Gollum and the Orcs

[Rowanberry]

In The Hobbit, Gollum is told to have caught and eaten a goblin-imp, i.e. an orc child, so I guess he could have killed and eaten human babies too... And, that's just what makes the rumour so creepy.

I believe that's why there's no mention of Orc children or women in any of Tolkien's writings (I read Letters and most of HoME - but please correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I'm missing something?). Because they are simply not there. Orcs spawn. Orcs get cloned. Or whatever. PJ's version would actually do for me.

In the Sil, it's told that

For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar

which I definitely understand to mean that they reproduced sexually. Voronwë can tell better if this really comes from Tolkien himself. And, a few years ago, an unpublished letter was brought up in which Tolkien answers someone's question about this that yes, there must have been female orcs, but we don't see them because all the orcs we encounter in the stories are soldiers. Personally, I've always imagined that the orcs keep their females in some kind of harems, and that one male (at least the leaders) could well have more than one female.

(I wonder if the discussion about the nature of orcs would require its own thread?)

[solicitr]

Tolkien realised that he had painted himself into a corner with Orcs, and never successfully extricated himself. Morgoth's Ring has several essays where he tries and fails.

Originally, of course, back in the Lost Tales, Orcs were just convenient baddies and cannon-fodder, and 'created' by Morgoth pretty much to serve those functions. But as T brooded over the theological and moral underpinnings of his work, he realised first that no created being could 'create' intelligent life- and then he was stuck with Eru having created an entire intelligent race that was irredeemably bad, or a race punished by iredeemability for their ancestors having been caught and twisted... he tried regarding Orcs as fallen Men rather than Elves, as animals, as automatons, as lesser Maiar- and never really solved the problem at all.

[ArathornJax]

I did find this reference speaking of an unpublished letter:

While at the Oxford Literary Festival on 12 April promoting my book The Science of Middle-Earth, I had the great pleasure of meeting Charles Noad, who assisted Christopher Tolkien in the production of The History of Middle-earth. He drew the assembled companies' attention to an unpublished letter by J. R. R. Tolkien in which he refers to the vexed question of orkish sex.

The letter came up for sale at an auction at Sotheby's in London on 11 and 12 July, 2002. It is dated 21 October 1963, and is addressed to a Mrs Munby in response to a number of questions posed by her son Stephen about The Lord of the Rings. The letter is long, but in one place reads as follows:

'There must have been orc-women. But in stories that seldom if ever see the Orcs except as soldiers of armies in the service of the evil lords we naturally would not learn much about their lives. Not much was known'.

Tolkien also goes on to discuss the use of the word 'goblin':

'In The Hobbit 'goblin' is used... but goblin is a fairly modern word, and very vague in its application to any sort of bogey in the dark.'

I am not overly familiar with this letter, perhaps others are and can shed light on it.

Here is the link:
http://greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/ ... 41305.html

[solicitr]

Tolkien also discusses Saruman's breeding program, and mentions Men who had become "so far degraded that they could be induced to mate with Orcs."

[ArathornJax]

Quite true and Bolg is said to be the son of Azog in The Hobbit also suggesting reproduction.

I wonder when we will get into the origin of Orcs. We know from Morgoth's Ring that Sauron had cross-bred Orcs and Men. Then Saruman also discovered this knowledge:

"There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In the Sil, it's told that

For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar

which I definitely understand to mean that they reproduced sexually. Voronwë can tell better if this really comes from Tolkien himself.

That is a complicated subject. Yes, this line does come from Tolkien himself (from AAm §45). The version of the origin of the Orcs contained here was actually added in to this part of the Annals to match the new story that Tolkien developed when editing a later section (AAm §127), replacing the old story that the Orcs were created by Melkor out of stone (see MR, 78 and 123). Ironically, however, Tolkien himself eventually deleted the description of the Orcs being Elvish in origin in that later portion of the Annals and it therefore only appears in this portion of the published text, despite Tolkien’s note just two paragraphs earlier indicating that the Orcs were not “Elvish”. One cannot really blame Christopher for that, however, because (as soli and others have already pointed out) his father never quite figured out exactly what to do about the origin of the Orcs.

[ArathornJax]

From the Silmarillion we know of the notion that Orcs were tortured and ruined Elves capture by Morgoth. In that case I would assume that Morgoth would have captured both male and female Elves. Tolkien tended to change that notion toward the end of his life giving Orcs a closer corruption from man. There is also the notion that Morgoth used the bodies of elves and men driving out the fëa or soul and replacing it with a corrupted spirit.

