✅ bag
What I wanted to say --
Some people seem to have a very unique definition for 'creatures', for example classifying adversarial peoples as 'creatures' to differ them from the 'own' ones, which in my opinion is quite offensive.
So I tried to explain the general definitions of what is when called a creature; the word coming from latin "creatura", based on "creare" meaning "bring something into being, form, create", hence the word means "created one" and basically defines everything that was created by someone - like God (Bacon: "God's first creature was light"😉.
So sometimes it is indeed used as a synonym for "human beings" as creations (of God) like Easterlings are, parallelly to "wight", but normally only in a pejorative way so that it finally got the most common meaning as "animal, beast, brute", and the latter is where the Fantasy definition of 'creature' is borrowed from 😐
Ergo when talking about LOTR, by the term 'creatures' people usually mean beings with non-human shape and often not capable of human language; Gandalf is not a creature though he definitely isn't human, Tom Bombadil is not a creature either, and the humans serving Sauron are definitely not creatures either, unless you use the word in the most pejorative racial way, classifying the others as lower than yourself to justify fighting against them with the most primitive methods. That's just... wrong.
The only way the people of Khand could be creatures is taking a look at the fact that they're "used to perfom unpleasant or dishonest tasks for someone else", the dictionary's third definition for 'creature', but thats not the way it was implied to be used according to the first post here.
To sum it up - Enemies are no creatures
Originally posted by Exabyte
What I wanted to say --
Some people seem to have a very unique definition for 'creatures', for example classifying adversarial peoples as 'creatures' to differ them from the 'own' ones, which in my opinion is quite offensive.
Offensive to me too.
Ergo when talking about LOTR, by the term 'creatures' people usually mean beings with non-human shape and often not capable of human language
Ok, I'm probably not understanding some things clearly again but.., quick question...does this mean treebeard (or any other ent for that mater) is NOT a creature, because he's in human form(in a way) and can speak human language?
or does it just depend on how you look at it?
Originally posted by Smodden
does this mean treebeard (or any other ent for that mater) is NOT a creature, because he's in human form(in a way) and can speak human language?
or does it just depend on how you look at it?
Though I'm not really sure about anything like that because I never really use the term 'creature' ermm or like its use 😖
I just wanted to point out that servants of Sauron do not necessarily have to be creatures, or that being his servants doesnt make them creatures 🙂
Originally posted by Exabyte
but I wouldn't really call his form 'human' just because he has two eyes and two legs laughing by 'human' I also meant typical things like size (not more than 2m50 preferably 😛) or skin structure 🙂
it makes sense when you put it the way you do.😆
I just wanted to point out that servants of Sauron do not necessarily have to be creatures, or that being his servants doesnt make them creatures 🙂
oh, Ok, I see...
This is an interesting topic...
so I suppose orcs shouldn't be called 'creatures' either...at least not in the derogatory way, meaning 'lesser'...like you said in your other post.
Originally posted by Smodden
This is an interesting topic...
so I suppose orcs shouldn't be called 'creatures' either...at least not in the derogatory way, meaning 'lesser'...like you said in your other post.
But when taking in consideration that others suppose that they're just the offspring of the elves or mortals that at some early point in history did a 'wrong choice' by accepting Melkor's lordship and denying Ilúvatar, things are kinda a lot less clear.
The most important part about creature-or-no-creature-ness is probably the being's conscience... and as not much is known concerning this among orcs, it's hard to say anything specific, judging things by the way Sauron's orcs are portrayed in ROTK in the book, they don't really seem like creatures at all.
They usually are called 'creatures', but I personally wouldn't really count them as that.
Same goes for Ringwraiths.
