Imagine No Redemption

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Right, now you've all got John Lennon's 'Imagine' stuck in your heads, lets get started!
I've not been in the books section for a while, but I got an idea while at Return of the Ring and decided to make a topic.

Within Tolkien's world we find plenty of villains and heroes, and there are a few heroes that go bad. Or, at least, we have people of neutral standing who fall to 'the dark side'.
We have characters like Smeagol, beginning as a mischievous Hobbit-like creature who is corrupted by the Ring and goes on to live a terrible and wretched life. Then there's Boromir who travels with the Fellowship, defends and protects them, until the Ring takes him. Sauron, Melkor and Saruman are all Ainur who fall away from their initial standing. All are "good" folk becoming "bad". Which raises the question; do we have any "bad" characters who turn "good"?

I've been racking my brains on this and cannot think of a clear example. Middle Earth is full of characters who change; Bilbo from coward to brave adventurer, Frodo from adventurer to broken patient, Aragorn from ranger to king, Gandalf from grey wanderer to white leader, and so on and so forth. Rarely, if ever, do we see someone who has fallen to evil redeem themselves and join / rejoin the 'good' side.

Let's take a look at some apparent redemption stories, to begin with.

Melkor was of the Ainur. His desire to bring his own thoughts into the music, breaking it, perhaps, soon led him to a complete fall from his station as a Valar and he went to war with them. He was defeated by the other Valar, Utumno was destroyed, his forces scattered, and his power broken. He was taken to Valinor and imprisoned for three ages. There was peace and then he was released, as per the agreement. Melkor had apparently repented and promised to serve the Valar and the elves. Ultimately, he destroyed the Two Trees, stole the Silmarils, and went back to his old ways.

Now on to Sauron. He has a similar story, beginning as one of the Ainur who is turned. He helps Melkor and follows somewhat in his footsteps. Although, Sauron wishes for dominion where Melkor lusted for destruction. Sauron, too, was imprisoned, this time in Númenóre, and later let out, apparently rehabilitated. Then he goes on to corrupt Númenóre and to help bring about its downfall.

So I guess the prison system in Middle Earth doesn't work so well. ;)

Sauron is an interesting case. Unlike Melkor, he does not wish to destroy, only to control. Where as Melkor seemed to despise the very existence of other things.

"...when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existance, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction."

Sauron, however...

"... for it was the creatures of earth, in their minds and wills, that he desired to dominate."

After the fall of Melkor, he apparently becomes good, even aiding in the rebuilding of Arda.

"Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganizing and rehabilitation of Middle-earth, 'neglected by the gods,'; he [Sauron] becomes a reincarnation of Evil, and a thing lusting for Complete Power - and so consumed ever more fiercely with hate (especially of the Elves)."

Beginning with fair motives.

But like all minds of this cast, Sauron's love (originally) or (later) mere understanding of other individual intelligences was correspondingly weaker; and though the only real good in, or rational motive for, all this ordering and planning and organization was the good of all inhabitants of Arda (even admitting Sauron's right to be their supreme lord), his 'plans', the idea coming from his own isolated mind, became the sole object of his will, and an end, the End, in itself."

Is this a temporary redemption for Sauron? It is very short lived if it is. Ultimately, he seems to use this chance of redemption for more misdeeds and rebellion. If there was some deep love in his somewhere for the peoples' of Middle Earth, it seems his pride and desire for control bulldozed it.

Another case to consider is Smeagol.
He is very quickly pulled under the Ring's influence and becomes the slinking, sneaking creature we know as Gollum. At several points in The Two Towers, Frodo seems intent on helping Sméagol recover, perhaps even become agreeable. Frodo shows nothing but kindness to Gollum for the most part (after their initial encounter), and Gollum appears to respond to this with less sneaking and spitting. However, Sam maintains a cruel relationship with him. He does not trust Gollum and isn't afraid to voice his complaints. Sam seems disappointed in Frodo's pity and kindness towards him, even on the edge of Mount Doom, he is told to refrain from killing the pitiable creature. It could be that Frodo's kindness could have helped Gollum while Sam's suspicion and hostility hindered any possibility of healing.

(footnote)The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum back over the brink, when about to repent.

So can we take it that redemption was possible for Gollum under the right circumstances? Tolkien seems to have mixed feelings...

"But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly* betray him and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.
...
Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigae 'Goddess privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are peoples who yield to temptation, reject chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'.

*Not quite certainly.

Moving on to Boromir, a man who seems to have the best of intentions, or at least understandable intentions, attacks a defenceless Hobbit in an attempt to take the Ring for himself. He seems to immediately repent and tries to redeem himself in battle. Is this a redemption? If so, the cost is high for a seemingly short loss of temper. I will come back to this point.
He begins with good intentions, to take the Ring to Gondor and use it to defeat Sauron. Perhaps it is only his lack of understanding of the Ring and its power that causes him to believe this a wise course of action. Perhaps he does not fully grasp its power, believing that if a Hobbit like Frodo or Bilbo can carry it without falling to evil, then surely he, Boromir of Gondor, could! Perhaps when he attacks Frodo in an attempt to take the Ring he finally realises its power and understands what Frodo is dealing with?
So is Boromir falling to 'evil', or is this simply a lack of comprehension on his part? All he sees is the great weapon of the enemy, he sees the impossibility of the quest (One does not simply walk into Mordor, after all ;) ), and he sees his own country besieged by Mordor and a weapon that the wise refuse to let him use. Perhaps the Ring is also pulling him in, tempting him from afar, but once he realises that's what has happened, he pulls back.

Now, Boromir's fall is what gives me a strange thought. If Boromir gains redemption and can be classes as 'returning' to the 'good' side, it seemed to take his death to accomplish this. He had to go down fighting, and not easily, either. If there was redemption for him, it was not easy. Perhaps that is the point.

It seems strange that Tolkien, a man from a religion that places high emphasis on redemption, should have so few examples of it, if any, in his legendarium. Perhaps narrative structure prevented it, perhaps not. Gollum comes close to turning, but fails; Sauron has a chance to turn, and fails; Melkor has a chance and refuses. For Tolkien, it seems, redemption and turning from evil to good, is a supremely difficult task. In the case of Gollum, it takes the outside influence of Frodo to give him the chance, but it is Sam who pushes him back to his old ways.
What is going on here? Is there a hint of 'kindness leads to kindness' and 'cruelty leads to cruelty'? Perhaps redemption is seen as something only Eru can grant, perhaps in some Christian sense, and that for one to find it by one's self would be near impossible within such a world. People come close, but never quite reach it. It seems far too easy for good to fall to evil, but for evil to rise to good requires hardship and much climbing.

Although, if someone now responds with an incredibly obvious example I shall be very embarrassed. :o

[Inziladun]

A very intriguing topic, Hookbill.

Personally, I would not consider Morgoth, Sauron, or Gollum as having "repented". I believe that only comes from a simultaneous recognition that one has done evil, with a sincere desire to pit evil away and do good for its own sake. That cannot be said for Morgoth and Sauron, whose seeming turnabout was the result of having superior force placed upon them by the Valar. Gollum too was affected mainly by fear, of Frodo, but more directly, the Ring that Frodo held.
It could be (and has been, exhaustively) argued whether Gollum's repentance would have held out if Sam had not awakened and accused him of "sneaking". My feeling is no; the Ring was stronger than any love for Frodo. That leads to the next question: was that Gollum's fault, or was he a victim? Both are true. The Ring's power was too great for him to overcome, but it need not have been so damaging for Gollum, had he not possessed an intrinsic propensity for mischief from the start.

Now, Boromir's fall is what gives me a strange thought. If Boromir gains redemption and can be classes as 'returning' to the 'good' side, it seemed to take his death to accomplish this. He had to go down fighting, and not easily, either. If there was redemption for him, it was not easy. Perhaps that is the point.

I would think Boromir's repentance genuine, however. As soon as he had chased off Frodo, he felt remorse, and decided to do what he could to redress his evil deed. That his death was necessary to repentance was apparently felt by Boromir himself, who told Aragorn

"I am sorry. I have paid."

Maybe Boromir was convinced at that moment that he had brought ruin to the world by frightening Frodo to a rash act that could have unknown consequences.

Much earlier, Isildur, upon being cornered by the orcs on the Gladden Fields, said to his son:

"Forgive me and my pride that has brought you to this doom."
UT Disaster of the Gladden Fields

Isildur "paid" with death also for his prideful error in taking the Ring.

To another example: would you consider Maglor's case as a "repentance"?
No, he and the sons of Fëanor were not "bad" in the manner of Morgoth or Sauron, but they did evil in obedience to a freely taken oath that they knew (or should have known) would lead to much chaos and bloodshed.

Yet, Maglor repented in his heart at least, and was willing to break the oath to avoid further slaughter, having sorrow for what had been done by himself and his brothers. It was apparently only the desire to go along with Maedhros, his last remaining brother, that caused him to fail

Notably, though Meadhros was moved to commit suicide, it was said that Maglor did not die, but wandered around aimlessly thereafter. Perhaps he saw that as penance he must perform?

[Boromir88]

I must say, a wonderful treat to read this, Hookbill.

I promise to have a bit more thought out and constructive points later, but a few random things that came to mind while reading this...

Don't forget Grima and Saruman. Given several chances to repent of their evil ways and each time reject redemption.

I think it mostly revolves around pride, or what Tolkien would label as excessive pride - ofermod. Each of these evil characters can't let go of their pride. Because it takes a remarkable amount of courage and humility in a person, to let go of their pride and accept forgiveness when given. If I recall correctly, Grima does beg forgiveness from Theoden, but when Theoden says "Fine, come back to my side as a worthy counselor and join me in battle against Saruman" Grima runs back to Saruman.

Boromir is a rather different story, because not only does he repay his fall with an act of kindness to defend Merry and Pippin. And not only does it cost him the greatest price one can pay (as you've mentioned), but for the first time, the blustering arrogance Boromir often displayed...he lets go:

"I tried to take the Ring from Frodo," he said. "I am sorry. I have paid"~The Departure of Boromir

Aragorn doesn't demand Boromir reveal his "crimes" and repent. Boromir does this on his own. Admits the crime, admits personal guilt in the crime, and paid for it. I believe redemption is a personal choice, I mean, Frodo nor anyone has to find Boromir "forgiven." However, can't really do much more than what Boromir did. It is an interesting case though, because as you said, even if he is redeemed, he's now dead. :p

And one final point that I want to throw out here...what about Isildur. He claims the Ring as weregild for the death of Elendil and Anarion. It is, legally, a justified claim, Isildur is taking "payment" for the death of his father and brother at the hands of Sauron. But, it really isn't much different than Gollum claiming the Ring as his because it's his "birthday present," is it? So, what about Isildur's fall, and is he redeemed? Unfinished Tales, The Disaster of Gladden Fields is quite interesting, with regards to the motivations of Isildur leaving Gondor:

When he at last felt free to return to his own realm he was in haste, and e he wished to go first to Imladris, for he had left his wife and youngest son there, and he had moreover urgent need for the counsel of Elrond.

"It needs one greater than I now know myself to be. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the Three."

"My pride has fallen," and it sounds like Isildur intended to give up the Ring. Whether he would have done so had he ever gone to Imladris, well, won't be known. However, he was urgently in need of Elrond, and his pride had now fallen. Sort of puts an interesting spin on the whole "ambush" scenario...a sentient Ring knowing going to the "Keepers of the Three" would not be an ideal situation? So, let me draw evil in to kill this guy and get lost in a large river for a while?

Edit: Crossed with Inziladun and it seems like we virtually have the same posts haha.

[Rumil]

Good to see you again Hookbill,

I do have an example, but not exactly one of the greatest or most puissant characters of Middle Earth!!

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins :)

Now as we all know she starts off mean and spiteful and money-grabbing, determined to wrest Bag-End from the Bagginses and add to her silver spoon collection. After Sharkey's ruffians took over the Shire she 'went for' one of them with her umbrella on being insulted and off to the lockholes they dragged her.

On her release she was cheered by the crowd, became popular, but was crushed by the loss of her son, she returned Bag End to Frodo and retired to Harbottle. Dying the next year, she left all her money to help hobbits made homeless by the troubles.

I'd say that was a pretty good turn-around

[Inziladun]

Might we also consider Thorin Oakenshield?

Again, not really evil; more, like Boromir or Gollum, a character defect that can lead to evil.

In Thorin's case, his avarice for wealth was not merely personal, but a hallmark of his race.
Still, upon his deathbed (again!) he found it in his heart to say to Bilbo that such pursuits as money and jewels should be renounced in favor of more simple, hobbit-like pleasures.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Pride and despair! As Denethor said. These seem the great downfalls of people in Middle Earth. Overcoming them appears nigh on impossible for a lot of the examples we've shown here.

"My pride has fallen," and it sounds like Isildur intended to give up the Ring. Whether he would have done so had he ever gone to Imladris, well, won't be known. However, he was urgently in need of Elrond, and his pride had now fallen. Sort of puts an interesting spin on the whole "ambush" scenario...a sentient Ring knowing going to the "Keepers of the Three" would not be an ideal situation? So, let me draw evil in to kill this guy and get lost in a large river for a while?

This certainly seems plausible. It would tie in quite well with Aragorn's own reluctance to attempt to take the Ring, if he'd known that Isildur had fallen to pride and he did not wish to come to the same fate.

