"Falling" - and Repentance and Redemption in LOTR

[Valandil]

This has been on my mind for a bit. I can think of four characters in LOTR who have a moral "fall" and yet have a chance of some sort of redemption, if they would repent:


Boromir - He falls by desiring the Ring to the point of attempting to lay hands on Frodo and take it. He repents of this to Aragorn and redeems himself by defending Pippin and Merry to his own death. Upon hearing of his fate, Gandalf seems more releaved that he repented before he died, than grieved that he DID die. His repentance appears to be quite important for his eternal fate... and yet, it strikes me as sad that he lived such a short span following his repentance.
Gollum - He of course fell long ago. Always inclined toward selfishness, he killed his friend and stole the Ring. He went on to become a thoroughly wretched character. Yet somehow, Gandalf held out hope that he would repent and have some sort of restoration or redemption through the choices he had yet to make. He even comes close - almost changing his mind about leading Frodo and Sam to Shelob. But ultimately, he fails to repent and 'dies in his sin' so to speak.
Saruman was a great being from The West. - He fell by lusting after power for himself. He betrayed the trust of those who sent him and he betrayed the friends he had made in Middle-earth. He consorted with Orcs. He desired to have The One Ring for himself and to become a Power. He used others to try and attain his personal ambitions. He personally betrayed Gandalf and attempted to destroy the Fellowship. And yet, Gandalf offered him repentance... first at Orthanc, then on the rode toward Rivendell. In his pride, Saruman refused to humble himself and admit that he had been wrong. Ultimately, his bodily form was detroyed, and his unrepentant spirit was rejected by the Lords of the West who had sent him.
Grima Wormtongue - He fell by betraying his own people, striving to attain for himself by subversive alliance a higher position than he could reach on his own merits - and to obtain for himself a particularly desireable young lady. Even when all was lost, he clung to Saruman, who had brought him to this. When their gambit failed, he became a haggard shadow even of what he had been before, and lowered himself to even baser vices. Even then, Frodo offered him another chance... to leave Saruman. But he could not - either he could not bring himself to leave him or his prior actions had made too great a barrier. He also died without peace - having just slain the only one who had given his miserable life any meaning.


One sad thing to me was that of these four who evidently had the option to repent, only one did so - and that one lost his life almost immediately after.

Curious to me - especially with Tolkien being a Christian, and repentance & redemption being the major theme of Christianity.

Each fell by desiring something for himSELF... something which was not otherwise their due, by birth, station, abililty or by all that was right.

Of course there are other creatures for whom repentance does not seem to be an option: Sauron, the Nazgul, the Balrog, Orcs - maybe even The Mouth of Sauron.

What do you folks think about this? Why did these four each have their chances to reverse themselves? Why did they, for the most part, reject that opportunity?

[Nerdanel]

A very interesting topic indeed, Val!:)

You are asking some hard questions, and I haven't got time to think about them right now. But I hope there'll be a really good discussion about this!:)

[gollum9630]

Originally posted by Valandil
One sad thing to me was that of these four who evidently had the option to repent, only one did so - and that one lost his life almost immediately after.

Also, everyone who fell ended up dying.

[Ñólendil]

Very interesting points and questions!

Of course there are other creatures for whom repentance does not seem to be an option: Sauron, the Nazgul, the Balrog, Orcs - maybe even The Mouth of Sauron.

I am not sure that repentance was not possible for these creatures--well, I might say that Sauron and the Balrog of Moria would not ever repent, but then I would be bringing up the questions of annhilation and punishment. What happens to Sauron and the Balrog after they leave Middle-earth in bodiily form? After the destruction of the Ring destroys Sauron's form, and the Balrog is killed by Gandalf? Actually I believe Tolkien touches on this point in Morgoth's Ring. He said Sauron was virtually "damned", in that he was reduced to an extremely weak shade of being, in which he could never return to a living form, and refused the alternative (whatever the alternative was; I believe it had to do with the judgment of Eru), thereby placing himself in a condition of endless craving without fulfillment. Endless, did I say? Not so. Tolkien said (and please feel free to double check, it's in the essay I believe called "Morgoth and Sauron" in Morgoth's Ring) that Sauron could not escape judgment forever.

So what happens after The Balrog and Sauron are judged? Indefinite suffering for them? Or are they completely annhiliated? Or do they get a chance to repent? Or do they ever learn from their mistakes, beyond the end of Arda and Eä? Nobody knows.

And that brings me to Orcs and Nazgul, and also the Mouth of Sauron whom you tentatively mention. The Orcs and Nazgul were once Men (or you could say the former were Elves, if that's what you believe), or atleast were humanoid people. Would you venture to say that such things are beyond redemption, because they were made so by Melkor and Sauron? Tolkien was not so sure, he asked himself in Morgoth's Ring, in his essay on Orcs, whether Orcs were redeemable. He left the question hanging. Personally, I would like to think so. I would like to think that in some realm of existence the din-horde was healed of what Sauron (or Melkor) had done to them.

And the Mouth of Sauron, the Black Númenorean? He was said to be more evil than any Orc, which is a very powerful thing to say. So if you are going to put Orcs on the unredeemable list, you must also put the Mouth of Sauron there.

One sad thing to me was that of these four who evidently had the option to repent, only one did so - and that one lost his life almost immediately after.

Curious to me - especially with Tolkien being a Christian, and repentance & redemption being the major theme of Christianity.

Interesting point.Curious in light of Boromir's death, after repentence? Let's examine that. If that is what you mean then I will say that I find the death of Boromir in light of Tolkien's faith rather enlightening. I think Tolkien is making a point: redemption may not save your life, but it will save your soul. Thus Boromir saying "I have failed" and Aragorn responding, "no! You have conquered. Few have gained such a victory!" His body has failed to survive the arrows of the Orcs, but his fëa or soul has succeeded to drive back the true Enemy.

You do not mention Otho Sackville-Baggins, (or was it Lotho), who in his quest for power ended up handing over the authority of the Shire (which did not belong to him) to Saruman. He also died, and may (if Saruman was speaking literally) have been eaten by GrÃ*ma. He became frightened near his end, and I think it was implied he saw the error of his ways. This, if a Fall, is a lesser one, but it bears mentioning. Also there is Denethor, a more widely accepted example of a fallen Man. He also was offered redemption. "There is much that you could do" Gandalf tells him. And for a moment he subsides, but then he stands tall and fell, says his last words and leaps upon the pyre to burn.