First of all, like Exa said, it depends on how you look at it, and I choose to think that "every" living thing in Middle-earth is a creature, whether they be Nazgul, the Watcher, Balrogs, the Ents, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Wargs, Orcs, and yes...Men. Meaning the Easterlings, the Rohirrim, Gondorians, etc. Hey, that's how I choose to look at it, so leave me alone regarding the "creature debate". 😛 😉
That being said, everyone has their favorite and all with adequate reasons. But my favorite creatures are the Istari, Gandalf the Grey in particular. Sent by the Ainur, can cast spells to open secret doors, knows where the best pipeweed is; gets to hang out with Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Men, Eagles, Ents, Bombadil, etc.; carries staffs, shoots off great fireworks; and can kick a Balrogs ass!! How could he not be great? 😎
Originally posted by s-b
Gandalf the Grey in particular. Sent by the Ainur,...can kick a Balrogs ass
Balrog's don't have asses.😐
Originally posted by Exabyte
Lol, I avoided to mention the orcs because that absolutely depends on the way one looks at it - looking at their origin and history, they definitely are creatures as long as basing things on the theory that Melkor made them "from mud and dust" or they are the outcome of his abnormous experiments, even if maybe 'based' on elves or humans;But when taking in consideration that others suppose that they're just the offspring of the elves or mortals that at some early point in history did a 'wrong choice' by accepting Melkor's lordship and denying Ilúvatar, things are kinda a lot less clear.
The most important part about creature-or-no-creature-ness is probably the being's conscience... and as not much is known concerning this among orcs, it's hard to say anything specific, judging things by the way Sauron's orcs are portrayed in ROTK in the book, they don't really seem like creatures at all.
They usually are called 'creatures', but I personally wouldn't really count them as that.
Same goes for Ringwraiths.
That was a great explanation.
And I can see how things can get confusing sometimes, between people about what is a 'creature' and what is not...and there seems to be as many meanings as there are creatures...😂
orcs and their conscience?? That is something to think about...And it did get me thinking
...to think that orcs have the awareness to apply moral aspects to their conduct is a stretch for me...but your right...it's hard to say, because orcs are under the dominion of Sauron...so doesn't that take away their free will?
Originally posted by DCLXVI
Hmm....
Originally posted by shadowy_blue
I choose to think that "every" living thing in Middle-earth is a creature
Sent by the Ainur, can cast spells to open secret doors, knows where the best pipeweed is; gets to hang out with Elves etc.; carries staffs, shoots off great fireworks; and can kick a Balrogs ass!
Originally posted by Smodden
Balrog's don't have asses.😐
...to think that orcs have the awareness to apply moral aspects to their conduct is a stretch for me...but your right...it's hard to say, because orcs are under the dominion of Sauron...so doesn't that take away their free will?
But both would still have their free will, though unable to choose freedom or do what they wish to - their minds are 'free', but latitude simply cannot evolve because of the overpowering environment, being too strong for the individual or even the mass.
Does free will mean freedom of mind or freedom of hand?
On the other hand, it clearly says in the book that the orcs were direct objects to Sauron's will, forced to do all he wants - but would anyone noticed if some just weren't? Or if a whole group wasn't, thinking of the orcs in the Misty Mountains?
Then again - relating free will to 'classic creature-ness', not in the sense of puppets but the outworn fantasy definition, sounds pretty negative for others usually clearly counted as 'creatures' as in 'not-fully-natural-animals', like Eagles, who for sure had a will of more freedom than most humans 😖
... I think I'll also prefer Shad's idea of 'creatures' laughing
Originally posted by Smodden
Balrogs don’t have asses.
Originally posted by Exabyte
They…don’t?
Originally posted by Smodden
...to think that orcs have the awareness to apply moral aspects to their conduct is a stretch for me...but your right...it's hard to say, because orcs are under the dominion of Sauron...so doesn't that take away their free will?