To another example: would you consider Maglor's case as a "repentance"?
No, he and the sons of Fëanor were not "bad" in the manner of Morgoth or Sauron, but they did evil in obedience to a freely taken oath that they knew (or should have known) would lead to much chaos and bloodshed.

Yet, Maglor repented in his heart at least, and was willing to break the oath to avoid further slaughter, having sorrow for what had been done by himself and his brothers. It was apparently only the desire to go along with Maedhros, his last remaining brother, that caused him to fail

Notably, though Meadhros was moved to commit suicide, it was said that Maglor did not die, but wandered around aimlessly thereafter. Perhaps he saw that as penance he must perform?

The sons of Fëanor again seem to display this trope of pride, and a little despair.

"If none can release us then indeed the Everlasting Darkness shall be our lot, whether we keep our oath or break it; but less evil shall we do in the breaking."
Maglor speaking of the Oath of Fëanor

But the oath seems to have sealed them in. They must shatter their own pride in order to break the oath, and so achieve less evil. Maedhros falls to despair, much like Denethor, and burns in the mountain. Maglor settles for, as you say, Inzil, wandering aimlessly. In both cases, if this is redemption, then it is hard bought.

I do have an example, but not exactly one of the greatest or most puissant characters of Middle Earth!!

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins

Now as we all know she starts off mean and spiteful and money-grabbing, determined to wrest Bag-End from the Bagginses and add to her silver spoon collection. After Sharkey's ruffians took over the Shire she 'went for' one of them with her umbrella on being insulted and off to the lockholes they dragged her.

On her release she was cheered by the crowd, became popular, but was crushed by the loss of her son, she returned Bag End to Frodo and retired to Harbottle. Dying the next year, she left all her money to help hobbits made homeless by the troubles.

I'd say that was a pretty good turn-around

Interesting point! Perhaps she is not a villain, but she is an antagonist. She, too, seems to have some degree of pride. There is this sense of wanting to be recognised in the community, also a desire to have what she believes is hers, rather like Gollum's birthday present, or Isildur's 'payment' for the loss of his father and brother. She is 'redeemed' again through hardship; she sees her lands ruined, she is thrown in prison, and eventually, the crowd cheers her. She finally has the social recognition, but perhaps not the kind she had looked for. However, she seems humbled by it, and retires from the grudge match with the Bagginses.

Might we also consider Thorin Oakenshield?

Again, not really evil; more, like Boromir or Gollum, a character defect that can lead to evil.

In Thorin's case, his avarice for wealth was not merely personal, but a hallmark of his race.
Still, upon his deathbed (again!) he found it in his heart to say to Bilbo that such pursuits as money and jewels should be renounced in favor of more simple, hobbit-like pleasures.

I think this is probably the closest we'll get! Like all the others he is brought to 'evil' by his pride, his lust for what he sees as rightfully his. But as you say, he too buys his redemption with death. Not only his own death, but of many others, including some of his company.

[Galadriel55]

Is this a redemption? If so, the cost is high for a seemingly short loss of temper.

If achieving redemption would be easy, it would be much too cheap to do evil deeds and just "redeem" yourself afterwards. I think the whole point is that redemption comes at a price. In the case of Boromir and Thorin Oakenshield the price is not only their pride but their life.

I would add another example of a failed redemption: Denethor. He realizes how little he treasured his younger son and cries (iirc). But in the end either he is too far gone off the rocker, or too despaired to follow up on that feeling.

Edit: xed with Hook

[Boromir88]

I would add another example of a failed redemption: Denethor. He realizes how little he treasured his younger son and cries (iirc). But in the end either he is too far gone off the rocker, or too despaired to follow up on that feeling.

Edit: xed with Hook

Aye, as Hookbill I think uncovered...Denethor had the right of it, Pride and Despair!

When Faramir is brought back sick and dying, it is said Denethor stays with him, and is indeed crying over his younger son's failing health. But his reaction to it is, complete and ultimate despair (and think of the torment he endured in his history...wife died soon after giving birth to Faramir. It is said Denethor became "more grim" with her death. His favored son then dies, and the son he realized he truly did love, is dying. Oh and the whole, realm he was charged to defend is on the verge of being destroyed). It's a sad story...as Gandalf says of Gollum.

[Boromir88]

Oh! Oh! Extra thought, since now I got to thinking on Denethor.

Theoden, is in many ways a redeemed character too. Although, I don't think I would say he even had a character trait (as Inzil mentions with Boromir and Thorin) that could potentially lead to evil.

Theoden's fall was driven by the hand of Saruman and a slimy counselor (I guess you could say poor judge of character? But really that not exactly "evil.") Anyway, Theoden is facing the threat of Saruman, is being held in a decrepit state of mind, his only son and heir dies. Yet he does come out "renewed" and triumphant after listening to Gandalf.

He too dies, although it doesn't appear to be in payment for an act of evil, unless if it's a very very delayed payment. Because again, Theoden didn't do anything wrong other than being a poor judge of who he had as his counselor.

[Galadriel55]

But even Theoden, with, as you said, no particular evil trait, needed someone (Gandalf the mentor) to guide him into the light again. Just like Gollum. And Denethor would have been like that too, had he listened to anyone in his last few hours.

Lobelia, Thorin, and Boromir see the consequences of their deeds when a disaster happens. A disaster they still have a slim hope to fix. Gollum, I would think, never really thought about his position that way. And Denethor refused to see any hope.

Perhaps if Sauron really saw what he and Morgoth did as a disaster, or if he had a mentor who convinced him of such, he would have repented for good. But seeing as that what we consider a disaster Sauron considers a great success...

[Nogrod]

I must admit I have never thought of this, but reading your posts this one thing really strikes me: all who are redempted in one way or another achieve their redemption by death.

The case of Lobelia is a telling one. Why did she have to die as soon she had changed her ways? Why was it not possible for her to change her views and then live happily as a redeemed person in her community?

I think it has to do with Tolkien's particular view of catholicism (and thus a very negative view on human psyche?), even if I can't quite grasp it in any more detail at the moment.

[Galadriel55]

I must admit I have never thought of this, but reading your posts this one thing really strikes me: all who are redempted in one way or another achieve their redemption by death.

The case of Lobelia is a telling one. Why did she have to die as soon she had changed her ways? Why was it not possible for her to change her views and then live happily as a redeemed person in her community?

Personally, I like it this way since it makes the story more profound. If a character who said "I'm sorry", even genuinely, would just live happily ever after, it would not be Tolkien, it would be a Disney story.

Thorin dies right after redemption because the epiphany comes when he is on the deathbed. So here the "cause and effect" are reversed. Boromir dies because the price of his redemption was to fight the orcs - and being shot multiple times is but a consequece of a consequence. And Lobelia dies because she's quite old, even for a hobbit, and I would imagine her health would not be at its best after the Lockholes. So her death is neither direct cause nor effect of repentance. (I mean there's the domino efect that had she not been thrusting that umbrella in the Ruffian's face... but that's not a direct link)

But the deaths make the story deeper and not "Disney happily ever after the end".

[Inziladun]

Hm. Could this be an example of a true repentance, without death or destruction?

Melkor hated the Sea, for he could not subdue it. It is said that in the making of Arda he endeavoured to draw Ossë to his allegiance, promising to him all the realm and power of Ulmo, if he would serve him. So it was that long ago there arose great tumults in the sea that wrought ruin to the lands. But Uinen, at the prayer of Aulë, restrained Ossë and brought him before Ulmo; and he was pardoned and returned to his allegiance, to which he has remained faithful. Valaquenta

There we have a servant of a good Vala switching sides to Melkor, then back again, apparently permanently, with no lasting penalty.
If Ossë could do it, you'd think Sauron could have managed it also, had he wanted it badly enough.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Interesting topic! Let me throw in my two cents, though right now I cannot think of anything too big to contribute. Anyway...
Personally, I like it this way since it makes the story more profound. If a character who said "I'm sorry", even genuinely, would just live happily ever after, it would not be Tolkien, it would be a Disney story.
I think that's basically it. This might also sound a bit bad, but technically it's true: a story ending with the recently redeemed person dying (like Boromir or Thorin, the strongest examples for me) gives it much stronger impact for the reader. It is also a bit like the way that Frodo, after his great victory, has to still bear the weight of all he had gone through and eventually leaves Middle-Earth. So I think, in fact, that the loss and death sort of goes along with the general image of the world of Middle-Earth: there is sadness, "long slow defeat", even victory has always its sacrifices and has somehow melancholic taste, at best. Arda Marred is Arda Marred and the "true redemption", if we want to look for it that far, comes probably only at the end of times, with the remaking of the Music.

Hm. Could this be an example of a true repentance, without death or destruction?

Valaquenta

There we have a servant of a good Vala switching sides to Melkor, then back again, apparently permanently, with no lasting penalty.
If Ossë could do it, you'd think Sauron could have managed it also, had he wanted it badly enough.
I like this one, actually, and it's interesting. Though, aside from this, there are really not many examples of "lasting repentance".

I think we have more examples of "redemption in another generation" or things like that (e.g. Celebrimbor, even though falling into Sauron's trap, ultimately being a much more "good guy" than his father; something similar can be said about Maedhros).

But to contribute something of my own, let me name just one more example that has not been mentioned yet, and which is not exactly redemption in the most radical sense, but which I have always considered a touching story in its own way. And that is the case of Galadriel. She was, of course, never "evil" or anything like that, but! I consider her, in some way, a counterpart to Saruman or all those "I refuse to be redeemed" folks. Indeed, I think the main point - or the very strong theme present throughout Middle-Earth's history - is the (sadness-bringing) stories of those unwilling to accept redemption when offered. I think that is the whole point of this stuff appearing with all Saurons, Melkors, Sarumans and who knows who else. It basically means completely closing oneself to any outside offers, advice (and you can translate this into any other cases of such attitude causing ultimate doom to whole kingdoms, think of e.g. Thingol) or help. Basically all those characters decide to keep their pride, they do not wish to be humiliated by the fact that they'll accept something that someone else is offering them. Logically it is absolute nonsense, it does not cost them anything, but if you imagine yourselves in that situation, it probably is not as easy to just accept.

Well, Galadriel's story is in some way a miraculous counter-argument to this. She started also with her pride, following the Noldor out of Valinor (even though she disagreed with Fëanor), with her dreams of her own kingdom somewhere in that far land. First, the only thing she got was hardship on the road and then a random place at Turgon's court. When the First Age ended and the first chance of rehabilitation came, she had refused (!) with the chance of now finally fulfiling her dreams in a world free from Morgoth's oppression. We know things didn't go exactly that smoothly, but eventually we see Galadriel effectively governing her own realm - only, by that time, it was a small forgotten realm, and she had not even pronounced herself a Queen or anything. So typical - having the dream fulfiled, in a completely different way than she had originally envisioned it, but also at the point when she, in fact, no longer wishes it! I am not sure when did she actually start longing for the West again, but I wouldn't put it past that it might have been around this time. But, the way was shut for her - or so she thought. After refusing the mercy once, she had considered herself doomed to stay in Middle-Earth (maybe she even was?). In any case, we know this was the case for sure in the time of the War of the Ring - her Namárië song makes that much clear. She concludes it by wishing that Frodo at least, if not her, would get his place in Valimar. But as we know, eventually the mercy was granted to her - again, when she had not expected it anymore, but when, at the same time, all her pride had been consumed -- just imagine, a couple of moments ago she had gotten her hands on the Ring of Power, but she had refused it! That is what makes the moment most powerful and memorable to me, to know what it had meant for her and her life story.

So, Galadriel's "redemption", if we wish to call it that way (because what else is being freed from one's own pride that entraps them? That is exactly what had caused Melkor, Sauron, Saruman et al. to fail their "redemption") was a gradual thing, working throughout her whole life, and therefore also for me the most believable. It also has a happy ending (with just the bit of sadness which, however, is present everywhere in Middle-Earth and therefore is nothing unexpected). Just imagine an alternative ending for Galadriel - a tale that ends in bitterness, enclosed in some realm of her own, with holding to the fading power of her Ring as the world changes, a miserable Elven sorceress not unlike the evil witches from fairytales who hate all living beings that enter their realm since they are just bitter and have no perspective for the future. Galadriel had managed to move away the "dead end" of her own story, unlike Sauron or Saruman, and it was not anything "planned" as in "if I do this, maybe I shall be granted a place on a ship" - she simply did what she did, even when she could not see good end for herself, and in the end, she did get the happy ending.

And next time, when I say I won't write anything "big", I hope you are not going to believe me... well, I hope you know that by now... but I really hoped it won't be that long this time. Ahem.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

But to contribute something of my own, let me name just one more example that has not been mentioned yet, and which is not exactly redemption in the most radical sense, but which I have always considered a touching story in its own way. And that is the case of Galadriel. She was, of course, never "evil" or anything like that, but! I consider her, in some way, a counterpart to Saruman or all those "I refuse to be redeemed" folks.

She definitely displays the intense temptation of the Ring, shows us the pull it can have, and she does seem tempted, however she does not even attempt to take it. She does not act on the temptation. Perhaps this is the point. Perhaps Tolkien saw there to be a point of action beyond which redemption became increasingly difficult.
But she had already rebelled against the Valar, of course.

She started also with her pride, following the Noldor out of Valinor (even though she disagreed with Fëanor), with her dreams of her own kingdom somewhere in that far land. First, the only thing she got was hardship on the road and then a random place at Turgon's court. When the First Age ended and the first chance of rehabilitation came, she had refused (!) with the chance of now finally fulfiling her dreams in a world free from Morgoth's oppression

There are echoes in something Tolkien says in a letter...

