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

[Galactus]

and old myths never really bothered with economics and social sciences.

Well, yes and no. (depending on how you define "myths", "economics" and "concerned") a lot of them are very concerned with eg. property and law and all sorts of stuff like that.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Yes and this is the handwave that GRRM is criticizing Tolkien for. "Oh, it's fantasy so we'll just not think about or acknowledge what happens to the orcs after Sauron is defeated" As you said, the thread is about "the prospective post-war genocide of the Orkish population". It's about what happened to the orcs after the war. Tolkien seems to pay no attention to this question and you seem to not want to discuss it at all because "it's fantasy" or something. But that is, again, exactly the point. That Tolkien's framing of the story exists to ignore issues arising from his depiction of events.

Saying straight out that this is fantasy, and that we are dealing with fantasy critters who do not and cannot live in a human world, does however colour how we approach this sort of question. Martin paints this image of Aragorn killing Orc babies in their little Orc cradles; you draw analogies with Native Americans. Except that neither scenario applies, because with the Orcs we are dealing with a species that is literally other, and is literally murderous to everything it encounters. Elves, Dwarves, even Ents can relate to humanity (and each other) - Orcs can't, because they end up killing, looting and eating it. All we know based on the evidence is that genocide of them would have been unlikely, because revenge-wars never work out well in Middle-earth.

Should Tolkien have gone more into this question? He was uncomfortable and undecided enough about Orkish origins, let alone their fate; had he tried to respond to your objections, chances are you'd have ended up with multiple competing accounts of post-war Orkdom, each trying to fit within his worldview. We certainly know about how Sauron's human allies were treated. Tolkien's brief summary about Aragorn's reign emphasises reconciliation, which combined with Sam's thoughts about the dead Haradrim fully illustrate that Tolkien thought there was nothing inherently evil about any human being, and that human enemies should not be demonised. With the Orcs, we are dealing with creatures that can be demonised, because, well, they are figurative demons (their name comes from Old English terms meaning evil spirits/devils of the underworld).

Of course, one might posit the same question about the final fate of the Others.

Right, so the issue is you don't understand what criticism is. Saying "Tolkien has no interest in how the kingdoms he writes about actually function" is a completely valid criticism of his work. There's nothing daft about it. It's not even a negative statement. Not unless you take it that way (which you don't have to) or believe that criticism can only be negative (which is a lack of understanding of what criticism is) That the above statement is true doesn't mean LOTR is bad. But it's still true.

Your argument is that Tolkien erred by not considering uncomfortable implications in his story (as if two decades of dithering about what on earth Orcs are doesn't count as considering). If the author erred, then that is a flaw in the story, which is what I was pointing out above. Criticism being positive or negative has little to do with the price of fish, though seeing as flaws are generally negative, I don't know what you're trying to say, beyond seeing me (and probably Arthmail) as a drooling Tolkien fanboy who can't accept that LOTR isn't the best book ever.

And the point that was being made in the OP from GRRM's quote is that this is not a description of "ruling wisely" because it ignores all the nitty-gritty parts of leadership that really matter. What you wrote reads like a sanitized party platform rather then a description of actual leadership.

Tolkien wasn't interested in the details of governance or leadership. His own politics, as you pointed out last page, back this up as well.

As I pointed out above, Tolkien is well-aware of realpolitik (again, Aragorn and Gandalf's coup d'etat). But if you want the "nitty gritty", then we're back to talking tax policies and applying your own value system as to "what matters". Beowulf (the area of Tolkien's academic expertise) has the protagonist ruling for fifty years, and we know even less about the "nitty gritty" of his reign than Aragorn's reign. Is that a flaw in the poem, or is that simply a reflection of the fact that the poem isn't about ruling; it's about mankind's futile fight against a cosmic threat. Same with LOTR, which isn't about ruling either. It's about change and death, and mercy.

He does ignore politics though because he ties political outcomes ultimately to morality. Denethor's issues, for instance, are a weakness of character. Or the Numenorean pride and envy that is the weakness that destroys them. Morality comes first to Tolkien. That's what matters.

"Weakness of character" in this context *is* putting political concerns above morality. Had Gandalf or Galadriel used the Ring, they'd certainly have been politically victorious. The Ring could certainly grant political and military triumph. But the triumph would ultimately be incredibly hollow.

(I think most of the characters in ASOIAF would have taken Boromir's view, with a handful like Stannis preferring Denethor's "keep the Ring unused until we're dead anyway" line.)

[sologdin]

about the final fate of the Others

hoping that something like walking dead's hershel shows up to convince everyone that martin's zombies are simply sick persons in need of medical attention. perhaps a nice single payer health insurance under daenerys, or something.

[Hielo y Fuego]

about the final fate of the Others

hoping that something like walking dead's hershel shows up to convince everyone that martin's zombies are simply sick persons in need of medical attention. perhaps a nice single payer health insurance under daenerys, or something.

Not to derail the thread (I'm in the camp of those who feel that Tolkien wasn't trying to write a gritty, realistic fantasy tale, so I don't really think about the post-war fate of the orcs that much) but it really bothers me when I see people calling the Others "zombies".

The Others are very intelligent beings, and I find no evidence in the books even suggesting that they're not some kind of life form. They're just mysterious, alien beings that are hard (if not impossible) to understand for humans, characters and readers both. Let's not confuse them with their Wights, please.

As for sick persons, look no farther than the human civilization in Planetos. Those are the ones in dire need of medical attention, what with their brutal ways and the attrocities that they're capable of, only to sate their lust for power.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

The Others are very intelligent beings, and I find no evidence in the books even suggesting that they're not some kind of life form. They're just mysterious, alien beings that are hard (if not impossible) to understand for humans, characters and readers both. Let's not confuse them with their Wights, please.

