Imagine No Redemption

[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.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

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]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.)