LotR -- Book 3 - Chapter 03 - The Uruk-Hai

[Aldarion Elf-Friend]

Originally Posted by davem

And who brewed the draught? And the 'antiseptic'? In other words, how 'advanced' is Orcish society? They do appear to have a moral value system - Gorbag's 'Regular Elvish trick' comment in response to finding Frodo lying in the pass. In other words, as far as he is concerned Elves are not moral beings in his eyes, as they behave in a contemptible way as regards their fallen comrades...

We also have comments in this chapter about orcs being 'good lads', which almost seems to imply that if they don't care about their own kind (in the sense of feeling compassion for them), they do value them in some way.

I don't think that it's that hard to imagine Orcish society. I see shamans capable of putting together potions and "draughts". They would have learned some lore from their masters and stolen some from other sources. Remember that while the orcs are an extremely warlike race, there have to be other functions taking place - gathering of food, reproduction, just to name two. We also have examples of Orcish art:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Carven knife-handle of later chapters, which Aragorn 'held with disgust" adding up to an assumption (indeed, are beasts capable of Art?)

As for Orcs being intellegent (multilingual, for example), there were many intellectuals that took part in the holocaust.

But enough of that. I was fascinated, especially in the chapters in book 6, where Tolkein seems to "humainze" the orcs. They complain about their lot and how the higher-ups are screwing things up and they're likely to pay the price. Definitely a picture of normal people at wars. At the same time, he always balances this almost sympathetic image with their unbeliveably cruel side, always wanting to have "sport" with the prisoners, meaning, I can only assume, cruel torture for the sake of influcting pain, rather than punishment or extracting information.

So, anyone have the Silm handy? I think that a quick look into the brief passage about the origins of Orcs might shed some small light on this. I don't remember of Orcs are "mutated" elves, or what. Obviously they have to be some sort of perversion of existing creation since it was forbidden for Melkor to create anything himself.

Great discussion - I always wonder what topics the next chapter might hold, thinking that we've run the gamit, and I'm never disappointed.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aldarion

Remember that while the orcs are an extremely warlike race, there have to be other functions taking place - gathering of food, reproduction, just to name two. We also have examples of Orcish art:

As for Orcs being intellegent (multilingual, for example), there were many intellectuals that took part in the holocaust.

I think this is the point Tolkien is making. These Orcs are not simple brutes. They have plans & desires:

For a moment Pippin was silent. Then suddenly in the darkness he made a noise in his throat: gollum, gollum. 'Nothing, my precious," he added. The hobbits felt Grishnakh's fingers twitch. 'O ho!" hissed the goblin softly. "That's what he means, is it? Oho! Very ve-ry dangerous, my little ones." 'Perhaps," said Merry, now alert and aware of Pippin's guess. 'Perhaps; and not only for us. Still you know your own business best, Do you want it, or not? And what would you give for it?" 'Do I want it? Do I want it?" said Grishnakh, as if puzzled; but his arms were trembling. "What would I give for it? What do you mean?"

'Do I want it? This is not a souless 'robot' but a fully sentient being who can imagine himself with the Ring in his possession, a ruler. And perhaps this is the moment he awakes to that realisation. The Ring can work on his precisely because he is a self-conscious individual.

But for some reason this self-consciousness doesn't bring with it a capacity for empathy & compassion - which is what we're taught should happen. So, the Orcs are 'closed off' from that aspect of 'humanity'.

If these Orcs are slaves they are willing slaves - but then why would Gandalf say he pities even Sauron's slaves? Or isn't he including Orcs in this? But then the question arises: aren't there any Men who are slaves of Sauron who are as bad as Orcs? Who have sacrificed their humanity & enjoy the suffering they inflict?

This just leaves us with SpM's question - What is the difference between 'bad' Orcs & equally 'bad' men?

Perhaps its not that Tolkien messed up & couldn't work out a viable explanation for Orcs; perhaps it goes deeper, into issues of metaphysics, into the mystery of Good & Evil, & so, cannot be explained away. Good is & so is Evil - even if it is a 'corruption' it isn't nothing. After all, one could say that Orcs are a 'corruption' of Elves in the same way - yet they are not 'nothing'.

Perhaps its not a 'question' after all, perhaps its a 'statement'. Orcs are all evil, & that's simply a Mystery beyond us (& beyond Tolkien). Tolkien won't offer us any easy answers because there aren't any.

[drigel]

Perhaps its not a 'question' after all, perhaps its a 'statement'. Orcs are all evil, & that's simply a Mystery beyond us (& beyond Tolkien). Tolkien won't offer us any easy answers because there aren't any.

Sins of Morgoth...Facinating! I see the primary difficulty in understanding, as referenced earlier in this thread (Letter 153), orcs are "born bad", while we are not. We become bad.

