Imagine No Redemption

[Inziladun]

Looking back on this thread, I note that the subject of the Vala Aulë's error was mentioned, but not explored.
Aulë, of course, "made" the Dwarves (physically, though not in a spiritual sense), something that he knew was beyond his authority. Melkor "made" the Orcs, by perverting existing Children of Ilúvatar already embodied with the One with fea. Melkor too understood the serious illegality of his act. Once again, we begin with different intentions, which in their turn lead to different end results for the offenders.

Aulë acted out of mere impatience; he wanted to teach his knowledge and instruct others in the building of Arda, and the glorification of the One thereby. As soon as Ilúvatar spoke to him about the matter, he was filled with shame and true remorse. That fact was recognized by Ilúvatar, who reacted by forgiving Aulë and giving the Dwarves a part in the Music.

Melkor, on the other hand, never was truly repentant for anything he did. Like the career criminal who says "I'm sorry" to the judge about to levy a heavy sentence, Melkor was only frustrated that he'd been caught. After his offense regarding the Orcs, he was put in prison. There can be no doubt he knew full well the nature of his crimes. Yet, he thought all the time only of how to perfect his technique so as never to be brought to justice again. His ultimate fate was to be cast into the Void.

So, we have one Vala gaining understanding of his misdeed and correcting his behavior, and thus is given a "slap on the wrist" by the Judge. The other is seen to be hardcore to the end, and gets what amounts to e life sentence. To me, intentions seem to be the key to redemption.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

So, we have one Vala gaining understanding of his misdeed and correcting his behavior, and thus is given a "slap on the wrist" by the Judge. The other is seen to be hardcore to the end, and gets what amounts to e life sentence. To me, intentions seem to be the key to redemption.

Well, intentions are a part of the puzzle...definitely an integral part, but not the full puzzle.

One could argue Sauron had positive intentions, intentions he still retained even when he was the revealed, undeniable, Big Bad Evil in the 3rd Age:

He [Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co- ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction.~Home X: Morgoth's Ring, Myth's Transformed (Text VII)

Sauron's intentions can be argued as a positive. His virtue is his love for Order and co-ordination, so the evil isn't in his intentions. And it's not as if the Numenoreans and Gondorians were completely altruistic in their intentions through their history. Not knowing the perspective of men from say Rhun and Khand, they could have seen Sauron as a hero, freeing them from Gondor's expansionist threats., or the Numenorean's quest for supremacy as the dominant race of Men.

Intentions are of course a big part, as Tolkien describes in a letter talking about Gollum and the destructions of the Ring. Gollum's intentions are entirely selfish, and simply because good comes from his evil intentions in the Sammath Naur, does not mean Gollum is "redeemed." However, it's not entirely about intentions either, as above, I think an argument can be made that Sauron's intentions, and love for Order are positive. All intentions show is the "ends," what does Sauron hope to achieve. And his love for Order, combined with his pride lead to a distortion of total subjugation, an enslavement, to Sauron's will.

The other factor with intentions (or to call them "ends" for my purposes) are the actions (or "means.") Since we often hear about "means" and "ends." Sauron's intentions are positive, but the means he chooses to reach those ends morph into a terrible and sinister evil. Saruman provides the best example to what I'm attempting to argue:

Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means."~The Council of Elrond

Now we can certainly whether Saruman's designs at this point are the true mission of the Istari, or not, but Saruman brings up a fascinating point for this thread. In Saruman's distorted mind his intentions may still be good and noble, but he still has clearly fallen off the path, so to say. In Saruman's mind, the means don't matter as much as the ends. Saruman can have the best of intentions, but if he's murdering and subjucating people to his will to achieve those ends, his means are completely messed up. You can say this is an important factor in Gandalf's rejection of the Ring. He knows in his heart his intentions would be positive, but it's his recognition that the power and means thof the Ring would ultimately lead to evil and pain.

Intentions and actions. Ends and means.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Intentions are of course a big part, as Tolkien describes in a letter talking about Gollum and the destructions of the Ring. Gollum's intentions are entirely selfish, and simply because good comes from his evil intentions in the Sammath Naur, does not mean Gollum is "redeemed." However, it's not entirely about intentions either, as above, I think an argument can be made that Sauron's intentions, and love for Order are positive. All intentions show is the "ends," what does Sauron hope to achieve. And his love for Order, combined with his pride lead to a distortion of total subjugation, an enslavement, to Sauron's will.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Now we can certainly whether Saruman's designs at this point are the true mission of the Istari, or not, but Saruman brings up a fascinating point for this thread. In Saruman's distorted mind his intentions may still be good and noble, but he still has clearly fallen off the path, so to say. In Saruman's mind, the means don't matter as much as the ends. Saruman can have the best of intentions, but if he's murdering and subjucating people to his will to achieve those ends, his means are completely messed up. You can say this is an important factor in Gandalf's rejection of the Ring. He knows in his heart his intentions would be positive, but it's his recognition that the power and means thof the Ring would ultimately lead to evil and pain.

Sauron and Saruman may have believed themselves acting for "good", at least at some point. However, the ultimate fate of both indicates that their self-delusion on that score was not considered when the time came to render judgement on them.
Gandalf does not give either of them leniency for false and corrupted beliefs that colored their actions. Neither does the Authority who passed sentence on them.

