Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
12-06-2004, 02:50 AM | #1 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
LotR -- Book 3 - Chapter 03 - The Uruk-Hai
We readers experience the events of this chapter through Pippin’s eyes, even beginning with his closed eyes! Dream and reality are almost one, and the situation brings on self-doubt comparable to Aragorn’s in the previous chapters. He feels useless, and the comparison to baggage makes me smile, with his hope that someone will come to claim them. He does wonder whether that would fit into the mission of the Fellowship, which indicates that he is thinking further than just his (and Merry’s) own good.
We get to know individual orcs in this chapter, both by their deeds and by their conversation. The theme of division among the foe shows up, something that will weaken both Saruman's and Sauron's forces throughout the story. Orc food and drink contrasts sharply with Elven lembas - and perhaps in advance with Ent draught. Pippin is the active hobbit in this chapter, with seemingly small heroic actions that save them in the end, with the unbidden vision of Strider prompting him to drop his Elven brooch, and with the idea of hinting to Grishnákh about the Ring. Merry, who was the planner at the beginning of their journey, is fairly passive. Their humorous conversation upon entering the forest is not only typically hobbitish, I think it is a typically British attitude they display there, and it continues to show up later, especially at Orthanc. The last two paragraphs are a narrative insertion, adding information that the two hobbits no longer saw. There are many interesting themes to be discussed here – the orcs, of course, with their various characters and races; the obvious conflict in loyalty between the ones belonging to Saruman and to Sauron; the interaction between the hobbits and them, and between Pippin and Merry as well. Obviously, we see from Pippin’s point of view, as he is the active one, but why did Tolkien choose him, not Merry, for that role? What can we recognize about his development?
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
12-06-2004, 05:39 AM | #2 | |||
Laconic Loreman
|
I wonder if Tolkien met to create these parallels, or not, but I've thought of the connections between this chapter, and the previous chapter. Previous chapter, Aragorn and Eomer beging to form this long lasting friendship, and a long lasting friendship between their respected kingdoms, Gondor and Rohan. In the Uruk-hai chapter we get to see how good the two bad guys work together, Sauron and Saruman. Sauron's Northerners vs. Sarumans Uruk-hai, and it doesn't work out as well. I think this stresses the fact that the "evil" forces aren't united, the orc frays that break out between the Northerners and Isengarders, show that they don't trust one another, and are plotting to undermine eachother while trying to fight the "good" side. The "good" side unites in the previous chapter, and now Gondor has a willing ally in Rohan, and vice-versa.
We also get a sense that Eru is watching this struggle from above. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
|||
12-06-2004, 08:59 AM | #3 | ||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
This chapter struck me on my first reading as a kind of ‘linking chapter’, simply a way of accounting for Merry & Pippin’s necessary appearance in Fangorn, but obviously there’s much more than that going on. This is the first (only?) time in the whole legendarium where we see Orcs as more than simple ‘monsters’. We see, for instance, that they aren’t simply stupid thugs (well, not all them).
Forgive this long quote from Brian Rosebury’s Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon: Quote:
Quote:
This shows how wrong critics like the ones mentioned by Rosebury are: ‘critics who have convinced themselves that the Orcs’ malign utterances betray Tolkien’s disdain for ‘mere working people’’ (ie John Carey in the Listener). These orcs are not members of the uneducated ‘working class’; they are educated thugs. Why is it necessary for Tolkien to make this so clear - possibly because we are about to witness the wholesale slaughter of these creatures by our ‘heroes’, but more likely because Tolkien wants us to understand the real nature of ‘Evil’ - that Evil is not something that arises from ignorance, from not really knowing what you’re doing. Evil beings in Middle earth areaware of what they’re doing, & its that very awareness, that deliberate infliction of suffering on others in full consciousness, that makes it necessary for our ‘heroes’ to stand against them - its a moral necessity to oppose that evil. This chapter brings that home - there can be no sympathy for the ‘bad guys’ from now on. This isn’t a battle between two groups, both of whom are ‘morally ‘equal’ but on opposite sides’. The ‘Evil’ side is not ‘Evil’ simply because its the side our ‘heroes’ are fighting - its not an ‘abusive’ label they’ve applied to their enemy. The Evil side is Evil, & there is a moral imperative in operation. |
||||
12-06-2004, 09:26 AM | #4 | |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Quote:
With a proviso - some orks are not only intelligent, but have free will as well. I suppose that almost all named orks in the story fall under latter category - i.e. Grishnakh, Gorbag, Shagrat, Ugluk (the latter more so, as, allegedly, he's a 'man-ork' (or ork-man)). And such a proviso brings a loadful of difficulties about. But about difficulties, later.