It is interesting to consider that, if these creatures are as long lived (or close to) as elves, yet they seemingly do not have the "wisdom" that one assumes would accumulate in such a long lived entity. Some of these creatures were fighting elves before mankind even awoke - many thousands of years prior...This, to me is the nature of orcish behavior: eternally enthralled. Ever fixated on the maintainence and domination of an order that is not theirs, but their masters.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

If these Orcs are slaves they are willing slaves - but then why would Gandalf say he pities even Sauron's slaves? Or isn't he including Orcs in this?

I wouldn't say that they are willing, since that implies that they have a choice. Rather, they act in the way that they do (and delight in doing so) because they know know no other way - and, more worryingly perhaps, have no capacity to know any other way. On that basis, I can see how Gandalf might pity them.

This just leaves us with SpM's question - What is the difference between 'bad' Orcs & equally 'bad' men?

Since I do not believe that anyone, in our world, is born evil, and assuming that Orcs are, in Middle-earth, inherently evil, there is a world of difference. But, if we are to say that Orcs are evil as a result of environmental pressures (nurture rather than nature), then an analogy might be drawn with those whose abusive behaviour is a product of having been abused in childhood (the cycle of abuse) or fear of the consequences of disobedience (as in the holocaust). But, even then, the analogy breaks down when one considers that there are examples of those who have undergone the same pressures and yet not committed the same attrocities. There are few in this world who I would class as being, like Orcs, devoid of any vestige of 'humanity', and then we are getting into the realms of psychotic behaviour.

Perhaps its not that Tolkien messed up & couldn't work out a viable explanation for Orcs; perhaps it goes deeper, into issues of metaphysics, into the mystery of Good & Evil, & so, cannot be explained away. Good is & so is Evil - even if it is a 'corruption' it isn't nothing.

Yet the question remains: how can Good be good if it allows Evil to manifest itself in sentient beings which have no choice in the matter? I think that this troubled Tolkien.

But there are, as you say, no easy answers.

[Aiwendil]

HerenIstarion wrote:

But basically that's what I've tried to say, but obviously failed (right but no ability, blah-blah-blah)

Minus the main bulk of orcs (and I make such a proviso on the ground of Tolkien's later opinion (i.e. "Orcs are beasts and Balrogs Maiar").

Ah, but this exactly what I was referring to. Your supposition is that there are two quite distinct kinds of Orcs: those with free will and those that are mere beasts. My point was that such a distinction does not appear to be at all present in LotR. Tolkien's late thoughts on Orc-nature are by no means clear, but even if one reads the Myths Transformed texts as indicating such a dichotomy (which is I think a valid reading) such a view seems to me to contradict their depiction in LotR.

Davem wrote:

But was this episode written pre- or post LotR - don't have my books to hand?

It was present in the original late 1920s version of the poem, and was heavily revised in the 1950s.

Did the writing of episodes like this one in LotR change the Orcs of the Sil - was this change written back into the Silmarillion?

An interesting question - did the writing of LotR alter the depiction of Orcs? We might compare the two passages from the Lay. The unrevised:

'This ring in far Beleriand
now mark ye, mates' he said, 'was wrought.
Its like with gold could not be bought,
for this same Barahir I slew,
this robber fool, they say, did do
a deed of service long ago
for Felagund. It may be so;
for Morgoth bade me bring it back,
and yet, methinks, he has no lack
of weightier treasure in his hoard.
Such greed befits not such a lord,
and I am minded to declare
the hand of Barahir was bare!'

And the revised:

. . . 'Now, mates' he cried
'here's mine! And I'll not be denied,
though few be like it in the land.
For I 'twas wrenched it from the hand
of that same Barahir I slew,
the robber-knave. If tales be true,
he had it of some elvish lord,
for the rogue-service of his sword.
No help it gave to him - he's dead.
They're parlous, elvish rings, 'tis said:
still for the gold I'll keep it, yea
and so eke out my niggard pay.
Old Sauron bade me bring it back,
and yet, methinks, he has no lack
of weightier treasures in his hoard:
the greater the greedier the lord!
So mark ye, mates, ye all shall swear
the hand of Barahir was bare!

Now the impression I get from the unrevised version is not much different from the impression I get of the Orcs in this chapter. Indeed, there are several touches in both versions that very strongly call to mind the Orcs of LotR. Note the Orc's description of Barahir: a 'robber fool' in the unrevised, 'robber-knave' in the revised version, who offered his 'rogue-service' to Felagund. It's exactly the same sentiment as the 'regular Elvish trick' comment.

