Is there any hope of redemption ...?

[The Saucepan Man]

The discussions on various threads, in particular Iluvatar's opponents and Original sin in Arda, have got me thinking ...

Is there any hope of redemption for evil deeds in Arda? I am not talking Elves here, because I understand that those who stray from the path tarry a for a long while in the Halls of Mandos. I am thinking more about the Hobbit/Human characters. Thiose who are given free will, but exercise it wrongly.

I can think of a few candidates:

1. Borormir: As we all know, he attempts to steal the Ring off Frodo by force. His final act, desperately attempting to save Merry and Pippin, is a valiabt one. But Boromir is a noble character who acted, albeit misguidedly, with the best of intentions - to save his people and defeat Sauron. So, he was never intinsically evil. Did he need to be redeemed and, if so, was he?

2. Gollum: Possibly not originally an evil soul, but corrupted by the Ring. He is driven by his desire for the Ring and, notwithstanding Frodo's kindness, his purpose throughout LotR is, in my opinion, to prevent the Ring being destroyed and, if possible, seize it for himself. Is he redeemed by his final (involuntary) act?

3. The Dunlendings: Not an evil people, but Saruman used, and encouraged, their grievances with the Rohirrim to enlist them to his army. After Helms Deep, they make their peace with the people of Rohan. Does this redeem them?

4. The Haradrim, Southrons, Variags, Easterlings and Corsairs of Umbar: Enlisted by Sauron but, again, were they really evil in the first place, or just corrupted by Sauron? Presumably, they too made their peace with the other nations of Men following the War of the Ring. Again, do they find redemption?

5. Wormtongue: Having been corrupted by Saruman through his lust for power and for Eowyn, he acts as Saruman's spy at Edoras and, for a while, is able to neutralise Rohan through his influence over Theoden. When found out, he runs off to Saruman, but is ultimately the instrument of Saruman's downfall. Does this act redeem him?

And there are other characters too, Ted Sandyman and Bill Ferny for example, who are less than sympathetically portrayed, but never have an opportunity to redeem themselves.

So, basically my question is - do any of these (or any other wrongdoing) characters get a shot at redemption? If so, which ones and why? If not, why not?

I have done a search on this topic and not turned up anything directly on topic. But, if there are any threads that touch on this, I would welcome the link.

[Gorwingel]

I think most of those did recieve a shot a redemtion, I would hope Gollum and Boromir would get redemtion because their evil deeds were mostly the fault of the ring.
You could also maybe include orcs here, I don't know, because remember is says that deep in there hearts under all that evil, they really don't like there masters, because they were originally elves that were forced into doing that.

[Aratlithiel]

I hate to drag a matter from another thread over here and dirty up your nice, clean, new one, but I think we first must understand the nature of Eru before we can decide if redemption is possible.

Was the saga of the Ring - from it's forging to it's undoing - the will of Eru and part of his divine plan? If so, then ALL of these characters deserve redemption because they acted according to Eru's will and not their own.

However, if we're dealing with free choice here, we need to be a little more careful. I don't think we can make blanket assumptions about the Dunlendings, Haradrim, or any other group of people because we couldn't possibly look into each of their hearts and determine why they made the choices they did. Maybe some of them were born evil - or maybe some of them were just born dumb. I don't think anyone could (justly) be punished for not understanding what they were doing or the possible repercussions.

This leads us directly to Boromir. I've expounded at length on this subject before but suffice it to say that I don't believe Boromir understood the danger of the Ring until after his confrontation with Frodo and that (his subsequent understanding) in itself should warrant redemption. Again, we're assuming a just deity here.

Gollum - hmmm. That's a good one, but I'm going to start ducking whatever things will come flying at me when I say that I don't think Gollum (assuming free choice) deserves redemption. Gollum, more than anyone else, knew the dangers of the Ring yet chose over and over again to pursue it. Yes, the lure of it was overpowering and some may argue that he paid his dues in the 500 years he held it, but addicts to various substances have the same trouble, yet some of them choose to clean up and some do not. (Please - I'm not intimating that addicts deserve what they get...only using the example to illustrate a point. I do not take addiction lightly and do not judge those afflicted by it.) A very difficult choice, of course, but some have chosen that very difficult path and are therefore redeemed while those that remain addicted out of choice or weakness are not. Gollum was confronted with his choice time and time again and had every opportunity to redeem himself yet chose the Ring each and every time. I don't believe accidentally saving Middle-earth should redeem him since he did it with evil purpose in his heart.

I don't agree that Bill Ferny and Ted Sandyman did not have an opportunity to redeem themselves. The trouble in the Shire had been going on for some months during which time they had ample opportunity to repent. Of course they would have been afraid to do so (if that was what they wanted) and would have been punished but that's the price one pays for their redemption. But I don't think fear should be an excuse any more than it was at Nuremburg.

Wow, did this turn out long. Saucepan Man, I'm ready for those composition lessons anytime now.

[Garen LiLorian]

Free Will v. Determinism! Where's Bill Ferny when you need him? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

I think perhaps I can address your examples individually, with my own opinion. But, as Aratlithiel points out, when you start talking about redemption, you start talking about whether it was their choice in the first place, and that leads you into a whole different can of worms. Anyway.

