Male and Female Orcs

[Dryson Bennington]

I have long been a fan of Tolkiens work. I have also played MERP or Middle Earth Role Playing and there are no such things as female or male orcs for that matter.
Orcs were created by dark magics not typical sexual reproduction. Therefore any notions of ORCS having children and being social creatures is not true. They were created for the soul purpose of war and destruction nothing else. Various groups of ORCS were created to perform various tasks. Some were engineers crafting ugly but very sturdy machines of war. Others were armourers who job it was to create weapons of war for the Morgoth Horde. But they were all created to fight and kill anything that was against their masters (Sauron) wishes and desires of control.

The only notion that I see occuring here is so called Tolkien fans caught not by the true nature of the story itself but by social engineers attempt to label a group of real life people to fit the method of a fantasy story to make them feel liek the story is actually real when it is not.

.....One ring to rule them all.

[Andsigil]

So, how does the Orc population grow in, say, the Misty Mountains?

[Beregond]

(Wrong section ;))

Dryson, I'm wondering what you're basing your assertion on? The only evidence I've found in the books has pointed towards normal reproduction. Although female Orcs are not mentioned, it doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, Dwarf women were very nearly not mentioned at all, but we know they exist.

Orcs are accepted to be Elves who were captured and corrupted shortly after their "awakening". So says the Silmarillion.

[Vaine]

I agree with what Beregond said, I'd like to see what you've based yours facts on.

[Beregond]

We could probably have a lively discussion about trolls as well; since they were made as a mockery of the Onodrim, does that mean there were she-trolls? We just don't know!

[Morthoron]

Well, we know there were half-orcs and goblin-men, half-breeds in the service of Saruman, so it is apparent they had working sexual apparatuses. In addition, Bolg, the GoblinKing of the Hobbit, had a father named Azog who was king during the Orc and Dwarf War.

The only notion that I see occuring here is so called Tolkien fans caught not by the true nature of the story itself but by social engineers attempt to label a group of real life people to fit the method of a fantasy story to make them feel liek the story is actually real when it is not.

You have fallen into the 'Tolkien Trap', wherein you make a blanket statement about Tolkien's writing which will then be systematically picked apart by folks who have been discussing the nature of his works for decades (in my case, 30+ years). What you will learn is that you cannot necessarily make blanket statements about Tolkien's work, because there is much ambiguity, dissembling, fogginess, and changing perspectives on the part of the Professor. As Middle-earth grew, he became more muddled, often contradicting himself in an attempt to clarify his earlier work. This makes for great discussions, but not so much for precision and cardinal rules.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

(Wrong section ;))
Indeed - I'm moving the thread to the Novices and Newcomers section of the forum. Please continue reading and discussing there - thanks!

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Assuming orcs don't reproduce sexually is falling
into PJ's "mud orc creation" imagery, which I assume
he had to do because of his concept of "instant orc
armies" where you add water and create 10,000
nassty orcsees, as opposed to the book concept of
Saruman's hidden, slow expansion of his armies
(including wargs).

I prefer the Silmarillion concept of orcs as twisted elves,
although there are also arguments for orcs as
twisted men.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

However, Morth, this is one area where Tolkien wasn't muddled; although he was all over the place as to Orcs' ultimate origin, he never contradicted his outright declaration that Orcs reproduced 'after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar.' WRT Saruman's hybrids he went so far as to assert that Men could be so debased as to be induced to "mate" with Orcs- which is about as close to sexual explicitness as the old man would ever come.

[Nerwen]

Dryson– welcome to the Downs– though this is perhaps not the best way to welcome you.;)

At the risk of sounding like a "me-too"– what you are asserting comes not from anything Tolkien wrote but from the film version of LotR and perhaps from some game or other.

The only notion that I see occuring here is so called Tolkien fans caught not by the true nature of the story itself but by social engineers attempt to label a group of real life people to fit the method of a fantasy story to make them feel liek the story is actually real when it is not.

Sorry, but what does that mean? It actually sounds like you're saying Orcs are "a group of real life people".

[Boo Radley]

I just had a terrifying thought.

Orc blind dates.

What could be scarier?

Talk about nightmare fuel...

[Morthoron]

Orc blind dates.

What could be scarier?

Orc honeymoons? Talk about 'bumping uglies!'

Orc birth? The witch-doctor slaps the mother.

Orc periods? Keep sharp objects away at that time of the month, or else unleash the amazons on Gondor.

[Boo Radley]

Orc weddings?

"With this ring, I thee wed..."

"Ring? RING???"

"No, Honey! It's not THE...arrrgghhhhh......glug...

I'm surprised they could even GET to the honeymoon!

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Orc weddings? Big deal.

You want ugly? How about orc divorces? :eek:

[Boo Radley]

Orc divorces?

Hmmm...

I imagine they're quite uncomplicated, legally.
Everything's split right down the middle.

Probably with an axe.

[Galadriel55]

Well, we know that Bolg is the son of Azog. Isn't that proof enough that orcs are born?

[Rumil]

Hi all, I came across this on another forum for a chap who claimed to have seen some of the unreleased Marquette papers, be aware it's fairly gory...

Tolkien was not happy with the Orc creation stories because they all took him to places that he felt that no sane person should ever consider, and he remarked to himself once "How can I ever have allowed myself to consider this." on the side of a page that was remarking on how Orc Farming might be accomplished.

He did eventually rule out the breeding of Orcs by natural means (that means no female Orcs, ever), and stated that no Elven woman would allow herself to conceive such a monstrosity, and that humans who had been successfully impregnated by Orcs would usually die of the pregnancy (there is a crossed out bit that looks to read "Except in cases where the woman…"). I speculate that he might have suggested that very corrupted and evil human women might survive a pregnancy from an Orc fertilization, but the really awful part is that any such offspring would only be chopped up to be used as seed or fertilizer for other Orcs being grown in the pits of filth where they are farmed (with various other ingredients added during the gestation in their womb of filth in order to specialize the crop). This is where the addition of human remains would be important to the creation of your "Man-Orc" or Uruk-Hai, but even this would take many generations. Maybe 20 years for five to ten generations, depending upon the quality of Orc wanted, the longer the time, the better the quality of Orc. So, Uruks would probably be four to five years per generation. That is still a very short time to breed Orcs, as a HUGE Army could be raised in relatively short times.