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
|
12-06-2004, 01:16 PM | #5 | |||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
This chapter tells us something of the nature of Hobbits. In dire circumstances, being abducted by a band of creatures straight out of a Hobbiton fireside horror story, Merry and Pippin still manage to show how brave they are. Boromir 88 has already noted how clever Hobbits can be, so I won't go over that again, but I also noticed what strength of character Hobbits can show.
Here Pippin is afraid and in pain, but he has the presence of mind instead to focus on what is going on about him and listen to what the orcs are saying: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|||
12-06-2004, 02:38 PM | #6 | |||
Laconic Loreman
|
I also wanted to note again Boromir's horn, we first got a description in Moria.
Quote:
Quote:
Lastly I wanted to point out the power of the lembas. Reminds me a lot of what we discussed in the Lothlorien chapter. Quote:
Pippin was the first to come back to the present.
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
|||
12-06-2004, 04:14 PM | #7 | ||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The World That Never Was
Posts: 1,232
|
My resounding memory of this chapter is racing out of the theatre to read it after seeing Fellowship for the first time! I'd not finished reading Fellowship yet, and was very distressed at seeing my favourite characters being carted off by a pack of Uruk-hai. Since then, this chapter has been a favourite of mine.
I whole-heartedly agree with Lalwendë on all counts. This chapter certainly shows the inate strength and tenacity possessed by all hobbits. (And proof to all the fangirls who don't appreciate Merry and Pippin! ) Quote:
Quote:
Abedithon le, ~ Saphy ~
__________________
The Hitchhiking Ghost |
||
12-06-2004, 07:17 PM | #8 | |
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,589
|
Quote:
That is about as final and desperate as it gets.
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
|
12-06-2004, 08:34 PM | #9 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania, WtR, passed Sarn Gebir: Above the rapids (1239 miles) BtR, passed Black Rider Stopping Place (31 miles)
Posts: 1,548
|
"please believe me when I say that it was not out of kindness: that's not even one of Ugluk's faults."
(rather reminds you of Mordred's song "The Seven Deadly Virtues" in the musical Camelot). --------------------------------- Tolkien does a rather effective job of making orcs both very bad guys who have to be terminated with extreme prejudice, but also bits of showing them as individuals with their own (however warped) hopes and dreams, especially in a later chapter with Rosenkrantz and Gildenstern (Captains Gorbag and Shagrat). Although, of course, Grishnakh is a deliciously evil orc, with an echo or two of Smaug, the sort of character that would have made a great bit role in a movie if played differently (say by Dennis Hopper).
