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

[Shryke]

That just implies that Aragorn was a horrible monster who drove the Orcs into extinction despite their ability to be redeemed.

More realistically, Tolkien just never came to a conclusion on the issue before he died and the story as he conceived it and wrote it is steeped in a framing that views the orcs as evil things to be destroyed without regret.

[Night's_King]

Were the Nazis capable of redemption? Hell no.

Okay, stop right there. Are really serious about that? That is ridiculous.

[SpaceChampion]

Why? No one has defined redemption. It's a nebulous concept. I don't see how redemption can ever be demonstrable.

A Nazi is not a species, so I'm not talking about every Nazi with that label due to pressure to join the party, but only those who committed brutal crimes.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

Nazi can redeem himself by not being Nazi anymore.

[broken one]

I wonder if souls of Orcs go to the Halls of Mandos. The Anti-Elves are still Elves.

The topic reminded me of a book ...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Broken One,

Yeah, I've heard of that story before. Meh.

[broken one]

Meh.

:agree:

[The Marquis de Leech]

From Tolkien's letters (Letter 153 - September 1954):

They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote irredeemably bad; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good). But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them.

This was as close as Tolkien got to the problem of the irredeemable Orcs. He dithered for decades about their origin, coming up with alternative ideas and essays (contained in the tenth volume of Christopher Tolkien's History of Middle-earth series, if you want to take a closer look). In the end, the question was unresolved.

Some other bits and pieces from the essays, which indicate that, no, Aragorn was not going to genocide the Orcs:

It is true, of course, that Morgoth held the Orcs in dire thraldom, for in their corruption they had almost lost all possibility of resisting the domination of his will. So great indeed did the pressure on them become ere Angband fell that, if he turned his thought towards them, they were conscious of his ’eye’ wherever they might be...this servitude to a central will that reduced the Orcs to an almost ant-like life was seen even more plainly in the Second and Third Age under the tyranny of Sauron, Morgoth’s chief Lieutenant.

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.

Tolkien's politics is another matter. I'll cover that in another post tomorrow (it's late here).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

Very interesting. See, this is why everywhere needs to be on EST. Thst way our conversations can continue on normally regardless of the hour.

:P

[Arthmail]

I find GRRM a little ham fisted sometimes, and he certainly missed the point of LOTR.

That being said, I find the idea of Orcs as more than simply evil interesting. Tolkien, in my mind, came up with the perfect notion of the other. In war, people justify atrocities because people are the other. It was no different with the orcs. But remember, it is not likely that every bipedal species is going to be the same. The humans, Elves, and Dwarves were all distinct. The orcs were as well, but they had suffered from generations and generations of abuse and subjugation. I think that the orcs were already alien in their thought processes to start with, and that was further corrupted by dark influences and evil magic. At least, that's part of how I look at it. They are not human, therefore they need not think as humans do. In fact, it would not make sense for every species to think exactly the same. The orcs are nearly cannibalistic, and exceedingly violent. If a species were portrayed as such in Science Fiction people would not really bat an eye, because there is a broad assumption that people from Planet A are different than people from Planet B. I don't think it would be any different in a fantasy when you start to peel away the skin of the issue. The orcs are different, they are alien, and after millennium of abuse, those differences will be exacerbated.

So I think that on many levels they could be normalized, to some extent, but I would never be entirely convinced that they would not be evil, at least not in the sense that some farmer on Rohan is going to see an orc eating his wife's face and thinks it evil. The orcs are other, and will always be. They might withdraw and change their society to reflect their release from Sauron's dark influence, but it does not mean that they would not still have characteristics that others find evil. And those characteristics would take a great deal of time to alter and change. Consider also that those that suffered losses under the orcs, people who have lost cities and loved ones to a cannibalistic and extremely violent species of exceedingly ugly creatures (let us not forget the need in humans to hate all that is ugly, all that is other), and who suffered because of the war, will have no patience for the orcs or their attempts to find themselves. There would be misunderstandings, and deaths, and reprisal murders, and hate, and extermination.