Also, many of the Orcs in a batch might not make it, or they might be cannibalized as food by those "Hatching" early.

So, yes, Tolkien thought that it was best left to the Imagination. PJ in the movies did use the same passages that I read to show the "birthing pits" beneath Isengard when he was raising the Uruk-Hai


I can't really vouch for this, but what do you think?

Of course JRRT never published anything like this, so its canonicity is effectively zero in comparison with 'Bolg son of Azog'.

PS. happy to edit or cut this if you reckon its too graphic for the Downs

[Galadriel55]

It's possible that orcs used slave women to multiply. Or they could use the women of Khand, Harad, Rhun, and the other places that were under the dominion of Sauron. It could be part of their agreement that these countries would send a certain numer of women on a monthly basis, or something.

I find a few drawbacks to this theory, though.

a) How do they keep orc features? Crossing a human with an orc will give you something like Ferny's southener, or at least like the Uruk-hai. But if an orc is only 1/32 orc and the rest human - wouldn't he look human?
OK, so it says that they add filth to keep the appearance, but wouldn't the character also change? Become something more honourable?

b) How do they have enough women? I don't think there are enough slave women in either Mordor or Isengard to triple the army's size. And they'd have to depopulate the surrounding kingdoms of females if they get the women from aliances. All women die after giving birth to an orc, so they need thousands of women. Where do they get them?

There was something else, but I can't remember.

The argument I have for Bolg son of Azog is that they were goblins. I think that goblins have a different origin than orcs, and they might breed differently.

[Nerwen]

The argument I have for Bolg son of Azog is that they were goblins. I think that goblins have a different origin than orcs, and they might breed differently.
No evidence for that, as far as I'm aware, but anyway "Bolg son of Azog" appears in a completed text published in Tolkien's lifetime– as "canonical" as it gets. (Meanwhile, "Azog the father of Bolg" shows up in the LoTR appendices.)

This, if not simply a hoax, as for all we know it may be, is merely one of Tolkien's numerous abortive retcons. He was given to sketching out radical changes to be made to his Legendarium, then abandoning them after a paragraph or two– often, no doubt, because it became clear they were unworkable. The many contradictory versions of the origin and nature of Orcs are a case in point.

Because of all this the "last known version is always the 'true' one" approach is very problematic indeed when applied to Tolkien's writing. The man was quite capable of suddenly jotting down on the back of an envelope:Elven 'horses' in truth more nearly resembled unicorns. This was of course well known to Aragorn, who showed no surprise at Asfaloth's horn. Frodo's failure to remark on it is harder to explain, but may be attributed to his limited power of observation..."

[Galin]

I'm sure it's been posted at the BarrowDowns already, but a letter came up for sale at an auction on 11 and 12 July, 2002. It's dated 21 October 1963, and is addressed to a Mrs Munby in response to a number of questions posed by her son Stephen about The Lord of the Rings. The letter is long, but in one place it reads as follows:

'There must have been orc-women. But in stories that seldom if ever see the Orcs except as soldiers of armies in the service of the evil lords we naturally would not learn much about their lives. Not much was known'.

JRRT, 1963

As William Hicklin noted, once Tolkien decided that Morgoth could not 'create' but must pervert something into orcs, he seemed pretty consistent that orcs reproduced sexually, despite that he waffled about stock. For myself, I would need more proof than this person's description (quoted by Rumil above) -- noting that we would here have an unpublished paper (or notes) that Hammond and Scull for example, had yet to see.

And for those who give great weight to 'latest if unpublished' these notes (if truly extant) should also date to after 1963-ish, considering the letter above.

The argument I have for Bolg son of Azog is that they were goblins. I think that goblins have a different origin than orcs, and they might breed differently.

This is a nomenclature issue though. Not only is 'goblin' said to be used as a translation for orc (same things, two different words), but Azog himself is referred to as an orc in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings.


By the way, from what other forum does Rumil's quote come from?

[Rumil]

Hi all,

I find myself agreeing with Nerwen and Galin that this is either a bit made up or a rejected idea. And of course that orcs=goblins (in pretty much every respect save size perhaps).

Here's the link to the thread http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=199809 from TMP, a site about wargaming.

The keen-eyed will spot that I am Timbo W ;)

[Nerwen]

Apropos of almost nothing–

I keep returning to this last sentence and vainly trying to work out what on earth the original poster was trying to say:
The only notion that I see occuring here is so called Tolkien fans caught not by the true nature of the story itself but by social engineers attempt to label a group of real life people to fit the method of a fantasy story to make them feel liek the story is actually real when it is not.
Both troubling and strangely fascinating– it looks like it means something, but what?:confused:

Also, I'm curious as to the source of the detailed yet seemingly non-Tolkienien statements he makes with such assurance. A game? A fan-fic? One of the dodgier wikis?

[Galin]

Thanks for the link Rumil. One quibble however...

(...) And of course that orcs=goblins (in pretty much every respect save size perhaps).

Many people seem to think goblins are smaller than orcs, but there are large goblins in The Hobbit for example: 'Out jumped the goblins, big goblins, great ugly-looking goblins, lots of goblins, before you can say rocks and blocks.' (Over Hill And Under Hill), and even in The Lord of the Rings, Saruman's Uruks are referred to as goblin-soldiers.


But even without these examples (others could be raised) the real difficulty with the idea that 'goblin' has been reserved for smaller kinds is the matter of translation: I often use hund and 'dog' in illustration because there are all kinds of dogs, large, small, (whatever), and various kinds of orcs as well... and if one has two texts for example, one German one English, where the original German word hund has been translated with English 'dog' -- why would anything think that a 'dog' is smaller or larger than a hund?

The idea in theory (Appendix F 'On Translation') is that the above statement from The Hobbit ('Out jumped the goblins...') is a fully English translation of something in Westron -- but we know one of the original words here, because we know 'goblin' has been used to translate orc. The arguably confusing thing is: in The Hobbit the word orc has usually been translated with 'goblin', while in The Lord of the Rings, there are probably many more instances of orc than goblin (I never counted instances of orc! but I'm guessing they outweigh instances of goblin).