__________________
Aure Entuluva! |
12-06-2004, 08:57 PM | #10 | ||||||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Of Hobbitses and Orcses ...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This aspect of Pippin is explored in more depth in this wonderful thread started by Kalimac: Pippin's Sixth Sense. As suggested there, there seems to be a link here with Pippin's curious attraction to the well in Moria and his fascination with the Palantir of Orthanc. In any event, it seems clear to me that Pippin works far more on intuition, whereas Merry is the more practical of the two - as indicated by his studies in Rivendell. And so on to the Orcs. In this Chapter, we have some wonderful characterisations of them. We have the 'Isengarders', typified by Uglúk - a proud, arrogant and brutal leader. In Grishnákh, we have a sly, calculating and chilling individual. And the ‘Northeners’ display the more cowardly and less organised aspects of Orcish character. In these Orcs, and those at Cirith Ungol, we have our only real glimpse of the ‘character‘ of evil. Sauron remains a dark, remote and shadowy presence throughout, while we only really meet Saruman in one Chapter (prior to the destruction of the Ring). We are not privy to any discussions involving the Balrog, and we only see the Nazgul and the Mouth of Sauron interacting with those who seek to oppose them. Quote:
But, that being the case, the question arises: Do Orcs have any choice in being evil? Oops! There it is. Can opened and worms wriggling everywhere. This is an issue that has been explored on may threads (Inherent Evil and Evil things to name but two), but it is one which still troubles me. It seems to me that Orcs in Middle-earth are inherently evil. While they might delight in their evil deeds, they have no choice but to act evilly. Who ever heard of a good Orc? And while it is conceivable that such a being might exist, it would seem to fly in the face of the way that they are presented throughout Tolkien's (published) works. Tolkien himself wrote: Quote:
And it seems that this is an issue which troubled Tolkien too in subsequent years, since (as I understand it) he began to re-think his ideas on the nature of Orcs - suggesting, for example, that they were in fact 'mere beats' directed by a greater evil will. But this idea does not square at all with the characterisation of the Orcs here and in the Cirith Ungol Chapters which add great 'colour' to the story and which, for the reasons that davem states, are important elements in helping us to understand just what it is that our protagonists are up against. Any ideas? A few further thoughts before I go. Do we see 'Orcish magic' in action here? While clearly not as wholesome or as pleasant, the Orc draught and Uglúk's medicine would appear to share some of the same properties as Elvish provisions. The draught revives the Hobbits and gives them a temporary burst of great stamina, while the medicine heals Merry's wound with unnatural speed. Are they perhaps the remnants of Elvish craft retained by the Orcs, albeit twisted versions (assuming that Orcs were, in their origins, corrupted Elves - wherein lies another can o' worms). The observation that Merry carried a brown scar to the end of his days is an interesting one, as it suggests to the reader that Merry is going to survive for some time yet. Although I never picked up on it before seeing it pointed out on another thread, it might somewhat lessen the suspense for the perceptive first-time reader. And, finally, I am impressed with Tolkien's description of the tactics used by the Rohirrim against the Orcs - the way that they drive them along the line of the river, surround them and then tempt them into wasting their arrows while minimising their own losses. He is similarly effective in describing ’medieval’ tactics elsewhere (the Battles of the Fords of Isen in Unfinished Tales, for example). I wonder how much he had studied tactics, since he seems well-versed in the subject. Possibly, despite the very different nature of the war, cavalry tactics remained part of the training regime during his service in WW1. Or perhaps he picked up his knowledge in this regard from his studies of epic literature.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 12-06-2004 at 09:07 PM. |
||||||||
12-06-2004, 10:53 PM | #11 |
Scion of The Faithful
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The brink, where hope and despair are akin. [The Philippines]
Posts: 5,312
|
Can o' worms.
This thing troubles me in this chapter:
Why is the badge of Saruman white? Why not a rainbow? Or anything multi-coloured?
__________________
フェンリス鴨 (Fenrisu Kamo) The plot, cut, defeated. I intend to copy this sig forever - so far so good...
|
12-07-2004, 03:24 AM | #12 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
I suppose it is white due to tradition - Saruman was white for so long, he grew accustomed to the title.
