Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
Tbf Tolkien gave multiple different origins for orcs and never really settled on one.

This is true, but he did settle on them being a -metaphor- of the threat on which the response of the fellowship hinges.
As I just explained' that threat is nullified if Orcs have any form of unwillingness to evil.

One thing Tolkin always kept up was that no one is born good or evil
and yes it was a big problem for him that he needed endless evil hordes to get the story working, but saw the problem with it and wanted to find a way around

that we get the origin of the Orks we have now is simply because it was on the top when material for Silmarilion was collected

the big threat is that power corrupts, always and the more someone seeks power the faster it happens

 kodos wrote:
One thing Tolkin always kept up was that no one is born good or evil
and yes it was a big problem for him that he needed endless evil hordes to get the story working, but saw the problem with it and wanted to find a way around

that we get the origin of the Orks we have now is simply because it was on the top when material for Silmarilion was collected

the big threat is that power corrupts, always and the more someone seeks power the faster it happens

The rings of power is the last part of the silmarillion though, so I can understand the..let's call it leniency of interpetations and though it is true that at the end of his life Tolkien practically was incapable of coherency to his writ (which is mostly due to the process of writing, I am also familiar with' to which when you conclude a story you go back and check wether it all connects properly which was something Tolkien wasn't yet comitted to concerning) when it comes to the Silmarillion, one could say two things here therefor; the Silmarillion was a poor source to build a series on and it deviates hugely from the greater canon causing problems from the get go by default.

All in all, it is a recipe that -can only result in disaster- no matter the cook.

This is probably the bedrock for why this series is being experienced as amateuristic or fan fiction, while also ofcourse being -abused- as an enviroment within which (chatgpt? or..) "actual" writers unload their personal activism and inexperience with real world human logic as to the "social dynamics and its interactions" as much as immense logical fallacies almost every single scene.

Orcs work as the manifestation of evil, not as a lesser evil or as a potential evil..
That manifestation is represented by the Orcish disregard for all life, art and beauty, peace and calm, pursuit of happiness, love, friendship. These are not Orcish traits, Orcs embody the opposite and are thereby the threat that must be dealt with against all odds.

I agree that that is what the orcs are under Morgoth and under Sauron. But the orcs WERE elves. Morgoth twisted and tortured them into their corrupted forms.

Whats the orcs represent is what all peoples would be if they fell under the control of evil. Not that they themselves are inherently and irrevocably evil. But that they have been under evils sway for so long. And right now they are not under Sauron or Morgoths sway. Right now they are barely, in the smallest ways, trying to dig out their own community after huge losses under Morgoth and still they are burning and destroying to do it.

One of Tolkien's major themes/points was that evil cannot create. It can only corrupt. The orcs are not Morgoths creation. A manifestation of pure evil by pure evil. They are the end result of Morgoth's influence on something that was once good.

 Lance845 wrote:
I agree that that is what the orcs are under Morgoth and under Sauron. But the orcs WERE elves. Morgoth twisted and tortured them into their corrupted forms.

Tolkien himself stated that he didn't like that idea and likely would've changed it if the Silmarillion had actually been completed, Tolkien said that this caused a problem with the idea of elven souls always returning, ultimately Orcs are an entirely different species, which is also explained as that they are unrecognicable, so at best perhaps they are -based- on elves and not literally elves that have been changed.

Whats the orcs represent is what all peoples would be if they fell under the control of evil. Not that they themselves are inherently and irrevocably evil.

but this IS what the Orcs represent; inherent evil', often compared to that they have no soul(voice) of their own and their speech is like that of parrots while having no thoughts and say for themselves

But that they have been under evils sway for so long. And right now they are not under Sauron or Morgoths sway. Right now they are barely, in the smallest ways, trying to dig out their own community after huge losses under Morgoth and still they are burning and destroying to do it.

This is exactly the wrong idea about what Orcs are, Orcs have no community.. they are singleminded; obedient to the voice in their head that comes from Morgoth/Melkor

One of Tolkien's major themes/points was that evil cannot create. It can only corrupt. The orcs are not Morgoths creation. A manifestation of pure evil by pure evil. They are the end result of Morgoth's influence on something that was once good.

Nowhere does Tolkien even suggest in the slightest that Orcs were once good. Perhaps you derrive this from the "avari arc" but Tolkien stated that this was only what -THE ELVES BELIEVE- and not that it was the real origin of the Orcs.
edit: if anything, the Orcs -if they are bred from elves- were bred from tortured to evil' elves and therefor -inherently evil-.

