Orcseys - always Evil?

[Thinlómien]

While skimming through Haudh-en-Ndengin, this topic caught my eye.

LMP's thread about uncorrupted orcs. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5872)

While reading through it, the following question came to my mind: If an orc would be orphaned as a baby and brought up by humans/elves, what would he be like? Would he be like the orcs we see in Tolkien's books? Or could he be brought up to be more humane?

[Glaurung]

Interesting question. Probably it would have some orcish features like a human orphaned to a wolf's family would have some features of a human(this was an extremely stupid example, but anyway). BUT I think we all know how much a person's upbringing can affect to his/her behaviour and opinions. For example, I know one person who seems to have picked all his (conservative) ideas and ways of thinking straight from his dad...
But still, when thinking about orcs, it would sound quite weird that ALL the evil in them would just depend on their upbringing... :p So I don't know. My guess is that the result would be an orc having the ideas and thoughts of a human. On a more basic level, I'd guess the orc would still have the instincts and (on some level) the nature of an orc, because they are things you can't change by a good upbringing.
Further on, I wonder how would the orc survive in a human community where (at least hopefully) intelligence is needed to succeed in life...

[Thinlómien]

I agree with you at some points. I think the orc would be less "evil" than normal orcs, but more "evil" than a human. He would still have an orcish temper.

[Findegil]

An orkish temper he might posses, but I would even think that he would not look like an normal Ork. I believe that the treatment that the Orks did to their children during childhood did effect their physical look very much. That is not to say that nobody would mark him as alien to the society in which he grow up, but that would very much depend on the country in which he would be fostered.
I am even not sure about temper, intelligence and "higher tendency to evil" (if such a thing could exist at all). If such things were seen as inherent in Orkish societies that could also be a result of selection in early childhood and not inherited by birth.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Eldar14]

I hate to disagree with everyone so far, but I don't think that an orc could be non-evil, no matter how he was raised, unless someone of equal power to Morgoth were to spend generations upon generations trying to undo the work that Morgoth had done.

During the entire war of the ring, who was the only race that fought on the side of good that didn't fight on the side of evil (excepting Hobbits, who are an oddity)? The elves. The men fought on both sides, and the dwarves fought on both sides. And why was is that the elves only fought on one side? Because there is something inherrent to their being which causes evil to be abhorrent to them.

And, the orcs being a pervesion of the elves created by Morgoth, wouldn't it be considered possible that they may share the tendency to be predisposed towards a certain alignment.

Silmarillion:And deep in their dark hearts the Orcs loathed the Master whom they served in fear, the maker only of their misery.

It states in Sil that the orcs hated Morgoth, the "maker only of their misery." So, an inherent trait of orcs is their misery. They are miserable as a by-product of their very existance. And, hand-in-hand with this misery comes hate. As the nature of their being, they feel both misery and hate. I wouldn't be possible for a creature based on misery and hate to grow up to become good, no matter how well they were treated. Their inborn hate would fester and grow, until they were evil.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

That quotation doesn't mean that the misery is inherent. They are placed in this dark, desolate life; and the misery springs forth very quickly from this arrangement. That line is there to show that the Orcs were slaves and not willing workers. The hatred is deep inside and has been since the start of their lives; but it doesn't suggest that the Orcs themselves are based on the hatred.

[Son of Númenor]

I did a search on this topic and found this excellent response to the question at hand:
"They [sc. orcs] would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. 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.)" (Letter 153)

"I actually intended it to be consonant with Christian thought and belief, which is asserted somewhere, Book Five, page 190,1 where Frodo asserts that the orcs are not evil in origin." (Letter 269)

What else is there to say?
I believe we have had this discussion at least once before, but for this thread's sake, let me add that while the notion of orcs being corrupted Elves may have been the idea at the time of Tolkien's writing of LotR, later theories should be given more importance here.

What the quotes tell us is that there is of course perfection, but it lies solely with the Creator (and one might say therefore in creation as a whole). Because of the gravity of the origin of orcs, which does not change with a different idea of their beginnings, they are indeed "naturally bad".
Furthermore, it is stated somewhere that orcs in fact loathed their own existance.(From Inherent Evil (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1619&highlight=inherent+evil))

[narfforc]

Please allow me to put a twist on this. In The Silmarillion, Tolkien writes: For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar. This could mean Elves or Men, however it probably means Elves. So when they die what happens to their spirit, does it go to Mandos as an Elf?, for the lifeforce within is given by Eru not Melkor. Is that lifeforce then cleansed of evil by Eru, and given back what was stolen from it ie: It's true form? What would become of The Half-Orcs of Saruman or The Uruk-hai of Sauron, surely they are just another form of Peredhil, what choice are they given. In Tolkiens world there is no hell, and no-one to govern it, Morgoth has been banished, so are the spirits of those corrupted by birth, beyond help, where do they go. Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman and maybe other renegade Ainur, have been placed in the void, they chose their path, the Orcs of The Third Age did not, are all the spirits of the Orcs with Morgoth?. Someone has to fight The Dagor Dagorath, IF Tolkien is saying that by accident of birth your spirit is damned, then yes Orcs are always evil, yet nothing is born evil, not even Sauron, so say's Gandalf. Then is it Nature or Nurture. My own view is that most of the corruption was genetic, then some brain-washing. Our own recent past tells us that the indocrinated Nazi's could be re-educated, and as for what the Orcs looked like, no-one in our politically correct world, would like to tell me that looks count, would they?

[Kath]

But neither Nature or Nurture can explain why humans grow to be the way they are alone. Only by combining the two do you get a reasonable explanation, so it is likely that the same would be true for orcs.

Therefore if an orc was orphaned as a child and brought up by humans it would retain some of the innate things that make it an orc, that have been there since birth, such as the way it looks (to some extent as though that is genetic it can be affected by the environment) or how quickly it picks things up. However, things like the language it speaks, the morals it learns, those are nurture and are dependent on the family it is brought up in.

So if it were brought up in an 'evil' human family it would be 'evil, but if it were brought up in a 'good' human family it should be 'good' as well. But if things such as temper and basic knowledge of right and wrong are innate there would be times when it would appear evil.

[Eldar14]

But temperament and things of that sort are still nature. A person's entire personality is NOT based on nurture, but a lot of it is also based on nature.

For example, dogs make good pets. For hundreds of years humans carefully selected the more obediant dogs and bred them to create a race of obediant pets. Most dogs, when you feed them, would never bite your hand. Most dogs wouldn't decide to maul their owner one day.

However, if one of us were to get a newly born lion cub, and raise it exactly as we would a dog, or a wild hyena pup, we would be fools to believe that we could safely feed it, or safely take it in public with us after it grows up. They have an inherent nature for violence, and you can't nurture that out of a creature.

It is very happy and nice to believe that people and creatures aren't born with parts of their personality decided, and anyone has a chance to be whatever their parents raising them want them to be, but it's naive. Part of a person's disposition and good nature are decided before they are born, as an element of their genetics. Sometimes 'good' families raise a 'bad' child, and sometimes 'bad' families raise a 'good' child.

[Gothmog]

Eldar14 provided a good example with the dogs and lions (even if a comparison with a wolf might be closer to the elf/human vs orc relationship). But one thing is missing. There are lion cubs, or wolf cubs, that are raised by animalkeepers and I've seen lion behave like peaceful kittens. They have a inherent nature for violence, yes, but they can control it. And there are dogs that bite their owners, just like there are elves and men that turn more or less evil. Yes, elves too make stupid things that hurt their own.

I won't tell you that raising an orc baby as your own won't lead to complications. The violent nature and misery of their race is probable partly genetic, but with the right upbringing where morale and normal values are a part of their life, even orcs can be turned into something functional in the "good" society. To pick a fight with one of these orphan-orcs may not be a very good idea, but if they're kept away from things that will trigger their instincts, I think they deserve the chance.

To say that Orcs are irreversible evil and forever lost doesn't fit very well with the view of a forgiving God that most Christians have. See also the quote Son of Númenor provided; Orcs are not irredeemably bad.

Fact is nurture has such a big impact on an organism that it would be strange if an Orc couldn't adapt itself to society. Not even clones or identical twins behave identical. For example: cows with the exact same genetic material take on different roles in a group. The first cloned cat (Copy Cat :rolleyes: ) was a copy of it's mother, but it's personality was different.

If an orpanaged orc would be happy is another question. To know what "it" is and carry with it the "misery of it's race" and inherited hate could be to much to bear...

[Orcrist Wielder]

Forth tolkiengas! orcrist wielder at your service, may your beards grow large and never fall. I think i am one of the newer posters, in fact this is my very first post reply, concerning this particular issue, i am not quite sure that there are even orcseys!! i have never read in any of the J R R works (i have not read the letters yet tough) and correct me if i am wrong or if i am missing something important, that orcs have "childhood". Of course it is obvious to imagine that the must be younger at some point of their lives, but nothing that can be compared to a "childhood" i think. and there is no quote that i know of that might create that impression... i dont know maybe they are created and breeded by artcrafts, because as far as i can recall, it is in very short periods of time that both sauron and saruman "amassed" a very large army wich makes me think that they must be using some kind of dark and malicious power to rise so many orcs (should it be uruk-hai or regular orcs ) in a not-large ammount of time, therefore i dont really think there is enough time to "breed" an orc just like you would rise a human being or an elf or a fellow dwarf. If were are all just speculating, then i would agree with most of you, in the fact that a little orc can be rised i a way or another, depending of whom is to raise that little orc (burarrum), but i do agree with the perspective that no matter how "well" raised is that orc, there always will be a little part of him that will be "evil" inherent and as a part of him...
Greetings.