For me, the jury is still out. I need to read and reflect on this issue to reach a conclusion. I would say that currently I am leaning towards the notion that Morgoth may have captured and tormented Elves and Men, and corrupted them, allowing for reproduction of the species. As I said though, I need to ponder this some more.

This Tolkien Scholar named Dr. Michael Drout had an interesting view on this back in 2005 in his blog. Some of the replies are interesting . . .

http://wormtalk.blogspot.com/2005/12/wh ... ve-to.html

[Voronwë the Faithful]

From the Silmarillion we know of the notion that Orcs were tortured and ruined Elves capture by Morgoth.

As I mentioned above, Tolkien was quite doubtful of this idea, and even wrote a note on the text that was used for this part of the Silmarillion saying that the Orcs must not by of Elvish origin.

[ArathornJax]

Truly trying to understand this. On page 414 of Morgoth's Ring the text reads:

"It seems possible that his opening words in this note 'This suggests -- though it is not explicit -- that the "Orcs" were of Elvish Origin' actually refer to the previous text given here, VIII, where he first wrote that 'Elves, as a source, are very unlikely,' but later concluded that it remains therefore terribly possible there was an Elvish strain in the Orcs'. But if this is so, the following words 'Their origin is more clearly dealt with elsewhere' must refer to something else."

By the time we come to page 417 then we begin to see the paradox of the Orc in that man, had not appeared in Arda until near the time of the Great March of the Elves, not sufficient time for men to be captured, corrupted and perverted by Morgoth. Yet upon his fleeing with the Silmarils, Morgoth had a sufficient army of Orcs to attack the Elves. So the chronology of the Silmarillion when it comes to when man first appeared has to be off if men are the source of the Orc.

Taking 9.582 for a year of the Trees to the Year of the Sun, and figuring that the Elves awoke around 1050 of the Year of the Trees and the Orcs were first encountered in Beleriand in 1330, that would make a difference of 2682.96 years of the Sun (ie 280 years of the Tree) between when the Elves awoke and when Orcs were encountered in Beleriand. Men awoke in the year 1 of the year of the Sun (roughly year 1500 of the year of the Trees) which is 4311.9 years from when the Elves were awakened. So, using this time line, men had to have awaken around the time of the March of the Elves to Aman, around 1100 to 1135 in the year of the Trees. That would mean that 3832.8 years of the Sun earlier, men would have awaken, which is much earlier than what is reported in The Silmarillion. Again, if the origin of the Orc is form men.

On page 421 then, Christopher makes the comment that "This this, as it may appear, was my father's final view of the question: Orcs were bred from Men, and if 'the conception in mind of the Orcs may go far back into the night of Melkor's thought' it was Sauron who, during the ages of Melkor's captivity in Aman, brought into being the black armies that were available to his Master when her returned."

So why then, would Christopher knowing this, enter into the text of the Silmarillion what he did concerning the creation of Orcs with Elves, and the appearance of Men? If this was JRR Tolkien's intention, why was it not included in the Silmarillion?

[Mrs.Underhill]

That is a complicated subject. Yes, this line does come from Tolkien himself (from AAm §45). The version of the origin of the Orcs contained here was actually added in to this part of the Annals to match the new story that Tolkien developed when editing a later section (AAm §127), replacing the old story that the Orcs were created by Melkor out of stone (see MR, 78 and 123). Ironically, however, Tolkien himself eventually deleted the description of the Orcs being Elvish in origin in that later portion of the Annals and it therefore only appears in this portion of the published text, despite Tolkien’s note just two paragraphs earlier indicating that the Orcs were not “Elvish”.

Oh yeah, you weren't kidding about it being a complicated subject! My head hurts just trying to read that above paragraph.

And now with the Professor dead we are free to draw our own conclusions about Orcs, and how to see them in his mythology.

I would give the dear old Professor a slack and don't drill him over all those technicalities. Yes, he painted himself into a corner. Yes, it doesn't make sense for Morgoth to create a brand new race of irredeemable creatures.
But we get (I think) what he was trying to do - create fairy-tale monsters which should be fought by fairy-tale heroes. And those fairy-tale battles reflect on us fighting inner demons, society demons and real people who threaten us, in the real life. So I'd say - yes, we get it, don't worry about those technical details.

