ASoIaF and LotR parallels

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, Narsil4 said:

I find Smeagol becoming Gollum to be fairly similar to Elves becoming Orcs. 
With Orcs essentially being corrupted and enslaved for generations, I see little reason why they wouldn't deserve pity. Even if they don't have the ability to feel pity themselves anymore. 

My point is that we have no independent confirmation that the views of the 'good characters' actually correctly assess the moral or metaphysical situation of the Orcs. It is basically like buying the view of an East Indian Company official about the Indian population, to put it drastically.

[Aldarion]

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

ASoIaF is limited by the POV structure - which also causes considerable problems. LotR doesn't have such a structure and has two main characters actually be present in the battle we are talking about.

Actually, ASoIaF POV structure is stolen almost straight from LotR. The only difference is that ASoIaF has lot more POV characters.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Hobbit isn't really part of the legendarium. It becomes part of that via the Hobbit sequel that turns into a sequel not only of the children's book but also of the Silmarillion complex. Elrond is retconned into being the Elrond who is the son of Eärendil. He isn't that guy back in the children's book, just as Gandalf isn't some angel incarnate nor the Necromancer the lieutenant of Morgoth. In that sense, those trolls are not exactly trolls created by or working for the Dark Lords, just as the goblins of the Hobbit are not necessarily the same as the Orcs from LotR and the Silmarillion complex.

Whether Orcs are actually tragic creatures we don't know. Because we never get their side of the story. Sure, the Hobbits give us their interactions with Orcs from their perspective, and we can deduce that life under the heel of Barad-dûr is not all that nice for them, but whether a free life in the absence of a Dark Lord (which they certainly had at various points in their history) is all that tragic or unpleasant for them.

Tolkien has his characters set up the Orcs as unreedeemable evil - if you recall, Gandalf disagrees that that Gollum is like and Orc and just an enemy, but he doesn't to anything to explain to Frodo that even an Orc isn't just an enemy, no? Evil men are led astray and such, but Orcs definitely are beyond redemption.

Hobbit was retconned into being part of Middle-Earth, and received numerous modifications in the process.

Actually, we do know that Orcs are tragic creatures. They were originally Elves who got captured, tortured and corrupted. Even if they themselves do not have ability to feel empathy - and note that Elrond says about Dagorlad "on that day all creatures except Elves were divided among themselves" - that is because it was stolen from them. So yes, they definitely do deserve pity. They are not evil by choice, but by conditioning.

[Lord Varys]

28 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Actually, ASoIaF POV structure is stolen almost straight from LotR. The only difference is that ASoIaF has lot more POV characters.

No, LotR doesn't have a strict POV structure. We even got Sauron's thoughts when he realizes where the Ring is.

28 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Hobbit was retconned into being part of Middle-Earth, and received numerous modifications in the process.

It doesn't really fit all that well into LotR/Silmarillion complex.

28 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Actually, we do know that Orcs are tragic creatures. They were originally Elves who got captured, tortured and corrupted. Even if they themselves do not have ability to feel empathy - and note that Elrond says about Dagorlad "on that day all creatures except Elves were divided among themselves" - that is because it was stolen from them. So yes, they definitely do deserve pity. They are not evil by choice, but by conditioning.

I'm not sure how Elrond saying something does make it so. Even if you don't doubt the back story of the Orcs (which one can on the level of the narrative as such but not when you take into accounts JRRT's letters) then we still have no clue whether the Orcs are unhappy in their existence as Orcs when they do not chafe under the rule of a Dark Lord (and even under such a rule not all of them seemed to have been that unhappy).

It is a completely paternalistic view to say they deserve pity if it is not even clear they feel bad. That is why I made the East India Company comparison above.

And there is, of course, also the non-existence of such a pity being transformed into political action. Nowhere in Tolkien's works does anybody ever consider exploring the possibility of a peaceful coexistence with the Orcs. They always fight and try to exterminate them - and if you interbreed them your offspring are dehumanized as 'half-orcs', etc.