In theory this is due to the translator, and would be like Tolkien saying that he preferred the word 'hund' and so used it even in the English account along with dog. This is 'perfectly Tolkien' as an explanation too, as we know he was a lover of languages and like to create languages -- someone who is finely attuned to words, how they sound, and 'sound-sense'.

So whatever the numbers of 'goblin' or orc in both books, the explanation JRRT landed on was that one is an original word (Quendi), the other is an English translation ('Elves'). I note that JRRT published this explanation in a later edition of The Hobbit, only after Appendix F had appeared in print, thus after he had fully landed on the conceit that these tales had been translated from an original Westron.

This finally provided the answer to explain 'goblin' in both books, and is in accord with the examples from both stories.

[Alfirin]

This is a bit similar to the confusion I get when some ME related sources, including possibly the Appendix itself (it's been a while since I read it som I'm not 100% sure) equate the Uruk-Hai with the term "Hobgoblin". This seems counter intuitive since the Hobgoblins are usually described as smaller and less dangerous than goblins whereas the Uruk-hai are of course bigger and more dangerous (I not that even Wikipedia makes not of this inconsistency). If you believe that 1. Hob means something along the lines of "half" and 2. the Uruk-hai are actually Orc-Human Hybrids, it would make lingustic sense, but it still seem counter intuitive.

[skip spence]

Because of all this the "last known version is always the 'true' one" approach is very problematic indeed when applied to Tolkien's writing. The man was quite capable of suddenly jotting down on the back of an envelope:

Elven 'horses' in truth more nearly resembled unicorns. This was of course well known to Aragorn, who showed no surprise at Asfaloth's horn. Frodo's failure to remark on it is harder to explain, but may be attributed to his limited power of observation..."

That's curious, I wonder if that text is from the same collection that I stumbled upon when digging through the vaults of Oxford University last spring. This little gem contained some pretty revolutionary stuff regarding the relationship of Morgoth and Hurin:

...and Hurin [having escaped from his prison cell] grabbed a sword from the fallen guard and made his way up towards the surface of the mountain. Stealthily he made his way through the many halls and tunnels, ever upwards, until finally he saw a glimmer of the light of day through a high passage gate, and his heart leaped with joy. But alas, as he made his final steps towards freedom the doors shut with a heavy clang and darkness fell once again. In front of Hurin towered Morgoth himself, ironclad, armed with a great sword, Silmarils ablaze on his iron crown.
But Hurin the Steadfast was not daunted, there was a fierce rage flaming in his chest and with a terrible war-cry he hewed with his sword, intending to strike down his enemy. The two blades met with a bang, and the room was lit up by thousands of red and white sparks shooting through the air, and as the shadows returned so verily the two remained, in a stalemate, sword to sword.

Morgoth then spoke:
"Good, good, anger it the path to the Dark Side!"
"I'll never join the Dark Side! I will never join you!!" Hurin yelled.
"But there is something you don't know", said Morgoth, more quietly this time. "Hurin, I am your father!"
...

[Galin]

This is a bit similar to the confusion I get when some ME related sources, including possibly the Appendix itself (it's been a while since I read it som I'm not 100% sure) equate the Uruk-Hai with the term "Hobgoblin".

Tolkien actually never equates these terms (that I'm aware of), but you may be noting this on certain websites. The reason for this would seem to be: in the same explanation (published in later editions of The Hobbit, as noted) that reveals 'goblin' has been used to translate orc, Tolkien adds: or hobgoblin for the larger kinds.

Somewhere (in a letter I believe) I think Tolkien noted that 'hobgoblin' should probably refer to smaller kinds! but he had already published this in any case, to explain the use of this word in The Hobbit, which I think only occurs once. Thus some are equating hobgoblin or 'large goblin' with Saruman's 'larger' goblin soldiers.

And the statement (currently on Wikipedia): 'Tolkien then renamed them [Hobgoblins] as Uruks or Uruk-hai in an attempt to correct his mistake' is someone's opinion, the 'mistake' referring to Tolkien's statement in a letter. To my mind this really needs no correcting in any case, despite any external factors. If 'Hobgoblin' refers to larger kinds within the context of Middle-earth then so be it (in my opinion).


Note again that, despite this explanatory note appearing in The Hobbit it was added to a later edition, so JRRT had not published 'hobgoblin' for 'large goblin' until after he had published a tale in which the Uruk-hai appear. Tolkien would hardly rename Hobgoblins Uruk-hai to correct a 'mistake' he had yet to make.



If you believe that 1. Hob means something along the lines of "half" and 2. the Uruk-hai are actually Orc-Human Hybrids, it would make lingustic sense, but it still seem counter intuitive.

What the Uruk-hai really are is quite the debate, but anyway if you are thinking of the word Hobbit (and you need not be of course): internally, yet with reference to an invented translation, Hobbit comes from 'holbytla', so the altered beginning of 'Hobbit' relates to the meaning 'hole'.

Even though a Hobbit (a kuduk) is a halfling (banakil)!

It's nicely confusing :)

[Alfirin]

Tolkien actually never equates these terms (that I'm aware of), but you may be noting this on certain websites. The reason for this would seem to be: in the same explanation (published in later editions of The Hobbit, as noted) that reveals 'goblin' has been used to translate orc, Tolkien adds: or hobgoblin for the larger kinds.

Somewhere (in a letter I believe) I think Tolkien noted that 'hobgoblin' should probably refer to smaller kinds! but he had already published this in any case, to explain the use of this word in The Hobbit, which I think only occurs once. Thus some are equating hobgoblin or 'large goblin' with Saruman's 'larger' goblin soldiers.

And the statement (currently on Wikipedia): 'Tolkien then renamed them [Hobgoblins] as Uruks or Uruk-hai in an attempt to correct his mistake' is someone's opinion, the 'mistake' referring to Tolkien's statement in a letter. To my mind this really needs no correcting in any case, despite any external factors. If 'Hobgoblin' refers to larger kinds within the context of Middle-earth then so be it (in my opinion).


