by Doove71 [Loremaster Subscriber]
The Rings of Power, Amazon’s ambitious expansion of J.R.R. Tolkien’s universe, has sparked discussions around its complex portrayal of morality, especially concerning the Orcs or Uruks as they prefer. Unlike the clear-cut dichotomy of good versus evil in Tolkien’s original trilogy, this series delves into the murky waters of moral ambiguity, inviting us to reconsider our definitions of good and evil.
In Tolkien’s world, Uruks have traditionally been portrayed as embodiments of evil; their origins and motivations are rarely explored beyond their role as antagonists. However, the Rings of Power takes a daring step in depicting them with more nuance, suggesting that they are not inherently malevolent but are potentially shaped by their circumstances and experiences. By providing a backstory and personal motivations for the Uruks, the show invites us to question our perceptions of “the other.” Are they truly evil, or are they products of a world that has cast them as villains?
This nuanced portrayal prompts reevaluating the age-old “good versus evil” narrative. The series engages us in an intellectual exploration of how the line between good and evil isn’t as clear-cut as it might seem. It serves as a mirror reflecting our own world's struggles with understanding and empathy. Exploring the moral complexities of its characters encourages us to look beyond the surface and recognize the shades of gray that define our narratives. Doing so reminds us that the path to understanding is paved with empathy, curiosity, and a willingness to challenge our preconceptions.
The theme of “othering” resonates not just in the fantasy realm but also in our world. In the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Ukrainian bloggers have referred to Russian soldiers as "orcs," drawing a parallel between the mythical monsters and their adversaries. This labeling simplifies the enemy, casting them as a faceless evil, much like the Uruks in Middle-earth, thus making the conflict easier to frame in black-and-white terms.
This notion is further complicated by the Elves’ approach toward Adar and the Uruks. Seeing the Uruks as a twisted reflection of themselves, the Elves consider eradicating them as a moral imperative, almost a form of cleansing, a removing “the taint,” as it were, from Elvendom. But from the Uruk’s perspective, this intent to annihilate makes the Elves the true villains, threatening their very existence.
Popular culture has explored this idea many times. I’m struck by how the protagonist in the book I Am Legend is the “hero” of his narrative. The classic, last man on earth, holding the line of civilization against the encroachment of monstrous vampires like “others.” The classic twist of this story is how the “Monsters,” the new inheritors of a ravaged Earth, see the “hero” as the real monster. He has entered legend, the bogeyman, to scare children. This duality underscores how the concept of “the enemy” is often a matter of perspective, shaped by narrative and experience.
In war, this “othering” simplifies the enemy into a concept that can be easily vilified, as seen in both the fictional world of Middle-earth and real-world conflicts. The Rings of Power reminds us that behind every label lies a complex story, urging us to look beyond the surface and recognize the shared humanity even in those we deem our enemies. By challenging our preconceptions and inviting us to empathize with the ‘other,’ the series enlightens us and encourages a more nuanced understanding of the world of Middle Earth and the conflicts that shape it.