ToshoftheWuffingas - I agree Tolkien didn't idealize the "good" races. We had Numenorians coming from over the Sea and enslaving/mistreating M-E natives. We had Fall of Númenor, a failure of the King's line in Gondor and Gondor's decline (and again, abuse of the natives). We had Nazguls who were the Kings of Men, of high races of Men. Etc.

And Aragorn wasn't a saint - it was Frodo who was a saint. Interesting how Tolkien gave Frodo some kills in the orginal drafts but then gradually took them all away in the final version, and I'm so glad he did that!
Aragorn was a ruler of his time who had to do cruel things because it is inevitable when you are in power. As they say - "Render therefore to Cesar the things which are Cesar's, and to God the things which are God's", i.e. a ruler can never operate ideal justice on "this side of the tapestry". The best ruler can only hope to avoid doing cruel things without extreme need, avoid injustice on purpose. And the best ruler would hate the times when he had to be cruel.
Aragorn was such a ruler, I believe. Who viewed it as a burden/responsibility and who showed as much mercy as was still practical. Remember his verdict on Beregond?

So going back to his treatment of Orcs vs. treatment of other "bad" nations. If Orcs are redeemable creatures, they, and at least their babies, should have at least the same treatment as those other Sauron's allies. They weren't, so Tolkien, and our heroes, viewed them as fundamentally different.

There is also the notion that Morgoth used the bodies of elves and men driving out the fëa or soul and replacing it with a corrupted spirit.

ArathornJax, I found this idea extremely interesting (I remember reading about it a long time ago but then it didn't catch my attention)!
It was the same approach chosen in Buffy/Angelverse (another passion of mine), with the vampires, and it's a very elegant way of solving this moral dilemma. Vampires there have their human souls driven away from their bodies when they die and become vampires, and the evil demon reanimates the body and corrupts the remainder of the human spirit left after departure of the soul. Therefore they are irredeemable, completely evil, and are killed without remorse because the redeemable part of them is already dead/departed.
And those vampires were openly used as metaphores of fighting inner demons, inner badness. But even there it became more complicated morally than that - won't spoil it for uninitiated, but the question about whether even they can be redeemed played a HUGE part in those series.

And as we are left free to choose on how we see Orcs, I'd choose this approach. That fëa which is Eru's was driven from those who would become Orcs, and the bodies were mutilated and reanimated by evil spirits - which are part of M-E mythology as well (Wraiths? Barrow Wights? The Dead subscribed by Aragorn? etc.)
I.e. Orcs might be zombies of dead Men, Elves etc.

As for procreation - yes, Orcs were crossed with Men etc. and I don't doubt they had all the works in place. I just assumed they woudn't procreate with each other, as bringing forth a new life would be *creating*, while Frodo said that the Darkness could only maim and mock, and not create.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Mankind had had a history of unknown length I believe prior to moving west to escape Morgoth. They did not of course precede the Elves.

As for orcs, look on other species as an example. Dogs can be bred to be aggressive or affectionate; excitable or placid. It may be harder to 'redeem' a dog bred to be agressive as it goes against its 'nature' but it is not impossible. Morgoth had a long time and a great deal of power to breed such characteristics into his root stock whatever it was. To a society plagued by packs of dogs bred purely for agression they would try to eliminate the threat of such dogs at every turn. That does not mean that an individual dog could not be tamed by the expense of effort. I find it easiest to imagine orcs as a humanoid species with a social structure akin to baboons. Despite Tolkien's uncomfortable exploration of the subject I imagine them as having souls albeit even more imperfect than our own sorry ones.

[Mrs.Underhill]

Dogs can be bred to be aggressive or affectionate; excitable or placid. It may be harder to 'redeem' a dog bred to be agressive as it goes against its 'nature' but it is not impossible. Morgoth had a long time and a great deal of power to breed such characteristics into his root stock whatever it was. To a society plagued by packs of dogs bred purely for agression they would try to eliminate the threat of such dogs at every turn.

So what our heroes were doing was "humane euthanasia"? Sorry, watched too much of Animal cops lately.
Still, there's something fundamently different between putting down a pesky dog or a pesky human - moreover a tribe of pesky humans. Much more difficulty involved. And that difference I think is the soul - whatever we all mean by it. Orcs could be thought about as animals if they didn't have fëa.
If they did, even if it was worse then Men's or Elves... It all wouldn't be that simple. And we would get at least some stories in the mythology about trying to redeem some individual Orcs. Just like we got at least a few stories about tame wolves, like White Fang etc.

