside the actual home of the 'gods'. Even the Valar have learned something over the eons.) Did the Elves have a 'choice' to be what they are, any more than the Orcs did? Or are both races literary devices for depicting, personifying, psychological characteristics and themes? It's clear that mortal Men are something different from the others even in the first chapter of the published Silmarillion].

But to the Atani I will give a new gift.” Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else; and of their operation everything should be, in form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest.
["Of the Beginning of Days" in The Silmarillion]

If it is explicitly stated that the Atani are given a new gift, doesn't that imply that the Quendi do not have it? Are they not included in "all things else"? They are instead caught up in the Music and compelled to act out the will of the 'gods'. Orcs would be no different, though there is still the question outstanding of whether Orcs have 'souls' at all and if they do are they the souls of Elves corrupted or does Melko(r) have the power to 'create' souls?

Galadriel's moment of decision in "The Mirror of Galadriel" could be seen as the last gasp of the over-charge, the extreme inflation, from that direct exposure to too much power in the form of personal contact with the 'gods' of Arda. It took thousands of years for her to lose enough charge to become herself. Do any Orcs ever get the chance to live long enough to 'bleed off the charge', I wonder? :)
 
Last edited:
Do any Orcs ever get the chance to live long enough to 'bleed off the charge', I wonder?
The Orcs of the Misty Mountains instantly recognize Thorin and Gandalf's swords from the days of Gondolin in The Hobbit. Passed-down stories about these swords seem insufficient for this: I think some of them must have actually seen those swords before. Granted, this is somewhat outside the larger legendarium, and the overall timeline in TH seems quite compressed -- it may have been only a few hundred years between the Fall of Gondolin and the events of this book, as opposed to many thousands in the Silmarillion and LotR . But it still seems to indicate a longer than mortal lifespan for Orcs.

Shagrat and Gorbag also talk about "the old days" -- not clear exactly how long ago, but seemingly thousands of years -- as if they'd had personal experience with them.

And finally, if Orcs are indeed corrupted Elves, then immortality would be the default assumption for them. I am not convinced that Orcs are mortal, and die of old age. They certainly can't have been given the "Gift of Men" -- that would be more absurd than a flat Earth turned into a ball by Divine fiat!
 
Based on exactly the passages you mention I always assumed from the time I was a kid that they were immortal, albeit kill-able. In fact, it never even crossed my mind otherwise until I started listening these podcasts. I simply never questioned it. And if they are, indeed, twisted Elves, then Melkor would not have the power to alter their ultimate fate to go to Mandos. He wouldn't have the power to send them beyond the circles of the world.
 
Ah, but remember that "To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren." (The Ainulindale in The Silmarillion) Which must then include Mandos. It seems quite ceratin that Melkor/Morgoth had at least some degree over power of 'spirits' and, that it might have been sufficient to capture and hold a population of 'souls' to animate his slaves.

Yes, this does have disturbing implications. And that is why Tolkien never managed to settle the question of the true nature of Orcs.
 
Back
Top