"Falling" - and Repentance and Redemption in LOTR

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally posted by Elanor the Fair

We have all forgotten to mention another character who "fell". Does not Frodo "fall" in the end. What would have been the outcome for Frodo's character if Gollum had not become involved in his fate?

This is the very question I first thought of when I started reading this thread. I think that this is an open-ended question. Would Frodo have fallen victim to the corruption of the Ring if not for the "interference" of Gollum?

And what of the others who were tempted by the Ring, yet did not fall prey to it (Gandalf, Galadriel, Aragorn)? They, too, were tempted by the Ring, but had the desire to use it to help others (as Gandalf clearly stated), much as Boromir's desire. But ultimately, they were not corrupted in the same way that Boromir was. They had no desire to take it by force from Frodo. Indeed, Frodo offered the Ring to them freely and they refused to take it.

As for the Ring ultimately corrupting Frodo, it is difficult to say, which is probably exactly what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote the scene where Frodo and Gollum fight at the end. Was one of the reasons behind Frodo's unhappiness upon his return home based in part on his feeling of guilt about what he would have done had it not been for Gollum's actions? Did he feel that he would have ultimately failed in his quest?

And what about Sam? His stint as Ring-bearer was very short and he was somewhat reluctant to return the Ring to Frodo. But he did without much of a fuss. Does this make him a "redeemed" character who survived and lived a long, happy and productive life?

I'm afraid I'm asking more questions than I'm answering and I hope the questions are not too far off topic.

[Valandil]

Thanks brownjenkins. And I'm not so much interested in 'indicting' those who fall... more in analyzing the choices made following one's fall.

[The Gaffer]

Loads of cool stuff to discuss in this thread. Starting with hors d'oeuvre...

Originally posted by Beruthiel's cat
And what about Sam? His stint as Ring-bearer was very short and he was somewhat reluctant to return the Ring to Frodo. But he did without much of a fuss. Does this make him a "redeemed" character who survived and lived a long, happy and productive life?

Well, lately I've come to the view that LOTR is primarily Sam's story, and that the triumph of his "hobbit-sense" is the redemption on which the whole story hinges. (Even tho he went and lost a perfectly good weskit trepassing up and down cracks o doom in foreign parts.)

"Hobbit-sense" is consistently portrayed as the antithesis of the power and greed that is the cause of people "falling". As folk have said, not one single character is unaffected by desire for the Ring (apart from Tom), but only Sam gives it up willingly.

There is a reactionary undertone here: one possible reading is that people get punished for being too uppity, and the world would be just fine if only everyone would know their place and stick to it. I've had several arguments with fellow lefties about that (and hopefully changed their minds). Me, I prefer the anarcho-syndicalist reading myself...

Any views on that? Why Sam? How did he do it?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
Thanks brownjenkins. And I'm not so much interested in 'indicting' those who fall... more in analyzing the choices made following one's fall.

fair enough, it just seems to me that the situations don't quite fit into the classic 'temptation/redemption' theme... i.e. the devil offers fame and fortune, an individual is tempted and either refuses/repents or fails in the end

in this case there is a supernatural 'force' (the ring, sauron, or even saruman's 'voice' against wormtongue) that has a power to corrupt even what one would call 'good' individuals... it is an evil forced upon an individual, as opposed to just a 'temptation'... and while one can judge character by how quickly one falls, it is a given that any would fall eventually to such a force... so can one hold another truely responsible for his choices in such a case?

is it fair to expect someone to repent under such a powerful influence?

on the resilience gaffer mentioned... it's always been my pov that tom bombadil was uneffected by the ring because he was completely satisfied with himself and the world around him... he was quite beyond the moral concerns of good or evil

in the words of tolkien on TB:

The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless.(Letters, p. 178)

hobbit's were also very close to this ideal... though they still have a touch of that 'desire for control'

in terms of sam specifically, bilbo also gave up the ring... a bit harder for him, but he held it much longer... and even frodo may have been able to give it up if the situation presented itself... he only failed to destroy the ring... something i've always believed no one would have been able to do willingly

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Elanor the Fair
We have all forgotten to mention another character who "fell". Does not Frodo "fall" in the end. What would have been the outcome for Frodo's character if Gollum had not become involved in his fate?