Boromir; In my opinion, Boromir was redeemed by trying to save Merry and Pippen. Even his attempt on the Ring was made with good intentions. (I know, I know. The road to hell...) All he wants, as he so eloquently puts it, is the strength to defend his people. This seems right and just to me, and, again in my opinion, Boromir didn't even need to be redeemed, as he had committed no wrong act. If he had taken the Ring, he still would not have been consciously "sinning" until he fell to its power and began using it for personal gain instead of protecting his people.

Gollum is different. He is immediately ensnared by it, and for no other reason then he wants it. So he was not a very good person to begin with, even before the Ring came into the picture. He kills his friend to claim it. In the end, he inadvertedly destroyes it. As Arthur says in "Once and Future King;" "I don't see why, if God is supposed to be merciful, people cannot stumble into Heaven as well as climb there." Of course, be that as it may, I don't agree. Gollum never redeemed himself in life, and even his one good act was inadverdent. Therefor, unless you assume he was simply doing as he was supposed to, and had no more choice about it than a stone has when you drop it, he is not redeemed.

Wormtongue is much like Gollum. As far as we know, he was not a good person even before Saruman bought him. And, to my way of thinking anyway, it is rather repulsive to think that he might have redeemed himself by committing murder. So no redemption for him either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not going to comment on the other examples for two reasons. First, I have no time. I have to go to work. Second, they are rather vague. It is difficult to either condemn or save an entire race of people. One of my favorite parts of the book is when Sam is thinking about the Man who has just been shot off the back of the Mumak. He wonders if he was really an evil man, or what lies he had been told to come, and whether he would not rather have stayed at home with his family. So it is difficult to say about the corrupted races of Men.

[doug*platypus]

Where's Bill Ferny when you need him?

He'll be here soon, I don't doubt that. Whether his twitching ears alert him to a new free will thread, or some unthinking soul puts the Bill Signal into the cloudy skies of Cardolan City, he will arrive.

By redemption, Pan, it appears you mean redemption by a creator figure outside the bounds of Arda, where the fëa of men go after they die. I'm not very authoritative on the theosophical cosmology of Tolkien's world, but I think I can say that this is an assumption rather than a fact. We do not know for sure that Eru judges the souls of men, the way that the Christian god or holy trinity is said to do.

I believe that the characters you mention, Boromir and Gollum received their redemption and acted out their penance within the confines of Arda (though with Gollum it was unwitting). I prefer to think of the ends that Gollum achieves as being noble enough to excuse him for his sins, especially since his soul had been partly cleansed through contact with Frodo.

The Dunlendings, Haradrim etc. are never portrayed as entirely evil - they just happen to be fighting for someone that is. Deluded, perhaps, but no more cruel than, say, the Rohirrim. The real question is whether Orcs are redeemable, but of course there are other threads for that specific debate.

At the other end of the scale you have Sauron and Saruman - utterly irredeemable, and apparently cast (by either the Valar or Ilúvatar) into the Outer Void. Melkor was previously set a term of penance in the Outer Void by the Valar and then released in the hope that he had been reformed. I don't think it likely that similar grace would be granted to Sauron or Saruman, given the nature of the cases and the embitterment of the Valar.

Garen is right that Wormtongue's shows no case of redemption within the confines of Arda. It is hard to say what will happen to him beyond the confines of the world. Although I'm sure that someone who has studied Tolkien's mythology further will have a fairly plain answer.

[Jurion]

The fear of men and other mortals go beyond the edges of the world after they die. They eventually come to Eru and he will tell them of his great plan and the rebbelion of Melkor, and after that they will sit in his halls and at the end of time they will fight against Melkor and he will be overcome.

So yes, I think that there is redemption for mortals.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Wormtongue: Having been corrupted by Saruman through his lust for power and for Eowyn....

Am I the only one who sees Grima's designs on Eowyn as an effort to make himself a legitimate ruler of Rohan after the war? I don't know much about Rohan, but it seemed if Eomer wasn't there she would be closest heir, though I can't see the Rohirrim accepting a woman. I'm just rambling though, and this is off the topic....

More to the topic at hand, I don't believe Gollum was "good" to begin with. It is hard to believe that merely seeing the ring could cause someone to kill their best friend in 5 minutes.

Boromir on the other hand was acting on what he thought was best. Remembering that at that point in the tale it was increasingly obvious that neither the ring nor Aragorn was returning with him to Minas Tirith.

To my mind Boromir was not in need of redemption and Gollum and Saruman didn't desire it. Grima might have been a candidate but blew it.

[burrahobbit]

There is always that hope, to think otherwise is unjust. Check this out.

[greyhavener]

It almost seems as if refusing to align with evil is more grounds for redeption in these tales than consistently aligning with good.

Boromir had no intention of aligning with evil and repented of the idea that he might use the ring for good before he died. Gandalf and Galadriel were tempted by the ring with motives similar to Boromir's. Boromir acted on this temptation, but because his motives were pure he was able to see his error before it was too late. I see this rejection of evil and his final submission to a plan other than his own (Aragorn's kingship) rather than his act of heroism as his redemption.

Gollum was so enamored with the ring that he didn't care what alliances he had to form in order to have it. He didn't want Sauron to have it, not because he was evil but because he wanted it himself. I don't see his act as an act of redemption, but of selfishness that ultimately resulted in good without his intending it.

