Enemies

[Raynor]

I wouldn't say that Men never fight Men, nor that these mannish enemies are always unredeemably corrupt. Some of the inhabitants of Umbar used to be numenoreans too.

Beside this, another level of drama we witness in Tolkien is that of the deceptions of the Enemy which turn humans against each other or at least against good causes - whether this the lies of Melkor/Sauron turning elves against the valar, men against elves, men against men, men to almost side with Saruman, etc. It seems that these lies are one of the most enduring weapons of evil, with some of the most tragic effects too.

Edit: I also remembered this interesting passage from Myths Transformed, which may be relevant:

...though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, [orcs] must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost.* This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.

* Few Orcs ever did so in the Elder Days, and at no time would any Orc treat with any Elf. For one thing Morgoth had achieved was to convince the Orcs beyond refutation that the Elves were crueller than themselves, taking captives only for 'amusement', or to eat them (as the Orcs would do at need).

[Raynor]

Actually, we do have such a tragedy now I think about it - the Kinslaying - the only example that leaps out to me at the moment... And there Tolkien does seem to touch the Homeric heights: and yet while it echoes down the ages, it is not really dealt with in an Achilles-Priam confrontation.....

There is also the kin-strife; or all the back-stabbing during the wars against Morgoth. We also have marred heroes, Turin or Hurin, who bring about evil. Turin can compete with Achilles on tragedy grounds, hands down... Another prime example of tragical friendly fire is Feanor; he almost rivals at times with Melkor in bringing about evil. The demonised heroes chain continues with his sons all the way to the end of the first age. While Tolkien doesn't make enemies more "humane", he sure does allow the full spectrum to be displayed on the good side.

[Lalwendë]

I believe there are a few instances where Tolkien himself questions how he has portrayed the slaughter of the Orcs in his Letters, and he did a few revisions over the matter. I often feel that his inclusion of the friendly conversation between the two Orcs at Cirith Ungol was possibly an attempt by him to 'humanise' them a little, in contrast to all this bloodthirsty 'hacking and slashing' he was writing about. In regard to enemies who were Men, there is also the instance where Aragorn requests that the slain Dunlendings are buried appropriately and with respect following the Battle of Helms Deep.

So it's not all black and white.

But yes, there is immense slaughter of Orcs and no, they are not described as being particularly skilled or respected fighters/opponents (despite them clearly being more advanced in warfare, having knowledge of ballistics and rudimentary bombs - although maybe this is portrayed as a 'bad thing' by Tolkien?).

Why? One reason is that as a writer creating huge epic battles Tolkien was inevitably going to have to write about lots of death, and death involving the enemy, and he was also going to have to justify that slaughter to his readers. Tolkien was not stupid, and he knew about war. He was in a war that became widely questioned on whether it was 'moral', he wrote LotR at the time when Dresden happened, when Hiroshima & Nagasaki happened. He knew his readers would inevitably question widespread slaughter. This may explain why his Orcs are so often protrayed as one-dimensional characters, mere evil beings with a blood lust. They are almost like pantomime villains we can sit and go "Boo! Hiss!" at. In order to justify what he writes about, he has to make these Orcs seem as bad as is possible - thoroughly inhuman, even going beyond real life 'enemies' we have known in war and tyranny. That's why the Orcs are never given any 'respect' - it has to be that way or us modern readers wouldn't accept it.

Another reason is that Tolkien is writing about the heat of war. And this is not modern war. In modern war, under the Geneva convention, an army simply cannot do unspeakable things to the dead, the wounded, the captured (well, they do, but the media and the UN will have them over hot coals quite rightly). In older wars, torture and bloodthirsty slaughter was often the norm; I'm thinking here of the mythical zeal and fervour of renowned armies such as those of Boudicca or the viking raiders, for whom death would only be a reward (which brings to mind the attitude of the Rohirrim in battle) and who were able to enter into states of frenzy during battle. But even in modern times, armies don't sit there thinking of the enemy forces as being all cuddly! A certain amount of 'whipping up' is carried out, some propaganda, some team spirit about winning over this enemy. Maybe this is an inevitability as we are reading about one side only in this war of Tolkien's? We only see the enemy as they see them? Note that the instance where we hear the Orcs chatting in a friendly way is overheard by Frodo and Sam, well out of the heat of war; they have no reason to be whipped into an Orc-hating frenzy.