[Kath]

Ooh orcrist wielder may have a good point. We're assuming there are orc children. As far as we know they may not. We know they are corrupted Elves or a mixture of elves and goblin men. Perhaps this would be impossible.

But, that is perhaps a matter for a different thread.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

A topic oft spoken about. Try the search function if you want to know more about Goblin kids.

Gollum used to eat them, remember. :D

[narfforc]

Yes they did have children, Tolkien states this when he says: They had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar. We know that The Eldar and Atani bore children.

[Eldar14]

Gothmog, you raise a very good point regarding how there are lions in captivity which don't attack their keepers. However, this isn't because the lions are tame.

In most cases of a predatory animal being kept in activity, such as in zoos or circuses, the zookeeper plays a very clever game to convince the creature that the keeper is dominant, and that the keeper is more powerful than the predator. There have been cases where once this illusion is broken the lion will kill the keeper.

For example, one way this happens from time to time is if a new creature is introduced, and this animal doesn't yet know the keepers position, it may attack the keeper. The instant this happens, and the keeper shows their weekness, the other animals also attack.

So, while there often is an illusion of tameness amongst naturally violent animals, this is merely an illusion created by the animal's fear and respect for its keeper. The parrallel for orcs in regard to this phenomenon wouldn't be an orc growing up in society and fitting in, but the fact that an orc doesn't attack his superiors because he believes them to be stronger.

It's not that the lion is tame to its keeper, but that it believes its keeper is more powerful.

[Gothmog]

You're probably right, Eldar14, but the animals I thought of was not the usual zoo-animals and their keepers, but animals that of some reason has been left without parents and are raised by an animal keeper, not in a zoo together with other lions (or whatever the animal is). Besides, there are few animals that hunt humans for food. Polar bears are the only land living animal that do that. In other cases, wild animals attack to defend themself, their offspring or their own area.

To keep the animals, or in this case orcs, away from strerssing situations might be necessary. But then an orc isn't comparable with an animal; the orcs have a more advanced brain and can think for themselves. If they don't want to adapt to the elven/human world, then they won't. But if they have a wish to leave the life of their kin behind, then I still think it's possible.

[The Saucepan Man]

This talk of lions and dogs is all very well, as far as it goes, but I am not sure that it really answers the original question.

I would agree that certain patterns of behaviour can be trained in animals, although they can still retain instinctive reactions. The main difference between the dog and the lion in the example above, I think, is that dogs have been selectively bred over many years for certain characteristics, reduced aggression for example. And so the instinct to attack is not as strong in the dog as it is in the lion, which is one step away from being wild.

But then an orc isn't comparable with an animal; the orcs have a more advanced brain and can think for themselves.Not necessarily. In some of his writings, Tolkien suggests that Orcs (or at least some of them) were mere beasts, without “fea” and wholly subject to the will of their Master. But I am not sure that distinction between sentient beings and beasts matters too much here, as behaviour will be a mixture of breeding (genetics) and training (education) in humans as well as animals. So, whichever view one takes as to the nature of Orcs, I think it fair to say that certain characteristics, both physical and mental, might be altered through both selective breeding (in the long term) and training/education (in the shorter term). Indeed, there are examples of both in Tolkien’s works. The Uruk-Hai were selectively bred (for strength, aggression and resistance to sunlight) by Sauron (although it is fair to assume that magic may have been involved here too). And the more regimented, hierarchically obedient nature of Lugbúrz Orcs and Isengarders, in contrast to the Goblins of the Misty Mountains, might be attributable to their “military” training as warriors.

The difficulty, as I see it, with the lion and dog discussion is that we are talking here about evil, rather than about physical and mental characteristics such as height, aggression etc. And evil, in Tolkien’s world (and philosophy) at least, is not a genetic trait or a learned behaviour. It is the result of Morgoth’s marring of Arda. And, specifically with regard to Orcs, they are evil because Morgoth “created” them to be so. As Son of Númenor (quoting Sharkû) pointed out, they are “creatures begotten of Sin and naturally bad” (although apparently not irredeemably so). I find it difficult, in these circumstances, to see how evil could be bred or trained out of them. If they are, by their very nature evil, how is it possible for them to change? Indeed, Tolkien’s comment on their redeemability notwithstanding, I find it difficult to see how they could be redeemed through their own actions, or through the actions of anyone other than Eru himself. Perhaps, therefore, their only possibility for redemption would be following their death, by the grace of Eru.

In these circumstances, notions of genetics and learned behaviour seem inappropriate.

Of course, the whole notion of a race of beings that are evil by their very nature through no fault of their own give rises to a number of philosophical problems which is why, I think, Tolkien came round to the view that they were mere beasts rather than creatures with souls. My own view, however, is that this approach conflicts with the portrayal in LotR of characters such as Shagrat, Grishnakh and Ugluk, and so the problem (for me, at least) remains.

Further reading:

Inherent Evil (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1619)

[Morsul the Dark]

Interesting question. Probably it would have some orcish features like a human orphaned to a wolf's family would have some features of a human(this was an extremely stupid example, but anyway). BUT I think we all know how much a person's upbringing can affect to his/her behaviour and opinions. For example, I know one person who seems to have picked all his (conservative) ideas and ways of thinking straight from his dad...
But still, when thinking about orcs, it would sound quite weird that ALL the evil in them would just depend on their upbringing... :p So I don't know. My guess is that the result would be an orc having the ideas and thoughts of a human. On a more basic level, I'd guess the orc would still have the instincts and (on some level) the nature of an orc, because they are things you can't change by a good upbringing.
Further on, I wonder how would the orc survive in a human community where (at least hopefully) intelligence is needed to succeed in life...

however humans are cruel and more than likely the orc would be picked on and most likely grow up all the meaner for it

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I had this discussion with a friend of mine recently, it is one that often comes up and is very difficult without the books on hand. I cannot find it even with them, but I seem to recall a place where, I think it is either Shagrat and Gorbag or the Orc Tracker and his friend (when Frodo and Sam are hiding in the bushes) that says something along the lines of;
"I wish we could go away from all this war and have a peaceful life with no big bosses around."
You'll have to confirm my quotation, as I cannot find it. :rolleyes:

This suggested to me, at first, that, given the chance, Orcs would go forth and live out good lives where they had nothing to fear. But Reading the Silmarillion brought something to my mind. This in particular:

Wolves there were, or creatures that walked in wolf shapes, and other fell beings of shadow; and amongst them were the Orcs, who afterwards wrought ruin in Beleriand: yet they were few and wary, and did but smell out the ways of the land, awaiting the return of their Lord.
The Silmarillion: Chapter 15 - Of the Sindar

To me, this suggested that the Orcs are somewhat lost without their lord to guide them to do evil. Looking at how they moved through the forests after the fall of Boromir would suggest that they would delight in trampling all living things even if it were not in their way.

This is a big assumption, I suppose. It seems that violence is in their nature as it were, in the same way that the love of gold is in the nature of Dwarves. Yet, I would say that, from Tolkien's words that they are not 'incurable' just as Gimli was, in a way, cured of his gold lust. "Your hands shall run with gold, yet over you, gold shall have no dominion." I would guess that it is plausible, then, that the Orcs could be 'cured' of their violent ways if given the opportunity.

I can't comment with any authority on the subject, but I would guess that after the fall of Sauron, the Orcs probably tried to find somewhere to go to live out lives without big bosses. Then again, one could look at the goblins in the Misty Mountains (From The Hobbit) and, indeed, Moria. They had no links with Sauron that is mentioned, so one can only assume that they went under their own leadership, in a way. But then once again, you could argue that at the time of The Hobbit, Sauron was still prudent as The Necromancer in Mirkwood and his influence may have even been amongst them, or at least the fear of his return.

Just a thought.

[Gothmog]

To comment both SpM's and Hookbill's posts; I don't know if Orcs had their own fea but I do think that they had some sort of free will, judging by the way they sometimes talk about their masters. I can't confirm Hookbill's quote, but I'm sure I've heard orcs talk negative about their masters, and if they were under total control, this would be impossible for them. Also, it happens that the orcs are driven away and flee before an overwhelming enemy. If Sauron, or Morgoth, could control them fully, they would fight until the last drop of black goblin blood. This shows some sort of free mind and maybe some sort of soul?

Their behaviour, with destroying all living things for the fun of it as one part, can be both nature and nurture-related. We know too little about the orcs' development and their "education" to say something about this, really...

I'm leaning more to the view of an orc with some sort of soul, but with a partly inherited "evil". Though it is possible for this creature to redeem itself turn it's back to it's origin, it would be hard. But much of the evil of warrior orcs comes from their training and treatment when their younger and from that, a hatred to all things arises.