I would not say that Frodo had a fall. He failed on the quest, but I don't think that is the same thing. People like Saruman and Denethor truly fell because they were deliberately challenging the Darkness in order to increase their own power. They went into it with open eyes and knew exactly what they were doing. Frodo otoh exposed himself to the power of the Ring in the service of good, because he had to, and he resisted it to the very end. I'm not even sure that I would call Boromir's failure a 'fall'. Boromir did not want the Ring for himself, but to give to his father, and he was not learned enough to know his danger.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Artanis
I would not say that Frodo had a fall. He failed on the quest, but I don't think that is the same thing. People like Saruman and Denethor truly fell because they were deliberately challenging the Darkness in order to increase their own power. They went into it with open eyes and knew exactly what they were doing. Frodo otoh exposed himself to the power of the Ring in the service of good, because he had to, and he resisted it to the very end. I'm not even sure that I would call Boromir's failure a 'fall'. Boromir did not want the Ring for himself, but to give to his father, and he was not learned enough to know his danger.

I really like how you put that, Arty - exposing yourself, vs. deliberate challenging to increase your own power.

Tolkien has a great letter or two about Frodo's "failure" - anyone gonna beat me to it? I can post it a little later or perhaps tomorrow.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
RÃ*an, what is so simple about Orcs? .... Orcs to me possess their own sort of sophistication, their own societies and social orders that have only been surface-scratched by Tolkien.

Yes, those areas that you mention are well-developed; what I mean is that in LOTR specifically, as published, they are simple morally. You see Gandalf reasoning with Denethor to the end - enouraging him to right, reasoning with him, emploring him (as befits the holder of Narya - stirring up the fire to do right that is within a person's soul) yet you don't see anyone anywhere "reasoning" with Orcs in this manner. You see Gandalf telling Thranduil's people to hope for Gollum's redemption, and telling people to hope for Saruman's redemption - yet you don't see Gandalf telling people to reason with Orcs and hope for their redemption.

And what is so simple about the question of Orc-redemption? Tolkien himself couldn't figure it out. Or the origins of Orcs--are they demonic, or are some demonic, are they twisted Elves, or twisted Men, are they beasts, or puppets, or independent entities, and why did Eru create their souls, knowing they would inhabit the minds and bodies of the Dark Lord's abominations? Tolkien puzzled over these matters in essay after essay, and some of these questions, for sure the last one, were not resolved.

Yes, I agree - but IMO, in the LOTR story, specifically, they are morally "simple" and not capable of being redeemed. Yet Tolkien saw the problem with this, and wrestled with it in various essays outside of the LOTR story, as you said. I've read many of them - some great musings ...

Orcs to me are a complex idea that gives rise to problems of philosophy. Were Orcs common in our society today, we would discuss them in Ethics classes, and ask ourselves these questions; are those people really people? Or are they subhuman? Are they redeemable? Do they have souls? Why would God permit them to be? And so on. There would be some for whom Orcs are a simple matter: monsters that need to be exterminated, but those are the people who do not ask the important questions. Those are the people who do not inquire.

And yet these questions you pose hinge on the statement: "Were Orcs common in our society today" - IOW, your statement cannot be made until the question "is it possible for a creature like that to even exist in 'our society today', given what I believe to be a true worldview?" is answered. I think that question needs to be discussed first, before the other questions can be discussed. Fascinating question ... and Tolkien had some great thoughts on it.

Personally, I believe that given an atheistic worldview, we're all Orcs. IOW, in the atheistic worldview, there is no logical explanation for the soul and for how we make moral judgements; only the Christian worldview accurately reflects what we observe around us. (EDIT - that's my personal opinion, and I realize others have other opinions that they have arrived at after much thought and observation.) But that's another thread - I'm trying to talk about that subject over on the Comparative Religion thread, but keep getting sidetracked by summer activities in RL...

Of course Orcs would also be extremely terrifying in our reality as well, and faced with one I would be hard pressed to feel sympathy or compassion for it.

Again, I think this hinges on what are your underlying beliefs about Orcs - Tolkien had several opinions, and for me, I would react differently, depending upon which opinion I thought was right.