What do you folks think about this? Why did these four each have their chances to reverse themselves? Why did they, for the most part, reject that opportunity?

To-the-point questions that require (at least of me, as I overthink things) very complex answers. This is too hard for me to tackle. What is so alluring about evil? Is it easier? Is it more comfortable? I think their reasons varied. One of them, Saruman, I think became so obsessed with power (like Sauron) that when he lost most of what he had he decided any shred of his old self was better than service. Saruman suffered from delusion, I would say. He was so deluded, Tolkien said, that he thought everyone else among the Wise had their own plots, and were like him only trying to gain themselves more power. I think Saruman tells us that when power is our highest value, holiness and goodness just does not have a place in our lives. We may, like Saruman, be moved by mercy (to bitterness and gratefullness at once), and that may recall old memories of ourselves. And I think, like Saruman, we may repent, but the odds are against us, because of our highest value (power). Well, not the odds--we ourselves are against us, if we value power so highly.

A quote from the Upanishads comes to mind, I think it tells us something of ourselves, and about Saruman: You are what your deepest desire is. As is your desire, so is your intention. As is your intention, so is your will. As is your will, so is your deed. As is your deed, so is your destiny.

Apply this to Saruman and you will see that he was setting himself up to be utterly humbled and killed; that was his destiny. For that is also what his deeds entailed: the humbling of others, and the killing of others, because of his will for power, his intention to be powerful, his deepest desire to have power, which made up what he had become.

That is all I can offer on the subject. Good topic!

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Valandil
Of course there are other creatures for whom repentance does not seem to be an option: Sauron, the Nazgul, the Balrog, Orcs - maybe even The Mouth of Sauron.I disagree with this, I think every conscious living creature in Arda had the option to repent of their actions. If not, Eru would cease to have any credibility. But one may speak of the probability of them choosing to do so, and there Sauron et. al. are likely to get a low score.

Why did they, for the most part, reject that opportunity? This is a tough question. One answer which may be likely is that the further you go down the wrong road, the harder it is to go back. When evil and malice has been part of your life for a long time, it becomes the normal situation, almost a sort of habit, and also as Ñólendil says what you would expect from others. Repention or redemption would require a re-learning of decent and good behaviour, which could be an almost impossible task if you lack supervision and support.

Another aspect is the condemnation and judgement received from people around. If the environment expects you to behave badly, then surely living up to their expectations is far easier than breaking out?

Originally posted by Ñólendil
That is all I can offer on the subject.Not more than that? Good heavens. ;)

[Valandil]

Nolendil - thanks for the nice post.

Yes, you're right about Denethor - I should have mentioned him as well.

You could also be right about the various forces of evil... I guess it's just harder to OFFER repentance on a battlefield. Characters such as Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo had opportunities to interact (other than in combat) with the figures named: Boromir, Gollum, Saruman, Wormtongue and Denethor. Perhaps the same opportunities just were not there for the various opponents on the field. No need to agonize too much over the fate of their souls though - as they are all fictitious. ;)

I guess one thing that stands out to me... we don't have a character who repents - and then goes on living. :(

[Rían]

Good thread, Val!

Re the orcs/unredeemable beings - I think when Tolkien wrote the story, his goal was, as he said to C. S. Lewis, to write a story like "we like to read". IOW, a ripping good tale, with depth and heart, etc. And so he didn't fully plan out his entire world philosophy first, he just started writing; or as he often said, he just started chronicling what had happened. :)

You can see in the writings in Morgoth's Ring and other places that later on, he started thinking about reworking some concepts that troubled him, like the irredeemable-ness of orcs, but just never got around to it - it was just not feasible.

Altho it's fun to see how often we talk about these characters like they're real people, it IS just a story (altho I think the second best story in the world; the first being the Bible, which is as Lewis and Tolkien said the only entirely true myth); and every story needs bad guys! And you can't fully flesh out EVERY character, so I think he just chose to leave orcs rather simple.

There's an interesting bit in Letters where he talks about good and evil, and says how they are NOT opposites, as some worldviews believe; but rather evil is corrupted good, and absolute evil is therefore nonexistent, because even existence itself is good.

Also it's obvious that a really evil person has some very good qualities - the ability to think and reason well, for example - which enables him to be really evil. People NOT blessed with good minds can't be as evil (or good) as those who are. Or rather, they can't have as big of an evil effect on their surroundings; I think that's a more accurate way to put it.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
I guess one thing that stands out to me... we don't have a character who repents - and then goes on living. :( Y'know, Val, I think Eowyn is somewhat an example of this. She was in despair, and when she was removed from her terrible circumstances, she chose to come out of it - she could have chosen to remained in her despair.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Y'know, Val, I think Eowyn is somewhat an example of this. She was in despair, and when she was removed from her terrible circumstances, she chose to come out of it - she could have chosen to remained in her despair.

You have a point there... although we don't see her disobedience as so grave - and perhaps part of her despair came from her contact with the Witch King, yet she DID disobey her uncle... her KING. It's not a good thing you know, to disobey your King! ;) :p

Still - she didn't have such a 'fall' as those others... at least it seems so to the reader.

Maybe I'm making too much of all this. Like you said, Tolkien primarily wanted to tell a good story - which he did! Maybe it's too much for his millions of fans to insist on all the answers to all the questions we could ask about this world of Middle-earth he created.

But... I guess that's what we're all here for, isn't it? :p :D

[Rían]

Originally posted by Artanis
One answer which may be likely is that the further you go down the wrong road, the harder it is to go back. Absolutely. That's why our free-will choices in even the little things are SO important - it sets the trend of our lives. As the Bible says, if you're faithful in the little things, you'll be faithful in the big things.

A good picture of this is the channel that a waterflow makes. It just gets deeper and deeper the more often the water flows that way, and eventually gets "set in stone". Like the Colorado River did to the Grand Canyon ...

I like how Lewis describes this in "The Great Divorce" - a phenominal little book that deals with, among other things, the idea that a person CHOOSES to stay in Hell, even tho they may choose heaven. And how there eventually comes a point where they are unable to choose any other way, because of their previous numerous free-will choices. The story is about how the inhabitants of Hell can take a bus-ride to the outer edge of heaven. Heavenly citizens meet them there and try their best to persuade them to stay, but as Lewis writes,

from The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis
"Milton was right," said my Teacher. "The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words 'Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.' There is always something they insist on keeping, even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy - that is, to reality. Ye see it easily enough in a spoiled child that would sooner miss its play and its supper than say it was sorry and be friends. Ye call it the Sulks. But in adult life it has a hundred fine names - Achilles' wrath and Coriolanus' grandeur, Revenge and Injured Merit and Self-Respect and Tragic Greatness and Proper Pride.