If the orcs fled into the wilds and spent a few generations becoming more of who they are, which still might be so far from humans as to be alien, they might find a broader acceptance. Or humans will look at the small kingdom of orcs and fear future atrocities and wipe them out.

It's an interesting question without a real easy answer.

[TrackerNeil]

I think that it's far more interesting to wonder about Aragorn's policy towards post-Sauron orcs than to simply dismiss the entire race as hopeless, thus justifying all manner of genocidal actions.

In any case, I think GRRM's point was that good men do not necessarily make good leaders. One can say "Aragorn was a wise king", but what does that mean? Did Gondor's economy thrive as a result of his goodness? Was lasting peace with the Haradrim forged? These are the REALLY interesing questions, in my view.

[Arthmail]

But they aren't interesting questions, because that's not the book that Tolkien was writing. They are general, esoteric questions, but in terms of what LOTR was trying to accomplish even asking the questions really misses the mark. The books were an attempt at a mythological British pre-history that was lost to repeated invasions. When I read Beowulf, I care nothing for the economics of the day, or some of the minutia. There are other points to consider, themes, which is what Tolkien dealt with. All mythological tales have some sort of theme, and to treat a 60 years + book as if it is going to carry the same points as a modern work misses the point.

I mean, in all honesty, what are GRRMs themes? That war sucks, power corrupts, people are shitty, and midgets are witty? They are trying for two entirely different ideas. I grow weary of comparisons like this because books need to be considered in the context of what the author was trying to achieve at the time that he was trying to achieve it.

[TrackerNeil]

But they aren't interesting questions, because that's not the book that Tolkien was writing. They are general, esoteric questions, but in terms of what LOTR was trying to accomplish even asking the questions really misses the mark. The books were an attempt at a mythological British pre-history that was lost to repeated invasions. When I read Beowulf, I care nothing for the economics of the day, or some of the minutia. There are other points to consider, themes, which is what Tolkien dealt with. All mythological tales have some sort of theme, and to treat a 60 years + book as if it is going to carry the same points as a modern work misses the point.

I mean, in all honesty, what are GRRMs themes? That war sucks, power corrupts, people are shitty, and midgets are witty? They are trying for two entirely different ideas. I grow weary of comparisons like this because books need to be considered in the context of what the author was trying to achieve at the time that he was trying to achieve it.

In my view those questions are interesting, but you are correct that Tolkien was not trying to answer them. I think that one can appreciate a work for what it is, and yet still search beyond its boundaries -- and find things of interest there.

[sologdin]

redemption and salvation are property/financial/economic concepts. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO MARX.

that said, the more interesting question is whether the orc is a skilled lover in tolkien, and what that answer might imply about tolkien's view of sexuality.

[Arthmail]

Very true TrackNeil. I should have phrased that better. They are interesting questions, just not within the context of Tolkien, because they are not close to what he was trying to do. But good questions over all.

[Galactus]

But they aren't interesting questions, because that's not the book that Tolkien was writing.

Those are the most interesting questions of all. Why is the narrative framed like it is? What are the consequences?

They are general, esoteric questions, but in terms of what LOTR was trying to accomplish even asking the questions really misses the mark. The books were an attempt at a mythological British pre-history that was lost to repeated invasions. When I read Beowulf, I care nothing for the economics of the day, or some of the minutia.

You are obviously not a historian :P Mythological narratives are one of the primary sources for daily life (limited though they are)

EDIT. Furthermore, for all that Tolkien wanted to create an english mythology, he has one issue: His world is deliberately created by a 20th century english professor. It is *not* a mythology (or at least, it was not in his time) it is a deliberate construction. Even if mythologies were not subject to analysis (social, political, religious or otherwise, a concept I reject) it is not very persuasive to say that LOTR belongs in the same category as other mythological stories. (who, even in the few cases where an author is "known", as say, the Illiad, they're usually at least compilations or re-workings of pre-existing stories)

[Arthmail]

Actually, I have a minor in history, so you can chew on rocks if you choose. And you actually deconstructed your own point. Yes, mythological narratives are primary sources of daily life, but they are limited, so you are correct there. There is no reason that LOTR however, constructed as it was, should cover all aspects of everyday life for the people of Middle Earth. No more than any other mythological tale actually covers all that is happening in the lives of those within its story.