You are making a RAI vs RAW argument.

Morgoth found the elves first, sent spirits to corrupt and influence them, and a dark rider stole away elves who wandered too far. All evidence suggests Morgoth did exactly as the elves believe.

If Tolkien finished or made a "second edition" it might be some other case. But with the books as published we have the theme of evil only corrupts and that Morgoth didn't create his own people he only twisted the people that existed.

Your preferred interpretation being all well and good for what it is, a straight reading of the text says otherwise.

 Lance845 wrote:
You are making a RAI vs RAW argument.

Morgoth found the elves first, sent spirits to corrupt and influence them, and a dark rider stole away elves who wandered too far. All evidence suggests Morgoth did exactly as the elves believe.

If Tolkien finished or made a "second edition" it might be some other case. But with the books as published we have the theme of evil only corrupts and that Morgoth didn't create his own people he only twisted the people that existed.

Your preferred interpretation being all well and good for what it is, a straight reading of the text says otherwise.

Well, again (and one last time) Tolkien himself said that it was what the elves believe not that he set it in stone. So the histories on the wikis are from the perspective of the elves and not what Tolkien had in mind the actual origin to be.
Secondly, again (and one last time) even if being created from tortured to evil elves it does not mean Orcs are elves and it is very clear that they are not of Elven culture therefor -not originally good- considering -evil elves- are not good nor is anything of Elven nature in Orcs which is explicitly stated; "Orcs are not Elvish".

That is not my opinion but that of Tolkien.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgoth%27s_Ring

Also, for the record.. Orcs were created before elves even had a concept of good to begin with so one could easily argue that the idea of Orcs once having ever been good doesn't connect anyway.

As to my personal opinion, I percieve the work of Tolkien to be heavily based on real world mythology surrounding esoteric subjects such as doggerland, the neo-hittite state migrations (as to the Orcs), but also hallstatt celt roaming peoples such as the Saka (often misinterpeted as a static, isolated "scythia") which included Avars, Alans, Ari, Tigraxauda(dahae), Geta (including Massageta) and such outstretches into as far as lower Asia' while also connecting with Thrace and Phrygian branches.
The ideas surrounding Melkor clearly have a gnostic aire to them as to the vilification of the ancient deity of creation being a jealous usurper that entrapped the light' within an opaque layer of matter/charcoal/carbon/oil etc.
He didn't make much of a secret of lending from antique european mythology (which is concerned with such earthwide culture through its seafaring prowess (see the sea peoples era etc) and so the fictional aspect runs rather thin.
He also stated in a letter that he wanted to make a better mythology for europe than religion caused to its (europe's) mind, also indirectly referring to the lebor gabala ereinn being warped by christianity.

Alas, Orcs are clearly influenced by the histories and fear of' the mongol hordes as much as the preceding Hittite empire, no question about it. The name itself alludes to it as the Turkic (anatolia among previously the hittite empire also called anti-taurus) comes from Uruk (warqa) which means as much as that which dwells in the earth' (UR= city' by itself) (Turkiye meaning something the same as dwelling(living) city ur+iye, Istanbul for one refers to the bull of Estan (a name for the creator (the sun)

You also have the Uruk being Sumer naturally which is connected (see also the magyar(hungary) language connection with sumerian, orszag (country) cognate with urasag (city warrior).

But this is a subject that warrants its own book.

Tolkien agonized over and ultimately rejected the idea of any being possessing an absolutely irredeemable nature.

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
You are making a RAI vs RAW argument.

Morgoth found the elves first, sent spirits to corrupt and influence them, and a dark rider stole away elves who wandered too far. All evidence suggests Morgoth did exactly as the elves believe.

If Tolkien finished or made a "second edition" it might be some other case. But with the books as published we have the theme of evil only corrupts and that Morgoth didn't create his own people he only twisted the people that existed.

Your preferred interpretation being all well and good for what it is, a straight reading of the text says otherwise.

Well, again (and one last time) Tolkien himself said that it was what the elves believe not that he set it in stone. So the histories on the wikis are from the perspective of the elves and not what Tolkien had in mind the actual origin to be.

And again. A RAI argument. https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Orcs/Origin#Bred_from_stone

Even in tolkiens latest revisions, notes, and essays the elves are involved.

And again, to quote the actual published text.

