"Falling" - and Repentance and Redemption in LOTR

[Valandil]

This has been on my mind for a bit. I can think of four characters in LOTR who have a moral "fall" and yet have a chance of some sort of redemption, if they would repent:

1. Boromir - He falls by desiring the Ring to the point of attempting to lay hands on Frodo and take it. He repents of this to Aragorn and redeems himself by defending Pippin and Merry to his own death. Upon hearing of his fate, Gandalf seems more releaved that he repented before he died, than grieved that he DID die. His repentance appears to be quite important for his eternal fate... and yet, it strikes me as sad that he lived such a short span following his repentance.
2. Gollum - He of course fell long ago. Always inclined toward selfishness, he killed his friend and stole the Ring. He went on to become a thoroughly wretched character. Yet somehow, Gandalf held out hope that he would repent and have some sort of restoration or redemption through the choices he had yet to make. He even comes close - almost changing his mind about leading Frodo and Sam to Shelob. But ultimately, he fails to repent and 'dies in his sin' so to speak.
3. Saruman was a great being from The West. - He fell by lusting after power for himself. He betrayed the trust of those who sent him and he betrayed the friends he had made in Middle-earth. He consorted with Orcs. He desired to have The One Ring for himself and to become a Power. He used others to try and attain his personal ambitions. He personally betrayed Gandalf and attempted to destroy the Fellowship. And yet, Gandalf offered him repentance... first at Orthanc, then on the rode toward Rivendell. In his pride, Saruman refused to humble himself and admit that he had been wrong. Ultimately, his bodily form was detroyed, and his unrepentant spirit was rejected by the Lords of the West who had sent him.
4. Grima Wormtongue - He fell by betraying his own people, striving to attain for himself by subversive alliance a higher position than he could reach on his own merits - and to obtain for himself a particularly desireable young lady. Even when all was lost, he clung to Saruman, who had brought him to this. When their gambit failed, he became a haggard shadow even of what he had been before, and lowered himself to even baser vices. Even then, Frodo offered him another chance... to leave Saruman. But he could not - either he could not bring himself to leave him or his prior actions had made too great a barrier. He also died without peace - having just slain the only one who had given his miserable life any meaning.

One sad thing to me was that of these four who evidently had the option to repent, only one did so - and that one lost his life almost immediately after.

Curious to me - especially with Tolkien being a Christian, and repentance & redemption being the major theme of Christianity.

Each fell by desiring something for himSELF... something which was not otherwise their due, by birth, station, abililty or by all that was right.

Of course there are other creatures for whom repentance does not seem to be an option: Sauron, the Nazgul, the Balrog, Orcs - maybe even The Mouth of Sauron.

What do you folks think about this? Why did these four each have their chances to reverse themselves? Why did they, for the most part, reject that opportunity?

[Nerdanel]

A very interesting topic indeed, Val!

You are asking some hard questions, and I haven't got time to think about them right now. But I hope there'll be a really good discussion about this!

[gollum9630]

Originally posted by Valandil
One sad thing to me was that of these four who evidently had the option to repent, only one did so - and that one lost his life almost immediately after.

Also, everyone who fell ended up dying.

[Ñólendil]

Very interesting points and questions!

Of course there are other creatures for whom repentance does not seem to be an option: Sauron, the Nazgul, the Balrog, Orcs - maybe even The Mouth of Sauron.

I am not sure that repentance was not possible for these creatures--well, I might say that Sauron and the Balrog of Moria would not ever repent, but then I would be bringing up the questions of annhilation and punishment. What happens to Sauron and the Balrog after they leave Middle-earth in bodiily form? After the destruction of the Ring destroys Sauron's form, and the Balrog is killed by Gandalf? Actually I believe Tolkien touches on this point in Morgoth's Ring. He said Sauron was virtually "damned", in that he was reduced to an extremely weak shade of being, in which he could never return to a living form, and refused the alternative (whatever the alternative was; I believe it had to do with the judgment of Eru), thereby placing himself in a condition of endless craving without fulfillment. Endless, did I say? Not so. Tolkien said (and please feel free to double check, it's in the essay I believe called "Morgoth and Sauron" in Morgoth's Ring) that Sauron could not escape judgment forever.