Note again that, despite this explanatory note appearing in The Hobbit it was added to a later edition, so JRRT had not published 'hobgoblin' for 'large goblin' until after he had published a tale in which the Uruk-hai appear. Tolkien would hardly rename Hobgoblins Uruk-hai to correct a 'mistake' he had yet to make.





What the Uruk-hai really are is quite the debate, but anyway if you are thinking of the word Hobbit (and you need not be of course): internally, yet with reference to an invented translation, Hobbit comes from 'holbytla', so the altered beginning of 'Hobbit' relates to the meaning 'hole'.

Even though a Hobbit (a kuduk) is a halfling (banakil)!

It's nicely confusing :)

Pretty convincing, though if you assume the "hob" is from the same root as hobbit, it actually makes a stronger case for the little unimproved ones to be the Hobgoblins; the "gobins of the hole" or "who live in holes" i.e. the ones who are still affected by/afraid of light.

I usually interpret the "hai" suffix as being something along the lines of "great", "fierce", or "improved". After all we do have at least one other name with the same suffix, Olog-Hai (the souped up, can't be turned to stone as long as the power is there, trolls Sauron makes use of). Off the top of my head I can;t think of a case where "Olog" is used on it's own for a non-souped up troll (then again once you get past the Hobbit, where these terms haven't been used yet, you don't meet a lot of non-souped up trolls) but presumably that is what they are called. The Orcs also call the Drunedain "Oghor-Hai" despite the fact they are smaller than most men, but given how good the Drunedain are at killing Orcs this could be "hai" being used in the context of "fierce". Presumably, in Black speech, Wargs are likely referred to as "(whatever the Black Speech word for "wolf" is)"-"Hai" as well.

[Galin]

As for Hobgoblin I just think Tolkien chose an existing 'goblin word' from the Primary World and used it -- however 'wrongly' he thought he had applied it, after publication. Plus I don't know (I'm not a trained linguist myself) how accurate it is to say 'hob-' means 'hole' based on hobbit.

Holbytla means 'Hole-builder', and hobbit is a theoretical worn-down form of this word. Someone on line (elsewhere) posted that this type of assimilation (l becoming b, as it appears has occured at least) is common enough in languages, but I haven't really had time to look into this myself.


Anyway as far as -hai goes we now know it means 'folk' due to Words, Phrases, and Passages.

So Uruk-hai means 'orc-folk' -- but since uruk 'orc' became distinguished from snaga it means 'great-soldier orc-folk'

[Alfirin]

As for Hobgoblin I just think Tolkien chose an existing 'goblin word' from the Primary World and used it -- however 'wrongly' he thought he had applied it, after publication. Plus I don't know (I'm not a trained linguist myself) how accurate it is to say 'hob-' means 'hole' based on hobbit

Holbytla means 'Hole-builder', and hobbit is a theoretical worn-down form of this word. Someone on line (elsewhere) posted that this type of assimilation (l becoming b, as it appears has occured at least) is common enough in languages, but I haven't really had time to look into this myself.


Anyway as far as -hai goes we now know it means 'folk' due to Words, Phrases, and Passages.

So Uruk-hai means 'orc-folk' -- but since uruk 'orc' became distinguished from snaga it means 'great-soldier orc-folk'

So in that case, it may not be proper to use "Uruk-Hai" to describe a single big orc (The phrase "an Uruk-hai" may be incorrect Actually now that I look at it Tolkein never does use it that way, singularly they are "an Uruk") In that case please disregard my latter statements under those circumstances a single souped up troll would be "an Olog" a singe Wose would be an Oghor and a warg would be whatever a Warg was (though it is likey Orcish has a different word for Wargs than ordinary wolves)

[Rumil]

Very nice one skip! ;)

Alfirin, no disagreement from me re orcs and goblins.

'Hob' appears in all sorts of folklore monster-type names etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hob_(folklore) (also see disambiguation page), and 'hobbledehoy' http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hob1.htm for an ungraceful man, also 'Old Hob' referring to the devil.

I'm surprised JRRT never analysed the philology, maybe he did!

[Nerwen]

Anyway as far as -hai goes we now know it means 'folk' due to Words, Phrases, and Passages.

So Uruk-hai means 'orc-folk' -- but since uruk 'orc' became distinguished from snaga it means 'great-soldier orc-folk'
I did know that, actually, and it's one of the reasons I'm sceptical of this fellow Rumil quotes–
This is where the addition of human remains would be important to the creation of your "Man-Orc" or Uruk-Hai
Now, while Uglúk & Co. call themselves "Uruk-hai", the word does not mean "Man-Orc hybrid" (and is a plural). So– failing some evidence that Tolkien changed his mind about that one too– I'd say even if this person has come upon some previously unknown document, he's embellished the contents pretty heavily.

[Rumil]

Hi Nerwen,

I'm rather hoping that you're right, it would be terrible to think that PJ was one-up on the Downer concensus regarding orc-spawning canonicity ;).

[Galin]

Good catch Nerwen!

I would also add that The Drúedain belongs to the very late period of Tolkien's writing, and a note to that text reads...

'To the unfriendly who, not knowing them well, declared that Morgoth must have bred the Orcs from such a stock the Eldar answered: 'Doubtless Morgoth, since he can make no living thing, bred Orcs from various kinds of Men, but the Drúedain must have escaped his Shadow; for their laughter...'

Sure one can note that this 'origin' is a statement or belief of internal characters in any event... but anyway... we could possibly be into the early 1970s with this one (basically the idea published in the 1977 Silmarillion comes from internal characters as well, who didn't certainly know the true origin of Orcs, despite that it was the Wise of Eressea who believed that captured Elves were the original stock).


Another note from the 1960s reads...

'The Council seems to have been unaware, since for many years Isengard had been closely guarded, of what went on within its Ring. The use, and possibly special breeding, of Orcs was kept secret, and cannot have begun much before 2990 at earliest. The Orc-troops seem never to have been used beyond the territory of Isengard before the attack on Rohan.' UT, The Palantiri, endnote 7

Hmm.

[Nerwen]

Hi Nerwen,

I'm rather hoping that you're right, it would be terrible to think that PJ was one-up on the Downer concensus regarding orc-spawning canonicity ;).

