Thoughts on the OOTS goblin predicament

[Lemarc]

Right but that's hardly limited to Orcs, plenty of Men in Sauron's armies.

For whatever it's worth:

Yes, I think the orcs as real a creation as anything in 'realistic' fiction: your vigorous words well describe the tribe; only in real life they are on both sides, of course.

[pearl jam]

But remember. There was one who’s power exceeded Eru Ilúvatar, who held the power to redeem the orcs with but a thought.

Truly that being is ultimately responsible for the orcs, and we should be looking at his motivations, not at the inconsequential machinations of minions like Sauron.

Honestly, all I can recall is: Balin is the kindest to Bilbo (and the one with the best eyesight), Bombur is the fat unlucky one, Kili and Fili are the young ones and, I want to say, Bofur? is the one who always end up carrying Bilbo.




I'm not sure that's a relevant distinction to make. Yes, Morgoth and Sauron made the orcs because they needed an army but I doubt that reduced the orcs' ability to make choices for themselves. I don't know anything in text that says so.


He even says so in the Ainulindale.

"one whose power exceeded Eru Ilúvatar"

I don't have my book on hand, but I feel like this has to be a misquotation.

[Fyraltari]

"one whose power exceeded Eru Ilúvatar"

I don't have my book on hand, but I feel like this has to be a misquotation.

I assumed "his, " was missing.

[pendell]

Yeah, that's my point, this whole post is basically your headcannon, it's not supported by anything in text. It's not contradicted either, mind but still. There's no reason to assume being made of negative energy or having had your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents tortured by Sauron & Morgoth mean you are somehow less able to make choices than everybody else.

I'm basing my argument partly on Frodo's own journey. His entire story from Bag-End to Mount Doom is one long story of the ring trying to suborn his free will, and his own resistance to it.

In Bag End at the start of the story, he cannot throw the ring into his own fireplace. He wills it, but he cannot, puts it back in his pocket. Already the ring is sinking its hooks into his soul.

Multiple times he encounters Nazgul while escaping from the Shire. Each time he feels the compulsion to put on the ring. Each time he resists it. He yields to the temptation at weathertop , and is stabbed with a morgul-knife for his pains.

Later, in the final mad dash to the Ford of Bruinen, he is forced to stop just after clearing the water. The Nazgul are silently willing him to halt, and finally he is no longer able to resist their command. He is still able to flourish his sword in a futile gesture, but he no longer has the ability to oppose the domination of their will. He is saved only by the flooding waters.

Later, atop the seat of seeing on Amon Hen, He is caught between the voice and the Eye as Sauron searches for him. Gandalf himself works a mighty magic to strive with the will of Sauron and the Ring, which are doing all they can to hold Frodo fast with the ring on with Sauron on the hunt. Gandalf is able to will Frodo sufficiently that Frodo is able to take the ring off of his own will, but it is only because of Gandalf's help that he may do so. Without this great work on Gandalf's part Frodo could do nothing but sit there, helpless, bound by the Ring, until the Eye sees him.

As he journeys ever closer to Mordor, the Ring gnaws away at his mind and will, as well as Smeagol's. On the bridge to Minas Morgul, he is driven for a moment to run madly towards the tower and is only saved by his friends. Again, on the road to Mordor, one sight of Barad-dur is enough to send him scrambling for the ring, screaming "Help! Help me, Sam! I can't stop it!" Only Sam's intervention prevents their discovery.

Finally, on Mount Doom itself, the Ring dominates him into refusing to throw the Ring into the fire, to the point that Frodo is deceived into thinking he is acting of his own accord. Again, only a miracle saves them, though his failure costs him a finger.

The story of the Lord of the Rings is the story of a mortal being opposing the indomitable will which seeks to enslave him with nothing but hope and faith. Time and again he is delivered from certain death not by his own cleverness but by a series of miraculous coincidences , each time because he screwed up his courage to do the right thing against all odds and against all rational wisdom.

Frodo is NOT free-willed at any point in the story after he acquires the ring. Not entirely. The Dark Power is ever at work to subdue him , make him into a mindless automaton. Frodo gradually succumbs to this darkness, as all the Nazgul did before him, but thankfully the ring goes into the fire before the change is complete.

That is why Frodo has sympathy for Smeagol when Sam had none. Frodo knows what it is to bear the Ring, to have it eat away at one's mind and will.