And then it goes on to describe how a person, by their free-will choices, is eventually loses their very self. Lewis and his Teacher (George MacDonald, whom Lewis greatly admired) have just finished hearing a really whiney old woman going on and on and ignoring the truths she's hearing from the Spirit that came to help her:

from The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis
The shrill monotonus whine died away as the speaker, still accompanied by the bright patience at her side, moved out of hearing.

"What troubles ye, son?" asked my Teacher.

"I am troubled, Sir," said I, "because that unhappy creature doesn't seem to me to be the sort of soul that ought to even be in danger of damnation. She isn't wicked: she's only a silly, garrulous old woman who has got into a habit of grumbling, and one feels that a little kindness, and rest, and change would put her all right."

"That is what she once was. That is maybe what she still is. If so, she certainly will be cured. But the whole question is whether she is now a grumbler."

"I should have thought there was no doubt about that!"

"Aye, but ye misunderstand me. The question is whether she is a grumbler, or only a grumble. If there is a real woman - even the least trace of one - still there inside the grumbling, it can be brought to life again. If there's one wee spark under all those ashes, we'll blow it till the whole pile is red and clear. But if there's nothing but ashes we'll not go on blowing them in our own eyes forever. They must be swept up."

"But how can there be a grumble without a grumbler?"

"The whole difficulty of understanding Hell is that the thing to be understood is so nearly Nothing. But ye'll have had experiences ... it begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps criticizing it. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine. But come! Ye are here to watch and listen. Lean on my arm and we will go for a little walk."

Sorry for such a long quote, but I think it's a fascinating comment on the subject (and a correct one).

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

v. good topic, Val
i don't have time to discuss now,
as i am still catching up on 2 months of posting

[Beruthiel's cat]

This is a fascinating thread and I'm trying to formulate some comments, but I'm having a hard time with it. This is a great discussion so far and I think the comments have been some of the best and most well-considered of any thread I've seen here. I'm looking forward to seeing more and will hopefully be able to collect my own thoughts so I can offer my ideas as well.

Great going Val and all the contributors so far.

(I've got my thinking cap on, Val!!!:) ;) )

[The Gaffer]

Way to inject life into the JRRT forums, Val! I would love to join in, and fully intend to, once I have enough time to give it the consideration it deserves.

[Valandil]

I'm glad some of you like this! :) Look forward to seeing your posts on it.

If it makes it easier to respond, maybe hit one or two points at a time...

[Beor]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Altho it's fun to see how often we talk about these characters like they're real people, it IS just a story (altho I think the second best story in the world; the first being the Bible, which is as Lewis and Tolkien said the only entirely true myth); and every story needs bad guys! And you can't fully flesh out EVERY character, so I think he just chose to leave orcs rather simple.

Okay, hold on, I thought you wrote, "it is just a story." Obviously I read it wrong. Sorry. ;):p

Also, Eomer fell, and he got back up and lived. He spoke ill of Galadriel, and when Gimli called him out, he said he was sorry, in so many words. Give the guy some credit! ;)

*searching* I know there was a point here somewhere *continues searching*

Okay....hold on................................................ ..

Oh yeah, I think a lot of the reason behind those who did not repent, ie Grima and Saruman, was due to pride. I think that in the Two Towers it someone actually mentions it, but I could be wrong (I am re-reading it again, but I am only on the Road to Isengard, not yet to the Voice).

I would respond more, but I have little time. I must go now.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Beor
Oh yeah, I think a lot of the reason behind those who did not repent, ie Grima and Saruman, was due to pride.

I am hard-pressed to see how Gollum was full of pride, though I take your point. Anyway, we all know that if he'd had time, he would have been redeemed. (He would have!:mad: )

[Ñólendil]

RÃ*an, what is so simple about Orcs? Their origins are complicated, and their personalities, though generally wicked, vary. Orcs fight among themselves, develop their own monarchies when left alone, serve different rulers who vie for power, possess some twisted form of Goblin-morality (seeking revenge, for instance, for a fallen captain [Great Goblin, Balrog]), descriminate against eachother based on tribe and breed, develop various languages, believe their enemies to be more evil than they themselves are, build weapons like liquid fire bombs and poisoned blackened blades, etc.. Orcs to me possess their own sort of sophistication, their own societies and social orders that have only been surface-scratched by Tolkien.

And what is so simple about the question of Orc-redemption? Tolkien himself couldn't figure it out. Or the origins of Orcs--are they demonic, or are some demonic, are they twisted Elves, or twisted Men, are they beasts, or puppets, or independent entities, and why did Eru create their souls, knowing they would inhabit the minds and bodies of the Dark Lord's abominations? Tolkien puzzled over these matters in essay after essay, and some of these questions, for sure the last one, were not resolved. Orcs to me are a complex idea that gives rise to problems of philosophy. Were Orcs common in our society today, we would discuss them in Ethics classes, and ask ourselves these questions; are those people really people? Or are they subhuman? Are they redeemable? Do they have souls? Why would God permit them to be? And so on. There would be some for whom Orcs are a simple matter: monsters that need to be exterminated, but those are the people who do not ask the important questions. Those are the people who do not inquire.

Of course Orcs would also be extremely terrifying in our reality as well, and faced with one I would be hard pressed to feel sympathy or compassion for it. Now some of you may say I am taking this far too seriously, but I would only answer that I am merely inquiring into the nature of creatures I believe in on a secondary level. You might say "suspension of disbelief", Tolkien called it Secondary Belief. Orcs have value to me for their own sake, and for the sake of the reality to which they belong. For me, it is no simple matter.

[Beor]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I am hard-pressed to see how Gollum was full of pride, though I take your point. Anyway, we all know that if he'd had time, he would have been redeemed. (He would have!:mad: )

That is precicely (I understand that I cannot spell) why I didnt mention Smeagol ;). I think he would have repented, though, espically after the ring was destroyed, but as long as there was a ring, I think he was screwed. May even have been screwed after it was destroyed, assuming he lived, rather than falling into the fires of Mount Doom. I love Gollum! Hes my boy, man. Me and Gollum used to his the bars in downtown New Orleans, kicking back and sipping on brandy enjoying some good old Creole Jazz. Cmon, man, I miss him too. ;)

[Elanor the Fair]

This discussion raises the issue that of the four people who "fell", only one availed themselves of redemption (Boromir). Grima, Saruman and Smeagol all rejected redemption.

