I would love to see more about the orc librarian of Rivendell. How did he come to choose that life? How and why did Elrond let him in? Perhaps you could put it on AO3.
Thanks for the ask!
I do want to write a proper fic with Garthaglir eventually but I've got a few WIPs going already so it'll probably be a while. For now, I'll try to answer some of your questions here:
(Content warning: this post discusses the creation of orcs, and their indoctrination and subjugation under Sauron, as well as non-graphic violence)
My headcanon is that while the first orcs were elves kidnapped by Morgoth, the later generations of orcs basically became their own species (subspecies? arguably they're still kind of elves). They're born in Angband/Mordor, undergo pretty brutal training and indoctrination from an early age, and generally don't interact with the outside world unless they're on a raid.
The only interaction orcs have with men, elves, etc are violent. They only ever see peope when they're at war, so they aren't really exposed to life outside of the constant struggle of war. They have a very warped view of the world. And because there's a language barrier, there's no way for them to speak with anyone else. Even the language they use is designed to isolate them; Black Speech was created by Sauron, not the orcs, and doesn't really allow for free expression– it's not built for that. There are a few stories and some carried over words from the original elvish orcs, but it's more myth than reality for most of them.
It's a long story, but Garthaglir ended up getting separated from his party sometime in the early Third Age, and hiding out in some elvish ruins to avoid sunlight (and the human warriors they were running from). He ended up spending weeks there, every night he'd go exploring; finding old paintings, books, toys. The remnants of a people who weren't forced into a life of war. Eventually, he realized that there was more to Middle-Earth than fighting, and that he didn't want to go back to fighting for Sauron. He ended up wandering, unsure of what else he could do with his life. And, well, doorways to Rivendell have a habit of showing up when they're needed.
As for Elrond– that's a long story. He was taught Black Speech as a survival tactic at a young age, but has also used it to communicate with orcs. There was also a kidnapping incident with some surprisingly nice orcs. You know. Normal means of cultural exchange given Elrond's life. So he was much more open to letting orcs who wanted to to escape Sauron and live a better life into Rivendell. Since Garthaglir wasn't the first orc to live there, many of the other residents were also pretty used to the idea by that point.
Bonus: Garthaglir found Mittens when she was a small kitten. She showed up outside the library one day when it was pouring rain, trying to get out of the storm. Garthaglir let her in and dried her off. They've been inseparable ever since.
It was a while ago already that I wrote this post, On the Nature of Orcs, looking at the various sources elaborating on Tolkien’s thoughts on Orcs and how they have evolved over time. To summarize it briefly, I claim that there’s always been a major divide between what people attribute to Tolkien and the intention he has actually expressed on this subject, among many others obviously.
I was glad to see that this notion has been validated by The Nature of Middle-Earth by further elaborating on points made earlier. There’s a note published here, written by Tolkien in 1968, that elaborates on the true intended meaning of what is being said.
It becomes quite obvious how some things said in the Text, whether through direct speech or description, may have been understood as having an implication it wasn’t intended to have.
"CE ★khōn-, khond- was only used of the physical heart, and that was not regarded as or supposed to be a centre of either emotion or thought. Thus when Treebeard uses the adjectives morimaitë, sincahonda ‘black-handed, flint-hearted’ of the Orks*, these were both physical in reference – as indeed were all the other adjectives whatever they may have implied with regard to Orkish minds and characters. Sincahonda referred to their immense staying power, marching, running or climbing, which gave rise to the jesting assertion that their hearts must have been made of some exceedingly hard substance; it did not mean pitiless."
Clearly consistent with what I've already outlined earlier based on previously available sources, this comment takes it a step further in clarifying Tolkien's intention and views.
━━━
CE - Common Eldarin
★ - primitive or reconstructed form
* Tolkien used a number of different spellings thorugout his writing, it's been edited for consistency in the published novels.
