Tolkien's good and evil races reflect Christian eschatology

[HareBrain]

So actually, Py, Tolkien always leaves a back door, to allow for the possible redemption of the orcs.
In the first case he says irredeemably is going to far.
In the second, the implication is that they are redeemable but not by elves or men, but may be by someone/something else.
But by the Istari, Valar or Maia?
What about by hobbits, or maybe women? (cf Elwen and the witch-king.)
What about by themselves?

The back door he leaves open is that he can't deny that they might be redeemed by God (Eru) surely?

 

[nixie]

Sorry people, my error the thread was closed.

 

[Overread]

I think the issue with redemption of the Orc is that they are born and bred evil. Ergo that evil is within their very nature not just their nurturing through life. As a result anything that could change orcs away from being evil would likely have to be something like divine intervention; or a very long period of selective breeding of the least evil of orks to try and breed it out.

It might also be that the only way for orcs to not be evil would be for evil forces themselves to be totally gone. Ergo that the orc is a servant of evil rather than a force for evil. So if you removed all evil forces the orc would steadily become less evil as there would be no evil force to act upon them

 

[farntfar]

The back door he leaves open is that he can't deny that they might be redeemed by God (Eru) surely?

Yes HB. I quite agree.
All the stuff about hobbits and Eowyn (who somehow became Elwen in my last post. (Someone I knew when I was a lad)) was just to point out how big a back door he had left.

 

[farntfar]

A somewhat damning analysis perhaps, Overread.
It could imply, then, that when you or I are good, we are merely servants of good, rather than actually being good in ourselves. (on the basis of Marks' idea that all the ME races are meant to show aspects of our own existence, which seems quite reasonable to me)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that either.

 

[Overread]

I think it was fairly clear in Lord of the Rings that humanity, hobbits, dwarves and even elves were all fairly free willed by and large. Elves would be the classic good side based upon their social structure and beliefs but they could most certainly be cruel and selfish when they wanted; or even be misguided.

If we look at how Gandalf acts during the triology we can see that, as a direct agent of good, Gandalf most often works to push the other races to actually achieve the end goals. He makes stands against major forces of darkness, but otherwise he does his best to ensure that its men, and hobbits, who are responsible for turning the tide of war and driving back the evil of the land.

In contrast the Dark Lord acts very directly to control his subjects as much as possible in order to achieve his end goals. As such you could say that the forces of good act to guide, whilst the forces of darkness seek to direct. As such the orc is fated to evil by its genetic design, by its corruption and by its creation. Indeed the fact that they are called corrupted elves suggests that some part of them is broken, damaged or altered away from the original designs. The orc does seem capable of free thought and choice, but at the same time its inclination is toward evil and dark acts; and when its masters are around the freedom is further curtailed to ensure their masters desires are achieved.


This is not a damning viewpoint, its just a viewpoint on what orcs are. You can read into it and say that orcs are this and that of humanity and that they represent an aspect of human mental structure. But honestly any faction in any story which is presented as a very simplistic structure can be read into as an aspect of humanity in some form. All books are written by humans and thus our ability to relate and create fantasy races relies upon elements that we understand - even the most alien and strange of fantasy races can be said to have some aspect of "humanity" because, by and large, humans cover it all. Good, bad, evil, twisted, nasty, spiteful, hateful, loving, caring, bold, brash, bombastic, short sighted, wise, ignorant etc....

Honestly I would say that the best analogy of humans within the Lord of the Rings are the humans within Lord of the Rings. They are the most varied, the most diverse the most apt to change and to alter their viewpoint. The most open to shifts in the world and the most varied presented. I think if the world were expanded upon even more we'd see far more Hobbits open to other things (indeed we do, the Sackvil Baggins are far from the happy, friendly, gardeners that many others are). Indeed even the Ents would show variety that we'd expect to see in any normal structure of a species.

 

[farntfar]

In contrast the Dark Lord acts very directly to control his subjects as much as possible in order to achieve his end goals. As such you could say that the forces of good act to guide, whilst the forces of darkness seek to direct. As such the orc is fated to evil by its genetic design, by its corruption and by its creation.

We’re back to the whole nature and nurture question. You’re saying that their nurture forces them to evil, and I’ll agree wholeheartedly that that seems to be a general rule.
However I’m not prepared, even without any evidence to back it up, to say that their nature necessarily forces them to evil too.

I’m not trying to suggest that, if Grishnakh had gone to the same school as Faramir, he’d probably have turned out to be a lovely lad. After all Flashman went to the same school as Tom Brown, as did Voldemort and Potter and Clark Kent and Lex Luthor (apparently).
But I do feel that almost arbitrarily saying Orcses is bad and there’s an end to it, we deny a great deal of possibility.
The question is about comparing Middle earth races and Christian eschatology, (what happens after death), and I would suggest that if the Christian message is applied to Middle Earth, there is hope even for orcs.
As an atheist I have no personal interest in promoting it. I’m just trying to make the comparison that was asked about.