Now some of you may say I am taking this far too seriously, but I would only answer that I am merely inquiring into the nature of creatures I believe in on a secondary level. You might say "suspension of disbelief", Tolkien called it Secondary Belief. Orcs have value to me for their own sake, and for the sake of the reality to which they belong. For me, it is no simple matter.

I like to wrestle with these thoughts, meself - I didn't get over 6000 posts just on the "Quote Game" thread

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
... but those are the people who do not ask the important questions. Those are the people who do not inquire.

This reminds me of a song by Chris Rice that I really like - here's some excerpts:

excerpts from "Big Enough", by Chris Rice
...

God, if You're there, I wish You'd show me,
And God, if You care, then I need you to know me.
I hope You don't mind me asking the questions,
But I figure You're big enough;
I figure You're big enough.
...

When I imagine the size of the universe
And I wonder what's out past the edges,
Then I discover inside me a space as big,
And believe that I'm meant to be filled up
With more than just questions.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
... in this case there is a supernatural 'force' (the ring, sauron, or even saruman's 'voice' against wormtongue) that has a power to corrupt even what one would call 'good' individuals... is it fair to expect someone to repent under such a powerful influence?

Yes, but (taking the example of Saruman's power) I believe that people like Wormtongue, for example, were more susceptible to Saruman because of their earlier, numerous choices for evil, and lack of repentence. So in that sense, they're definitely responsible. And also, I imagine, early on with Saruman, they resisted inner callings to stop doing wrong, and they're also responsible for that. IOW, they may not have been able to achieve repentance far down the road, but they certainly were earlier on the road. And those early choices closed the door to repentence - and they themselves closed the door.

[Ñólendil]

Yes, I agree - but IMO, in the LOTR story, specifically, they are morally "simple" and not capable of being redeemed. Yet Tolkien saw the problem with this, and wrestled with it in various essays outside of the LOTR story, as you said.

But does not his various essays outside the LOTR story have a serious effect on the LOTR story itself? Or rather, since Tolkien held the LOTR has irrefutable cannon, did not the LOTR story itself have a serious effect on the essays outside that story? When Tolkien was not sure about the Orcs being redeemable, he was talking about the Orcs of the LOTR, as well as of other stories. Therefore it is extremely difficult for me to be sure about the LOTR Orcs' redemption, when Tolkien himself was not sure. That is why I would suggest that it may be possible.

And yet these questions you pose hinge on the statement: "Were Orcs common in our society today" - IOW, your statement cannot be made until the question "is it possible for a creature like that to even exist in 'our society today', given what I believe to be a true worldview?" is answered. I think that question needs to be discussed first, before the other questions can be discussed.

I don't think I need ask "it is possible for an Orc to exist in our society according to my worldview?". If this question is a requirement for my musing, then my musing has a rather different point to it. What I was trying to get across is the fact that because I believe in Orcs on a Secondary Level, I would ask the questions other people would ask if they too believed in Orcs, or accepted them as a fact of the world. I was also getting across my opinion that Orcs are complex, and give rise to complex problems. Whether or not my worldview allows their existence is unimportant. I was not representing the question of Orc-redemption in our world, but using an analogy of our world to get across the importance of Orc-redemption and the complexities of it. If you like to me make my point different I will say this: Orcs are a fact of Tolkien's Middle-earth, and so is Eru the One, who truly is Good; a problem appears to arise from this, and it is not easy to fix, or put an answer to. Or to say it in a more straightforward way: The redemption of Orcs is a mystery.

Personally, I believe that given an atheistic worldview, we're all Orcs.

Some atheistic worldviews, no doubt, but it depends on your definition of Orcs. If you mean to say that an atheist would say "We are all Orcs" because he believes "we have no purpose", then yes, some atheists would agree. But other atheists would not. Plenty of atheists have values, after all, and morals. They may not be nice to eachother because they are serving God, but will be nice to eachother because it is perfectly reasonable, and because it is the right thing to do. I recall being an atheist at the age of 9. I did not then believe we are bad people, or like Orcs in any way, and I think were I still an atheist, I still would not believe such a thing.

IOW, in the atheistic worldview, there is no logical explanation for the soul and for how we make moral judgements;

Are you still referring to a view of mankind as Orcs?

Again, I think this hinges on what are your underlying beliefs about Orcs - Tolkien had several opinions, and for me, I would react differently, depending upon which opinion I thought was right.