I know that it seems as if Tolkien meant the orcs to be soulless killing machines in some texts, but the way he portays them that doesn't seem to fit.

And yes SpM, the dog-lion comparison isn't totally applicable.

The first thing we need to decide is: is orcs' minds free? Next thing: how much of their evil is inherited? Only after answering these questions (and probably more that I've forgotten right now), we'll find an answer to this problem...

[The 1,000 Reader]

Looking at the orcs in LOTR, I believe that there is a chance, though small. They aren't completely dull, yet they are prone to scatter as if they were ants.

[Thinlómien]

Hmm... Didn't Tolkien say in the Letters that orcs represent all that is bad in human race? And said some people to be the orcs of modern days? I think - though a bit irrelevant matter - might point to some orcish free will.

Tolkien believed that humans have free will, right? Then (in my logic) also those Tolkien's "modern orcs" (= badly behaving humans) have free will and why should they be compared to orcs if orcs haven't some sort of free will? If orcs were bound to do the "evil" deeds they did how could they be compared to humans who have free will? It would be the same as comparing a person that is physically forced to kill a human to a murderer who decides to kill someone. (A bad example, I know. I hope you got my point.)

If orcs have some sort of free will, I think they would be able to "behave" in a human society. If they don't, then obviously not.

[The Saucepan Man]

If orcs have some sort of free will, I think they would be able to "behave" in a human society. If they don't, then obviously not.It depends really how much store you set by this statement in Tolkien's Letters (quoted above by Sharkû via Son of Númenor):

They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad.I read from this that evil is the natural state for an Orc, something that is an essential part of the Orc's nature and which the Orc itself is unable to change. Accordingly, I would instead say that they have limited free will. Their choices will always be limited by their natural impulse to evil.

[Thinlómien]

I read from this that evil is the natural state for an Orc, something that is an essential part of the Orc's nature and which the Orc itself is unable to change. Accordingly, I would instead say that they have limited free will. Their choices will always be limited by their natural impulse to evil. Sounds quite depressing... At least for the orcs.

[The Saucepan Man]

Sounds quite depressing... At least for the orcs.Indeed. As I have said, I have major philosophical difficulties with the idea of a race of beings that are evil by their very nature, through no choice or fault of their own. An Orc is evil simply by virtue of being born an Orc. He or she has no choice in the matter. And that does seem terribly unfair.

I think Tolkien recognised this. Hence his later thoughts which envisioned Orcs as soulless beasts rather than sentient beings. I am not sure that this necessarily solves the problem, though, as they are still living things that suffer by virtue of their naturally evil state, whether or not they have souls.

But is it any less depressing to regard Orcs as being capable of repentance and/or redemption? As being capable of being “cured” of their evil state? I am not so sure that it is, given that there is no suggestion in any of Tolkien’s writings that this ever actually occurred. Indeed, they seem to be regarded by those on the side of good as being naturally evil and incapable of redemption or repentance, whether or not this is the case. The treatment of Orcs, for example, is in marked contrast to the treatment of those Men who served evil, such as the Dunlendings, whose gripe against Rohan is given some justification and with whom the Rohirrim are seen to be reconciled following the battle of Helm’s Deep, and the Haradrim, for whom some sympathy is engendered in Sam’s musings upon the fallen warrior in Ithilien. Orcs are never regarded through the same sympathetic eyes and nor are they ever shown any mercy by those on the side of good.

The fact is that, even if they were not evil by their very nature, the chances of an Orc ever being “reformed” are extremely slim. Their appearance, their temperaments, their reputation, the nature of the societies into which they are born (or spawned ;)) and their likely upbringing all mitigate so severely against their likely rehabilitation as to make the chances of it ever happening virtually nil. Which is little better, in practical terms, than being “irredeemably” evil.

[Morsul the Dark]

However there has never been a chance of redemption because they were raised by evil that was raised by evil if you get my meaning

I think an Orc raised by caring parents would in fact be good

I view it almost as such, Sparta

Sparta(a war society IE orcs):Spartans were raised to love war and bloodshed like orcs are it seems to me that orcs however go that much further and i almost think that orcs geneticly are an all male society and the only way to reproduce is well i hate to use the word but it must be said raping innocent women an act that if any compassion was in an orc would be unthinkable that is to say the strong emotioonless have survived while the compassionates have died out.

So now Orcs are evil by nature however earlier in thei evolution there were im willing to bet those that were compassionate

[The Saucepan Man]

So now Orcs are evil by nature however earlier in thei evolution there were im willing to bet those that were compassionateOrcs did not evolve. Indeed, there is little room for evolution of any kind in Middle-earth, as envisioned by Tolkien.

Orcs were "created" by Morgoth to serve him. Tolkien states that they were "creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad". If anything, therefore, the original Orcs had less chance of redemption than those living at the time of the War of the Ring.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad.
I read from this that evil is the natural state for an Orc, something that is an essential part of the Orc's nature and which the Orc itself is unable to change. Accordingly, I would instead say that they have limited free will. Their choices will always be limited by their natural impulse to evil.I think it's a troubling thought that a living thing would constantly be driven by natural impulses to evil. Although the difference is small, and the concept isn't any happier, I'd rather think that orcs were incapable of doing good. They were created that way, and evil was a consequence of their actions, not the reason.

Indeed, they seem to be regarded by those on the side of good as being naturally evil and incapable of redemption or repentance, whether or not this is the case. I've been wondering if the whole 'pure evilness' is mostly just the point of view of the free races of the Middle-earth. Since they are the ones who have done all the writing (Bilbo wrote the Hobbit etc.) we get a rather limited view of orcs. Surely orcs considered Men and Elves to be pretty wicked, too. Weren't they able to do good deeds even among their own kin? The Letters probably give a more unbiased picture of the orcs, but since I don't have them, I can't tell.

However, I can't help feeling that there is something vaguely similar to the fact that a certain instinct makes dogs usually chase cats and yet you can't say that one of them is really evil. They are animals, yes, but it's not easy to put out an old hatred between two races even if neither of them remembers where it all started. Besides, orcs are slaves commanded by higher individuals. You either obey or die, and I think surviving is a much stronger instinct than seeking for justice.

That leads me to another question. Did orcs realize that there could have been something better - did they long for 'a change for goodness'? I'm sure they didn't actually like all the whipping and hard work, but were they able to imagine a better life (I haven't found the quote Hookbill mentioned either), and I mean more than thoughs like "no whipping" and "a long nap"? If they didn't realize their glum situation, and the horridness of their deeds, how could they have done anything good to improve it...

I would guess that it is plausible, then, that the Orcs could be 'cured' of their violent ways if given the opportunity. I think cured or even 'cured' might be a bit too optimistic. I'm inclined to think that orcs could have learned to hold back/ control their evilness (much like in the examples of lion cubs) or even taught what is regarded as good behaviour, but they would have done it because someone superior told them to. If the orcs lacked the ability to comprehend other people, goodness could have never become a natural part of them.

A good orc obeyed orders, but was he able to independently think what would cause pleasure to another individual? It's the conscience and the ability to empathize that separates the humankind from animals. Conscience is something that you don't even have to teach for a kid, it comes naturally. If the orcs didn't have it, I'd say that they were indeed lesser beings than people, thus unable to do good at their own initiative and enjoy it (if orcs even could feel plain happiness instead of victorious exultation after a battle, for example).


Hmm... Didn't Tolkien say in the Letters that orcs represent all that is bad in human race? And said some people to be the orcs of modern days? I think - though a bit irrelevant matter - might point to some orcish free will.

Tolkien believed that humans have free will, right? Then (in my logic) also those Tolkien's "modern orcs" (= badly behaving humans) have free will and why should they be compared to orcs if orcs haven't some sort of free will? If orcs were bound to do the "evil" deeds they did how could they be compared to humans who have free will? I take it that badly behaving people are being compared to orcs just because in the eyes of "decent" people, orcs generally behave badly. I don't think the matter of free will has necessarily much to do with this - I mean, you can compare a human being to a tomato if he looks red, but it doesn't mean that he'd be a vegetable. I can't believe that Tolkien would have meant that some people actually are descendants of orcs (I don't think you even meant that), but if that's the case, the answer must be that orcs could be raised to have some sense of right and wrong (and thus the ability to do good) since that's natural to all people.

[davem]

At the same time orcs are inhabitants of Faerie, they are not human & so we can't attribute human moral values to them. They are what they are. I think Tolkien made a major mistake when he attempted to 'explain' their nature. In TH & LotR they simply behave like we'd expect Orcs to behave.

Obviously there is a difference between the Orcs of LotR & the Sil & the Goblins of TH - & the Father Christmas Letters come to that. In the latter two works we are dealing with Faerie creatures, wicked by nature because that's what Goblins are like in Faerie.

Of course, we have to keep in mind that both TH & FCL we're written for Tolkien's children at a very difficult time - the world was a very unstable place, & during the latter years in which the FCL were being written WWII was in full swing & there are constant references to the war (Tolkien as Father Christmas mentions on a couple of occasions that there are some children who have no homes or much food, so that is why the Tolkien children cannot expect to get all the presents they have asked him for, & tells of how Goblin attacks have destroyed or depleted the toys his Elves had made - or stolen them, & that's why the children will not get what they asked for (apparently the Tolkien boys had a great liking for Hornby train sets, but these were favourites of the Goblins too!)).