[davem]

Of course, Sir Kohran makes a valid point about the kind of war Tolkien portrayed. Yet it means that we never see the enemies praised for their heroics, or hear songs made commemorating them. And, as I said, the heroes never have to face the consequences of the slaughter they inflict.

So, do the heroes get off easy - of course they put their lives on the line - but they never (from a Christian perspective) endanger their immortal souls - everyone they kill deserves it, & they enemies are, as I say, cowards for whom the reader can feel no sympathy?

One cannot see the M-e equivalent of a Kipling producing a song praising the courage of the enemy - which, in a way, lessens the 'heroics' of the heroes, & reduces the tragedy of the outcome, because there are no tragic heroes among the fallen to be mourned either by the heroes or the reader. Even the human enemies we have in LotR are mentioned only in passing (the Southrons & Easterlings may go down fighting couragously, but this only confirms their delusion - no enemy fights couragously for his side because he believes it is right unless he is deluded).

There is no mutual respect - which is something we do find among warriors in many conflicts - mutual suffering leads to a kind of empathy & respect for a fellow warrior. As I say, we find this in Homer (& in the Mahabharata come to that). Yet it is absent from Tolkien from what I can see. And so far, no-one has addressed the question of whether this 'lessens' the heroes, in that they never have to face any difficult moral questions regarding the rightness of the cause - or at least the rightness of their actions.

So, was Tolkien copping out?

EDIT

And the other thing:

’E ’asn’t got no papers of ’is own,
’E ’asn’t got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill ’e’s shown
In usin’ of ’is long two-’anded swords

The other 'obligation, if you will - the necessity to record the courage of the enemy in situations where his own people will not or cannot- who will record the heroism of the Southrons & Easterlings - even if it was for the wrong cause?

[The 1,000 Reader]

As for the orcs of Cirith Ungol you speak of, especially Gorbag and Shagrat...



They killed themselves brutally over a shirt. A freakin' shirt. They aren't as normal and human as you'd think.

[Raynor]

One cannot see the M-e equivalent of a Kipling producing a song praising the courage of the enemy - which, in a way, lessens the 'heroics' of the heroes, & reduces the tragedy of the outcome, because there are no tragic heroes among the fallen to be mourned either by the heroes or the reader.

It depends who the enemy is. You reffered to the kin-slaying; there is also the burning of ships at Losgar and "few of the deeds of the Noldor thereafter surpassed that desperate crossing [of Helcaraxe] in hardihood or woe. And still, there were songs about Feanor and his courrage. We also have the guards who Beregond slays; true, it is for a good cause, but it is a dire action, which prompts Aragorn, to an extent, to bannish him from the city. There is also an interesting remark by Tolkien concerning dramatisations who pictured willowman was in alliance with Mordor:

Originally Posted by Letter #175

Cannot people imagine things hostile to men and hobbits who prey on them without being in league with the Devil!

We shouldn't restrict our definition of enemies in M E only to those fighting under Sauron/Melkor. Some of them are among the good ranks, while others "in the middle", if I may say so.

the Southrons & Easterlings may go down fighting couragously, but this only confirms their delusion - no enemy fights couragously for his side because he believes it is right unless he is deluded

I don't think they were figthing for any cause at that moment; it was a fight for their lives. It may have been a mistake to put them in that situation; some treaties on war recommend that an enemy should never be put in a situation without escape, or else he will fight fiercely (though, for the same reason, the Art of war recommends putting one's own soldier in that position).

[Hookbill the Goomba]

It seems to me that some enemies such as Orcs which are killed in such great numbers cannot be given any greatness else it would make the protagonists seem monstrous or something. Then there are some of the 'greater' enemies, such as Melkor, Sauron, Saruman etc...

Saruman especially. Gandalf and others admit that he is deserving of at least some respect, he was once great and good. But the terrible deeds he wrought seem to over shadow his once great nature and all his goodness is seen through the 'lens' if you will, of his later works. Again, look at Melkor, one of the 'great' of the Valar, we know of few good deeds he has done and only of some of the horrific things he did.