Besides, the white is more close to colourless, which is what Saruman, in fact, became, than any particular colour. Orcs re: Ahem. That's why, in a sense, difficulties are solved by supposition that Orkish leaders (as opposed to whole mass of 'beast-orcs') are, at least, not depraved of free will, but it does raise another difficulty – it is unmerciful to slaughter them, as they (assuming they have free will) are equals by rank of 'Good Chaps' And Tolkien obviously tries to solve the problem by a side exit. See: 1. Grishnákh is killed by stray arrow, following his own evil actions (Chance. Maybe even a suicide?) 2. Uglúk is slain in fair fight, as equal, by [dismounted] Éomer. 3. Shagrat and Gorbag kill each other off Beast-orcs, requiring direct control of Sauron’s will, disperse by themselves once there is no Sauron around to drive them, and ‘free-willed’ leaders are almost always given a chance – I can’t claim its truth, I can’t back myself up, but I always had a feeling that if only Uglúk prayed for mercy, he had a chance of being spared. Some meditations on the subject can be found on the main site: All About Orcs
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
12-07-2004, 06:52 AM | #13 |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,062
|
The Hobbit Draft
This chapter also opens up the possibility for fascinating discourse on orcish draught.
As has been mentioned, this chapter is illuminative in several areas. Not only does it shed light on the true nature of the orcs – I agree, it also creates many further questions, but knowing more about something necessarily brings realisation that there is more to know – but it also expands and develops the character(s) of the hitherto subsidiary Hobbits. --As an aside here, this is one piece of theatrical editing that the cinematic version failed on. The EE release shows M & P fighting alongside the doomed Boromir, with some skill and bravery, as the book suggests. The theatrical release, unfortunately, shows them practically jumping into the arms of their captors. -- So now we know, that not only can Hobbits fight a bit, which is a needed set-up for later acts of heroism (Pelennor et al), as previously it had seemed that a halfling would be redundant in a real battle, but that they can think practically at times of crisis. Pippin’s development is the greater here, which I think is indicative of JRRT’s intention in this chapter to develop these two – and he thought Merry had had the better build-up of the two already. The dropped-brooch scenario has always been a favourite moment of mine, as it shows the Hobbits in a rather different light.
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
12-07-2004, 08:46 AM | #14 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
Why the White Hand? I’ve been trying to figure that one out for a while, and came across a few dead ends. I know it is a symbol in Islam, and it is also related to Moses as a prophet. Unfortunately I have never read the Koran nor do I have much knowledge of the symbolism surrounding Moses. However, I have found that the symbol of the wide open hand was commonly used. In a text from 1898 entitled The Magic of the Horse-Shoe with other folk lore notes, I found the following interesting passages: Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Last edited by Lalwendë; 12-07-2004 at 01:22 PM. Reason: putting something in italics because I forgot to first time round... |
||
12-07-2004, 09:34 AM | #15 | |||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,989
|
They wriggle in; the wriggle out; they wriggle all about.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But now I must borrow that can opener from Lalwendë. Given Tolkien's great stature as a philologist and his knowledge of ancient myths, what are we to make of his choice of the name Uruk-hai? The name Uruk, you see, belongs to a very ancient and venerable city of old Sumer and Babylonia. The site actually is not far from the current city of Baghdad and, in fact, the name Iraq is derived from Uruk. There are some other interesting names in this link link to Uruk in the Wikipedia See particularly Sargon, the "first person in recorded history to create an empire," in ancient Turkey. Or even Lugalzagesi.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bêthberry; 12-07-2004 at 09:39 AM. Reason: That dratted (sp.) |
|||
12-07-2004, 11:23 AM | #16 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Worms, worms everywhere ...
