Are Orcs That Bad?

[Lalwendë]

But does it work having an enemy that is not 'pure evil' when they are slaughtered on a massive scale? And does it actually make them frightening? The main way Orcs scare us is by sheer force of numbers against the good guys who we love, or even against slightly infuriating heroes like those we see in the Sil (as opposed to the more 'shiny' figures in LotR - but there's another thread in that one ).

Would it be better if Orcs were incapable of being redeemed? I think they would be much more frightening.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

One aspect that tends to make orcs interesting
(and clearly not totally evil) is when they are
personalized. Perhaps the best example is
Rosenkrantz and Gilderstern (i. e. Gorbag and
Shagrat), who seemed to have been in the
past friends and freelancers.

(Gorbag) "But anyway, if it (The War
of the Ring) does go well, there should be a lot
more room. What d'you say? - if we get a chance,
you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our
own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's
good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses. "
"Ah!" said Shagrat, "Like old times".

And might the influence of the Ring have had an affect in
setting these (by Orcish standards) friends so violently
and quickly against each other?

[Morthoron]

There was always something disconcerting in the passage from "Over Hill and Under Hill" in The Hobbit:

It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them, and not working with their own hands more than they could help; but in those days, and those wild parts they had not advanced (as it is called) so far.

Now, what is particularly troubling is that they hadn't advanced so far as of yet. I do believe Tolkien is intimating that Orcs (or at least Orkishness) will continue to proliferate long after the time period of the tale (and, although it had not yet been written, far further than the events of the Lord of the Rings, which occurred a few score years after The Hobbit).

I had always wondered, given that Tolkien later gave up on the idea that Orcs originally came from elvish stock, and rather arose from mortal men, that Orcs eventually blended into the human race. I know we discussed this somewhere before, but I still find the concept fascinating (and this is especially true when some people look downright Orkish, particularly when vehemently angry -- the distortions of the faces of folk in a frenzied mob look subhuman).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Now, what is particularly troubling is that they hadn't advanced so far as of yet. I do believe Tolkien is intimating that Orcs (or at least Orkishness) will continue to proliferate long after the time period of the tale (and, although it had not yet been written, far further than the events of the Lord of the Rings, which occurred a few score years after The Hobbit).

I had always wondered, given that Tolkien later gave up on the idea that Orcs originally came from elvish stock, and rather arose from mortal men, that Orcs eventually blended into the human race. I know we discussed this somewhere before, but I still find the concept fascinating (and this is especially true when some people look downright Orkish, particularly when vehemently angry -- the distortions of the faces of folk in a frenzied mob look subhuman).

I agree with what your saying. As I've stated elsewhere, I think it's a mistake to see Orcs as a distinct species from Men and/or Elves. Orcs are rather a representation of the dark side of humanity and they do nothing that Men haven't done a million times thoughout history, which is why they in my opinion are very convincing as the bad guys - much more so then if they were mindless killing machines.

The fact that there are Half-Orcs, Orc-Men and other mixed races that can blend into human societies unnoticed also suggest that Men and Orcs aren't different species like Men and Dwarves are, but rather different "races" that can be distinguished from each other only in the same way as can say caucasians, mongolians or blacks. The RPGs and movies have us seing Orcs as humaniod monsters with greenish skin, fangs, claws and cat-eyes. Tolkien, as far as I'm aware, described them as "degraded" forms of human beings. The difference between Orcs and Men is cultural more than biological and I certainly believe that an Orcling brought up into a nice fosterfamily in Lindon probably would grow up to be a fairly decent individual if is wasn't for that nasty Elvish habit of making fun of anyone who's different.

Now as for the orgins of Orcs this is a can of worms, as Tolkien also discovered. However, if we keep it simple Elves and Men share the same kind of physical body and can have children together so Orcs might have their orgins in both peoples.
It's when we start taking about the soul or fea we run into problems.

[Laurinquë]

I never really considered the Orcs to be intrinsically evil creatures, nothing is 100% evil like you said Lalwendë. They can't really help themselves, they were made to be evil and raised to be evil, they aren't really and truly evil if they don't understand that what they do is considered wrong. But then many villens don't think they are doing anything particularly bad, or that what they think they do right cancels out any other wrongs they make.

But whether they work as bad guys, of course they do. We love the good guys and anybody who threatens them is automatically made out as villens.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Laurinquë

I never really considered the Orcs to be intrinsically evil creatures, nothing is 100% evil like you said Lalwendë. They can't really help themselves, they were made to be evil and raised to be evil, they aren't really and truly evil if they don't understand that what they do is considered wrong.

There's another thing to consider...can they actually be evil if they have no choice in the matter? I think Tolkien considered this himself which is why he said they would be capable of redemption. However, that then also makes them less frightening...and pushes the matter of dealing with Orcs into questions of morality.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Now, what is particularly troubling is that they hadn't advanced so far as of yet. I do believe Tolkien is intimating that Orcs (or at least Orkishness) will continue to proliferate long after the time period of the tale (and, although it had not yet been written, far further than the events of the Lord of the Rings, which occurred a few score years after The Hobbit).

I had always wondered, given that Tolkien later gave up on the idea that Orcs originally came from elvish stock, and rather arose from mortal men, that Orcs eventually blended into the human race. I know we discussed this somewhere before, but I still find the concept fascinating (and this is especially true when some people look downright Orkish, particularly when vehemently angry -- the distortions of the faces of folk in a frenzied mob look subhuman).