[Narsil4]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

we still have no clue whether the Orcs are unhappy

Even if a slave is content with their situation, I don't see how that stops them from being deserving of pity. They have been controlled, bred, abused and treated as beasts for generations. 

One might see Orcs much like abused Pit Bulls. They might tear your face off the moment they get the chance, but one still pities them for the pain and abuse that lead them to this point. 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Narsil4 said:

Even if a slave is content with their situation, I don't see how that stops them from being deserving of pity. They have been controlled, bred, abused and treated as beasts for generations. 

One might see Orcs much like abused Pit Bulls. They might tear your face off the moment they get the chance, but one still pities them for the pain and abuse that lead them to this point.

We don't know anything about their legal status/positions in life. We don't know if they truly slaves, and we certainly have nothing to indicate that they were. After all, as far as I know nobody ever tried to free them or end Orc slavery.

[Aldarion]

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, LotR doesn't have a strict POV structure. We even got Sauron's thoughts when he realizes where the Ring is.

Not as strict as ASoIaF, you mean. But vast majority of the events are seen from PoV of main characters. Besides, I was talking about narrative structure here, not narration style. Martin essentially duplicated Tolkien's decision to split POVs between Frodo's, Gandalf's and Aragorn's groups.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure how Elrond saying something does make it so. Even if you don't doubt the back story of the Orcs (which one can on the level of the narrative as such but not when you take into accounts JRRT's letters) then we still have no clue whether the Orcs are unhappy in their existence as Orcs when they do not chafe under the rule of a Dark Lord (and even under such a rule not all of them seemed to have been that unhappy).

 It is a completely paternalistic view to say they deserve pity if it is not even clear they feel bad. That is why I made the East India Company comparison above.

And there is, of course, also the non-existence of such a pity being transformed into political action. Nowhere in Tolkien's works does anybody ever consider exploring the possibility of a peaceful coexistence with the Orcs. They always fight and try to exterminate them - and if you interbreed them your offspring are dehumanized as 'half-orcs', etc.

It is not clear that Orcs can feel bad. They are completely enslaved by Sauron - they are dominated not just physically, but mentally as well. Their will is broken and subservient to Sauron's: see what happens at the Black Gate once Sauron abandon's them (after Frodo puts on the Ring). This suggests their free will is much more restricted than in the Second Age (when armies of Sauron literally ran away when faced with Numenoreans).

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Not as strict as ASoIaF, you mean. But vast majority of the events are seen from PoV of main characters. Besides, I was talking about narrative structure here, not narration style. Martin essentially duplicated Tolkien's decision to split POVs between Frodo's, Gandalf's and Aragorn's groups.

I'd say the two series have nothing in common there. George has a POV structure that follows individuals exclusively (the only exception I remember is the Vic chapter in ADwD where we suddenly get described the spell healing his arm from the outside rather than be with him when it happens).

The narrative voice of LotR is actually more complex and all over the place although it does follow the main characters for the most part (and usually gives us the thoughts of the spectators rather than the guys with deep insight).

Quote

It is not clear that Orcs can feel bad. They are completely enslaved by Sauron - they are dominated not just physically, but mentally as well. Their will is broken and subservient to Sauron's: see what happens at the Black Gate once Sauron abandon's them (after Frodo puts on the Ring). This suggests their free will is much more restricted than in the Second Age (when armies of Sauron literally ran away when faced with Numenoreans).

The Orcs are described as individuals in LotR - Ugluk and Grishnakh and Shagrat and Gorbag are all individuals. They are not slaves, they work for their masters, be they Sauron or Saruman. And they do have the ability to turn against or betray them over trivial matters (just think how the guys at Cirith Ungol turned against each other).

It seems clear that the fall of Barad-dûr and the disappearance of Sauron's presence had a very strong impact on them - their living god suddenly died and all - but that doesn't mean they weren't individuals with their own free will.

