|
Resurrecting this (I was quite neglectful) because I have time and another thought...
I agree with you on Tolkien's position, Child, though I do wonder if the man believed in "rehabilitation," so to speak (not that this is necessary in order to be against capital punishment in all forms). And regardless of whether or not he believed it, what seems to be the case in his presentation of Middle-earth and its peoples? (I know there's a good chance this has been discussed in a previous topic, and so I apologize ahead of time if it has been.)
Obviously Gollum is the classic example...we want to believe he can "come back," but in the end, he does not. And even Frodo is changed forever by the experience of bearing the Ring, though not enough to push him over the deep end. Even years in the Shire cannot heal his troubles. This may not be the same as rehabilitation as we typically think of it, and it is certainly different from any rehabilitation that might be hoped for in Gollum, but it still acts as an example of how the effects of "evil" run deep.
The recent thread on the "atrocities" of Akallebeth certainly makes me wonder. The populous was killed; it is as if the taint had seeped through all the citizenry, and would quite possibly be passed down generations. The "blackness" of the Numenoreans does not go away, at least in name. But does this mean that Tolkien believes that people who are "evil" or have evil in them cannot be changed, or simply that evil is/will always be present in more general terms?
|