Assuming that last episode of GoT wasn't kinda crucial spoiler. (Which could explain why Others appeared only after FM conquered part of Westeros.

[Hielo y Fuego]

Assuming that last episode of GoT wasn't kinda crucial spoiler. (Which could explain why Others appeared only after FM conquered part of Westeros.

Well, actually, I had reached the conclusion that the Others are some kind of intelligent life-forms long before last week's GoT episode. It seemed to me like they've always had a plan in place, because their attacks/raids hardly seem to be at random.

Take the FIst of the FM, which is the only instance so far where we've seen them come at men in full force. I think it's obviously no coincidence that they would attack, given the numbers of NW men that Mormont took with him.

So yeah, I agree with your post. That's absolutely possible, IMO.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

<blockquote>

Well, actually, I had reached the conclusion that the Others are some kind of intelligent life-forms long before last week's GoT episode. It seemed to me like they've always had a plan in place, because their attacks/raids hardly seem to be at random.</blockquote>

Yeah, that was obvious. What I mean is that they are no alien inteligent life-form but basically ice-vampires. They are humans turned by Ice Magic no independent beings on their own.
And that's why Others appeared 4000 years after FM. Because Others were First Men that turned themselves.

[HexMachina]

Myrrdin,

I'm discusing this same article with Coco and a few others on my facebook page (I couldn't get him to come back and play). I noted that if orcs and trolls didn't have free will that would be an awfully Calvinist position for Tolkien to take.

I think the conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat which Sam overhears in Shelob's tunnels suggests Orcs have Free Will - they momentarily consider leaving the War and setting up elsewhere. If they had no Free Will of their own, would they even be capable of contemplating this?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Helena,

Exactly, which prompts my question (can Orcs be redeemed) and should prompt a further question: if Orcs can make their own choices how is it possible every last one of them chooses to be "evil"? Would a sociopathic Orc be "good" under our moral worldview?

[Gaston de Foix]

Helena,

Exactly, which prompts my question (can Orcs be redeemed) and should prompt a further question: if Orcs can make their own choices how is it possible every last one of them chooses to be "evil"? Would a sociopathic Orc be "good" under our moral worldview?

Terry Pratchett certainly thinks so.

I think this debate is really a "poet" vs "philosopher" one. Tolkien was a poet and doesn't wish to stray beyond the limits of his imagination. GRRM is more philosopher than poet, and wants to know how someone could write "here be dragons" on the map without going there and getting eaten. No resolution is possible because Tolkien's vision is fragmented. If you start trying to rationalise it, you end up with something unpersuasive.

[sologdin]

Well, actually, I had reached the conclusion that the Others are some kind of intelligent life-forms long before last week's GoT episode. It seemed to me like they've always had a plan in place, because their attacks/raids hardly seem to be at random.

Take the FIst of the FM, which is the only instance so far where we've seen them come at men in full force. I think it's obviously no coincidence that they would attack, given the numbers of NW men that Mormont took with him.

So yeah, I agree with your post. That's absolutely possible, IMO.

it's manifest in the first prologue of the first volume that the others themselves are intelligent, sure. wights are analogous to zombies, though. no idea about the show's presentation, though.

[Westfold-II]

I don't think there is a strong, direct connection to his politics. I don't think this involves a special view of human treatment. Not as regards the question of lack of "redemption" in any case. Maybe "aesthetics" and ideology, but in a more "superficial" way. And of course the relative "naivety" or "ignorance" of such topics. Orcs are mythological creatures and intended as such. But you can hear such things as Faramir saying that he wouldn't even deceive Orcs, and Tolkien himself was much clearer in his statements. I don't think there is much new to be said, but of course one can talk about it...

[Batbob45]

They can be redeem in other media like warcraft and Elder Scrolls. I don't see LOTR books as political.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Given the current Tolkien thread is talking about a similar topic and about to be closed I thought I'd ressurect this one.

[Richard]

Okay, I'll bite.

Far more important than the redemption issue is the question of whether orcs could be given elocution lessons sufficient to rid them of their dreadfully rough and lower class way of speaking........ :leaving:

[sologdin]

have them, like Lolita, attend the charm school for orcs, maybe, which focuses on the four Ds: dramatics, dance, debate, and dating?

[Richard]

Yes. And Decapitation (might edge out Debate as D number 3, in fact).

[Jo498]

I always had the impression that orcs (and the like in other SFF) were introduced among other things, because the authors were squeamish about using humans as cannon-fodder for their heroes. So it may well be that humanoids like orcs, hobgoblins, hellspawn etc. are introduced by many authors to avoid the charge of racism because the heroes slay members of pseudo-mongol hordes by the dozens. Rather let them fight with non-human humanoids who are evil by default.

Some critters, like the "corelings" in "The painted man" ore the "bugs" in "Starship troopers" are sufficiently un-human that no one seems to care whether they have a culture, care for their babies etc. Orcs seem to be sufficiently similar to humans that one could ask these questions and answer them in a way that it seems like genocide to kill them all.

Few authors would have a worldview for a fantasy world including spiritual constraints to even bother with the question in this thread, so I think Tolkien deserves credit for this.

Of course, most "gritty" fantasy does not really need to bother, as everybody is "grey" anyway and nobody cares about cannonfodder, be it human, orc, sranc, shagga, darkspawn.

[Skythe1]

I think the fact that they used to be Elves says that they could indeed redeem themselves - Tolkien could quite easily have had them be a completely separate race, but he chose to link the two together. And the way Tolkien portrays Smaegol/Gollum hints that even his 'evil' creatures can come back from the brink.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Again, this thread is presented as alternative to the previous Tolkien discussion that was just closed.