Nothing in the text indicates their were broken or completely under the thrall of Sauron. That may be the case for the Nazgûl, though.

[Aldarion]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Orcs are described as individuals in LotR - Ugluk and Grishnakh and Shagrat and Gorbag are all individuals. They are not slaves, they work for their masters, be they Sauron or Saruman. And they do have the ability to turn against or betray them over trivial matters (just think how the guys at Cirith Ungol turned against each other).

It seems clear that the fall of Barad-dûr and the disappearance of Sauron's presence had a very strong impact on them - their living god suddenly died and all - but that doesn't mean they weren't individuals with their own free will.

Nothing in the text indicates their were broken or completely under the thrall of Sauron. That may be the case for the Nazgûl, though.

No, they are not completely under the thrall of Sauron; I never said they were. But it seems clear that Sauron, at least to extent, influences their decision-making process and keeps them under some level of direct influence. To bring up example of Barad-dur again, compare reactions of orcs and Sauron's human minions: orcs immediately ran away, whereas reactions of humans were much more varied, despite the fact that orcs and humans both worshipped Sauron as a god.

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

No, they are not completely under the thrall of Sauron; I never said they were. But it seems clear that Sauron, at least to extent, influences their decision-making process and keeps them under some level of direct influence. To bring up example of Barad-dur again, compare reactions of orcs and Sauron's human minions: orcs immediately ran away, whereas reactions of humans were much more varied, despite the fact that orcs and humans both worshipped Sauron as a god.

That can establish that Tolkien wants us to see men as less cowardly/better than Orcs, which actually fits out picture, but it doesn't establish that Sauron's presence had this kind of influence over them. If it had then it is rather odd that Sauron actually needed brutal methods to keep them in line, that they turned against each for trivial reasons, etc.

There is certainly talk in some texts that Sauron as Morgoth's lieutenant didn't have as much power of the Orcs as their master, being merely a guy managing evil rather than create it (I'm simplifying here), but in this context one could actually make the case that cowards like the Orcs - who stop fighting after the fall of Barad-dûr were the better people than those fanatic men who continued to fight. But then, of course, Tolkien wants to send the message that men have a natural nobility - even in corruption and evil (like the Black Númenóreans) - something the Orcs do lack completely.

Tolkien has many texts where he speculates about those things in his unfinished works - you will get to them if you read the HoME, but the bottom line is that he never actually gives us the perspective of those creatures he described in such ways. It isn't even clear whether his last word on them is that they were men or elves - he had trouble with the idea to have elves corrupted to this level, but the time line issues prevented him from having the original Orcs be anything but corrupted elves (unless they were not all corrupted spirits which some of those in the ages before the sun and the First Age supposedly were).

At some point he tries to say that the Orcs are not irredeemable evil, of course, but that's not something that actually made it into his work. And if it were true in the works as published then Gandalf definitely sent that message to any of the Hobbits or Aragorn. That famous conversation where Frodo brands Gollum an Orc and thus just an enemy would have been the point where Gandalf could have said that not even an Orc is just an enemy. But he did not - which is why we have as reader no reason to believe the killing of Orcs is seen as a bad thing by anyone in the books (and that extends to the Silmarillion complex where nobody ever tried to coexist with the Orcs in peace).

In the end, a literary work has to be judged on its own merit, not by virtue of his letters (which were never written for publication) and unfinished material. And in his public work Tolkien does not paint a nuanced picture of the Orcs, trolls, half-orcs, etc.

[Aldarion]

On 12/8/2019 at 12:43 AM, Lord Varys said:

That can establish that Tolkien wants us to see men as less cowardly/better than Orcs, which actually fits out picture, but it doesn't establish that Sauron's presence had this kind of influence over them. If it had then it is rather odd that Sauron actually needed brutal methods to keep them in line, that they turned against each for trivial reasons, etc.