But of those hapless who were snared by Melkor little is known of a certainty. [...] Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressëa: that all those of the Quendi that came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty and wickedness were corrupted and enslaved. Thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orkor in envy and mockery of the Eldar, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes. For the Orkor had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar; and naught that had life of its own, nor the semblance thereof, could ever Melkor make since his rebellion in the Ainulindalë before the Beginning: so say the wise. And deep in their dark hearts the Orkor loathed the Master whom they served in fear, the maker only of their misery. This maybe was the vilest deed of Melkor and the most hateful to Eru.[10]

Regardless of ever changing RAI over the years, this is what is written.

Secondly, again (and one last time) even if being created from tortured to evil elves it does not mean Orcs are elves and it is very clear that they are not of Elven culture therefor -not originally good- considering -evil elves- are not good nor is anything of Elven nature in Orcs which is explicitly stated; "Orcs are not Elvish".

That is not my opinion but that of Tolkien.

Agree with this point. The orcs are not elves. I never said they were, now, still elves. Or that there was any real redemption for them. I said their origin was elves. What was once an elf is now an orc. A different awful thing.

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Tbf Tolkien gave multiple different origins for orcs and never really settled on one.

This is true, but he did settle on them being a -metaphor- of the threat on which the response of the fellowship hinges.
As I just explained' that threat is nullified if Orcs have any form of unwillingness to evil.

Where there’s a whip there’s a way.

I think it helps if you don't expect it to be good, take bad writing as a given, forget canon, and just watch it as a very expensive spectacle / folly.

Something I find interesting is how differently Rings of Power and Game of Thrones do crowd scenes filled with extras. I watched the entire GoT series, and with the pointed exception of the terrible Dothraki* scenes, I was rarely jerked out of the story by bad ad-libbing and awkward cheers from extras in crowd scenes when a hero made a speech. But every single crowd scene in RoT is awful, feeling like bad community theater, with people overacting and ad-libbing their "Yeah!" "He's right!" "That's what I heard!" etc. in hammy ways like second rate amateurs, and the crowd generally responding to speakers in obviously forced and stilted fashion. It's done so poorly in RoP that if I hadn't seen other, better directed and acted fantasy series pull them off, I might have assumed that crowd scenes in fantasy shows were just naturally and inevitably terrible.

I think part of the reason is that in GoT, crowds in crowd scenes were generally truly massive. Crowds in RoP, even in contexts where they should be huge like the island city, feel smaller, and I wonder if the community theater feeling they have is due to directors asking the extras to make more noise, ad lib louder, and be more expressive to give the impression of a larger crowd. If so, it isn't working, it just looks cartoonish. It's forgivable on stage, but not in a lavish tentpole teleseries like this.

*Yeah, I'm sorry, but those Dothraki group scenes, like the dances where they started having sex in the middle of them, were painfully bad. In bad taste and cartoonishly stereotyping historical nomadic cultures, yes, but mostly just spectacularly dumb, unconvincing, and badly written.

Because Tolkien never settled on this in his writing, I am fine with other interpretations than 'ruined elves'. Lesser maiar possessing artificial bodies is a fine interpretation too. I think Orcs as an evil force of destruction is vastly more interesting than them being basically ugly humans with families they love etc, because that role is already filled by ... humans. The Orcs being something wholly supernatural and other is much more interesting.

 Da Boss wrote:
Because Tolkien never settled on this in his writing, I am fine with other interpretations than 'ruined elves'. Lesser maiar possessing artificial bodies is a fine interpretation too. I think Orcs as an evil force of destruction is vastly more interesting than them being basically ugly humans with families they love etc, because that role is already filled by ... humans. The Orcs being something wholly supernatural and other is much more interesting.

Agreed, and I think it helps contrast against the other forces of Sauron like the Easterlings and the Harad who are only corrupted in part, compared to the orcs who are fully in thrall to Sauron, which is almost seen as the "ideal" type of society that Sauron and his ilk wants the rest of Middle Earth to look like after they've forced them under his banner.

 Scrabb wrote:
Tolkien agonized over and ultimately rejected the idea of any being possessing an absolutely irredeemable nature.

Orcs do not have nature, they are the anti-natural force.
Nature equates to creation, Orks are destroyers.

Nature used in this way does not mean the same as nature as in the natural world, it's more like their innate approach to life, their innate qualities.

@Leopold, does substituting essence for nature remove your objection?