I think this lies in the basic reason behind these people desiring the ring or power. In Boromir's case, he desired the ring (power) to aid his people. The power was not to fulfil his ego but to help others - as misguided as this may seem. In a way this could be seen as a selfless act and therefore his character is more likely to be able to repent.

In the case of Grima, Smeagol and Saruman - they desired the ring (or power) for themselves and they acted in a self-centred way. It is harder to repent when greed was the original driving force. You would need to change your basic character.

We have all forgotten to mention another character who "fell". Does not Frodo "fall" in the end. What would have been the outcome for Frodo's character if Gollum had not become involved in his fate?

[brownjenkins]

very good topic Val!

i'd have to agree with elanor on frodo... one has to give him credit for all he went through to get the ring where he did... yet, in the end, he did fail

which also sheads an interesting light on the other four... there is a certain unresistable power behind the ring/sauron... even the powerful who resisted the temptation (gandalf, aragorn, galadriel, etc.), did so more by avoiding it than overcoming it's influence... and there is at least the implication that given the right circumstances, even the most virtuous would be corrupted (except old tom bombadil, but i think he was somewhat beyond the moral dilemmas of good and evil)

while gollum and grima fell pretty quick into evil... saruman was asked to study the enemy, and was even exposed to him via the palantir... can we completely put it on his shoulders that he did not resist prolonged, direct confrontation that arguably would have eventually corrupted even the strongest wills in middle earth?

and boromir... can we completely brush aside the influence of his father and the task that was laid upon him... he was put in a position where his loyalties to his people and to the fellowship were put in direct conflict... add the ring's influence into the mix and we may be holding him to a standard that is nearly impossible to achieve

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally posted by Elanor the Fair

We have all forgotten to mention another character who "fell". Does not Frodo "fall" in the end. What would have been the outcome for Frodo's character if Gollum had not become involved in his fate?

This is the very question I first thought of when I started reading this thread. I think that this is an open-ended question. Would Frodo have fallen victim to the corruption of the Ring if not for the "interference" of Gollum?

And what of the others who were tempted by the Ring, yet did not fall prey to it (Gandalf, Galadriel, Aragorn)? They, too, were tempted by the Ring, but had the desire to use it to help others (as Gandalf clearly stated), much as Boromir's desire. But ultimately, they were not corrupted in the same way that Boromir was. They had no desire to take it by force from Frodo. Indeed, Frodo offered the Ring to them freely and they refused to take it.

As for the Ring ultimately corrupting Frodo, it is difficult to say, which is probably exactly what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote the scene where Frodo and Gollum fight at the end. Was one of the reasons behind Frodo's unhappiness upon his return home based in part on his feeling of guilt about what he would have done had it not been for Gollum's actions? Did he feel that he would have ultimately failed in his quest?

And what about Sam? His stint as Ring-bearer was very short and he was somewhat reluctant to return the Ring to Frodo. But he did without much of a fuss. Does this make him a "redeemed" character who survived and lived a long, happy and productive life?

I'm afraid I'm asking more questions than I'm answering and I hope the questions are not too far off topic.

[Valandil]

Thanks brownjenkins. And I'm not so much interested in 'indicting' those who fall... more in analyzing the choices made following one's fall. :)

[The Gaffer]

Loads of cool stuff to discuss in this thread. Starting with hors d'oeuvre...

Originally posted by Beruthiel's cat
And what about Sam? His stint as Ring-bearer was very short and he was somewhat reluctant to return the Ring to Frodo. But he did without much of a fuss. Does this make him a "redeemed" character who survived and lived a long, happy and productive life?
Well, lately I've come to the view that LOTR is primarily Sam's story, and that the triumph of his "hobbit-sense" is the redemption on which the whole story hinges. (Even tho he went and lost a perfectly good weskit trepassing up and down cracks o doom in foreign parts.)

"Hobbit-sense" is consistently portrayed as the antithesis of the power and greed that is the cause of people "falling". As folk have said, not one single character is unaffected by desire for the Ring (apart from Tom), but only Sam gives it up willingly.

There is a reactionary undertone here: one possible reading is that people get punished for being too uppity, and the world would be just fine if only everyone would know their place and stick to it. I've had several arguments with fellow lefties about that (and hopefully changed their minds). Me, I prefer the anarcho-syndicalist reading myself...

Any views on that? Why Sam? How did he do it?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
Thanks brownjenkins. And I'm not so much interested in 'indicting' those who fall... more in analyzing the choices made following one's fall. :)

fair enough, it just seems to me that the situations don't quite fit into the classic 'temptation/redemption' theme... i.e. the devil offers fame and fortune, an individual is tempted and either refuses/repents or fails in the end

in this case there is a supernatural 'force' (the ring, sauron, or even saruman's 'voice' against wormtongue) that has a power to corrupt even what one would call 'good' individuals... it is an evil forced upon an individual, as opposed to just a 'temptation'... and while one can judge character by how quickly one falls, it is a given that any would fall eventually to such a force... so can one hold another truely responsible for his choices in such a case?

is it fair to expect someone to repent under such a powerful influence?

on the resilience gaffer mentioned... it's always been my pov that tom bombadil was uneffected by the ring because he was completely satisfied with himself and the world around him... he was quite beyond the moral concerns of good or evil

in the words of tolkien on TB:

The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless.(Letters, p. 178)

hobbit's were also very close to this ideal... though they still have a touch of that 'desire for control'

in terms of sam specifically, bilbo also gave up the ring... a bit harder for him, but he held it much longer... and even frodo may have been able to give it up if the situation presented itself... he only failed to destroy the ring... something i've always believed no one would have been able to do willingly

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Elanor the Fair
We have all forgotten to mention another character who "fell". Does not Frodo "fall" in the end. What would have been the outcome for Frodo's character if Gollum had not become involved in his fate? I would not say that Frodo had a fall. He failed on the quest, but I don't think that is the same thing. People like Saruman and Denethor truly fell because they were deliberately challenging the Darkness in order to increase their own power. They went into it with open eyes and knew exactly what they were doing. Frodo otoh exposed himself to the power of the Ring in the service of good, because he had to, and he resisted it to the very end. I'm not even sure that I would call Boromir's failure a 'fall'. Boromir did not want the Ring for himself, but to give to his father, and he was not learned enough to know his danger.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Artanis
I would not say that Frodo had a fall. He failed on the quest, but I don't think that is the same thing. People like Saruman and Denethor truly fell because they were deliberately challenging the Darkness in order to increase their own power. They went into it with open eyes and knew exactly what they were doing. Frodo otoh exposed himself to the power of the Ring in the service of good, because he had to, and he resisted it to the very end. I'm not even sure that I would call Boromir's failure a 'fall'. Boromir did not want the Ring for himself, but to give to his father, and he was not learned enough to know his danger. I really like how you put that, Arty - exposing yourself, vs. deliberate challenging to increase your own power.