Anyway, all this to say that Tolkien's children's stories, & the beings they depict, are simple & straightforward, & deep moral questions & ethical dilemmas are out of place in them. There are good people & bad people, & those two works in particular are in part attempts to give a 'mythological' mirror of the real world his children were having to live in.

As to the Orcs in LotR & The Sil, these are still basically malicious & cruel creatures out of Faerie, but they also take on an aspect of the demons of Christianity. Demons are fallen angels, but once fallen they are irredemable (it seems all the Good' in them was left in Heaven when they fell).

This was clearly Tolkien's problem. As Middle-earth moved further & further away from its Faerie origins, its inhabitants became effectively more 'human' in a moral sense (or an immoral one). Tolkien has to account for the Orcs. They can either be 'robots' with no capacity for moral choices, or they can be sentient beings who simply, & always, choose evil.

I'm not sure that Tolkien made a wise decision when he set out to 'explain' the Orcs - simply, they can't be explained. Goblins (& Elves & Dwarves - & Men too, for that matter) were around long before Tolkien (& are still around after him). Some things just are - they have a nature that cannot be explained, & that applies particularly to the inhabitants of Faerie.

No individual human being is an Orc, but at the same time 'Orcishness' is an aspect of the Human which has always been there & probably always will be. Hence the 'Long Defeat' - one battle to be fought after another forever (or for as long as Humans are around). Because there's an Orc in all of us - but then again there's also an Elf (& a Hobbit) in all of us as well, & that's why we keep on fighting, because we know deep down that 'they cannot conquer forever'.

[The Saucepan Man]

At the same time orcs are inhabitants of Faerie, they are not human & so we can't attribute human moral values to them.But the difficulty, as far as I am concerned, is not so much in trying to understand Orcish "morality", but rather why they are condemned to a life of evil (portrayed as wrong by Tolkien in his writings) through no fault or choice of their own and indiscriminately slain without remorse by those on the side of good. That raises questions about the morality of the world which Tolkien created and the nature of the struggle between "good" and "evil" which is at the centre of it. And, while that world may have been Faerie in origin, it was also a Christian one, consciously so in the revision.

Therein, surely, lies the reasoning which led Tolkien to attempt to "explain" their natures and, given his faith, I can understand why he tried to do so.

[davem]

why they are condemned to a life of evil (portrayed as wrong by Tolkien in his writings) through no fault or choice of their own and indiscriminately slain without remorse by those on the side of good. That raises questions about the morality of the world which Tolkien created and the nature of the struggle between "good" and "evil" which is at the centre of it. And, while that world may have been Faerie in origin, it was also a Christian one, consciously so in the revision.

Well, this illustrates the problem in attempting to Christianise non-Christian things. Whatever Tolkien believed, you simply cannot have 'Christian' Elves or Faeries or Goblins, because those beings, & the world they inhabit, are non-Christian. Faerie does not live by the Ten Commandments.

Certainly there is a 'natural' moral code, a set of 'Laws' within Faerie, but these are bound up with its nature - if you break one of the 'rules' of Faerie you won't just get arrested & taken to court, where some clever Lawyer :p will get you six months in the Bahamas with a Social Worker of your choice in order to 'rehabilitate' you back into society - more likely you'll be eaten by a Dragon, or forced to perform six impossible tasks before breakfast.

That said, if Orcs are viewed as equivalent to Christian Demons, as I suggested previously, there is less of an issue. Orcs & Elves, in their origins are effectively a 'mythologisation' of the Angels & Demons (ie Fallen Angels, who were corrupted by Satan) placed in a mythic history of Humankind. I suspect that if Tolkien had called the creatures Demons rather than Goblins no-one would have even asked whether it was 'fair' that they should be condemned to a life of evil.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, this illustrates the problem in attempting to Christianise non-Christian things.I don't disagree. But, given his beliefs, could Tolkien really do anything else? And, if we are to address the positive moral messages that we might draw from his tales in a "real life" moral context (as we regularly do on this forum), should we also not consider the moral dilemmas that they might present on the same basis?

I suspect that if Tolkien had called the creatures Demons rather than Goblins no-one would have even asked whether it was 'fair' that they should be condemned to a life of evil.But, had he called them Demons, that would have suggested that they had chosen an evil path. I can accept that those who have chosen evil, such as fallen Maia like Sauron and the Balrogs, suffering for their choice. What is more difficult to accept is that those born as Orcs, with no choice in the matter, should suffer for their intrinsically evil nature.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

But the difficulty, as far as I am concerned, is not so much in trying to understand Orcish "morality", but rather why they are condemned to a life of evil (portrayed as wrong by Tolkien in his writings) through no fault or choice of their own and indiscriminately slain without remorse by those on the side of good.This is actually a movie line, but I think it's appropriate to quote it here: "Show them no mercy, for you shall receive none!" If it's not in an orc's nature to feel empathy, showing remorse for a creature like that is a lost cause (speculating on the basis of my previous post).

When you think of other stories, especially children's books, it's rather black-and-white, who is evil and who is good. We don't ponder if it had been possible to cure the witch in the gingerbread house from her cannibalistic tendencies, but we are just happy that Hansel and Gretel got to push her into an oven, which actually makes the children murderers, now that I think of it.

It is not possible to divide people to purely evil and purely good individuals in real life. When in a story we are told that someone is plain evil, that might confuse us because the concept of being narurally evil is strange to us, but we can either accept it or start looking for reasons and loopholes.

I quite agree with what davem said...
That said, if Orcs are viewed as equivalent to Christian Demons, as I suggested previously, there is less of an issue. Orcs & Elves, in their origins are effectively a 'mythologisation' of the Angels & Demons (ie Fallen Angels, who were corrupted by Satan) placed in a mythic history of Humankind. I suspect that if Tolkien had called the creatures Demons rather than Goblins no-one would have even asked whether it was 'fair' that they should be condemned to a life of evil.... but there's still the problem that we tend to think that Fallen Angels were good Angels before they were corrupted and they became evil. Orcs, however, were born evil by nature, so they didn't get to choose between right and wrong, and to contemporary people like us it might actually be the freedom to choose that makes all the difference.


Well, this illustrates the problem in attempting to Christianise non-Christian things. Whatever Tolkien believed, you simply cannot have 'Christian' Elves or Faeries or Goblins, because those beings, & the world they inhabit, are non-Christian. Faerie does not live by the Ten Commandments.

Certainly there is a 'natural' moral code, a set of 'Laws' within Faerie, but these are bound up with its nature - if you break one of the 'rules' of Faerie you won't just get arrested & taken to court, where some clever Lawyer :p will get you six months in the Bahamas with a Social Worker of your choice in order to 'rehabilitate' you back into society - more likely you'll be eaten by a Dragon, or forced to perform six impossible tasks before breakfast.I think the 'moral code' in Tolkien's world isn't that different from ours, but it's rather the setting that makes it look dissimilar. Although the constitutional law in many countries is based on the Ten Commandments given in the Old Testament, in a Christian society, wouldn't it be more appropriate to go with the New Testament; that remorse and asking for forgiveness is enough to atone for our crimes? Well, that isn't the custom. We want to see justice, we want to see that evil gets what it deserves and the good guys win, depending on what we consider to be right and wrong. That is the system in any society, and even in Tolkien's Middle-Earth.

[davem]

We don't ponder if it had been possible to cure the witch in the gingerbread house from her cannibalistic tendencies, but we are just happy that Hansel and Gretel got to push her into an oven, which actually makes the children murderers, now that I think of it.

I think a lot of adults actually do ponder that - or at least how the Witch got to be such a bad Witch. They also prefer to rewrite the original stories so that the Witch gets either rehabilitated or runs off & is never heard of again. Yet...

As Chesterton put it:"Children are innocent and love justice, while most adults are wicked and prefer mercy." (A line Tolkien quotes in OFS). As Tolkien says, this seems to sum up the difference between child & adult readers.

Child readers of TH, LotR (& even The Sil, if any attempted it), & particularly of FCL, would not think twice about whether Goblins have been treated fairly by fate, Eru, or Tolkien. They would simply accept that there are Goblins out there (as, for them, there seem to be in the 'real' world), & that Goblins do bad things for which they will be punished (or at least shunned). Children don't actually want, until we well-meaning adults force them, to 'understand' bad, selfish, cruel people. They don't want to know why they are bad, or whether, if things had been different for them, they would have turned into nice people.

And I'd say its the same for the child in us - if we're honest - we don't actually care whether the Orcs could have been nice if they'd had a chance, we don't care whether or not they will have a chance to repent of their bad deeds at some point in the future & become useful members of M-e society. We actually want to see some justice done on them from a great height (& again, if we're honest, most of us would like to see the same thing happen to the 'Orcs' we regularly encounter on the streets, & we care as little about why they are the way the are as we do about the Orcs in M-e.)

