How Would it Be?

[drigel]

As I cast off the Waistcoat of Cannonicity (keeping the shiny buttons for future use), I have been prodded to start a thread that was initially inspired by Beth's musings regarding how history always is written by the winners. Lets go for a mind bending exercise. I take from the Waistcoat my quoting of the Brin article:

Brin on T

I wonder about how the Redbook (or BlackBook) would have read if perhaps Gollum was the author, instead of Bilbo/Frodo. How would Sauron lay down the history? He has his 9 walkers/riders. He has his undersized Hero. There certainly was a sense of "racial purity" at least among the humans on the opposing side of Sauron. At least he could claim "... all the despised colors of humanity, and all the lower classes." were among his ranks.

Numenorians as invading colonials... elves as Time Control freaks....

Leaping on such tangents will lead you to ponder: "were the orcs really pure evil?"... Nazism certainly was considered evil, but was National Socialism in it's pure sense? ... Volkswagons?... Germans?

[Folwren]

I've considered this. I honestly don't believe that Sauron could have written a history and make it look good. It would be like the chap who wrote 'Inside the Third Reich'...he was on Hitler's side, but he couldn't make it look good. Sauron, of course, is the author of all the evil that would have happened, and he would have done his utmost to make it look alright in the end, but how can you turn what he would have done to make it look good?

Yes, winners do of write the history, but you have to consider what kind of history there would be if the winners that won were the loosers? In America people argue and argue over who was right and who was wrong during the Civil War...had the South won, what would they have been? America wouldn't be all one people right now, and....well, now adays there aren't slaves, but there would have been for some time longer, the people in the South weren't half as educated as those in North before the war, and would have remained uneducated after the war, if they had won. But they didn't win. The North did and the North wrote the history, got a lot of things wrong, true, but things are better because of it.

Or, you have the French Revolution. After it and during it, everyone saw the people putting to death all the aristocrats, acting as horrible, blood thirsty morons who had no right nor reason behind what they did! The Revolution pulled through, but the history they wrote is stained and black and no one thinks they're right.

So, my point being, even if Sauron should have won that war and written the history, it wouldn't have been able to be like the history the Union wrote after the Civil War, but would have appeared more like the one that the French wrote after their famous Revolution.

- - Folwren

(Did I answer the topic of this thread correctly? Is that you wanted to hear, or are you asking for some other sort of reply?)

[drigel]

Folwren - good points
I would say that since all the good Professor had for reference was a transcription of a hobbit (despite all the power and glory of the Reunified Kingdom), the only possible relic might be Sauron's personal memoirs.

Dear Diary,
Today I looked into that wretched elvish looking glass. To my horror, the false prophet-who-would-be-king appeared, demanding justice. Justice??? What right does that decendant of land stealing theives think he has? On top of that, he acutally took control of the device. Ugh - those dirty elves must have given him a master key....

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Folwren

I've considered this. I honestly don't believe that Sauron could have written a history and make it look good. It would be like the chap who wrote 'Inside the Third Reich'...he was on Hitler's side, but he couldn't make it look good. Sauron, of course, is the author of all the evil that would have happened, and he would have done his utmost to make it look alright in the end, but how can you turn what he would have done to make it look good?

Why would Sauron have been interested to try to justify his actions? If Sauron had written his view of the wars I don't believe that he would have tried to give a I'm-trying-to-make-the-world-a-better-place-speech. He was a selfish tyrant and I doubt that he would have given a tinker's dam of what others think of him and his motives.

There isn't an author who can write completely impartially. Even though two authors have exactly the same facts, a few adjectives can change the stories' feeling completely. Look at newspapers and news of wars, for example. Whose side is the author on? Is there a photograph of a wounded child or a triumphant tank? Also the readers always make their own interpretations of a text.

I wonder about how the Redbook (or BlackBook) would have read if perhaps Gollum was the author.

"Nasssty hobbitssess sstole our preciousss, yess they did!"

Folwren's RL examples are really good. How much does an author's own personality shine through of a historical survey? In addition that different writers may twist the facts as they please they also have their own distinctive writing styles. (Just for fun, you can check this thread: If LotR had been written by someone else.)

