Tolkien

[Xanados]

Hello i am a die hard lord of the rings fan and have been studying the novels for several years. I understand why you have a hard time reading the novels, the way in which Tolkien writes his works is difficult for americans because that is not a way in which we talk or even write now. I believe it is called some sort of king charles dialect but i am not sure.

First i would like to address the orcs issue. Orcs are the twisted deformed versions of elves. The dark god Melkor kidnapped and tortured thousands of elves till they became the twisted forms of orcs. that is really why they are evil. Though the other beings view elves as perfect the gods that created them do not. The elves were originally created to guide the world in its destiny but the all failed because the cared more about knowledge than anything else. So the gods view them as fallen beings that are far from perfect. Though i am not sure that Tolkien really makes that clear.

I am not going to talk about the evil part cause it is very simple with most of the villains. The eagles are far older then sauron and have the blessing of the gods so really sauron couldn't do shit to them and they dont give a **** about anyone but gandalf really. Though they dont say it they pretty much only show up at the black gate to save gandalf's ass at the end of the books/movies. Same goes with tom bombadil. He could probably walk into mordor with the one ring and sauron would be too afraid to stop him from destroying it. Sauron is a pussy in all honesty. And i am sure if all of middle-earth were like burning and being destroyed the eagles would just pick up gandalf and fly back to the undying lands and say **** you to everyone. They are too old to give a shit.

The ghost thing doesnt make much sense but that kinda has always been the rules with spirits. and i dont think they really wanted aragorn to save them. i think in the book they would have rather been left alone. again probably dont give a **** about anything.

You put it so...eloquently, James. I'm not one to complain about cursing, but I feel that the fact you’re overusing it might, well, ruin your image. I have been warned by the Moderators before, but please remember to capitalize that all important personal pronoun, 'I'.
This post is not meant to insult, merely aid in the coherency of your posts.

 

[myrddin173]

First i would like to address the orcs issue. Orcs are the twisted deformed versions of elves. The dark god Melkor kidnapped and tortured thousands of elves till they became the twisted forms of orcs. that is really why they are evil. Though the other beings view elves as perfect the gods that created them do not. The elves were originally created to guide the world in its destiny but the all failed because the cared more about knowledge than anything else. So the gods view them as fallen beings that are far from perfect. Though i am not sure that Tolkien really makes that clear.

Where did you read this, because I am unfamiliar with it.

The eagles are far older then sauron and have the blessing of the gods so really sauron couldn't do shit to them and they dont give a **** about anyone but gandalf really. Though they dont say it they pretty much only show up at the black gate to save gandalf's ass at the end of the books/movies.

I really have to disagree with this. Sauron was a Maiar, the lesser order of the Ainur, and so existed before the world was made. The Eagles were created afterward by Manwe, to serve as his messengers, likely out of spirits similiar to the Maiar, but not among them. I don't really understand what you mean by "the blessing of the gods" as Arda, the world Middle-earth is a continent on, only has one god Eru Illuvitar, who is really doesn't intervene. The only thing I recall him doing is making the World spherical.

Same goes with tom bombadil. He could probably walk into mordor with the one ring and sauron would be too afraid to stop him from destroying it.

We don't really know what Tom could do because we do not know what he is, even Tolkien himself wasn't sure.

Also please try not to double post.

 

[Ravana]

I thought I'd give others the opportunity to respond to this before I did, just to see what everybody else came up with. My turn now.

the way in which Tolkien writes his works is difficult for americans because that is not a way in which we talk or even write now. I believe it is called some sort of king charles dialect

Americans don't have the slightest "difficulty" reading Tolkien–nor would any other native speaker of English. The prose is perfectly lucid and straightforward. It's merely a question of style preferences whether or not someone enjoys his writing. But as for "difficult," it doesn't even hold a candle to, say, Faulkner… who was American.

