Jump to content

Could Orcs in Tolkien's subcreation be redeemed? And other obscure questions about Tolkien's Middle-Earth.


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

I just read an interesting article that takes GRRMs very cogent criticism of the limits of Tolkiens description of Middle-Earth and explains why he thinks GRRM may, to some degree, be missing the point of the politics Tolkien advocates for Middle-Earth. Heres the article:

http://mereorthodoxy.com/politics-tolkien/

Heres GRRMs quote:

A major concern in A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones is power. Almost everybody except maybe Daenerys, across the waters with her dragons wields power badly.Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and its not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesnt ask the question: What was Aragorns tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs arent gone theyre in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

In real life, real-life kings had real-life problems to deal with. Just being a good guy was not the answer. You had to make hard, hard decisions. Sometimes what seemed to be a good decision turned around and bit you in the ass; it was the law of unintended consequences. Ive tried to get at some of these in my books. My people who are trying to rule dont have an easy time of it. Just having good intentions doesnt make you a wise king.

The author goes on to discuss why Tolkiens localism and his description of Aragorns attitude toward the Shire and the Shires general attitude toward the citizens within it give a peak into what he calls Tolkiens Localism. From the article:

To some degree, Martins point is well-taken. For all the detail of his worlds, Tolkien doesnt often wade into the more prosaic details that some find so interesting. (Although I do suspect the rise of the wonk probably exacerbates this issuefew eras have been more obsessed with prosaic detail than our own.)

That said, I think he sells Tolkien a bit short as well. Its actually not as hard to deduce Tolkiens politics as is sometimes said. To take one example, consider Aragorns decree about the Shire after the Ring has been destroyed. He decrees that the Shire will be kept for the Hobbits alone, with no Big People being allowed in. In fact, Tolkien points out in one of the appendices that Aragorn himself never entered the Shire again after making that decree. That suggests that Tolkien believed a just king is a king who respects the way of life of other places and, as much as he can, attempts to protect it from outside forces, including himself.

Further evidence of Tolkiens localism can be found in the Scouring of the Shire, which was regrettably excluded from the recent films. In the Scouring, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return to find the Shire has been taken over by a boss who has holed up at Bag End and is passing all sorts of obnoxious, pointless Rules about food consumption, land use, architecture, and the like. The scouring referred to in the title refers to the eradication of that boss and all his rules and ruffians who enforce the rules. The just rules that govern life in the Shire are largely unwritten and are defined by the people themselves. They largely consist of not meddling where one shouldnt, of respecting your neighbors rights to privacy and property, and dedicating yourself to sustaining the life and land of the Shire.

What is interesting to me is the thought of how Aragorn would have dealt with the remainder of the Orcs that fled Mordor. Its pretty clear from the appendices that Aragorn had wars with the Easterlings and the Southron nations. They dont mention what happened to the Orcs.

My question is this, could Orcs be redeemed within Tolkiens subcreation? Tolkien describes Orcs as Elves who were twisted by Morgoth into something terrible. Why could they not be rescued and redeemed. Then again, under Tolkiens localism would it even be proper for such an attempt to be made. So long as the Orcs held to their deep pits and caves was their suffering a matter of concern for the remainder of Middle-Earth.

Can Orcs be redeemed, should they be redeemed, is any attempt at redemption of Orcs a violation of a principle of non-interfearance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is certainly no direct discussion of any efforts to redeem the orcs but if non-interfearance is a positive good in Tolkien's view would efforts to draw orcs "to the light" have been seen as interfearance?

The only charactet that comes close to redemption is Smeagol and his fails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little off-topic, but the quote shows, that GRRM has no idea what Tolkien wanted to do.



Tolkiens intention was never to write a realistic fantasy story. He wanted to write a mythology (don't know how to say this different). He didn't want to write about politics or real life. Germany has the Nibelungenlied, Greek has the Odysey or the Iliad, Italy has the Aeneid. Most of mythological tales from England (or Britain) came from the french. And he wanted to give England a mythology.



On Topic: No, I don't think that the orcs could redeem themselves. Those are vile, evil creatures.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nights_King,

But there "vileness and evil" are due to the actions of a third party, Morgoth. Surely, the children of the Orcs who were freed from Morgoth and then Sauron's influence would have the potetial to choose a path that is not "vile and evil"?