... Galadriel was a penitent: in her youth a leader in the rebellion against the Valar. At the end of the first age she proudly refused forgiveness or permission to return. She was pardoned because of her resistance to the final and overwhelming temptation to take the Ring for herself.
(Emphasis mine)

Her final test is not to act. Her previous failings have been through acting on her pride, to seek out her desire for her own land to be in charge of (rather like Sauron?) but her attempts do not work out perfectly. The Ring is such a test for her because it represents the final power that could help her achieve her dream. Her refusal to act sets her free.

However, her 'fall', may be seen as more of a disagreement with the Valar. Tolkien does not shy away from the idea that the Valar can be wrong and make mistakes. With regards to Galadriel, I don't think we can call it a turn to the 'evil' side.

Galadriel was 'unstained': she had committed no evil deeds. She was an enemy of Fëanor. She did not reach Middle-earth with the other Noldor, but independently. Her reasons for departing for Middle-earth were legitimate, and she would have been permitted to depart, but for the misfortune that before she set out the revolt of Fëanor broke out, and she became involved in the desperate measures of Manwë, and the ban on all emigration.

This theme of having a rebellious nature is repeated in the case of Ossë.

There we have a servant of a good Vala switching sides to Melkor, then back again, apparently permanently, with no lasting penalty.

Like so much in the Silmarillion we don't get much detail about Ossë's betrayal. We don't know how long it lasted, but we do know it was extreme. But of Ossë, there is an interesting statement within The Book of Lost Tales Part 1.

Now Ossë was a vassal and subordinate of Ulmo, and was so for fear and reverence and not for love.

Later...

Thither as they spoke came Ossë raging like a tide among the cliffs, for he was wroth at the upheaval of his realm and feared the displeasure of Ulmo his overlord.

Ossë does seem somewhat rebellions, though. We read of his anchoring of Tol Eressëa.

...On the other hand, the old story of Oss's rebellious anchoring of Tol Eressëa still survives (see I. 134); [...] contrast the account in the tale, where Ulmo had traversed 'less than half the distance' across the Great Sea when Ossë waylaid it [...] In the tale, Ossë seized and anchored Tol Eressëa before its journey was done because he 'deemed himself slighted that his aid was not sought in the ferrying of the Elves, but his own island taken unasked' (I. 119); in S his jealousy is indeed mentioned, but also his love of the singing of the Teleri, which was afterwards a prominent motive.

Indeed, rebellion seems to be something of a character trait of Ossë.

Subject to him [Ulmo], though he is often rebellious mood, is Ossë the master of the seas of the lands of men...

This may be a narrative constraint. Tolkien needs a reason for the seas, otherwise under the control of the (more or less) benevolent Ulmo to be tumultuous. So Ossë becomes 'the fall guy', as it were. Unpredictable in mood and with a spattering of pride to be hurt on occasion. Indeed, if Ossë has enough pride to anchor an island against the Valar's wish, it seems that Melkor could easily tap into said pride and turn him. However, the anchoring of Tol Eressëa comes after his 'repentance'. He is still willing to defy the Valar for the sake of his own pride, which he felt had been hurt. He was forgiven and never went to work for Melkor directly, but he certainly retained some darkness within.
We see that his loyalty to the Valar was out of 'fear and reverence and not for love', and having seen what they did to Melkor in his chaining, it seems that he was not willing to go against them, unless he thought he could get away with it.

In both cases we have a character whose 'redemption' comes down to the refusal to act on a desire, perhaps for their own pride's sake. Galadriel's may be a truer redemption than Ossë's, for the latter obeys out of fear, not love.

Just a quick side note I stumbled upon in 'The Complete Tolkein Companion' by J E A Tyler; "Ossë was known to the Sindar as Gaerys, 'the Awesome'." It's like he's Middle Earth's own the phantom. ;)

[Pitchwife]

Interesting thread and discussion, Hookbill & company!

I think Noggins has the right of it above and "Tolkien's particular view of catholicism" has something to do with all this. It was Tolkien's belief that not only we but the world with us are Fallen from grace, a belief which is represented in his legendarium by the concept of Arda Marred (which Legate already mentioned) or "Arda with a Morgoth-ingredient". In such a world, turning from good to bad is always easier than the reverse, because it means moving into the same direction as the tendency of the world itself, whereas turning from bad to good means you have to struggle against the current, so to speak (which, I suppose, is why, according to catholic faith, we're unable to redeem ourselves but need to be redeemed by Christ, which hasn't happened yet in Middle-earth).

Concerning people like Boromir, Isildur and Thorin dying after repenting, I'd suppose that death could be seen as an atonement for their sins, but I'd also suggest a narrative reason for Tolkien to kill them off. Like either Bilbo himself or the translator of his memoirs reflects in The Hobbit:
Now that is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale , and take a deal of telling anyway.But not only that - I'd say things (and people) changing from one to the other are always more interesting to tell and read than things remaining the same. A character who turns from good to evil and back has exhausted their narrative potential - you can hardly write anything more interesting about them to top that, so they're best written out of the story; and in an adventure story set in a heroic age, how better to accomplish this than by having them slain. (If I may adduce a comparison, George Lucas knew perfectly well that we didn't want to see Father & Son Skywalker reunited re-establishing the Republic happily ever after; what we cared for was the moment when Anakin's love for this son overcame the hold of the dark side on his soul, at the price of his life.)

[Lalwendë]

It's the nature of the world Tolkien created. There is a very omnipotent god, and there are definite rules to be followed. I don't think it reflects his Catholic faith, as a huge part of the faith is to admit to sins and to repent and be absolved. And as already said, Middle-earth is much more harsh. Even those who repent do not live long in grace and in fact often die immediately.

But there's another level of 'redemption' at work in Middle-earth, and touched upon with Galadriel. It's that each person has his/her purpose and must achieve that. The examples I'm thinking of here are Aragorn and Gandalf. Aragorn spends years wandering as a Ranger and trying to achieve his ultimate aim of being the King of a reuinted Gondor. That he cannot marry Arwen until he has achieved this is emblematic of him having a defined 'purpose in life'. Gandalf too is sent over to Middle-earth with a purpose and it is only during the War of the Ring that he fulfills that - it might be a thorny question but I wonder if any of the other wizards ever went back across the sea as Gandalf did?

I'm not sure if this rigidly defined concept of 'destiny' is something Tolkien intended to be a part of Middle-earth, or just a writer's device of creating heroes who must work to achieve something. But in Middle-earth it's not simply a case of hoping to be redeened for your sins, you have to achieve your purpose in life in order to attain real grace.

[Boromir88]

I'm not sure if this rigidly defined concept of 'destiny' is something Tolkien intended to be a part of Middle-earth, or just a writer's device of creating heroes who must work to achieve something. But in Middle-earth it's not simply a case of hoping to be redeened for your sins, you have to achieve your purpose in life in order to attain real grace.

By all accounts this can define Radagast. Tolkien does a careful job at telling us Radagast is not evil. He is not Saruman, only played by Saruman, and helps Gandalf out in a few difficult situations. However, he did not achieve his purpose, and in the end, he failed his purpose.

Definitely harsh for Radagast who is more environmentally and animal-loving conscious than the other wizards, but nope...still fails.

Gandalf was willing to have nearly the whole of Middle-earth destroyed if it meant destroying the Ring. You heard what he was saying to Denethor, not caring if Gondor is in ruins and all that. :p

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

By all accounts this can define Radagast. Tolkien does a careful job at telling us Radagast is not evil. He is not Saruman, only played by Saruman, and helps Gandalf out in a few difficult situations. However, he did not achieve his purpose, and in the end, he failed his purpose.

Definitely harsh for Radagast who is more environmentally and animal-loving conscious than the other wizards, but nope...still fails.
There is, however, one aspect I see to it. Note that Radagast did not seem unhappy or anything. I think he did not care very much that he would not return to Valinor. His story looks quite simple: He is sent on a mission to stop Sauron, he goes, he discovers Middle-Earth's rich fauna and flora, falls in love with it, and instead of focusing on his mission he spends his days rejoicing over the beauty of nature on the edges of Mirkwood, with maybe an occassional event of saving a tree from Orc warbands, saving a squirrel from spiders, or sending an eagle to Orthanc if need be. I think at least at this point (we of course are not told what he was thinking by the end of the War of the Ring, but I am just guessing based on the overall depiction of his Third Age attitude) he did not really wish to return to Valinor yet. So had they told him "you have done well, come with us to the ship", he might have even refused, or at least hesitated to leave his wonderful local zoo. Especially since it had just been liberated.

I envision Radagast's future keeping his secret enclave in the wilderness deep into the Fourth Age, and who knows, maybe beyond, but perhaps until the point when the Dominion of Men comes with chainsaws and bulldozers and he becomes sick of the world, maybe then he will seek passage to the West, just like the Elves did. Maybe his chance would have come in the Fourth Age already, perhaps he would stop some new rising shadow then and thus fulfil his wizardly duty in his own time, and in his own time he would return.

I cannot help to also think of what I have said about Galadriel - I think Radagast might have had to wait for a similar development of events, wait until he himself realises his purpose and reevaluates his original attitude, when he gets tired of playing with animals and takes some responsibility (be it for the animals and plants, or be it for Men, or for whatever else - the point is, I believe for Radagast, even the interest in nature is originally just a game, not any responsibility. I think responsibility of any kind is what Radagast lacks - I mean, responsibility as "program". He is certainly good-hearted, which makes him react in the right ways to his fellow Wizards' need or to fellow creatures' need, but he would not go and dutifully spend his days checking the borders of Mirkwood for Orcs - he would do so only if he knew his fellow family of badgers was threatened, but not with any "planning" or such).

[Inziladun]

There is, however, one aspect I see to it. Note that Radagast did not seem unhappy or anything. I think he did not care very much that he would not return to Valinor. His story looks quite simple: He is sent on a mission to stop Sauron, he goes, he discovers Middle-Earth's rich fauna and flora, falls in love with it, and instead of focusing on his mission he spends his days rejoicing over the beauty of nature on the edges of Mirkwood, with maybe an occassional event of saving a tree from Orc warbands, saving a squirrel from spiders, or sending an eagle to Orthanc if need be.

Radgast the Brown is an interesting case in the context of this thread, and this has caused me to re-examine my thoughts of him.

Ragagast did indeed "fail" in the task set before him and his Istari cohorts, in that he "went native", and forgot the higher purpose that was supposed to have been his focus.
However, as I recall other threads here discussing at times, his actions, relating to his apparently being chosen to go along to Middle-earth by Yavanna, as a representative of her interests, could have been foreseen by the Valar.
I wonder what would have happened if his failure hadn't occurred; if he had been involved with the White Council, planning strategies for defeating Sauron with them, Gandalf, and Saruman. Would Saruman in time have been able to wheedle or, if need be, cow Radagast into serving Saruman's increasingly self-serving policies? How much of a factor could Radagast have been in aiding Saruman to locate the Ring? Was it in fact better that he apparently lost a good deal of interest in the fight against Sauron?
With that in mind, especially as his fall was not a result of any evil intent, would repentance for Radagast have been necessary?

[Alfirin]

Radgast the Brown is an interesting case in the context of this thread, and this has caused me to re-examine my thoughts of him.

Ragagast did indeed "fail" in the task set before him and his Istari cohorts, in that he "went native", and forgot the higher purpose that was supposed to have been his focus.
However, as I recall other threads here discussing at times, his actions, relating to his apparently being chosen to go along to Middle-earth by Yavanna, as a representative of her interests, could have been foreseen by the Valar.
I wonder what would have happened if his failure hadn't occurred; if he had been involved with the White Council, planning strategies for defeating Sauron with them, Gandalf, and Saruman. Would Saruman in time have been able to wheedle or, if need be, cow Radagast into serving Saruman's increasingly self-serving policies? How much of a factor could Radagast have been in aiding Saruman to locate the Ring? Was it in fact better that he apparently lost a good deal of interest in the fight against Sauron?
With that in mind, especially as his fall was not a result of any evil intent, would repentance for Radagast have been necessary?

The fact that Radagast was in Yavanna's service actually brings up another matter. By definition, we really don't know what happened to the blue wizards, except that Tolkein say's he "fears" they fell (i.e. somehow became corrupted, as Saruman was) Specifically, nothing is said of whether they died or not, which leaves the possibility that they are still out there somewhere. Even if Tolkien was wrong and they were not corrupted (i.e. they "failed" only in the sense that they were unable to turn the hearts of the men of the east against Sauron) there does remain the fact that each Istari does take a large measure of his attitude and methods, from the Valar he personallly serves, and by nature that "stain" does effect the ministrations they give, and by extenstion the form a world aided by them would become. They all have the same mission, but how they would go about it would not neccearily take the same from For example, in some bizarre world where 1. Saruman had NOT become corrupted and 2. I was he, and not Gandalf, who wound up taking center stage in the deafeat of Sauron, I would imagine that that, since he is of Aule, defeat of Sauron would have come largely through mechanical methods; making a free people who could literally "out tech" Sauron (a tough order given that Sauron himself is originally one of Aule's servant's but possibly not impossible). In one where Radagast was the champion, you would likey have wound up with a fourth age that was extremely naturalistic, the great cities abandoned, most tools abandones and forgotten, and what free people remailend living in small hunter gatherer communities. So one would assume that the natures of Alatar and Pallando would take a large measure from the fact that they are in the service of Orome, the Huntsman. With them still possibly around and the fact that there are two of them (i.e. twice the ability to pass on thier form of the message) I'm wondering if Ragast went native for fear that if he didn't the natural world would be destroyed (either by Alatar and Pallando driving manking to extol in the hunt so greatly they literally hunted ME bare or Saruman (by convincing the people of ME that the natural word held no value outside of raw materials) The intial love would still be Radagasts own nature, but the decison to turn from his path may have been for reasons more complex than simply that. I even think it slightly possible that, given how intent Yavanna was in making sure her interests were protectect, Radagast may have been instucted to turn from his path on purpose , to fail his great mission (and give up his chance of returning) intentionally so as to serve the lesser more personal mission that a child of Yavanna would be inclined to, and not to swerve back all the way save at very great need (Say, if Gandalf had fallen permanently (i.e. not come back) and Radagast was literally left as the ONLY Ishtari left to stand against Sauron.)