So I got an ask about how I write orcs (like Garthaglir) and I'm working on answering it, but I feel like first I need to make a post about why orcs in canon bother me so much. This post is going to be a lot less fun than a lot of my others, but I think it's really important to critically examine the Legendarium. That said, mind the content warning.
CW: discussions of racism (in real life), dehumanization
So I have three major issues with orcs in canon. I'll start with the least serious and work my way up.
Messy worldbuilding: Tolkien proposed about five different backstories for the orcs and doesn't seem to have been happy with any of them. The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings clearly shows us that the orcs are sentient; but he claimed at one point that they were essentially non-sentient puppets of Morgoth. That explanation was a way to get around the idea that Morgoth had created a race of sentient brings which he didn't like for Catholic reasons. The idea that orcs are corrupted elves is the most well-known of the orc backstories (and the one I like the best), but the actual text doesn't really address this? There's no indication that orcs could have once been elves or elf-like. They certainly aren't treated anything like elves or men, even corrupted ones. Which leads to problem two:
Narrative dehumanization: so fantasy and sci-fi have "faceless evil horde" as a recurring trope– and it's a trope that has some worldbuilding issues baked in. In the orcs' case, there's a whole sentient race that is universally, inherently evil. Either they all "chose" to be evil, which is basically impossible, or they've been so corrupted that they don't have a choice, which makes them victims more than villains. But the narrative doesn't treat them like victims; their lives have essentially no value. Sam in the books (Faramir has this line in the movies) thinks about a dead human soldier fighting for Sauron; wondering if he was evil, and how he came to be dragged off to war. In comparison, Legolas and Gimli count orc kills. Even heroic characters who are supposed to be compassionate have no regard for the orcs, because even if they're clearly sentient, the story doesn't treat them that way. And I hate that. I think the orcs should be treated like people, and not mindless monsters.
The racism: this is definitely the worst problem with Tolkien's orcs. So the orcs are the result of a lot of ideas; corrupted soldiers, biblical concepts of shadow and darkness, and yes, racial caricatures. In one of Tolkien's letters, he describes them as a "degraded" version of "Mongol-type" humans ("Mongol" here being an outdated and offensive term for Asian people as far as I know). Source for the quote here; the author of this article makes interesting points, but I disagree with some of his conclusions, including him backing down from saying the orcs are racist. So, yes, Tolkien's orcs are in-text racism– they're far from the only example either, Maeglin and Eol's story, as well as the LoTR representations of "Easterlings" and "Southrons" have similar problems. I hope I don't need to explain why I don't want to perpetuate these harmful ideas in the stories I tell. I've tried to tell an orcish story that isn't racist or dehumanizing. I hope others will try to do the same.
Hi! I hope yoı are doing well! I have a couple of questions if you dont mind me asking. Just what are orcs in your universe? By which I mean are they inmortal? Do they have afterlives? Do they have thwir own settlements and cultures? How are they affected from the presence of evil? What do they generally think about Sauron and Morgoth? Are there any of the original orcs surviving until the Third Age? I have so many questions!
P. S. This got longer than I expected, sorry aboyt that.
Don't apologize– I'm always happy to share my thoughts about the Legendarium. As background for this; I made a post about why I dislike orcs in canon– feel free to check it out, but mind the content warning. This also got very long; I basically dumped the entirety of my orc worldbuilding into it.
CW: the creation of orcs, violence, dehumanization, referenced child abuse, Sauron and Morgoth being Sauron and Morgoth
So I'm going off the the idea that the first orcs were elves Morgoth took from Cuivienen. These elves had no idea what the Valar were; they were taken from their homes and families, brought to a strange, dark place away from the stars, and corrupted by Morgoth's dark power. Some gave in, some fought, a few managed to get away. Those that didn't were changed into something... different, though they still weren't really orcs.
