# Discrepancies in Tolkien's Writings



## baragund (May 29, 2003)

With the publication of the HOME series, there are occasional instances of inconsistencies among the collected writings of JRRT about some of the finer points of ME. For example, I initiated a thread a while ago (and I can't find it now ) on the origins of orcs and what happens to them when they die. I referenced a fairly clear passage in the published Silmarillion that stated orcs were corrupted elves. However, one of the responses (from either Ithrynluin or Celebthol, I think) quoted the HOME Series that described orcs as being derived from men or animals.

How does one reconcile such a discrepancy? Figuring out which passage takes precedence could be based on one or more of the following:

*The timeframe the passage was written. The later the writing the more "correct" it would be in JRRT's mind.
*The passage that is most "finished". A lot of the material in the HOME Series and even Unfinished Tales was little more than hastily scribbled notes.
*How much of the material is really JRRT's writing and how much is stuff that is filled in by Christopher Tolkien.

What does everybody think? Should there be any hard and fast rule or should each instance of inconsistency just be analyzed and debated as they come up on their individual merits?


----------



## Feanorian (May 29, 2003)

> Should there be any hard and fast rule or should each instance of inconsistency just be analyzed and debated as they come up on their individual merits?



I think you have to go with the second, I do not think you can really put a rule on it on this forum or any other, that would take half the fun out of discussing Tolkien. 

What I would tend to do without debate would see which Tolkien wrote on last and more, I think you must look at every instance individually.


----------



## Elendil3119 (May 29, 2003)

I have not read enough of Tolkien's last writings to know whether all of them should be given preference to material in The Silmarillion, however, his later writings on the origin of Orcs make more sense and should probably be be 'believed' over the original Elvish myth in The Silmarillion. I would say that the first (*The timeframe the passage was written. The later the writing the more "correct" it would be in JRRT's mind.) option would probably be the best way to study Tolkien's works, except in places where there are only small notes and such.


----------



## Maedhros (May 29, 2003)

Hmmm. I think that I have seen an excellent exposition of this in another forum. The author of this is jallan:


> What constitutes Canon
> 
> There are four levels:
> 1. What was published or openly distributed by J.R.R. Tolkien during his lifetime. (I use the term openly distributed to cover the "Guide to the Names in the Lord of the Rings" distributed to translators but only published after his death in Jared Lobdell's A Tolkien Compass.) Material in later published editions takes precidence over material in earlier editions except where it can be demonstrated to be in error.
> ...


That really helped me to see it in a more clear way.


----------



## baragund (May 30, 2003)

Thanks Maedhros. Jallan's post was exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. I would not consider it a hard and fast rule, but it represents a _general_ pecking order that can be used as a guide. And that leaves lots and lots of room for debate and discussion as Feanorian pointed out.


----------



## Night Wing (May 31, 2003)

With respect to question of the origin of the Orcs, I recently saw an excellent documentary on Tolkien on PBS and one of the historians humorously recalled that it was purported that the Orcs were named after the Oxford Rugby Club.


----------



## baragund (May 31, 2003)

LOL... That's really funny, Night Wing You know, I've always had a rather different impression of orcs from what's portrayed in the movies. Probably because I read the books long before the movies came out. I always thought orcs were more misguided and victimized than purely evil. And more comical and, well, goofy looking than the truly hideous creatures that were created for the films.

I wonder if that is what JRRT had in mind if he modeled orcs after the Oxford Rugby Club? You know, a bunch of big, lumbering oafish, uncouth, kind of stupid, not very handsome guys who go in for violent activities like rugby.


----------



## Night Wing (Jun 2, 2003)

I wonder if anyone knows JRRT's actual opinion of the players of the Oxford Rugby Club. Some of the past illustrators of JRRT's books portrayed the Orcs much like the movie version but not embellished with the more gruesome facial details. It would be interesting to know if they(illustrator(s) conferred with JRRT inorder to get an accurate visual image.Unfortunately I don't know if the drawings were published concurrently with the books or who was the illustrator(s).


----------



## Arvedui (Apr 20, 2004)

This thread has been moved out of the Guild of Scholar's Hall, and will hopefully be filled with the thoughts of more members.


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 22, 2004)

> Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs!? (Orcs is not a form of Auks.) The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.


 'Letter 211; Letters of Tolkien'


----------

