Tolkien and the Monsters

[Legolas]

But can they repent during their lifetime? There is no example of one ever having done so, as far as I am aware. Even if they could in theory repent, it is unlikely that an Orc born and bred in brutal Orcish society would ever in practice do so. During their lifetime, they are effectively denied any shot at redemption. Perhaps they have the opportunity after death, but why should they not have that opportunity during life?

There's no account of one having done so, but we aren't really given much at all in the way of stories of orcs, especially outside of direct influence on the journey of the Fellowship. The point was just that they could repent, in theory and in practice. Redemption was available to all - no one could be denied his or her part in Eru's design. I posted this quote from Osanwe-kenta in one of your threads (over a year and a half ago, titled 'Is there any hope for redemption ...?').

Melkor had the right to exist, and the right to act and use his powers. Manwe had the authority to rule and to order the world, so far as he could, for the well-being of the Eruhíni; but if Melkor would repent and return to the allegiance of Eru, he must be given his freedom again. He could not be enslaved, or denied his part. The office of the Elder King was to retain all his subjects in the allegiance of Eru, or to bring them back to it, and in that allegiance to leave them free.

[davem]

Do Orcs have free will?

Ainulindale:

There [God] willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to fashion their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else.

(see also Damien Casey's essay, 'The Gift of Illuvatar: Tolkien's Theological Vision'
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/....htm#_ftnref38)

Humanity is uniquely free. If then the Elves are oriented towards immanence, mortal humanity is oriented towards transcendence. The natural limits of humanity are closely related to the very possibility of transcendence and freedom. But they are also the source of our weakness. Men are easily seduced because it is our nature to look and go beyond. The gift of God to Humanity is also the root of our fall, our restlessness, our jealously. The full meaning and significance of that gift however is yet to be realised.

Point being, if orcs were originally Elves, aren't they 'destined' to do what they do? Isn't it set out in the Music that they will become orcs - aren't orcs destined to be orcs? How much freedom do they have to act outside the confines of the Music?If they have no such freedom, they can't be held accountable for their choices, & so have no need to repent.

I'll leave it at that, as H-I have done that particulartopic to death in the Evil Things thread!

[The Saucepan Man]

I posted this quote from Osanwe-kenta in one of your threads (over a year and a half ago, titled 'Is there any hope for redemption ...?').

Hehe! I had forgotten about that thread. Preoccupied with the idea of redemption? Me? Nah!

Although that thread came to be more concerned with the idea of whether characters who act "wrongly" redeem themselves in the eyes of the reader, there are some points discussed there which touch upon this discussion. Here is the link, if anyone is interested: Is there any hope for redemption ...?

The point was just that they could repent, in theory and in practice.

It's all very well Tolkien saying this, but my point is that some beings appear to have had less opportunity to do so than others. Surely, an Orc who has been brought up to behave in a brutal and hateful manner has far less opportunity to repent of a wrongful deed than say a Hobbit who has been brought up with a firm moral grounding. Indeed, the Hobbit is infinately less likely to commit the wrongful act in the first place. They are not starting off on an equal footing. Is it fair to blame an Orc for not repenting when to do so is wholly alien to his culture?

aren't orcs destined to be orcs? How much freedom do they have to act outside the confines of the Music?If they have no such freedom, they can't be held accountable for their choices, & so have no need to repent.

But, assuming that Orcs have fea, isn't this again an indication that they are not starting out on a level playing field? Why should their spirits be denied the opportunity to repent simply because they happen to be born as Orcs?

(Sorry for labouring the point, Mr Fordim sir, but it does seem to me to be relevant to the portrayal of evil in Middle-earth by reference to Tolkien's "Monsters". Why should some creatures be born, or created, or become, in effect, irredeemably evil? What is it, in the context of "good v evil", that makes this "fair"?)

[HerenIstarion]

Assuming the role of the librarian (an not to stray off 'monsters' one time too many, so placing my head under closer inspection by mentioned principals), I suggest to your consideration following old, but worthy discussions:

Of Evil, Free will, and Fate (from 'Gollum') (thread author - Legolas)

The role of Fate in ME (thread author - Mithadan)

immortality (thread author - Matthew2754)

The Downfall of Numenor (thread author - Mithadan)

Frodo or the Ring (thread author - Mithadan)

Orcish fëar (thread author - HerenIstarion)

Already mentioned Evil Things (thread author - Nirvana II)

also All About Orks article may come in useful (having its origins in Orcish Fëar thread, but in a somewhat more refined, final, form)

There are loads of other threads dealing with the subject, I'm sure, I just can't remember them all

regards

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Sorry for labouring the point, Mr Fordim sir

That’s Professor Fordim, if you please.