Quote:
Also, I am afraid that I find the suggestion that rank and file Orcs are 'mere beasts' unconvincing. Even the 'minor' Orcs that we meet in this Chapter have some character and, more importantly, express thoughts disobedient to the 'will' of their masters. While it is possible to see the Orcs of Mordor and Isengard as being, to some degree, under the control of a 'greater will' (and there is evidence to support this at the Black Gate, when the Ring is destroyed), the 'Northerners' seem to be far more independently minded (and, hence, disorganised). Their purpose in joinng with Uglúk was to avenge the death of their kin in Moria. Like the Goblins in The Hobbit, they seem to be far more 'out for themselves'. Orcs are a great device. They provide a cruel and brutal enemy over whom we need not concern ourselves when they are slaughtered in great numbers (and Grishnákh was speared intentionally by one of the Riders as he fled) because they are inherently evil. Yet, in a world where morality and goodness are derived from a single, omnipotent Deity, they (for me at least) present more difficult problems when one analyses their nature in greater depth. Quote:
I can see what you mean. But the passage is rather delightful, and speaks highly of these two redoubtable little fellows when one considers all that they have gone through: kickings, whippings, rough handling, enforced running at high speed, death threats and worse, and (perhaps worst of all) long periods of close acquaintance with the backs of Orcish heads. And it thoroughly bears out the observation made in the Prologue concerning the innate toughness of Hobbits: Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 12-07-2004 at 11:26 AM. Reason: Because Orcs are not viscous ... |
|||
12-07-2004, 01:53 PM | #17 | ||||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
From the beginning we see how Hobbits can be tough. In The Hobbit, Gandalf says of Bilbo:
Quote:
Quote:
Now for the wriggling, wormy topic of Orcs. Davem says: Quote:
Finally, picking up on what Boromir 88 says, it makes you wonder exactly what was in Lembas, doesn't it : Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||||
12-07-2004, 02:06 PM | #18 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
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. These don't seem to be the same Orcs we encounter in the Silmarillion. But do they have free will? And if they do, why don't they use it to behave in a more 'humane' way. The orcs in this chapter are not stupid, 'robotic' brutes (as in the movie), they are inteligent, reasoning thugs. What interests me in this context is Tolkien' use of the term in relation to human beings - there's an example in George Sayer's essay 'Reflections of JRR Tolkien' (in the 1992 Centenary Collection: Quote:
Are we getting an insight into Tolkien's own moral value system here? Is he showing us that the Orcs do have the capacity for moral thought, but have consciously rejected the 'Good' - & more importantly, did he believe that some human beings do exactly the same thing? Yet, not all human beings behave in an Orcish fashion, but [i]all/i] Orcs do. I suppose it coould be argued that Tolkien isn't presenting us here with a fully developed race of beings, good, bad & indifferent - as he is with Elves & Men - but with a 'type' of human being he had encountered in 'real' life. 'Orcs' are the 'enemy' for Tolkien, because in a sense they were his primary world enemy in a mythological setting. They were the 'chain saw wielding tree-murderers' he heard while walking that day with George Sayer. And the more interesting, but more difficult, question is, did Tolkien believe those foresters were equally beyond redemption? Perhaps that's the real 'moral' question here: not how an entire race could be iredeemably evil & deserving of death, but what they symbolised for Tolkien, & whether he felt some people really were 'Orcs'. Perhaps if we can answer that we can make a stab at the 'Orcish question'. Elves & Men are aspects of the 'Human' as Tolkien said - & we can accept that easily enough, but if Orcs aren't simply the 'bad guys', the necessary 'two dimensional' enemy for his heroes to slaughter without worrying about the morality of the act (as they certainly deserved what they got), but are also an aspect of the 'human' for Tolkien what does that tell us about him? |
||
12-07-2004, 04:42 PM | #19 | |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Mainly about Orks with Fëar
Quote:
What is calculable, though*is that if theory be true, Grishnákh's still slain by chance - indeed even if Rohirrim knew about such fine distinctions between individual orks as to discern which were beasts and which 'human', the different action (i.e, taking Grishnákh captive, per instance) would not have been possible unless initiative were on Grishnákh's side, if only he surrendered (So your remark about not seeing such 'orks freely choosing to be good' around is to the ten point) And again, (with provisos and desclaimers - its a personal theory (speculation), I have arguments pro and contra, but it can not become axiom (by me and now at least), it just seems plausible), I may dare to suppose that, as Elves, on one hand, may be seen as a reflection of Unfallend Humanity, so the Orcs, on another (apart from those of beast origin, i.e. majority) may be, from one angle, be seen of what ultimately Fallen Humanity may be like - not, finally, irredeemable, but utterly unable to repent on their own (at least unless released from their hroar. And as hroar affect fëar, the repentance is not possible unless fëar is let off) Or, to dive into analogies (the vice I'm prone to) - Suppose there is a public pool near my premises where everybody has a right to swim. Another supposition would be that I'm legless and armless depraved invalid. Now, having a right to swim in a pool I lack capacity to do it, and though my rights are not infringed upon at all, nobody yet have seen me near aforementioned container of liquid, ever. So, beast orks (majority of them all) lack right and capacity, 'human' orks have right but lack capacity But I seem to be straying into things this chapter does, indeed, hint about, but in so an obscure way, you won't guess it unless told So hush now ___ * this paragraph being 'Spear re:' entry at the same time (and yes, o'course - first arrow just made him drop the scimitar. And yes, I know Shagrat and Gorbag did not literally kill each other off, Shagrat surviving Slips of the tongue, my precous-s-s, it was-s-sn't we, it's-s-ss all Baggins-sses fault, yes-s-ss. my precious-ss) . But if seriously, my apologies - Fey (haste) mood was upon me, but now it passed...
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
|
12-07-2004, 05:27 PM | #20 | |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
Quote:
I came across this interesting bit [while reading Joseph Campbell] about an ogre figure in South African mythology called the Hai-uri (very close to Uruk-hai, inverted, eh?). “This monster is a hunter of men, whom it tears to shreds with cruel teeth as long as fingers. The creature is said to hunt in packs.” Compare with, “We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat.” |
|
12-07-2004, 07:12 PM | #21 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
HerenIstarion wrote:
Quote:
The Saucepan Man wrote: Quote:
I think that the fictional "truth" of the matter must simply be that Orcs do have free will but due to the strength of the external influences upon them none (or at least none that we hear of) choose to be good. It is an unfortunate fact that this kind of thing does happen - there have been situations where large populations of people have committed or allowed clearly immoral acts (like the Holocaust). The case of the Orcs is certainly an exaggeration of this, but after all this is a fantasy world. I do admit, though, that that answer is not entirely satisfactory, and I think that the nature of Orcs is one of the few real foundational problems in the legendarium. Davem wrote: Quote:
|
|||
12-07-2004, 09:03 PM | #22 | ||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Just a quick post to highlight some more passages from the Letters relevant to the current discussion of Orcs.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||||
12-08-2004, 03:06 AM | #23 | |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Quote:
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"). Assumption that orkish leaders were exeption is, well, an assumption - but based on their obvious independence, and on 'historical precedent" - Boldog. Carven knife-handle of later chapters, which Aragorn 'held with disgust" adding up to an assumption (indeed, are beasts capable of Art?) cheers
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
|
12-08-2004, 03:19 AM | #24 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Did the writing of episodes like this one in LotR change the Orcs of the Sil - was this change written back into the Silmarillion? |
|
12-08-2004, 06:33 AM | #25 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
12-08-2004, 07:58 AM | #26 |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,062
|
If one were really to take the argument of repenting orcs seriously, you would then have to think about what would happen to such an orc. It seems unlikely that their immediate society would tolerate such reckless good behaviour and such a person would doubtless, and probably literally, be out on an ear in no time.
The same is roughly applicable in reverse to the Elves. Thus, it is unlikely that such characters would turn up at any major events, being dead, or in hiding/exile. This may be glib, but it is less awkward than writing in the doubting orc who was somehow embraced by his bloodthirsty brethren.