I don't think the orcs had it any easier than Frodo did. Tolkien doesn't go into detail as to what happened to them during their captivity in Utumno. All we know for certain is that they went in as elves and came out as orcs. I believe that the power which believes so much in domination also used it to put such an imprint on their orcs that they and their children after them would be forever bound to him, just as the ringwraiths were, and though they would stray the darkness he had placed inside them would still drive them to his will. Because that is the nature of evil in Tolkien's work: The chief difference between evil and good is that evil takes away the free will to the extent possible. Evil does not trust; therefore Evil never leaves anything up to free choice when binding is available.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hroþila]

They also think Men eat Orc-flesh.

The lack of self-awareness is great.

I might be mistaken but I thought book orcs didn't engage in cannibalism, at least as a socially acceptable thing. Grishnákh insulted Saruman's Uruk-hai by suggesting they ate orc-flesh rather than man-flesh, which implies it was taboo.

[pendell]

I might be mistaken but I thought book orcs didn't engage in cannibalism, at least as a socially acceptable thing. Grishnákh insulted Saruman's Uruk-hai by suggesting they ate orc-flesh rather than man-flesh, which implies it was taboo.

Shagrat and Gorbag had this to say to each other:

“You’ll find that difficult,” laughed Gorbag. “He’s nothing but carrion now. What Lugburz will do with such stuff I can’t guess. He might as well go in the pot.”

“You fool,” snarled Shagrat. “You’ve been talking very clever, but there’s a lot you don’t know, though most other folk do. You’ll be for the pot or for Shelob, if you don’t take care.

This implies:

1) Orcs will eat prisoners if they have no better use for them. I assume prisoners would normally be used for labor or for 'sport'. Those that aren't good for either, orcs aren't about to let good protein go to waste.

2) Orcs do eat their own as a punishment for crime, but it's not their ordinary fare.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hroþila]

Shagrat and Gorbag had this to say to each other:



This implies:

1) Orcs will eat prisoners if they have no better use for them. I assume prisoners would normally be used for labor or for 'sport'. Those that aren't good for either, orcs aren't about to let good protein go to waste.

2) Orcs do eat their own as a punishment for crime, but it's not their ordinary fare.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Only if you read it literally, but "you'll be for the pot" is very likely a deliberate humorous echo of "he might as well go in the pot". To me the above does suggest they might eat other humanoids, but it doesn't necessarily mean they eat other orcs, so it's not enough to supersede the thing with Grishnákh's insult.

[Lemarc]

It turns out that Tolkien had the ability to make Orcs, Sauron, Morgoth, and even Ilúvatar do literally anything he wanted.

Yes and no. Tolkien was a devoutly religious man and I don't think he considered himself to have perfect freedom in his "sub-creation" to have Ilúvatar do anything he wanted. Moreover I don't think he was trying to create an evil species of humans-with-fangs, per se. In line what I quoted at the top of the page, it seems more like he intended them to represent a certain sort of person, inclined to violence and easily enslaved to authority - I trust it's not breaking forum rules to observe such people were particularly prominent at the time he was writing. Certainly every time we hear orcs talking among themselves in LotR they seem very human.

[pearl jam]

Only if you read it literally, but "you'll be for the pot" is very likely a deliberate humorous echo of "he might as well go in the pot". To me the above does suggest they might eat other humanoids, but it doesn't necessarily mean they eat other orcs, so it's not enough to supersede the thing with Grishnákh's insult.

Humans have been known to engage in cannibalism and that's probably enough evidence to suggest that under the right circumstances orcs would do the same if not enough to indicate whether or not they would do so any more frequently than humans.

[Ionathus]

Moreover I don't think he was trying to create an evil species of humans-with-fangs, per se.

Even though that wasn't his intention, the result was still the same. People still talk about Tolkien's orcs like they are irredeemable murder-monsters, despite the complex lore & background he created to explain further. But most people either don't remember or don't care about that part.

The problem is not that Tolkien didn't explain the orcs' moral bankruptcy/corruption in great enough detail. Tolkien's original mindset doesn't really matter if the implications of what he wrote will be commonly interpreted another way. Death of the Author and all that.

The problem is that narratively, for the vast majority of casual readers, the story they consume becomes "these conventionally attractive humans & elves & dwarves & hobbits are Good (or Misguided), and these twisted, ugly orcs (who are still human-shaped but just have minor differences) are Evil."

Certainly every time we hear orcs talking among themselves in LotR they seem very human.

This is the exact problem. The fact that the orcs can have conversations with each other that seem human to the audience should be a sign to us that these are, at the end of the day, humans-with-fangs. And therefore, they should be treated like humans: on their own merits. They should have understandable motivations and be willing to surrender or show mercy or generally behave like sentient creatures, each in their own way.