Tolkien has a great letter or two about Frodo's "failure" - anyone gonna beat me to it? I can post it a little later or perhaps tomorrow.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
RÃ*an, what is so simple about Orcs? .... Orcs to me possess their own sort of sophistication, their own societies and social orders that have only been surface-scratched by Tolkien.Yes, those areas that you mention are well-developed; what I mean is that in LOTR specifically, as published, they are simple morally. You see Gandalf reasoning with Denethor to the end - enouraging him to right, reasoning with him, emploring him (as befits the holder of Narya - stirring up the fire to do right that is within a person's soul) yet you don't see anyone anywhere "reasoning" with Orcs in this manner. You see Gandalf telling Thranduil's people to hope for Gollum's redemption, and telling people to hope for Saruman's redemption - yet you don't see Gandalf telling people to reason with Orcs and hope for their redemption.

And what is so simple about the question of Orc-redemption? Tolkien himself couldn't figure it out. Or the origins of Orcs--are they demonic, or are some demonic, are they twisted Elves, or twisted Men, are they beasts, or puppets, or independent entities, and why did Eru create their souls, knowing they would inhabit the minds and bodies of the Dark Lord's abominations? Tolkien puzzled over these matters in essay after essay, and some of these questions, for sure the last one, were not resolved. Yes, I agree - but IMO, in the LOTR story, specifically, they are morally "simple" and not capable of being redeemed. Yet Tolkien saw the problem with this, and wrestled with it in various essays outside of the LOTR story, as you said. I've read many of them - some great musings ...

Orcs to me are a complex idea that gives rise to problems of philosophy. Were Orcs common in our society today, we would discuss them in Ethics classes, and ask ourselves these questions; are those people really people? Or are they subhuman? Are they redeemable? Do they have souls? Why would God permit them to be? And so on. There would be some for whom Orcs are a simple matter: monsters that need to be exterminated, but those are the people who do not ask the important questions. Those are the people who do not inquire. And yet these questions you pose hinge on the statement: "Were Orcs common in our society today" - IOW, your statement cannot be made until the question "is it possible for a creature like that to even exist in 'our society today', given what I believe to be a true worldview?" is answered. I think that question needs to be discussed first, before the other questions can be discussed. Fascinating question ... and Tolkien had some great thoughts on it.

Personally, I believe that given an atheistic worldview, we're all Orcs. IOW, in the atheistic worldview, there is no logical explanation for the soul and for how we make moral judgements; only the Christian worldview accurately reflects what we observe around us. (EDIT - that's my personal opinion, and I realize others have other opinions that they have arrived at after much thought and observation.) But that's another thread - I'm trying to talk about that subject over on the Comparative Religion thread, but keep getting sidetracked by summer activities in RL...

Of course Orcs would also be extremely terrifying in our reality as well, and faced with one I would be hard pressed to feel sympathy or compassion for it. Again, I think this hinges on what are your underlying beliefs about Orcs - Tolkien had several opinions, and for me, I would react differently, depending upon which opinion I thought was right.

Now some of you may say I am taking this far too seriously, but I would only answer that I am merely inquiring into the nature of creatures I believe in on a secondary level. You might say "suspension of disbelief", Tolkien called it Secondary Belief. Orcs have value to me for their own sake, and for the sake of the reality to which they belong. For me, it is no simple matter. I like to wrestle with these thoughts, meself :) - I didn't get over 6000 posts just on the "Quote Game" thread :D

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
... but those are the people who do not ask the important questions. Those are the people who do not inquire. This reminds me of a song by Chris Rice that I really like - here's some excerpts: excerpts from "Big Enough", by Chris Rice
...

God, if You're there, I wish You'd show me,
And God, if You care, then I need you to know me.
I hope You don't mind me asking the questions,
But I figure You're big enough;
I figure You're big enough.
...

When I imagine the size of the universe
And I wonder what's out past the edges,
Then I discover inside me a space as big,
And believe that I'm meant to be filled up
With more than just questions.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
... in this case there is a supernatural 'force' (the ring, sauron, or even saruman's 'voice' against wormtongue) that has a power to corrupt even what one would call 'good' individuals... is it fair to expect someone to repent under such a powerful influence? Yes, but (taking the example of Saruman's power) I believe that people like Wormtongue, for example, were more susceptible to Saruman because of their earlier, numerous choices for evil, and lack of repentence. So in that sense, they're definitely responsible. And also, I imagine, early on with Saruman, they resisted inner callings to stop doing wrong, and they're also responsible for that. IOW, they may not have been able to achieve repentance far down the road, but they certainly were earlier on the road. And those early choices closed the door to repentence - and they themselves closed the door.

[Ñólendil]

Yes, I agree - but IMO, in the LOTR story, specifically, they are morally "simple" and not capable of being redeemed. Yet Tolkien saw the problem with this, and wrestled with it in various essays outside of the LOTR story, as you said.

But does not his various essays outside the LOTR story have a serious effect on the LOTR story itself? Or rather, since Tolkien held the LOTR has irrefutable cannon, did not the LOTR story itself have a serious effect on the essays outside that story? When Tolkien was not sure about the Orcs being redeemable, he was talking about the Orcs of the LOTR, as well as of other stories. Therefore it is extremely difficult for me to be sure about the LOTR Orcs' redemption, when Tolkien himself was not sure. That is why I would suggest that it may be possible.

And yet these questions you pose hinge on the statement: "Were Orcs common in our society today" - IOW, your statement cannot be made until the question "is it possible for a creature like that to even exist in 'our society today', given what I believe to be a true worldview?" is answered. I think that question needs to be discussed first, before the other questions can be discussed.