[vison]

I always thought, and still think, that the burned bones Sam came across were human bones, the leftovers of an Orc feast. I never once thought, and still don't think, that those bones were the orts of a human cannibal feast. I never thought, and still don't think, that the Easterlings or the Haradrim were cannibals, only enemies from far away, and I don't think Tolkien meant to imply that they were cannibals. I just reread that passage and I can't see any hint of it. Possibly it was the remains of a funeral pyre - which does not at all mean cannibalism. After all, Denethor built himself a pyre in the manner of the old Ship Kings!

Sam thought that Gollum would have no qualms about rummaging through that awful pile. Gollum quite obviously tried to get at the mirage bodies in the Dead Marshes in order to eat them. And I think he did slide through windows and take babies. I daresay he ate Orc babies when he could get them, too.

I will never like the Orcs. They were a mistake. The only redeeming factor is, maybe Tolkien was (perhaps unconsciously) showing us how we demonize our enemies in real life.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

We had a quite a vigorous previous discussion about this subject: Were all orcs evil? In that discussion, I came up with a rather novel solution to the "Orc problem". I'll sum it up again.

Here is the dilemma:

On the one hand, it is absolutely imperative that the Orcs do not have redeemable souls. The whole moral structure of LOTR and indeed all of Tolkien's work collapses like a house of cards if they did.

On the other hand, the only possible conclusion that one can reach from the full body of Tolkien's work is that the Orcs came from beings that did have souls (fëa), possibly men but also undoubtedly including Elves corrupted and twisted by Melkor, in addition to some Maian spirits that also were subverted by Melkor.

How then can these two seemingly contradictory points be reconciled? I find the answer in, of all places, the Athrabeth.

As I have discussed before, one of the key concepts discussed in the commentary and notes that follow the Athrabeth is the idea that "the separation of fëa and hröa is 'unnatural', and proceeds not from the original design but from the 'Marring of Arda', which is due to the operations of Melkor."

So hear is my answer to the dillemna. The Orcs originated from the hröar of originally incarnate beings (whether Elves or Men or both, and even from some Maian spirits as well) that Melkor managed to separate from their fëar. They had no wills of their own, but rather were animated by Melkor's own will, and later by Sauron's as Melkor's proxy. They were similar in that way to the beings created by Aulë before Eru took pity on him and them and gave them their own independent wills.

This would even explain why the Orcs "magically" died when Sauron was destroyed; with no will of their own there was nothing to animate them once Melkor's proxy was destroyed.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

[Jnyusa]

I like that explanation, Voronwë.

I have always been reluctant to give up the idea of elvish/human origins for the orcs because I've always felt that Tolkien's original intention was to show them as a corruption of something otherwise good. I also think that his first inclination in that direction was the correct one, even though it gave him theological difficulties later on.

The special loathing of the elves for the yrch makes most sense if that component of recognition is involved. In the same way, we are invited to contemplate the recognition of Gollum by the Hobbits, the mirror images of Angmar and Aragorn, and the very intimate nature of Saruman's betrayal in contrast with the distant and alien machinations of Sauron.

We ourselves feel (if I may speak for all of us) that extra quiver of horror when we read that Saruman crosses orcs with men because that touches our identity in ways that the purely alien cannot. It is made more monstrous by being more familiar.

So, whatever it takes to make the erstwhile-elf theory doctrinally spiffy and up to snuff seems the right approach in my estimation.

[ArathornJax]

Does this give new meaning to the sentence "But her brothers, Elladan and Elrohir, were out upon errantry; for they rode often far afield with the Rangers of the North, forgetting never their mother's torment in the dens of the orcs." We know in Appendix A that it states he received a poison wound that led her to journey back to Tol Eressëa for healing. Does she leave Middle Earth because the Orcs wanted her hröa and were trying to get her fëa to flee, and she never recovered from that experience so she sailed into the West?

[vison]

I took part in a discussion of Celebrían's captivity on a now-defunct LOTR site. We were all pretty well agreed that part of Celebrían's ordeal included rape. Of course it never says so anywhere that I know of. Perhaps Voronwë could shed some light on the question.

However, it made sense to me. But only if the Orcs were "human" enough to commit rape. Would soulless automatons do so? And over and over we are told that they "enjoy" their wicked ways.

Sorry to bring a note of real ugliness into the thread, but it's one of the many difficulties the Orcs present. They can't be unwritten, or uncreated, so we have to work them into things somehow.

