|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Sep 1 2024, 10:26am
Post #1 of 9
(2658 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Those Wicked Orcs (Part 5, the last part) - “Orcish behaviour is also human behaviour”
|
Can't Post
|
|
[This is part of a sequence of posts. I’ve made it a sequence simply for reading convenience, but it is one sequence of thought. So this part is not intended to be read as a standalone. It would be idea to go back to the first bit and read though, because I won’t repeat or precis what has gone before.]
At one point Sam imagines his quest with Frodo as a Tale (presumably quite like one of our favourite books…). He wonders whether Gollum thinks of himself as a hero or a villain. Let’s ask that question about the orcs.
There are two obvious possibilities - ‘Fair is foul, and foul is fair’ – the orcs’ conception of good is as our conception of evil. Therefore, they are the good guys in their own eyes.
- Common morality – the orcs idea of good is like ours rather than the opposite. But they somehow excuse or ignore the mismatch between what they say they believe and what they do in practice.
Here I’d like to introduce work by Tom Shippey, again studying the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag that Sam overhears. It’s touched upon in Tolkien, Author of the Century (which I have read) but it seems that Shippey has written more about it elsewhere. The Readers’ Companion has this interesting entry about another Shippey work (which I haven’t read) 'Orcs, Wraiths, Wights: Tolkien's Images of Evil', an essay in Tolkien and His Literary Resonances: Views of Middle-earth:
“740 (II: 349). just left him lying: regular Elvish trick: - Tom Shippey comments in 'Orcs, Wraiths, Wights: Tolkien's Images of Evil', Tolkien and His Literary Resonances: Views of Middle-earth: 'There is no mistaking the disapproval in Gorbag's last three words. Like other characters in LR (not all of them on the side of Sauron), "elvish" to him is a pejorative. It is clear that he regards abandoning one's comrades as contemptible, and also characteristic of the other side. And yet only a page later it is exactly what characterizes his own side': Shagrat describes how they found 'old Ufthak' still alive, but chose not to interfere with Shelob and her prey. 'Regular orcish trick', Shippey remarks, but notes the implications of the conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat: 'that orcs are moral beings, with an underlying morality much the same as ours. But if that is true, it seems that an underlying morality has no effect at all on actual behaviour. How, then, is an essentially correct theory of good and evil corrupted? If one starts from a sound moral basis, how can things go so disastrously wrong?' He points out the relevance of this question to the twentieth century, 'in which the worst atrocities have often been committed by the most civilized people' (pp. 183-4).
Shippey carefully analyzes other fragments of Orc-conversation in The Lord of the Rings and finds that they 'recognize the idea of goodness, appreciate humor, value loyalty, trust, group cohesion, and the ideal of a higher cause than themselves, and condemn failings from these ideals in others. So, if they know what is right, how does it happen that they persist in wrong?' (p. 186). He concludes that Orcish behaviour is also human behaviour, 'and their inability to judge their own actions by their own moral criteria is a problem all too sadly familiar' (p. 189).”
The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion, by Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull.
Goodness me, how did that happen! Shippey’s work immediately raises the question of why the orcs don’t see the hypocrisy of their stance. Possibly he has his own ideas in his essay (and if someone who has read it wants to cover those in a reply to this sequence that would be great).
I think there are two very obvious possibilities, and they don’t have to be mutually exclusive. As you might be expecting from what I’ve written so far, I’m thinking of a magical corruption of the will, and of influencing orcs through cultural means.
I don’t suppose there is any final, objectively right answer to this. And nor need there be, either for a Tale, or a Tale that happens to be fun to think about.
As an exercise in feigned history, I don’t think we have the sources to go on. Without the source material, accurate scholarship can’t unearth the whole offence from Melkor until now that has driven a culture mad: or find what occurred at Lugburz, or what huge imago made a psychopathic god. (Sorry Auden!).