The style of LotR has been compared to the prose of the King James Bible… but that's only style, not dialect, and the comparison is weak: all you need to do to prove that to yourself is read both side-by-side. A few passages sound similar (especially where lineages start showing up); the majority is perfectly normal English prose.

First i would like to address the orcs issue. Orcs are the twisted deformed versions of elves. The dark god Melkor kidnapped and tortured thousands of elves till they became the twisted forms of orcs. that is really why they are evil.

According to The Silmarillion, yes. He gives other origins in other works and in private correspondence and notes; it seems he never completely settled on one he was comfortable with. That misses the point of the objection about them, though: corrupted or not, they are still (theoretically) sentient beings, and as such ought to be capable of choosing whether or not to be evil. Which is part of the reason Tolkien was never completely happy about the "elf origin," I suspect.

Though the other beings view elves as perfect

Which "other beings" are you talking about? The dwarves? Not. Men? Hardly. Ents? Nope. Orcs, trolls, dragons, balrogs, ringwraiths? Don't act like they do. Hobbits? Not even them: go back and re-read the first couple chapters of LotR to catch the opinions of those hobbits who aren't the story's main characters… and then re-read the rest of the story for examples of elf-friendly hobbits encountering "imperfections" among them.

If readers perceive elves as "perfect," that's their problem–and their misreading.

the gods that created them do not.

The god that created them: Ilúvatar alone was responsible for his Children–both elves and men.

The elves were originally created to guide the world in its destiny

Not sure where you get this. In The Silmarillion, it's mentioned that it's men through whose "operations everything should be, in form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest." While it seems rational that the immortal and more enlightened elves were intended to guide men in this task, I don't see where this is mentioned… and given the normal relations between elves and men, if that was the intention, it was a major non-starter.

I don't think the notion that elves were intended to guide the world can be sustained, however: certainly not from the point of view of the Valar, who went to great pains to invite all the elves to their home, away from the world at large. If guidance was the elves' purpose, then the actions of the gods actually worked against this.

but the all failed because the cared more about knowledge than anything else.

Nor do I see where they "all" failed; I'd have to say that at a minimum, this can't apply to the elves that remained in Valinor. Nor why caring more about knowledge than anything else would be a problem: that is suggested as an element in the downfall of some of them, but mostly the failures are due to pride–in knowledge or otherwise. Nor do I see where you get the idea that they "all" cared more about knowledge than anything else: most of the ones we encounter in Middle-Earth care more about other things… such as the world around them.

So the gods view them as fallen beings that are far from perfect. Though i am not sure that Tolkien really makes that clear.

He makes it quite clear that those Noldor who followed Fëanor back to Middle-Earth were put under a ban of exile because of his actions (specifically by associating themselves with kinslaying); but this is only one group of elves. Many of the elves who never left Middle-Earth in the first place felt the same way about their kin when they found out.

The eagles are far older then sauron

Well, no, actually, they aren't. They can't be: Sauron came into being at the same time as all the rest of the Ainur. Only one being is older than Sauron: Ilúvatar. The eagles are inhabited by lesser spirits sent by the gods, and so are as old as him… not older. At most: it's not completely clear when these arose.

and have the blessing of the gods so really sauron couldn't do shit to them

Where do you get this impression? Inhabited by divine spirits or not, they're still physical; they can be harmed by anything that could harm anything else in the world. And it's not like they proved all that potent in battle. They were insufficient to turn the tide at the Battle of Five Armies. Nor would they have been enough to turn it before the Morannon: it was the destruction of the Ring that did that. We never see them taking on dragons, or balrogs, or the Nazgúl (they are stooping to attack when the Nazgúl are recalled: they never actually get to engage), or anything other than orcs for that matter. In fact, they rarely enter battle directly: that isn't their purpose. They watch, they bring news, they occasionally pick people up out of inconvenient locations.

and they dont [care] about anyone but gandalf really.