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
12-08-2004, 08:03 AM | #27 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
|
Quote:
you were leading to the point I was going to make - that, free will or no, orcs did represent an aspect of mankind through their actions externally. To me they also represented a legacy of unfulfilled destiny. The players in LOTR being the inheritors of a failed struggle that they must resolve. The failure of elves, men, and Vala. |
|
12-08-2004, 08:40 AM | #28 | |||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,989
|
The anxiety of influence
Quote:
Quote:
I would find it incredible if Tolkien was not familiar with Gilgamesh even if he did not like it or was uninterested in its particular world vision of creation myths. (Which personal taste he is of course allowed.) After all, it contains a Flood narrative that is probably one of the literary precursors for the Noah story and we know the significance of flood narratives for Tolkien. The clay tablets and the deciphering of the cuneiform alphabet were an English find, part of the great hoard of the British Museum's artefacts. The deciphering led to greater knowledge of ancient languages. More specifically, the final quest of Gilgamesh is a quest for an elixir of immortality, in order to escape the doom of death which took his dearest and greatest friend. And besides the name "Uruk", here are some of the gods of Gilgamesh: Anu, the sky god and father of the gods; Ea, who Stephen Mitchell (the latest translator of the text) calls "The cleverest of the gods, god of intellect, creation, wisdom, magic, and medicine"; and Lugalbanda, said to be either the father of Gilgamesh or the guardian deity of Uruk. Are these names coincidental? Who knows for sure? Still, I think that even if Tolkien took "Uruk-hai" from the South African tale, it suggests a certain degree of insensitivity to the Uruk of the Gilgamesh quest (if he knew it). Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bêthberry; 12-08-2004 at 08:44 AM. Reason: codes again, always codes |
|||
12-08-2004, 09:08 AM | #29 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Perhaps there is some 'echo' of the episode in the epic where Gilgamesh & Enkidu fight & slay the monster Humbaba in the Last Alliance union of Gil-galad & Elendil & their defeat of Sauron..
|
12-08-2004, 01:02 PM | #30 | ||
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Playing in Peoria
Posts: 35
|
Orc Society
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Bado go Eru, Aldarion |
||
12-08-2004, 02:26 PM | #31 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
12-08-2004, 03:39 PM | #32 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
|
Anti-Wisdom?
Quote:
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. |
|
12-08-2004, 05:54 PM | #33 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Pity the poor Orc ...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But there are, as you say, no easy answers.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||
12-08-2004, 09:51 PM | #34 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
HerenIstarion wrote:
Quote:
Davem wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||
12-09-2004, 12:03 AM | #35 |
Scion of The Faithful
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The brink, where hope and despair are akin. [The Philippines]
Posts: 5,312
|
Verse-less Chapters.
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.
__________________
フェンリス鴨 (Fenrisu Kamo) The plot, cut, defeated. I intend to copy this sig forever - so far so good...
|
12-09-2004, 04:26 AM | #36 | |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
|
12-09-2004, 07:53 AM | #37 | |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Playing in Peoria
Posts: 35
|
Orcs in the Appendix
Here's another data point for our discussion of the nature of orcs, albeit a small one. I finally finished reading the appendices of LotR last night, and came across an interesting sentance - one I would have totally overlooked if not for our discussion here.
Quote:
This is, I think, the only place in the main work that Tolkien equates orc-behavior with man-behavior (the letter mention the cutting of trees, or course). I think that when Tolkien created the orcs as opponents of the elves and men and servants of the enemy, he wasn't considering their origins, which is one of the reasons they troubled him so in his later years. Finally, I'm sure that we have all had the experience of hearing someone who uses the f-word in every sentance, and the "dreary and repetitive" is an apt description.