[Hookbill the Goomba]

A character who turns from good to evil and back has exhausted their narrative potential - you can hardly write anything more interesting about them to top that, so they're best written out of the story; and in an adventure story set in a heroic age, how better to accomplish this than by having them slain.


I think this is probably the issue. There don't seem to be any characters that start out evil, depending on how you count orcs. An orc turning good would have been a bit odd, I suppose. So you're stuck, in a narrative sense.


But in Middle-earth it's not simply a case of hoping to be redeemed for your sins, you have to achieve your purpose in life in order to attain real grace.


Which, I suppose, would make the 'failing' of the wizards more profound. They 'knew' their purpose, or at least had an idea of their general mission, and only one of them actually seemed to care enough to carry it through. I suppose they all started out fully intending to fight Sauron, but one thing after another drove it out of their minds.

Definitely harsh for Radagast who is more environmentally and animal-loving conscious than the other wizards, but nope...still fails.

Failing and falling aren't always the same, really. And I think Radagast is the perfect example to look at in some detail on this point. He failed, but did he 'fall'?

"The wizards were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement)."
(Emphasis mine)

The use of 'fully' here is an interesting one. Perhaps Tolkien didn't want to call Radagast a complete failure as he clearly had no ill intent and indeed was willing to help, his biggest failings being trusting the wrong people (though even Gandalf trusted Saruman, so perhaps he is guilty of the same 'mistakes of judgement'), and a shift of priorities to the birds and animals rather than the sentient peoples.
Indeed, as I've read around the subject of Radagast, I do get the impression Tolkien was not quite sure what to do with the fellow. In The History of Middle Earth Part 7, 'The Treason of Isengard, in the fourth chapter as Tolkien struggles to get Gandalf away to see Saruman, he introduces Radagast to 'solve the problem', as it were. CT gives an endnote;

"Radagast as been named, but no more, in previous texts (VI 379, 397) and with no indication of what part my father was envisaging for him."

Poor Radagast got roped into the narrative, and such seems his actual role, being roped into helping Saruman. His 'betrayal' of Gandalf was unintentional, as was his 'betrayal' of Saruman (inadvertently giving Gandalf a means of escape). He bumbles his way through his 'task', so I fear Tolkien couldn't quite bring himself to be too harsh on him.

Note that Radagast did not seem unhappy or anything

However, another point to consider is the only scene in which Radagast appears there is a great sense of his unease. Perhaps he is uneasy at the news, the dark times, or the fact that he has a job to do at all.

"It was Radagast the Brown, who at one time dwelt at Rhosgobel, near the boarders of Mirkwood. He is one of my order, but I had not seen him in many a year.
...
'...You were never a traveller, unless driven by great need.' [said Gandalf]
'I have an urgent errand,' [Radagast] said. 'My news is evil.' Then he looked about him, as if the hedges might have ears. 'Nasgul,' he whispered.
...
Radagast is, of course, a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue; and he has much lore of herbs and beasts, and birds are especially his friends.
...
And with that he mounted and would have ridden straight off.
...
and [Radagast] rode off as if the Nine were after him."

A note on something Tolkien adds in an earlier draft...

"And with that [Radagast] he mounted and rode off without another word - and that seemed to me very strange."

Here Gandalf notes that Radagast's haste to depart is strange. I wonder how strange, and in what way. Is it out of character for him? Another endnote (where Radagast seems to spend a lot of his time) makes for interesting reading...

"... it is seen from the addition that Radagast first entered the story as the means by which Gandalf was lured to Saruman's dwelling. The abrupt haste of Radagast's departure seemed to Gandalf 'very strange', and it is possible that when first drafting the story my father supposed that Radagast's part was not simply that of innocent emissary: later, at Isengard, Saruman says 'He must have played his part well, nonetheless'. This is not in FR. When the addition here was made, Radagast became also the means by which the Eagles knew where to find Gandalf; and this development necessarily disposed of the idea that Radagast had been corrupted..."

So Radagast was not corrupted. Saruman may have been right, he was simply foolish. He had nothing to 'repent' of, as such.
Though I'm now slightly curious about the mentions of Rhosgobel as being Radagast's 'former' residents. Presumably he moved after the... incident... with the Necromancer. He was never much of a traveller, so presumably he has a new house. I hope it was a nice house. :)

Anyway, I get the impression Tolkien did not consider Radagast a complete failure, and, indeed, initially planned to reward him!

"Isengard is given over to the Dwarves... Or to Radagast?"

Personally, I think that would have been brilliant, for Radagast to end up with this gigantic tower. He'd probably turn it into a massive greenhouse. :D
However, ultimately, Radagast seems to be regarded as a bit dim by those on the evil side, so perhaps they saw him as not worth turning...

"But certainly he [Sauron] had already become evil, and therefore stupid enough to imagine that his [Gandalf's] different behaviour was due simply to weaker intelligence, and lack of firm, masterful purpose. He was only a rather clever Radagast - clever, because it is more profitable (more productive of power) to become absorbed in the study of people than of animals."

Radagast 'failed' in the sense that he did not "remain faithful".

Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful, and he was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle Earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures.

I don't know if you can call Radagast a 'fallen' character, and certainly not evil. He seems vaguely good, but mostly neutral. He doesn't commit to either side. He doesn't openly fight Sauron unless given strict orders. He doesn't really help the enemy except by accident, and the same accident repays it, though who knows if he ever knew it?

However, as I recall other threads here discussing at times, his actions, relating to his apparently being chosen to go along to Middle-earth by Yavanna, as a representative of her interests, could have been foreseen by the Valar.

I can buy this. Although, Tolkien seems to suggest that he 'failed' or 'forsook' the task set before him. unless Yavanna had given him a secondary task which he then took as his main task. But he was 'enamoured' of Middle Earth. Interestingly, he found Middle Earth more enamouring than Valinor. Perhaps it was all too clean and neat over there for his liking. I always imagined him being a bit shabby-looking.

For example, in some bizarre world where 1. Saruman had NOT become corrupted and 2. I was he, and not Gandalf, who wound up taking center stage in the deafeat of Sauron, I would imagine that that, since he is of Aule, defeat of Sauron would have come largely through mechanical methods; making a free people who could literally "out tech" Sauron (a tough order given that Sauron himself is originally one of Aule's servant's but possibly not impossible).

Interesting notion. Aule wasn't good at having none-evil maiar, was he? ;)
Though it does make me wonder why there was so little interaction between Saruman and the Dwarves. Perhaps there was and it is not mentioned; Saruman wanted to learn about Ringcraft, so perhaps he talked to the Dwarves and tried to find some of their Rings of power?

Going back to a 'fallen' character, here's a thing I stumbled upon; in an earlier plan, Tolkien asks...

"What about Boromir? Does he repent? No - slain by Aragorn."

Tolkien paints Boromir as someone who needed to 'repent'. His character was in such need that he almost had him killed by Aragorn, becoming such a threat to the Fellowship, perhaps, that he had to be stopped.

[Alfirin]

Personally, I think that would have been brilliant, for Radagast to end up with this gigantic tower. He'd probably turn it into a massive greenhouse. :D


Actually, in circumstances where the tower was an issue (i.e. one where Aragorn decided that Isengard/Orthanc needed to be at least partially rebuilt (it is a major watchtower after all) Radagast might actually be the best all around choice. Anyone residing at Isengard in the 4th age is going to have to deal with having Ents as close neigbors, Ents who 1. Are now well aware of what they can do if someone at Isengard does things they do not care for and 2. now have Royal Legal Title to the whole forest (i.e. if they defend thier rights, the King is more than likey to come in on thier side, not the side of the interlopers.) In short, anyone put in charge of Isengard better be someone the Ents will approve of. And Radagast might easily fit that bill. He is well versed in lore (even a wizard considered "dim" by the standards of his bretheren is probably quite wise by mannish standards) likes solitude, has an avowed interest in doing what such a job would actually majorlly entail (Keeping and Protecting Fangorn) and as Yavanna's emissary, is likey the Wizard dearest at heart to the Children of Yavanna. Treebeard is fond of Gandalf, but I imagine a wizard who has made the preservation of nature his whole life's calling and values it above the affairs of Men and Elves would be truly one Ents would love (Beren likes him, and he sort of half animal).

Interesting notion. Aule wasn't good at having none-evil maiar, was he? ;)

I think the problem is as Gandalf saw it. Aule is a Maker, and so are those who serve him. To be a maker is in a certain sense to also be a destroyer (you can't make without breaking first) and posessed with a curiosity as to how things are put together. And as Gandalf says "He who breaks a thing to see how it is made does a wicked act" (or something like that) To be gifted with making comes with a belief that you can make better than that which already is, and that pride is an easy one to fall from.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Actually, in circumstances where the tower was an issue (i.e. one where Aragorn decided that Isengard/Orthanc needed to be at least partially rebuilt (it is a major watchtower after all) Radagast might actually be the best all around choice. Anyone residing at Isengard in the 4th age is going to have to deal with having Ents as close neigbors, Ents who 1. Are now well aware of what they can do if someone at Isengard does things they do not care for and 2. now have Royal Legal Title to the whole forest (i.e. if they defend thier rights, the King is more than likey to come in on thier side, not the side of the interlopers.) In short, anyone put in charge of Isengard better be someone the Ents will approve of. And Radagast might easily fit that bill. He is well versed in lore (even a wizard considered "dim" by the standards of his bretheren is probably quite wise by mannish standards) likes solitude, has an avowed interest in doing what such a job would actually majorlly entail (Keeping and Protecting Fangorn) and as Yavanna's emissary, is likey the Wizard dearest at heart to the Children of Yavanna. Treebeard is fond of Gandalf, but I imagine a wizard who has made the preservation of nature his whole life's calling and values it above the affairs of Men and Elves would be truly one Ents would love (Beren likes him, and he sort of half animal).

If only Radagast had sent his résumé to Aragorn!
It would have been nice to know the fate of Radagast, and this sort of job would have been a nice touch. Perhaps he failed to fight Sauron properly, but perhaps the Valar could find new tests for him and the other two. They gave Gandalf a second chance, though those were extraordinary circumstances. However, I'm not sure how Radagast would fair against a Balrog...
(An conversation between Radagast and Treebeard would be very odd indeed, I'm imagining).

To be gifted with making comes with a belief that you can make better than that which already is, and that pride is an easy one to fall from.

Aule seems to embody this, doesn't he? The episode with the Dwarves is very much a commentary on the idea of sub-creation. At this point we could de-rail and I'd have to get out my copy of 'On-Fairy Stories' and we'll be here for months. :rolleyes:
But that may indeed be a point of interest to look into...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I'm wondering if Ragast went native for fear that if he didn't the natural world would be destroyed (either by Alatar and Pallando driving manking to extol in the hunt so greatly they literally hunted ME bare or Saruman (by convincing the people of ME that the natural word held no value outside of raw materials) The intial love would still be Radagasts own nature, but the decison to turn from his path may have been for reasons more complex than simply that.
I think there was no "decision", really. It simply happened. He had simply "forgotten", sort of in the sense "it's not worth the trouble": "I am supposed to go to Isengard to an urgent meeting... uh... but the birds are singing so nicely today, sun is shining, I think I'll just lie down under that oak and dream". Also, I certainly think that he did not go native for the fear for the natural world. If he had such fear, it would be a reason for him to join the cause to oppose the Enemy. And that was his original purpose, I believe, and part of it had still remained in him - he had only grown a bit, well, lax in that.

However, as I recall other threads here discussing at times, his actions, relating to his apparently being chosen to go along to Middle-earth by Yavanna, as a representative of her interests, could have been foreseen by the Valar.
I even think it slightly possible that, given how intent Yavanna was in making sure her interests were protectect, Radagast may have been instucted to turn from his path on purpose , to fail his great mission (and give up his chance of returning) intentionally so as to serve the lesser more personal mission that a child of Yavanna would be inclined to, and not to swerve back all the way save at very great need (Say, if Gandalf had fallen permanently (i.e. not come back) and Radagast was literally left as the ONLY Ishtari left to stand against Sauron.)
The use of 'fully' here is an interesting one. Perhaps Tolkien didn't want to call Radagast a complete failure as he clearly had no ill intent and indeed was willing to help, his biggest failings being trusting the wrong people (though even Gandalf trusted Saruman, so perhaps he is guilty of the same 'mistakes of judgement'), and a shift of priorities to the birds and animals rather than the sentient peoples.
Indeed. But I would even put it differently - I think everyone here thus far failed to see, or misinterpreted the important point that was mentioned: That Radagast was specifically sent by Yavanna to protect her interests. "So what, didn't he fail?" or "Was he supposed to fail?" I think this is completely unnecessary and confusing path to take.