 

Actually, the text i RotK does. In The Field of Cormallen chapter, it is outright stated that the orcs lost will to fight after Sauron's will abandoned them; and when Sauron died, they started running around "like ants without a queen" or something to that effect. It seems quite clear that their willingness to fight was directly linked to Sauron's own will. Now that does not mean that they were controlled like puppets, but the overall direction of their actions was clearly done by Sauron.

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Actually, the text i RotK does. In The Field of Cormallen chapter, it is outright stated that the orcs lost will to fight after Sauron's will abandoned them; and when Sauron died, they started running around "like ants without a queen" or something to that effect. It seems quite clear that their willingness to fight was directly linked to Sauron's own will. Now that does not mean that they were controlled like puppets, but the overall direction of their actions was clearly done by Sauron.

That's what 'our guys' want us to believe. We don't know whether that's actually the case because we never get the Orc perspective. We only get people telling us about the Orcs who we cannot consider unbiased sources and we do see Orcs featured in the book as such written by people who have the Hobbit/Dúnedain point of view (I assume you read the textual history of the Red Book of the Westmarch as given in LotR).

We never have a proper Orc perspective there. Sure, I don't doubt that the fall of Barad-dûr had a tremendous effect on the morale of the Orcs, but I don't think our guys can give us deep insights on the matter without properly investigating the issue (i.e. ask some Orcs why they ran away and stopped fighting).

This whole issue opens up the whole problem of free will in Tolkien's work which he never resolved satisfactorily. If his creatures do have free will and if the Orcs are corrupted Children of Eru (or, in the past, part Ainur-spirits) then they can never become true puppets. Instead, they must always have the ability or will to resist evil - or else Arda Marred is not just Arda Marred but actually Arda Melkoris at least insofar as the Orcs are concerned.

[The other big free will problem is, of course, the story of Túrin.]

There should be no measurable difference between 'corrupted men/elves' and Orcs on a metaphysical level - but if that's the case (or if that were the case) then the good guys were never all that good - because nobody ever tried to save, free, work with, or even coexist with the Orcs.

Tolkien eventually realized that problem but he never found a proper solution for that. A problem that arose from his ugly 'the Orcs are evil/have the be destroyed' description in LotR. Back in the Silmarillion stories it is not that problematic since Melkor-Morgoth is effectively the creator of the Orcs and they worship him as their god and he rules Middle-earth with an iron fist for most of their existence. It makes sense that they would follow him.

But afterwards things are very much different. The Orcs didn't have to follow Sauron in the SA and TA, and whatever hold Sauron had over them was never as great as the hold Morgoth had over them.

[Aldarion]

On 12/10/2019 at 4:45 AM, Lord Varys said:

That's what 'our guys' want us to believe. We don't know whether that's actually the case because we never get the Orc perspective. We only get people telling us about the Orcs who we cannot consider unbiased sources and we do see Orcs featured in the book as such written by people who have the Hobbit/Dúnedain point of view (I assume you read the textual history of the Red Book of the Westmarch as given in LotR).

We never have a proper Orc perspective there. Sure, I don't doubt that the fall of Barad-dûr had a tremendous effect on the morale of the Orcs, but I don't think our guys can give us deep insights on the matter without properly investigating the issue (i.e. ask some Orcs why they ran away and stopped fighting).

This whole issue opens up the whole problem of free will in Tolkien's work which he never resolved satisfactorily. If his creatures do have free will and if the Orcs are corrupted Children of Eru (or, in the past, part Ainur-spirits) then they can never become true puppets. Instead, they must always have the ability or will to resist evil - or else Arda Marred is not just Arda Marred but actually Arda Melkoris at least insofar as the Orcs are concerned.

[The other big free will problem is, of course, the story of Túrin.]

There should be no measurable difference between 'corrupted men/elves' and Orcs on a metaphysical level - but if that's the case (or if that were the case) then the good guys were never all that good - because nobody ever tried to save, free, work with, or even coexist with the Orcs.