Well… not so much. In The Hobbit, they follow and attack goblin hordes of their own accord. In Fellowship, the eagle that rescues Gandalf had been sent by Radagast to bring news to Orthanc–to Gandalf and Saruman. In The Two Towers, it's Galadriel who sends the eagle that brings Gandalf back after his resurrection. Which leaves the battle of the Morannon, where, to the best of my knowledge, their presence is not explained… though Gandalf mentions in The Two Towers that he'd asked Gwaihir to keen an eye on things following his rescue. So, presumably, of their own accord again.

Same goes with tom bombadil. He could probably walk into mordor with the one ring and sauron would be too afraid to stop him from destroying it.

Not even close. It's made quite clear that Bombadil wouldn't have the power to withstand Sauron even on his own turf, let alone away from it–and it's made equally clear he would not be willing to leave his forest in any event. Notwithstanding that he's almost literally older than dirt, he is still of the world: "in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First."

Sauron is a pussy in all honesty.

Really? Then why won't any of the other powers of the world take him on heads up?

In Tolkien's universe, nothing and no one is invulnerable: gods greater and lesser, and spirits of all sorts, can be harmed, even by relatively mundane weapons. (Éowyn beheads the Lord of the Nazgúl with a perfectly normal sword, for example.) Sauron could be harmed by "magical" weapons, at a minimum: he had a finger cut off, after all. He is weaker in LotR than he had been in earlier days, because he'd invested so much of his personal power in the Ring… but that didn't make him so weak that, even during the time he was reforming himself after his first fall, Gandalf (who is also an incarnate Maia, by the way–every bit as "divine" as the eagles) felt constrained to sneak into Dol Guldur (twice) to see if it was really Sauron pulling himself back together. It takes the combined power of the White Council–which includes, at a minimum, Gandalf, Saruman (another Maia), Elrond, Galadriel and Círdan: whether there were others is left unspecified–to expel him; even then he's said to continue to become stronger after his return to Mordor.

Given that it's repeatedly stated that the only way to defeat Sauron directly would be for one of the powers to take up the Ring and use it against him, I find it difficult to see where you get the notion that he was weak.

The ghost thing doesnt make much sense but that kinda has always been the rules with spirits. and i dont think they really wanted aragorn to save them. i think in the book they would have rather been left alone

As I already mentioned (and you would know if you read the thread), in the book the ghosts never do anything other than scare people away. What the movie did with them is irrelevant when it comes to analyzing Tolkien. As for wanting to be left alone: all they would have had to do was not respond to Aragorn's summons. He didn't have the power to command them… all he could do was release them from the curse that had bound them by declaring their oath fulfilled. Given that they could have simply ignored him, I'd have to say that they desperately wanted to be "saved."

i am a die hard lord of the rings fan and have been studying the novels for several years.

Looks like you could stand to do some more work in that department, mate.

 

[Sheilawisz]

I wanted to respond first Ravana, but my Tokienian knowledge is quite limited!! James, that was interesting but Mythic Scribes is rather strict about language use... cursing is fun, however this is really not the place to write like that.

You all are making me curious, maybe I should get all the Tolkien books and read them!!

 

[Ravana]

Well, at least read Lord of the Rings. If you get fascinated enough by the world, then read The Hobbit and The Silmarillion. Realize that each of these is in a very different style, however… probably the main reason so many readers find them off-putting.

The Hobbit is written as if someone were telling the story to an audience (complete with frequent "I" and "you"–which gets irritating: just enjoy the story and try to ignore the style). While it is a direct predecessor of LotR, it isn't necessary to read it first: the important information gets mentioned in LotR as it becomes relevant, and there's a summary of Bilbo finding the ring in the Prologue (part 4): it's only four pages, so you might as well read it. (The balance of the Prologue can safely be skipped until/unless you decide you want the depth of detail.)