Viewed purely or mostly as an exercise in world-building, then of course Middle-earth has an omission here. But it is one that we can only fill subjectively: one person’s favoured explanation will not be the same as another person’s. And it’s not just an exercise in worldbuilding, is it now?
Nor do I think we can get very far with exercise in trying to conclude what Tolkien meant. As far as I know he didn’t’ write down the answer we want. And his written ideas about orcs change over time, leaving us with a familiar problem. That’s the problem of whether to try somehow to render the different ideas into one coherent whole; to see them as different theories a visitor might hear from different citizens of Middle-earth without anyone knowing the true answer; or whether they are alternatives from which we must subjectively choose our favourite or apply an arbitrary rule (e.g. published ideas only or latest-dated idea only).
For myself, I like the idea that Tolkien is balancing different things – the traditional tale or action story bad guys who are entirely chaotic evil and proud of it (on the one hand), with a story that is very much about free will and is intended to be “consonant with Christian thought and belief” (on the other). I don’t suppose for a moment that Tolkien intended to create any utterly solid philosophical or metaphysical structure – it’s a supporting structure for his tale and needs be no more. And I accept his word that he was not trying to make any allegorical point. But whatever shortcomings and gaps might turn up after a lot of thought, LOTR obviously makes a deep, satisfying and thought-provoking story, or none of us would be here.
I know I have consciously skirted around, only touched upon, or ignored several big subjects. Fortunately, if the lack of more material on some subject seems to be an important omission or a fault, then that’s easily fixed in this community. Please simply reply to the post adding what you think should be included.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Menegroth
Oct 24 2024, 9:13pm
Post #2 of 9
(1413 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Human behaviour can be orcish behaviour
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Even when I find orcs have uncomfortable commonality with humans, I still cheer when they are run through with Elvish blades or ended by Huorns. They could be pitied, I suppose, while being skewered.
I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least. Gandalf
Gollum was never redeemed, neither Saruman, nor Wormtongue, despite the opportunity.
Theoden was ill with evil, and was cured. The fate of men who fought in Sauron's army was mixed, some were pardoned and others fought to death.
But the Orcs were hunted out, no pardons, no hope for redemption. Yet they are not straight up monsters, like Shelob.
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Menegroth
Oct 24 2024, 10:14pm
Post #3 of 9
(1401 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Consonant with Christian thought and belief?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Would pitying orcs while skewering them be consonant with Christian thought and belief?
Christians aren't required to be pacifists. In the Orthodox tradition, killing in war is less than perfect (even when necessary) and should lead to repentance followed by spiritual healing.
Aragorn, as the rightful king, is able to heal spiritual ills. But not orcs, they are dispatched.
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Oct 25 2024, 4:04pm
Post #4 of 9
(1361 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I can't answer that any further than I did in Part 3, about the concept of a 'Just War'//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Oct 25 2024, 5:39pm
Post #5 of 9
(1363 views)
Shortcut
|
Even when I find orcs have uncomfortable commonality with humans, I still cheer when they are run through with Elvish blades or ended by Huorns. They could be pitied, I suppose, while being skewered.
Uncomfortable. And may I add, ambiguous and unresolved? Yes that's the effect - possibly intentionally on Tolkien's part. Probably, even.
I don't think he's written an anti-war story as such. And nor is it a story glorifying war. The story contains war, and war has become unavoidable. It invites us into battles and violence as part of the entertainment, something that is 'as old as Homer' (quite literally in this case, The Iliad being very graphically violent). But it's clear that fighting in LOTR can only be a holding action or diversion, and Tolkien has laboured hard with his plot to make sure that the Free Peoples' only hope is the destruction of the Ring.
And that seems typically Tolkien to me. I think that almost nothing is allowed to remain simple. He can't set up something (amusing but salt-of-the-earth hobbit yeomanry, for example) without undermining it (hobbits are ignorant, parochial, xenophobic, isolationist gossips, with false senses of superiority and safety).