Wormtongue similarly was willing to form whatever alliances necessary to achieve his goal.

As for the other hobbits and men who aligned with Sauron and Saruman. Each could have chosen otherwise. We know within the community of Hobbits there were those who refused. Presumably the Southons, Dunelings, et al. there were also those who stayed home. Jealousy and vengence are hardly noble motives whatever the deceit that entered into their decisions. I seem to remember that after Sauron was defeated some men expressed regret and received mercy from Aragorn. (Am I dreaming here, I don't have time to look it up this minute.)

Saruman, to me, seems to be the most utterly irredeemable because he knew exactly what Saruon was. He knew exactly what the ring represented. He knew when he gazed into the palantir and when he bred his uruk-hai that he was turning his back on everything he had been sent to do.

[Eru]

By redemption, Pan, it appears you mean redemption by a creator figure outside the bounds of Arda, where the fëa of men go after they die. I'm not very authoritative on the theosophical cosmology of Tolkien's world, but I think I can say that this is an assumption rather than a fact. We do not know for sure that Eru judges the souls of men, the way that the Christian god or holy trinity is said to do.

i don't think he was implying that, but who am i to say? i always thought redemption to be in the eyes of other mortals/immortals. my thoughts.

Gollum was so enamored with the ring that he didn't care what alliances he had to form in order to have it. He didn't want Sauron to have it, not because he was evil but because he wanted it himself.

i always have accosiated these characteristics with evil people. seeing them as selfish and uncaring. evil.

[Legolas]

Of Evil, Free will, and Fate (from 'Gollum')

I've linked to that thread plenty of times.

All of you wondering about free will, fate, evil, etc. should read Tolkien's essay Osanwe-kenta (and his letters). They often *directly* answer your question with no need for you to go into your personal, presupposed opinions on such matters in this world or speculation.

On the matter of repentance, Tolkien says anyone can repent in Eru's world. Any being (and thus, one of Eru's creations) had the right to exist and take part in his creation.

Even Melkor.

Osanwe-kenta:

Melkor had the right to exist, and the right to act and use his powers. Manwe had the authority to rule and to order the world, so far as he could, for the well-being of the Eruhíni; but if Melkor would repent and return to the allegiance of Eru, he must be given his freedom again. He could not be enslaved, or denied his part. The office of the Elder King was to retain all his subjects in the allegiance of Eru, or to bring them back to it, and in that allegiance to leave them free.

[Blue Elf]

A lot of these points I agree with, but there is one which I would like to voice my opinion: Gollum. There is one line or so in the book, which can show that he probably wasn't evil from the start.

First of all, yes, Gollum had many chances to part with the Ring, but by then it was too late. Bilbo would have never parted with the Ring if Gandalf had not been there. Gollum had no one, as Deagol was dead. Now, it is in the question of Deagol where we wonder if Gollum was evil from the start.

Frodo himself would not toss the Ring into Mt. Doom, and I'll bet he might have gone as far as killing Sam if it ever came to it, and we all know Frodo is a nice guy, and maybe Smeagol killed Deagol under its influence. The Ring "choose" Smeagol because he was physically stronger. Smeagol didn't kill Deagol because he saw a pretty Ring.

The line in the book had Gollum caressing Frodo, who was asleep, and Tolkien said that if any of the sleepers (Sam and Frodo) had seen him, they might have mistaken him for an old weary hobbit.

I think Gollum deserves forgiveness. **hugs Smeagol**

Wow. That was longer then I meant it to be...

[The Saucepan Man]

Wow! Thanks for all the thoughtful and thought-provoking replies. I need some time to assimilate them all.

But, for the time being, a few further thoughts ...

When I fist started this thread, I was thinking whether the characters deserved redemption in the eyes of their maker, ie Iluvatar. But, as my egg-laying friend points out, that takes us into the realms of guessing as to his will. Speculating as to whether they deserve redemption in the eyes of their fellow ME inhabitants entails speculating on the motives of those fellow beings. So I will restrict myself to considering whether they deserve redemption in the eyes of us, the readers (although please feel free to discuss this subject on one of the other levels mentioned).

One common theme running through the replies is the analysis of the motives of the various characters discussed for doing what they did. If they acted from an evil motive, beings such as Melkor and Sauron being the best examples, then they are beyond redemption. But if they acted from a desire to good, as we all seem to agree Boromir did, then they are redeemed.

It is the characters that come somewhere in between that are the most interesting on this topic. Gollum is a great example. I don't agree that he was damned from the outset. We are never told whether he was an unpleasnat sort before encountering the Ring. Yes, he murdered Deagol without ever having touched it, but then Boromir attacked Frodo (and could well have killed him) without ever having touched it either (book Boromir, that is, not film Boromir). In my view, all of Gollum's "evil" acts were perpetrated under the influence of the Ring. So why does he not deserve redemption? I think that, together with Frodo and the Blue Elf, we can view him with some sympathy.

Wormtongue is a different kettle of fish. We are not told much about what he was like before being influenced by Saruman, but we can perhaps guess that he was someone who disregarded higher vaues for personal power (yes, Hilde, you are quite possibly right that his lust for Eowyn was part of a greater lust for power). So, even his act of killing Saruman might not redeem him if he started from improper motives.