 

[Overread]

I'm actually saying that nurture encourages the evil that corruption of nature has put into the orc. Ergo that both nature and nurture of the orc have resulted in a creature predisposed to evil acts. Remembering that orcs are not a normally created creature like most in Middle Earth; they are a corrupted form by an evil force. As such its likely that redemption for the orc is near impossible without some form of force of good acting to correct that corruption.

Gollum on the other hand wasn't corrupted from creation, he was born, far as we can tell, as a hobbit. Or as a race of people who were related too or became hobbits. As such both his nature and nurture in his early days were totally normal and he had free choice. The Ring acted to corrupt him, but because that corruption was only a twisting of his nurture it wasn't engrained into his nature as a creature. Ergo there was hope for him to turn aside.
I think if the orc had a chance, any chance, of redemption we'd have seen one of the wizards attempt to do so. For to turn the dark lords servants against him would have been a major boon in the war.

 

[HareBrain]

The question is about comparing Middle earth races and Christian eschatology, (what happens after death), and I would suggest that if the Christian message is applied to Middle Earth, there is hope even for orcs.

But you couldn't have that without Christ, who is far in Middle-Earth's future (going by Tolkien's conceit that his world is ours of the distant past). Tolkien might have thought that Christ could redeem the already dead Orcs as well as the already dead humans, but I don't think he said so anywhere, probably wisely. Ancient Jewish belief (as I understand it) held that all the dead went to Sheol, the land of the shades, however they had acted in life.

 

[farntfar]

Tolkien might have thought that Christ could redeem the already dead Orcs as well as the already dead humans, but I don't think he said so anywhere, probably wisely.

The question of whether redemption is retroactive is one that I have no knowledge about.
Whether a sinner who died in 1BC (or possibly 32AD) was eternally damned and one born in 34AD got forgiven is unknown to me. (Seems very unfair if it is).
There seem to be varying levels of fail marks depending on which church you're in too.

But in the case of orcs, surely we must apply > 33AD rules in order to be able to compare the two elements of the question.
And to say that none of them will achieve a high enough mark to pass is also fudging the answer.

The real question remains: assuming that orcs were Eru's creatures (if only by adoption, like dwarves, rather than by "choice" (as I think Manwë put it)), and on the assumption that Melkor couldn't really create life any more than Aulë could, would they get into the halls of Mandos (??) after death.
Maybe, like the dwarves (at least the 7 fathers, as I understand it), the souls of dead orcs, get reincarnated in later orcs.

 

[Judderman]

Some interesting points above. There isn't much discussion on what happens after death actually in Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit is there? Although some wizards seem able to return.

They are stories about life, not what happens afterwards. Of course good and evil, and redemption is part of that.

You can bring in religion but the key theme is surely greed (selfishness) vs friendship (and selflessness). Time and time again these books ram these themes down our throats through many of the major characters.
Greed of Dwarfs of their land and gold. Greed of some Elves. Greed of Dragons. Greed of Lords and Kings who lust for power. Greed of people focused on industry. Greed of sorcerors. Greed caused by Sauron and the One Ring to whoever holds it. Vs the ultimate triumph due to Sam's devotion and friendship to Frodo. Along with help from Gandalf, Galadriel and the Eagles etc. Those who help others.

Also that people can be greedy or selfless but can go from one to the other. Maybe that links to what side you are on at the end of your life but I'm not sure that end is the point.

 

[soulsinging]

That does it, I'm posting my paper on this someday. It's about how Tolkien, despite building his tales around stylistic/plot flourishes drawn from Norse myth and pagan fairy tales, couldn't help but incorporate significant chunks of Christian theology. The whole Valar/Maiar dynamic could be straight out of Milton and the great "quest" of LOTR is not a heroic conquest, but about resisting temptation (don't use the ring!) and preparing the way for the return of the King.

 

[Overread]

Considering the age and country he grew up in a Christian influence is likely almost impossible to avoid for him even if its unintentional. That said Christianity in itself has a lot of stories and concepts lifted from other religions, so there's every chance he might have lifted some of those stories from earlier sources that were also later adapted into part of Christianity.

Also sometimes really simplistic summaries of many stories can end up sounding very similar to each other even if the author never intended nor even was influenced.

 

[Onyx]

Something that I find somewhat irreconcilable with Christianity is that there are zero evil characters that are ever redeemed. There are characters that are possessed, and other that are tempted, but no one who consciously goes to the dark side ever recants and comes back. Once you sign on with Sauron you're done - even expedient side changers like Saruman or victims like Golem.