The Silmarillion is not a finished work, and it's not clear Tolkien ever intended for it to be; his son put it together from the most complete sections dad did write concerning the history of the world prior to Hobbit/LotR. It still makes a decent read if you want the backstory, but it's composed mostly of short, marginally-related tales, and reads more like a history or mythology book… which, essentially, is what it is. (Personally, I have no problems with it–probably because I'm one who's been carried away by the world, along with the fact that I read histories all the time anyway–but it seems most readers find it somewhat turgid.)

By the way, even before reading The Silmarillion, you should read the hundred-odd pages of Appendices A and B at the end of LotR. Much of the material in The Silmarillion is summarized there, as is a considerable amount of "off-camera" information and interaction that helps complete the LotR story. The other appendices are world-building details of greater or lesser interest: E and F, concerning scripts and languages, are the ones fans will find most engrossing (especially since there you get to see Tolkien the linguist and philologist at his finest: clearly he found this part of his world the most engrossing). D–calendars–is interesting primarily due to how it fits into the overall history; C is just hobbit family trees.

If you still want more after The Silmarillion, then you can start tracking down the immense amounts of even less-finished fragments, drafts and alternate versions Christopher T. published after his father's death. These can be particularly confusing, in that many are early versions of later-published works, often containing "contradictory" material that Tolkien later changed or abandoned. They're mostly useful only for those who want to see every last detail Tolkien considered using… though they can also be of some value to those interested in seeing how a writer's concepts develop over time.

As for LotR itself: realize that things start picking up considerably once the hobbits actually make it out of the Shire. Just bear with it until then. The end result is more than worth it.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

As for LotR itself: realize that things start picking up considerably once the hobbits actually make it out of the Shire. Just bear with it until then. The end result is more than worth it.

I'd say, once the hobbits make it to the Prancing Pony. I've never liked the Tom Bombadil section. (Actually, I very much enjoyed everything before Bombadil and after; it's TB himself who bores me.)

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

I'd say, once the hobbits make it to the Prancing Pony. I've never liked the Tom Bombadil section. (Actually, I very much enjoyed everything before Bombadil and after; it's TB himself who bores me.)

I think I agree. Whilst I think he's sort of an interesting character, the whole section seems unnecessary. When the first LotR film came out and the die-hard Lord of the Rings fans were angry at him being excluded, I just couldn't care less.

 

[Ravana]

As far as I know, Bombadil was actually a late addition to LotR… something Tolkien wanted to include (having created the character for different purposes), but didn't know where. And, yes, it shows.

I wouldn't skip the first few chapters on a first read (nor do I imagine anyone else is suggesting doing so); just wanted to make sure anyone who thought it started out slowly knew that it does pick up. After your first time through… yeah, dive back in wherever.

 

[Sheilawisz]

I have read only The Fellowship of the Ring, and for me the book was entertaining, sometimes fun, sometimes a little boring but it has definitely that energy that only Classic Literature can make you feel... Now I want to find the other two books (not The Hobbit, at least not yet!!) and read them too, you have made me curious enough about Tolkien and the world that he created =)

 

[Spring-Gem]

The Silmarillion is not a finished work, and it's not clear Tolkien ever intended for it to be; his son put it together from the most complete sections dad did write concerning the history of the world prior to Hobbit/LotR.

I read a Tolkien biography which indicated he very much wanted The Silmarillion published because he felt it was his most important work. When he finished LotR, he tried to get his publisher to agree to publish TS, even though it wasn't finished, but they didn't want to. He pulled LotR and got another publisher, but that one also didn't want to publish TS. Tolkien finally went back to his first publisher and they worked out a deal that included TS. It seems Tolkien was a procrastinator and somewhat disorganized, but also a perfectionist in his writing; he was always tinkering with his world. During the time he was trying to get Silmarillion finished, his wife got sick and eventually died. Tolkien died two years afterward and his son pulled together the final form of Silmarillion from the various drafts.

 

[Ravana]

Yeah, I read that too. Still, perfectionist or not, a decade and a half is a long time to spend revising a manuscript… especially one he apparently considered ready when LotR went to press. And considering its obviously unfinished state, I would have thought that anything he had considered ready to go would have been at least a bit more polished.