Well the main issue here is how "multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar" is interpeted, wrongly' that is.. as to mean "having families and jolly lives in peace", the word used is multiplied' not "had culture" or "made a life for themselves". So as I explained in my first post; Orcs pillaged to destroy and (bad word) R'ed women to offspring (Uruk-hai are generally considered halfbreed) as this is what the manifestation of the evil Orcs represent and entails to cause for the resonating response of man, elves and dwarves to -want to campaign Orcs out of existence-. Any insert of "Orcs have families derp" annuls the evil that they represent.

The idea that Orcs -as Orcs- have a culture other than acting with violence whenever the words of Melkor command them to do so in their heads' is acanonical. When the 'essence' of Orcs is concerned, Tolkien was clear that they have none as they are unrecognicable from whatever origin they had, one could speculate wether that means Orcs are a sort of golem, an empty husk that merely responds according to a derrivative of hating all that lives, including their own kind.

 Da Boss wrote:
Because Tolkien never settled on this in his writing, I am fine with other interpretations than 'ruined elves'. Lesser maiar possessing artificial bodies is a fine interpretation too. I think Orcs as an evil force of destruction is vastly more interesting than them being basically ugly humans with families they love etc, because that role is already filled by ... humans. The Orcs being something wholly supernatural and other is much more interesting.

Morgoth and Sauron already have a bunch of those guys in their forces. Balrogs, spirits, things like Shelob who were descendant from those spirit monsters. Wholly Supernatural terrible things.

If the enemies forces are primarily made up of supernatural ghosts and monstrosities with normal mortal creatures as the occasional slave then you end up with a situation where mortals are not really at any risk of falling to the side of darkness. You just have to stop the ghosts and ghouls from taking over by force. The Orcs being a mortal race is a greater threat. Yeah. Some men fell under Morgoth and Sauron. But the Orcs is what would become of them over time. The orcs is a look into the future of anyone who truly falls to evil. The fact that they are a mortal race says so much more and worse about evils potential influence on everyone else. You are not simply fighting an external force. You are actively trying to maintain good so that you and yours do not become THAT.

I think 'becoming orcs' is also a good way to go, though I feel to be consistent with Tolkien's worldview as I understand it, it would have to be by choice (or lots of little evil choices over time) and I don't see them having children.

But orcs as people with children IS supported by some of what tolkien wrote.

It smacks of the what Star Trek did way way too much - make very bad guys into a misunderstood good guy who just needs to be saved and become a good federation clone...

I agree even Tolkien did not really decide what Orcs where/how they reproduced etc but having a different Kultur and being inhuman rather than just ugly humans is too me at least much more interesting.

In LOTR, in the big battles, men are at least as prominent as Orcs I'd say. Dunlendings at Helm's Deep, Haradrim and Easterlings at Pelenor.

So I am fine with orcs fulfilling a different fictional niche. There's only one shelob and balrog in the third age, after all.

That said I did the 'sympathetic orcs' thing for years in my rpgs, and I've always been fascinated by them since I first came across the concept of a goblin as a small child. Just these days I lean more toward fully supernatural orcs, probably created in some pit or couldron.

My less high-brow view of S2 so far:

The SFX budget feels like it's doing a bit more.

As a die-hard Elfophile even I cringe at the Elf-fu.

The dialogue just seems stilted.

Oh, and one of the more interesting characters (the Healer) apparently died off screen..

I started watch The Sky At Night on iPlayer.

 Souleater wrote:

Oh, and one of the more interesting characters (the Healer) apparently died off screen..

Yeah, the actress chose not to return and instead is campaigning for women's rights in Iran, I believe.

 Mr Morden wrote:
It smacks of the what Star Trek did way way too much - make very bad guys into a misunderstood good guy who just needs to be saved and become a good federation clone....

Thing is, '[Insert Race Here] is inherently evil and so will always do the evil thing' ultimately makes for less interesting and much more 2-dimensional storytelling than 'No race is inherently evil, but anyone can be corrupted by evil leaders'...

I have been part of several discussions over the years. About whether if you took an Orc as an infant, and raised it among one of the "good" races, would it become different than "normal" Orcs? Could you civilize an Orc?

I think with RoP having Adar around that the Orcs are still developing as a race, evolving from ruined Elves to what they will eventually become. It’s one of the more interesting bits of the series to me.