It is fair to say that the Dunlendings and the races of Men that allied themselves with Sauron cannot be judged as a whole. Some (their leaders?) were probably motivated by the promise of power. Others were too fearful of what might happen to them if they did not follow (we were only following orders ...). I think that the Dunlendings are probably the more sympathetic, since they seem to have been motivated from the honestly-held belief that they had been unjustly treated by the Rohirrim.

Which brings us to Saruman, who I had not included on my original list. He started out with just purpose, as one of the Istari tasked with guiding the peoples of ME in their struggle against Sauron. He was corrupted by a lust for power (whether as a vassal of Sauron or the ruler of ME in his own right). But, I understand from discussions on other threads that he was jealous of Gandalf from the outset. So, perhaps he started out with improper motives. And, even if he did not, the fact the he, far more than the likes of Gollum or Boromir, understood exactly what was at stake and what the consequences of his actions would be, makes him undeserving of our sympathy.

[Aratlithiel]

In my view, all of Gollum's "evil" acts were perpetrated under the influence of the Ring. So why does he not deserve redemption?

While I understand the sympathy that many have for this character, the answer is actually very simple: Gollum never did anything to EARN his redemption. The definition of redemtion (redeem)in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary is as follows;

REDEEM: to atone for : EXPIATE

The question now becomes, did Gollum atone for his "sins"? To atone means to take responsibility for and extinguish the guilt incurred by one's wrongs. Gollum did not do this. To blame his bad behavior and weak will on the Ring is to negate the very concept of atonement and redemption. He cannot redeem himself until he has taken responsibility for his actions and experienced remorse for them.

Accidentally saving the world while attempting to retrieve (by force) the one thing that can destroy it does not count toward redemption. Even in his last moments, Gollum does not feel sorrow or regret - he feels joy at having his Precious restored. The rest of the world means nothing to him - he cares only for himself and the Ring. In my opinion, this is not a good case for redemtion.

[Garen LiLorian]

Well, Pan, in the example of Saruman at least, there is pretty conclusive evidence that he was not redeemed. After his death it talks about his fëar as "looking towards the West" then dissipating, much like Sauron when the Ring was destroyed. So there. And hey! As a side effect, I solved the free will debate! If Saruman was pre-determined to turn traitor, it would be vastly unfair of Eru to not allow his fëar to return, so therefor for him to have dissipated means that it was his own choice and not the choice of Eru.

Of course, it'd be something of a miracle if this was the first time this piece of evidence had come up. This has probably been hashed and re-hashed in this forum. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] Oh well. I'll leave it up in the vague hope that it means anything.

[Salocin]

Sorry Garen LiLorian, but I do not think that solves the determinism vs. free will debate, though it sure looks like it to us fee willers (where is Bill Ferney!?). The determinist would have us believe that Eru meant for everything that was evil in ME to happen, either to make it more exciting for the good heroes or to make peace "taste" better or because he had to in order for "good" to be defind (see here ) and would still judge and punish the evil beings (even though it would be his fault not theirs).

I don't have time to answer this all today, but I'll start.

1.Borromir
Borromir was enticed by the ring. He thought he knew what to do with the ring better than Gandalf, Elrond, and all the wise. It was his pride and his self-centeredness(self used in a broad way to refere to his people). Of cource there was also the influence and enticement of the ring. Anyways he turned away from the will of Eru which is the definition evil. Sure he did what he thought was right but isn't that what Melkor did? He thought he knew better than Eru. So, in summery, he fell, attacked Frodo failed, repented, protects Merry and Pipin, and dies. It is the repented more than anything else that redeems him. He realizes the guile of the ring, that it would control him, not the otherway around, and realizes that the "pro-destroy ringers" were right. His repentence can be seen by his deffence of the hobbits. He now realizes the fate of the little band of 9(well by then 8) walkers was way more important for the world that his precious Gondor. I find it quite evident from Aragorns words to the dieing Boromir and at Boromir's "funeral" that it was his repentance manifested through this deed that redeemed him and that he had done something wrong and needed redemption. The idea of Atonment is a strange one. How can anyone possibly pay or make up for one's sins? First of all they are inumerable and secondly, can we return the world to the state at which it was before our sinful deeds? Short of a time machine I think we can all agree it is impossible. God/Eru knows this and does not ask for us to pay for our sins but mearly to repent of them. If Melkor repented he would immediately be accepted back and would not have to undo all his evil, that would be imposible even for him.

I'll add to this later, either by editing or with more posts.

[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: Salocin ]

[Aratlithiel]

To atone means to take responsibility for and extinguish the guilt incurred by one's wrongs.

Not make them go away and put back the pieces as if they (the wrongs) were never perpetrated - but to accept fault and responsibility thereby removing the guilt.

If it were possible for one to reverse any wrongs they perpetrated, I'm sure that would be expected, but, since that is generally not a possibility, it is not a requirement in the normal definition of the term.

[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: Aratlithiel ]

[Bill Ferny]

Hello. For the last week I’ve been buried in the life and times of William Marshall… the historical Aragorn? Not by a long shot, so don’t start any such thread. Anyway, I haven’t had much time for free will debates, just the politics of Henry I and Thomas à Becket, and King John and that pesky thing called Magna Carta. It was nice break, LOL.