I don't think I need ask "it is possible for an Orc to exist in our society according to my worldview?". If this question is a requirement for my musing, then my musing has a rather different point to it. What I was trying to get across is the fact that because I believe in Orcs on a Secondary Level, I would ask the questions other people would ask if they too believed in Orcs, or accepted them as a fact of the world. I was also getting across my opinion that Orcs are complex, and give rise to complex problems. Whether or not my worldview allows their existence is unimportant. I was not representing the question of Orc-redemption in our world, but using an analogy of our world to get across the importance of Orc-redemption and the complexities of it. If you like to me make my point different I will say this: Orcs are a fact of Tolkien's Middle-earth, and so is Eru the One, who truly is Good; a problem appears to arise from this, and it is not easy to fix, or put an answer to. Or to say it in a more straightforward way: The redemption of Orcs is a mystery.

Personally, I believe that given an atheistic worldview, we're all Orcs.

Some atheistic worldviews, no doubt, but it depends on your definition of Orcs. If you mean to say that an atheist would say "We are all Orcs" because he believes "we have no purpose", then yes, some atheists would agree. But other atheists would not. Plenty of atheists have values, after all, and morals. They may not be nice to eachother because they are serving God, but will be nice to eachother because it is perfectly reasonable, and because it is the right thing to do. I recall being an atheist at the age of 9. I did not then believe we are bad people, or like Orcs in any way, and I think were I still an atheist, I still would not believe such a thing.

IOW, in the atheistic worldview, there is no logical explanation for the soul and for how we make moral judgements;

Are you still referring to a view of mankind as Orcs?

Again, I think this hinges on what are your underlying beliefs about Orcs - Tolkien had several opinions, and for me, I would react differently, depending upon which opinion I thought was right.

You mean to tell me that the sight of the Orc itself would not override whatever beliefs you have of Orcs? Seeing the hideous thing, knowing what wickedness it has no doubt done, you would still calmly shake its hand, knowing it was (if you thought this opinion correct) redeemable? I guess I just don't give myself so much credit, which is what I was getting at; my fear of seeing an Orc does not reflect my underlying belief about them, actually it goes against my belief that the nature of an Orkish soul is mysterious, and against my hope that they are redeemable.

You clarified your point and said that Orcs are morally simple. A question: Are Valar morally simple, as well? Or Eru?

Thank you for the Chris Rice excerpts! Very good stuff.

I do not want to start an argument RÃ*an, and you know you are a friend, but--your comment about Christianity--don't you think there are a lot of non-Christians on Entmoot who would find that offensive: the idea that their own religion does not accurately reflect what we observe around us, that only Christianity does? I hope I do not offend you in saying so; I just don't think it's very courteous. I myself am a Vedantist, and I should like to think that the Vedantist worldview is a fairly good reflection of the known and unknown world. But no worries, I think you and I have discussed this before and agreed to disagree :) I'll let you say what you ought to say, and then I'll be quiet about it.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
But does not his various essays outside the LOTR story have a serious effect on the LOTR story itself? Or rather, since Tolkien held the LOTR has irrefutable cannon, did not the LOTR story itself have a serious effect on the essays outside that story? When Tolkien was not sure about the Orcs being redeemable, he was talking about the Orcs of the LOTR, as well as of other stories. Therefore it is extremely difficult for me to be sure about the LOTR Orcs' redemption, when Tolkien himself was not sure. That is why I would suggest that it may be possible.
Yes, I see what you're saying, and yes, he was talking about LOTR orcs when he was musing about their redeemability (is that a word?)

My point was a little different, tho - I'm talking about the average Tolkien fan who has NOT had the pleasure of reading Morgoth's Ring, POME, etc. and musing about the Second Voice and things like that - the reader who has ONLY read LOTR (and not having even read the Sil, thinks of elves as nice, rather ethereal beings, not the mighty warriors that they are - do you like Fingolfin's challenge to Morgoth in the Lays of Beleriand as much as I do?) To the LOTR-only reader, I don't see any evidence of orcs being considered redeemable. As I mentioned, Gandalf is trying to help (and encouraging others to help) redeem Denethor, Saruman, etc. to the bitter end - but is never seen encouraging others to have a chat with an orc about perhaps changing their ways ...

I don't think I need ask "it is possible for an Orc to exist in our society according to my worldview?". If this question is a requirement for my musing, then my musing has a rather different point to it. What I was trying to get across is the fact that because I believe in Orcs on a Secondary Level, I would ask the questions other people would ask if they too believed in Orcs, or accepted them as a fact of the world. I was also getting across my opinion that Orcs are complex, and give rise to complex problems. Yes, I see what you're saying, but ...

Whether or not my worldview allows their existence is unimportant. I disagree with this, since you were talking about Orcs in OUR society, which does NOT mean secondary reality. Perhaps we think differently on this - to me, if I am going to consider the question of Orcs in our society (as in real life), then I must first consider the question - is it even possible for Orcs, (the "unredeemable" kind) to exist in primary reality? Because if the answer is "no", then to me, I can't truly consider the question, because primary reality would have to be different, in ways that I might not realize, in order for me to consider it, so I couldn't accurately consider the question because I don't know all the laws of that other primary reality.

Does that make sense? (not that you have to agree; it's just the way I look at it)

... The redemption of Orcs is a mystery. Now I agree with that! :)

Plenty of atheists have values, after all, and morals. ... I did not then believe we are bad people, or like Orcs in any way, and I think were I still an atheist, I still would not believe such a thing. I didn't get across my meaning well. Let me clarify that I believe ALL people, INCLUDING atheists, have morals, and are NOT "bad people". You've been away a bit, and haven't been aware (that I know of) of an ongoing discussion about the existence of morals and what can be deduced from this - I'm trying to finally formally start that discussion up in the "comparative religion" thread, and would enjoy if you joined in!

Are you still referring to a view of mankind as Orcs? Yes; see the above answer.

You mean to tell me that the sight of the Orc itself would not override whatever beliefs you have of Orcs? I guess this relates to what I explained above. I was talking about unredeemable Orcs, and because I don't believe that soul-bearing beings can be unredeemable, then therefore they can't exist in reality. So for them to exist in reality, reality must be different, so I can't really judge how I would react because my reality would be different.

But I imagine I'm overanalyzing :eek: - I'm sure if I saw an Orc in real life, I'd be hightailing it out of wherever it was!

Actually, I think ANY soul-bearing being is incredible! And the greater the being, the more tragic the fall. If Orcs were truly soul-bearing (or "hnau", as Lewis calls it in his space trilogy - I like how he populates Mars with THREE soul-bearing beings and has fun with how they relate) then along with fear, I would have tremendous sorrow when I saw an Orc.