So what happens after The Balrog and Sauron are judged? Indefinite suffering for them? Or are they completely annhiliated? Or do they get a chance to repent? Or do they ever learn from their mistakes, beyond the end of Arda and Eä? Nobody knows.

And that brings me to Orcs and Nazgul, and also the Mouth of Sauron whom you tentatively mention. The Orcs and Nazgul were once Men (or you could say the former were Elves, if that's what you believe), or atleast were humanoid people. Would you venture to say that such things are beyond redemption, because they were made so by Melkor and Sauron? Tolkien was not so sure, he asked himself in Morgoth's Ring, in his essay on Orcs, whether Orcs were redeemable. He left the question hanging. Personally, I would like to think so. I would like to think that in some realm of existence the din-horde was healed of what Sauron (or Melkor) had done to them.

And the Mouth of Sauron, the Black Númenorean? He was said to be more evil than any Orc, which is a very powerful thing to say. So if you are going to put Orcs on the unredeemable list, you must also put the Mouth of Sauron there.

One sad thing to me was that of these four who evidently had the option to repent, only one did so - and that one lost his life almost immediately after.

Curious to me - especially with Tolkien being a Christian, and repentance & redemption being the major theme of Christianity.

Interesting point.Curious in light of Boromir's death, after repentence? Let's examine that. If that is what you mean then I will say that I find the death of Boromir in light of Tolkien's faith rather enlightening. I think Tolkien is making a point: redemption may not save your life, but it will save your soul. Thus Boromir saying "I have failed" and Aragorn responding, "no! You have conquered. Few have gained such a victory!" His body has failed to survive the arrows of the Orcs, but his fëa or soul has succeeded to drive back the true Enemy.

You do not mention Otho Sackville-Baggins, (or was it Lotho), who in his quest for power ended up handing over the authority of the Shire (which did not belong to him) to Saruman. He also died, and may (if Saruman was speaking literally) have been eaten by GrÃ*ma. He became frightened near his end, and I think it was implied he saw the error of his ways. This, if a Fall, is a lesser one, but it bears mentioning. Also there is Denethor, a more widely accepted example of a fallen Man. He also was offered redemption. "There is much that you could do" Gandalf tells him. And for a moment he subsides, but then he stands tall and fell, says his last words and leaps upon the pyre to burn.

What do you folks think about this? Why did these four each have their chances to reverse themselves? Why did they, for the most part, reject that opportunity?

To-the-point questions that require (at least of me, as I overthink things) very complex answers. This is too hard for me to tackle. What is so alluring about evil? Is it easier? Is it more comfortable? I think their reasons varied. One of them, Saruman, I think became so obsessed with power (like Sauron) that when he lost most of what he had he decided any shred of his old self was better than service. Saruman suffered from delusion, I would say. He was so deluded, Tolkien said, that he thought everyone else among the Wise had their own plots, and were like him only trying to gain themselves more power. I think Saruman tells us that when power is our highest value, holiness and goodness just does not have a place in our lives. We may, like Saruman, be moved by mercy (to bitterness and gratefullness at once), and that may recall old memories of ourselves. And I think, like Saruman, we may repent, but the odds are against us, because of our highest value (power). Well, not the odds--we ourselves are against us, if we value power so highly.

A quote from the Upanishads comes to mind, I think it tells us something of ourselves, and about Saruman:

You are what your deepest desire is. As is your desire, so is your intention. As is your intention, so is your will. As is your will, so is your deed. As is your deed, so is your destiny.

Apply this to Saruman and you will see that he was setting himself up to be utterly humbled and killed; that was his destiny. For that is also what his deeds entailed: the humbling of others, and the killing of others, because of his will for power, his intention to be powerful, his deepest desire to have power, which made up what he had become.