What Morgoth wanted was an unquestioning army that would obey his commands. It didn't work out that way. While his brute-force power was able to twist the elves' bodies, their souls, their free will, was much harder for him to corrupt. The violence they had been through, and the darkness of Morgoth's constant presence, left them too weak to be a brutal fighting force, and most of the maybe-elves held fast to memories of better days, and their unwillingness to hurt others. It was then that Sauron, cleverest of Morgoth's lieutenant's, stepped in.
See, the maybe-elves, despite the horrors they had been through, were still very elven in many ways. They sang, they crafted, they fell in love, they had children. And that was where Sauron saw his opportunity. He took the children as soon as they no longer needed their parents to stay alive. Unlike their parents, the children were more used to the darkness, stronger, and by virtue of being so young, much easier to mold into what Morgoth desired. Especially since Sauron had no ethical qualms about using violence to get them to behave.
A few generations of this, and you arrive at proper orcs. In some ways, they look elvish– pointed ears, sharp features. In other ways, they look rather different. Most of them do not know they are descended from elves (mind you, it's more myth than fact for the elves as well), and those who do have heard it only as a faint legend from a time long gone. They don't speak any kind of Elvish, they speak Black Speech, a language Sauron tailored as a tool of control, and as a way to stop the orcs from communicating with anyone else. They are strong physically, darkness no longer sickens them at all, and other than their earliest years with their parents, all they've known is harsh training and Morgoth's doctrine. Morgoth has his army.
Still, it's never that simple. Violence and indoctrination can't keep everyone in-line, especially once there are too many orcs for Sauron to constantly be watching. And after all, their loyalty to Morgoth is formed mostly out of fear; Many rebel against being forced to fight when they don't want to, they refuse orders by letting their enemies escape rather than capturing or killing them, they keep a few of the old stories alive, they start whispering in a new language Sauron had no hand in, they kill a few balrogs along the way. Some of them escape. Not many of them do, and some of the escapees end up dead; killed by animals or harsh conditions, or fearful men, elves, or dwarves. But as the First Age wears on, many of them find their way to a few settlements, deep in the mountains or forests, far to the east of Angband. They live in relative peace there, though meetings with nearby men often end violently; the orcs might not be mindless monsters (or doing Morgoth's bidding, anymore) but the men certainly see them that way. The orcs, who have only ever seen men on the battlefield, think much the same.
When Morgoth is defeated, many, many orcs die in the War of Wrath and the collapse of Angband. Those still living flee the wrath of Valinor's armies, disappearing into the far reaches of Middle-Earth. Many remain loyal, mostly because they don't really believe Morgoth could be gone, and because they've never known anything else. Certainly, the Valar and elves don't seem to offer anything better. Dead orcs, like elves, have souls destined to stay in the world. There's a closed off part of Namo's Halls for them. Many (but not all) of the Valar are very certain that they shouldn't be let out under any circumstances.
Things get more complicated in the Second Age but this is already a lot; I can type it up later if people are interested.
This appears to be the third installment in what has become a series of metas on Orc and Uruk-related topics. My wish is to share what is known from Tolkien’s own writings and commentary while attempting to be transparent about what is my conjecture and without mixing in personal headcanons.
This post is on a topic that I actuallly already mentioned in the previous post on Orc immortality, because of the way it ties in with the subject, so there will be a bit of repetition here.
For the sake of the subject at hand I first have to make a distinction between ‘Uruks’ and ‘Uruk-hai’ and where the name even comes from. Although there’s quite a bit of inconsistency across the various sources in the use of the terms ‘uruk’, orc’ and ‘goblin’ and Tolkien himself admitted to using them interchangeably for a time, the terms and various spellings eventually take on contextual meaning and disctinctions.
The base of the term ‘Uruk’ is the archaic stem ruku that is to be found across all the tongues of the Eldarin in multiple derivatives. The noun urko (pl. urqui) first appears in Quenya, along with urug in Sindarin. At first it stands for something that’s a bit vague in meaning: “dreadful terror-inspiring shapes”.