The books have been written in a manner that you can't really tell who the author is. We know it's Frodo because Tolkien told us. Though "Frodo's" version of LotR seems very neutral, a hobbit who has had to endure much pain and agony is doubtlessly rather biased. If LotR had really been written by Frodo and if it was our only source of information the question if "the orcs were really pure evil" would be more interesting and well worth of speculation. However, we have lots of other sources for knowledge of Middle-earth than LotR: UT and letters, for example. Another question could be, was Tolkien biased or did he just tell the "truth" about the War of the Ring?

[Child of the 7th Age]

I have been prodded to start a thread that was initially inspired by Beth's musings regarding how history always is written by the winners.

Good thread, drigel ! I think I will be the historical curmudgeon here and argue that Bb's maxim doesn't always hold. The reigning interpretation of an historical event or epoch is generally written by the "winners". But that isn't the case with the historical record as a whole. You frequently get chronicles, narratives, and interpretive studies that reflect the opinions of those whose cause (or interpretation) didn't win out. One splendid example of this is U.S. civil war history. The South has a tradition of producing wonderful historians, but their interpretation frequently differs from that of their northern counterparts, even today.

In the real world, the only time you totally lose the voice of the "losers" is when they are wholly illiterate, and simply can't produce a written document. Then we are reduced to studying physical data and "official" records that might shed some light on their condition and opinions.

The latter isn't true of Sauron's folk. While I can't see Orcs taking up the pen--it seems to be wholly contrary to their nature, I can imagine Sauron and Saruman, especially the latter, writing down their thoughts. Perhaps it would be letters or a private diary rather than a narrative written for public consumption. Unfortunately, except in the pages of fan fiction, we do not have access to such documents, either ones that would be termed "original" or "secondary" sources.

There is a reason for this that goes back to Tolkien's personal beliefs about goodness and evil in the world. Both in the actual narrative of the LotR and in his personal letters, there are indications that Tolkien felt it wasn't too wise to dabble too deeply in the study of "evil". Otherwise, one might end up in Saruman's shoes. Given JRRT's personal values, there is no way the author would ever have produced an extensive narrative or record that reflected the experiences of the "losers" of the late Third Age.


There is another way of looking at this, however. I think we are oversimplifying things if we only speak of "winners" and "losers". There are many other voices in the historical record, and these voices are not identical. Just take a look at Silm. Although the translation is supposedly by Bilbo, the dominent voice is that of the Elves. Their perspective colors what is put in and left out of the narrative. It also influences our view of other peoples, especially the Dwarves. Some of the most direct instances of the "human" voice occur in Morgoth's Ring, for example in the interchange between Andreth and Finrod. In LotR, by contrast, there is much more evidence of a hobbit perspective. In this respect, I would disagree with Dancing Spawn :

The books have been written in a manner that you can't really tell who the author is. We know it's Frodo because Tolkien told us. Though "Frodo's" version of LotR seems very neutral, a hobbit who has had to endure much pain and agony is doubtlessly rather biased.

I do think it's clear that there is a hobbit voice in LotR. Perhaps not on every page, but it is is especially evident in two places: the early chapters in the Shire and the experience in Minas Tirith and Rohan. If someone like Aragorn had written those later chapters, he would have taken much for granted because it was already familiar to him. For the hobbits, everything is new and exciting, and it is their perspective and detailed descriptions of Gondor (and Rohan) that are passed on to the reader, who is also a newcomer on the scene.

As far as "biased" goes.....this is what I would say. There is no such thing as "unbiased" history. It simply doesn't exist. Every history has an interpretation underlying it, and the same holds true for Tolkien. That he did not try to express the viewpoint of Sauron is not a shortcoming: it is part of his interpretation.

The line between writing "good" and "bad" history is very fine. Every historian is entitled to an interpretation. It is only when there is blatant distortion of the facts that we cross the line from history to propaganda. Tolkien, to my knowledge, did not do this (at least in the context of the world he created). And although we primarily have the ideas and viewpoints of the "good guys" in LotR, Tolkien was also careful to give us some hints about Boromir and Saruman, folks who weren't wholly in one or the other camp. (Indeed, the author even tells us that at one point Sauron was "good".)

My real desire is not to get the perspective of the "bad" Sauron. I truly think that would be boring, since it's more likely to read as simplistic propaganda rather than history. But I would love to be inside Saruman's head as he was gradually won over to the Shadow, or to experience Boromir's torment in deciding whether to try and snatch the Ring, or, best yet, Frodo's inner growth at the same time as he is being tempted by the Ring.