This is getting long - more in the next post.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
fair enough, it just seems to me that the situations don't quite fit into the classic 'temptation/redemption' theme... i.e. the devil offers fame and fortune, an individual is tempted and either refuses/repents or fails in the end

in this case there is a supernatural 'force' (the ring, sauron, or even saruman's 'voice' against wormtongue) that has a power to corrupt even what one would call 'good' individuals... it is an evil forced upon an individual, as opposed to just a 'temptation'... and while one can judge character by how quickly one falls, it is a given that any would fall eventually to such a force... so can one hold another truely responsible for his choices in such a case?

is it fair to expect someone to repent under such a powerful influence?


Only one day since you've posted this, but already a lot of water under the bridge, so to speak! ;)

Actually, my response is that in the Christian POV, sin IS irresistable... maybe not one particular sin at any given time, but the view that ALL people WILL all fall to sin at some point is basic Christian doctrine (spelled out in Romans 3)... which is why we need a redeemer! :)

Now - JRRT didn't want to tinker with the Divine Redemption storyline, out of respect - so I'm not suggesting that he's trying to show some other form of it. But - I think we can view these various characters in his story in light of our potential and/or likely responses to their situations if we were in them. Would WE succumb, as they did? Could we, having once succumbed, repent and reverse the course of our actions?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
You clarified your point and said that Orcs are morally simple. A question: Are Valar morally simple, as well? Or Eru? Well, a Vala fell, and I love the little story about Aule making the Dwarves (which to me illustrated a kind of redemption very well, btw - that one can START down a path that you know is wrong, then change back), so I don't think the Ainur are morally simple.

I don't think Eru is morally simple, either, altho He is morally perfect. I think Eru is capable of choosing wrong in a physical sense, but not in a moral sense, the same way that I'm physically capable of killing my kids but not morally capable (altho when they squabble .... ;) ) (and by "physical" I mean not only that my body can do it, but that my brain can consider it). I have lied before :( (I'm physically and morally capable of that, and have done it :( ) but IMO, Eru is morally "incapable" of ANY wrongdoing.

Thank you for the Chris Rice excerpts! Very good stuff. You're welcome; glad you liked it :) I like the idea that a soul is bigger than the universe, and that if it's natural for people to question, then there must be answers ...

I do not want to start an argument RÃ*an, and you know you are a friend, but--your comment about Christianity--don't you think there are a lot of non-Christians on Entmoot who would find that offensive: the idea that their own religion does not accurately reflect what we observe around us, that only Christianity does? I hope I do not offend you in saying so; I just don't think it's very courteous. No, you didn't offend me at all; in fact, I appreciate your comment and the courteous way you worded it, because it shows that you care about the feelings of others. Let me see if I can clarify ...

What I meant to get across was that personally, for ME, I have found that Christianity is the best "fit" to what I observe around me, and that's why I, personally, think it is true. (I meant the "personally" in the first sentence to carry over to the second sentence in that post.) As I've said before (but I don't think you've seen), I think that atheists have thought things thru and believe that atheism is the best "fit" for what they see and therefore they think it is true, and Buddhists have thought things thru and believe that Buddhism is the best "fit" for what they see and therefore think it is true, etc. etc. Each person needs to think and evaluate for themselves, IMO. However, I also believe that only ONE worldview CAN be true; IOW, if there are contradictory statements in 2 worldviews, then they BOTH can't be right. Do you agree?

You've been gone awhile (I've missed you!) and the people on this thread are people that I've posted with extensively and I think understand that I didn't mean that in an offensive way, because I've talked about things like that quite a bit before. (and it was particularly aimed at brownjenkins; he and I have ribbed each other back and forth on that one! He's a really nice guy and very thoughtful.) However, I should be more careful how I word things, even with people that I know well, because there's always newbies joining Entmoot that haven't read my other posts, so thank you for your comment!

I myself am a Vedantist, and I should like to think that the Vedantist worldview is a fairly good reflection of the known and unknown world. I know you think about things a lot, and respect your opinion, and believe that you, personally, think it is the best "fit" for what you've seen. I also happen to think you're wrong :) (in the same way an atheist would think I'm wrong), but that makes no difference to our friendship, IMO - it only gives us lots of things to talk about! :) I think discussing things with people that hold different views is great! and many of my favorite people on Entmoot hold views that are radically different than mine.

[Rían]

No one's quoted from Letters yet? I have to go to the library, so I will just post some relevant letter numbers : 191 and 246 are prob. the best ones. Some great thoughts there ...

[Ñólendil]

Thanks for the comments RÃ*an. I don't have time now to respond, just wanted to let you know that I read them, and that understand what you meant much better now. I'm off for a fried rice tofu bowl. Take care!

[Rían]

Enjoy! Sounds good! Not at a place called Hoopsies, at any chance? (great boba drinks there!)

I must admit that while out on errands, I got the kids a chicken sandwich at Carl's Jr ... :o I'm trying to eat healthier, but those drive-thrus are SO handy when one is out and about with hungry kids ...


From Letters:

from the Letters of JRRT, #246
Very few (indeed so far as letters go only you and one other) have observed or commented on Frodo's 'failure'. It is a very important point.

From the point of view of the storyteller the events on Mt Doom proceed simply from the logic of the tale up to that time. They were not deliverately worked up to nor foreseen until they occurred. But, for one thing, it became at last quite clear that Frodo after all that had happened would be incapable of voluntarily destroying the Ring. Reflecting on the solution after it was arrived at (as a mere event) I feel that it is central to the whole 'theory' of true nobility and heroism that is presented.

Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say 'simple minds' with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. ...

I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. ... We are finite creatures with absolute limitations upon the powers of our soul-body structure in either action or endurance. Moral failure can only be asserted, I think, when a man's effort or endurance falls short of his limits ... Frodo undertook his quest out of love [as Artanis said!] - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could; and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been - say, by being strangled by Gollum, or crushed by a falling rock. That appears to be the judgement of Gandalf and Aragorn and of all who learned the full story of his journey. ...

Great letter - does everyone who has posted here so far have Letters?

[Rían]

And from 191 : letter 191
If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum powier, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back. He was honoured because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved - by Mercy: by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.

.... But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistable by incarnate creatures, however 'good' [as Valandil said!] : and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
... I myself am a Vedantist, and I should like to think that the Vedantist worldview is a fairly good reflection of the known and unknown world...

Hey Nolendil, what's a "Vedantist"?