Great thread, Saucepan Man. However, I have to agree with doug and Aratlithiel… it is critically important to understand the difference between repentance, forgiveness and redemption. Repentance is the seeking for forgiveness, the acceptance that one has done wrong, turning from evil to good, usually made manifest by one’s actions (i.e. practice of virtue instead of vice, or symbolic actions meant to demonstrate sorrow and self-humiliation). Forgiveness is to grant (from the party wronged) pardon or remission of some penalty due to one’s actions.

Redemption is a bit more tricky. There are two aspects of redemption, the act of redeeming and the act of being redeemed. To redeem something means to regain possession of by paying a price. To be redeemed is be bought back. I can redeem lost property by paying the mortgage due on that property (doh! Why must I remind myself of that?). The important thing here is who is being redeemed, and who is doing the redeeming. From what or who is who or what being bought back? That last question is a taxing one for someone given to seeing Christian themes in Tolkien, especially in light of the Osanwe-kenta.

If you posit that there is no original sin in Arda, then you would be forced to accept that Eru made a pretty crappy world where rational beings were born into slavery to suffering, domination, death, doubt, etc, etc. You would also have to accept that all these bad things came from the hand of Eru. However, Elrond says at the Council of Elrond, that everything starts out good (which is enough to convince me that determinism isn’t at work in Arda). If everything starts out good from Eru, then its rational beings by their handy work that makes everything crappy. That, in a nutshell, is original sin. Folks making the world crappy.

If you posit that there is original sin in Arda, a state of apriori corruption and guilt shared by all rational beings in Arda, then there is a price to be paid in order for Eru to regain possession of those rational beings. If this is true, then what is the price, and who pays it? Do these rational beings pay their own price for redemption by virtuous actions? That would seem to be the case from a cursory reading of the LotRs. For example, Boromir seems to redeem himself through his valor shortly after attempting to take the ring. Of course, that makes Tolkien’s world a Palagian one. That very well could be the case, as Tolkien himself seems to make the act of repentance the same as the act of redeeming (buying one’s own self back) when he writes: “but if Melkor would repent and return to the allegiance of Eru, he must be given his freedom again. He could not be enslaved, or denied his part.”

So, over the years many people have argued that Tolkien, like most fantasy writers, created a Manachaen world. That’s not the case at all. He created a Pelagian one. Given this, any character that actively attempts to repent, and in his or her repentance practices some sort of virtue, then they gain redemption. Then, Boromir is definitely redeemed. Gollum, no. Saruman, definitely not. Wormtongue, no, because his murder of Saruman had nothing to do with seeking repentance, and certainly nothing to do with virtue. As far as the the Haradrim, Southrons, Variags, Easterlings, Dunlendings and Corsairs of Umbar are concerned, maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. It would depend on the individual. I’m sure there were soldiers in the German Wehrmacht during WWII that were good and virtuous soldiers, just ignorant or misinformed (i.e. Erwin Rommel).

I’m willing to drop it at that. I know that Tolkien, as a Catholic, did not accept Pelagianism. He would have personally believed that human beings can not possibly pay the price due to bring them back to God. However, its easy to see how he came to place so much emphasis on the practice of virtue and repentance. He was writing at a time when so many Catholic writers such as Josef Pieper, Hahn, and O’Brien (albeit in very different ways) were resurrecting the life of virtue discussion in Catholic moral theology. While those guys could always fall back on incarnation theology to stop them from falling into Palegianism, Tolkien didn’t have that luxury in his mythological world, nor do I think he was even conscious of the dichotomy in the draft or in the revision. But, as I’ve said before in regard to Eru, Tolkien’s mythology has too many non-Christian roots for it to be reduced to Tolkien’s Christian world view, no matter how staunchly he clung to this world view in real life.

Oh, by the way, Bill Ferny wasn't acting out of fear, he just doesn't like hobbits and their silly waist coats. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[The Saucepan Man]

Thank you for your highly informative post, Bill.

The distinction between repentance and redemption is of course a correct one to make. When a character repents, this can be made clear to the reader through that character's actions in the story. So, we can see that Boromir repents in both word and deed. The Dunlendings too appear to repent after Helms Deep, on witnessing the mercy of the Rohirrim, when they assist in burying the dead and, in Erkenbrand's words, help to repair the evil that they have joined. We can imagine that many of the Easterlings, Haradrim, Southrons and Variags similarly repent for their allying themselves with Sauron. For Gollum, Wormtongue and Saruman, we are given no evidence of repentance.

When considering redemption, it is of course important to consider who is doing the redeeming. To look at whether the characters are redeemed in the eyes of Eru takes us into the realm of speculation. While we can posit that those characters that we see repenting are redeemed in his eyes, we can never know whether the likes of Gollum or Wormtongue are given any opportunity to repent in the afterlife (if indeed there is an afterlife for them).

Which is why I am looking at it from the eyes of the reader. Are those who are portrayed in the story as repenting redeemed in the eyes of the reader? Most would probably think that they are, although there are those who consider Boromir, for example, to be an evil character, which would suggest that he is not redeemed in their eyes.

When looked at in this way, Gollum is perhaps the most interesting character. He does not repent, and so does not earn redemption from the reader in that way. He is nevertheless portrayed at times as a character deserving of our sympathy. He has been corrupted by the Ring and it might therefore be said that he is not fully in control of his actions (I hold with the view that he was not inherently evil and that he killed Deagol under the influence of the Ring). He assists Frodo and Sam in their journey to Mordor and (for a time at least) is persuaded by Frodo's kindness not to strangle the Hobbitses in their sleep. Do these factors not render him deserving of redemption in our eyes, even if he displays no repentance in his final act?

[ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Silmarien]

Tolkien writes in the letters of JRRT when asked the question, "What would have happened if Sam had not snapped at Gollum when he'd woken up just before Shelob's Lair?" (He was feeling his wrong-doings at this point.)

The line in the book had Gollum caressing Frodo, who was asleep, and Tolkien said that if any of the sleepers (Sam and Frodo) had seen him, they might have mistaken him for an old weary hobbit.

Tolkien's answer was that at mount Doom relising that Frodo couldn't do it he would have taken the ring himself and jumped into the flames.
But when Sam woke up and unfairly called him a sneak it reinforces that voice in his head that says 'nobody likes you, everybody hates you... you must look after yourself'

[Aratlithiel]

Silmarien, can you find that passage and post it, please? Not that I doubt your word or anything, but I just find that extremely difficult to believe of Gollum. (GOTTA get me a copy of those letters!) Noodles! I may have to re-think my entire opinion of the creepy little guy.

[ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: Aratlithiel ]

[Lyra Greenleaf]

Oh my goodness, this is such a philosophical discussion, I feel like I shouldnt join in, but here goes...

I think that Boromir definitely deserves to be redeemed. After all, ME is based on Catholic values, right? He repented and atoned for his sin by defending merry and pippin to the death.

I agree that Harradrim, Dunlendings etc will all be judged based on individual merit, based on what they did before, during and after they followed sauron. we just don't know enough about them to tell what they were really like.

Gollum, on the other hand, may have been corrupted by the ring but theres a bit in fotr, which I cant find (damn) which hints that he's been stealing (and eating, i suppose) babies. Now how did the Ring make him do that? And do you really think he deserves to be redeemed after that?

[Bill Ferny]

I think that Boromir definitely deserves to be redeemed. After all, ME is based on Catholic values, right? He repented and atoned for his sin by defending merry and pippin to the death.

His defending Merry and Pippin to the death may have won him redemption in Middle Earth, but this, however, is not a Catholic notion. For Catholics, no human action can achieve redemption; humans were redeemed only by God, Himself, with the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. However, if Boromir was redeemed by his actions, then it is, on the other hand, a Pelagian notion.

He does not repent, and so does not earn redemption from the reader in that way. He is nevertheless portrayed at times as a character deserving of our sympathy.

Deserving of sympathy is very different than deserving of redemption (or forgiveness, for that matter). It is perfectly fine to feel sympathy for an evil person, knowing that their actions do more harm to themselves than others, but that doesn’t mean that an evil person, if they persist in their vice, deserves anything more than their due in return. The mere fact that we feel sympathy for such people is knowing, or at least surmising, what their due in return will be.

[burrahobbit]

with the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ

That didn't happen yet.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

I think that Boromir definitely deserves to be redeemed. After all, ME is based on Catholic values, right?

Wrong; Tolkien's Arda is based on Tolkien values. He himself was a Catholic, but that does not mean he made ME catholic too. You'll find, after some contemplation of the matter, that he implemented quite different value systems into his work than the Catholic ones.

Redemption? I don't think it existed. As I've said elsewhere, Evil too has it's place in Eä -- this is not to say that it should go unpunished, as 'Nonetheless it is still evil' -- but it is a part of Illuvitar himself. Quite beside this it is part of the nature of the Children of Illuvitar. Elves, perhaps, reside longer in Mandos if they have been evil (or otherwise undesirably inclined) in life, until they have vanquished their evil, can embrace life again and until Mandos permits them to go; but Men leave the world. I assume they go the same place, and that there is no 'heaven' or 'hell' to diferentiate. But no, I don't think redemption is even needed for Men once they have died. Every Man is still a Man, and shares the Gift; and each plays their part until the End as they are.

[The Saucepan Man]

Deserving of sympathy is very different than deserving of redemption (or forgiveness, for that matter).

But, if you are looking at it from the perspective of the reader, they can be the same. If the reader feels sympathy for Gollum (and there is much in the books to evoke such a feeling), then might he not be redeemed in the reader's eyes? Or, does the fact that his final act is a selfish (albeit fortuitous) one supersede any sympathy we might have felt for him?

[Aratlithiel]

If the reader feels sympathy for Gollum...then might he not be redeemed in the reader's eyes?

I see what you're saying, but I think this can only be the case if the reader confuses sympathy for redemtion and we've already established (I believe) that redemption is not possible without atonement. Redemption is not predicated on sympathy. There are dozens of religious texts in which Lucifer may appear as a sympathetic character, but that does not make him deserving of redemption.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Bill Ferny

For Catholics, no human action can achieve redemption; humans were redeemed only by God, Himself, with the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ

But Resurrection is not limited by Time-flow, i.e. the Law in this case is retroactive. So, on assumption (if) that ME is the past of our reality, Boromir should have been redeemed by God Himself, and in repenting Boromir accepted this redemption

Actually, topic is brought up for the sake of LoTR Book 3 Chapter 1 discussion

[Lalwendë]

Nice 'bump-up' HI. I know it's for purposes of the discussion in Chapter by Chapter but I can't resist this one.