Oh, well: it's still enjoyable.

 

[JamesTFHS]

yeah I'm sorry about the language I was a little hyper at the time I wrote this. When I say 'gods' I mean Valar cause they are very much demi gods. How are elves not perfect? every time you see them the characters go on about how perfect elves are. Granted in The Silmarrillion we get a better explanation of their origins but you cant really use that as at the time no one knew about those origins and some of those are never addressed. Thank you for letting me know about when the Eagles were created I was not entirely sure about that. I highly doubt Orcs would choose to be good do to their twisted and violent nature. Please give me a good example of Sauron not being a pansy. He has never really achieved anything and he also happens to be afraid of everyone in middle-earth not exactly the best quality in an evil overlord. Lithuen Tinuviel parctically(I am dumbing this down) told him to go away and he ran, granted she had a giant wolf at her side but Sauron just ran instead of killing her.

Oh and never ever question my love, loyalty and knowledge of the lord of the rings. Yeah i dumb down alot of info because after spending days upon days of trying to explain Tolkien's world to various friends and people you realize there is just too much info to go through. What Tolkien created is extremely complex, especially for his time. I saw fit to give some quick explanations especially for the eagles as everyone asks "Why doesn't the eagles just fly them over there?". The fact that it would make the books only 200 or some pages kinda is a weak answer. And I am still sure the eagles dont care one way or another about sauron or the ring as they could actually escape back to Valinor without having to worry about waiting for the boats or having to travel such a massive distance(the elves having to cross middle-earth). some of this is how i took what Tolkien said.

 

[Ravana]

How are elves not perfect? every time you see them the characters go on about how perfect elves are.

Clearly we haven't been reading the same books.
- The Hobbit: The first time we encounter elves, they're making fun of the dwarves and Bilbo. The second time they're vanishing on the starving dwarves when approached for food, which they follow up by taking them prisoner, interrogating them and throwing them in a dungeon–a captivity Bilbo manages to free them from because the chief guard and the butler pass out drunk. Nor is the description of "the old quarrel" between these elves and the dwarves exactly flattering–"the elf-king had bargained with them… and had afterwards refused to give them their pay. If the elf-king had a weakness it was for treasure… though his hoard was rich, he was ever eager for more.…" Which is what causes them to show up in arms at the doorstep of the Lonely Mountain looking for a cut.
In Fellowship:
- Book I, Ch. 1: "Elves and Dragons! I says to him. Cabbages and potatoes are better for me and you."
- Ch. 2: "I don't see what it matters to me or you. Let them sail!"
- Ch. 3: "…to the Elven-smiths [the lesser rings] were but trifles–yet to my mind still dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous."
- Ch. 4: "…it is also said… 'Go not to the Elves for council, for they will say both no and yes.'"
- Ch. 5: "They seem a bit above my likes and dislikes.… It don't seem to matter what I think about them. They are quite different from what I expected–so old and young, and so gay and sad."
Skipping a bit ahead:
- Book II, Ch. 2: "There is no hope left in the Elves…"
- "What of the Three Rings of the Elves? …Are they idle?"
- Ch. 6: "…of that perilous land [Lorien] we have heard in Gondor, and it is said that few come out who once go in; and of that few none have escaped unscathed."
- The elves refuse admittance to the party unless the dwarf is blindfolded–and say they'll shoot him dead if he turns back.
- Ch. 7: "…she held each of them with her eyes.… None save Legolas and Aragorn could long endure her glance."
- "Maybe it was only a test, and she thought to read our thoughts for her own good purpose; but I should have said that she was tempting us, and offering what she pretended to have the power to give. It need not be said that I refused to listen. … I do not feel too sure of this Elvish Lady and her purposes."
- "I wish I had never come here, and I don't want to see no more magic."

