Imagine No Redemption

[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.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.

Ah yes, now I see what you meant, I misunderstood. Indeed. Basically it's the refusal, quite interesting aspect present more often in the books. We are back at pride again, somewhat coming back in circle: at least in Saruman's case, it is plain that he would never suffer the "humiliation" (as he saw it) to accept forgiveness from somebody else (he says something along these lines to Frodo, too). In Melkor/Sauron's case I believe it was partially also simply the unwillingness to give up their idea of "how things should be done" (does this actually imply Saruman would have been able to change his view of "how it should be done"? Perhaps yes. I think Saruman was, maybe not "wise" anymore, but "educated by the past" enough after the War of the Ring to see that Gandalf's plans succeeded, not his, and he was only bitter and not willing to admit his defeat, but theoretically he knew that Gandalf had been right while his own ideas were flawed).

In any case, the main obstacle in redemption seems really to be the refusal of mercy, be it for whichever reasons. Likewise, Galadriel, when she thinks she no longer qualifies, but would take it (contrary to her end of First Age-decision), gets one more chance.

[Lalwendë]

It's as though there are degrees of evil and good - and I can't help but chuck in some Catholic terminology with my assessment here, whether it's right or wrong, given the emplasis on degrees of evil.

There are definite 'sins' that mark a character as being evil or doing an evil for which they must either perform a redemptive act or accept the chance to repent when offered. There are also those who have a purpose which they fail to achieve because of personal failings, though they do not turn to evil. And there are those who achieve their purpose, do not turn to evil and who achieve the ultimate - the state of grace and a return or removal to Valinor (if desired).

Radagast does not achieve his purpose and he unwittingly aids those with evil intent (though as already stated, he was probably obediently following the leader of his Order). I think we can say that he did not act with any bad intent as a wizard who had such a deep knowledge of the natural world could potentially wreak untold havoc. Use your imagination to consider what a Radagast with evil intent might do with spiders, wolves and eagles at his beck and call. I also do not think he was a 'bit dim', he possesses a different kind of knowledge and one which Tolkien would have respected as being of equal value to the knowledge held by Saruman, perhaps even more valuable. That to me again shows that Radagast did not have a bad intent.

So, he may well have failed to attain any state of 'grace', but I don't think he would have ultimately been denied the chance to return home should he have wished it.

Gollum is an interesting case. He obtains the Ring through an evil act, and once obtained, he will find it difficult to ever turn back from his path. It's debatable of course whether it was the Ring itself that caused him to obtain it in such a way or it was already something in his nature. Either way, he has no chance once he has possession on it. And this is why I feel that he receives pity - those who have the wisdom to see the effects of Sauron's craft on Gollum can see that he is a victim, in much the same way that we might view an addict as a victim.

To achieve redemption is going to be a very different and difficult thing for him. It will be difficult because he will have to realise what he has done wrong and atone for that. It will be different because he will always be shaded by the effects of the Ring for the rest of his life, whether he is 'cured' of his addiction, whether he is not. It's not just that Gollum has made a choice to do evil, it's that Gollum has been driven to do evil. I always say that how he meets his end is perfectly drawn as I can see no 'cure' for him, and in his own way he is redeemed by taking the Ring from Frodo (who is another special case). There may well be a special kind of redemption from Eru for innocents who are corrupted by the evils of the more powerful.

But again, more grey areas creep in...

[Inziladun]

A book I'm re-reading at the moment has got me thinking about this subject again.

In the 14th Century following the Battle of Poitiers in France, knights, mercenaries, and common soldiers, some merely English discharged from duty, others French with their homesteads burned and lands decimated, made their living wandering through the French countryside looting and pillaging.
They put me in mind of the outlaw band joined by Túrin after his departure from Doriath.

For in that time of ruin houseless and desperate Men went astray: remnants of battle and defeat, and lands laid waste; and some were Men driven into the wild for evil deeds.

UT Narn I Hîn Húrin

It was said of those outlaws that they were commonly regarded nearly as badly as Orcs. Túrin certainly shared in their activities while he lived with them.
Nevertheless, when Beleg found Túrin's band and was held captive by them, Túrin's heart was sickened by his way of life.

But Túrin returning and seeing what was done, was stricken with remorse for all their evil and lawless deeds....and Túrin foreswore thenceforward war or plunder against all save the servants of Angband.

Silmarillion Of Túrin Turambar

What I find interesting is that Túrin seems to be the only one of the outlaws of his group who honestly felt remorse for what they'd done, and he was the sole survivor among them of the slaughter on Amon Rûdh.