Personally, I can't help feeling that all this agonising over the nature of Orcs is just likely to destroy the magic of the story - bit like having the stereotypical Guardian reading Blairite type popping up in Moria to lecture the Fellowship on the sins of Dwarvish colonialism on innocent Balrogs & how Gimli ought to offer an apology for his ancestor's actions in disturbing it, or turning up in Shelob's Lair to tell Frodo & Sam that 'Its more afraid of you than you are of it...'

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

I think a lot of adults actually do ponder that - or at least how the Witch got to be such a bad Witch. They also prefer to rewrite the original stories so that the Witch gets either rehabilitated or runs off & is never heard of again.That's probably true, although it's interesting that they bother to imagine an alternative ending to a story that they found flawed. Anyway, the Grimm brothers didn't take a chapter to thoroughly explain the motives behind the Witch's actions, so I think that while we are in the story reading it, it's not important to know what made the Witch like that - just like it seems irrelevant for the storyline of LotR to know why orcs were naturally evil. As I said, one can either accept the given facts or try to make the story fit his own conception of things better, which leads to those ponderings about the mankind. I agree that observing a story from too many different angles can really ruin its atmosphere, though.

Now, what does this offer as an answer to the question if Orcs could be brought up to be more humane..? That it's up to the reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Again, davem, I don't disagree with much of what you say, as regards the fictional world at least. I am increasingly of the view that seeking to analyse LotR from any angle other than as pure entertainment or "enchantment" risks destroying its magic, whatever other benefits it may bring. It is one of the reasons that I stopped contributing to the C-by-C thread (aside from time considerations) - I simply wasn't enjoying reading LotR for the purpose of analysing it.

But my point stands. If one does take the position that there is some positive "meaning" to be found within Tolkien's works - moral messages which can be taken from them - then one cannot simply ignore the moral dilemmas which it also poses.

As far as "real life" is concerned, I go along with the view that there are no such things as "Orcs", ie people who are by there very nature evil. I rather agree with you and spawn that there is "orcishness", to varying degrees, in everyone. But that doesn't mean that we should not strive to rehabilitate rather than simply to mete out retribution. The latter approach may appeal to the child in us, but I somehow doubt that such a childlike approach would benefit society. Indeed, the fact that people are not, by their very nature, evil makes it all the more important that we try to understand why people act "wrongly" and seek to address it. If an Orc is naturally evil, there is no point in trying to reform him, however unjust we might think it is that he is that way. But if a person is bad, there might be things that society can at least try do to change the factors which have contributed to that, for example by addressing the ignorance, poverty and/or despair which leads people sometimes to commit crimes.

And that's not Grauniad-reading Blair-speak. Far from it, coming from me. :eek: ;)

[deal_with_it]

Interesting. Depends. If they are like wild animals, they they have an instinctive need to be brutish abd mean. If you raise a wild animal it remains somewhat wild.

I think whatever part of the orcs was once Elf, is long since gone. If we're talking about half-orcs, I'd say its possible they could be raised normally (like in AD&D), but a full orc... I dunno

[davem]

But if a person is bad, there might be things that society can at least try do to change the factors which have contributed to that, for example by addressing the ignorance, poverty and/or despair which leads people sometimes to commit crimes.

We're dealing with two different issues here, imo. First is why people want to commit crimes (steal, kill, cheat, etc), & second is why they actually go ahead & actually commit the offence.

There may be any number of reasons why someone wants to commit an offence, social, moral, even philosophical. You could spend years getting to the bottom of it. The reason they actually go ahead & act on that desire is much simpler - either they think they won't get caught, or they believe that even if they do get caught the consequences will be trivial.

Or to give an example - if you put £20,000 in used notes outside your house tonight with a sign saying 'Private Property, please do not touch' you wouldn't expect to find it there in the morning, because there are lots of people out there who want free money & their reasons will be many & varied, good & bad.

On the other hand, if you put the 20 grand there & surrounded it with armed guards ready to shoot anyone who came within a hundred feet of it, you'd more than likely find the whole lot there when you woke up (unless the guards had run off with it, of course).

Now the reason it would still be there in the second scenario is not that the presence of armed guards had changed the needs or desires of the potential thieves, but simply because you had made the consequences of stealing it sufficiently unpleasant & dangerous.

Now, in the case of Orcs, they are in the same position, it seems to me. By nature they have a tendency to evil, which, far from being deterred by their leaders, is instead actively encouraged.

I'm sure that Tolkien had something akin to Original Sin in mind with all his creatures. All that is needed for Evil to flourish is for Good Men to do nothing. Within Orcs, clearly, any Good is rendered worthless in the society in which they grow.

Yet they do seem to have a value system of their own (see Shagrat & Gorbag's discussion in TT). Perhaps there's an Orcish 'heaven' for those Orcs who live according to Orcish rules, those who truly & fully live out their 'Orcishness'. Who knows. In M-e, however, they are irremediably evil & revel in that fact.

[Thinlómien]

If they are like wild animals, they they have an instinctive need to be brutish abd mean. If you raise a wild animal it remains somewhat wild. Are you saying that wild animals are brutish and mean?!? Wild is no synonym for brutish and mean.

About half-orcs
If orcs have limited free will (they can only do evil, but they can choose what), what about a half-orc? Would he/she have this limited free will? Or a free will of a human?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Well, I found the quote I was looking for.

"You should try being up here with Shelob for company," said Shagrat.
"I'd like to try somewhere where there's none of 'em. But war's on now and when that's over things may be easier."
"It's going well they say."
"They would" grunted Gorbag. "We'll see. But anyway, if it does go well, there should be a lot more room. What d'you say? - if we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses."
"Ah!" said Shagrat. "Like old times."

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Book 4 - Chapter 10 - The Choices of Master Samwise


Make of that what you will.

[deal_with_it]

Are you saying that wild animals are brutish and mean?!? Wild is no synonym for brutish and mean.

About half-orcs
If orcs have limited free will (they can only do evil, but they can choose what), what about a half-orc? Would he/she have this limited free will? Or a free will of a human?

No. It was a comparison. If wild animals raised by people grow up and still have a need to be wild. Then maybe its the same thing with an orc. If an orc has an instinct to be evil, then it will be evil.

A 1/2 orc would very likely be like those in AD&D I guess. Tolkiens works is where the TSR people got the whole idea, so anytime I think of 1/2 orcs I think of the D&D ones. Given they aren't real creatures, thats the only source I have to really go on.

[Lalwendë]

Orcs had to be portrayed as 'evil' - Tolkien's stories at heart are struggles of good versus evil, and this also includes a lot of slaughter. From our modern perspectives, where we examine all acts of battle through the microscope to ascertain if they are 'war crimes' or not, the idea of slaughtering many peoples of one race would seem abhorent, yet it is necessary to stories such as those written by Tolkien. The story would have been very different if Aragorn had decided to go and reason with the Orcs instead of lopping off their heads.

Hence, to make the story acceptable, even to readers back in the 50s, the Orcs had to be portrayed as evil by nature. Yet the interesting thing is that Tolkien did not necessarily carry out this thesis all the way through his work. One of the best known incidences is that quoted by Hookbill above, where we see Orcs discussing their independence from Sauron. They clearly have a culture, a language, a society of their own. They are not mere beasts without a moral code. The moral code may be different to our own, and indeed different to that of Aragorn, Gandalf, etc, but they have one nevertheless. Even to a reader in the 1950s this would stand out.

I think what davem has said is interesting. Orcs, taken as a separate entity to how they are used in the story as representatives of evil, maybe are not to be judged by our own codes and standards. They are something very different to us and thus cannot or should not be judged like we might be.

Anyway, onto Orcs and souls. I don't see why an Orc should not have a soul just because he (or she!) is evil. After all, Saruman clearly has a Fea of some kind, which we see at the end of Lord of the Rings, being turned back or rejected by the Valar. Why should an Orc not have a Fea too? It may make us uncomfortable that an 'evil' creature possesses a soul, but that should not preclude the possibility. However, I can see that a 'created' Half-Orc might not have a Fea in the same way that other beings do, following the logic of the creation of the Dwarves and the special case made by Eru to allow them life.

[davem]

The central problem is that Fear are bestowed by Eru. If Orcs were corrupted Elves they would retain their Fea, but what about Orc children? Why would Eru give them souls if the only possible destiny for them was to be evil - or could Eru create Evil souls just or Orcs?

A second possibility would be that second generation Orcs do not have Fear, merely Hroar & Sana (ie, as well as a body they have a mind but no soul). But is this actually possible?

I suppose we could speculate that in place of a Fea, a motivating 'force' if you will, an orc would be 'powered' by the will of first Morgoth, then Sauron. So, rather than the tri-partite division we see in Elves & Men: Fea-Sana-Hroa, in Orcs we would have 'Evil Will of Morgoth/Sauron'-Sana-Hroa.

This would mean that Orcs would be quite sentient & completely self aware, able to reason (& rebel) but that in a real sense they were not truly 'alive', as the 'Life-force' in them would not have its origins in Eru, but in the will of Morgoth/Sauron.

[Thinlómien]

Lalwende made some very interesting (and good points), but they didn't actually answer to the original question. If orcs shouldn't be judged the same way as humans does it have any effect on would an orc cope in a human/elf society. I would like to hear what do you have to say on this, Lalwende.