Do you think this was Tolkien allowing too much of his own feelings about the real world to creep into his creation? I do. It's all very well setting it up that the worst traits of human (mis)behaviour stem from Orcish blood (and quite intriguing), however he neatly skips the fact that in his tales a lot of Elves, Men and Dwarves without a single drop of Orcish blood did plenty of bad things too. It lacks coherence.

I personally think that had he allowed Morgoth to create the Orcs himself, Tolkien would have been free from ethical and moral concerns in creating the race. He could have made them mad, bad and dangerous to know, a relentless, ruthless and 'other' enemy that had to be dealt with. Of course, this would alter his ideas about sub-creation but then I think the Orc Problem kind of spoils that concept in any case.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I personally think that had he allowed Morgoth to create the Orcs himself, Tolkien would have been free from ethical and moral concerns in creating the race. He could have made them mad, bad and dangerous to know, a relentless, ruthless and 'other' enemy that had to be dealt with. Of course, this would alter his ideas about sub-creation but then I think the Orc Problem kind of spoils that concept in any case.

But had he done so the Orcs wouldn't have been nearly as convincing as they are now. As you already suggested, to be Evil one must clearly recognize Good and reject it. A creature born Evil without a chance of redemtion can't reject Good because it knows of no such thing and thus can't in fact be Evil either as it only is what it is and has no choice in the matter. Obviously Tolkien understood this clearly.

The other option to remove the moral concern regarding the slaughter of Orcs is viewing them as beasts. But that wouldn't be convincing either and this Tolkien also understood clearly. The quoted dialogue between Shagrat and Gorbag among many other examples show that Orcs in no way were beasts but rational and intelligent creatures just like other speaking folk.

So, although Tolkien seemed to have developed a distaste for the Elvish/Human orgins of Orcs, he was stuck with it as it was the only alternative that really made sense and was coherent with his creation.

[Lalwendë]

The shame is that Tolkien never showed us an Orc who might be redeemed, nor he did he put any in a position where they might be. The characters see them as bad through and through, and in fact we only know that an Orc might be redeemed by reference to a letter Tolkien drafted. We are shown Orcs who talk of retirement and might deduce from that, if we are so inclined, that Orcs are not mere killing machines, but the chance is never put in their way.

That to me makes them less effective as bad guys. They should be shown to have the power of choice over their destinies (and in so rejecting the choice to be good, demonstrate their 'badness') or they should be ruthless and designed to be bad. That to me makes a more effective enemy figure. We see Saruman and Gollum given their chances, why not an Orc or two?

I know this sounds nitpicky, but I've been thinking about it for a while (after being dazzled by the sheer horror of the Daleks and Cybermen - superb creations), and Tolkien never really resolved it to his own satisfaction either. I want to explore why they somehow do not work as an enemy which is truly frightening.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The shame is that Tolkien never showed us an Orc who might be redeemed, nor he did he put any in a position where they might be. The characters see them as bad through and through, and in fact we only know that an Orc might be redeemed by reference to a letter Tolkien drafted.

Although I see your point I don't fully agree. While most characters like for example Sam do see the Orcs as bad though and through this isn't the authors voice. Some of the wiser characters like Gandalf do express views that they in fact don't hate the minions of the enemy but rather feel sorry for them. After the War of the Ring Aragorn also pardons the enemy combatants (including the Orcs) and grants them lands where they will be free to make their own destiny, something he wouldn't have done if he considered them beyond redemtion.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That to me makes them less effective as bad guys. They should be shown to have the power of choice over their destinies (and in so rejecting the choice to be good, demonstrate their 'badness') or they should be ruthless and designed to be bad. That to me makes a more effective enemy figure. We see Saruman and Gollum given their chances, why not an Orc or two?

Well Orcs are bred to be ruthless and mean. The nice and plesant individuals don't stand much of a chance to reproduce and raise a bunch of well behaved kids, I'd guess. From a very young age the only thing they learn to value and fear is power. How could they be anything but mean and nasty?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I know this sounds nitpicky, but I've been thinking about it for a while (after being dazzled by the sheer horror of the Daleks and Cybermen - superb creations), and Tolkien never really resolved it to his own satisfaction either. I want to explore why they somehow do not work as an enemy which is truly frightening.

As I already said, the Orcs work perfectly fine as an enemy for me. Had they been pure evil and justifiable cannon-fodder I wouldn't buy it, it wouldn't be realistic (I know nothing about Daleks or Cybermen).

The naked lunch (borrowing a phrase from one of my favourite authors Bill Burroughs) is that Orcs are Men, simple as. That is also why they are very scary to me.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I want to explore why they somehow do not work as an enemy which is truly frightening.

I guess one reason for it is that the orcs in the end lack personality.

I mean, yes there are a few scenes like the one between Gorbag and Shagrat already quoted here where one gets to have a glance into their personalities but they are rare and few and there is no consistent personal character of whom we could read through the book, see him develop to some direction, to see how his dreams and fears play out with the general unfolding of the tale, how their relations to other known characters develop etc...

Also, almost all depicted orcs are not that good fighters or otherwise fearsome opponents as the main characters seem to be able to kill them by tens if not by hundreds. One gets afraid of them most when they threathen hobbits without a human, elf or dwarf to help them out as to hobbits they stand as real threats (but even here Tolkien gives the hobbits the strengtht and guts to beat them when it counts).