The eventual Sindarin form of orch (pl. yrch) was immediately applied to Orcs once they appeared. And Orcs themselves adopted the term for themselves as well. ‘Uruk’ seems to reenter the picture in Black Speech once Sauron decided to adopt it from Quenya, but:
“It referred, however, specially to the trained and disciplined Orcs of the regiments of Mordor. Lesser breeds seem to have been called snaga.”
(Quendi and Eldar, The War of the Jewels, pg.390)
Basically what this says is that ‘Uruk’ is a term for a different kind of Orc, that is not only distinguished from snaga on the basis training and social placement in Mordorian society, but most importanly on the basis of ‘breed’. And that this is a distinction that Orcs make and reinforce themselves.
The Uruks of Mordor, also know as the Black Uruks, were the first of their kind, and to be called such. It is unclear what their ancestry is because although they’re different from other Orcs that aready exist early on, and Tolkien describes certain differences, then they are still all Elvish in their origin. Which is what brings us to the Uruk-hai.
‘Uruk-hai’ is only ever used to refer to Uruks that originate from Isengard in the Third Age, also known as Isengarders. Even though they’re colloquially called Uruks then they’re not to be confused with the “original” Uruks. They may share some similarities, which is kind of what Saruman was after, no doubt, but Tolkien makes his intention quite clear.
Their ancestry may be left a bit vague in The Lord of the Rings both in book and film form, but Tolkien keeps circling back to the same point in additional materials. I already explained the nature of Text X and its three versions in my previous post, but it’s also important for this subject.
In the second version of Text X, Orcs, Tolkien gives the most compact account of the origins of Orcs. And while this version is centered around the idea that all Orcs originate at least partially from the race of Men, which he later decides against, he doesn’t later contradict what he has stated here regarding the Uruk-hai and their origin:
“There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and 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.”
(Text X, Myths Transformed, pg.419)
The Men-orcs in question are the Uruk-hai. And I think that these Orc-men that he refers to here are those that have also been referred to as Saruman’s spies in the book (and films). They were implied to be of mixed-race, but perhaps to a lesser degree so that they would pass for Men and not stand out so much in the general population of Mannish settlements. If my memory serves me well, there’s at least a couple of mentions of them in the LotR.
I think it’s important to mention here that the ‘treachery’ and ‘vileness’ in question are something I believe to be a moral evaluation. In my opinion it’s still Saruman that Tolkien holds accountable for this treachery. After all, creating them had been his wickedest deed. And so by way of serving as his spies, these people became Saruman’s accomplices and in doing so betrayed what was Mannish in them by extension, because it was Saruman that had by his own actions inflamed the conflict between Orcs and Men.
I think that one thing that should be fairly obvious an it’s that Tolkien never holds the footman responsible for all the ills in the world. He doesn’t hold Orcs of any kind responsible for the evils of their masters. And all True Evil in the context of Middle-Earth is, after all, divine in origin.
There’s room for speculation in the matter of exactly how Saruman built his vast army, although, I believe I have come across implications for exactly the sort of thing that one might imagine. But in any case, the origins of the Uruk-hai is a matter that’s not actually up for debate.
There's something that's been on my mind for a long time, ever since I first came across the concept applied to Uruk-hai. I'm not telling anyone what to think, but it's something I want to draw attention to.
What I'm talking about here is the idea of bonded mates. More specifically of Uruks being mates with characters who belong to the race of Men. Particularly when applied in a manner that completely removes freedom of choice from the Uruk character and the process.
I will get to all those aspects in turn, but as you can probably imagine, based on the fact that I'm bringing it up - I don't like it, so I'm going to begin by explaining why. In theory there probably could be a way to implement this concept in a manner that doesn't present the problems that I will be getting to, but it's just not all that likely. Unless, of course, that is a choice that has been made consciously. I'm not going to argue with anyone's right to write whatever they want, but I'm bringing it up becaue I think a lot of the times it's not so much a creative choice but rather something people haven't consciously considered from that particular angle.