Tolkien eventually realized that problem but he never found a proper solution for that. A problem that arose from his ugly 'the Orcs are evil/have the be destroyed' description in LotR. Back in the Silmarillion stories it is not that problematic since Melkor-Morgoth is effectively the creator of the Orcs and they worship him as their god and he rules Middle-earth with an iron fist for most of their existence. It makes sense that they would follow him.

But afterwards things are very much different. The Orcs didn't have to follow Sauron in the SA and TA, and whatever hold Sauron had over them was never as great as the hold Morgoth had over them.

Actually, Orcs did have to follow Sauron in Third Age - not so in Second Age when we see whole armies abandon him. In fact, it is stated (in Morgoth's Ring) that Sauron eventually started controlling orcs much like Morgoth did in the First Age; that both Morgoth and Sauron expended themselves attempting to control the others, though Morgoth to much greater extent (since Sauron never aimed to control reality as such, and at any rate Morgoth did most of Sauron's work for him).

We never get the Orc perspective because it is not a story about the Orcs, but we do see situations where they act more-or-less naturally. And at any rate, if there are any good orcs, they would not have been seen because they will not have joined Sauron.

And free will never was absolute in Tolkien's works, it can be broken, as we see with Glaurung, with One Ring and so on. And both of these cases display the way in which Sauron may be controlling the orcs - not as puppets, but by influencing their decision-making processes. So they may still have the (illusion of) free will, but that hardly matters if their decision-making process is influenced / based on faulty information.

EDIT: Different groups of humans cannot coexist in real world, why do you think coexistence with orcs is possible?

[Lord Varys]

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Actually, Orcs did have to follow Sauron in Third Age - not so in Second Age when we see whole armies abandon him. In fact, it is stated (in Morgoth's Ring) that Sauron eventually started controlling orcs much like Morgoth did in the First Age; that both Morgoth and Sauron expended themselves attempting to control the others, though Morgoth to much greater extent (since Sauron never aimed to control reality as such, and at any rate Morgoth did most of Sauron's work for him).

Sauron is just a pale shadow of Morgoth. He was a little bureaucrat whereas Morgoth was the real dark lord. Unlike Morgoth, Sauron is essentially gone completely after the destruction of the Ring, whereas the people in the world believe Morgoth will grow again until he can finally take shape again and start the last battle.

The issue in the SA wasn't so much Sauron's lack of control over the Orcs (he had the Ring back then, remember, meaning he was more powerful than than he ever was in the TA) but the power and splendor of the Númenóreans. They terrified both the Orcs and Sauron himself

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

We never get the Orc perspective because it is not a story about the Orcs, but we do see situations where they act more-or-less naturally. And at any rate, if there are any good orcs, they would not have been seen because they will not have joined Sauron.

Well, I'd not make 'joining Sauron' a criterium whether you are good or evil. I'm sure you can work in Barad-dûr itself and still remain a decent guy depending on what exactly you do - but not all servants/followers of Sauron would have been in Barad-dûr nor Mordor.

The overall issue with the portrayal of the Orcs is that there are a lot of stories about eradication wars of Orcs throughout the TA (the dwarves, the Orcs in the White Mountains) which take place regardless whether said Orcs are directly connected to Sauron or not.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And free will never was absolute in Tolkien's works, it can be broken, as we see with Glaurung, with One Ring and so on. And both of these cases display the way in which Sauron may be controlling the orcs - not as puppets, but by influencing their decision-making processes. So they may still have the (illusion of) free will, but that hardly matters if their decision-making process is influenced / based on faulty information.

Thing is, that on the theological level the idea of creatures that are 'born evil' definitely is an issue. If the Orcs were irrevocably evil (which Tolkien didn't want them to be but sort of made them nonetheless at least insofar as good guys treatment is concerned) then Morgoth essentially won - at least until Arda is remade and the Orcs are, presumably, erased from creation - because that's precisely what he supposedly wanted to create - a species of evil creatures which cannot be redeemed and whose members will never do the right thing.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

EDIT: Different groups of humans cannot coexist in real world, why do you think coexistence with orcs is possible?