I think it is the ruthless nature and manner of the enemies that causes the lack of respect. In Peter Jackson's films, if I may be so bold as to use an example, at the Battle of Helm's Deep, Aragorn says words to the effect of 'Show them no mercy, for you shall receive none' and I think there may be a point here. As the Uruks are taking Merry and Pippin away, Legolas observes that they seem to delight in destroying all living things, even if they are not in their way.

Gandalf's treatment of Saruman in their confrontation at the end of The Two Towers, I think, indicates that there was still some respect, perhaps born out of fear. He tells them that his voice is still powerful and that they should not underestimate him. The Ents refuse to keep Saruman locked up, they hate to see any creature imprisoned but there is a sort of respect for him, at least that is the impression I got.

So... yes I think there is some respect for some of the enemies... but not a lot.

[Raynor]

Gandalf and others admit that he is deserving of at least some respect, he was once great and good.

I would particulary note Frodo here:

Originally Posted by Scouring of the Shire, RotK

Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me. And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it.

As the Uruks are taking Merry and Pippin away, Legolas observes that they seem to delight in destroying all living things, even if they are not in their way.

Unnecessary destruction of things, as a foremost evil activity of some boy bands, forces Borlas, a character in The New Shadow, to compare such perpetrators to orcs, who had similar delights.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

As for the orcs of Cirith Ungol you speak of, especially Gorbag and Shagrat...



They killed themselves brutally over a shirt. A freakin' shirt. They aren't as normal and human as you'd think.

A shirt of mithril mail worth "the price of the Shire" and more. Money is a pretty common motive for murder in the human world.....

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

A shirt of mithril mail worth "the price of the Shire" and more. Money is a pretty common motive for murder in the human world.....

All valuables in Mordor go to Sauron, and Mordor has no economy anyway. Counting the fact that Sauron looted many dwarven citites (or at least Moria) dry, mithril was useless in Mordor. They killed themselves, everybody did, for one, useless shirt. In the end, orcs are just stupid and savage.

[Rhod the Red]

"mentioned by Tolkien in letter #246" Nevermind the letters, we're interested in the book. Letters for drafting are hardly good sources except ot look at background, which is not the topic.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

All valuables in Mordor go to Sauron, and Mordor has no economy anyway. Counting the fact that Sauron looted many dwarven citites (or at least Moria) dry, mithril was useless in Mordor. They killed themselves, everybody did, for one, useless shirt. In the end, orcs are just stupid and savage.

Not really, as even if the shirt would go to Sauron, imagine the privilege that might be bestowed on you for taking him such a priceless item? And bear in mind that these Orcs were seen not long before discussing the possibility of retirement, of being far from battle and being independent of Sauron - bringing him a shirt like that might make that possibility very real.

Originally Posted by Child

That's probably because, like davem and some others, I have at least some questions about having a particular group portrayed in such stark terms, even if they are enemies. It just doesn't feel comfortable. I guess if someone gave me a group of creatures and said they were "demons" or some other supernatural horror, I could accept that. But if you tell me that these beings originally carried the blood of men or elves, even if corrupted, I have a hard time seeing things in such black and white terms. I guess I've come to the point where I can at least admit the possibility of a exception within my own mind. (Heresy, I know. )

I don't think Tolkien himself always saw them in black and white terms, especially given the incident mentioned above which he saw the need to insert into the text. So I still think its not quite as extreme as davem points out, yet they are given little respect as fighters and warriors. Not giving them respect in that way doesn't preclude us (or Tolkien) from offering some glimpses of compassion or understanding of them as people. I think what davem is bringing up could be down to the manner of their fighting - why would anyone respect an enemy fighter if that enemy fought 'dirty'? You see it in sport - the losing team/competitor is lauded if they play well, but if they cheat they are villified. Think about Maradona. Would he ever dare to enter England after the handball incident? perhaos it's that if the enemy is simply not 'sporting' then he loses all respect? And Tolkien was a sportsman, so that concept would ahve been importnat to him.