One of the main issues I take with it is when instead of something that could in theory be understood and applied as a soul bond becomes something that is closer to physical, biologically predestined bondage. Only made worse by its usual lack of reciprocity. More often than not it becomes a physical compulsion, and not anything to do with kinship of souls.
It may or may not make one question the validity of his true feelings, the substance of his relationship, and the gravity of personal choices he makes that establish him as an individual apart from the Orc monolith, which is pretty much the most effective way of shifting the POV.
Not to mention that binding an Uruk character to what appears as biological determinism and portraying it as an unbreakable compulsion over something that is up to his free will is actually undermining all the ways in which I would hope to see Uruks redeemed. That way contradicting the arguments that stand in favor of them beeing freed from all such compulsion with the breaking of Saruman's, and eventually Sauron's control over them.
The implications that Saruman held the Uruks in thrall by means of deception, magic and manipulation relieves them from a great deal of individual responsiblity for what they did in the war, under his rule and compulsion. But showing them to still be slaves to something that they have no control over by means of personal willpower moves to undo it and undermines the idea that they are no more fundamentally this or that than any other race.
Personally I also feel the one-sidedness is really sad to contemplate. Like what does that imply then? That as it is, they will never experience the same level of love, devotion, lust or longing in return? If you then ask why it would be one-sided then I would point back to what I said at the beginning about Uruk-Human pairings.
I don't know if there are any alternate sources from which this idea came into use in Tolkien-based fanfiction or other fandom lore, but the one that I suspect is the description of how the Eldar came into being. And that is, in pairs. Even their names were reflective of that. So the first Elf to awaken was Imin, and the second one was Iminyë who became his wife. You get the idea.
While not much of a choice there either then the implcation is that these were souls created as paired anyway and thus it still fits our understanding of a soulmate. Not to mention that Tolkien himself put emphasis on a spiritual closeness rather than physical.
So, given that the first Orcs were originally Elves and their descendants still carry that DNA so to speak, this is a manifestation of that aspect. At least if my assumption is correct about how it first came into use in application to Orcs and Uruks. Given that this is something that occurs in connection to those who are of Elven or Orc blood it rules out the race of Men. Not just in theory but so far also in practice as far as I am aware.
This again comes back to what I am trying to say. This... whether it be used as a plot device or trope, it somehow still manages to undermine what is seemingly the aim for the greater narrative. And I don't know whether it's just that people find the idea appealing or something else... I think it deserves some thought. At least in the context of imagining for them a future that is free.
This is a topic that comes up time and again because the material that deals with the subjects in question is extremely fragmented and has thus remained somewhat unclear. It’s something that has always been of interest to me so I’ve tried to get as close as I can to some kind of clarity on the matter and this here is my attempt to lay out everything that is known from published materials. I will also offer my view of how it all fits together and what the implications are for questions that aren’t directly answered in the texts.
Before I go into the topic, I have to first explain one of the main sources that I’m drawing from in this post, because it’s likely the least known to a lot of people. It’s the series of books that are collectively known as The History of Middle-Earth, and contain the writings by Tolkien relating to his legendarium, which have then been collected and organized by his son Christopher Tolkien. These texts include Tolkien’s own commentary, notes and at times elaborations which were not included in the published versions of his works. But most crucially for the subjects at hand — various versions of published texts and revisions with added commentary in which Tolkien often explains his intent and reasoning for one or another thing.
There is one specific text titled Orcs in Morgoth’s Ring, which is central here. There are three alternate versions of it that have significant differences between them. The conclusion I come to, specifically with regard to the matter of the possiblity for the immortality of Orcs, rests on the final version of this text and the implications of Tolkien’s commentary on it.
I will come back to the contents of it later on, but I wanted to first give you a contextual understanding of the legitimacy of the source material that I will be referencing here. In the process I will probably also bring up other topics which deserve to be looked at separately, but the focus of this post remains on the question of immortality.