It seems to me that we’re not going to get very far if we keep focusing our discussion on the extremely problematic figures of the Nazgûl and the orcs. As H-I’s rather impressive list of threads shows, there’s been plenty of back-and-forth on these points already, and we’re no closer to really understanding these issues. That, I would humbly suggest, is a good thing, in a way, insofar as Tolkien is not oversimplifying a complex issue in his presentation of evil.

That having been said… In reading through the posts to this thread, I’ve begun to think that of all the ‘monsters’ we can look at, the most illuminating might well be the Mouth of Sauron: not, strictly speaking, a monster, I know, but he certainly is monstrous. The reason I think we should single out this character is that the one thing we don’t know about the Nazgûl or the orcs – how did they become Sauron’s servants? – is the one thing that we are told about the Mouth:

The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale: for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: “I am the Mouth of Sauron.” But it is told that he was a renegade, who came of the race of those that are named the Black Númenóreans; for they established their dwellings in Middle-earth during the years of Sauron's domination, and they worshipped him, being enamoured of evil knowledge. And he entered into the service of the Dark Tower when it first rose again, and because of his cunning he grew ever higher in the Lord's favour; and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron; and he was more cruel than any orc.

His motivation for joining with Sauron is pretty clearly laid out here: he was “enamoured of evil knowledge.” It is this desire to be evil that makes him the ally of Sauron willingly. The other thing we learn about him is that he is a “renegade,” but a renegade from what or whom is interestingly left unclear. I suppose at the most literal level he is a renegade Númenórean, but perhaps there is the sense also that he is a renegade from Good? (Dare I say, Eru?) In this respect I think we can pretty clearly put him ‘beside’ the Balrog. Interestingly, however, he is not like Shelob (the book’s other ‘renegade’ maiar), who doesn’t care a jot for “knowledge” be it evil or not: she just wants to devour. In this sense, I guess, she provides a useful foil to the Mouth, for he is Man whose own identity has been devoured by Sauron.

It’s in this respect that he is like the Nazgûl. Like them, he has no identity anymore. Even he doesn’t remember it and all he can say about himself is that he is “the Mouth of Sauron.” He is, however (I think) ‘worse’ than the Nazgûl (perhaps even, more evil?) in that he didn’t even need the power or excuse of a Ring to enter into the service of Sauron. He’s apparently of higher ‘rank’ in Mordor than even the Witch-King, since he is the “Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr”.

Where things really start to get interesting is, I think, the final line of this description when we learn that “he was more cruel than any orc.” His cruelty is here being presented not as the ‘source’ of his evil (that is, he does cruel things, therefore he is evil) but as the result of his evil (he knows “much of the mind of Sauron” and therefore is “more cruel than any orc”).

I would therefore like to float a tentative suggestion about monsters and how they develop the nature of evil in The Lord of the Rings *takes a deep breath*

The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” (this is still a bit ambiguous: what makes certain knowledge “evil”?). The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge". The consequence of this evil choice is two-fold. First, one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer. Second, one becomes cruel and bestial.

And from this, I think I can develop a ‘hierarchy’ of sorts of the monsters (bear with me):

“The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge”" – The most evil monsters in the book, then, would be Sauron, the Balrog, and Shelob(?).

“one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer.” – The next ‘order’ of evil monsters would be, according to this, the Nazgûl, Gollum(?), the Mouth of Sauron and perhaps Saruman.

“one becomes cruel and bestial” – The ‘least’ evil characters are the cruel “beasts”: orcs, the Watcher in the Water, wargs, etc.

Of course, I still don’t know what this “evil knowledge” might be that starts off the whole process! I think if we can figure that out, we’ll get a lot further than arguing about the potential for repentance upon the part of orcs…

[davem]

A few random thoughts:

Originally Posted by Fordim

The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” (this is still a bit ambiguous: what makes certain knowledge “evil”?). The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge". The consequence of this evil choice is two-fold. First, one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer. Second, one becomes cruel and bestial.

Can we say that: 'The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” '?

Perhaps 'the root (cause)of evil actions is the desire for evil knowledge' would be more accurate?
'Evil' knowledge is merely knowledge of evil, & someone must have practised/produced evil in order for knowledge of it to come into being, so 'evil' must have pre-existed evil knowledge. Yet if evil is not a thing in itself, but a myriad forms of corruption of something else - 'good', how can we speak about a desire for 'evil' knowledge as if it was a desire for knowledge of some specific subject - knowledge of 'evil' is not the same as knowledge of physics, or biology, or even of Quenya, say.