If we're going to have history written by a true baddie, my own preference would not be Sauron but a narrative composed by the Ring itself. That does have certain possibilities, and would answer any number of perplexing questions.

Cami ......like Bilbo.... back after a long journey on the road.

P.S. A side comment. Isn't it interesting how many of us (including me) love to play the baddies in RPG's? Is it our own human nature that lures us to an ivestigation of the dark side or a desire to fill in what Tolkien left out?

[drigel]

A Rings Journey, or Back and There Again... brilliant!

"...oh, I feel the pain - the longing to find a finger to house myself on.. to bring me home to my creator.."

I find the perspectives interesting. How would it really be? What did really happen? Instead of the Eye of the Enemy, would it be the All Seeing Eye? We have on of those already. Doesnt seem to scary...

[Bêthberry]

An a splendid return! Welcome back, wandering hobbit of the 7th Age.

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Good thread, drigel ! I think I will be the historical curmudgeon here and argue that Bb's maxim doesn't always hold. The reigning interpretation of an historical event or epoch is generally written by the "winners". But that isn't the case with the historical record as a whole. You frequently get chronicles, narratives, and interpretive studies that reflect the opinions of those whose cause (or interpretation) didn't win out. One splendid example of this is U.S. civil war history. The South has a tradition of producing wonderful historians, but their interpretation frequently differs from that of their northern counterparts, even today.

In the real world, the only time you totally lose the voice of the "losers" is when they are wholly illiterate, and simply can't produce a written document. Then we are reduced to studying physical data and "official" records that might shed some light on their condition and opinions.

. . .

There is a reason for this that goes back to Tolkien's personal beliefs about goodness and evil in the world. Both in the actual narrative of the LotR and in his personal letters, there are indications that Tolkien felt it wasn't too wise to dabble too deeply in the study of "evil". Otherwise, one might end up in Saruman's shoes. Given JRRT's personal values, there is no way the author would ever have produced an extensive narrative or record that reflected the experiences of the "losers" of the late Third Age.

There is another way of looking at this, however. I think we are oversimplifying things if we only speak of "winners" and "losers". There are many other voices in the historical record, and these voices are not identical. Just take a look at Silm. Although the translation is supposedly by Bilbo, the dominent voice is that of the Elves. Their perspective colors what is put in and left out of the narrative. It also influences our view of other peoples, especially the Dwarves. Some of the most direct instances of the "human" voice occur in Morgoth's Ring, for example in the interchange between Andreth and Finrod. In LotR, by contrast, there is much more evidence of a hobbit perspective.

. . .

I do think it's clear that there is a hobbit voice in LotR. Perhaps not on every page, but it is is especially evident in two places: the early chapters in the Shire and the experience in Minas Tirith and Rohan. If someone like Aragorn had written those later chapters, he would have taken much for granted because it was already familiar to him. For the hobbits, everything is new and exciting, and it is their perspective and detailed descriptions of Gondor (and Rohan) that are passed on to the reader, who is also a newcomer on the scene.

As far as "biased" goes.....this is what I would say. There is no such thing as "unbiased" history. It simply doesn't exist. Every history has an interpretation underlying it, and the same holds true for Tolkien. That he did not try to express the viewpoint of Sauron is not a shortcoming: it is part of his interpretation.

The line between writing "good" and "bad" history is very fine. Every historian is entitled to an interpretation. It is only when there is blatant distortion of the facts that we cross the line from history to propaganda. Tolkien, to my knowledge, did not do this (at least in the context of the world he created). And although we primarily have the ideas and viewpoints of the "good guys" in LotR, Tolkien was also careful to give us some hints about Boromir and Saruman, folks who weren't wholly in one or the other camp. (Indeed, the author even tells us that at one point Sauron was "good".)

My real desire is not to get the perspective of the "bad" Sauron. I truly think that would be boring, since it's more likely to read as simplistic propaganda rather than history. But I would love to be inside Saruman's head as he was gradually won over to the Shadow, or to experience Boromir's torment in deciding whether to try and snatch the Ring, or, best yet, Frodo's inner growth at the same time as he is being tempted by the Ring.