Or is the reason why an orc couldn't possibly live among humans that they are too different from humans, not that they're evil?

[Gothmog]

Silmarillion, Of Aulë and Yavanna:
Now Ilúvatar knew what was done, and in the very hour that Aulë's work was complete, and he was pleased, and began to instruct the Dwarves in the speech that he had devised for them, Ilúvatar spoke to him; and Aulë heard his voice and was silent. And the voice of Ilúvatar said to him: 'Why hast thou done this? Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority? For thou hast from me as a gift thy own being only, and no more; and therefore the creatures of thy hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when thou thinkest to move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing idle. Is that thy desire?'
...

Then Aulë took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept. But Ilúvatar had compassion upon Aulë and his desire, because of his humility; and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and wore afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Ilúvatar said to Aulë: 'Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will.'

This may seem a bit off topic, but in my opinion it sheds some light on the process of creating a creature with it's own free will. This proves that without the blessing of Eru, a created creature is nothing more than it's creator's puppet. The dwarf's had no will of their own, until Eru took pity on Aulë and the dwarfs. It wasn't until then that the dwarfes shrank away from the coming blow. What Eru gave the dwarfs was the soul, the Fea, right? And even if it's not Fea, it's obvious that the creations of anyone save Illuvatar himself are doomed to a life without their own will or thoughts.

If that's the case, how can we then say that the orcs, except those that are the first generation of twisted elves, lack Fea? The proof lies in Hookbill's quote. If they didn't have a soul and were controlled by Sauron, then I doubt that they would be able to talk about getting away from him! Besides, after Sauron is defeated, there still existed living, moving and thinking orcs. If they indeed lived without Fea, they would stand dumbstruck as soon as Sauron was destroyed. Or when he lost his power and wondered around as a shadow for that matter.

This raises new questions. Why would Eru give these wretched creatures, the mockery of his own children, the benefit of a soul? And the question that is important for this thread: why would Eru grant such a gift to something destinied for evil deeds without a possibility to redeem themselves? That doesn't make sense. Therefor I still think that Orcs could become more or less "good", with the right upbringing and in the right environment.

[narfforc]

Remembering that after all, these are stories from the mind of a man, we must accept the flaws. Tolkien uses many myths as blue-prints for his own sub-creation,
so we see there is no point in Utopia without corruption, but then where the main criticism of Tolkien comes in, is his lack of Hell without redemption. There are lots of good gone bad elements, but where are the bad redeemed. The only two instances in LotR are:

Boromir is corrupted by the Ring (briefly)/ He redeems himself by trying to save Merry and Pippin

Smeagol (good?) corrupted by the Ring and kills Deagol/ He almost turns ,until the nasty words of Sam(un)wise Gamgee on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, and the fleeting moment has gone.

So why are there no bad turning good, Why doesn't Saruman come down (pride),
why doesn't Grima repent (fear/hate maybe self-loathing) Ted Sandyman becomes a collaberater, what happens to him. The whole point of the story is Good battling Evil, you cannot allow your evil to turn good, for evil will always defeat itself , and in Lotr, Good allows Evil to do this.

[davem]

Tolkien uses many myths as blue-prints for his own sub-creation,
so we see there is no point in Utopia without corruption, but then where the main criticism of Tolkien comes in, is his lack of Hell without redemption. There are lots of good gone bad elements, but where are the bad redeemed.


Of course, many Christians don't believe that Hell is an actual place of eternal torment, but simply a ceasing to be - non-existence.

This seems to be the case with both Sauron & Saruman, whose Fea seem to arise asshadows only to be blown away to nothing by a wind from the West (though its not clear whether this wind comes from Manwe or Eru.

The whole idea of worldly Utopia seems absent from Tolkien's creation. It is apparently an impossibility - at least as far as the possibility of any of the sentient races bringing it about is concerned. There is only the battle against Evil, which cannot ever be won. Evil can only be held at bay, or at best temporarily defeated so as to gain a respite.

In that sense both Sauron & Saruman are Utopians. They believe they can attain absolute victory & their own version of the 'Thousand Year Reich'. What's interesting is that those who desire to achieve a Utopia within M-e are seduced into Evil. Sauron & Saruman are the great idealists, the ones who want to bring about (what they consider to be) paradise on earth. But they seek to do this by rejecting Eru & replacing Him.

Those on the side of Good, however, are the ones who have rejected all possibility of achieving an absolute victory & eternal peace. The 'good guys' have accepted that life in the world is summed up by the concept of 'many defeats & many fruitless victories', of the 'long defeat'.

It is the affirmation of life in the face of death, even though death, in the end, will triumph, because what the 'Utopians' like Sauron, Saruman (& others, like Smeagol & even Ted Sandyman) want is actually stagnation, an unchanging state of affairs where their rule will be absolute. Life is change, for the bad as well as the good. As Gandalf says:

'Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.

Or in other words, 'all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us'. It is that act of 'surrender' that is required of good folk in M-e, that acceptance that while death is inevitable, & peace can never be won permanently, the fight is necessary.

In this context I think Ted Sandyman is an interesting case. He too seeks order over chaos. Walking (& talking) trees are not simply fantastic as far as he is concerned, but more importantly are dangerous. They have to be mocked out of existence, replaced by sensible, logical things. Trees are a source of fruit, raw materials, or fuel - or that is what he demands they should be. The new Shire, under Sharkey, is a place of extreme logic, where if Ted himself is not to be in charge then someone who thinks like him will be. After all, your Utopia doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing, it merely has to be a 'safe', unchanging, unthreatening place.

What the 'Utopians' fear is chaos - actually, what they fear, what they see as their enemy, is life itself. Sauron chooses a dead, blasted heath peopled by creatures no better than worker ants as his Utopia, Saruman chooses a world of 'metal & wheels'. Both desire life replaced by absolute control, by death in fact.

From this point of view Orcs are zombies, the living dead, as are the Nazgul & the Balrog. They are anti-life. As are all 'Utopians'. No-one is going to turn the world into Paradise. The good folk of Middle-earth are the ones who have realised that they can't build a 'Republic of Heaven' - all they can do is struggle to prevent 'Utopians' building a 'Republic of Hell'. And in that battle one must be prepared, if necessary, to make the ultimate sacrifice.

'I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.'

That's something Sauron, Saruman, Smeagol, Ted Sandyman, Wormtongue, the Nazgul, & all the rest of the Enemy could never say...

[Lalwendë]

They would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. 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.)


Lalwende made some very interesting (and good points), but they didn't actually answer to the original question. If orcs shouldn't be judged the same way as humans does it have any effect on would an orc cope in a human/elf society. I would like to hear what do you have to say on this, Lalwende.

Or is the reason why an orc couldn't possibly live among humans that they are too different from humans, not that they're evil?

I think, looking at what Tolkien said in the quote above, an Orc was indeed by nature 'evil', but Tolkien would not go as far as saying that an Orc could never be 'redeemed'. So, taking this as a starting point, presumably an Orc could live with other races and conform to their moral code? The interesting question is whether anyone would be willing to try, and would they be willing to try with an adult Orc?

One thing that Tolkien does make clear, unlike the question of whether Orcs are by nature evil, is that in many ways, their behaviour is determined by their masters/master. It seems that Sauron utilises the familiar bad management practice of 'divide and conquer', pitting one type of Orc against the other type. He also tries to get loyalty by promising things, and by instilling fear - the Nazgul seem to have a certain notoriety even amongst Orcs!

I wonder if this is due to the time Sauron has spent effectively 'in hiding'? He has not been there to act as master to the Orcs at all times, and taking the 'Goblins' of the Hobbit as an example, they could indicate how Orcs organised themselves during times that they were independent of Sauron.


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. That God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today.

Here Tolkien seems to be suggesting that as the Orcs had their origins in Eru, as beings which were corrupted into 'Orcitude' (;)), they also had souls/Fear. As beings which reproduced, I would say that their offspring too must have had souls. We do not know, after all, what an Orc child may have been like. It may have been born in the original nature of the race to which its parents once belonged, it may not have, we cannot say. It is possible that this could have happened, however uncomfortable it may seem to us, as creation of a new race was not permitted, only the corruption of an existing one. If this speculative idea was indeed a possibility, then this might only serve to underline the evil of Morgoth and Sauron.

[Alfirin]

I feel it would be remiss in this dicussion not to point out that at least one major media version of LOTR made it very clear that orcs may be redeeemable. If you watch the Cartoon ROTK ( the old rankin bass one you will notcie that duirng one of the songs while Frodo is sitting in his garden smoking (in a post ring-destruction world) you see two orcs stopping by the gate and it is clear in the scene that they are simply travelers in a work now peacful (I think they even smile a little) Grandted this is just supposed to be one of Frodo's fever dreams but it seems to me that the writers are making it clear that in Frodo's mind a peaceful orcs are possible.

[A Little Green]

In reading this thread one post caught my eye.

Orcs had to be portrayed as 'evil' - Tolkien's stories at heart are struggles of good versus evil, and this also includes a lot of slaughter. From our modern perspectives, where we examine all acts of battle through the microscope to ascertain if they are 'war crimes' or not, the idea of slaughtering many peoples of one race would seem abhorent, yet it is necessary to stories such as those written by Tolkien.