You mean to tell me that the sight of the Orc itself would not override whatever beliefs you have of Orcs? Seeing the hideous thing, knowing what wickedness it has no doubt done, you would still calmly shake its hand, knowing it was (if you thought this opinion correct) redeemable? I guess I just don't give myself so much credit, which is what I was getting at; my fear of seeing an Orc does not reflect my underlying belief about them, actually it goes against my belief that the nature of an Orkish soul is mysterious, and against my hope that they are redeemable.

You clarified your point and said that Orcs are morally simple. A question: Are Valar morally simple, as well? Or Eru?

Thank you for the Chris Rice excerpts! Very good stuff.

I do not want to start an argument RÃ*an, and you know you are a friend, but--your comment about Christianity--don't you think there are a lot of non-Christians on Entmoot who would find that offensive: the idea that their own religion does not accurately reflect what we observe around us, that only Christianity does? I hope I do not offend you in saying so; I just don't think it's very courteous. I myself am a Vedantist, and I should like to think that the Vedantist worldview is a fairly good reflection of the known and unknown world. But no worries, I think you and I have discussed this before and agreed to disagree I'll let you say what you ought to say, and then I'll be quiet about it.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
But does not his various essays outside the LOTR story have a serious effect on the LOTR story itself? Or rather, since Tolkien held the LOTR has irrefutable cannon, did not the LOTR story itself have a serious effect on the essays outside that story? When Tolkien was not sure about the Orcs being redeemable, he was talking about the Orcs of the LOTR, as well as of other stories. Therefore it is extremely difficult for me to be sure about the LOTR Orcs' redemption, when Tolkien himself was not sure. That is why I would suggest that it may be possible.

Yes, I see what you're saying, and yes, he was talking about LOTR orcs when he was musing about their redeemability (is that a word?)

My point was a little different, tho - I'm talking about the average Tolkien fan who has NOT had the pleasure of reading Morgoth's Ring, POME, etc. and musing about the Second Voice and things like that - the reader who has ONLY read LOTR (and not having even read the Sil, thinks of elves as nice, rather ethereal beings, not the mighty warriors that they are - do you like Fingolfin's challenge to Morgoth in the Lays of Beleriand as much as I do?) To the LOTR-only reader, I don't see any evidence of orcs being considered redeemable. As I mentioned, Gandalf is trying to help (and encouraging others to help) redeem Denethor, Saruman, etc. to the bitter end - but is never seen encouraging others to have a chat with an orc about perhaps changing their ways ...

I don't think I need ask "it is possible for an Orc to exist in our society according to my worldview?". If this question is a requirement for my musing, then my musing has a rather different point to it. What I was trying to get across is the fact that because I believe in Orcs on a Secondary Level, I would ask the questions other people would ask if they too believed in Orcs, or accepted them as a fact of the world. I was also getting across my opinion that Orcs are complex, and give rise to complex problems.

Yes, I see what you're saying, but ...

Whether or not my worldview allows their existence is unimportant.

I disagree with this, since you were talking about Orcs in OUR society, which does NOT mean secondary reality. Perhaps we think differently on this - to me, if I am going to consider the question of Orcs in our society (as in real life), then I must first consider the question - is it even possible for Orcs, (the "unredeemable" kind) to exist in primary reality? Because if the answer is "no", then to me, I can't truly consider the question, because primary reality would have to be different, in ways that I might not realize, in order for me to consider it, so I couldn't accurately consider the question because I don't know all the laws of that other primary reality.

Does that make sense? (not that you have to agree; it's just the way I look at it)

... The redemption of Orcs is a mystery.

Now I agree with that!

Plenty of atheists have values, after all, and morals. ... I did not then believe we are bad people, or like Orcs in any way, and I think were I still an atheist, I still would not believe such a thing.

I didn't get across my meaning well. Let me clarify that I believe ALL people, INCLUDING atheists, have morals, and are NOT "bad people". You've been away a bit, and haven't been aware (that I know of) of an ongoing discussion about the existence of morals and what can be deduced from this - I'm trying to finally formally start that discussion up in the "comparative religion" thread, and would enjoy if you joined in!

Are you still referring to a view of mankind as Orcs?

Yes; see the above answer.