Thinking of the concept of redemption as taught by the Roman Catholic Church - it does not necessarily follow that Tolkien himself followed the creeds of his church to the letter and had his works reflect all of these. As he said "I cannot understand how I should be labelled 'a believer in moral didacticism'. It is in any case the exact opposite of my procedure in The Lord of the Rings." So here Tolkien himself is admitting that the moral aspects of Middle Earth are not entirely black and white. He clearly saw that redemption was possible.

And so to Gollum, one of the most complex characters in all of literature. Sometimes, I wonder if Tolkien created him to demonstrate how we cannot simply sit back and say 'yes he is evil' or 'he is the epitome of goodness'. Gollum does very bad things, and he is treacherous, but is he really bad? I think not. He is corrupted, but not bad right through. However, was he redeemed?

He came to no admission of his failings or guilt, there was no apology from him, he was unrepentant, yet he was tormented by what he had become. This was very clever writing from Tolkien. To show us first of all this incredibly creepy, twisted character, develop him to show us how he was tormented by his needs and then mess around with the readers' perceptions by having him, ultimately, save the day.

And then, there is the perfection of Gollum's end. He never recovered from his needs. He was never sorry for them, apart from feeling sorry for himself. What is to be done with somebody like that? As Gandalf says, could you kill him? he could not even be locked away. So his end, ultimately, was simply perfection. Negative, yet perfect. An incredibly modern character, in Gollum we see a creature beset with failings so unimaginable, we can see there is no hope for him, and yet we see a creature we simply cannot just hate.

As a final thought, Gollum took the ring and wore it in all innocence; it was merely a big sparkler to him. As did Bilbo, who just thought he had stumbled upon something fortuitous. But Frodo only wore it when he knew what the ring was about. Who is the real innocent?

[burrahobbit]

in Gollum we see a creature beset with failings so unimaginable, we can see there is no hope for him

How inimitably rude you are to him.

Tolkien:

If we speak last of the "folly" of Manwe and the weakness and unwariness of the Valar, let us beware how we judge. In the histories, indeed, we may be amazed and grieved to read how (seemingly) Melkor deceived and cozened others, and how even Manwe appears at times almost a simpleton compared with him: as if a kind but unwise father were treating a wayward child who would assuredly in time perceive the error of his ways. Whereas we, looking on and knowing the outcome, see now that Melkor knew well the error of his ways, but was fixed in them by hate and pride beyond return. He could read the mind of Manwe, for the door was open; but his own mind was false and even if the door seemed open, there were doors of iron within closed for ever.
How otherwise would you have it? Should Manwe and the Valar meet secrecy with subterfuge, treachery with falsehood, lies with more lies? If Melkor would usurp their rights, should they deny his? Can hate overcome hate? Nay, Manwe was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom. He was ever open because he had nothing to conceal, no thought that it was harmful for any to know, if they could comprehend it. Indeed Melkor knew his will without questioning it; and he knew that Manwe was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose. Thus the merciless will ever count on mercy, and the liars make use of truth; for if mercy and truth are withheld from the cruel and the lying, they have ceased to be honoured.

Melkor had the right to exist, and the right to act and use his powers. Manwe had the authority to rule and to order the world, so far as he could, for the well-being of the Eruhíni; but if Melkor would repent and return to the allegiance of Eru, he must be given his freedom again. He could not be enslaved, or denied his part. The office of the Elder King was to retain all his subjects in the allegiance of Eru, or to bring them back to it, and in that allegiance to leave them free.

Tolien says that The King Of All Naughtiness can make it, I'm pretty sure that applies to little worm things too.

P.S. Worm things don't need to be alive to repent, cf. Elves in Mandos. Now you are saying, but wait a minute, worm things are not Elves, that is a stupid comparison. I don't care, Beren did it too, and he is the same sort of thing as a worm thing. And that sort of thing gets to leave the confines of the world when it dies, no matter what. Tolkien said so. What Tolkien says is right and what you say is wrong.

[Lalwendë]

How inimitably rude you are to him.

Rude? Not really. I said:

An incredibly modern character, in Gollum we see a creature beset with failings so unimaginable, we can see there is no hope for him, and yet we see a creature we simply cannot just hate.

I'm fond of Gollum, and I'd defend him against any claims that he was 'inherently evil'. I see Gollum as a character to appeal to the modern, less certain mind. He cannot be 'cured' of his addiction, and cannot be controlled or made acceptable to 'society' in general. Yet Tolkien shows us how he is not to be hated. He tells us to think carefully:

'But this is terrible!' cried Frodo. 'Far worse than the worst that I imagined from your hints and warnings. O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do? For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!'

'Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.'

'I am sorry,' said Frodo. 'But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.'
'You have not seen him,' Gandalf broke in.
'No, and I don't want to,' said Frodo. 'I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it.

Tolkien also tells us how a creature we might think of as 'evil' may in reality not be so far removed from our own good selves:

'I think it is a sad story,' said the wizard, 'and it might have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known.'
'I can't believe that Gollum was connected with hobbits, however distantly,' said Frodo with some heat. 'What an abominable notion!'

'It is true all the same,' replied Gandalf. 'About their origins, at any rate, I know more than hobbits do themselves. And even Bilbo's story suggests the kinship. There was a great deal in the background of their minds and memories that was very similar. They understood one another remarkably well, very much better than a hobbit would understand, say, a Dwarf, or an Orc, or even an Elf. Think of the riddles they both knew, for one thing.'