I have always thought it clear: Radagast's purpose, had he succeeded and fulfiled his task, would have been to help the Free Peoples, with special focus on the animals and plants and whatnot. That was why Yavanna had picked him. In other words, he was supposed to be a counterweight to Saruman.

Imagine the ideal bunch of non-fallen Wizards: Gandalf boosts the morale like he always does, Saruman makes the Free People use their creative potential to the best in order to outwit Sauron, while Radagast is there to nudge Saruman and keep him in line in case he started to make grand plans of building ten thousand forges for Gondorian army while using the entire Mirkwood for fuel. Likewise, Saruman, in his ideal place, should have reminded Radagast of his task and stopped him from "going too native".

Also, Radagast would have specifically taken care about the nature while the others would be primarily concerned with Men and Elves and Dwarves and Hobbits - so, while Gandalf et al. would be coming with disturbing rumors of "hey, Sauron's Orcs have descended from the mountains and are killing Woodmen!", Radagast would have also added: "But there are also wargs who are killing poor rabbits by hundreds!" I'm making it sound ridiculous, but Radagast, I believe, was chosen because he was meant to "fight for animal rights" as well as the Free Peoples'.

Interesting notion. Aule wasn't good at having none-evil maiar, was he? ;)
Though it does make me wonder why there was so little interaction between Saruman and the Dwarves. Perhaps there was and it is not mentioned; Saruman wanted to learn about Ringcraft, so perhaps he talked to the Dwarves and tried to find some of their Rings of power?
Perhaps he was just a sort of "racist". He seemed like that. He certainly didn't seem much for Elves, he counsidered them "old and gone". I think he might have thought something similar about the Dwarves, however it is true that being Aulë's maia, it is somewhat strange.

[Bêthberry]

Which, I suppose, would make the 'failing' of the wizards more profound. They 'knew' their purpose, or at least had an idea of their general mission, and only one of them actually seemed to care enough to carry it through. I suppose they all started out fully intending to fight Sauron, but one thing after another drove it out of their minds.


Failing and falling aren't always the same, really. And I think Radagast is the perfect example to look at in some detail on this point. He failed, but did he 'fall'?

There's been many an interesting post between this one of Hook's and mine, but I thought it might be helpful to consider the fact that Frodo, too, failed to complete his mission. He was unable to destroy the Ring. But if memory serves me well, Tolkien in a letter argues that Frodo was able to bring about conditions that allowed for the destruction of the Ring.

Perhaps Radagast's behaviour can be considered in this way: how did his actions (or inactions) enable ultimate victory over Sauron?

[Inziladun]

I have always thought it clear: Radagast's purpose, had he succeeded and fulfiled his task, would have been to help the Free Peoples, with special focus on the animals and plants and whatnot. That was why Yavanna had picked him. In other words, he was supposed to be a counterweight to Saruman.

Even without giving Radagast's failure the "excuse" of Yavanna's special instructions, I wouldn't see him as being in need of repentance. He seems to have made no conscious decision to distance himself from his primary task, and his actions could not necessarily be construed as harmful to Middle-earth or its denizens, in sharp contrast to Saruman.
The UT essay makes it clear that the Istari were especially vulnerable to such failings because of their "real" bodies, which subjected them to all temptations and trials of lesser beings. That obviously was no excuse for Saruman's deeds, but in the case of Radagast, I still wonder if his distraction might not have been merely an accepted foregone possibility, if not an expressed order from Yavanna.

Imagine the ideal bunch of non-fallen Wizards: Gandalf boosts the morale like he always does, Saruman makes the Free People use their creative potential to the best in order to outwit Sauron, while Radagast is there to nudge Saruman and keep him in line in case he started to make grand plans of building ten thousand forges for Gondorian army while using the entire Mirkwood for fuel. Likewise, Saruman, in his ideal place, should have reminded Radagast of his task and stopped him from "going too native".

Indeed the Istari and their varied gifts do seem intended to counter-balance one another. Again though, given the very nature of the way the Istari were clothed in real flesh, I would think the Valar should have known it was unlikely to work out that way in practice.

x/d with BB

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Even without giving Radagast's failure the "excuse" of Yavanna's special instructions, I wouldn't see him as being in need of repentance. He seems to have made no conscious decision to distance himself from his primary task, and his actions could not necessarily be construed as harmful to Middle-earth or its denizens, in sharp contrast to Saruman.
No, of course not, and I think that much has been very well said already by, I believe it was Hookbill, above: Radagast did not "fall", he did simply "fail". He did not break the glass, he simply failed to fill it, to speak metaphorically. (In such a case, Gandalf alone had managed to fill the glass, while Saruman - how appropriate - broke it; I am not sure what is the status of the Blue in this respect, but Tolkien seemed not to know either, from what we are told - as someone also had cited earlier in this thread.)

But I still argue for this fact that Radagast had a specific mission, which was the same for all the Istari, to help the denizens of Middle-Earth against Sauron, and in Radagast's case, it was specifically with the assumption that he would take special care to protect the nature against Sauron.

If I exaggerate a bit, in order to show how I envision Radagast's ideal behavior, in the ideal state where neither of the Wizards had failed, Radagast would have roused the Woodmen and the Pukel-Men and the fiercest bears and badgers in order to make them defend their homelands. While Saruman and Gandalf would encourage Elves and Men to resist Orcs from the mountains and armies of Mordor, and the Blue Wizards would "enlighten" the Easterlings and make them strong enough to resist the Dark Lord's temptation of their chieftains, then Radagast would counsel and rouse the wildlife of Mirkwood to get rid of the spiders and all sorts of evil things, probably also prevent Ents and huorns to turn to having "black hearts" like Old Man Willow and somesuch.

The UT essay makes it clear that the Istari were especially vulnerable to such failings because of their "real" bodies, which subjected them to all temptations and trials of lesser beings. That obviously was no excuse for Saruman's deeds, but in the case of Radagast, I still wonder if his distraction might not have been merely an accepted foregone possibility, if not an expressed order from Yavanna.
Given that he "failed", it obviously wasn't. He simply failed, in a similar manner to Saruman - I mean: before Saruman turned to evil (started building his own empire, desired the Ring, made his own Orcs), he also, firstly, only "failed" in the similar way. The first step was, he had only locked himself up in Isengard and started studying the arts of craft, ring-lore, knowledge of the Enemy etc. That was basically in line with his original mission - but the problem was, he ceased to use the knowledge for the good of the Free Peoples, but kept it only to himself. That is technically the same thing that Radagast fell into, not using his contact with the nature in some constructive way to oppose the Dark Lord, but simply playing with the animals and not doing anything else. I don't know how much more clear can I express myself...

Indeed the Istari and their varied gifts do seem intended to counter-balance one another. Again though, given the very nature of the way the Istari were clothed in real flesh, I would think the Valar should have known it was unlikely to work out that way in practice.
How well are Valar able to predict or manage things is disputable in the light of e.g. the battle of Utumno which they themselves considered a bad thing in retrospect (though they seem to have learned and "developed" throughout the later Ages). But I think they just had a certain concept, an ideal picture of how things might work if they worked all right, and they did their best. I think the Valar saw it possible that the Istari, as they were, all of them, would succeed, otherwise they would not have sent them in the first place! Such "games beyond games" are seemingly reserved for the omniscient Eru, who seemingly had known about e.g. Frodo's final decision to claim the Ring at Mount Doom, yet made it part of his plan. But the Valar have their own devices, and they use them as well as they can - because they are not omniscient, especially in regards to the future (it is said in Ainulindalë that the Valar did not see many of the things, especially of the later Ages, in their vision of Arda in the beginning). That way, they would simply choose the best among their Maiar whom they could trust well enough that they will do their job. Their failure to predict the Istari's failure is in no way different from the failure of e.g. Elrond to predict that Boromir will try to take Frodo's Ring. I think it comes with the trust in people (or Maiar in human form).

There's been many an interesting post between this one of Hook's and mine, but I thought it might be helpful to consider the fact that Frodo, too, failed to complete his mission. He was unable to destroy the Ring. But if memory serves me well, Tolkien in a letter argues that Frodo was able to bring about conditions that allowed for the destruction of the Ring.

Perhaps Radagast's behaviour can be considered in this way: how did his actions (or inactions) enable ultimate victory over Sauron?
Interesting idea. I would just like to point out - to potential other readers - that this is a different kind of question than the one I am arguing above. In other words: perhaps Radagast's failure has been accounted for from the start in Eru's plan, but certainly not in Yavanna's. So: the idea was not "you shall go to Middle-Earth and fail" (just like nobody told Frodo to go to Mount Doom and claim the Ring there!), but the idea was "you shall go... and do your best". I think in the beginning, all the Wizards had the intention to do their best, just like Frodo.

I think, however, that - at least from what we are told (but we are not told much! The Mirkwood/Radagast/animal relations to Sauron/similar areas are not very much accounted for in the tales, are they...) - Radagast's contribution to the victory was only in the things where he had stayed true to his quest, i.e. things he would have done anyway. For example: sending Gwaihir to Orthanc. It was something he was in fact obliged to do by his mission, and he did it. He probably did a few similar things throughout the years - I can e.g. imagine he might have provided some scouting of the area before the assault of Dol Guldur. Things like that.

I can think of some random nice things, too. For example, how can we know that it was not because of him that Beorn had accepted Gandalf so happily (in the end) to his dwelling? Perhaps he would have acted differently had Gandalf not mentioned his "good cousin Radagast" :) So, in that way, perhaps the Dwarves would have had no place to resupply, would have had to take some much tougher route, where either they would perish without Gandalf, and the Ring would be lost in some Orc cave again, or had they journeyed south, captured and taken to Dol Guldur (!), or maybe Gandalf would have had to continue accompanying the poor Dwarves, which would have prevented him from attacking Dol Guldur, and that might also have shifted the balance... Possibilities, as always, are endless :)

[Alfirin]

Something occurred to me. In a certain odd sense, Radagast's trusting of Saruman is not in fact a "failure" either, it is in fact exactly what he was supposed to do. The Valar after all had made Saruman Chief of the order, which presumably meant all the other wizards were obligated to defer to him. So in an odd sense, it is in fact Gandalf who fails in this case, by bucking the chain of command. He of course has excellent reason for doing so, and is deferring to a higher code, but the fact remains he is defying one who is his superior. And while the Valar may have known the Ishtari might very well go astray, it's a little unclear if they left instructions as to what any of the wizards should do if one of their number went off the beaten track. Indeed it may not have been until Gandalf's death that Eru (before sending him back) gave him the instruction (and authority) to cast Saruman out if he would not repent. So Radagast did exactly what he was supposed to in this case, his COC gave him an order ("Go find Ganadalf, and tell him I want him to come to Orthanc and discuss something with me.") and he did it. The fact he then left so quickly may be indicative that he thought something was a bit fishy (if it was a matter for wizards, then Radagast might have expected that the instuction would be for both of them to come) That actually may be why he sent the Eagle, to see if there was something they needed him to do (remember the eagle was sent to check on both Gandalf and Saruman). Whether Radagast ever guessed Saruman had turned to the dark side is a bit iffy (one would assume Gandalf would have sent some message (perhaps along the lines of telling Gwahir "when you have dropped me off, and return to your home, make sure you tell Radagast what has happended") if only to keep Radagast from continuing to listen to Saruman, assuming Saruman should give another order (Saruman may have little or no regard for Radagast, and think him a fool, but even fools can be put to use by the cunning mind.)

[Inziladun]

Given that he "failed", it obviously wasn't. He simply failed, in a similar manner to Saruman - I mean: before Saruman turned to evil (started building his own empire, desired the Ring, made his own Orcs), he also, firstly, only "failed" in the similar way. The first step was, he had only locked himself up in Isengard and started studying the arts of craft, ring-lore, knowledge of the Enemy etc. That was basically in line with his original mission - but the problem was, he ceased to use the knowledge for the good of the Free Peoples, but kept it only to himself. That is technically the same thing that Radagast fell into, not using his contact with the nature in some constructive way to oppose the Dark Lord, but simply playing with the animals and not doing anything else. I don't know how much more clear can I express myself...

I understand your point. Mine is that the intentions, as well as the end result of the actions of the "fallen" might be a factor. Do we really hold Radagast to the same level of culpability as Saruman? The former, apparently through an innate attraction to nature, got caught up in the fascinations of fauna and got sidetracked. The latter became envious of Sauron and desired to supplant him and rule Middle-earth. It could be argued that Saruman had in his being a certain affinity, in his case for machinery and whatnot, and things made by hands. Yet, what we see to differentiate the two is the manner in which their "distractions" led them astray, and the ends thereof. We don't see Gandalf feeling the need to hunt down Radagast and break his staff. Gandalf let Radagast's "misdeeds", if one can call them so, go. There must be a reason for that.

[Galadriel55]

Much of the arguing seems to depend upon whether sidetracking amount to failiure.

It's like with opposites; sometimes the antonym of a word has a different meaning than the word with a "not" in front. F. ex., happy. Unhappy is quite the opposite. Yet so is not happy. But the latter can mean any number of things that do not include happy, like simply neutral but not necessarily unhappy.

It is like that here too. Saruman goes to the antonym of completing the quest - he works against it. Radagast, on the other hand, just puts the "not" in front of it.

