Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitchwife
An afterthought:
But did they ever actually rebel, or did they just talk and fantasize about it (the way a smoker may talk about quitting, because it would be reasonable/healthy/whatever, but without the will to actually try) ?.
|
But isn't it interesting that no 'bad guy' ever chooses to repent? Why does Tolkien not include a 'villain' who turns? And wouldn't it have been interesting if he had? It would have reinforced the message of hope, of the 'unexpected turn of events'. But it seems that once one has chosen evil one loses all real desire for the good. Certainly there is hope for the good guys even at the greatest extremity, at the Sammath Naur, but those who have chosen evil, like Gollum, Saruman, Denethor, Wormtongue, & the rest will not turn. What does this tell us about moral choices in Tolkien's world?
It may well be true that offering forgiveness & the chance of repentance to those who have chosen evil "enhances the wellbeing of the person doing the offering (assuming it was offerred with a compassionate frame of mind and not with ulterior motives)" but how long is it going to be before the good guys realise that its ultimately a futile exercise because the bad guys won't take up the opportunity?
Yet, one could argue that the knowledge that the bad guy won't repent actually makes offering the chance of repentance & forgiveness easier - if you know the monster won;t repent you know you won't have to deal with them, have them living among 'decent folk'. And wouldn't that have been the hardest thing - living with a reformed Gollum or Saruman after everything they'd done? Far harder than simply offering the chance of repentance in the first place. Much easier to offer a homeless ex-convict a room in your house if you know they'll reject it, but would you make the offer if you thought they might take you up on it?
Tolken 'deals' with evil by having it conveniently choose damnation, thereby avoiding any need for all that messy 'Truth & Reconciliation' stuff.