Oh, but we've surely misjudged PJ anyway–

Changes to be made in the next edition


Glorfindel's re-appearance in Middle-earth raises too many questions. It might be best to leave him out of the story altogether, and give his role (and unicorn) to another character.
Tom Bombadil is simply an embarrassment. I have no idea what I was thinking of; please remove all chapters in which he appears.
I am also increasingly dissatisfied with Faramir. His nobility is perhaps a little cloying and his rejection of the Ring comes too easily. He must be made more threatening and corrupt. Likewise, I have failed to make Denethor evil and mad enough to be an effective antagonist, and the scene of his death needs to be more dramatic.
Gimli is too grim and serious for a dwarf and needs to be made more amusing.
Frodo is much too stoical– making him complain more would surely render him more sympathetic and 'human'.
Would Théoden's healing carry more weight if he were literally possessed by Saruman?
I see now that it was a mistake to avoid a direct appearance by Sauron– he should appear, but of course in some frightening and symbolic form.
I also regret having the Elves play so small a part in the events of the War. Perhaps a battalion of them could come to the aid of Minas Tirith. (Or Rohan?)
Finally, I have completely changed my ideas on the fate of mortals after death: instead of leaving the Circles of the World, their spirits merely go to Valinor. Perhaps Gandalf could explain this to one or more of the hobbits.


Yours Faithfully,

J.R.R.T.

P.S. Do you think Wargs ought to look more like hyaenas?

[Galadriel55]

Nerwen, please tell me that's not really there!:eek: We've spent years accusing PJ of "over-creativeness", and now you say that JRRT planned all that stuff?!

[Galin]

So, yes, Tolkien thought that it was best left to the Imagination. PJ in the movies did use the same passages that I read to show the "birthing pits" beneath Isengard when he was raising the Uruk-Hai

By the way what is this intended to mean? that Jackson used 'the same passages' that this person read... meaning the Marquette papers in question? If so, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull, authorized by the Tolkien Estate to (recently) write and publish three highly detailed volumes about Tolkien's life and work... somehow missed these papers and notes on 'Orc-farming'?

But Peter Jackson or someone from the films saw them, and Jackson himself never noted this in any of the DVD commentary to explain his 'birthing pits'?

[Nerwen]

So, yes, Tolkien thought that it was best left to the Imagination. PJ in the movies did use the same passages that I read to show the "birthing pits" beneath Isengard when he was raising the Uruk-HaiBy the way what is this intended to mean? that Jackson used 'the same passages' that this person read... meaning the Marquette papers in question? If so, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull, authorized by the Tolkien Estate to (recently) write and publish three highly detailed volumes about Tolkien's life and work... somehow missed these papers and notes on 'Orc-farming'?

But Peter Jackson or someone from the films saw them, and Jackson himself never noted this in any of the DVD commentary to explain his 'birthing pits'?
Well, I don't see what else it can mean. Odd, isn't it?

[Galadriel]

There was something else, but I can't remember.

Possibly that cross-breeds are sterile?:rolleyes:

[Galadriel55]

Possibly that cross-breeds are sterile?:rolleyes:

THANK YOU! Now I remember! - Ok, so lets pretend that an orc gets a human woman pregnant. And she has a girl orc (it's a 50-50 thing, unless its some misshapen creature who isn't developed enough to be either gender). Paradoxical, aint it?

I asked a friend of mine who's a doctor if it's possible to somehow change the genes of a person to make it impossible for girls to be born. This is what she told me:
Women have X+X chromosomes; men have X+Y chromosomes. An embrio always gets an X chromosome from its mother. It could get either a Y or an X from its father. The chromosome it gets from the father determines the gender. There is no known way to controll which chromosome will be given. Also, you cannot completely eliminate the X chromosome - you'd get a 'vegetable' person (such orcs are useless).

Conclusion: there must have been orc-girls, and therefore orc-women.

[Inziladun]

Conclusion: there must have been orc-girls, and therefore orc-women.

As William Cloud Hicklin said above, since it is said that the Orcs "had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar", I would think the existence of females in their population a foregone conclusion.

[Nerwen]

THANK YOU! Now I remember! - Ok, so lets pretend that an orc gets a human woman pregnant. And she has a girl orc (it's a 50-50 thing, unless its some misshapen creature who isn't developed enough to be either gender). Paradoxical, aint it?

I asked a friend of mine who's a doctor if it's possible to somehow change the genes of a person to make it impossible for girls to be born. This is what she told me:
Women have X+X chromosomes; men have X+Y chromosomes. An embrio always gets an X chromosome from its mother. It could get either a Y or an X from its father. The chromosome it gets from the father determines the gender. There is no known way to controll which chromosome will be given. Also, you cannot completely eliminate the X chromosome - you'd get a 'vegetable' person (such orcs are useless).

Conclusion: there must have been orc-girls, and therefore orc-women.
While that makes sense, the central claim this person Rumil quotes is making is that Orcs weren't bred by natural means at all, but were instead somehow grown in slime pits, as in the movies.

[Inziladun]

While that makes sense, the central claim this person Rumil quotes is making is that Orcs weren't bred by natural means at all, but were instead somehow grown in slime pits, as in the movies.

PJ seems to have thought Orcs were a cross between Aliens and Yoda.

[Galadriel]

THANK YOU! Now I remember! - Ok, so lets pretend that an orc gets a human woman pregnant. And she has a girl orc (it's a 50-50 thing, unless its some misshapen creature who isn't developed enough to be either gender). Paradoxical, aint it?

I still think it's unlikely. Hardly any race will actually give over their women. What's more, if they did, they'd die out pretty soon :p

I agree with Nerwen, that they were made in slime pits. Actually, I personally prefer the theory of them being corrupted elves. However, I can't see how Morgoth (or Sauron) could have got so many.

[Nerwen]

I agree with Nerwen, that they were made in slime pits.
Er- agree with me?:confused: I never said that in the first place– I said, "this person Rumil quotes" says so, not me. There is, after all, no actual evidence that Tolkien intended this– unless we accept at face value this fellow's claim to have read it in a previously unknown manuscript. If you'll read back through the thread, you'll see that I've in fact been putting forward reasons why we shouldn't.

