Imagine No Redemption

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by 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?

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...

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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]

Originally Posted by Legate

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.

Originally Posted by Legate

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...

Originally Posted by Letter320

... 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.

Originally Posted by Letter 353

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.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.

Originally Posted by HoME1: The Book of Lost Tales Part One - Chapter III The Coming of the Valar

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

Later...

Originally Posted by HoME1: The Book of Lost Tales Part One - Chapter IV The Chaining of Melko

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.

Originally Posted by HoME4: The Shaping of Middle Earth - Chapter II The Earliest Silmarillion

...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.

Originally Posted by HoME4: The Shaping of Middle Earth - Chapter III The Quenta

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]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.