What do you mean by that? Do you mean species (different groups do exist - I didn't kill the group of humans living next door ... yet ;-))? That is not a given. There could be Neaderthals and such without any difficulty. There could also be other humans if we created them one day via genetic manipulation or another species developed naturally after being cut off for generations from the main population for some reason.

But the overall issue here is that effectively advocating for/committing genocide isn't exactly the kind of thing the goods guys should do. And that's something that's clearly not positive in George's work, to get back to that.

[Aldarion]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sauron is just a pale shadow of Morgoth. He was a little bureaucrat whereas Morgoth was the real dark lord. Unlike Morgoth, Sauron is essentially gone completely after the destruction of the Ring, whereas the people in the world believe Morgoth will grow again until he can finally take shape again and start the last battle.

The issue in the SA wasn't so much Sauron's lack of control over the Orcs (he had the Ring back then, remember, meaning he was more powerful than than he ever was in the TA) but the power and splendor of the Númenóreans. They terrified both the Orcs and Sauron himself

Sauron always had the theoretical ability to control the Orcs. And the reason why Morgoth is not gone is because he has One Ring of his own. But he used whole of Arda as his Ring, meaning that it can never be destroyed, unlike Sauron's Ring.

Problem is that Elrond described the Last Alliance as the largest military force fielded by good guys "since the breaking of Thangorodrim". This would make it larger than Ar-Pharazon's Umbar army. Yet orcs still stood and fought.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The overall issue with the portrayal of the Orcs is that there are a lot of stories about eradication wars of Orcs throughout the TA (the dwarves, the Orcs in the White Mountains) which take place regardless whether said Orcs are directly connected to Sauron or not.

And that has nothing to do with whether Orcs have capacity for good (a question that gave Tolkien quite a bit of headache) or not. Ancient Romans fought quite a few wars of extermination, then you have Illiad etc. Fact is, modern people are pampered, including in their morality. Romans would not have bothered thinking whether something is ethical, they would have gone (IF 'threat', THEN 'conquer' OR 'exterminate').

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Thing is, that on the theological level the idea of creatures that are 'born evil' definitely is an issue. If the Orcs were irrevocably evil (which Tolkien didn't want them to be but sort of made them nonetheless at least insofar as good guys treatment is concerned) then Morgoth essentially won - at least until Arda is remade and the Orcs are, presumably, erased from creation - because that's precisely what he supposedly wanted to create - a species of evil creatures which cannot be redeemed and whose members will never do the right thing.

Morgoth already did win, in a sense, because he has managed to infuse his essence into Arda as a whole. Whole of Arda is to Morgoth what One Ring is to Sauron; hence why Morgoth can never be destroyed in a way that Sauron can.

I think the question should be whether Orcs are inherently evil, rather than irrevocably evil. Because even if they are irrevocably evil, it does not mean that they are inherently evil, if said evil is a consequence of external influence - such as Morgoth's essence.

Basically: do Orcs have completely free will, or are they prisoners in their own minds to lesser or greater extent?

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What do you mean by that? Do you mean species (different groups do exist - I didn't kill the group of humans living next door ... yet ;-))? That is not a given. There could be Neaderthals and such without any difficulty. There could also be other humans if we created them one day via genetic manipulation or another species developed naturally after being cut off for generations from the main population for some reason.

But the overall issue here is that effectively advocating for/committing genocide isn't exactly the kind of thing the goods guys should do. And that's something that's clearly not positive in George's work, to get back to that.

I meant sufficiently different cultural groups. Culture has major impact on mental processes and manner of thinking (and behaviour). Society, to function, relies on a series of invisible, inbuilt assumptions. This means that unless a large number of underlying assumptions and thought processes are shared by vast majority of members of a society, said society cannot function. 

Regarding genocide, no, it is not a good thing. But it was done regularly, by ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, and even many medieval societies. And if you believe that the enemy is attempting to exterminate you, exterminating them in turn is not exactly unreasonable.