So, we could speculate that what the Mouth originally wanted was the knowledge of how to corrupt good. But why would anyone desire a corrupt form of something over its pure form- its like desiring a broken-down car more than one in working order.

So, we could speculate instead that the Mouth began under the delusion that there was such a thing as pure evil, equal & opposite of good. Probably, given he is described as a Black Numenorean, he was part of a group that had followed Sauron's worship of Melkor. In other words, he was the Middle Earth equivalent of a 'Satanist'. We could further speculate that the evil knowledge he desired was power over others, & over the matter of Arda - this is basically what Melkor desired, & Sauron also. We know worship practices instigated by Sauron in Numenor included human sacrifice. If the Mouth was crueller than any orc, perhaps we are talking not just about practices involving torture, burning alive, etc, but the kind of thing the Lord of the Nazgul threatens Eowyn with

"He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."

To be able to keep a victim's mind captive after their flesh has been devoured would be beyond the capacity of any orc. I suppose we could speculate that the Mouth rules the Houses of Lamentation, & has the capacity to destroy the Hroa & keep the Fea to torture (or should that be destroy the Hroa and the Fea & keep the sana to torture - I'm not up on Middle Earth metaphysics). This would come under the general heading of 'control over the matter & inhabitants of Arda', having the capacity to manipulate the physical & metaphysical dimensions, which would offer the possibility of overcoming death - which seems to have been the Black Numenorean's obsession.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course, I still don’t know what this “evil knowledge” might be that starts off the whole process! I think if we can figure that out, we’ll get a lot further than arguing about the potential for repentance upon the part of orcs…

OK. I'll try one more time to explain the point that I am trying to make.

Fordim, you place Orcs, Wargs and the like furthest down on your "heirarchy of evil". These creatures are not interested in seeking "evil knowledge" as you put it. They act in a cruel and wicked manner because that is their nature. So how can they truly be described as evil at all if they have no choice but to act in the way that they do? In other words, it might be said that these creatures are not in fact evil, but simply "beasts" pressed into evil service in the same way that Oliphaunts are.

Conceivably, the same could be said of Shelob. Did she ever have any choice in her insistent desire to devour, or is it simply part of her nature? I would suspect the latter, in which case perhaps she too is not really evil. (Incidentally, what makes you think that she is a maia? I appreciate that there is an argument for Ungoliant being one of the maiar although it is not clear, but I am not aware of any suggestion that her spawn were of that nature.)

To sum up, however, the point that I am trying to make is that, to my mind, evil requires some degree of choice. If a creature does not have that choice, can it truly be evil? And doesn't this question go to the very heart of the nature of evil in Middle-earth?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

To sum up, however, the point that I am trying to make is that, to my mind, evil requires some degree of choice. If a creature does not have that choice, can it truly be evil? And doesn't this question go to the very heart of the nature of evil in Middle-earth?

Couldn't agree with you more. But I think we can refine that by saying that evil is defined not just by any choice (i.e. an 'evil' choice) but by choosing to seek or take up "evil knowledge."

As to the whole Shelob v Sauron evil thing, it can be answered in two ways. First, the way you would appear to be answering it: Shelob is not truly evil, just doing her thing (that is, she is not Sauron-evil, which is real evil).

The other way to answer it is the way I prefer: she is evil but in a different way than Sauron is evil. Sauron does evil for the sake of the evil knowledge that he seeks/wants in his desire to overthrow the created world; Shelob is evil because of her desire to consume the created world. So closely allied, but not quite the same thing. The common element, I suppose, would be that they each put the fulfilment of their individual desires ahead of creation.

As to Shelob-Maiar: I admit, I don't really know this for a 'fact': but she sure isn't just some overgrown spider either!

[The Saucepan Man]

Just a quick point on the following:

Shelob is evil because of her desire to consume the created world.

I accept that it is said of Ungoliant that she had an all-consuming desire to consume. But is this actually said of Shelob too, or are we imputing it to her by virtue of her ancestry? Isn't Shelob simply hiding away in a mountain lair, keeping herself to herself and consuming only what she needs to survive? The again, she is a sentient being and has the capacity to choose who/what she consumes and who/what she does not. Perhaps that counts against her. Maybe the question depends upon what was agreed between her and Gollum. Did she know that Frodo and Sam were two good little Hobbits, or did she simply view them as small Orcs?