That isn't all the instances even from Fellowship. Which still leaves two more books of the trilogy, plus the Silmarillion. So tell me again how everybody always thinks they're perfect.

What they are is different–often in ways other characters have no frame of reference to cope with. Many seem to be inherently magical, and to affect the perceptions of non-elves in their presence (concerning the passage of time, for instance). No doubt this muddling of perception is partially responsible for people being so impressed by them… but "impressed" does not equal "perfect."

Please give me a good example of Sauron not being a pansy. He has never really achieved anything and he also happens to be afraid of everyone in middle-earth not exactly the best quality in an evil overlord. Lithuen Tinuviel parctically(I am dumbing this down) told him to go away and he ran, granted she had a giant wolf at her side but Sauron just ran instead of killing her.

So why is this evidence of Sauron being weak, and not Lúthien being strong? Six pages later she walks into Morgoth's throne room, vanishes before his eyes, and sings him and his entire court to sleep. She's the daughter of another Maia–one of the most powerful ones–and one of the first-born elves. Even then, it takes the combination of Lúthien's power, that of Huan (a wolfhound, not a wolf–not exactly a hound, either: he was one of Oromë's hunting dogs), and Sauron's hubris in believing that by engaging Huan as a wolf he might fulfill a prophecy, to take Sauron down. And he surrenders–after he's already beaten–because she points out that if he doesn't, he'll lose his physical form and have to "endure the torment of [Morgoth's] scorn" if she tells the dog to go ahead and rip out his throat, which it happens to have in its teeth at that moment. A better question would be why she doesn't do just that. Maybe even in defeat he manages to cloud her mind?

What did Sauron "achieve" to impress reliable witnesses such as Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel? Let's see: he's Morgoth's lieutenant from first to last, commanding even balrogs and dragons; he personally takes an elven fortress that had resisted two years' siege; he bests Finrod in magical single combat; he was responsible for the creation of werewolves (and possibly vampires); he creates a new breed of trolls immune to sunlight; he breeds the flying steeds of the Nazgúl; he manages to repeatedly gull people who ought to know better, including Saruman, the elven smiths who made the Rings and nearly the entire nation of Númenor, along with countless less well-informed people; he manages to control what Saruman and Denethor see through the palantíri; he has a pet volcano he appears capable of making erupt at will. Oh, and he can withstand the heat at its heart well enough he can use it to forge a magic ring capable of dominating most of the other Great Rings and preventing the rest from being wielded openly… a ring which "the Wise" are in unanimous agreement is the only thing that could possibly enable them to defeat him directly. Just sayin'.

Mostly, though, I'm assuming the author isn't lying when he says Sauron was the most powerful of Melkor's followers, and is the most powerful being in Middle-Earth after his boss is overthrown. It doesn't matter what we see him do: we see plenty that those less than him do.

As I said before: in Tolkien, nothing and no one is invulnerable. Power is a matter of degree, and those degrees are far less in Tolkien than in most fantasy stories. A single, determined hero can contend with divine beings with at least some chance of success. In fact, none ever does succeed, against Melkor/Morgoth or Sauron–not alone. Lúthien and Huan come closest, and there it's closer to two lesser demigods against one great one whose ego led him to made a colossal blunder. Fingolfin manages to hold his own against Morgoth for a while, but loses. The combination of Gil-galad, Elrond, Círdan, Elendil, Isildur, and who knows how many others, at least two of whom were armed with named magical weapons, manages to defeat Sauron at the cost of two of their lives and the breaking of both weapons. Three balrogs we know of fall to single combat–against (the original) Glorfindel, against Ecthelion and against Gandalf–but all of those are draws: the good guy dies too. On the other hand, the last great dragon gets dropped by a single well-placed arrow shot, and the Lord of the Nazgúl by a munchkin and a poorly-interpreted prophecy. (Sort of a poor man's version of the Lúthien and Huan story.) Saruman gets knifed in the back. Gandalf, who fights the balrog because he has no choice, also ducks arrows and climbs trees to escape wolves.