In short, I find that there is enough to support the understanding that Orcs are or at least can be immortal. Okay, it’s a bit more complicated than that, because we also have to make several distinctions in this regard. Anyway, let’s start from the beginning.
A key aspect in all this is the origin of the Orcs. After toying around with a couple of different ideas Tolkien settled on the version of their origin story in which Orcs come into being as corrupted Elves. So this is kind of what they inherited ‘genetically’ speaking.
This is the first place the aforementioned text Orcs (Text X, Morgoth’s Ring, pg. 415-423) comes in. If anyone suggests with any sort of confidence that Orcs are not immortal, it is because they are relying on the second version of the three renditions of the same text, which is the longest and most detailed, but also the only place Tolkien ever explicitly suggests that Orcs are not immortal. There is a very simple reason for this - that is the only version of the text in which Tolkien suggests that Orcs are not Elvish in origin, but that they were originally Men instead. This is a view he ultimately discards, and insists that they are Elvish in their origin. Which is why this is also the version that has been burned into our consciousness by the scene in The Fellowship of the Ring where Saruman tells Lurtz about the orgins of the first Orcs.
But for the sake of both comparison and the argument I’m trying to make I will add below the quote from the second version of Text X:
“They could be slain, and they were subject to disease; but apart from these ills they died and were not immortal, even according to the manner of the Quendi.”
(Orcs, Myths Transformed, Morgoth’s Ring, pg.418)
This is important for at least two reasons. First of all I think you can agree that it sounds a little strange, because the use of ‘apart from’ generally implies some exclusion that is being made. But here in this example it reads as a repetition of the same thing. Secondly, this is the only mention of their mortality, which is important because elsewhere, where the fact of their Elvish origin is acknowledged within the text, the part about their mortality is simply omitted, even if the possiblity of Orcs being killed is mentioned:
“they could be slain or destroyed by the valiant with weapons of war”
(The Annals of Aman, Morgoth’s Ring pg.109)
And in this text, after the quote above, Tolkien goes on to suggest that they are of Elvish origin. To summarize, the mention of the mortality of Orcs exists in the context of suggesting that they descend from the race of Men. There is no mention of their mortality in any source that establishes that Orcs are descended from Elves. And to my awareness, there is only one other mention Tolkien made of Orcs not being Elvish, and it’s a scribbled comment on an incomplete and abandoned version of The Annals of Aman (The Annals of Aman, notes beginning on pg.79).
From this I conclude that there is sufficient contextual evidence to believe that the omission of the mention of Orcs’ mortality in all sources but the one that he discarded, meant he saw it likely that Orcs may possess some degree of immortality. Even if he did not say so explicitly. Which could have been for the simple reason of avoiding any further complications this would bring along. In short, I think he believed them to be immortal with certain limitations (some of which I will bring up below), but didn’t want to deal with the baggage of stating so.
This brings us to Elven immortality, which is bound to the concepts of fëa (soul) and hröa (earthboud vessel aka body). This conceptual nature is not unique to Elves, but means different things for them from other races. The Elven fëa does not automatically leave the world after death, and their fate is to live as long as Arda exists. Unlike Men, Elves do not die of disease or of old age. Their fëar are in much greater control of their bodies. This means that they can heal from wounds that would be fatal to mortals.
“Since fëar are indestructible within the world, while hröar can be broken by the disorders of Arda Marred, "death", which is their separation, is an ever present risk of existence in Middle-earth, even for the Elves. They may be slain or lose the will to live, for instance because of grief. When an Elf dies, the fëa leaves the hröa, which then "dies" and is reabsorbed into Arda. The fëa is called to the Halls of Mandos, where it is judged. After a time of Waiting, the fëa may be reincarnated into a new-born body that is identical to the previous hröa if allowed by Mandos. It is only by coming to Mandos that an Elvish fëa can hope to be reincarnated, as the Elves do not possess this ability in themselves. Alternatively, a fëa might decide to stay in Mandos until the end of Arda, or it may be denied reincarnation, if it had done much evil in life.”