[Galadriel55]

Actually, I personally prefer the theory of them being corrupted elves. However, I can't see how Morgoth (or Sauron) could have got so many.

I also like the "corrupted elf" theory. And if orcs are based on elves, they have to multiply the same way. Makes any sense?

I highly dislike the "mud pit theory" that is shown in the movies. Neither Sauron nor Morgoth could create, so how could they give life to a chunk of mud? Even Aule - who wasn't evil - couldn't do that without the helf of Eru.

[Galadriel]

I also like the "corrupted elf" theory. And if orcs are based on elves, they have to multiply the same way. Makes any sense?

I highly dislike the "mud pit theory" that is shown in the movies. Neither Sauron nor Morgoth could create, so how could they give life to a chunk of mud? Even Aule - who wasn't evil - couldn't do that without the helf of Eru.

True. But just imagine Orcs copulating. Ouch.

Mud-pit theory...never gave it much thought. Seems highly unscientific.

I vote either corrupted elves or cross-breeds. Maybe a bit of both?

[skip spence]

I think it's pretty clear that Orcs, Men and Elves biologically are the same species since they are interbreedable. The corruption that Morgoth achieved is mainly a moral one, he corrupted the souls of the to-be-Orcs you might say, yet, not even an Orc is born evil and they can potentially be saved, that Gandalf makes clear in LotR. I think I remember that Tolkien also makes it clear The Hobbit] that there are lots of Orcs around even today, and frankly, it hard to argue against that. Orcs aren't magically created monsters with long fangs and green skin. They are us, or rather, the worst examples of mankind.

I mean sure, you can see the difference between an Orc and a Man or an Elf, just as you can see the difference between say a Samoan and a Scandinavian and a West African, but those are "racial" differences and basically: Orcs are Men (and/or ex-Elves if you conscribe to that earlier theory) and they certainly have women because otherwise they simply could not multiply.

Could go further with this but no time for that now...

[Nerwen]

True. But just imagine Orcs copulating. Ouch.

Mud-pit theory...never gave it much thought. Seems highly unscientific.

I vote either corrupted elves or cross-breeds. Maybe a bit of both?
Well, Tolkien played with different ideas of the origin of Orcs– while corrupted Elves seem to be the most consistent version*, and the one appearing in The Silmarillion, Men were another (although this presented some problems- cf. the strained attempt in "Morgoth's Ring" to make it fit the existing chronology). He even briefly speculated that they might have been beasts given humanoid shape (Morgoth as Dr Moreau)! The common thread in all this is that Orcs were distortions of natural creatures, not magical constructs– that Evil could only twist, not create life was for Tolkien a very important point. (The Trolls in "The Hobbit" gave him a nasty metaphysical headache later on, after he had decided they were purely artificial.)

The question of cross-breeding is different, though– it's pretty much official that the Isengard Orcs were hybrids, the result of mating Orcs with humans. (I think it's quite understandable that P.J. chose not to depict that.:eek ) I don't think these Half-Orcs need have been sterile– the Peredhil weren't, after all.



*Also, technically the "latest-known", I think, although by that stage we're talking about some very muddled fragments.

[Nerwen]

I mean sure, you can see the difference between an Orc and a Man or an Elf, just as you can see the difference between say a Samoan and a Scandinavian and a West African, but those are "racial" differences and basically: Orcs are Men (and/or ex-Elves if you conscribe to that earlier theory) and they certainly have women because otherwise they simply could not multiply.

It must be more than the difference between human ethnic groups, though– there are different breeds or races or whatever you like to call them among Men, Elves and Orcs (and Hobbits). And yet an Orc (of any kind) can be easily told from an Elf. So I suppose it would be closer to say they're subspecies.

Btw,, as I mentioned in my last post, it's not quite correct to talk about the "elf-origin" as an "earlier theory", since as far as I know Tolkien never exactly abandoned it– he just started playing around with others, and went back-and-forth. In the end I don't think you can say he left a clear "last word" on the subject.

[skip spence]

It must be more than the difference between human ethnic groups, though– there are different breeds or races or whatever you like to call them among Men, Elves and Orcs (and Hobbits). And yet an Orc (of any kind) can be easily told from an Elf. So I suppose it would be closer to say they're subspecies.

Yes, but that's really the same thing, isn't it? Two subspecies may look slightly different , and may have developed different habits and abilities (think Darwin's finches), but ultimately they belong to the same stem of creatures and would interbreed and eventually converge into one group if put in one place together. It may not be politically correct to call different groups of people subspecies, nor would I encourage it, but the point remains.

Don't get me wrong though, I wasn't trying to infer any parallel between Orcs and any existing ethnic group of people. My point is that Orcs are Men/Elves really (though the fea, or soul, of an Elf is different to that of a Man), not any fairy-tale monster, and what makes an Orc has more to do with what's inside than what you can tell by visual inspection.

[Nerwen]

Yes, but that's really the same thing, isn't it? Two subspecies may look slightly different , and may have developed different habits and abilities (think Darwin's finches), but ultimately they belong to the same stem of creatures and would interbreed and eventually converge into one group if put in one place together. It may not be politically correct to call different groups of people subspecies, nor would I encourage it, but the point remains.
It's actually not quite the same thing– a subspecies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies) in biology is somewhat more distinct than a race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)), and in fact modern humans aren't generally considered to have any subspecies. (No, this is not just me being politically correct.)

[/Don't get me wrong though, I wasn't trying to infer any parallel between Orcs and any existing ethnic group of people. My point is that Orcs are Men/Elves really (though the fea, or soul, of an Elf is different to that of a Man), not any fairy-tale monster, and what makes an Orc has more to do with what's inside than what you can tell by visual inspection.
Yes, but my point is that the purely physical differences between Elves, Orcs and Men do seem to be greater than that between real-world ethnic groups; at the same time they can all interbreed, so must be essentially the same species. "Subspecies" seems like a good compromise to me.

[Galadriel55]

It's also possible that Tolkien emphasized the physical differences to demonstrate the inner differences. For example, we see how snake-like Grima really looks (and acts).