If we're going to have history written by a true baddie, my own preference would not be Sauron but a narrative composed by the Ring itself. That does have certain possibilities, and would answer any number of perplexing questions.

Cami ......like Bilbo.... back after a long journey on the road.

P.S. A side comment. Isn't it interesting how many of us (including me) love to play the baddies in RPG's? Is it our own human nature that lures us to an ivestigation of the dark side or a desire to fill in what Tolkien left out?

I wouldn't at all disagree, Child, that there are many exceptions to the general statement that the victors write history. Your example of the South's continuing presence in the narrative about the American Civil War is one good example. EDIT: I would, however, suggest that in part the Southern perspective was able to survive because the administrative and geographical parameters that existed before the war were maintained after the war, despite the burnings of cities and towns. Northerners did not arrive en mass to become the legislators of the South nor were the boundaries of the states gerrymandered. More than just literacy assures survival.

Nor is literacy alone enough to ensure survival. END OF EDT For example, after the Norman Invasion, much of the Old English record was lost. OE manuscripts--as I'm sure you know--were often torn apart and used to create spines of Middle English manuscripts. The OE corpus we have today is a much diminished one from what we can glean existed before 1066. It is my understanding that it was only with the development of an historical sense in the 19th Century that the OE records began to be salvaged in any appreciable extent. EDIT Here, Tolkien was in his element as part of the historical rediscovery of the pre-Norman era.END OF EDIT

Of course, the even earlier records of the Celts and the original British inhabitants, who predated the Danish and Germanic invasions, have been lost. I'm not sure how extensive literacy was or whether there was a class which preserved their records, but the Christians did a good job of eradicating pagan records, a habit which persisted until the mid 20th Century, as evidenced by the efforts in my country to make the potlach illegal and to penalise any First Nations people who maintained the old rituals. Children were even taken out of their parents' homes and sent to residential schools to be educated in Christian ways. Which fate I suppose is preferable to that of the Boetiuk Indians of Newfoundland who were hunted and killed. We do have records of the witch trials because we have been able to go back and find evidence. But the point remains that many voices have been lost and must be retrieved by later generations.

Yet this is to go off topic, so let me return to my thoughts about Tolkien on the historical record. One of the points about LotR which fascinates me is this very idea of trying to make Good dramatically interesting and to touch only in the most indirect way upon the thoughts of the 'baddies'. I'm sure Tolkien was aware of the pitfall Milton made in Paradise Lost of making Satan more interesting than Adam and Eve and the other Angels. It is almost a truism among some sets that Good does not make good dramatic potential. I suppose this was one of the reasons for the changes made to Faramir's character for the movie trilogies.

I would agree that an exploration of Saruman's downfall would be fascinating; it is too facile, for my tastes, simply to be told that his desire for arcane knowledge was his downfall; I am made too uncomfortably aware of the traditional Catholic arguments against, for instance, the education of women and the teaching of science and math. (When I say this, I don't wish to insult those who follow Catholicism; I will simply say this is my opinion based on some of my reading of the 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia.) But where I think this adage about history being written by the winners comes true in LotR lies in the depiction of the Easterlings, the men of Harad, even the Dunlendings. Of course this is easy to complain about! How much longer would the book have been to include their full histories.

Your points about the RPGs is interesting, as I can point to Fordim's games in The Shire and Rohan for my own interest here. But the story of the Ring itself! Now that would be something. Imagine its difficulty fitting itself to the various fingers. I wonder what kind of diet it would have to go on in order to size down or up. (Sorry, I've just come from perusing some REB and I guess the silliness of parody is on my mind.)

I am rushed, so likely I have been quilty of too broad generalisations here. Again, a wonderful post, Child.

[drigel]

Beth, I am going to steal a quote from you that I saw on the Luthien/Galadriel thread.

One problem with Middle-earth is the idea that beauty cannot represent evil, only ugliness can. Tolkien mentions this in one of his Letters. It's a given you have to accept in order to remain enchanted by the subcreated story, but it's a given that unfortunately limits the very applicability to the primary world which Tolkien might have wished his ethical view to have.

This was the original thought I was driving towards in contemplating the Brin quote. Cast aside the anti-ME "everything is opposite universe" (remember Spock with a goutee? ) tangent. This is somewhat of a mind bending excercise after all. Consider the nature of evil. Consider all the thoughtfull threads here on the subject (Grace of Illuvatar etc) I contemplate redemption/forgiveness as I ponder not a Vala or Maia, but a human or especially an orc. Twisted, manipulated, deformed, yet still a child of Eru, no?