On “good” Orcs, one of the best things Christopher Paolini did in the later Inheritance books is develop the Urgals from just straight Orc stand-ins to being this much more complex barbarian race (somewhat Klingon influenced, admittedly). They still were very aggressive and dangerous, but it made them a much more interesting part of the books than just “horde of NPCs to get in your way”.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
It smacks of the what Star Trek did way way too much - make very bad guys into a misunderstood good guy who just needs to be saved and become a good federation clone....

Thing is, '[Insert Race Here] is inherently evil and so will always do the evil thing' ultimately makes for less interesting and much more 2-dimensional storytelling than 'No race is inherently evil, but anyone can be corrupted by evil leaders'...

I think there is room for character development and story telling without having the "everyone is good really.... and they just need to be more like us" trekisms. A "Evil" race can have their own culture, religion, etc but they don't have to be just different looking humans who need to be saved by the "good guys".

Well, the orcs aren't good and nobody is really trying to redeem or save them. When the good guys see and orc they know its trouble and those monsters are going to do awful things to them.

That the evil orcs try to go home and rest after a day of pillaging and burning doesn't make them less monsters.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
It smacks of the what Star Trek did way way too much - make very bad guys into a misunderstood good guy who just needs to be saved and become a good federation clone....

Thing is, '[Insert Race Here] is inherently evil and so will always do the evil thing' ultimately makes for less interesting and much more 2-dimensional storytelling than 'No race is inherently evil, but anyone can be corrupted by evil leaders'...

I dunno, I think you're wrong about that. No species or kindred being inherently evil is of course more realistic, and allows for something more like the real world in terms of politics and relations between people.

But is that what I always, in every situation, want for my fantasy stories? I don't think so. I think having an inherently evil "people" is quite interesting, not least because it forces you to grapple with the concept of evil without retreating into relativism. You've got to put yourself out there and say "This is what I think is evil, this is what it means to me, and it's represented in the behaviours of these beings."

I think Tolkien's Orcs do a good job of showing what he thinks is evil behaviour and evil values. And I've always been fascinated with his orcs, far more than with other representations (even those I did myself!) which try to make them into green humans with tusks.

I am fine with other interpretations, though. Like I'm fine with ROP showing Orc children. I think it's also interesting in a way. But it does bring a whole new set of problems to Middle Earth. Like the Sun is literally in the sky in Middle Earth to torment and discomfit the Orcs. The Valar have done that specifically to make their lives worse and drive them underground. I think that's something Series 1 showed really well, better than I've seen in other Tolkien adaptations. And so the idea of Adar as trying to carve them out a place in the world where they are shielded from the genocidal hatred of the Valar is interesting. I've thought about that A LOT, and how to maybe use that in a game with Orc protagonists at war with the Gods.

But it isn't really what Tolkien was about, and doesn't jive very well with his themes. And I think is a misreading and misunderstanding of what his Orcs are.

 Da Boss wrote:
]Like the Sun is literally in the sky in Middle Earth to torment and discomfit the Orcs. The Valar have done that specifically to make their lives worse and drive them underground.

This is one of the more important aspects Tolkien took from real world mythology emphasising the -inherent evil- that Orcs 'do represent.
You have for one the mythology of trol, the mythology of tengu and the mythology of kallikantzaroi.
The first refers to hunched over people that live in mountain caves and raid villages stealing children, they are described as having 'esoteric knowledge'.
The second refers to birdbeaked or long nosed people that live in mountain caves and raid villages stealing children to make them into ninja, it is practically identical to the first. The first have an all-mother called gryla' the second have an all-mother called Amanozaku. Both are thought to come from a black meteorite. The trol turn to stone from the sun, the tengu have been burned by the sun (which is why they have red skin in depictions)

Then there are the Kallikantzaroi who are goblinesque depicted, they have gone underground and very much fear the sun aswell, they saw at the roots of the world-tree trying to destroy creation. Their boss is called goatfoot but is referred to as "mother".
https://greekerthanthegreeks.com/greek-christmas-customs-traditions-2/

Goblins are clearly derrived from these, and hob-goblins are likely somewhat derrived from sea peoples who were used as mercenaries in the areas surrounding the aegean sea.

There are ancient tribal conflicts at the root of such mythological creature from which Tolkien then built the Orcs. (as explained, coming from the word Uruk (warqa) - of the potamias) It all has one distinct aspect in common; these are beholden to the Sun as adversarious, somewhat rooted in the zoroastrian doctrine that ahura mazda (the creator) emenated himself as the first light (spenta mainyu) to discern genuity from ingenuity (angra mainyu)