I’m actually going to have some contributions to this excellent discussion! 💃
*eherm…serious mode*
I would like to bring myself into the fray, Master Smodden and Lady Exa after I've sat back and watched for a while. 😄
Orcs. The greatest mystery to me next to dear ‘ole Tom. I have to admit that I myself am having a hard time deciding what to believe regarding their free will, and whenever I find myself dealing with it, I always end up contradicting myself, so bear with me, as I try to ponder it one more time. 😛
I think that the question of free will has represented a challenge to reasoning and insight on many levels over the ages - philosophical, religious, and scientific - and continues to do so. But in terms of Tolkien's narrative and cosmology, the inherent conundrum of free will within a creation (or subcreation) mythos was something he identified and reflected upon.
Orcs. Reared for a sole purpose, dealt with an “iron hand”, beaten into submission from conception, conceived for the purpose of hate, death and suffering; their lives mean nothing to those above them, around them and below them; hate themselves, their comrades and their lot, killed by both their enemies and allies. What then can this creature do? One orc who refuses to fight is beaten, and then if it continues, is killed. Die fighting, or just die in pain! They become spiteful and hateful beings almost immediately.
It's a vicious cycle...they cannot escape, they cannot live for themselves, and they cannot refuse. This cycle, so cunningly perceived by Morgoth, has enthralled the race completely.
And yet, despite all these, Orcs are moral beings, as Tolkien admits. They have souls, and when they die (this is a later thought of Tolkien's) their souls go to Mandos. So if they have souls, then they must have had free will and the capacity for moral decisions. Yet, we’re not certain if they really do. Indeed, the story would lose its impact if we were always uncertain about the orcs' behavior. If we felt that any orc that appeared might decide to help the heroes, or could be won over to the good side, they wouldn't be so threatening or frightening. It’s the very fact that we know they are “evil” that makes them the terrifying beings that they are. It’s also what justifies our easiness with their slaughter. We don't feel sorry for the orcs because we know they are heartless and cruel. Our “heroes” remain heroes in our minds no matter how many orcs they slaughter, because we know that “every dead orc is an evil orc”. While the Dunlendings who attacked Helm's Deep were spared, the orcs weren't - and we agree that that is the correct policy. But “Nothing is evil in the beginning” Tolkien tells us through Elrond. But is this entirely true? Maybe the first Elves, twisted and corrupted into orcs, weren't evil, but those born orcs were bad from the start - from the moment they were born. They cannot be “saved”, cannot “repent” - or if they can, our “heroes” are not heroes when they slaughter them without compunction. Unless its a case of “Kill them all, Eru will know his own”.
The Nazgul chose to take the Rings. Saruman chose to pursue power. Even Shelob, while she must eat, chooses to “play” and “make sport” of her captives. But orcs don't choose to be orcs. This differentiates the Orcs from the Men amongst the "forces of evil". The Haradrim made a choice to join forces with Sauron's army, yet we can see from Sam's reflections on the dead Haradrim soldier that perhaps not all of them made that choice. Further, we receive the impression that they are capable of repentance, just as the Dunlendings repent and are redeemed following the Battle of the Hornburg. No such suggestion is ever made with regard to Orcs. Even such "compassion" as they show (such as Shagrat providing Merry with Orc Draught) is simply directed towards furthering their ends (in Shagrat's case, bringing the captive Hobbits alive to Isengard).
I like to think that Orcs have their free will, but although some of them express a desire to be away from the War, the alternative lifestyle that they see for themselves is no less morally reprehensible than that which they are bound (by fear) to pursue. They are capable of moral decisions, but they are too bound to the will of their Master to the extent that having their own will and desire is not enough to change their current state and way of life. It can be compared to a 12 year old kid who loathes his parents and wish more than anything to move away. The kid has his own will and desire but still too dependent on his parents so he has no other choice but to stay and endure living in that house.
In a way, Orcs are most like us. They drift along, obeying orders, and enjoying the sufferings they cause, because they can justify it by blaming the victims. We're all capable of orcish behavior - and how many of us truly repent for it, even when we have the chance?
*sigh* I think I contradicted myself yet again.
*sulks in the corner* sadangel