That is all I can offer on the subject. Good topic!

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Valandil
Of course there are other creatures for whom repentance does not seem to be an option: Sauron, the Nazgul, the Balrog, Orcs - maybe even The Mouth of Sauron.

I disagree with this, I think every conscious living creature in Arda had the option to repent of their actions. If not, Eru would cease to have any credibility. But one may speak of the probability of them choosing to do so, and there Sauron et. al. are likely to get a low score.

Why did they, for the most part, reject that opportunity?

This is a tough question. One answer which may be likely is that the further you go down the wrong road, the harder it is to go back. When evil and malice has been part of your life for a long time, it becomes the normal situation, almost a sort of habit, and also as Ñólendil says what you would expect from others. Repention or redemption would require a re-learning of decent and good behaviour, which could be an almost impossible task if you lack supervision and support.

Another aspect is the condemnation and judgement received from people around. If the environment expects you to behave badly, then surely living up to their expectations is far easier than breaking out?

Originally posted by Ñólendil
That is all I can offer on the subject.

Not more than that? Good heavens.

[Valandil]

Nolendil - thanks for the nice post.

Yes, you're right about Denethor - I should have mentioned him as well.

You could also be right about the various forces of evil... I guess it's just harder to OFFER repentance on a battlefield. Characters such as Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo had opportunities to interact (other than in combat) with the figures named: Boromir, Gollum, Saruman, Wormtongue and Denethor. Perhaps the same opportunities just were not there for the various opponents on the field. No need to agonize too much over the fate of their souls though - as they are all fictitious.

I guess one thing that stands out to me... we don't have a character who repents - and then goes on living.

[Rían]

Good thread, Val!

Re the orcs/unredeemable beings - I think when Tolkien wrote the story, his goal was, as he said to C. S. Lewis, to write a story like "we like to read". IOW, a ripping good tale, with depth and heart, etc. And so he didn't fully plan out his entire world philosophy first, he just started writing; or as he often said, he just started chronicling what had happened.

You can see in the writings in Morgoth's Ring and other places that later on, he started thinking about reworking some concepts that troubled him, like the irredeemable-ness of orcs, but just never got around to it - it was just not feasible.

Altho it's fun to see how often we talk about these characters like they're real people, it IS just a story (altho I think the second best story in the world; the first being the Bible, which is as Lewis and Tolkien said the only entirely true myth); and every story needs bad guys! And you can't fully flesh out EVERY character, so I think he just chose to leave orcs rather simple.

There's an interesting bit in Letters where he talks about good and evil, and says how they are NOT opposites, as some worldviews believe; but rather evil is corrupted good, and absolute evil is therefore nonexistent, because even existence itself is good.

Also it's obvious that a really evil person has some very good qualities - the ability to think and reason well, for example - which enables him to be really evil. People NOT blessed with good minds can't be as evil (or good) as those who are. Or rather, they can't have as big of an evil effect on their surroundings; I think that's a more accurate way to put it.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
I guess one thing that stands out to me... we don't have a character who repents - and then goes on living.

Y'know, Val, I think Eowyn is somewhat an example of this. She was in despair, and when she was removed from her terrible circumstances, she chose to come out of it - she could have chosen to remained in her despair.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Y'know, Val, I think Eowyn is somewhat an example of this. She was in despair, and when she was removed from her terrible circumstances, she chose to come out of it - she could have chosen to remained in her despair.

You have a point there... although we don't see her disobedience as so grave - and perhaps part of her despair came from her contact with the Witch King, yet she DID disobey her uncle... her KING. It's not a good thing you know, to disobey your King!

Still - she didn't have such a 'fall' as those others... at least it seems so to the reader.

Maybe I'm making too much of all this. Like you said, Tolkien primarily wanted to tell a good story - which he did! Maybe it's too much for his millions of fans to insist on all the answers to all the questions we could ask about this world of Middle-earth he created.

But... I guess that's what we're all here for, isn't it?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Artanis
One answer which may be likely is that the further you go down the wrong road, the harder it is to go back.

