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?
Lastly, JRRT writes to his son Christopher, in
Letters, (letter 71) that,
Quote:
|
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...?
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.