Imagine No Redemption

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Right, now you've all got John Lennon's 'Imagine' stuck in your heads, lets get started!
I've not been in the books section for a while, but I got an idea while at Return of the Ring and decided to make a topic.

Within Tolkien's world we find plenty of villains and heroes, and there are a few heroes that go bad. Or, at least, we have people of neutral standing who fall to 'the dark side'.
We have characters like Smeagol, beginning as a mischievous Hobbit-like creature who is corrupted by the Ring and goes on to live a terrible and wretched life. Then there's Boromir who travels with the Fellowship, defends and protects them, until the Ring takes him. Sauron, Melkor and Saruman are all Ainur who fall away from their initial standing. All are "good" folk becoming "bad". Which raises the question; do we have any "bad" characters who turn "good"?

I've been racking my brains on this and cannot think of a clear example. Middle Earth is full of characters who change; Bilbo from coward to brave adventurer, Frodo from adventurer to broken patient, Aragorn from ranger to king, Gandalf from grey wanderer to white leader, and so on and so forth. Rarely, if ever, do we see someone who has fallen to evil redeem themselves and join / rejoin the 'good' side.

Let's take a look at some apparent redemption stories, to begin with.

Melkor was of the Ainur. His desire to bring his own thoughts into the music, breaking it, perhaps, soon led him to a complete fall from his station as a Valar and he went to war with them. He was defeated by the other Valar, Utumno was destroyed, his forces scattered, and his power broken. He was taken to Valinor and imprisoned for three ages. There was peace and then he was released, as per the agreement. Melkor had apparently repented and promised to serve the Valar and the elves. Ultimately, he destroyed the Two Trees, stole the Silmarils, and went back to his old ways.

Now on to Sauron. He has a similar story, beginning as one of the Ainur who is turned. He helps Melkor and follows somewhat in his footsteps. Although, Sauron wishes for dominion where Melkor lusted for destruction. Sauron, too, was imprisoned, this time in Númenóre, and later let out, apparently rehabilitated. Then he goes on to corrupt Númenóre and to help bring about its downfall.

So I guess the prison system in Middle Earth doesn't work so well.

Sauron is an interesting case. Unlike Melkor, he does not wish to destroy, only to control. Where as Melkor seemed to despise the very existence of other things.

Originally Posted by HoME X - Morgoth's Ring - Part 5: Myths Transformed - Notes on motives in the Silmarillion

"...when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existance, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction."

Sauron, however...

Originally Posted by HoME X - Morgoth's Ring - Part 5: Myths Transformed - Notes on motives in the Silmarillion

"... for it was the creatures of earth, in their minds and wills, that he desired to dominate."

After the fall of Melkor, he apparently becomes good, even aiding in the rebuilding of Arda.

Originally Posted by Letter 313

"Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganizing and rehabilitation of Middle-earth, 'neglected by the gods,'; he [Sauron] becomes a reincarnation of Evil, and a thing lusting for Complete Power - and so consumed ever more fiercely with hate (especially of the Elves)."

Beginning with fair motives.

Originally Posted by HoME X - Morgoth's Ring - Part 5: Myths Transformed - Notes on motives in the Silmarillion

But like all minds of this cast, Sauron's love (originally) or (later) mere understanding of other individual intelligences was correspondingly weaker; and though the only real good in, or rational motive for, all this ordering and planning and organization was the good of all inhabitants of Arda (even admitting Sauron's right to be their supreme lord), his 'plans', the idea coming from his own isolated mind, became the sole object of his will, and an end, the End, in itself."

Is this a temporary redemption for Sauron? It is very short lived if it is. Ultimately, he seems to use this chance of redemption for more misdeeds and rebellion. If there was some deep love in his somewhere for the peoples' of Middle Earth, it seems his pride and desire for control bulldozed it.

Another case to consider is Smeagol.
He is very quickly pulled under the Ring's influence and becomes the slinking, sneaking creature we know as Gollum. At several points in The Two Towers, Frodo seems intent on helping Sméagol recover, perhaps even become agreeable. Frodo shows nothing but kindness to Gollum for the most part (after their initial encounter), and Gollum appears to respond to this with less sneaking and spitting. However, Sam maintains a cruel relationship with him. He does not trust Gollum and isn't afraid to voice his complaints. Sam seems disappointed in Frodo's pity and kindness towards him, even on the edge of Mount Doom, he is told to refrain from killing the pitiable creature. It could be that Frodo's kindness could have helped Gollum while Sam's suspicion and hostility hindered any possibility of healing.

Originally Posted by Letter 181

(footnote)The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum back over the brink, when about to repent.

So can we take it that redemption was possible for Gollum under the right circumstances? Tolkien seems to have mixed feelings...

Originally Posted by Letter 181

"But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly* betray him and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.
...
Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigae 'Goddess privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are peoples who yield to temptation, reject chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'.

*Not quite certainly.

Moving on to Boromir, a man who seems to have the best of intentions, or at least understandable intentions, attacks a defenceless Hobbit in an attempt to take the Ring for himself. He seems to immediately repent and tries to redeem himself in battle. Is this a redemption? If so, the cost is high for a seemingly short loss of temper. I will come back to this point.
He begins with good intentions, to take the Ring to Gondor and use it to defeat Sauron. Perhaps it is only his lack of understanding of the Ring and its power that causes him to believe this a wise course of action. Perhaps he does not fully grasp its power, believing that if a Hobbit like Frodo or Bilbo can carry it without falling to evil, then surely he, Boromir of Gondor, could! Perhaps when he attacks Frodo in an attempt to take the Ring he finally realises its power and understands what Frodo is dealing with?
So is Boromir falling to 'evil', or is this simply a lack of comprehension on his part? All he sees is the great weapon of the enemy, he sees the impossibility of the quest (One does not simply walk into Mordor, after all ), and he sees his own country besieged by Mordor and a weapon that the wise refuse to let him use. Perhaps the Ring is also pulling him in, tempting him from afar, but once he realises that's what has happened, he pulls back.

Now, Boromir's fall is what gives me a strange thought. If Boromir gains redemption and can be classes as 'returning' to the 'good' side, it seemed to take his death to accomplish this. He had to go down fighting, and not easily, either. If there was redemption for him, it was not easy. Perhaps that is the point.

It seems strange that Tolkien, a man from a religion that places high emphasis on redemption, should have so few examples of it, if any, in his legendarium. Perhaps narrative structure prevented it, perhaps not. Gollum comes close to turning, but fails; Sauron has a chance to turn, and fails; Melkor has a chance and refuses. For Tolkien, it seems, redemption and turning from evil to good, is a supremely difficult task. In the case of Gollum, it takes the outside influence of Frodo to give him the chance, but it is Sam who pushes him back to his old ways.
What is going on here? Is there a hint of 'kindness leads to kindness' and 'cruelty leads to cruelty'? Perhaps redemption is seen as something only Eru can grant, perhaps in some Christian sense, and that for one to find it by one's self would be near impossible within such a world. People come close, but never quite reach it. It seems far too easy for good to fall to evil, but for evil to rise to good requires hardship and much climbing.

Although, if someone now responds with an incredibly obvious example I shall be very embarrassed.