Absolutely. That's why our free-will choices in even the little things are SO important - it sets the trend of our lives. As the Bible says, if you're faithful in the little things, you'll be faithful in the big things.

A good picture of this is the channel that a waterflow makes. It just gets deeper and deeper the more often the water flows that way, and eventually gets "set in stone". Like the Colorado River did to the Grand Canyon ...

I like how Lewis describes this in "The Great Divorce" - a phenominal little book that deals with, among other things, the idea that a person CHOOSES to stay in Hell, even tho they may choose heaven. And how there eventually comes a point where they are unable to choose any other way, because of their previous numerous free-will choices. The story is about how the inhabitants of Hell can take a bus-ride to the outer edge of heaven. Heavenly citizens meet them there and try their best to persuade them to stay, but as Lewis writes,

from The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis
"Milton was right," said my Teacher. "The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words 'Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.' There is always something they insist on keeping, even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy - that is, to reality. Ye see it easily enough in a spoiled child that would sooner miss its play and its supper than say it was sorry and be friends. Ye call it the Sulks. But in adult life it has a hundred fine names - Achilles' wrath and Coriolanus' grandeur, Revenge and Injured Merit and Self-Respect and Tragic Greatness and Proper Pride.

And then it goes on to describe how a person, by their free-will choices, is eventually loses their very self. Lewis and his Teacher (George MacDonald, whom Lewis greatly admired) have just finished hearing a really whiney old woman going on and on and ignoring the truths she's hearing from the Spirit that came to help her:

from The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis
The shrill monotonus whine died away as the speaker, still accompanied by the bright patience at her side, moved out of hearing.

"What troubles ye, son?" asked my Teacher.

"I am troubled, Sir," said I, "because that unhappy creature doesn't seem to me to be the sort of soul that ought to even be in danger of damnation. She isn't wicked: she's only a silly, garrulous old woman who has got into a habit of grumbling, and one feels that a little kindness, and rest, and change would put her all right."

"That is what she once was. That is maybe what she still is. If so, she certainly will be cured. But the whole question is whether she is now a grumbler."

"I should have thought there was no doubt about that!"

"Aye, but ye misunderstand me. The question is whether she is a grumbler, or only a grumble. If there is a real woman - even the least trace of one - still there inside the grumbling, it can be brought to life again. If there's one wee spark under all those ashes, we'll blow it till the whole pile is red and clear. But if there's nothing but ashes we'll not go on blowing them in our own eyes forever. They must be swept up."

"But how can there be a grumble without a grumbler?"

"The whole difficulty of understanding Hell is that the thing to be understood is so nearly Nothing. But ye'll have had experiences ... it begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps criticizing it. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine. But come! Ye are here to watch and listen. Lean on my arm and we will go for a little walk."

Sorry for such a long quote, but I think it's a fascinating comment on the subject (and a correct one).

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

v. good topic, Val
i don't have time to discuss now,
as i am still catching up on 2 months of posting

[Beruthiel's cat]

This is a fascinating thread and I'm trying to formulate some comments, but I'm having a hard time with it. This is a great discussion so far and I think the comments have been some of the best and most well-considered of any thread I've seen here. I'm looking forward to seeing more and will hopefully be able to collect my own thoughts so I can offer my ideas as well.

Great going Val and all the contributors so far.

(I've got my thinking cap on, Val!!! )

[The Gaffer]

Way to inject life into the JRRT forums, Val! I would love to join in, and fully intend to, once I have enough time to give it the consideration it deserves.

[Valandil]

I'm glad some of you like this! Look forward to seeing your posts on it.

If it makes it easier to respond, maybe hit one or two points at a time...

[Beor]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Altho it's fun to see how often we talk about these characters like they're real people, it IS just a story (altho I think the second best story in the world; the first being the Bible, which is as Lewis and Tolkien said the only entirely true myth); and every story needs bad guys! And you can't fully flesh out EVERY character, so I think he just chose to leave orcs rather simple.