So where do we pace the pass line now? Does one fail if he turns against the Istari's original intention, or even if he does not strictly stick to the original plan even though he does not go against it either? Does one need to dedicate everything and till the end to "pass the test", or is it enough not to be evil in order to, well, be considered not evil and therefore pass?

Where do you draw the line of passing?

[blantyr]

Has anyone written any Radagast fan fiction that shows him as an active protagonist? We seem to be getting the tale from the hobbit's point of view, notorious Gandalf friends, the bunch of them. Could Radagast have settled near where the One was lost, near where the Necromancer took shape, between the Orc filled Misty Mountains and the Mirkwood, all for a reason? Do we know he spent all his time stocking his bird feeder, or might he have plausibly kept himself quite busy?

Anyway, I for one am not in a rush to judgement. I think there was room for only one wizard archetype in the main story, Gandalf claimed the slot, leaving little room for Radagast, poor fellow.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I wish I could write a better response but computer troubles have tied my hands. And it is very difficult to type with tied hands.

The discussion of Radagast shows, I think, the main point of the topic; that there are so few examples of one turning from evil to good that we must discuss at length what constitutes turning to evil or back.
If you count the fight against Sauron as the ultimate 'good' and that anything that does not aid that to be therefore 'evil' I think there may be a case to be made. Though he does dip his toe into the waters of helping in the fight, Radagast generally stays out of the buisiness of helping. If he'd been more involved perhaps it would have gone smoother, therefore his lack of aid could be seen as inadvertently helping Sauron.
A sort of "if you are not for us then you are against us" situation.

Radagast's heart is in the right place, perhaps. His head may not be. Be does not turn to the dark side and so has nothing to repent of, unless his lack of full commitment to the mission counts against him.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I understand your point. Mine is that the intentions, as well as the end result of the actions of the "fallen" might be a factor. Do we really hold Radagast to the same level of culpability as Saruman? The former, apparently through an innate attraction to nature, got caught up in the fascinations of fauna and got sidetracked. The latter became envious of Sauron and desired to supplant him and rule Middle-earth. It could be argued that Saruman had in his being a certain affinity, in his case for machinery and whatnot, and things made by hands. Yet, what we see to differentiate the two is the manner in which their "distractions" led them astray, and the ends thereof. We don't see Gandalf feeling the need to hunt down Radagast and break his staff. Gandalf let Radagast's "misdeeds", if one can call them so, go. There must be a reason for that.
Yes, yes. But that goes back to what I have said earlier: Radagast did not fall, only fail. His failure was the same to that of initial Saruman's, only Saruman proceeded to "final stage", where he turned against his original purpose.
In other words, the story of any Istari can be put somewhere into this kind of scheme:
Stage 1 - a Wizard is sent to Middle-Earth and stays 100% true to his purpose. That is Gandalf, who remains there all the way, thus earns his "return ticket"; other Wizards were in this cathegory initially, but later the "temptations of flesh" led them to Stage 2.
Stage 2 - a Wizard who neglects his vocation, nonetheless, he is merely lacking, he does not do any active evil. Radagast and possibly the Blues eventually proceed into this cathegory. Saruman proceeded into this stage originally, when he started concentrating more on his own devices and not on the good of Middle-Earth as whole.
Stage 3 - a Wizard who actively starts building his own agenda, selfishly, and wilfully abandons his mission for his own gain and power. This is, of course, Saruman. Note that Radagast did not fall into this stage, because I don't think he ever abandoned his mission consciously. Whenever Gandalf etc called, he would still come and help. He never sought the Ring for himself. But neither did he actively aid the Free Peoples unless he was asked to.

And also, let me repeat what I said before - Radagast perhaps no more cared about getting the "return ticket", just as much as he no more cared about his mission. So it is no "punishment" not to give him the place on the Last Ship (Saruman is punished by being cast out of the Order because he deserves it; but Radagast does not need to be punished for anything), it is simply agreeing to his terms. "Fine - you want to just be left alone and play with animals, so you may stay and play with them." It is, in fact, granting what Radagast wanted. So I don't think he was unhappy or anything. From the overall view, of course, he failed in his task, but that's it.

Much of the arguing seems to depend upon whether sidetracking amount to failiure.

It's like with opposites; sometimes the antonym of a word has a different meaning than the word with a "not" in front. F. ex., happy. Unhappy is quite the opposite. Yet so is not happy. But the latter can mean any number of things that do not include happy, like simply neutral but not necessarily unhappy.

It is like that here too. Saruman goes to the antonym of completing the quest - he works against it. Radagast, on the other hand, just puts the "not" in front of it.

So where do we pace the pass line now? Does one fail if he turns against the Istari's original intention, or even if he does not strictly stick to the original plan even though he does not go against it either? Does one need to dedicate everything and till the end to "pass the test", or is it enough not to be evil in order to, well, be considered not evil and therefore pass?

Where do you draw the line of passing?
Perfectly spoken. See what I said just above in this post; also, I think it is clear from Tolkien that you don't need to be a "workoholic fighter against evil" to be considered good. Continuing along these lines...
If you count the fight against Sauron as the ultimate 'good' and that anything that does not aid that to be therefore 'evil' I think there may be a case to be made. Though he does dip his toe into the waters of helping in the fight, Radagast generally stays out of the buisiness of helping. If he'd been more involved perhaps it would have gone smoother, therefore his lack of aid could be seen as inadvertently helping Sauron.
A sort of "if you are not for us then you are against us" situation.

Radagast's heart is in the right place, perhaps. His head may not be. Be does not turn to the dark side and so has nothing to repent of, unless his lack of full commitment to the mission counts against him.
...certainly not. So, to continue the previous thought: I believe it is rather clear that there are no extremes like that "if you are not for us you are against us" in Tolkien. I think the best proof of that is the existence, or the manner of existence of Hobbits - they certainly are not opposing Sauron in any active way (of course apart from Frodo et al.), but they are good and causing no harm (just like Radagast did, I guess), and they certainly are not condemned alongside Sauron and Morgoth as "enemies"...

Has anyone written any Radagast fan fiction that shows him as an active protagonist? We seem to be getting the tale from the hobbit's point of view, notorious Gandalf friends, the bunch of them.
I think certainly people did, or at least thought of such things (I did think about it). I believe there were some RPs in the roleplaying section of this forum operating with Fourth Age Radagast as the Wizard "whose time came now", I think perhaps the Blue might have also been involved, or I am mixing up two threads together, but there definitely was something like that, about Mordor in the Fourth Age, I believe? You can try to find it, I didn't take part in that one, but certainly there are people around who have been there.

Could Radagast have settled near where the One was lost, near where the Necromancer took shape, between the Orc filled Misty Mountains and the Mirkwood, all for a reason? Do we know he spent all his time stocking his bird feeder, or might he have plausibly kept himself quite busy?
That is just as well possible. I think originally he might have settled there - or been ordered to settle there (by Saruman? I doubt Radagast knew on his own where Isildur fell, unless some random vulture had told him...) to watch over the place, or even more likely, to watch over Mirkwood and its darkness, which however eventually degraded into just sitting more than watching. It seems to me that way.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Saruman was a turn cloak. I don't think Radagast was; the worst you could say of him would be that he kept his cloak in the wardrobe and only brought it out for special occasions - Christmas, funerals and weddings as it were. ;)

He didn't turn bad, and that's the point of the topic. If you were to make a list of good guys and bad guys you'd probably put him in the good box. Even if be is a little scatter brained or misguided.
I wonder if Gandalf should have taken him under his wing as a sort of cousin and they could have travelled Middle Earth together, like the blues. Gandalf keeping Radagast on the path and Radagast lightening Gandalf's burdain. Who knows?

[radagastly]

It occurs to me that this comparison between Radagast and Saruman could be applied just as easily to the Bree chapters and a comparison between Barliman Butterbur and Bill Ferny. Butterbur did the best he could within the circumstances that descended upon him, though he did not seek battle with the enemy. He lent what assistance he could, though in his ignorance, he did try to prevent Aragorn from meeting with the hobbits, just as Radagast delivered the message to Gandalf from Saruman despite not wanting to travel, and probably not trusting the situation. While Butterbur had a mistrust, perhaps even disdain, for Bill Ferny, he would not likely have ever considered that Ferny would actually consort with the enemy, yet there he was with his squint-eyed companion (who Unfinished Tales tells us, I believe, was a half-orc sent up the Greenway by Saruman to spy out the Shire in his search for the Ring and to negotiate for a trade of pipe-weed and other Shire goods.) If that's not "consorting," I don't know what is.

What I like about this is that it brings the epic, mythic tale of ancient wizards home to a human level, where an average-joe reader can relate it to their own lives.

[Galadriel55]

While I would put Radagast in the "pass" category, I would not put him together with Gandalf either. He has no need for redemption since technically he hasn't done anything evil (though not much good too), and has the best intentions at heart (which I think is an important factor). Yet unlike Gandalf he can claim no big reward either, since he only helped a little - and didn't do anything spectacular, most of the credit goes to the Eagles, not him. (Note: I doubt Gandalf would even desire a reward, or would realistically get anything specific, but theoretically he deserves it and arguably gets it in the means of respect/honour/etc, and the victory is rewarding enough in itself......my, that's a long and convoluted sentence.)

So if you wanna do nothing, you get nothing. Do bad - either repent or bear the consequences. Do good - you'll get some kind of recognition. Be neutral - no punishment or repentance needed, but no reward either.

This way, one does not group Gandalf and Radagast or Radagast and Saruman together in a conflicting combination.


PS: radagastly, you make a good analogy. It's some food for thought...

[Galadriel55]

I was browsing the Downs and found Saucy's thread about redemption that touches on some points mentioned here:

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1647

[Inziladun]

Looking back on this thread, I note that the subject of the Vala Aulë's error was mentioned, but not explored.
Aulë, of course, "made" the Dwarves (physically, though not in a spiritual sense), something that he knew was beyond his authority. Melkor "made" the Orcs, by perverting existing Children of Ilúvatar already embodied with the One with fea. Melkor too understood the serious illegality of his act. Once again, we begin with different intentions, which in their turn lead to different end results for the offenders.

Aulë acted out of mere impatience; he wanted to teach his knowledge and instruct others in the building of Arda, and the glorification of the One thereby. As soon as Ilúvatar spoke to him about the matter, he was filled with shame and true remorse. That fact was recognized by Ilúvatar, who reacted by forgiving Aulë and giving the Dwarves a part in the Music.

Melkor, on the other hand, never was truly repentant for anything he did. Like the career criminal who says "I'm sorry" to the judge about to levy a heavy sentence, Melkor was only frustrated that he'd been caught. After his offense regarding the Orcs, he was put in prison. There can be no doubt he knew full well the nature of his crimes. Yet, he thought all the time only of how to perfect his technique so as never to be brought to justice again. His ultimate fate was to be cast into the Void.

So, we have one Vala gaining understanding of his misdeed and correcting his behavior, and thus is given a "slap on the wrist" by the Judge. The other is seen to be hardcore to the end, and gets what amounts to e life sentence. To me, intentions seem to be the key to redemption.

[Boromir88]

So, we have one Vala gaining understanding of his misdeed and correcting his behavior, and thus is given a "slap on the wrist" by the Judge. The other is seen to be hardcore to the end, and gets what amounts to e life sentence. To me, intentions seem to be the key to redemption.

Well, intentions are a part of the puzzle...definitely an integral part, but not the full puzzle.

One could argue Sauron had positive intentions, intentions he still retained even when he was the revealed, undeniable, Big Bad Evil in the 3rd Age:

He [Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co- ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction.~Home X: Morgoth's Ring, Myth's Transformed (Text VII)

Sauron's intentions can be argued as a positive. His virtue is his love for Order and co-ordination, so the evil isn't in his intentions. And it's not as if the Numenoreans and Gondorians were completely altruistic in their intentions through their history. Not knowing the perspective of men from say Rhun and Khand, they could have seen Sauron as a hero, freeing them from Gondor's expansionist threats., or the Numenorean's quest for supremacy as the dominant race of Men.

Intentions are of course a big part, as Tolkien describes in a letter talking about Gollum and the destructions of the Ring. Gollum's intentions are entirely selfish, and simply because good comes from his evil intentions in the Sammath Naur, does not mean Gollum is "redeemed." However, it's not entirely about intentions either, as above, I think an argument can be made that Sauron's intentions, and love for Order are positive. All intentions show is the "ends," what does Sauron hope to achieve. And his love for Order, combined with his pride lead to a distortion of total subjugation, an enslavement, to Sauron's will.

The other factor with intentions (or to call them "ends" for my purposes) are the actions (or "means.") Since we often hear about "means" and "ends." Sauron's intentions are positive, but the means he chooses to reach those ends morph into a terrible and sinister evil. Saruman provides the best example to what I'm attempting to argue:

Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means."~The Council of Elrond

Now we can certainly whether Saruman's designs at this point are the true mission of the Istari, or not, but Saruman brings up a fascinating point for this thread. In Saruman's distorted mind his intentions may still be good and noble, but he still has clearly fallen off the path, so to say. In Saruman's mind, the means don't matter as much as the ends. Saruman can have the best of intentions, but if he's murdering and subjucating people to his will to achieve those ends, his means are completely messed up. You can say this is an important factor in Gandalf's rejection of the Ring. He knows in his heart his intentions would be positive, but it's his recognition that the power and means thof the Ring would ultimately lead to evil and pain.