Was the fact that Túrin did not die there attributable to his repentance? Yes, Morgoth wanted him alive, but still; can the end result of his survival be laid on an observance and acceptance of his true remorse and turning aside from evil (at least for that time)?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Was the fact that Túrin did not die there attributable to his repentance? Yes, Morgoth wanted him alive, but still; can the end result of his survival be laid on an observance and acceptance of his true remorse and turning aside from evil (at least for that time)?

Please tell me that I am not dreaming and you are really saying this positive thing about Turin, and that I, of all people, am about to disagree with it.

On the other hand, the fact that we are disagreeing about him is quite within the norm.

I think that Turin survived the massacare because he was cursed, rather than spared due to his repentance. It seems that either the surse or some innate power of his just makes it so that nothing and no one can kill him. Dunno why it happens; it's part of the mystery and feel of the story. So I wouldn't call Turin's survival a reward for his past good deeds (something positive), but attribute it to whatever it is that makes COH be a tragedy (something very negative).

[jallanite]

I quite agree with Galadriel55.

If we are supposed by Tolkien to imagine that Eru is secretly guiding Túrin’s fate in this matter, then you presumably also imagine that Túrin being the only, or almost the only, survivor from Nargothrond is due to Túrin being helped by Eru, even though the Elves of Narogothrond are not portrayed as at all evil folk.

But then I suppose you do not imagine that Túrin’s marriage to Níniel, not recognizing that she was really his sister, was also Eru’s doing?

That Túrin “seems to be the only one of the outlaws of his group who honestly felt remorse for what they’d done″ is nowhere said in the tale. Indeed it is specifically indicated that Aldgund the Old did feel remorse. That the majority of the band agreed to take Túrin as their captain when he planned to lead them away from the Homes of Men, saying, “at the least we shall earn less hatred of our own kind,” shows that more than one felt that way. Later when Andróg urged the outlaws to slay Beleg, “some of better heart” spoke against Andróg even though the missing Túrin had made Andróg the leader of the band until Túrin returned.

If Tolkien had written a namby-pamby world in which the “good guys” always won, his work would hardly be so popular.

As Tolkien writes in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, letter 17:

One reader wants fuller details about Gandalf and the Necromancer. But that is too dark – much too much for Richard Hughes’ snag. I am afraid that snag appears in everything; though actually the presence (even if only on the borders) of the terrible is, I believe, what gives this imagined world its verisimilitude. A safe fairy-land is untrue to all worlds.

Tolkien wrote the “Story of Beren and Tinúviel″ which was a romance with an ultimately happy ending. Then he wrote of Túrin which had a sad ending, most of which was not really Túrin’s fault, although Túrin has his flaws.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Please tell me that I am not dreaming and you are really saying this positive thing about Turin, and that I, of all people, am about to disagree it. :eek

Yes. I'll at least give him credit for that, though it took seeing a close friend tied up and in a sorry state to really open his eyes.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I think that Turin survived the massacare because he was cursed, rather than spared due to his repentance. It seems that either the surse or some innate power of his just makes it so that nothing and no one can kill him. Dunno why it happens; it's part of the mystery and feel of the story. So I wouldn't call Turin's survival a reward for his past good deeds (something positive), but attribute it to whatever it is that makes COH be a tragedy (something very negative).

Certainly that's a distinct possibility also. I just thought it interesting that Túrin made a special point of renouncing old ways, apparently not only in word, but in deed as well, and just happened to be the sole survivor of the outlaws he had acted with.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

If we are supposed by Tolkien to imagine that Eru is secretly guiding Túrin’s fate in this matter, then you presumably also imagine that Túrin being the only, or almost the only, survivor from Nargothrond is due to Túrin being helped by Eru, even though the Elves of Narogothrond are not portrayed as at all evil folk.

Well, if we're talking repentance; when it is necessary and whether it is accepted, then there must be a judge of such things, no?

That's not to say Ilúvatar was trying to "help" Túrin there. I was positing that Túrin's turn away from that evil might have earned him a reprieve from death.

Originally Posted by jallanite

That Túrin “seems to be the only one of the outlaws of his group who honestly felt remorse for what they’d done″ is nowhere said in the tale. Indeed it is specifically indicated that Aldgund the Old did feel remorse. That the majority of the band agreed to take Túrin as their captain when he planned to lead them away from the Homes of Men, saying, “at the least we shall earn less hatred of our own kind,” shows that more than one felt that way. Later when Andróg urged the outlaws to slay Beleg, “some of better heart” spoke against Andróg even though the missing Túrin had made Andróg the leader of the band until Túrin returned.

Yes, others of the band talked of abandoning their old ways, but did they follow through with actions? No way to know. Again, I was merely bringing up a possibility, not insisting on any particular interpretation.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Yes, others of the band talked of abandoning their old ways, but did they follow through with actions? No way to know. Again, I was merely bringing up a possibility, not insisting on any particular interpretation.