Still looking for a Nurnen Daily, or possibly a Rhun Dispatch......

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by drigel

This was the original thought I was driving towards in contemplating the Brin quote. Cast aside the anti-ME "everything is opposite universe" (remember Spock with a goutee? ) tangent. This is somewhat of a mind bending excercise after all. Consider the nature of evil. Consider all the thoughtfull threads here on the subject (Grace of Illuvatar etc) I contemplate redemption/forgiveness as I ponder not a Vala or Maia, but a human or especially an orc. Twisted, manipulated, deformed, yet still a child of Eru, no?

Still looking for a Nurnen Daily, or possibly a Rhun Dispatch......

Do you mean, drigel, you are looking for the kind of story that Child suggested?

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

But I would love to be inside Saruman's head as he was gradually won over to the Shadow, or to experience Boromir's torment in deciding whether to try and snatch the Ring, or, best yet, Frodo's inner growth at the same time as he is being tempted by the Ring.

If we're going to have history written by a true baddie, my own preference would not be Sauron but a narrative composed by the Ring itself. That does have certain possibilities, and would answer any number of perplexing questions.

Or would you be thinking of a post-War of the Ring recollection of a baddie, who now understands where he went wrong, given the destruction of the Ring and victory of Aragorn et al? Dispatches from the Void? I'm not sure how "Tolkien consistent" that kind of story would be.

Perhaps you are asking people here on the thread to take a specific chapter or event and suggest how such could be viewed?

[Lalwendë]

This is an interesting thread. I have to say that I am indeed interested in the reasoning behind the behaviour of the 'bad guys' and I do have an unhealthy interest in Saruman and what he got up to.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

One of the points about LotR which fascinates me is this very idea of trying to make Good dramatically interesting and to touch only in the most indirect way upon the thoughts of the 'baddies'. I'm sure Tolkien was aware of the pitfall Milton made in Paradise Lost of making Satan more interesting than Adam and Eve and the other Angels. It is almost a truism among some sets that Good does not make good dramatic potential. I suppose this was one of the reasons for the changes made to Faramir's character for the movie trilogies.

This is interesting, as Tolkien's work does seem to lack any kind of Miltonic figure. There are those of us who take an interest in Saruman or the Witch-King and those who have a fondness for the idea of 'dark elves'. Many of us love Gollum, and get a thrill from reading about Dragons and Balrogs. But do any of them even closely match up to the idea of a Miltonic figure? None of them are seductive in any way, it is their 'badness' which is interesting, especially in contrast to the sheer 'goody-two-shoes' aspects shown by some characters. The only figure who I would wager does come close is Feanor. But even here Tolkien must clearly show how Feanor is wrong. There isn't much room for ambiguity.

Originally Posted by Child

Isn't it interesting how many of us (including me) love to play the baddies in RPG's? Is it our own human nature that lures us to an ivestigation of the dark side or a desire to fill in what Tolkien left out?

Who doesn't like to explore being a bad guy? I'm not sure it's a case of filling in what Tolkien left out, it's more getting another perspective on the story and on the secondary world. My own fascination with Saruman stems from the need to know what he was doing. The story as it is only gives me Gandalf's perspective on 'breaking the Light' and I have this itchy feeling that under the surface I can somehow find out exactly what he was doing and why it was so wrong.

I think that perhaps this comes from our modern freedom to question, to ask why and how, and not to have to accept what we are told. Where this leaves the storyteller I don't know.

[drigel]

Lal - I agree. To understand their reasoning, I first need to understand their perspective. I also have to start a little lower than the vaulted Saruman, where the questions begin for him before he "crossed over". Orcs for example:

A twisted mockery of elves would (for them anyways) = genetic superiority.
Beauty is Deception. Ugliness is Truth. Having your will dominated would be the warm firm hand of the Master Sauron in control of your life, who, after all, knows what is best for you... There can only be one Order, anything else is sacrilege, and an affront to destiny.