You mean to tell me that the sight of the Orc itself would not override whatever beliefs you have of Orcs?

I guess this relates to what I explained above. I was talking about unredeemable Orcs, and because I don't believe that soul-bearing beings can be unredeemable, then therefore they can't exist in reality. So for them to exist in reality, reality must be different, so I can't really judge how I would react because my reality would be different.

But I imagine I'm overanalyzing - I'm sure if I saw an Orc in real life, I'd be hightailing it out of wherever it was!

Actually, I think ANY soul-bearing being is incredible! And the greater the being, the more tragic the fall. If Orcs were truly soul-bearing (or "hnau", as Lewis calls it in his space trilogy - I like how he populates Mars with THREE soul-bearing beings and has fun with how they relate) then along with fear, I would have tremendous sorrow when I saw an Orc.

This is getting long - more in the next post.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
fair enough, it just seems to me that the situations don't quite fit into the classic 'temptation/redemption' theme... i.e. the devil offers fame and fortune, an individual is tempted and either refuses/repents or fails in the end

in this case there is a supernatural 'force' (the ring, sauron, or even saruman's 'voice' against wormtongue) that has a power to corrupt even what one would call 'good' individuals... it is an evil forced upon an individual, as opposed to just a 'temptation'... and while one can judge character by how quickly one falls, it is a given that any would fall eventually to such a force... so can one hold another truely responsible for his choices in such a case?

is it fair to expect someone to repent under such a powerful influence?

Only one day since you've posted this, but already a lot of water under the bridge, so to speak!

Actually, my response is that in the Christian POV, sin IS irresistable... maybe not one particular sin at any given time, but the view that ALL people WILL all fall to sin at some point is basic Christian doctrine (spelled out in Romans 3)... which is why we need a redeemer!

Now - JRRT didn't want to tinker with the Divine Redemption storyline, out of respect - so I'm not suggesting that he's trying to show some other form of it. But - I think we can view these various characters in his story in light of our potential and/or likely responses to their situations if we were in them. Would WE succumb, as they did? Could we, having once succumbed, repent and reverse the course of our actions?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
You clarified your point and said that Orcs are morally simple. A question: Are Valar morally simple, as well? Or Eru?

Well, a Vala fell, and I love the little story about Aule making the Dwarves (which to me illustrated a kind of redemption very well, btw - that one can START down a path that you know is wrong, then change back), so I don't think the Ainur are morally simple.

I don't think Eru is morally simple, either, altho He is morally perfect. I think Eru is capable of choosing wrong in a physical sense, but not in a moral sense, the same way that I'm physically capable of killing my kids but not morally capable (altho when they squabble .... ) (and by "physical" I mean not only that my body can do it, but that my brain can consider it). I have lied before (I'm physically and morally capable of that, and have done it ) but IMO, Eru is morally "incapable" of ANY wrongdoing.

Thank you for the Chris Rice excerpts! Very good stuff.

You're welcome; glad you liked it I like the idea that a soul is bigger than the universe, and that if it's natural for people to question, then there must be answers ...

I do not want to start an argument RÃ*an, and you know you are a friend, but--your comment about Christianity--don't you think there are a lot of non-Christians on Entmoot who would find that offensive: the idea that their own religion does not accurately reflect what we observe around us, that only Christianity does? I hope I do not offend you in saying so; I just don't think it's very courteous.

No, you didn't offend me at all; in fact, I appreciate your comment and the courteous way you worded it, because it shows that you care about the feelings of others. Let me see if I can clarify ...

What I meant to get across was that personally, for ME, I have found that Christianity is the best "fit" to what I observe around me, and that's why I, personally, think it is true. (I meant the "personally" in the first sentence to carry over to the second sentence in that post.) As I've said before (but I don't think you've seen), I think that atheists have thought things thru and believe that atheism is the best "fit" for what they see and therefore they think it is true, and Buddhists have thought things thru and believe that Buddhism is the best "fit" for what they see and therefore think it is true, etc. etc. Each person needs to think and evaluate for themselves, IMO. However, I also believe that only ONE worldview CAN be true; IOW, if there are contradictory statements in 2 worldviews, then they BOTH can't be right. Do you agree?