Interesting. It is a very reasonable explanation, I had thought something like that myself (if not as clearly, but anyway). It was necessary for Tolkien to keep the heroes such as Aragorn pure and good, which they wouldn't have been had they killed numerous men. I might want to criticise him in this a little (or is it forbidden here? :confused:) . I would have found LotR much more fascinating if orcs, too, had been portrayed as more than the silly baddies you can kill without bad conscience.

What comes to an orc orphaned with men or elves, I don't know. If orcs are indeed the brutal, all-evil, almost-thoughtless killing machines Tolkien shows them like, I very much doubt they could be made less orkish by mere upbringing. As for the idea of a some kind of 'Morgoth's will' controlling them, I find it quite horrible. It would make the orcs little more than robots.

And the soul-Fea-business discussed earlier I don't get at all. :p

[Thinlómien]

I might want to criticise him in this a little (or is it forbidden here? ):D No, it isn't.

If orcs are indeed the brutal, all-evil, almost-thoughtless killing machines Tolkien shows them likeI'd agree about them being brutal, but not about them being all-evil or almost-thoughtless - there's far too much personality (and even sympathicity, bless me!) in Tolkien's Orcs to classify them that way.

Now, rereading this thread, I started to wonder what causes Orcs to be evil. My own thoughts and many replies here suggest that this evil is caused by Morgoth. Now, would Eru have been able to undo this Evil? Or to "cure" it by giving Orcs Fëar? I think he would. No we know he didn't want to mess with Valar's or Melkor's business. But isn't it quite outrageous of him to leave a whole race to suffer from inherent evil just because of his principle of not interfering? I mean, he gave souls to Aulë's Dwarves. Why didn't he treat Melkor's Orcs differently?

Now I know Melkor had forsaken Eru and not merely rebelled against him like Aulë - and he was "evil" while Aulë was not. Thus it would make sense that Eru would "favour" Aulë's creations and not Melkor's. Yet did he ever think of orcs? Did he ever pity them, tormented poor Elves and their children, and thereby his children as well, eh? Do Dwarves have any more right to souls than Orcs? Wasn't Eru unfair here?

A lot of questions and no answers. Sounds like philosophy. :p

I like davem's and Lal's point about Orcs as such that they can't be compared to humans. Should we take this point a bit further and stop thinking of Orcs as people and merely consider them an aspect of Evil in Tolkien's works?

Now that is an interesting thought, yet I'm not sure I can accept it. What about those glimpses of humanity in Orcs? What about the passage Hookbill quoted? Does it disprove the theory of orcs merely as an aspect of evil?

I don't know. It could. But it could also hint that even Tolkien's relatively black-and-white world there's no such thing as complete evil. It could be a "proof" that even evil people (=orcs) dream of a simpler life under no evil bosses (even though their concept of simple life and pleasure is morally questionable to us). But yet again, I don't know. Can we reduce a race to the level of a mere aspect of evil? This is the intriguing and troubling nature of Tolkien's works, one that his admirers see, but those who criticise him of writing black-and-white & morally simple fantasy don't.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

It occured to me that maybe I could post a link to my post (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=535805&postcount=6)about "nice trolls" here, concerning the trolls from Hobbit and the compassion one of them shows. I speak about both orcs and trolls there and I believe that it is a valid argument even for this discussion.

[alatar]

This raises new questions. Why would Eru give these wretched creatures, the mockery of his own children, the benefit of a soul? And the question that is important for this thread: why would Eru grant such a gift to something destinied for evil deeds without a possibility to redeem themselves? That doesn't make sense. Therefor I still think that Orcs could become more or less "good", with the right upbringing and in the right environment.
Why didn't the First Age elves, prompted maybe by the Powers, kidnap all of the orcs that they came upon and send them across the Sea to Valinor? If Frodo, ages later, can find healing on those distant shores after his ordeal with the One Ring, why not the first few generations of orcs? Could they not be turned back, somewhat if not wholly, and the world be the better for it? Why not set up a place in the West like Ellis Island (New York Harbor) where the orcs deboat, get restored as much as possible, then are reboated and released back into the wilds of Middle Earth? Could this be the beginning of a new race - not elf nor orc, but something in between?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

alatar's proposition seems a little bit too "mechanic" to me. First, I don't like it, the idea just seems awful to me. And furthermore, I believe that it wouldn't work much. But that's not what I wanted to speak of, since I just got a different idea. It would create a response to certain kind of questions, but only under certain circumstances. Not everyone has to agree with me. But here is the idea I got after reading the last sentence I quote from Gothmog - please read it:

This raises new questions. Why would Eru give these wretched creatures, the mockery of his own children, the benefit of a soul? And the question that is important for this thread: why would Eru grant such a gift to something destinied for evil deeds without a possibility to redeem themselves? That doesn't make sense.

I would like to show here that it would make perfect sense. I would like to presume here that Orcs, if they have free will, could be redeemed. Now, Eru is the only one who could give them one. Follow, please, my thoughts:

Presumption (and a prerequisite): Eru is using all things, even bad things, and brings them to ultimately good ends in new and unexpected ways. This is absolutely logical, and what more, it is shown even before (Ainulindalë, water, snow, all the stuff).

Consequence: It makes perfect sense that the Orcs are redeemed. Created by Morgoth in the mockery of Elves and/or Men, they are, against all odds, given Fëar (!) and thus, also free will. What more, there may start to appear some individuals or groups among them who reject evil and ultimately, are redeemed. It is a slow process and it involves falls and setbacks, but since it is brought into motion by Eru himself, it never ceases. What does that mean: Once Eru gave the Orcs Fëar, it means he espoused himself with the Orcs. He says: "Yes, you are my Children as much as Men or Elves." From that point, he is expected to act on behalf of his Children - including the Orcs. He obviously does. The destruction of the Ring and fall of Sauron is probably even larger victory for the Orcs than it is for the Men. It means the end of slavery. One can only guess how it went in the further Ages. But given what I mentioned above - the redemptive way Eru works with all things - gives the possibility to think of more Orc individuals or groups who may start a new way of living, and not just lives of raids and robbery.

It is a theory. And it is based on observation - but this time not concerning Orcs, but concerning Eru. Maybe it would not work like that. But given the way he acts (and we don't see him acting very often, but when we do, we can get some basic glimpse of certain way of acting), I would expect him to do this.

[alatar]

alatar's proposition seems a little bit too "mechanic" to me.
Does not the mechanism exist? Corrupted beings go West and get cured.

First, I don't like it, the idea just seems awful to me.
Why not, and why awful?

What was the fate of gutless traitors like Maeglin and Celegorm and what of the Kinslayers? Where be their eternal fate? Why must the orcs, cursed from birth, be unworthy of some hope?

Note that I agree with davem's earlier post in that only adults are concerned that the orcs are well-fed and have the offer of salvation; my proposal is one of logic.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I doubt there is a solution. Originally the young Tolkien just needed hordes of cannon-fodder who could be slaughtered without compunction. Under the old dispensation, they were 'made' by Melko, so what the hell.

As Tolkien applied deeper and deeper thought to Evil's sterility, and the problem of salvation, and on and on and on, he made an intractable conundrum for himself.

If Tolkien couldn't solve it, how could we?

[davem]

I doubt there is a solution. Originally the young Tolkien just needed hordes of cannon-fodder who could be slaughtered without compunction. Under the old dispensation, they were 'made' by Melko, so what the hell.

As Tolkien applied deeper and deeper thought to Evil's sterility, and the problem of salvation, and on and on and on, he made an intractable conundrum for himself.

If Tolkien couldn't solve it, how could we?

Yes, unfortunately Tolkien increasingly felt a need to 'explain' aspects of his creation - hence the dead end of 'Myths Transformed'. Its as if he became dissatisfied with 'magic', with Faery itself in a way - which in its essence is beyond logic & cannot be explained - or only 'explained' badly & unconvincingly.

Orcs are best seen & thought of as bad guys & 'cannon-fodder', & any 'explanation' of them offered by Tolkien taken & filed away, because we don't need it. In the 'great works' like LotR, CoH & much of the Sil itself (even in TH) we don't need to know where Orcs originated - in fact the various theories Tolkien came up with just get in the way.

Sadly, too much of Tolkien's later writing on M-e was little better than a dead end with only a certain curiosity value. If only he had spent his creative energies in completing CoH, Beren & Luthien & The Fall of Gondolin, rather than dissipating them in the confused, dissonant mish-mash of stuff like the Athrabeth, Laws & Customs & 'Myths Transformed'.....

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Does not the mechanism exist? Corrupted beings go West and get cured.
Let me explain. What I meant was (and that was also the "awful" part), that you made it sound like a mechanic process, sort of a "reconditioning camp". Now that would be really awful. For the Elves, they went where they longed, to see the light of the Trees and everything, to finally rest after the long years in the fading world. For Frodo and all these folks who could not enter Valinor directly, it was also a rest. But for the Orcs, it would become something very nasty. I mean - of course not if they chose it themselves, like Frodo or others. If an Orc - in Middle-Earth - changed his mind, became "good" and everything, then as a sort of "reward" he could be allowed to go to Eressëa. Wonderful thing. But you made it sound to me like a bunch of Elves arriving with large ships and "Come on, all Orcs, pick the green armbands, yes, line up here, please, and to the ship. Yes, sir, over there. Large Orcs to the large ships, small Orcs to the smaller ships. No, sir, this ship is full. Eighty passengers maximum. Proceed to the next one, please..."