Okay, hold on, I thought you wrote, "it is just a story." Obviously I read it wrong. Sorry.

Also, Eomer fell, and he got back up and lived. He spoke ill of Galadriel, and when Gimli called him out, he said he was sorry, in so many words. Give the guy some credit!

*searching* I know there was a point here somewhere *continues searching*

Okay....hold on................................................ ..

Oh yeah, I think a lot of the reason behind those who did not repent, ie Grima and Saruman, was due to pride. I think that in the Two Towers it someone actually mentions it, but I could be wrong (I am re-reading it again, but I am only on the Road to Isengard, not yet to the Voice).

I would respond more, but I have little time. I must go now.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Beor
Oh yeah, I think a lot of the reason behind those who did not repent, ie Grima and Saruman, was due to pride.

I am hard-pressed to see how Gollum was full of pride, though I take your point. Anyway, we all know that if he'd had time, he would have been redeemed. (He would have! )

[Ñólendil]

RÃ*an, what is so simple about Orcs? Their origins are complicated, and their personalities, though generally wicked, vary. Orcs fight among themselves, develop their own monarchies when left alone, serve different rulers who vie for power, possess some twisted form of Goblin-morality (seeking revenge, for instance, for a fallen captain [Great Goblin, Balrog]), descriminate against eachother based on tribe and breed, develop various languages, believe their enemies to be more evil than they themselves are, build weapons like liquid fire bombs and poisoned blackened blades, etc.. Orcs to me possess their own sort of sophistication, their own societies and social orders that have only been surface-scratched by Tolkien.

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. 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.

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. 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.

[Beor]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I am hard-pressed to see how Gollum was full of pride, though I take your point. Anyway, we all know that if he'd had time, he would have been redeemed. (He would have! )

That is precicely (I understand that I cannot spell) why I didnt mention Smeagol . I think he would have repented, though, espically after the ring was destroyed, but as long as there was a ring, I think he was screwed. May even have been screwed after it was destroyed, assuming he lived, rather than falling into the fires of Mount Doom. I love Gollum! Hes my boy, man. Me and Gollum used to his the bars in downtown New Orleans, kicking back and sipping on brandy enjoying some good old Creole Jazz. Cmon, man, I miss him too.

[Elanor the Fair]

This discussion raises the issue that of the four people who "fell", only one availed themselves of redemption (Boromir). Grima, Saruman and Smeagol all rejected redemption.

I think this lies in the basic reason behind these people desiring the ring or power. In Boromir's case, he desired the ring (power) to aid his people. The power was not to fulfil his ego but to help others - as misguided as this may seem. In a way this could be seen as a selfless act and therefore his character is more likely to be able to repent.

In the case of Grima, Smeagol and Saruman - they desired the ring (or power) for themselves and they acted in a self-centred way. It is harder to repent when greed was the original driving force. You would need to change your basic character.

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?

[brownjenkins]

very good topic Val!

i'd have to agree with elanor on frodo... one has to give him credit for all he went through to get the ring where he did... yet, in the end, he did fail

which also sheads an interesting light on the other four... there is a certain unresistable power behind the ring/sauron... even the powerful who resisted the temptation (gandalf, aragorn, galadriel, etc.), did so more by avoiding it than overcoming it's influence... and there is at least the implication that given the right circumstances, even the most virtuous would be corrupted (except old tom bombadil, but i think he was somewhat beyond the moral dilemmas of good and evil)

while gollum and grima fell pretty quick into evil... saruman was asked to study the enemy, and was even exposed to him via the palantir... can we completely put it on his shoulders that he did not resist prolonged, direct confrontation that arguably would have eventually corrupted even the strongest wills in middle earth?

and boromir... can we completely brush aside the influence of his father and the task that was laid upon him... he was put in a position where his loyalties to his people and to the fellowship were put in direct conflict... add the ring's influence into the mix and we may be holding him to a standard that is nearly impossible to achieve