[danielxcutter]

So for such "minions", for lack of a better word, it'd be best to write them so that there are instances when cutting them down is acceptable and others when a softer hand is required?

[arimareiji]

Even though that wasn't his intention, the result was still the same. People still talk about Tolkien's orcs like they are irredeemable murder-monsters, despite the complex lore & background he created to explain further. But most people either don't remember or don't care about that part.

The problem is not that Tolkien didn't explain the orcs' moral bankruptcy/corruption in great enough detail. Tolkien's original mindset doesn't really matter if the implications of what he wrote will be commonly interpreted another way. Death of the Author and all that.

The problem is that narratively, for the vast majority of casual readers, the story they consume becomes "these conventionally attractive humans & elves & dwarves & hobbits are Good (or Misguided), and these twisted, ugly orcs (who are still human-shaped but just have minor differences) are Evil."

This is the exact problem. The fact that the orcs can have conversations with each other that seem human to the audience should be a sign to us that these are, at the end of the day, humans-with-fangs. And therefore, they should be treated like humans: on their own merits. They should have understandable motivations and be willing to surrender or show mercy or generally behave like sentient creatures, each in their own way.

If there's one thing in the universe that humans have truly mastered, it's "creating elaborate rationalizations to explain why our actions and beliefs are Good".

I haven't the faintest whether Tolkien had surpassed his human nature. Sometimes, people do. But often, people have simply constructed such a beautiful edifice of rationalizations that no one (including the architect) wants to question it.

For myself, I'm a big believer in burning away the dross to see what's left. If what's left to most humans after you throw Tolkien into the kiln is "It's okay to kill Others without knowing anything about them if they look different and/or ugly, because that difference is the mark of irredeemable Evil"... that could very easily mean nothing more than "people see what they want to see". But it also might mean that Tolkien was wrestling with a demon he hated and wanted to cast out of himself, and in the end he "won" the battle (as humans often do) by finding a way to clothe it in Goodness.

---

So for such "minions", for lack of a better word, it'd be best to write them so that there are instances when cutting them down is acceptable and others when a softer hand is required?

As others have observed, the go-to antagonist for many storytellers has increasingly become undead and/or implacably-hostile aliens or robots. "Implacably-evil aliens" has started running into the same thicket Ionathus described, though -- the more familiar they become and the more their behavior resembles humans' (because readers want both pro- and an- tagonists they can understand without much effort), the more they raise ethical questions. Heck, even "robots" has run headlong into that thicket over at Questionable Content.

If you want humanlike antagonists, you have to write them with many of the same considerations -- including free will, and "Good Guys who rationalize evil tactics as necessary to fight Bad Guys may find that spectators have a hard time telling them apart."

...well, at least we know zombies will have a lot of job security. (^_~)

[GeoffWatson]

I'm not a fan of the "fantasy races are just like humans except (minor detail)" idea.
They should be significantly different.
I understand that's hard for authors, DMs and players, so most "fantastic races" end up like humans.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm not a fan of the "fantasy races are just like humans except (minor detail)" idea.
They should be significantly different.
I understand that's hard for authors, DMs and players, so most "fantastic races" end up like humans.

The problem is that what feels like a significant difference to one person can feel like "except minor detail" to another. And even if they do feel significantly different, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated as people just like everyone else. If a fantasy race is a floating cube of pyrite that communicates through telepathy and magnetism, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated like a person just because it's a fundamentally alien creature that we may never hope to understand.

So whether the fantasy races do or do not feel significantly different ultimately doesn't matter. People are people.

[Fyraltari]

I'm not a fan of the "fantasy races are just like humans except (minor detail)" idea.
They should be significantly different.
I understand that's hard for authors, DMs and players, so most "fantastic races" end up like humans.

Thing is, if you want to make your aliens characters your public will be interested in, you kinda have to make them just funny looking humans. People can understand Xorl'gathol wanting to win a competition to prove his worth to the rest of the tribe.
People can't understand Xorl'gathol having to scmazik his karrugolok to forschkroza enough lark'fin for his lapduk.
As a result aliens either have human motivations and so are just odd-looking humans or they are utterly incomprehensible and so can't function as characters.

[Ruck]

I'm not a fan of the "fantasy races are just like humans except (minor detail)" idea.
They should be significantly different.
I understand that's hard for authors, DMs and players, so most "fantastic races" end up like humans.