[alatar]

Always wished that Tolkien had written some tome that detailed Sauron's thoughts and stratagems in the Third Age. I know that some details have been written somewhere, like when he sent the Nine off to the Shire and how they strived to cross as little water as possible, but I'd really like to hear it *all* from his side. Did he think that Saruman had caught a Hobbit with the Ring, did he have a contingency plan to deal with a Ring-enhanced Saruman, and did Sauron really think that the army outside his Black Gate really included a fledgling Dark Lord? There are just so many questions. Of course the climax would be reading his thoughts when the Ringed Frodo is in Sammath Naur.

Having lived when the Soviet Union was the "Evil Empire," I would love to read their 'side' of the Cold War as the difference in perspective would be interesting. Once I'd introduced a USAF pilot friend of mine to a coworker who'd emigrated from Moscow. We talked about the "Top Gun" movie (for some reason it seemed like an appropriate topic ?!?), and I asked for my coworker's opinion of the same. He said that it was a good movie and that of course the top US pilots could shoot down the worst CCCP pilots. My pilot friend never saw it that way.

Surely my British cousins have a different take on what we 'Mericans call the Revolutionary War. And hearing worldly points of view regarding my country is always refreshing...it's good to know how you're perceived, even if it's poorly.

What if Sauron were shocked to learn that people thought him to be the source of all evil ? Was he surrounded with 'yes men/orcs' that always echoed his perspective? "Yes, sir, those Gondorians just can't wait until you liberate them from that tyrant Denethor." Note that I'm not making political commentary, so don't go there.

And lastly, to add a little more to this rambling post, I've always found that RPG games are great tools for learning of another's psyche. Just why does so-and-so always choose to be on the dark side? Hmmm...one wonders.

- alatar (half-elven chaotic good ranger)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by drigel

A twisted mockery of elves would (for them anyways) = genetic superiority.
Beauty is Deception. Ugliness is Truth. Having your will dominated would be the warm firm hand of the Master Sauron in control of your life, who, after all, knows what is best for you... There can only be one Order, anything else is sacrilege, and an affront to destiny.

It's true that despite what it says in the books, the Men and Orcs and other beings on the side of darkness probably did see things a little differently. We even get a glimpse of that when Shagrat and Gorbag are having a conversation about their duties, the boss, and their own dreams. We know they are on the 'wrong side' because the Author has told us so, but all the same, he does give us these opportunities to stop and consider those beings on the 'other side', including when Sam considers the origins of one of the Men Faramir fells.

Saruman, I firmly believe, was at first trying to deal with the problem of Sauron by attempting to use technology. And thinking of our own world, not many of us would be content if we suddenly went back into the past and lost all our technology (no 'Downs for one thing). There are people who believe that the car equals freedom and who simply love to drive for no other reason than that they get a kick out of it; on the other hand we have people who despise cars, won't have and try to stop other people from having one. It is, in the end, down to point of view who is right and who is wrong.

I've often wondered why Tolkien did not give us more glimpses into the lives and thoughts of those on the opposing side in Middle-earth, as he can often lapse into a slightly grey area (few of his characters are perfect wihtout flaws), but I've come to the conclusion that in an epic tale such as LotR it helps to clearly delineate good and evil.

That leads me on to what Alatar has said:

Originally Posted by alatar

Surely my British cousins have a different take on what we 'Mericans call the Revolutionary War. And hearing worldly points of view regarding my country is always refreshing...it's good to know how you're perceived, even if it's poorly.

I rarely hear anyone mention the loss of America from the British empire, though some of our snooty attitudes towards Americans might stem from that past history. But what does interest me is that while Communism has almost universally been viewed as evil in the US, it is not the case in the UK. Things which posed the good US against the evil USSR have often met with bemusement over here - I'm thinking of one of the Rocky films as an example (I think it was 3 where Stallone faced the Russian boxer?); in the UK people often couldn't figure out why the two countries (or more likely, their leaders) hated each other quite so much.

As you say, it was you who introduced the two supposed 'enemies' to each other and it was you who chose to write on here about their reactions, so this would also suggest that again it is you who has the curiosity to understand both sides of the argument. That to me suggests that it is an individual thing as to whether we are able or willing to consider other people's points of view. Likewise with LotR, there are plenty of fans who simply don't want to know about the Orcs, they just want to hear about Elves - but Tolkien left enough hints in there for those of us who want to hear the other side so it's no surprise that some of us do get interested.