'Yes,' said Frodo. 'Though other folk besides hobbits ask riddles, and of much the same sort. And hobbits don't cheat. Gollum meant to cheat all the time. He was just trying to put poor Bilbo off his guard. And I daresay it amused his wickedness to start a game which might end in providing him with an easy victim, but if he lost would not hurt him.'

'Only too true, I fear,' said Gandalf. 'But there was something else in it, I think, which you don't see yet. Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed--as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things.

'But that, of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end--unless it could be conquered. Unless it could be cured.' Gandalf sighed. 'Alas! there is little hope of that for him. Yet not no hope. No, not though he possessed the Ring so long, almost as far back as he can remember. For it was long since he had worn it much: in the black darkness it was seldom needed. Certainly he had never "faded". He is thin and tough still. But the thing was eating up his mind, of course, and the torment had become almost unbearable.

Even Gandalf displays some hope for Gollum where I do not - I would not know what to do with him, though I could certainly not kill or hurt him.

The text you quoted does indeed show that redemption was possible for even the most wicked of characters in Middle Earth; and I indeed think it was possible that Gollum could have been redeemed. But still, was he redeemed? Did he have the chance to be redeemed? Was falling into the Cracks of Doom with the ring enough to redeem him? I certainly hope he was 'saved', I'm rather fond of Gollum.

[HerenIstarion]

and I indeed think it was possible that Gollum could have been redeemed

In fact, he's on the brink of redemption - on the stairs to Cirith Ungol. And it is most sad that it is Sam's part to frighten possible redemption away - with what he imagines Gollum's 'sneaking' startled from sleep. You (innumerable literary critics I mean under you here) tell me LoTR is 'black'n'white'! One of the best heroes to destroy what may have turned out one of the best eventsof the story! Yet again, to quote Lewis, 'simple evil is often used by God to produce complex Good'. or Tolkien himself: 'For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined' - who knows, would the Ring fall into the Cracks of Doom if only Gollum would have been truly redeemed? I know, it is a bit unfair to compare Sam with Melkor - not the same weight, but the result is similar, up to a point.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

As to the question of Gollum's possible redemption, there are two
interesting (if somewhat contradictory) views of this by JRRT in "Letters":

In #181 (written probably Jan. or Feb. 1956) he views Gollum's actual
behavior to have lead to his nonredemption:

Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honorable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would never have had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.Need it ever have crossed his path? A kind of answer cd. be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different! By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Smeagol will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost.

While in Letter #246 (September 1963) he speculates on how a redeemed Gollum might have behaved at Mount Doom:

For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes...when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing', said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!'. His repentence is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense) wasted. Shelob's lair becomes inevitable. This is of course do to the 'logic of the story'. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last III 221-222) but for the good of Gollum too late. If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentence and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.

One interesting change in view seems to be that in the first letter Tolkien lays primary "blame" for Gollum's nonredemption at his feet, while in the second letter Sam bears primary (inadvertent) responsibility.

[Lalwendë]

Those are very interesting quotes. It makes me wonder more about Sam and Gollum in relation to each other. Gollum is presented on the surface level as an evil creature, and Sam as inherently good; yet both are not necessarily these things. Gollum can repent, and Sam can be cruel. Yet more shades of grey in the morality of the story... This again sheds new light on the character of Frodo. He at first thinks of Gollum as evil, then he meets and comes to rely on him; Frodo cannot destroy the ring, and this might be seen as wrong, yet by taking on Gollum and trusting to him, he has done 'good'. Is this a particular type of Christian morality being displayed, in that mercy will eventually result in 'good'?Or is it some form of 'humanism' in that Frodo accepts the failings of another because he sees the common humanity (hobbitry?) in Gollum?

Of one thing I am sure, and that is that this clearly demonstrates the complexity in Tolkien's characters! A good one for arguments with critics.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

A bit more on Gollum/Sam, which I forgot to add above.

I also, on first reading LOTR, thought the saddest/most tragic moment
was Gollum's near repentence (and as an aside, why PJ and Andy Serkis
were so foolish in delighting in ROTK in portraying Gollum's change of heart
as being completely a ruse, against the accurate portrayal in TTT movie).

I actually think a really interesting version of LOTR would have been to
have Shelob kill off Frodo (sorry, Frodo fans ). This would have
led to a fascinating dynamic of Sam and Gollum from there to Mount Doom.
And, paranthetically, it would have quieted initial critics of LOTR that "all"
made it back safe (ignoring, of course, Boromir and the various kinds of
"losses" by the free peoples at the end of the tale).
Might Sam, as a longer term Ringbearer, have gained a greater appreciation
of Gollum's torment and been more inclined to forgiving and help redeeming
him? And as not so long a Ringbearer as Frodo, could he have resisted the
Ring's strength at the end? (Probably not, I think JRRT surmises somewhere
that the power of the Ring at Dol Guldur was too strong for anyone to
resist, which, if so, also helps to ease any criticism of Isildur).

[HerenIstarion]

a really interesting version of LOTR would have been to have Shelob kill off Frodo

I suppose it would not be LoTR any longer (I agree it would be interesting, but that would be quite different story)