 

[Amberlen]

I see these books as a story of the reality of evil and the struggle of conscience. The battle between pride and humility. The concept of death & sacrifice, resurrection, reward, the ultimate futility of evil & the eventual triumph of good. And while no utterly evil person(ie. a Sauron, or Ringwraith or orc) is redeemed, there are several examples of "regular" (free will) people who go down the road towards evil,(aka, sin, tempatation) but are redeemed in the end....my examples would be Boromir, Thorin Oakenshield, Theoden, etc... I think to wonder on an orcs redemption might be going down a bit of a rabbithole...after all, redemption can only come when a person WANTS to receive it... and I'm not sure we know of any orcs who fit that bill.
That being said, Im all about someone coming back from the dark side, ala DV/Anakin (out of context, i know)....but what makes a glorious tale is that there was a big, bad, dark side guy in the first place..
Tolkien didnt set up a religion for middle earth(within the main books) but rather, wove Christian truths into the story- and I think that was intentional.

 

[Onyx]

I see these books as a story of the reality of evil and the struggle of conscience. The battle between pride and humility. The concept of death & sacrifice, resurrection, reward, the ultimate futility of evil & the eventual triumph of good. And while no utterly evil person(ie. a Sauron, or Ringwraith or orc) is redeemed, there are several examples of "regular" (free will) people who go down the road towards evil,(aka, sin, tempatation) but are redeemed in the end....my examples would be Boromir, Thorin Oakenshield, Theoden, etc... I think to wonder on an orcs redemption might be going down a bit of a rabbithole...after all, redemption can only come when a person WANTS to receive it... and I'm not sure we know of any orcs who fit that bill.
That being said, Im all about someone coming back from the dark side, ala DV/Anakin (out of context, i know)....but what makes a glorious tale is that there was a big, bad, dark side guy in the first place..
Tolkien didnt set up a religion for middle earth(within the main books) but rather, wove Christian truths into the story- and I think that was intentional.

None of the characters you mention were "tempted" in the traditional sense - most were just being influenced by poison or black magic objects - the Ring was especially notable in taking away free will. And Thorin didn't align himself with evil, he just acted with greed and prejudice, and like many other characters who do some soul-searching, decide to do the right thing. He didn't reject an evil alignment like the kind Saruman or the Men from the East made for themselves.

 

[Amberlen]

but we are invited to sin via tempatation..so, i would suggest the theory is that the further we give into sin, the more drawn towards, or the more we surrender to...evil.
is going to have be required when you and i talk

 

[Onyx]

but we are invited to sin via tempatation..so, i would suggest the theory is that the further we give into sin, the more drawn towards, or the more we surrender to...evil.
is going to have be required when you and i talk

The Ring is clearly not mere temptation but possession so powerful that even Gandalf avoids handling it. The various rings enslave, not just tempt. They are like demonic possession.

There are many examples of LOTR characters living up to the best versions of themselves, but being frightened or unsure are not evils to be rejected like knowing alignment with Sauron is.

There is no Saul of Tarsus type character in LOTR.

 

[HareBrain]

The Ring is clearly not mere temptation but possession so powerful that even Gandalf avoids handling it. The various rings enslave, not just tempt. They are like demonic possession.

The Ring enslaves after a while, perhaps, but initially it works through temptation. Otherwise Bilbo would never have given it up. Gandalf and Galadriel refuse to handle it not because they fear being possessed by it, but because they fear being tempted to use its power for good. The Ring has no effect on Bombadil because he doesn't desire any more power than he already has. The temptation of power is one of LOTR's main themes.

 

[Overread]

I think the Rings temptation varies because in the end its not simply an agent of temptation. Temptation/desire is what it uses to make a person want to have it; to give that person something they desire in order to make them pick the ring up and wear it so that the Ring can continue to work its control over that person.

In that light I don't see it as copying the concepts of temptation as presented in the Bible, but simply giving a reason for someone to want to pick up and wear and otherwise ignorable gold ring; especially if that Ring is buried or lost etc... It's reaching out to a basic desire within creatures that come near.

The Ring also shows shifting agendas, with Gollum the ring did nothing but hide. Probably playing on Gollums deep buried guilt of his murder when he originally picked the Ring up. Getting to a point where the Ring had influenced Golllum to hide so much with it that he couldn't live without the Ring. In that the Ring actually lost control over Gollum and Gollum became a risk rather than an aid to the Ring.

There isn't much discussion on what happens after death actually in Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit is there? Although some wizards seem able to return.

The Wizards can return, but then remember that the Wizards are not men. It's something more brought out in the books that the Wizards are man-shaped but, like elves, they are clearly not human (indeed in the book Gandalf's eyebrows are supposed to come out near the brim of his hat). They are essentially agents sent into Middle Earth and as such they operate just outside the normal laws. Indeed one could argue that Gandalf doesn't actually return, instead Gandalf the Grey died to the Balrog; but he returned as Gandalf the White to replace the Wizard which had fallen. This suggests that the Wizards can fall, but also replace each other; ergo that they can fail. One can argue that Radagast fails since clearly he should have roused the Ents and other creatures to the cause yet did not; whilst the two who travelled East we know nothing of.