The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-10-2009, 07:37 AM   #1
Boromir88
Laconic Loreman
 
Boromir88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 7,521
Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.Boromir88 is wading through the Dead Marshes.
Send a message via AIM to Boromir88 Send a message via MSN to Boromir88
Quote:
I'm aware of Tolkien's statement in a letter that Treebeard is a character in the story and cannot be expected to know the exact origin of Orcs,~Galin
I wonder if we can even expect Tolkien to know the exact origin of his Orcs. He seemed to never settle on an idea.

In The Silmarillion the Elves of Tol Eressea believed Morgoth captured Elves, tortured them, and thus you have the first Orcs. However, the same problems occur as you have with Treebeard. Plus, later on, as narfforc and Galin pointed out Tolkien began moving away from this...

While we know Elves and Dwarves were capable of evil, Tolkien didn't think it was possible to enslave their wills in the way Morgoth and Sauron were able to do with their Orcs. Morgoth and Sauron held their Orcs in 'ant-like' thraldom, the nature of Elves and Dwarves made it impossible for them to ever reach this slave state:
Quote:
Other originally independent creatures, and Men among them (but neither Elves nor Dwarves) could be reduced to a like condition. But ’puppets’, with no independent life or will, would simply cease to move or do anything at all when the will of their maker was brought to nothing.~Morgoth's Ring: Text X
This would go to support the 'Man' theory, however then we have a problem with the timeline. CT makes note that Tolkien adapted his chronology a bit, to fit the Man theory, because that seemed to be the last and most final theory for the origin of Orcs. However, 'last' and 'final' don't inspire that much assurance, as of course Tolkien could have changed his mind again and found a different origin he thought more comfortable.
__________________
Fenris Penguin
Boromir88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 08:52 AM   #2
Galin
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
Galin is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Galin is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by narfforc
In Myths Transformed (Morgoth's Ring) Christopher states:- This then, as it may appear, was my father final view of the question: Orcs were bred from men.

Confused?
Yes he does write that, but CJRT follows that statement with: 'But, as always, it is not quite so simple' and then goes on to refer to two notes written on paper dated 1969, one on the spelling of Orc (Ork), the other which carries a statement that appears to deny 'an essential conception of the essay' -- meaning the note appears to deny an essential conception of the earlier Text X 'Orcs from Men' essay.

Whether or not one thinks these two notes are enough to cast doubt on Text X the note to the Druedain is dated quite late too -- but not precisely dated, as CJRT includes it with his description of The Disaster of the Gladden Fields, about which he writes:

Quote:
'This is a 'late' narrative -- by which I mean no more, in the absence of any indication of precise date, than that it belongs to the final period of my father's writing on Middle-earth, together with 'Cirion and Eorl', 'The Battles of the Ford of Isen', 'The Druedain,'...'
So, it may be that Author's note 5 to The Druedain is later than even these two 'Orc notes', but we don't know, as the notes themselves are '1969 or later' as CJRT also states. As far as the content of these two notes are concerned, for myself I don't find the one about spelling the word Ork very problematic, as it need not mean Tolkien was here suggesting the idea of Text IX (and Elvish origin 'and probably later also of Men' too), simply because he had spelled the word Ork there as well (though I suppose it's possible).

As far as the other note and the essential conception of Text X that the note seems to deny (as I read the evidence anyway): the note implies Morgoth had great numbers of Orcs before his captivity -- while in Text X the implication is rather that, though breeding had actually begun, when Melkor was made captive Sauron bred large numbers, so that when his master returned:

Quote:
'... and there the dark places underground were already manned with hosts of the Orcs before Melkor came back at last, as Morgoth the Black Enemy, and sent them forth to bring ruin upon all that was fair.'
The question becomes, was JRRT revising his 'Orcs from Men' theory in Text X by seemingly denying this point? Hard to say, but given the late idea from UT (note 5) I tend to think Orcs from men was still the more likely (at least) notion in play, although it should be noted that:

Quote:
'Doubtless Morgoth, since he can make no living thing, bred Orcs from various kinds of Men, but the Druedain must have escaped his Shadow;...'

Part of Note 5, The Druedain, Unfinished Tales
... is what the Eldar answered
Galin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:05 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.