So perhaps there is a change in the depiction of Orcs from pre-LotR to post-LotR, but if so it's rather a subtle one. We ought not to confuse the necessary difference in the depth of depiction between most of the Silmarillion material and LotR with a difference in the nature of that depiction.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

This the third chapter in The Lord of the Rings without poetry. The first one was The Bridge of Khazad-dûm (q.v.), and the second was The Breaking of the Fellowship. At first glance, I saw that the chapters all involved the loss of a member of the Fellowship (although Boromir’s death was just referred to in the current chapter). It seems also that these “action” chapters involve single combat of some form:

In The Bridge of Khazad-dûm, it was Gandalf vs. the Balrog.
In The Breaking of the Fellowship, it was Frodo vs. the Ring.
In The Uruk-Hai, it was Pippin vs. the Uruk-Hai.

Let’s look at each confrontation, one by one:

~The first one was a classic single combat of two powerful beings. This form of battle Gandalf will experience again throughout the rest of the War of the Ring (against the Nazgûl, and, in cases where it was not really combat but a confrontation nonetheless, against Saruman and the Mouth of Sauron).

~The second one was a battle of wills, an internal struggle Frodo would carry on to Mordor.

~The last battle is also of will, with Pippin unwilling to give up hope, a battle which would ultimately save Faramir’s life.

It appears that all combatants (on the side of Good) would keep on fighting with the same way in which they first battled.

So much for the nature of the confrontation. Let’s move on to its results:

~Gandalf killed the Balrog, but he died because of it.

~Frodo will destroy the Ring, but he, too, will “die” because of it.

~Pippin “defeats” the Uruk-Hai, and (with Merry) he would carry on to destroy Saruman’s military might, even in the Shire. Sure, he will die, but not because of it.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

My point was that such a distinction does not appear to be at all present in LotR. Tolkien's late thoughts on Orc-nature are by no means clear, but even if one reads the Myths Transformed texts as indicating such a dichotomy (which is I think a valid reading) such a view seems to me to contradict their depiction in LotR.

Yup. I have to ground myself on far-fetched suppositions again, but, assuming label 'history' for LoTR, it may be argued that what impression Pippin and Merry brought out of their communication with orks, would not be indicative of orks as a whole. If my supposition be true (i.e. some distinct orks have free will, main bulk are beasts), than it may be said that most of the Free Peoples (but their wise) would not know the difference. They would not say, per instance:

1. Uglúk is a 'human' ork, with a free will, he's dangerous, but he’s a sinner, and as he’s a sinner, he may repent
2. Snaga is a beast, it's dangerous, but innocent, as a tiger is dangerous.

What impression there would be, would be expressed rather in something similar to what follows:

1. Uglúk is a larger one, wittier, stronger and more dangerous, but they both are orks
2. Snaga is a smaller one, dumber, weaker and less dangerous, but they both are orks

Or, to evaluate the whole affair from another angle:

The orks may be studied in two ways. If we rely on the Hobbit and LoTR only, it would be impossible to guess at their origin and nature – i.e., when I first read Hobbit and LoTR, if anyone asked me, ‘what are orks?’ my answer would be:

‘orks just are’, or ‘they are race of very wicked creatures, which are like humans – they have two hands, two legs and head, they have culture and rituals (High Goblin), machinery (for killing lot of people in one go), language (hence the need to use the common speech), history-memory (good old days, Orcrist, Glamdring ), sense of Good and Evil (regular elvish trick) but they are cruel (we left him hanging there) and have no sense of beauty or kindness’.

[I may have felt that their state of cruelty is work of some Evil Power (if I were of religious disposition), or I may have thougt that they are like this due to evolutionary development of their race hard conditions of Northern mountains, and their alliance with Sauron is just a coincidence]

If we rely on the whole bulk of Tolkien’s works, the answer may be answered thus:

‘the origin of orks is dubious, some hold they are ‘mutant’ elves, others they are ‘mutant’ men, some – ‘mutant’ beasts, with occasional incorporated maiar embedded. The very term ‘ork’ spoils the game, for originally it merely referred to something ‘terrible’ so almost any enemy of elves may have been labeled thus. What is that all sources agree upon is that whatever their origin may be, ‘mutation’ is ascribed to Morgoth, who spoiled something originally good. Besides, it may be that all of the sources are right to an extent, and orks are a mix up of all those trends.’

I indeed hold that ‘all the sources are right’. But having such a belief, I inevitably come to conclusion that we must have different species under the same name and guise of Ork. Just like Men and Apes are all Primates, and supposing there are aliens, those aliens may be confused as to what is the difference (and some men were confused as well, believing Orangutans to be Men of the Woods), but if you ask us, we know we are men and apes are apes.

Again, I know all of that can not be worked out of LoTR alone, but again, LoTR is, to a point, account hobbits left us. Or, following you, it is my point also that such a distinction does not appear to be at all present in LotR. But I wonder what would be said about orks if Gandalf were to write the ‘History of the War of the Ring’, not Frodo?