__________________
Bado go Eru, Aldarion |
|
12-09-2004, 08:24 AM | #38 | ||
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
I must admit that I have always found the discussion about orcs and free will to be a bit of a red herring – I mean, really, there are no such things as orcs, so how can the question of free will even be relevant? They are orcs/monsters, so they are bad, just as Elves are good. These are figures from fairy-tale and ancient legend, not historical figures or even characters from a religious tract (like the Bible) being used as the basis of a new belief system. In Beowulf Grendel, Grendel’s Dam and the Dragon are the monsters, they are evil, and thus to be destroyed by good. I really see the same thing with the orcs – I don’t know if it’s ever come up in the Downs, but I don’t recall seeing anyone wonder about the free will or ‘redeemability’ of Smaug: he’s a sentient being, and one who, unlike the orcs, isn’t even a servant or slave of Sauron (nor even made/marred by him). If anything, dragons would apparently be more likely to have the possibility of redemption, but we don’t put ourselves into contortions about whether there is a chance for a good dragon. Dragons are bad, dragons need to die – and not because they have freely chosen evil after some metaphysical/moralizing struggle, but because they are monsters.
The fairy-tale monstrous quality of the orcs is evident in this chapter: they are disgusting and cruel, they are monstrous-imitations of the worse aspects of human nature, and they are – in the end – self-defeating. The orcs kill more of each other than they ever do of the Men they encounter (by my count, about a dozen orcs are killed by other orcs in this chapter, while only three men go down). Like all fairy-tale monsters they are a device: they represent in their cruelty an aspect of humanity (not human beings), and even serve, in an unconscious way, the forces of good, by bringing Merry and Pippin to Fangorn. I think the only reason we get bogged down in the debates over the orcs is that they are so much more human-appearing than dragons. They look more like us than dragons, they speak more like us: they are more clearly, perhaps, reflections of us and thus we want to think of them in terms that we apply to ourselves. But this is where I think the red herring comes in, as Tolkien was not writing a story in which his fairy-tale creatures are meant to be seen as individuals, but as part of a whole. That is, orcs are not little versions of humans, but are part of a fabric that explores aspects of humanity. In this chapter, a small piece of that fabric is revealed in the comparison of hobbits and orcs. The previous chapter presented Aragorn as a Man emerging from the mists of legend and stepping into history. He claimed his role as King and advanced his war against Sauron. In this chapter, we get a look at the ‘foot soldiers’ of that War. In the conflict between good and evil in Middle-earth, the primary opponents are Sauron/Saruman and Aragorn/Gandalf. But the beings who do the actual fighting and combat in this war are the orcs on one side and the lesser men, and hobbits, on the other. We’ve already been introduced to the Rohirrim, but in this chapter we see the hobbits (who will bring the Ents into the war with Saruman, and the Ring to destruction). It’s interesting that the only other time we see orcs, up close and personal, is in relation to Sam and Frodo: the orcs never appear on their own but beside and in relation to the hobbits. The point is, I don’t think that the role of the orcs in LotR is to be considered in isolation, but as foils and in relation to the hobbits. It’s a natural pairing: just as you will never see a good orc who deserves to be allowed to live his life, you will never see an evil hobbit who deserves to be destroyed. Their cultures, their way of speaking, their attitudes toward nature and other peoples are all directly opposite to one another. The previous chapter is the first in the book not to include a hobbit, and that is significant I think, for without their perspective, things tend to get somewhat stilted and even a bit over the top – very High and not very close to the lived reality and earthiness that we find in Hobbits. I’m not decrying this, for it is this heightened tone that allows Aragorn to move into his heroic identity, but I find this chapter and the return to hobbitishness a welcome relief. It’s already been noted how Merry and Pippin talk about hobbity things in this chapter, but one of these things is their fondness for stories. Bethberry has already quoted this bit, but I shall do so again: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
||
12-09-2004, 08:40 AM | #39 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
12-09-2004, 08:56 AM | #40 | |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Quote:
This is the kind of red-herring that I'm talking about, for I'm sure that someone is going to address these sorts of questions -- in effect, to attempt to probe the mind of Eru/God, when what I think we need to be focusing on is the relation enacted in the story between the various elements: in this case, orcs/monsters and hobbits/heroes in their fairy-tale adventure.
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
|
|
|