Of course its a deliberate construction, I think that would be obvious. Too obvious to mention. I simply stated what he was looking to do, not that he was looking to actually have his story become part of a mythological framework or to be treated as anything more than a story that has those elements within it. But he made a conscious decision to write it the way that he did. Putting modern writing styles and elements and sensibilities to it makes little sense in the context of his overall goal.

But I'm not really here to debate what he was trying to do. That's been bludgeoned to death by those that get it and those that don't. I think the idea of the redemption of Orcs within the framework of his story is far more interesting.

[Galactus]

here is no reason that LOTR however, constructed as it was, should cover all aspects of everyday life for the people of Middle Earth.

Of course there is a reason. (what that reason is, is up for debate, maybe Tolkien didn't find it interesting, maybe it conflicted with the tone he wanted to set, etc... In either case this tells us something) just because he wrote something does not mean he cannot be critiqued for it. He made choices. These choices can be analyzed, both in the context of the day and in the context of now.

Why, for instance, did Tolkien not consider the everyday elements of importance? Why did he think some things were important in order to create a "mythic feel" and some things not? These are interesting questions.

I personally find one of the more interesting things about Tolkien precisely this unease with the pre-modern world, he can't quite let himself into the mindset of a warrior-culture (presumably because of his own experience of modern industrialized warfare)

"Why did Tolkien chose to write the book he did?" is at least as interesting a question as anything else.

[Shryke]

Those are the most interesting questions of all. Why is the narrative framed like it is? What are the consequences?

Which is basically what GRRM's comment is about. He's decrying the simplicity of the framing choices Tolkien made.

You can say "Well, Tolkien didn't want to make it more complex then that" but that doesn't remove the questions that said simplicity leaves open.

[Arthmail]

And while he's open to his opinion about decrying the framing choices, he's coming from 60 + years down the road. Fantasy now is filled with minutia, and people glom onto shit that doesn't really matter. In Cormac McCarthy's the Road, its as simplistic as hell. He doesn't even tell us what the extinction level event was that drove the father and his son out into the wilds. He's hinted at it, and mentioned it in interviews I believe, but he really didn't give a shit about the why of it. His story led to some place else. I simply trust that he as an author is taking us to the place where he wants to lead us. It doesn't mean that we can't look critically at the corners of the page, to the outskirts of the world that he has presented to us, but I find little merit in the endless conjecture about what isn't put into a work of fiction. Every work has something that it is missing, for whatever reason the author chose. I'm just more interested in what was included and the implications within the framework.

Martin also makes mention of good kings and good lands, an idealism that never existed in real history. He's very correct in that. But he's also again missing the point of what Tolkien was trying to do. All Martin has done is take a historical event and fantasy-it. I admire the work, but he's coming in with a different objective. I find authors criticizing other authors for having different styles and purposes to be generally a bad idea. I guess I don't give a flying fuck about Aragorn's tax policy, because Tolkien didn't, he wasn't trying to go there. If Martin wants to deal with that, by all means. It's not particularly interesting, to be honest, no more than Martin's endless descriptions of meals. Or Jordan's endless descriptions of clothing. A book does not need to be a catalogue of all that is going on to have a point, or to have a reason.

But meh. I'm done with this discussion, honestly. I'll return to muse about the idea of orcs being genetically evil or forced into evil. I think within Tolkien's work there is a chance for redemption of the orcs, the only problem being some of those that I have listed previously. Namely that they are not human, so the definition of evil, and the people of Middle Earth's reaction to the situation, would make such reconciliation difficult.