And as the Captains gazed south to the Land of Mordor, it seemed to them that....there rose a huge shape of shadow...even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it. and it was all blown away, and passed; and then a hush fell,

ROTK The Field of Cormallen

....about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the Hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissolved into nothing,

ROTK The Scouring of the Shire

Even if we readers seek to understand and have pity on the "evil" characters in the books, the final judgements handed down to some appear to show no tolerance in the end for their deeds; the relative "goodness" of their intentions is not ultimately left up to them to decide.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Even if we readers seek to understand and have pity on the "evil" characters in the books, the final judgements handed down to some appear to show no tolerance in the end for their deeds; the relative "goodness" of their intentions is not ultimately left up to them to decide.

We are expected to understand and have pity on Gollum. It's a recurrent theme all over the books, that even the elves of Mirkwood treated him better than they'd treat, say, a pack of treasure seeking dwarves returning to their ancestral homeland.

But who else among the evil folk are treated with pity? The common response when the darkness rolled over the land was to mobilize and fight. Kill orc folk. Drive back darkness with bright steel. No other words please wild men, nor anyone else.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by blantyr

We are expected to understand and have pity on Gollum. It's a recurrent theme all over the books, that even the elves of Mirkwood treated him better than they'd treat, say, a pack of treasure seeking dwarves returning to their ancestral homeland.

But who else among the evil folk are treated with pity? The common response when the darkness rolled over the land was to mobilize and fight. Kill orc folk. Drive back darkness with bright steel. No other words please wild men, nor anyone else.

Indeed. Gandalf himself urged pity for Gollum, and mercy, though he did not trust Gollum and knew him to be malicious.
To that point, Gandalf even expressed some pity for Saruman, if not Sauron.

'But alas for Saruman! I fear nothing more can be made of him. He has withered altogether.'

ROTK Many Partings

Gandalf's pity though, did not impact his duty in breaking Saruman's staff, nor did it affect Saruman's fate at the death of his physical body.
What I mean is that the relative need for repentance can be extrapolated by the fates of those who do not seek it.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Sauron and Saruman may have believed themselves acting for "good", at least at some point. However, the ultimate fate of both indicates that their self-delusion on that score was not considered when the time came to render judgement on them.
Gandalf does not give either of them leniency for false and corrupted beliefs that colored their actions. Neither does the Authority who passed sentence on them.

(...)
Even if we readers seek to understand and have pity on the "evil" characters in the books, the final judgements handed down to some appear to show no tolerance in the end for their deeds; the relative "goodness" of their intentions is not ultimately left up to them to decide.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Gandalf's pity though, did not impact his duty in breaking Saruman's staff, nor did it affect Saruman's fate at the death of his physical body.

I disagree certainly concering Saruman, and even Sauron. They were both given the chance to repent (even Melkor did, for that matter, after his chaining - he was released. Had the Valar been utterly unmerciful, just as the same thing with Sauron after the fall of Angband, and cast him into the Void, the whole suffering of Silmarillion would have been averted. But they didn't, and that's the whole point). Saruman was given the chance several times. First, right after his proposal of alliance with Sauron, Gandalf rebuked him. More importantly, when Gandalf and Théoden and co. arrived into ruins of Isengard, Gandalf offered Saruman to accept him. Saruman said no, Gandalf cast him out of the Order. Yet still he did not completely throw him away. When the company of Gandalf, Galadriel and the hobbits overtook Saruman on the way to Rivendell, they were still pretty nice to him. He could have joined them. He had missed his chance to join them while still keeping his dignity - that chance he had had at Orthanc - but he could have still refrained from his further plans. After this, there was nothing left for him but the Scouring of the Shire. And that's not, of course, to speak of the unlikely, but imaginable possibilities that Saruman would sometime on his own accord realise his own failure and come to the White Council begging their forgiveness. Even Sauron could at any point decide to repent, of course. Theoretically speaking, of course. Neither of them probably would (well, after all, they didn't). But the point is that if they did, they would be still accepted. Until the final ruin.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I disagree certainly concering Saruman, and even Sauron. They were both given the chance to repent (even Melkor did, for that matter, after his chaining - he was released. Had the Valar been utterly unmerciful, just as the same thing with Sauron after the fall of Angband, and cast him into the Void, the whole suffering of Silmarillion would have been averted. But they didn't, and that's the whole point). Saruman was given the chance several times. First, right after his proposal of alliance with Sauron, Gandalf rebuked him. More importantly, when Gandalf and Théoden and co. arrived into ruins of Isengard, Gandalf offered Saruman to accept him. Saruman said no, Gandalf cast him out of the Order. Yet still he did not completely throw him away. When the company of Gandalf, Galadriel and the hobbits overtook Saruman on the way to Rivendell, they were still pretty nice to him. He could have joined them. He had missed his chance to join them while still keeping his dignity - that chance he had had at Orthanc - but he could have still refrained from his further plans. After this, there was nothing left for him but the Scouring of the Shire. And that's not, of course, to speak of the unlikely, but imaginable possibilities that Saruman would sometime on his own accord realise his own failure and come to the White Council begging their forgiveness. Even Sauron could at any point decide to repent, of course. Theoretically speaking, of course. Neither of them probably would (well, after all, they didn't). But the point is that if they did, they would be still accepted. Until the final ruin.

I seem to have not made my point clear. I don't disagree. Indeed, I would think the fact that the failure to embrace the chance at repentance is what led to the final judgement on Sauron and Saruman.

[leapofberen]

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,

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.