Regarding the rest of the band, there's an interesting situation. You have the quotes that jallanite brought up about their wish to do good rather than evil (at least some part of them wishes so). However, I do not think that picking Turin as their leader says a lot about that. I think that they chose Turin for who he was, and for that mysterious something they felt about him (f.ex. when Androg says that he kills "to make room" - that's not a usual way of saying "you just murdered my friend"). They felt like Turin stood a few heads higher than they, so high that sometimes they didn't even question his "weird" actions.

What Turin planned to do when he led them was a secondary matter. The men would have followed him also if he did not choose to repent and wage war only against Morgoth's bunch because he is the dominant one from all of them.

So here I agree more with Zil - there's no way to know how the hearts of the outlaws truly lay.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Yes, others of the band talked of abandoning their old ways, but did they follow through with actions? No way to know. Again, I was merely bringing up a possibility, not insisting on any particular interpretation.

All the outlaws followed Túrin in ceasing their living in areas where other humans dwelt and often raiding them. They followed through with actions. A large number of them insisted in sparing Beleg’s life, overruling their temporary leader Andróg whom Túrin had appointed. These are actions which follow through on what many of them have decided.

If you don’t insist of any particular interpretation, then it would be wiser not to present a particular interpretation as though you agreed with it.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by jallanite

All the outlaws followed Túrin in ceasing their living in areas where other humans dwelt and often raiding them. They followed through with actions. A large number of them insisted in sparing Beleg’s life, overruling their temporary leader Andróg whom Túrin had appointed. These are actions which follow through on what many of them have decided.

I still stand by what I said in my previous post (though admittedly we probably cross-posted); I think many of the actions and decisions of the outlaws were done that way because of how they regarded Turin, not because they truly believed in doing what they did. Perhaps they did believe - the better for them. But you cannot prove that they did, because to me it seems like their motivation stems from their fear, respect, and obedience of Turin, not from their morale.

Originally Posted by jallanite

If you don’t insist of any particular interpretation, then it would be wiser not to present a particular interpretation as though you agreed with it.

A bit of speculation and a different perspective wouldn't hurt the discussion in this thread, would it?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I still stand by what I said in my previous post (though admittedly we probably cross-posted); I think many of the actions and decisions of the outlaws were done that way because of how they regarded Turin, not because they truly believed in doing what they did. Perhaps they did believe - the better for them. But you cannot prove that they did, because to me it seems like their motivation stems from their fear, respect, and obedience of Turin, not from their morale.

Indeed. If the outlaws had truly deplored their actions, why would it have taken Túrin's appearance to show them the error of their ways? Theft, rape, and probably murder had become a way of life to them.
Túrin's change of heart came about when he saw Beleg. He realized then how far he'd fallen. Would all the rest of the band have had a similar revelation, bringing about true remorse?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Túrin's change of heart came about when he saw Beleg. He realized then how far he'd fallen. Would all the rest of the band have had a similar revelation, bringing about true remorse?

Possibly yes, possibly no. Aldgund quite likely. But as long as many of outlaws were satisfied with their life of plundering and this was supported by their leader they would continue in their way of life.

Tolkien indicates that Túrin “soon became hardened to a mean and often cruel life” and carefully avoids saying that Túrin took no part in the plundering of the other outlaws, which would be very unlikely.

And Túrin’s change of heart happens when slays Forweg, long before he again meets Beleg.

[A Little Green]

Thank you, guys, for a very interesting read!

There is one point I would like to add. On the subject of redemption by death, and how the "sinners" must die after they are redeemed - maybe it is, as suggested, for narrational reasons. Or maybe death was what enabled them to repent in the first place? Thórin works as an example - he thinks better of his ways only on his deathbed, and maybe this isn't because he needs to die after he repents but the other way round: he repents because he knows he is dying. I would argue that the prospect of his own imminent death was a part of what led him to reflect upon his past deeds and see where he went wrong. The world is full of these stories - elderly people in end-of-life care, realizing that they spent too much time earning money and too little playing with their kids.

This is not entirely viable in Boromir's case since he repented already before he knew he was dying; still, it was not until he was dying that he fully confessed what he had done and said he was sorry. When he returned to the rest of the Fellowship after his encounter with Frodo, he did not tell them what he had tried to do. It was only when he was dying that he let go of his pride (for that is what I suppose it was) and confessed. The same is essentially true with Thórin as well - letting go of his pride only at the very end, because maybe, for these proud heroes, it takes the approach of death to realize and to admit that they got it wrong after all.

[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.