As with most leaders, Sauron rarely does anything he can have someone do for him. That isn't necessarily fear: it's prudence, along with the inability to be everywhere at once. It's a recognition that he does have limits; he knows he can be harmed, because he has been before. It's probably also a recognition that when you rule by fear, everyone's going to hate you; that it's easier to command from the center of things; and that there's simply no point in exposing yourself unnecessarily, however slight the risk may seem. That doesn't mean he can't do just as much "harming" right back, in person if necessary… but that's a far cry from being able to snap his fingers and cause Minas Tirith to collapse. Nor does it mean anybody else is any less vulnerable to him. In similar vein, five of the Nazgúl back off from four hobbits and a ranger armed with torches after knifing Frodo, when it seems by rights they ought to have simply overrun them… but why go to any risk, when all they have to do is follow them at that point?

In most cases, it seems that magical power in Tolkien relies heavily on preparation. When left to improvise, even great and powerful wizards come off pretty poorly–to the extent that Gandalf thinks it wise to carry a sword… and to use it. Saruman is completely pathetic when we finally encounter him; yet he was powerful enough to be able to imprison Gandalf without so much as a fight, was the primary supplier of means by which (a weakened) Sauron was expelled from Dol Guldur, and puts together a force that almost defeated Rohan, complete with his own special cross-breed of orcs and either gunpowder or something close enough to it not to matter. The only things we ever see Elrond "do" are unleash a flash flood he's had thousands of years to prepare, and heal Frodo's wound (actually, we don't "see" him do either: we're told he did them). And be wise. Galadriel stares intently at people and puddles. When she has more time, she keeps her realm in eternal summer and invents an early version of the laser. (A fine example of how "different" the elves are: when asked if the cloaks she provides are magical, the elf handing them over responds "I do not know what you mean by that." Their conception of magic itself differs from everyone else's… if they consider anything "magic" at all.)

Oh and never ever question my… knowledge of the lord of the rings.

I'm willing to grant you two out of three.

 

[Alexander Knight]

Interesting opinion, if somewhat circular.
You said, "I hate the concept of Orcs being evil...just because their Orcs." Basically you're saying you don't like Tolkien's cliche use of orcs. So tell me, who else used orcs before Tolkien? None that I'm aware of. He created them and he created them evil. To complain that they're too cliche in the story that invented them isn't logical. They weren't cliche originally, they've become so afterward.
Based on the rest of your post, it sounds to me that you simply don't like the story. That's ok, you can write one of your own where elves are evil, orcs are perfect and giant eagles are just a myth. Then you can share it with us and see if we like it. But you do have to give Tolkien credit for inventing the genre. He was the first one to do it well enough that people flocked to his writing. And the first one to do something successfully is generally considered that things inventor. You don't have to like his writing, but someone compared my writing to the inventor of the genre I'd be flattered.

 

[Ravana]

Actually, the point wasn't Tolkien having his orcs be evil because orcs are evil–it was having a given set of beings be evil because they were of a given species. (One could as easily substitute the word "goblin" for "orc," by the way… especially since that's what he started out calling them. And he hardly invented goblins.)

The problem is the "all X are Y" approach–it doesn't make the slightest difference what X and Y are. If X are intelligent beings with free will, regardless of what they are, you would expect some of them to not be Y… regardless of what that is. He does have evil elves–and men, and dwarves, and arguably even hobbits (though for the most part the "bad" ones there were merely petty and ignorant). There is some argument to be made that orcs don't have complete freedom of will… but I'm not sure it's strong enough to completely address the criticism. In a world that is otherwise of such wondrous complexity, it seems a bit oversimplified and out of place to have an "evil race."