Intentions and actions. Ends and means. :)

[Inziladun]

Intentions are of course a big part, as Tolkien describes in a letter talking about Gollum and the destructions of the Ring. Gollum's intentions are entirely selfish, and simply because good comes from his evil intentions in the Sammath Naur, does not mean Gollum is "redeemed." However, it's not entirely about intentions either, as above, I think an argument can be made that Sauron's intentions, and love for Order are positive. All intentions show is the "ends," what does Sauron hope to achieve. And his love for Order, combined with his pride lead to a distortion of total subjugation, an enslavement, to Sauron's will.

Now we can certainly whether Saruman's designs at this point are the true mission of the Istari, or not, but Saruman brings up a fascinating point for this thread. In Saruman's distorted mind his intentions may still be good and noble, but he still has clearly fallen off the path, so to say. In Saruman's mind, the means don't matter as much as the ends. Saruman can have the best of intentions, but if he's murdering and subjucating people to his will to achieve those ends, his means are completely messed up. You can say this is an important factor in Gandalf's rejection of the Ring. He knows in his heart his intentions would be positive, but it's his recognition that the power and means thof the Ring would ultimately lead to evil and pain.

Sauron and Saruman may have believed themselves acting for "good", at least at some point. However, the ultimate fate of both indicates that their self-delusion on that score was not considered when the time came to render judgement on them.
Gandalf does not give either of them leniency for false and corrupted beliefs that colored their actions. Neither does the Authority who passed sentence on them.

And as the Captains gazed south to the Land of Mordor, it seemed to them that....there rose a huge shape of shadow...even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it. and it was all blown away, and passed; and then a hush fell, ROTK The Field of Cormallen

....about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the Hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissolved into nothing, ROTK The Scouring of the Shire

Even if we readers seek to understand and have pity on the "evil" characters in the books, the final judgements handed down to some appear to show no tolerance in the end for their deeds; the relative "goodness" of their intentions is not ultimately left up to them to decide.

[blantyr]

Even if we readers seek to understand and have pity on the "evil" characters in the books, the final judgements handed down to some appear to show no tolerance in the end for their deeds; the relative "goodness" of their intentions is not ultimately left up to them to decide.

We are expected to understand and have pity on Gollum. It's a recurrent theme all over the books, that even the elves of Mirkwood treated him better than they'd treat, say, a pack of treasure seeking dwarves returning to their ancestral homeland.

But who else among the evil folk are treated with pity? The common response when the darkness rolled over the land was to mobilize and fight. Kill orc folk. Drive back darkness with bright steel. No other words please wild men, nor anyone else.

[Inziladun]

We are expected to understand and have pity on Gollum. It's a recurrent theme all over the books, that even the elves of Mirkwood treated him better than they'd treat, say, a pack of treasure seeking dwarves returning to their ancestral homeland.

But who else among the evil folk are treated with pity? The common response when the darkness rolled over the land was to mobilize and fight. Kill orc folk. Drive back darkness with bright steel. No other words please wild men, nor anyone else.

Indeed. Gandalf himself urged pity for Gollum, and mercy, though he did not trust Gollum and knew him to be malicious.
To that point, Gandalf even expressed some pity for Saruman, if not Sauron.

'But alas for Saruman! I fear nothing more can be made of him. He has withered altogether.' ROTK Many Partings

Gandalf's pity though, did not impact his duty in breaking Saruman's staff, nor did it affect Saruman's fate at the death of his physical body.
What I mean is that the relative need for repentance can be extrapolated by the fates of those who do not seek it.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Sauron and Saruman may have believed themselves acting for "good", at least at some point. However, the ultimate fate of both indicates that their self-delusion on that score was not considered when the time came to render judgement on them.
Gandalf does not give either of them leniency for false and corrupted beliefs that colored their actions. Neither does the Authority who passed sentence on them.

(...)
Even if we readers seek to understand and have pity on the "evil" characters in the books, the final judgements handed down to some appear to show no tolerance in the end for their deeds; the relative "goodness" of their intentions is not ultimately left up to them to decide.

Gandalf's pity though, did not impact his duty in breaking Saruman's staff, nor did it affect Saruman's fate at the death of his physical body.

I disagree certainly concering Saruman, and even Sauron. They were both given the chance to repent (even Melkor did, for that matter, after his chaining - he was released. Had the Valar been utterly unmerciful, just as the same thing with Sauron after the fall of Angband, and cast him into the Void, the whole suffering of Silmarillion would have been averted. But they didn't, and that's the whole point). Saruman was given the chance several times. First, right after his proposal of alliance with Sauron, Gandalf rebuked him. More importantly, when Gandalf and Théoden and co. arrived into ruins of Isengard, Gandalf offered Saruman to accept him. Saruman said no, Gandalf cast him out of the Order. Yet still he did not completely throw him away. When the company of Gandalf, Galadriel and the hobbits overtook Saruman on the way to Rivendell, they were still pretty nice to him. He could have joined them. He had missed his chance to join them while still keeping his dignity - that chance he had had at Orthanc - but he could have still refrained from his further plans. After this, there was nothing left for him but the Scouring of the Shire. And that's not, of course, to speak of the unlikely, but imaginable possibilities that Saruman would sometime on his own accord realise his own failure and come to the White Council begging their forgiveness. Even Sauron could at any point decide to repent, of course. Theoretically speaking, of course. Neither of them probably would (well, after all, they didn't). But the point is that if they did, they would be still accepted. Until the final ruin.

[Inziladun]

I disagree certainly concering Saruman, and even Sauron. They were both given the chance to repent (even Melkor did, for that matter, after his chaining - he was released. Had the Valar been utterly unmerciful, just as the same thing with Sauron after the fall of Angband, and cast him into the Void, the whole suffering of Silmarillion would have been averted. But they didn't, and that's the whole point). Saruman was given the chance several times. First, right after his proposal of alliance with Sauron, Gandalf rebuked him. More importantly, when Gandalf and Théoden and co. arrived into ruins of Isengard, Gandalf offered Saruman to accept him. Saruman said no, Gandalf cast him out of the Order. Yet still he did not completely throw him away. When the company of Gandalf, Galadriel and the hobbits overtook Saruman on the way to Rivendell, they were still pretty nice to him. He could have joined them. He had missed his chance to join them while still keeping his dignity - that chance he had had at Orthanc - but he could have still refrained from his further plans. After this, there was nothing left for him but the Scouring of the Shire. And that's not, of course, to speak of the unlikely, but imaginable possibilities that Saruman would sometime on his own accord realise his own failure and come to the White Council begging their forgiveness. Even Sauron could at any point decide to repent, of course. Theoretically speaking, of course. Neither of them probably would (well, after all, they didn't). But the point is that if they did, they would be still accepted. Until the final ruin.

I seem to have not made my point clear. I don't disagree. Indeed, I would think the fact that the failure to embrace the chance at repentance is what led to the final judgement on Sauron and Saruman.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I seem to have not made my point clear. I don't disagree. Indeed, I would think the fact that the failure to embrace the chance at repentance is what led to the final judgement on Sauron and Saruman.

Ah yes, now I see what you meant, I misunderstood. Indeed. Basically it's the refusal, quite interesting aspect present more often in the books. We are back at pride again, somewhat coming back in circle: at least in Saruman's case, it is plain that he would never suffer the "humiliation" (as he saw it) to accept forgiveness from somebody else (he says something along these lines to Frodo, too). In Melkor/Sauron's case I believe it was partially also simply the unwillingness to give up their idea of "how things should be done" (does this actually imply Saruman would have been able to change his view of "how it should be done"? Perhaps yes. I think Saruman was, maybe not "wise" anymore, but "educated by the past" enough after the War of the Ring to see that Gandalf's plans succeeded, not his, and he was only bitter and not willing to admit his defeat, but theoretically he knew that Gandalf had been right while his own ideas were flawed).

In any case, the main obstacle in redemption seems really to be the refusal of mercy, be it for whichever reasons. Likewise, Galadriel, when she thinks she no longer qualifies, but would take it (contrary to her end of First Age-decision), gets one more chance.

[Lalwendë]

It's as though there are degrees of evil and good - and I can't help but chuck in some Catholic terminology with my assessment here, whether it's right or wrong, given the emplasis on degrees of evil.

There are definite 'sins' that mark a character as being evil or doing an evil for which they must either perform a redemptive act or accept the chance to repent when offered. There are also those who have a purpose which they fail to achieve because of personal failings, though they do not turn to evil. And there are those who achieve their purpose, do not turn to evil and who achieve the ultimate - the state of grace and a return or removal to Valinor (if desired).

Radagast does not achieve his purpose and he unwittingly aids those with evil intent (though as already stated, he was probably obediently following the leader of his Order). I think we can say that he did not act with any bad intent as a wizard who had such a deep knowledge of the natural world could potentially wreak untold havoc. Use your imagination to consider what a Radagast with evil intent might do with spiders, wolves and eagles at his beck and call. I also do not think he was a 'bit dim', he possesses a different kind of knowledge and one which Tolkien would have respected as being of equal value to the knowledge held by Saruman, perhaps even more valuable. That to me again shows that Radagast did not have a bad intent.

So, he may well have failed to attain any state of 'grace', but I don't think he would have ultimately been denied the chance to return home should he have wished it.

Gollum is an interesting case. He obtains the Ring through an evil act, and once obtained, he will find it difficult to ever turn back from his path. It's debatable of course whether it was the Ring itself that caused him to obtain it in such a way or it was already something in his nature. Either way, he has no chance once he has possession on it. And this is why I feel that he receives pity - those who have the wisdom to see the effects of Sauron's craft on Gollum can see that he is a victim, in much the same way that we might view an addict as a victim.

To achieve redemption is going to be a very different and difficult thing for him. It will be difficult because he will have to realise what he has done wrong and atone for that. It will be different because he will always be shaded by the effects of the Ring for the rest of his life, whether he is 'cured' of his addiction, whether he is not. It's not just that Gollum has made a choice to do evil, it's that Gollum has been driven to do evil. I always say that how he meets his end is perfectly drawn as I can see no 'cure' for him, and in his own way he is redeemed by taking the Ring from Frodo (who is another special case). There may well be a special kind of redemption from Eru for innocents who are corrupted by the evils of the more powerful.

But again, more grey areas creep in...

[Inziladun]

A book I'm re-reading at the moment has got me thinking about this subject again.

In the 14th Century following the Battle of Poitiers in France, knights, mercenaries, and common soldiers, some merely English discharged from duty, others French with their homesteads burned and lands decimated, made their living wandering through the French countryside looting and pillaging.
They put me in mind of the outlaw band joined by Túrin after his departure from Doriath.

For in that time of ruin houseless and desperate Men went astray: remnants of battle and defeat, and lands laid waste; and some were Men driven into the wild for evil deeds. UT Narn I Hîn Húrin

It was said of those outlaws that they were commonly regarded nearly as badly as Orcs. Túrin certainly shared in their activities while he lived with them.
Nevertheless, when Beleg found Túrin's band and was held captive by them, Túrin's heart was sickened by his way of life.

But Túrin returning and seeing what was done, was stricken with remorse for all their evil and lawless deeds....and Túrin foreswore thenceforward war or plunder against all save the servants of Angband. Silmarillion Of Túrin Turambar

What I find interesting is that Túrin seems to be the only one of the outlaws of his group who honestly felt remorse for what they'd done, and he was the sole survivor among them of the slaughter on Amon Rûdh.

Was the fact that Túrin did not die there attributable to his repentance? Yes, Morgoth wanted him alive, but still; can the end result of his survival be laid on an observance and acceptance of his true remorse and turning aside from evil (at least for that time)?

[Galadriel55]

Was the fact that Túrin did not die there attributable to his repentance? Yes, Morgoth wanted him alive, but still; can the end result of his survival be laid on an observance and acceptance of his true remorse and turning aside from evil (at least for that time)?

Please tell me that I am not dreaming and you are really saying this positive thing about Turin, and that I, of all people, am about to disagree with it. :eek:

On the other hand, the fact that we are disagreeing about him is quite within the norm. :p

I think that Turin survived the massacare because he was cursed, rather than spared due to his repentance. It seems that either the surse or some innate power of his just makes it so that nothing and no one can kill him. Dunno why it happens; it's part of the mystery and feel of the story. So I wouldn't call Turin's survival a reward for his past good deeds (something positive), but attribute it to whatever it is that makes COH be a tragedy (something very negative).

[jallanite]

I quite agree with Galadriel55.

If we are supposed by Tolkien to imagine that Eru is secretly guiding Túrin’s fate in this matter, then you presumably also imagine that Túrin being the only, or almost the only, survivor from Nargothrond is due to Túrin being helped by Eru, even though the Elves of Narogothrond are not portrayed as at all evil folk.

But then I suppose you do not imagine that Túrin’s marriage to Níniel, not recognizing that she was really his sister, was also Eru’s doing?

That Túrin “seems to be the only one of the outlaws of his group who honestly felt remorse for what they’d done″ is nowhere said in the tale. Indeed it is specifically indicated that Aldgund the Old did feel remorse. That the majority of the band agreed to take Túrin as their captain when he planned to lead them away from the Homes of Men, saying, “at the least we shall earn less hatred of our own kind,” shows that more than one felt that way. Later when Andróg urged the outlaws to slay Beleg, “some of better heart” spoke against Andróg even though the missing Túrin had made Andróg the leader of the band until Túrin returned.

If Tolkien had written a namby-pamby world in which the “good guys” always won, his work would hardly be so popular.