What was the fate of gutless traitors like Maeglin and Celegorm and what of the Kinslayers? Where be their eternal fate? Why must the orcs, cursed from birth, be unworthy of some hope?
And to this question, my response was NO, given the logic they would have it: the Orcs are saved, but not because of any re-educational program, but by the grace of Eru himself, to use that term. I said that all in my previous post - from giving Fëar to the Orcs to the possibility of ultimate personal redemption of every single one of them. I said it was a theory and I said not everyone has to agree with it, and the logic I was using is explained above. If there is anything that is not clear, anyone is free to ask, of course.

[alatar]

Let me explain. What I meant was (and that was also the "awful" part), that you made it sound like a mechanic process, sort of a "reconditioning camp". Now that would be really awful. For the Elves, they went where they longed, to see the light of the Trees and everything, to finally rest after the long years in the fading world.
But what of the ones that were taken by Melkor and changed? It is these poor souls that I was hoping to recondition. Or is it that they had, willingly, started down Melkor's road, and by the time that they figured out that it wasn't a good thing, found that they were caught? How long, starting from a few of Feanor's sons, would it take to get something like an orc? And just how far from the original captive does one have to be to be no longer welcomed on those Western Shores?

This is assuming that Melkor made orcs from elves, as it seems later that he was only interested in making his elvish captive slaves.

I mean - of course not if they chose it themselves, like Frodo or others. If an Orc - in Middle-Earth - changed his mind, became "good" and everything, then as a sort of "reward" he could be allowed to go to Eressëa. Wonderful thing. But you made it sound to me like a bunch of Elves arriving with large ships and "Come on, all Orcs, pick the green armbands, yes, line up here, please, and to the ship. Yes, sir, over there. Large Orcs to the large ships, small Orcs to the smaller ships. No, sir, this ship is full. Eighty passengers maximum. Proceed to the next one, please..."
I wouldn't sort by size, as with Osse running about, I'd hate to lose a whole subspecies of orc, and end up, in the end, having only revived the pygmy orcs for all my troubles. ;)

But if the orcs were given a chance between going on the ship for rehabilitation or death (either by the hands of the Elves or the orcs' masters), what then would they choose? Maybe I watched too many TV dramas where a group rescues a person from a cult by whatever means possible for the person's own good, assuming that the person no longer possesses the means by which to make a real choice.

And your last bit made sense - it must have been early for me.

[Raynor]

Or is it that they had, willingly, started down Melkor's road, and by the time that they figured out that it wasn't a good thing, found that they were caught? How long, starting from a few of Feanor's sons, would it take to get something like an orc? And just how far from the original captive does one have to be to be no longer welcomed on those Western Shores?
Concerning the bolded part, Tolkien stated that no elf ever served Melkor willingly:
The implication that as opposed to Celbin the Moerbin were allies of Morgoth, or at least of dubious loyalty, was, however, untrue with regard to the Avari. No Elf of any kind ever sided with Morgoth of free will, though under torture or the stress of great fear, or deluded by lies, they might obey his commands: but this applied also to Celbin.

[alatar]

Concerning the bolded part, Tolkien stated that no elf ever served Melkor willingly:
Maybe I'm mixing up my Sil and HoME, but just how did Gondolin fall? And the sons of Feanor, though foes of Morgoth, weren't exemplars of good conduct.

[Raynor]

Maybe I'm mixing up my Sil and HoME, but just how did Gondolin fall? And the sons of Feanor, though foes of Morgoth, weren't exemplars of good conduct.
Well, his treachery falls under the conditions of the Quendi and Eldar (fear of torment):
... it came to pass, as fate willed, that Maeglin was taken prisoner by Orcs, and brought to Angband, Maeglin was no weakling or craven, but the torment wherewith he was threatened cowed his spirit, and he purchased his life and freedom by revealing to Morgoth the very place of Gondolin and the ways whereby it might be found and assailed.
And the sons of Feanor, though foes of Morgoth, weren't exemplars of good conduct.I agree, they weren't. However, I would opine that their oath and the curse is what led them astray, not a desire to serve Melkor. Then again, you might be right if we give "going down Melkor's road" a large enough meaning - i.e. turning towards evil, for one reason or another. But on the strictest of senses, I would say it was not the case.

[alatar]

Well, his treachery falls under the conditions of the Quendi and Eldar (fear of torment):
Surely it had nothing to do with Tuor and Maeglin's desire for Idril (or was that HoME?). So Maegil's exempted because he bought his life (temporarily) with the blood of Turgon and the millions of Gondolindrim who perished at the fall of the city.

I agree, they weren't. However, I would opine that their oath and the curse is what led them astray, not a desire to serve Melkor. Then again, you might be right if we give "going down Melkor's road" a large enough meaning - i.e. turning towards evil, for one reason or another. But on the strictest of senses, I would say it was not the case.
True - they didn't serve Melkor, but from their actions, it's hard to see how they could have done his work any better. So in the less strict sense, if an elf can work against Eru (or however you want to phrase it), and yet go west, why cannot the orcs, who, again assuming that they were taken and corrupted by Melkor? Ungoliant served Melkor when it served her purpose. She was evil, yet not always his pet.

Where do we draw the thin red line?

[Findegil]

Sadly as it is, it is true there are many way of evil even in Middle-Earth and serving Melkor is only one. For sure many of the Noldor went a good way down the wrong road. But all elves had a choice, at least after their death: they could follow the way Iluvatar had paved for them and go to the halls of Mandos to be judged and redeemed (the halls of Mandos were a kind of a purgatory and not part of paradise) or they could after their death (further) rebel against Iluvatars authority and deny that road. In one of the HoM-E volumes were are told that elves that did not follow Mandos call were easily cached by Melkor to serve him since he was the prime rebel against Iluvatar.

For Orcs that means in my opinion: The first generation that was transformed from Elves did never leave their prison alive. Dieing they would surely choose to go to Mandos and they would be redeemed. But they would naturally not speak much about their former lives. First of all part of the process of redemption would be a at least partial lose of the most horrible memory. And second who would be willing to listen too such a story? Of course the Valar especially Mandos and Nienna but from the Elves of Valinor? Anyway we do not know when the first of them died nor who long it took to redeem him or her in Mandos. Probably non of them left Mandos before the end of the First Age.
The later generations might have chosen to stay with Melkor even after death and thus became dragged further down. For such beings redemption must, in my opinion, wait until the last end of Arda when the elves will die indeed and have to deepened only on pure estel. But if they chose to go to Mandos, I don't think that these way was ever closed in the face of any elf. But we hear from some elves that they would never be released from Mandos within the time of Arda (Finwe and his son Fëanor, for completely different reasons). Thus redemption could take very long if on was fixed in his own evil ways or it could be even impossible with in Arda. We hear from other elves that they did not desire a reincarnation and that could be true for Orcs as well, if they once understood what crime against their own people they had committed.

As a last remark: In my view the number of Orcs with pure elvish blood would have been very small indeed. From what I understood of Tolkiens later scripts the main source for Orcs would have been men, as soon they were available. And as soon as the Orcs were of mixed origin the way to the west was blocked from them in life and in death.
A remorseful reversal in life would be very difficult indeed. Either the remorse Orc would be killed by his companions or he would cast out of any community.
And in death he would go straight away to Iluvatar. Who could say what awaited the Orcs on this road? But estel is not restricted to the good guys! It depends on the believe that Iluvatar likes his creation and will not let it suffer for ever from what ever evil befalls it nor will he deliver even part of his creation for ever to Melkor or any other rebel against his authority.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Raynor]

Surely it had nothing to do with Tuor and Maeglin's desire for Idril
True, but this seems to come from a source mightier than Maeglin himself - the curse of Mandos:
And however that might be, Idril loved Maeglin not at all; and knowing his thought of her she loved him the less. For it seemed to her a thing strange and crooked in him, as indeed the Eldar ever since have deemed it: an evil fruit of the Kinslaying, whereby the shadow of the curse of Mandos fell upon the last hope of the Noldor.
So in the less strict sense, if an elf can work against Eru (or however you want to phrase it), and yet go west, why cannot the orcs, who, again assuming that they were taken and corrupted by Melkor?
If the orcs still have souls (and thus preserve their status as Children of Eru), then I believe you are right:
If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves.

[ElfHater]

Originally Posted by Tolkien
"You should try being up here with Shelob for company," said Shagrat.
"I'd like to try somewhere where there's none of 'em. But war's on now and when that's over things may be easier."
"It's going well they say."
"They would" grunted Gorbag. "We'll see. But anyway, if it does go well, there should be a lot more room. What d'you say? - if we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses."
"Ah!" said Shagrat. "Like old times."

Very interesting!