 

[Steerpike]

I don't personally have a problem with an evil race in a fantasy world. It is a fantasy setting, and the author creates the rules. In so doing, if she creates a race that is evil by nature, then so be it. There is no reason the race has to be capable of both good and evil. You can frame it in terms of free will or what have you, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. In a world where magic works and creatures from the myths and legends of mankind walk the earth, I'm surprised that readers get hung up on this sort of thing. The idea of ents, a balrog, wizards, nazgul, and a power ring from out of legend are accepted, but have a race of being who are all evil and suddenly there's an issue?

 

[Sheilawisz]

I really don't understand why different species in Fantasy worlds are called races instead of species, why is that?? I don't have many different intelligent species in my worlds, all my characters belong to the same species and there is no "evil race/species whatever that causes trouble" in my worlds =)

I do have the Kareltyans, a semi intelligent species that are used by my darklord-like character as pets, but they are quite different to orcs and orc-like races from other Fantasy worlds... Kareltyans are thin, elegant creatures with two legs, a long tail with a venomous sting, two arms with claws, a head similar to that of a Pterodactyl, two horns and the ability to spit a napalm-like liquid and attack with swords.

Kareltyans stand over 16 meters tall, so they are more similar to dragons than to orcs =)

Back to Tolkien and Lord of the Rings now, after reading the Fellowship of the Ring I was quite intrigued by Galadriel and I even wrote a fanfiction about her killing Frodo and Sam, taking the Ring, defeating Sauron and then ruling over middle-earth as a terrible Queen of Darkness...

 

[Steerpike]

I really don't understand why different species in Fantasy worlds are called races instead of species, why is that??

This is preserved in fantasy gaming as well. Creatures that are intelligent enough to live in some kind of society, even if loosely organized, are called 'races.' I think one reason they don't call orcs a "species" is because that seems to preclude inter-breeding. There are half-orcs in Tolkien, I think (cross-bred between men and orcs), and certainly other books have things like half-orcs and half-elves. The ability to reproduce is often a defining characteristic of a species, so if you can have interbreeding maybe 'race' works better.

 

[myrddin173]

Back to Tolkien and Lord of the Rings now, after reading the Fellowship of the Ring I was quite intrigued by Galadriel and I even wrote a fanfiction about her killing Frodo and Sam, taking the Ring, defeating Sauron and then ruling over middle-earth as a terrible Queen of Darkness...

Instead of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen. Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Dawn. Treacherous as the Sea, Stronger than the Foundations of the Earth. All shall love me and despair...

Is it sad that I have that memorized?

This is preserved in fantasy gaming as well. Creatures that are intelligent enough to live in some kind of society, even if loosely organized, are called 'races.' I think one reason they don't call orcs a "species" is because that seems to preclude inter-breeding. There are half-orcs in Tolkien, I think (cross-bred between men and orcs), and certainly other books have things like half-orcs and half-elves. The ability to reproduce is often a defining characteristic of a species, so if you can have interbreeding maybe 'race' works better.

Yes there are Half-orcs. As to the whole species/race thing, that's just the way it is. That's the way Tolkien did it and it has stuck. Yah it doesn't make sense but this is Fantasy...

 

[Sheilawisz]

This is preserved in fantasy gaming as well. Creatures that are intelligent enough to live in some kind of society, even if loosely organized, are called 'races.' I think one reason they don't call orcs a "species" is because that seems to preclude inter-breeding. There are half-orcs in Tolkien, I think (cross-bred between men and orcs), and certainly other books have things like half-orcs and half-elves. The ability to reproduce is often a defining characteristic of a species, so if you can have interbreeding maybe 'race' works better.

Thanks, Steerpike!! =) Well, now I see that they are called races because they can interbreed... rather strange for me, since I don't have interbreeding of any kind in my worlds!! My most important species is very sadistic and dangerous, a little similar to humans but very different at the same time since they have huge eyes, a long furry tail, pointy ears, claws and other things.

@Myrddin: That is exactly the part that I remember the most, with the only difference that I read the Castilian version!! It's so beautiful =)