As Tolkien writes in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, letter 17:One reader wants fuller details about Gandalf and the Necromancer. But that is too dark – much too much for Richard Hughes’ snag. I am afraid that snag appears in everything; though actually the presence (even if only on the borders) of the terrible is, I believe, what gives this imagined world its verisimilitude. A safe fairy-land is untrue to all worlds.
Tolkien wrote the “Story of Beren and Tinúviel″ which was a romance with an ultimately happy ending. Then he wrote of Túrin which had a sad ending, most of which was not really Túrin’s fault, although Túrin has his flaws.

[Inziladun]

Please tell me that I am not dreaming and you are really saying this positive thing about Turin, and that I, of all people, am about to disagree it. :eek

Yes. I'll at least give him credit for that, though it took seeing a close friend tied up and in a sorry state to really open his eyes. ;)

I think that Turin survived the massacare because he was cursed, rather than spared due to his repentance. It seems that either the surse or some innate power of his just makes it so that nothing and no one can kill him. Dunno why it happens; it's part of the mystery and feel of the story. So I wouldn't call Turin's survival a reward for his past good deeds (something positive), but attribute it to whatever it is that makes COH be a tragedy (something very negative).


Certainly that's a distinct possibility also. I just thought it interesting that Túrin made a special point of renouncing old ways, apparently not only in word, but in deed as well, and just happened to be the sole survivor of the outlaws he had acted with.

[Inziladun]

If we are supposed by Tolkien to imagine that Eru is secretly guiding Túrin’s fate in this matter, then you presumably also imagine that Túrin being the only, or almost the only, survivor from Nargothrond is due to Túrin being helped by Eru, even though the Elves of Narogothrond are not portrayed as at all evil folk.

Well, if we're talking repentance; when it is necessary and whether it is accepted, then there must be a judge of such things, no?

That's not to say Ilúvatar was trying to "help" Túrin there. I was positing that Túrin's turn away from that evil might have earned him a reprieve from death.

That Túrin “seems to be the only one of the outlaws of his group who honestly felt remorse for what they’d done″ is nowhere said in the tale. Indeed it is specifically indicated that Aldgund the Old did feel remorse. That the majority of the band agreed to take Túrin as their captain when he planned to lead them away from the Homes of Men, saying, “at the least we shall earn less hatred of our own kind,” shows that more than one felt that way. Later when Andróg urged the outlaws to slay Beleg, “some of better heart” spoke against Andróg even though the missing Túrin had made Andróg the leader of the band until Túrin returned.

Yes, others of the band talked of abandoning their old ways, but did they follow through with actions? No way to know. Again, I was merely bringing up a possibility, not insisting on any particular interpretation.

[Galadriel55]

Yes, others of the band talked of abandoning their old ways, but did they follow through with actions? No way to know. Again, I was merely bringing up a possibility, not insisting on any particular interpretation.

Regarding the rest of the band, there's an interesting situation. You have the quotes that jallanite brought up about their wish to do good rather than evil (at least some part of them wishes so). However, I do not think that picking Turin as their leader says a lot about that. I think that they chose Turin for who he was, and for that mysterious something they felt about him (f.ex. when Androg says that he kills "to make room" - that's not a usual way of saying "you just murdered my friend"). They felt like Turin stood a few heads higher than they, so high that sometimes they didn't even question his "weird" actions.

What Turin planned to do when he led them was a secondary matter. The men would have followed him also if he did not choose to repent and wage war only against Morgoth's bunch because he is the dominant one from all of them.

So here I agree more with Zil - there's no way to know how the hearts of the outlaws truly lay.

[jallanite]

Yes, others of the band talked of abandoning their old ways, but did they follow through with actions? No way to know. Again, I was merely bringing up a possibility, not insisting on any particular interpretation.

All the outlaws followed Túrin in ceasing their living in areas where other humans dwelt and often raiding them. They followed through with actions. A large number of them insisted in sparing Beleg’s life, overruling their temporary leader Andróg whom Túrin had appointed. These are actions which follow through on what many of them have decided.

If you don’t insist of any particular interpretation, then it would be wiser not to present a particular interpretation as though you agreed with it.

[Galadriel55]

All the outlaws followed Túrin in ceasing their living in areas where other humans dwelt and often raiding them. They followed through with actions. A large number of them insisted in sparing Beleg’s life, overruling their temporary leader Andróg whom Túrin had appointed. These are actions which follow through on what many of them have decided.

I still stand by what I said in my previous post (though admittedly we probably cross-posted); I think many of the actions and decisions of the outlaws were done that way because of how they regarded Turin, not because they truly believed in doing what they did. Perhaps they did believe - the better for them. But you cannot prove that they did, because to me it seems like their motivation stems from their fear, respect, and obedience of Turin, not from their morale.

If you don’t insist of any particular interpretation, then it would be wiser not to present a particular interpretation as though you agreed with it.

A bit of speculation and a different perspective wouldn't hurt the discussion in this thread, would it?

[Inziladun]

I still stand by what I said in my previous post (though admittedly we probably cross-posted); I think many of the actions and decisions of the outlaws were done that way because of how they regarded Turin, not because they truly believed in doing what they did. Perhaps they did believe - the better for them. But you cannot prove that they did, because to me it seems like their motivation stems from their fear, respect, and obedience of Turin, not from their morale.

Indeed. If the outlaws had truly deplored their actions, why would it have taken Túrin's appearance to show them the error of their ways? Theft, rape, and probably murder had become a way of life to them.
Túrin's change of heart came about when he saw Beleg. He realized then how far he'd fallen. Would all the rest of the band have had a similar revelation, bringing about true remorse?

[jallanite]

Túrin's change of heart came about when he saw Beleg. He realized then how far he'd fallen. Would all the rest of the band have had a similar revelation, bringing about true remorse?

Possibly yes, possibly no. Aldgund quite likely. But as long as many of outlaws were satisfied with their life of plundering and this was supported by their leader they would continue in their way of life.

Tolkien indicates that Túrin “soon became hardened to a mean and often cruel life” and carefully avoids saying that Túrin took no part in the plundering of the other outlaws, which would be very unlikely.

And Túrin’s change of heart happens when slays Forweg, long before he again meets Beleg.

[A Little Green]

Thank you, guys, for a very interesting read!

There is one point I would like to add. On the subject of redemption by death, and how the "sinners" must die after they are redeemed - maybe it is, as suggested, for narrational reasons. Or maybe death was what enabled them to repent in the first place? Thórin works as an example - he thinks better of his ways only on his deathbed, and maybe this isn't because he needs to die after he repents but the other way round: he repents because he knows he is dying. I would argue that the prospect of his own imminent death was a part of what led him to reflect upon his past deeds and see where he went wrong. The world is full of these stories - elderly people in end-of-life care, realizing that they spent too much time earning money and too little playing with their kids.

This is not entirely viable in Boromir's case since he repented already before he knew he was dying; still, it was not until he was dying that he fully confessed what he had done and said he was sorry. When he returned to the rest of the Fellowship after his encounter with Frodo, he did not tell them what he had tried to do. It was only when he was dying that he let go of his pride (for that is what I suppose it was) and confessed. The same is essentially true with Thórin as well - letting go of his pride only at the very end, because maybe, for these proud heroes, it takes the approach of death to realize and to admit that they got it wrong after all.

[leapofberen]

Dear Hookbill,

I love the "big picture" that you bring to a topic that can get very caught up in the details from time to time.

I am thinking back to the centerpiece of Tolkien's myth, that is the voyage of Earendil to Valinor in search of salvation and deliverance. Earendil being something of a Christ figure here. Much of Tolkien's myth orbits around the idea of Fall, or course referring to the actual Fall of Man, Adam and Eve (I mean, they only ate an apple, right?!) Same kind of fairy story I suppose.

There have already been many great examples given of those who "fell" and were redeemed by death and right choice (or not) and than also Galadriel who "fell" and was nevertheless penitent in that she did not finally take the Ring to herself. She is pardoned and allowed back to the Far West.

I think the difference between all of these is simply that some cannot immediately handle the power of evil; it overwhelms them. Others, because of their great will, can wield it (or seemingly so) for a bit; but eventually, it overwhelms them. The elves being the prime example here, those "gods," as it were, from the West who have seen the Light of the Two Trees. The Eldar, in particular, who are noted to have great strength of mind, body and spirit even beyond that of other elves.

For me, Boromir is a special case. Here is an honorable man who longs for the days and deeds of old, the might of his fathers (perhaps a bit romanticized, but that is the best way); he even appeals to Aragorn to take his kingship. And I think Jackson's movies really portray this all very well. Look at how Aragorn, partly because of his fear it must be noted, will not even CONSIDER what Boromir is saying. He will not look beyond the outside to the heart of the man, that is. Boromir is honorable, though he is weak. He is a good man. And though he stumbles in the end, he preserves his honor. I think, because this is who he really was. His TRUE desire comes out at the last and he defends the fellowship. And I applaud Aragorn who does not reveal to the Fellowship what Boromir confesses. He covers Boromir's nakedness.

But the immediacy of Boromir's inability to wield the Ring is noted more sorely than that of perhaps Elrond or Galadriel if they were to take it up. And Tolkien's genius is that in the the end, of course, the least of races is responsible for the saving of Middle Earth (not without cost, of course.) This certainly seems to be something of a Christ theme here, that is, "can anything good come from Nazareth?" The unimportant and "foolish" save the day. And this theme seems to follow the Biblical theme at least, that is, the further humans get from Eden, the sorrier and weaker they become. The Elves being representative here of the "best" of unsoiled humanity perhaps.

But we know, and I have often thought, "any one of the Valar (I am thinking particularly of Orome here who would oft ride through the forests of Middle Earth, pre Elves and Man, and frighten even Melkor and his beasts) could have instantly appeared in Middle Earth during the Third Age and wrested power from Sauron.

But that is not the greatness of Tolkien. Because he reveals to us our own longing in a Fallen world for something greater; and at the same time, our inability to wield it or to even fully conceptualize it; and therefore, our need for a Saviour, or a figure like Earendil. He seems to embody something of the best response and heart.

Recall the Curse of Mandos upon the Elves who left Valinor; for all their power, honor and deeds of might, they were doomed to fail. I mean, Feanor stood against seven Balrogs before he died. Alone, if I remember correctly? Compared to the characters in Middle Earth during the Third Age, he is a god. But that Curse followed them forever, until it's end, and bleeds over into the Third Age. Not to mention, Arda is marred my Melkor from the start. But that is not the point. I think it is the pride of the Children that is the main issue here. They were not content walking with God in the cool of the day, as it were.

But here at the bottom of it all, I think my main point is that Story cannot exist without at least taking us to the brink of absolute Evil and the heights of absolute Good. But the thread here is whether or not we can be redeemed from Evil, a potentially more tragic story. There are those who fall in between that we wonder about; such as Gollum. Poor thing. Frodo was right to pity him. That is faerie I suppose. Adam and Eve eat an apple. The whole human race goes bonkers. I am now recalling that Tolkien felt Sauron was more evil than even Melkor in that he sought to bend and dominate people's wills to his own. And that was the point of the Ring anyhow. And Gollum fell under that spell. Very sad. Melkor was more of a tyrant, per Tolkien. Anyways...

And there is always a journey that even the seemingly unreedeemable take that makes us wonder, makes us pity. I find myself even pitying Melkor at some points. Or shall we forget Abbadona in Klopstock's Messiah, the one amongst the rebel angels who regretted and mourned the decision of apostasy and "haunts unseen the steps of our Saviour..." Of course, this is not Tolkien, but I believe relevant considering the mythos.

And I am now remember something that Illuvatar said to Melkor, that is, "and thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that that not its uttermost source in me..."

So perhaps on some plane, even those with no redemption will be redeemed or at least the prodigal will return to that source which created it in some fashion? Get sucked backed up into that universal consciousness? :p

Lastly, JRRT writes to his son Christopher, in Letters, (letter 71) that,

Yes, I think the orcs as real a creation as anything in 'realistic' fiction: your vigorous words well describe the tribe; only in real life, they are on both sides, oc course. For 'romance' has grown out of 'allegory', and its wars are still derived from teh 'inner war' of allegory in which good is on one side and various modes of badness on the other. In real (exterior) life men are on both sides: which means a motley alliance of orcs, beasts, demons, plain naturally honest men, and angels. But it does make some difference who are your captains and whether they are orc-like per se! And what it is all about (or thought to be). It is even in this world possible to be (more or less) in the wrong or in the right.

I am reading into this that redemption is always possible.

In this world, and this life, I must believe that all can (and perhaps will) be redeemed. However, there is that element of Fall that we cannot have any story without, as JRRT said in his well known letter to Milton Waldman. The Fall involves a certain evil, and it's more subtle sibling, pride, which lead us away from that which we were created for. Which are all things good. I must believe that in Tolkien's writings, repentance is possible, but some characters do not repent. Some characters shun their original purpose. Others, I feel, do not wholly shun it; they only desire to possess it, possess Good even, which makes me all the more sympathetic to their cause (such as Feanor, Boromir, Turin). For that is largely our plight as human beings. Which leads us back to Original Intent as those who were created to be in fellowship with God, perhaps as "a god" in some sense, but not our own God. I think we find our place in fellowship with God; we could never wield God or what it means to be such. I think Ingwe and the Vanyar represent this well.

As for orcs...? :eek:

Interesting stuff. Well it is terribly late and now early. I must be going. Though I do not know if I have helped with my ramblings.