However, I can't say that big orcs are much different than small orcs except in appearance. :confused:

[Alfirin]

Actually if the Uruk-hai are a crossbred species it could explain why they are bigger than normal orcs. It is a well reconized feature of biology that, if you cross two closely realted species and make a hybrid, the hybrid will often become unusually large (in plants it's called hybrid vigor) sometimes far larger than either parent.
Actually having female Uruk-hai might be important to long term plans since it might be neccecary if one wanted a long term population of Uruks. Interspecies sterility is often confined only to males of the line, female members often remain fertile. It usually takes about three generations to get fertile males in an animal crossbreed. Assuming Sauron/Saruman etc. wanted a permanent Uruk presence, (as opposed to exterminating the Uruks as soon as he had mastered the world) I'm not sure if he would have thoght it worthwile If he couldnt have a self breeding population.

[Nerwen]

Just a note– Alfirin, it's specifically the Isengarders who were crossbreeds, not Uruk-hai in general. Apologies if I sound pedantic here– it's just that this does have a bearing on this "unpublished manuscript" business– see my post here (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=649321&postcount=31).

[Galadriel]

The question of cross-breeding is different, though– it's pretty much official that the Isengard Orcs were hybrids, the result of mating Orcs with humans. (I think it's quite understandable that P.J. chose not to depict that.:eek ) I don't think these Half-Orcs need have been sterile– the Peredhil weren't, after all.



*Also, technically the "latest-known", I think, although by that stage we're talking about some very muddled fragments.

Yes, but the Peredhil were of closer kin to humans than Orcs. Orcs, as far as we know, were almost entirely different to elves - aside from the fact that they might have been created from them.

Orcs seem much more 'animal-like' than elves or humans, so, at least in my opinion, a crossbreed would be sterile.

For example, if you mate a Negro with a Japanese (I'll just ignore the weird looks), the child won't be sterile. However, mating a human with a gorilla...not such a good idea.

[skip spence]

)
Yes, but my point is that the purely physical differences between Elves, Orcs and Men do seem to be greater than that between real-world ethnic groups; at the same time they can all interbreed, so must be essentially the same species. "Subspecies" seems like a good compromise to me.
Fair enough. I've never seen the term "race" being used in biology or botany and therefore thought it was solely used on human ethnic groups, but clearly I was wrong. Subspecies sounds good.

It's also possible that Tolkien emphasized the physical differences to demonstrate the inner differences. For example, we see how snake-like Grima really looks (and acts).
Yes, Tolkien does that quite a lot. Just think of Gollum, who is essentially a Hobbit. Also, if we see LotR as written by Frodo, he too is likely to have exaggerated the Orcs' beastly looks and behaviour in my opinion (though this is contentious, granted). I do think that the physical or visual differences between Orcs and Men are much smaller that what people typically believe.

When the Elves first came across the Orcs in the First Age they came to the conclusion that the Orcs must be Avari gone savage in the wilderness, or something to that effect.* This recognition of kinship suggests that the two peoples weren't all that different (at least not then). Also, isn't one of the Southerners in Bree (the squint-eyed?) suspected to be a half-orc, or having orcish blood? Yet he is a man, living among Men, and, as it can be assumed, looking like one.

Yes, I think that Tolkien's Orcs should be pictured looking much more like Men and much less like the standard image of an Orc that has been developed by popular culture long after the prof. left us (RPGs, Comp. games, the films etc etc). Not saying they look just like men, mind.

*don't remember exactly where this is written, but I do remember reading it.

[Galin]

The question of cross-breeding is different, though– it's pretty much official that the Isengard Orcs were hybrids, the result of mating Orcs with humans. (I think it's quite understandable that P.J. chose not to depict that.:eek ) I don't think these Half-Orcs need have been sterile– the Peredhil weren't, after all.

(... from a later post...) Just a note– Alfirin, it's specifically the Isengarders who were crossbreeds, not Uruk-hai in general. Apologies if I sound pedantic here– it's just that this does have a bearing on this "unpublished manuscript" business– (...)

To add my pedantry, I would add the distinction that the Isengarders could be, as I think is the case, a mixed bunch: Uruk-hai (great soldier orcs) -- as well as Half-orcs (results of interbreeding).

The debate goes on, but my point is merely that Saruman's orcs need not be half-breeds -- these are aguably his Uruk-hai. And in general (not that anyone said otherwise) we don't necessarily need a hybrid to produce a larger orc, but selectively breeding larger orcs in general should do the trick.

At least there is an arguable distinction in the text concerning the half-orcs and the uruks (the half-orcs being taller for example, and some being man-like enough to serve as spies).

[Nerwen]

Compare:

...the really awful part is that any such offspring would only be chopped up to be used as seed or fertilizer for other Orcs being grown in the pits of filth where they are farmed (with various other ingredients added during the gestation in their womb of filth in order to specialize the crop). This is where the addition of human remains would be important to the creation of your "Man-Orc" or Uruk-Hai, but even this would take many generations. Maybe 20 years for five to ten generations, depending upon the quality of Orc wanted, the longer the time, the better the quality of Orc. So, Uruks would probably be four to five years per generation. That is still a very short time to breed Orcs, as a HUGE Army could be raised in relatively short times.

Also, many of the Orcs in a batch might not make it, or they might be cannibalized as food by those "Hatching" early.


Their cross-breeding with fungi allows them to reproduce asexually, which explains the lack of Ork females. This reproductive process basically involves the dispersion of spores from a decomposing Ork corpse, such that killing an Ork literally creates more Orks, explaining why Orks are such a difficult enemy to combat and how, along with their extreme physical hardiness, they can very easily infiltrate and build up large populations virtually anywhere. The only known solution to this problem is to incinerate the entire area to destroy all Orks and Ork spores. Because Orks are so genetically similar to plants and fungi, their diets are extremely flexible - Orks can be used not only as meat, but also as yeast and phytochemical-containing fibrous plantlike sides. Thus, Ork Pie is a staple of Ork diets, particularly on the battlefield, where little other food is available, and dead Orks are in abundance.