I don't think they vanished at Sauron's fall. I think they lingered until they were all hunted down and killed. Did an Orc ever "repent"? Well, if it was created only to do wrong, how could it repent? You need to have a soul in order to repent, using a casual definition of both "repent" and "soul". If an Orc COULD repent, then what?

[solicitr]

However, it made sense to me. But only if the Orcs were "human" enough to commit rape. Would soulless automatons do so? And over and over we are told that they "enjoy" their wicked ways.

Well, I think in Tolkien's orthodox Catholic worldview, these things were "of the flesh;" the "animal appetites" which the soul is supposed to restrain.

So why then, would Christopher knowing this, enter into the text of the Silmarillion what he did concerning the creation of Orcs with Elves, and the appearance of Men? If this was JRR Tolkien's intention, why was it not included in the Silmarillion?

Christopher's problem was that he had to use existing narrative. Notwithstanding JRRT's many notes on and sketches of and "thinking out loud" about a projected revision, he never atually wrote the revised version.

If you include early humans, that means the Sun and Moon ab initio, which means overturning the astronomical myth and the Two Trees..... it would have meant a total overhaul of the entire Legendarium which the Professor himself balked at (and so never undertook). Had CT attempted to "write" the legends his father never did, it would have been a Brian Herbert job. CT (with Kay) took I think the best option available, which was to use the Annals as the structural backbone of the synthesised version, being the latest coherent statement of the mythos.

[Athrabeth]

Well, I'm another one who just can't reconcile what I know about the nature of orcs with what I know about Tolkien's moral universe. I think vison is right. There are too many inconsistencies that require some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to make any kind of consistent sense out the creatures.

They had no wills of their own, but rather were animated by Melkor's own will, and later by Sauron's as Melkor's proxy. They were similar in that way to the beings created by Aulë before Eru took pity on him and them and gave them their own independent wills.

This would even explain why the Orcs "magically" died when Sauron was destroyed; with no will of their own there was nothing to animate them once Melkor's proxy was destroyed.

This fits the rendering of the Orcs in the Sil, which is definitely echoed in the passage about the fate of the “witless and purposeless” hordes scattering at the fall of the Sauron.

But then there`s Grishnákh and Gorbag and Shagrat. Let`s face it, these three exhibit clearly defined independent thought and purpose. Tolkien presents them with the ability to think mutinously towards the Dark Lord and to act in their own self-interest. They just don`t fit any of the rationales for the fundamental nature of Orcs that I`ve ever come across, including Tolkien`s own.

I`ve never really understood why Tolkien didn`t just have Melkor create the Orcs in exactly the same manner as Aulë created the Dwarves. It`s such a perfect set-up. Eru lifted the Dwarves into the higher ranks of free-willed, sentient beings because of Aulë`s truly good (if misguided) intentions, his love and compassion for the beings he had created, and his remorse at overstepping his mandate as one of the Valar. Of course none of those criteria would apply to Melkor, so the mindless, soulless creatures known as Orcs could exist without the moral and logical conundrum.

But that being so, I`d miss the personalities of those three villains. They make for some great and wonderfully creepy moments in the tale!

[Frelga]

I`ve never really understood why Tolkien didn`t just have Melkor create the Orcs in exactly the same manner as Aulë created the Dwarves. It`s such a perfect set-up. Eru lifted the Dwarves into the higher ranks of free-willed, sentient beings because of Aulë`s truly good (if misguided) intentions, his love and compassion for the beings he had created, and his remorse at overstepping his mandate as one of the Valar. Of course none of those criteria would apply to Melkor, so the mindless, soulless creatures known as Orcs could exist without the moral and logical conundrum.

But that being so, I`d miss the personalities of those three villains. They make for some great and wonderfully creepy moments in the tale!

I think you put your finger on it, Ath. Villains that are entirely mindless and soulless - or villains that are no more than vicious animals - simply are not as interesting as those that are purposely evil, independent, dimensional. Lack of mind and soul implies a certain innocence.

On a tangent, I noticed that while our resident author created a very efficient bugbear in her Cold Minds, her heroes spend most of their time battling other humans.

In Orcs, Tolkien has what I guess he needed for the plot - a numerous army of Evil that our heroes can slaughter without remorse. That's fine when Gimli and Legolas are slaying faceless Orcs by the score. It becomes problematic when we look at them up close. Grishnákh and Gorbag and Shagrat, and not to forget Ugluk - they all display no more of evil, ignorance and hate than is commonly shown by regular human beings.