Yeah-- as others have said, it's pretty hard for us to really come up with races/species that are legitimately different than humans, due to, well the inherent limits of human intelligence and creativity and how we experience the world, being human and all, and how the limitations of being human shape the stories we tell. I think Rich has a pretty good quote about this, but my search came up empty.

[mjasghar]

WRT Tolkien both he and C S Lewis were attempting to create an art form/ mythology to rival the European myth cycles
The Song of Roland in particular which explains certain attitudes in Tolkien which have gone over to most fantasy rpgs and novels. In the case of C C Lewis he ended up retconning his own universe to add that new human enemy (there’s a reason A Horse and his Boy are rarely mentioned) only to pull back in the Last Battle

[hamishspence]

Yeah-- as others have said, it's pretty hard for us to really come up with races/species that are legitimately different than humans, due to, well the inherent limits of human intelligence and creativity and how we experience the world, being human and all, and how the limitations of being human shape the stories we tell. I think Rich has a pretty good quote about this, but my search came up empty.

This is the quote:

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything. There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

[Morty]

Insofar as it's possible to create truly alien and inhuman fictional sapient beings, they won't be anything like traditional orcs or goblins. Since those have only acted like humans - just universally awful and ugly humans.

[Lemarc]

Even though that wasn't his intention, the result was still the same. People still talk about Tolkien's orcs like they are irredeemable murder-monsters, despite the complex lore & background he created to explain further. But most people either don't remember or don't care about that part.

The problem is not that Tolkien didn't explain the orcs' moral bankruptcy/corruption in great enough detail. Tolkien's original mindset doesn't really matter if the implications of what he wrote will be commonly interpreted another way. Death of the Author and all that.

The problem is that narratively, for the vast majority of casual readers, the story they consume becomes "these conventionally attractive humans & elves & dwarves & hobbits are Good (or Misguided), and these twisted, ugly orcs (who are still human-shaped but just have minor differences) are Evil."

I'm perfectly willing to embrace the death of the author, but this is not that. The text is the text, saying that readers are likely to interpret it in a certain way and therefore the text itself is in some way "bad" is a further leap, not one I'm willing to make. If you cut out the author you're left with a bunch of lexemes and their reflection in the reader's soul, and since I didn't personally derive that meaning from the story, I can't coherently criticize it for having that effect on others. I could criticize the way others interpret it, or say that the text combined with a certain type of viewpoint in the reader provokes a bad reaction, etc.

This is the exact problem. The fact that the orcs can have conversations with each other that seem human to the audience should be a sign to us that these are, at the end of the day, humans-with-fangs. And therefore, they should be treated like humans: on their own merits. They should have understandable motivations and be willing to surrender or show mercy or generally behave like sentient creatures, each in their own way.

Specifically, they're humans at their worst. They have understandable motivations - fear, hatred, vengeance, indoctrination, greed - and they behave in recognisably human ways. If they went around offering mercy and peacefully negotiating, they would cease to represent humans at their worst and would instead become just the Other. IMO "these represent bad people" is a softer and less treacherous portrayal than "these represent the tribe from over the hill".

[Shadowknight12]

IMO "these represent bad people" is a softer and less treacherous portrayal than "these represent the tribe from over the hill".

The problem is that bad people come in all shapes and sizes, to start with, and an also from all sorts of backgrounds. While yes, if you grow up surrounded by bad people you're more likely to end up bad yourself, that's not really a shining ray of revelatory insight into human behaviour (since it applies to every "bad people race" ever), especially when the tropes, visuals and aesthetics associated with orcs are very much "that tribe over the hill."

Furthermore, when the expected default response to this allegory for bad people is "just kill them because they're bad" it sends a message not everyone is on board with.

[Lemarc]

The problem is that bad people come in all shapes and sizes, to start with, and an also from all sorts of backgrounds. While yes, if you grow up surrounded by bad people you're more likely to end up bad yourself, that's not really a shining ray of revelatory insight into human behaviour (since it applies to every "bad people race" ever), especially when the tropes, visuals and aesthetics associated with orcs are very much "that tribe over the hill."

Furthermore, when the expected default response to this allegory for bad people is "just kill them because they're bad" it sends a message not everyone is on board with.

Are you speaking now of the text of LotR, or of portrayal of orcs and their equivalents in pop culture at large?

[pearl jam]

I think it should be noted that the orcs are not the only ones who suffer from corruption to evil that it beyond any power but Iluvatar to redeem, that applies also to men, elves and the the whole of creation. It is only the grace of Iluvatar that has kept all from becoming enthralled to Morgoth like the orcs. The reasoning behind this is obviously out of bounds for the forum, but well known, I think.