[Kyani]

I have long been a fan of Tolkiens work. I have also played MERP or Middle Earth Role Playing and there are no such things as female or male orcs for that matter.
Orcs were created by dark magics not typical sexual reproduction. Therefore any notions of ORCS having children and being social creatures is not true. They were created for the soul purpose of war and destruction nothing else. Various groups of ORCS were created to perform various tasks. Some were engineers crafting ugly but very sturdy machines of war. Others were armourers who job it was to create weapons of war for the Morgoth Horde. But they were all created to fight and kill anything that was against their masters (Sauron) wishes and desires of control.

The only notion that I see occuring here is so called Tolkien fans caught not by the true nature of the story itself but by social engineers attempt to label a group of real life people to fit the method of a fantasy story to make them feel liek the story is actually real when it is not.

.....One ring to rule them all.

I know this is a little late, but your comment is false. Tolkein is quite clear in the books that they 'reproduce after the manner of men'. The Hobbit makes references to orc-imps (young orcs) and also states that they have their own crafts and skills. LOTR refers to Merry being healed by orc medicine. If you are such a fan like you claim, surely you will remember these parts?

Both the movies and the books also say that Saruman is crossing orcs and men to make his hybrids.

I'm pretty sure I'm not confused about orcs really existing, and I'll bet it's safe to extend that certainty to the other people viewing and commenting on this thread.

[Kyani]

I still think it's unlikely. Hardly any race will actually give over their women. What's more, if they did, they'd die out pretty soon :p

I agree with Nerwen, that they were made in slime pits. Actually, I personally prefer the theory of them being corrupted elves. However, I can't see how Morgoth (or Sauron) could have got so many.


Why, if we're thinking they breeding naturally, would they get rid of their girls? They'd be pretty valuable. i don't go in for the slime pits because they're quite clearly not zombies, and I think Tolkein is clear that neither Sauron nor Saruman can give a being the spark of life on their own. They can't mold life out of mud. If they have a short gestation and maturation period (say 4-5 years as was suggested) you wouldn't need to deplete human nations of their women, you'd need at most a couple hundred, over a period of a couple years. If you base the rate of girls:boys on a human model you can have up 55 hybrid orc females the first year. I personally think this was what Tolkein had in mind but he was too much a gentleman concerned with the norms of his age to give us details.

I should have looked here first when i signed up, rather than asked my question.... u guys are experts =)

[Nerwen]

Welcome to the Downs, Kyani!

And don't feel shy about asking questions– we all have many questions we'd like to ask Mr Bennington, but alas! We seem to have scared him away.;)

(Btw, in case there's any confusion on the issue: I never said I thought Orcs *were* bred in slime pits, as in the films– in fact I think that's just a typo in Galadriel's post.)

[Kyani]

Thank you Nerwen!
Glad to be here;)

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Well, we know that Bolg is the son of Azog. Isn't that proof enough that orcs are born?

More than that, the fact that Bolg wants to avenge his father indicates that Orcs are not wholly evil and capable of affection for their families.

[Alfirin]

More than that, the fact that Bolg wants to avenge his father indicates that Orcs are not wholly evil and capable of affection for their families.

Or, at least, that the have some sort of loyalty to clan. Bolgs desire to avenge doesn't have to mean he actually cared for his father (it could just be that having a orc slain by a dwarf brought shame on the family/clan, and avenging it is a way to regain honor and status among orcdom. In orther words, not caring for Azog the person (orc) but for Azog the king. But that's still something

[Estelyn Telcontar]

"Hello. My name is Bolg. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

[Inziladun]

Or, at least, that the have some sort of loyalty to clan. Bolgs desire to avenge doesn't have to mean he actually cared for his father (it could just be that having a orc slain by a dwarf brought shame on the family/clan, and avenging it is a way to regain honor and status among orcdom. In orther words, not caring for Azog the person (orc) but for Azog the king. But that's still something

I agree. For that matter, I think the Orcs just used any excuse for killing. Didn't the "Northerners" running with Saruman's Uruk-hai say something along the lines of killing to "avenge their folk"? And in that case the Orc-slaying had not been done by Dwarves.

[Alfirin]

I agree. For that matter, I think the Orcs just used any excuse for killing. Didn't the "Northerners" running with Saruman's Uruk-hai say something along the lines of killing to "avenge their folk"? And in that case the Orc-slaying had not been done by Dwarves.

Actually, since it is pretty clear that at least Uruk-hai like to EAT people, those excuses could even simply include "I'm hungry" or even (if Gothbog is right and orcs actually DO care about each other) "I'm just trying to put food on the table for my family." (that actually sounds really creepy, now that I've said it)

[Inziladun]

Actually, since it is pretty clear that at least Uruk-hai like to EAT people, those excuses could even simply include "I'm hungry" or even (if Gothbog is right and orcs actually DO care about each other) "I'm just trying to put food on the table for my family." (that actually sounds really creepy, now that I've said it)

What I've always found odd about the Orcish cannibalism is that they use it both as an insult and as a threat. Sounds like Orwellian doublespeak to me. Maybe Sauron was really the Big Brother of Mordor. ;)

[Zigûr]

Was Bolg actually trying to avenge the death of his father? What little is said of him seems to suggest to me that he was mainly interested in seizing the dragon-gold. Then again it also seems that he was at least somewhat motivated to avenge the death of the Great Goblin, which might have a similar connotation: "Ever since the fall of the Great Goblin of the Misty Mountains the hatred of their race for the dwarves had been rekindled to fury," (The Hobbit) so I suppose they did have a sense of loyalty or camaraderie, albeit a rather negative one based on shared hatred for other people and survival instincts. I think this is to an extent evident with the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag in The Lord of the Rings as well. I don't think Orcs were wholly evil, although even the vestiges of positivity in them mostly manifested in evil ways.

[Galadriel55]

Actually, since it is pretty clear that at least Uruk-hai like to EAT people, those excuses could even simply include "I'm hungry" or even (if Gothbog is right and orcs actually DO care about each other) "I'm just trying to put food on the table for my family." (that actually sounds really creepy, now that I've said it)

Well, they sure seem to be loyal enough to their masters - until they start caring too much about themselves, at least, but there's still some thread of loyalty. And they seemed to want to uphold the reputation of their own clan.