[ source ]
Those Elves that became the first Orcs evidently endured the transformation. But it was not simply a transformation of their body, but of that enduring soul. And this change transcended any one individual and became permanent in all who descended from them. But again, their essential being is still tied to that origin, so therefore because of this corruption of their original being they have lost their connection to the divine, but still benefit from what makes Elves different from humans in their spiritual and physical endurance.
Apparently that original corruption also transforms them into a kind of being that is different from all other beings. They retain certain attributes, and to some degree even the characteristics of Elves. They may be immortal, but it is somewhat unclear what happens to them after they die as they have no connection or access to anything that is available to the Elves.
I think there are two main things Tolkien himself said that are of particular relevance here:
1. Orcs are not like demons, even if they can look as fearsome. Implying that they do, very much, have souls. (The Annals of Aman, Morgoth’s Ring, pg.109)
2. That Orcs are not irredeemably evil.
This opens up a number of possibilities and Tolkien does have sympathy for them, but he still needed an avatar for all the dark things that happened to Arda and so for the sake of what he’s trying to say with his whole story he can’t spend half of it making them so sympathetic that most people will automatically see an issue with how they’re being used by the story. That would defeat the point.
(In a way I appreciate the chance to speculate on what happens to them. I myself would like to think that there will come a Time of Healing in which a new path will be forged, for all who would take it. But that’s not what we’re discussing right now.)
It wouldn’t be difficult to explain why we see so few Orcs who reach an age comparable to the lifespans of the Elves, given how violent it is. Aside from the lack of known independent record-keeping. This also brings me to what could be viewed as the evolution, change or diversification of Orcs. The matter needs its own independent post, but I think some distinction needs to be made for the sake of discussing their immortality. The following is obviously my conjecture, but I hope to have been clear on what basis I have reached this understanding.
The way Tolkien describes the lessening of all the races living in Middle-Earth logically also has to appliy to Orcs in some way. Plus in their case, there is also the ‘corruption factor’. So the way I imagine it, the further away Orcs move from their original Elven stock, they too lessen in their strength and size, even if retaining abilities that are beyond those of Men.
Azog really struck me in this regard. The Azog we see doesn’t actually depart from the description that Tolkien gave us, aside from lack of helmet or an “iron-clad head”. He is 'great’, agile and strong. And he isn’t the only one of his kind.
Although canonically he was never elaborated to such a degree, in my opinion the intent in Azog’s character design makes him perfect for illustrating the distinction between different kinds of Orcs and how they have evloved. The way I see it, Azog is not an anomaly but the embodiment of his origin:
“for in days of old they were strong and fell as demons”
(The Annals of Aman, Morgoth’s Ring, pg.109)
His appearance serves as a reference not so much to any particular clan of Orc, but to his age and lineage. He is un-Elven, but not so much that you can’t see the references. It could be then possible that Orcs, like both the races of Men and Elves, has lessened since the time the first of them came into being. In any case, all signs seem to point to the fact that Orcs such as Azog still reflect that origin. But there are several ways in which things have changed since.
I think there’s a good chance Azog would be immortal in a similar manner to Elves. The same would apply to some of the Orcs of Gundabad and Uruks of Mordor who bear a close semblance. I feel like there is reason for all the implications of them being like “in ye olden days”.
One other thing that I’ve seen mentioned in support of the immortality of Orcs is an interesting piece of dialogue between Shagrat and Gorbag in the last chapter of The Two Towers, The Choices of Master Samwise:
Gorbag: “What d’you say? - if we get chance, you and me’ll slip off and set up somewhere on out on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there’s good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses.”
Shagrat: “Ah! Like old times.”