You've been gone awhile (I've missed you!) and the people on this thread are people that I've posted with extensively and I think understand that I didn't mean that in an offensive way, because I've talked about things like that quite a bit before. (and it was particularly aimed at brownjenkins; he and I have ribbed each other back and forth on that one! He's a really nice guy and very thoughtful.) However, I should be more careful how I word things, even with people that I know well, because there's always newbies joining Entmoot that haven't read my other posts, so thank you for your comment!

I myself am a Vedantist, and I should like to think that the Vedantist worldview is a fairly good reflection of the known and unknown world.

I know you think about things a lot, and respect your opinion, and believe that you, personally, think it is the best "fit" for what you've seen. I also happen to think you're wrong (in the same way an atheist would think I'm wrong), but that makes no difference to our friendship, IMO - it only gives us lots of things to talk about! I think discussing things with people that hold different views is great! and many of my favorite people on Entmoot hold views that are radically different than mine.

[Rían]

No one's quoted from Letters yet? I have to go to the library, so I will just post some relevant letter numbers : 191 and 246 are prob. the best ones. Some great thoughts there ...

[Ñólendil]

Thanks for the comments RÃ*an. I don't have time now to respond, just wanted to let you know that I read them, and that understand what you meant much better now. I'm off for a fried rice tofu bowl. Take care!

[Rían]

Enjoy! Sounds good! Not at a place called Hoopsies, at any chance? (great boba drinks there!)

I must admit that while out on errands, I got the kids a chicken sandwich at Carl's Jr ... I'm trying to eat healthier, but those drive-thrus are SO handy when one is out and about with hungry kids ...


From Letters:

from the Letters of JRRT, #246
Very few (indeed so far as letters go only you and one other) have observed or commented on Frodo's 'failure'. It is a very important point.

From the point of view of the storyteller the events on Mt Doom proceed simply from the logic of the tale up to that time. They were not deliverately worked up to nor foreseen until they occurred. But, for one thing, it became at last quite clear that Frodo after all that had happened would be incapable of voluntarily destroying the Ring. Reflecting on the solution after it was arrived at (as a mere event) I feel that it is central to the whole 'theory' of true nobility and heroism that is presented.

Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say 'simple minds' with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. ...

I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. ... We are finite creatures with absolute limitations upon the powers of our soul-body structure in either action or endurance. Moral failure can only be asserted, I think, when a man's effort or endurance falls short of his limits ... Frodo undertook his quest out of love [as Artanis said!] - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could; and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been - say, by being strangled by Gollum, or crushed by a falling rock. That appears to be the judgement of Gandalf and Aragorn and of all who learned the full story of his journey. ...

Great letter - does everyone who has posted here so far have Letters?

[Rían]

And from 191 :

letter 191
If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum powier, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back. He was honoured because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved - by Mercy: by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.

.... But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistable by incarnate creatures, however 'good' [as Valandil said!] : and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
... I myself am a Vedantist, and I should like to think that the Vedantist worldview is a fairly good reflection of the known and unknown world...

Hey Nolendil, what's a "Vedantist"?

Uh - probably best if you answer in one of the religion threads of GM.

[Ñólendil]

I think it would be alright if I gave you a quick answer. A Vedantist is one who follows Vedanta, which is one of the six philosophical schools of Hinduism. It asserts, ofcourse among many other things, that Mankind's real nature is divine, and that it is our task to Realize this Divinity (enter the Kingdom of Heaven, become enlightened, whatever you want to call it). Vedanta also asserts the equality of all religions, believing that all the world's religions are attempting to attain the same universal truth, or ultimate reality, i.e., God, or nirvana. (Vedantists call this supreme reality: "Brahman", and the liberation of attaining it: "moksha".)

My quick answer turned into a paragraph. Oh well Thanks for asking.

Er, I think it best if I mention Frodo a few times, so as to throw off Sister Golden Hair. Frodo frodo frodo.

Uh, redemption of Tolkienien characters. Yeah--and Saruman. There.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
...Well, lately I've come to the view that LOTR is primarily Sam's story, and that the triumph of his "hobbit-sense" is the redemption on which the whole story hinges. (Even tho he went and lost a perfectly good weskit trepassing up and down cracks o doom in foreign parts.)...

Yet another interesting observation. Not many have advanced the 'Sam-o-centric' view of LOTR...