Other examples? - Gondor has magnificent history and lineages, but Denethor - the exemplar of those qualities - goes mad rather than do the duty the line of Stewards was set up to do one day. He dies an insane traitor trying to murder his only surviving son. Despite his qualities, despite his bloodlines.
- Boromir is the acme of Mannish warriorhood ...and look what happens to him.
- Caracters such as Ioreth, written off as uninteresting or stupid, turn out to know something crucial the loremaster doesn't.
- Gollum is revolting and deserves death, but everyone ends up pitying and sparing him, with an important consequence.
- Gardener Sam and King Elessar both do the fairy-tale honours of completing the quest and getting the girl and the kingdom. But Celeborn and Elrond lose both of those, Frodo the only one he ever had.
- Elves are cultural, wonderful and great and near-angelic: but they exist in their colonies on Middle-earth only because of a Faustian bargain they once made and will be lucky to get out of (at the price of their beloved lands).
- How much fun does Tolkien have with his idealised Mercians now-with-added-horses-cos-I-like-horses the Rohirrim? Answer lots and lots. I think he loves them dearly. Eowyn especially (that in itself perhaps unexpected). But he has them only arrive at the Pelannor on time because of Ghan-buri-ghan, whose people the Rohirrim seem to have not been above 'hunting like beasts'.
And so on. And on.
And this makes it the kind of story Tolkien's original work is. And how the original is often different from the adapations and derrivative works, which tend to simplify that complexity.
One common simplification (as I've already argued in an earlier reply) is to drop anything about orcs that makes them not just evil mooks to kill.
Which makes it more comfortable, but not as good.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
Oct 25 2024, 10:36pm
Post #6 of 9
(1318 views)
Shortcut
|
And this makes it the kind of story Tolkien's original work is. And how the original is often different from the adapations and derrivative works, which tend to simplify that complexity.
You've zeroed on what bothers me about Tolkien's late writings. He starts simplifying his own world way too much while adding superficial complexity about minor things. The portrayal of the Valar is probably the biggest victim in this. The characters of Nienna and Morgoth are among the worst affected.
It's the kind of thing that makes me not automatically go with Tolkien's most recent ideas for the unofficial sequel project I'm trying to do for fun, even if people who like the late versions would surely complain about the story being too edgy and not comforting enough.
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Gondolin
Oct 25 2024, 10:41pm
Post #7 of 9
(1316 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"Which makes it more comfortable, but not as good."
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Ah, yes, exactly.
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Menegroth
Oct 25 2024, 11:12pm
Post #8 of 9
(1313 views)
Shortcut
|
And how the original is often different from the adaptations and derivative works, which tend to simplify that complexity.
Agreed, Tolkien was notable for more than just world-building fantasy, though he certainly created a wonderful world.
Even with the ambiguities of individuals and cultures, readers are quite sure there is Good and it opposes Evil.
This is different than some later fantasy works. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant is so flawed many readers couldn't hold out for enough pages for him to achieve any likable qualities, though I do wish Saltheart Foamfollower could visit Middle Earth. George Martin's brutal outcomes don't offer any joy. Tad Williams' Osten Ard? The travel brochures are just not as tempting as the Shire, Rohan, Minas Tirith, Lorien, Rivendell, Ithilien...
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Feb 10 2025, 4:46am
Post #9 of 9
(841 views)
Shortcut
|
It might not surprise you that your post was quite thought-provoking, and being provoked to think, I did several things:
1. Looked up various definitions of “evil.”
2. Regarding war and just wars, I looked up famous ancient pacifists, or at least looked for some.
Euripides’ Trojan Women stood out as a condemnation of the brutality of war, especially how it abused women and children, who are non-combatants. But he sort of mixed his message with his play Hecuba, which is all about Hecuba killing the children of the man who killed one of her sons, because revenge makes killing OK, even if it’s non-combatants who had nothing to do with killing her son. The Hecuba in Trojan Women was all tragedy but didn’t kill any little kids, and a tragic climax of the play hits the reader when her grandson Astyanax is thrown off the city walls and even refused a burial. (sigh)
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle: all viewed war as necessary in their own way, so 3 great philosophers, and none of them said, “You know, this killing thing, it’s got to stop. Period.” So, I’m pretty glad I was born in the late 20th century and grew up thinking war is bad, and the killing has got to stop. I used to drive past a pacifist church, and I liked the sign they had by the street: “What part of ‘thou shalt not kill’ do you not understand?” It’s not like it’s that hard to grasp.
Aristotle: “We make war that we may live in peace.” That ties in nicely with this passage from Appdx A in LOTR:
For though Sauron had passed, the hatreds and evils that he bred had not died, and the King of the West had many enemies to subdue before the White Tree could grow in peace.
For all the brutality of The Iliad and the many tragic deaths of heroic warriors, I used to think there was a subversive message of “War is bad and I’ll show you why,” but reading various articles, I seem to be projecting my own message onto Homer, and that wasn’t his intent. He thought brutal deaths in war were part of life, and he wasn’t campaigning against them.
Ashoka the Great of India happily fought wars and conquered lands until the Kalinga War, which was so brutal that it shocked him into remorse and a conversion to Buddhism around 250 BC, making him an advocate of peace and compassion. But he seems pretty unique in world history: “great conqueror becomes remorseful pacifist” isn’t exactly cliché, is it? (Looking at you, Genghis Khan. And Alexander the G. And Napoleon. And Charlemagne. And yeah, you see the pattern.)
Then it turns out that pacifist movements (as in enduring groups who outlive their original founders) are modern inventions (Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, etc) and have no historical antecedents, with the closest being early Christians who refused to fight in Rome’s wars, until the empire became Christian, and then it became OK and “just.”
My reason for turning to history for answers to profound questions is that usually someone has wrestled with the issue before, but not so much with pacifism.
As an aside, I challenged ChatGPT: “isn’t war just 2 things: killing humans and destroying property?” The reply: “don’t overlook psychological and cultural domination.” And then I realized Tolkien repeatedly beat his war drums to include psychological domination, with just a couple examples being the Nazgul flying over Minas Tirith to demoralize it, and then catapulting the severed heads of Gondorians into the city, which was purely to demoralize the defenders and did nothing to weaken the physical defenses. Then there’s the whole Ring thing, which is all about psych domination. So, score +100 for Tolkien for anticipating what AI would have to say a century later. Foresighted was he!
3. I wrestled with the idea of “irredeemable race.” On its surface, redemption requires a desire to become a good person and atone for past transgressions, and we have no reason to believe that any orc ever wanted to be redeemed. But I’ll accept that Auden wasn’t being overly literal and probably meant that orcs should be capable of redemption if they wanted it, and reading LOTR, it doesn’t seem there is any avenue to redemption open to them if they were to seek it. And no one offered them redemption either: King Elessar made peace with the Men of Harad and Rhun but no mention is made of trying to make peace with, or offer mercy to, the orcs.
I wound up in a circle of reasoning: why should orcs even seek redemption if all the non-orcs thought the only good orc was a dead orc?
And then I side-stepped the issue of “were orcs made evil, or did they have agency in how evil they were?” I’m fairly convinced they were made that way. They had agency in other aspects of their lives, but when it came to moral corruption, they didn’t.
And last I came back to pretty much your conclusion:
For myself, I like the idea that Tolkien is balancing different things – the traditional tale or action story bad guys who are entirely chaotic evil and proud of it (on the one hand), with a story that is very much about free will and is intended to be “consonant with Christian thought and belief” (on the other). I don’t suppose for a moment that Tolkien intended to create any utterly solid philosophical or metaphysical structure – it’s a supporting structure for his tale and needs be no more.
|
|
|
|
|