(The Lord of the Rings, pg.738)
I very much appreciate the information the whole conversation between them gives us, but personally I don’t think that’s enough to draw any conclusions from. The conversation takes place in TA 3019. Chronologically this is 68 years after Sauron declared himself openly and 77 years after Sauron returned to Mordor. It’s very hard to place these “old times” because they could have been talking about the time before Sauron returned. But it’s not possible to claim immortality based on a span of 60-80 years, because the average lifespan of Men was still longer than a hundred years. But they could easily be referencing also times in the previous ages. We just can’t say for sure.
Shagrat in turn brings me back the the Uruks. The Uruks definitely deserve their own posts, but I think there are things that also have to be mentioned here. First the considerable difference difference between Uruks of Mordor (Black Uruks) and Uruk-hai of Isengard. Because the former are one of those patricular early groups that are implied to be different from regular Orcs. The elite troops of Sauron’s vasty army. Somehow different from the rest, but still fully Orcs.
The Uruk-hai or Isengard are in no uncertain terms a result of both Orcish and Mannish ancestry. If the implication is left a bit vague in The Lord of the Rings, The History of Middle-Earth reiterates this intention more explicitly. And while Tolkien describes them being imposing and clever then what they’ve lost as a result of their Mannish ancestry is any chance of immortality. It’s safe to say that if Orc blood becomes mixed with that of Men, any immortality or long-livedness beyond that of Men is lost.
It makes sense for this to correspond the same way it works in the case of Half-Elves. In the case of Half-Elves, those who have one immortal and one mortal parent, and are in connection with the Valar may be given a choice whether they want to live an immortal or mortal life. We see that in the case of the descendants of Tuor (literally named Half-Elven), who were given a choice between mortality and immortality. But all Orcs have lost that divine connection and so there is no choice here. Following the same logic present in how immortality is (not) inherited by Elves without a connection to the Valar, any such offspring are invariably mortal.
In conclusion, I hope to have shown that while we don’t have an explicit “yes, they’re immortal” what we have is significant enough implications for it. But this is also a reminder that we must put that in context, as Orcs are not a monolith.
There’s a longer post that’s been sitting somewhere in my drafts for some time, that I started writing during my the last time I was reading The Silmarillion, and that I intend to finish one day. But there’s something I want to say right now because it’s about beliefs that constantly reappear in Orc-related discussion.
I think it’s as unfair to say anything about the nature of Orcs as it is to say about the nature of Men. Or about the humans that surround us for that matter. Any mythology relies on a certain polarity, and all peoples have always definied themselves not only positively (by affirming commonalities about who they are), but also negatively (what they are not, and who for them is the ‘other’).
Despite the stories that revolve around them, both Morgoth and Sauron have remained as unreachable to me as to the snaga that slave for them. We the reader/audience see the face of supposed Evil when we meet Orcs, but this actually simultaneously reveals their tragedy.
And despite some of the characterizations of Orcs in Tolkien’s works, I don’t see that he ever held the kind of contempt for them that some people are determined to find in his writing. I keep seeing people that speak of their irredeemability when Tolkien for example explains in a 1944 letter to his son Christopher that:
“one of the discoveries of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearanes. Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable” (12th August 1944).
Furthermore, in a 1954 draft addressed to Peter Hastings he says that Orcs are “fundamentally a race of rational incarnate creatures, though horribly corrupted, if no more so than many Men to be met today.”
And also that “they would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad.” Which brings me back to what he said before. The Sin is Morgoth’s, and the Orcs are not guilty of the intention of their maker and master. Tolkien then also adds that he “nearly wrote irredeemably bad; but that would be going too far.” In yet another letter Tolkien also points to Frodo who in his words asserts that Orcs are not irredeemably evil.
So, the point I wanted to make is that ultimately I feel that people’s lack of compassion and judgement on the nature of Orcs reflects on them, and not on either on the true nature of Orcs or Tolkien’s intention in writing them a certain way.