[Worldsong]

If the goal is for all the antagonists and their minions to be nasty folk it's important that they don't all share distinctive visual traits. It's difficult for people to not make connections based on visual cues.

If all nasty people are ugly in a story then a sizeable amount of the audience will read it as "Ugly=Evil". Same for skin colours and other traits that would make them stand out from the Good Guys. Of course, floating cubes wouldn't have this issue, but primarily because "Cube=Evil" doesn't really have any downsides to it (as long as you don't go around calling people blockheads).

Basically, for the sake of avoiding the audience making unfortunate connections the bad guys either have to be universally completely alien, or you can't rely on visual cues to separate them from the Good Guys.

[danielxcutter]

If the goal is for all the antagonists and their minions to be nasty folk it's important that they don't all share distinctive visual traits. It's difficult for people to not make connections based on visual cues.

If all nasty people are ugly in a story then a sizeable amount of the audience will read it as "Ugly=Evil". Same for skin colours and other traits that would make them stand out from the Good Guys. Of course, floating cubes wouldn't have this issue, but primarily because "Cube=Evil" doesn't really have any downsides to it (as long as you don't go around calling people blockheads).

Basically, for the sake of avoiding the audience making unfortunate connections the bad guys either have to be universally completely alien, or you can't rely on visual cues to separate them from the Good Guys.

"B-b-but they were all wearing black and red armor!"
"Do you have any idea how much cheaper that makes it?"

[Shadowknight12]

Are you speaking now of the text of LotR, or of portrayal of orcs and their equivalents in pop culture at large?

I'm speaking about the orcs you were discussing in your post, whichever they might be.

[Lemarc]

I'm speaking about the orcs you were discussing in your post, whichever they might be.

The orcs in LotR talk like English country lads and, of course, have no visuals. They're scarcely physically described at all. I'm unsure what tropes or aesthetics you're referring to. In regards to pop culture orcs you'll get no argument from me.

[hamishspence]

The orcs in LotR talk like English country lads and, of course, have no visuals. They're scarcely physically described at all.

The half-orcs are consistently described in a problematic fashion though:

The hobbits took no notice of the inquisitive heads that peeped out of doors, or popped over walls and fences, as they passed. But as they drew near to the further gate, Frodo saw a dark ill-kept house behind a thick hedge: the last house in the village. In one of the windows he caught a glimpse of a sallow face with sly, slanting eyes; but it vanished at once.
'So that's where that southerner is hiding!' he thought. 'He looks more than half like a goblin.'

I saw the enemy go- endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them mounted on great wolves. And there were battalions of Men, too. Many of their carried torches, and in the flare I could see their faces. Most of them were ordinary men, rather tall and dark-haired, and grim but not particularly evil-looking. But there were some others that were horrible: man-high, but with goblin-faces, sallow, leering, squint-eyed. Do you know, they reminded me of that Southerner at Bree; only he was not so obviously orc-like as most of these were."
"I thought of him too," said Aragorn. "We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep. It seems plain now that that Southerner was a spy of Saruman's; but whether he was working with the Riders, or for Saruman alone, I do not know. It is difficult with these evil folk to know when they are in league, and when they are cheating one another."

But in the village of Bywater all the houses and holes were shut, and no one greeted them. They wondered at this, but they soon discovered the reason of it. When they reached The Green Dragon, the last house on the Hobbiton side, now lifeless and with broken windows, they were disturbed to see half a dozen large ill-favored Men lounging againest the inn-wall; they were squint-eyed and sallow faced.
'Like that friend of Bill Ferny's at Bree,' said Sam.
Like many that I saw at Isengard,' muttered Merry.

And one of Tolkien's letters makes it clear what's intended to be implied:

"The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." (Letter 210)

[pearl jam]

Problematic is used so often I've started to hate hearing it, but it's certainly fitting here.

The quotes from the story I recall, but the commentary one I don't recall and it's certainly not a good one.

[Lemarc]

The half-orcs are consistently described in a problematic fashion though:[/I]

I forgot about the half-orcs. Orcs are certainly an enemy tribe in LotR, a racially-defined group who are universally in service to the evil power. That in itself is a valid criticism, and has set a nasty trend in fantasy. The association with Asian phenotypes is extremely unfortunate. But beyond those admitted points, I don't think orcs in the story are presented with the usual trappings of "the other tribe". On the contrary, they speak like British enlisted men circa 1916, they gripe about their bosses, and they're convinced their enemy is evil; they feel very much "us".