Yeah, you could try to argue, that it's all the influence of Melkor and Sauron. But did you read about any orc, in all of Tolkiens work, who wasn't evil? Their only purpose is to kill. They are evil from the day they are born.

Yes, in real life, there is no thing as "being born evil". But this is not real life. Tolkien wanted them to be evil. So they are evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NK,

But does that mean Tolkien is describing a subcreation where redemption is not possible? Clearly people can be corrupted, Sauraman was corrupted by his lust for power. Many others by the Ring itself. If corruption is possible why woulf its reverse, redemption, not be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading somewhere that the idea of Orcs being all bad disturbed Tolkien somewhat due to his Christianity, and he conceded that Orcs could potentially be good but we never met any. By extension that implies redemption would be possible. Unfortunately I think it was a Tvtropes page, so there was no citation.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

NK,

But does that mean Tolkien is describing a subcreation where redemption is not possible? Clearly people can be corrupted, Sauraman was corrupted by his lust for power. Many others by the Ring itself. If corruption is possible why woulf its reverse, redemption, not be?

No. That isn't what I meant. Redemption is possible. But no orc would ever think about redeeming himself. They don't go around thinking "Are some things we do evil? Am I just?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quotes from this page: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil



"As a devout Catholic who believed in spiritual salvation, the idea of a race of inherently or irredeemably evil creatures was one of Tolkien's major sticking points with his own work. He spent much of the latter part of his life as a writer trying to justify it. He never did come up with an explanation that satisfied him. "



"In one letter, Tolkien points out that some Orcs display courage and tribal loyalty if nothing else, and that they wouldn't have been able to function as well if they were completely evil. And he was generally quite good at giving individual Orcs distinct personalities."



"In fact, Elrond explicitly states that, in the Battle of the Mount Doom, *all living beings except Elves stood divided*. So it is obvious that there are in fact good (at least for a certain definition of "good") Orcs and Trolls, just that we don't see them."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry,

But Scranc are a "weapons race" do they have independent consciousness or are they "philosphical zombies"?

It seems pretty clear that Tolkien wrote orcs with independent conscousness. Look at the debate between the two orc commanders in "The Choices of Master Samwise" at the end of The Two Towers. Clearly they debated and questioned what their courses of action should be. They had independent choice and the ability to defy their "master".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry,

But Scranc are a "weapons race" do they have independent consciousness or are they "philosphical zombies"?

It seems pretty clear that Tolkien wrote orcs with independent conscousness. Look at the debate between the two orc commanders in "The Choices of Master Samwise" at the end of The Two Towers. Clearly they debated and questioned what their courses of action should be. They had independent choice and the ability to defy their "master".

I agree about the independent consciousness for orcs, as the example you give demonstrates that idea perfectly. I think there might be one sranc pov, but it came across as pretty animal, and I'm pretty sure they're described as not having souls. I don't think Tolkien ever got into the whole 'soul' thing so bringing in the sranc was probably a lousy comparison on my part. I dunno.

I'd speculate that were Martin to write an installment of Middle Earth, we might see at least one 'good' orc. I realize this doesn't really answer your question in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry,

If Orcs cannot be good I would submit it would collapse the ur-reality of Tolkien's subcreation. A world where you can only fall to corruption and have no possiblity of redeeming that failure just seems... wrong. Perhaps my Christian ethos is coming to the fore but I've always believed you can choose to "walk toward the light" so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was brilliant...

On to the discussion... I am going to use this opportunity to bemoan the fact that you don't find Tom Bombadil in many adaptions of Tolkien's work. Bombadil was the other side of the coin that Tolkien created. He was a representation of good and purity. He was a physical representation of what was fought for.

Since allegorically, Tolkien was writing about the nature of ideals, I find it intrinsic that Orcs by their very nature are evil and the enemy of good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People mention the debates Sam overheard in Mordor and I remember there being similar sequences when Pippin and Merry were captured. I don't know too much about the background cosmology but on its own, LotR's Orcs didn't seem all that more "evil" than the men who joined Sauron, they just happened to be on the wrong side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...