Uh - probably best if you answer in one of the religion threads of GM. ;)

[Ñólendil]

I think it would be alright if I gave you a quick answer. A Vedantist is one who follows Vedanta, which is one of the six philosophical schools of Hinduism. It asserts, ofcourse among many other things, that Mankind's real nature is divine, and that it is our task to Realize this Divinity (enter the Kingdom of Heaven, become enlightened, whatever you want to call it). Vedanta also asserts the equality of all religions, believing that all the world's religions are attempting to attain the same universal truth, or ultimate reality, i.e., God, or nirvana. (Vedantists call this supreme reality: "Brahman", and the liberation of attaining it: "moksha".)

My quick answer turned into a paragraph. Oh well :) Thanks for asking.

Er, I think it best if I mention Frodo a few times, so as to throw off Sister Golden Hair. Frodo frodo frodo.

Uh, redemption of Tolkienien characters. Yeah--and Saruman. There.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
...Well, lately I've come to the view that LOTR is primarily Sam's story, and that the triumph of his "hobbit-sense" is the redemption on which the whole story hinges. (Even tho he went and lost a perfectly good weskit trepassing up and down cracks o doom in foreign parts.)...

Yet another interesting observation. Not many have advanced the 'Sam-o-centric' view of LOTR... :cool:

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
Thanks for the comments RÃ*an. I don't have time now to respond, just wanted to let you know that I read them, and that understand what you meant much better now. Something I came across t'other night on the whole idea of realities (a fairy is talking to a prince about a princess he's just seen) :

from "The Back of the North Wind", by George MacDonald

"Do you like her?" asked the fairy.

"Oh! don't I?" said the prince. "More than you would believe, mother."

"A fairy can believe anything that ever was or ever could be," said the old woman.

"Then you are a fairy?" asked the prince.

"Yes," said she.

"Then what do you do for things not to believe?" asked the prince.

"There's plenty of them - everything that never was nor ever could be."


I think that expresses what I was trying to say really well.

And I like how the conversation ends - they go on a bit more, then MacDonald writes: "But he could get nothing more out of the fairy, and had to go to bed unanswered, which was something of a trial." :D

[Rían]

*bump*

Where'd that Ñólendil go? I thought he'd like that quote ...

[Valandil]

Actually just spotted a similar thread on a different MB... and someone had pointed out about a whole 'People-Group' which applies to this:

The Dead Men of Dunharrow!

[Rían]

Oh, that's right! Interesting concept about an unfulfilled oath keeping you bound to the place (i.e., ME) where you made it until it's fulfilled.

[Valandil]

In the case of that Oath... I wonder if there was something special about the Stone of Erech which bound them... or if anyone taking any oath in ME was somewhat more bound than we often suppose we are. We've discussed this a little in another thread before.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I think the curse did have something to do with the Stone of Erech because if it wasn't wouldn't they have just left. For they can't have wanted to be properly dead that much because if so why

'The Way is shut, it was made by those who were dead, the dead keep it, the way is shut'

If they wanted death so badly surely they would have stuck something about Isildur's heir and he may enter in it. For if Isildur's heir wasn't as brave as Aragorn or hadn't met Gandalf then they wouldn't be free from their oath.

[Ñólendil]

As it turns out RÃ*an, I did read that quote you posted--I liked it, but I wasn't sure how you were relating it to our conversation. My mind is probably too overloaded at the moment. Actually, you'll have to remind me what we were debating about :)

It is a nice passage though.

[Thorin II]

Back to Valandil's original post, I suspect the lack of surviving characters who have redeemed themselves says more about JRRT than it does about ME. Perhaps he didn't have much experience with people changing their stripes. It could be a personal cynicism he carried into his writing. Thanks for pointing it out; until you mentioned it, I never really noticed the trend.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Yeah. People who did do something majorly wrong repented whilst dying.

[Attalus]

It is also a Christian doctrine that one must lose his life to save it. We have that on the Highest Authority. I suspect that JRRT had that in mind, particularly for Boromir.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Didn't Boromir repent before he was dying, after Frodo had left when he came back into his right mind.

[Valandil]

Didn't Boromir repent before he was dying, after Frodo had left when he came back into his right mind.

Please read initial post. :)

[Attalus]

Please read initial post. :)LOL, thanks, Val. I'm always itching to tell people that.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

What about Ar-Pharazon. Any chance that he repented before dying?

[Valandil]

What about Ar-Pharazon. Any chance that he repented before dying?

Doubtful. He hesitated when he got there, but I suspect more in awe and fear than out of true respect and second thoughts about to be obedient (akin to being sorry you did something because of the consequences of getting caught, rather than because it was wrong). Then ultimately his pride mastered him and he went ashore.

No penitence there.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

What about the guy who betrayed Barahir (I forget his name). Do you think he repented?

[Valandil]

I don't know... but we really should keep this discussion to the LOTR novel. There was really no need to discuss Ar-Pharazon.

[Attalus]

All right, just to keep th pot bubbling, this is a duplicate to the post that I made on Val's thread at SF-Fandom:

Originally posted by Michael Martinez:
I am surprised that no one mentioned Frodo's fall (or Galadriel's, for that matter). I will take a swing at Galadriel's fall, since I have thought about it, much. Galadriel, I believe, fell from Grace through Pride, considering herself the greatest woman in Aman and wishing to govern a realm of her own; and Rage at Fëanor's actions, compounding her own dislike of him. We all know, I think, that actions by those we dislike arouse a fiercer condemnation than folk we like or even are indifferent to. Because of those two Deadly Sins, she forsook the Blessed Realm and symbolically separated her will from Eru's, as well as the Valar's. The death of Fëanor seems to have calmed her down, and we next find her at Doriath, chatting with Melian. Her Rage has died, but she still wants to prove herself greatest of the Eldar women, and seeks a realm of her own. In the passages about the Elessar, she seems still somewhat petulant, too self-regarding. She passes through Moria to Lorinand. This to me seems equivalent to Campbell's Dark Night of the Soul, in which she learns to trust the Dwarves of Durin's folk, thereby enlarging her sympathy, and once in control of Lorinand, she does not even claim the tiltle of Queen, which is humble of her, and tries to govern justly and well. Finally, she is given the Ring by her would-be lover, Celebrimbror. This takes the place of the Ellessar in maintaining Lothlórien, and may be taken as substituing a true Faith for the false one, which she discards by giving it to Aragorn. Her Pride is thus subsumed in her good actions, and she is able to take part in the War against Sauron. Finally, the temptation of the Ruling Ring is held before her, but the wisdom she so hardly acquired saves her, and she is forgiven. That is my take on it.

[Valandil]

* bumpity-bump *