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.

[Inziladun]

A very intriguing topic, Hookbill.

Personally, I would not consider Morgoth, Sauron, or Gollum as having "repented". I believe that only comes from a simultaneous recognition that one has done evil, with a sincere desire to pit evil away and do good for its own sake. That cannot be said for Morgoth and Sauron, whose seeming turnabout was the result of having superior force placed upon them by the Valar. Gollum too was affected mainly by fear, of Frodo, but more directly, the Ring that Frodo held.
It could be (and has been, exhaustively) argued whether Gollum's repentance would have held out if Sam had not awakened and accused him of "sneaking". My feeling is no; the Ring was stronger than any love for Frodo. That leads to the next question: was that Gollum's fault, or was he a victim? Both are true. The Ring's power was too great for him to overcome, but it need not have been so damaging for Gollum, had he not possessed an intrinsic propensity for mischief from the start.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

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.

I would think Boromir's repentance genuine, however. As soon as he had chased off Frodo, he felt remorse, and decided to do what he could to redress his evil deed. That his death was necessary to repentance was apparently felt by Boromir himself, who told Aragorn

"I am sorry. I have paid."

Maybe Boromir was convinced at that moment that he had brought ruin to the world by frightening Frodo to a rash act that could have unknown consequences.

Much earlier, Isildur, upon being cornered by the orcs on the Gladden Fields, said to his son:

"Forgive me and my pride that has brought you to this doom."

UT Disaster of the Gladden Fields

Isildur "paid" with death also for his prideful error in taking the Ring.

To another example: would you consider Maglor's case as a "repentance"?
No, he and the sons of Fëanor were not "bad" in the manner of Morgoth or Sauron, but they did evil in obedience to a freely taken oath that they knew (or should have known) would lead to much chaos and bloodshed.

Yet, Maglor repented in his heart at least, and was willing to break the oath to avoid further slaughter, having sorrow for what had been done by himself and his brothers. It was apparently only the desire to go along with Maedhros, his last remaining brother, that caused him to fail

Notably, though Meadhros was moved to commit suicide, it was said that Maglor did not die, but wandered around aimlessly thereafter. Perhaps he saw that as penance he must perform?

[Boromir88]

I must say, a wonderful treat to read this, Hookbill.

I promise to have a bit more thought out and constructive points later, but a few random things that came to mind while reading this...

Don't forget Grima and Saruman. Given several chances to repent of their evil ways and each time reject redemption.

I think it mostly revolves around pride, or what Tolkien would label as excessive pride - ofermod. Each of these evil characters can't let go of their pride. Because it takes a remarkable amount of courage and humility in a person, to let go of their pride and accept forgiveness when given. If I recall correctly, Grima does beg forgiveness from Theoden, but when Theoden says "Fine, come back to my side as a worthy counselor and join me in battle against Saruman" Grima runs back to Saruman.

Boromir is a rather different story, because not only does he repay his fall with an act of kindness to defend Merry and Pippin. And not only does it cost him the greatest price one can pay (as you've mentioned), but for the first time, the blustering arrogance Boromir often displayed...he lets go:

"I tried to take the Ring from Frodo," he said. "I am sorry. I have paid"~The Departure of Boromir

Aragorn doesn't demand Boromir reveal his "crimes" and repent. Boromir does this on his own. Admits the crime, admits personal guilt in the crime, and paid for it. I believe redemption is a personal choice, I mean, Frodo nor anyone has to find Boromir "forgiven." However, can't really do much more than what Boromir did. It is an interesting case though, because as you said, even if he is redeemed, he's now dead.

And one final point that I want to throw out here...what about Isildur. He claims the Ring as weregild for the death of Elendil and Anarion. It is, legally, a justified claim, Isildur is taking "payment" for the death of his father and brother at the hands of Sauron. But, it really isn't much different than Gollum claiming the Ring as his because it's his "birthday present," is it? So, what about Isildur's fall, and is he redeemed? Unfinished Tales, The Disaster of Gladden Fields is quite interesting, with regards to the motivations of Isildur leaving Gondor:

When he at last felt free to return to his own realm he was in haste, and e he wished to go first to Imladris, for he had left his wife and youngest son there, and he had moreover urgent need for the counsel of Elrond.

"It needs one greater than I now know myself to be. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the Three."

"My pride has fallen," and it sounds like Isildur intended to give up the Ring. Whether he would have done so had he ever gone to Imladris, well, won't be known. However, he was urgently in need of Elrond, and his pride had now fallen. Sort of puts an interesting spin on the whole "ambush" scenario...a sentient Ring knowing going to the "Keepers of the Three" would not be an ideal situation? So, let me draw evil in to kill this guy and get lost in a large river for a while?

Edit: Crossed with Inziladun and it seems like we virtually have the same posts haha.

[Rumil]

Good to see you again Hookbill,

I do have an example, but not exactly one of the greatest or most puissant characters of Middle Earth!!

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins

Now as we all know she starts off mean and spiteful and money-grabbing, determined to wrest Bag-End from the Bagginses and add to her silver spoon collection. After Sharkey's ruffians took over the Shire she 'went for' one of them with her umbrella on being insulted and off to the lockholes they dragged her.

On her release she was cheered by the crowd, became popular, but was crushed by the loss of her son, she returned Bag End to Frodo and retired to Harbottle. Dying the next year, she left all her money to help hobbits made homeless by the troubles.

I'd say that was a pretty good turn-around

[Inziladun]

Might we also consider Thorin Oakenshield?

Again, not really evil; more, like Boromir or Gollum, a character defect that can lead to evil.

In Thorin's case, his avarice for wealth was not merely personal, but a hallmark of his race.
Still, upon his deathbed (again!) he found it in his heart to say to Bilbo that such pursuits as money and jewels should be renounced in favor of more simple, hobbit-like pleasures.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Hooky

Is this a redemption? If so, the cost is high for a seemingly short loss of temper.

If achieving redemption would be easy, it would be much too cheap to do evil deeds and just "redeem" yourself afterwards. I think the whole point is that redemption comes at a price. In the case of Boromir and Thorin Oakenshield the price is not only their pride but their life.

I would add another example of a failed redemption: Denethor. He realizes how little he treasured his younger son and cries (iirc). But in the end either he is too far gone off the rocker, or too despaired to follow up on that feeling.

Edit: xed with Hook

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I would add another example of a failed redemption: Denethor. He realizes how little he treasured his younger son and cries (iirc). But in the end either he is too far gone off the rocker, or too despaired to follow up on that feeling.

Edit: xed with Hook

Aye, as Hookbill I think uncovered...Denethor had the right of it, Pride and Despair!

When Faramir is brought back sick and dying, it is said Denethor stays with him, and is indeed crying over his younger son's failing health. But his reaction to it is, complete and ultimate despair (and think of the torment he endured in his history...wife died soon after giving birth to Faramir. It is said Denethor became "more grim" with her death. His favored son then dies, and the son he realized he truly did love, is dying. Oh and the whole, realm he was charged to defend is on the verge of being destroyed). It's a sad story...as Gandalf says of Gollum.

[Boromir88]

Oh! Oh! Extra thought, since now I got to thinking on Denethor.

Theoden, is in many ways a redeemed character too. Although, I don't think I would say he even had a character trait (as Inzil mentions with Boromir and Thorin) that could potentially lead to evil.

Theoden's fall was driven by the hand of Saruman and a slimy counselor (I guess you could say poor judge of character? But really that not exactly "evil.") Anyway, Theoden is facing the threat of Saruman, is being held in a decrepit state of mind, his only son and heir dies. Yet he does come out "renewed" and triumphant after listening to Gandalf.

He too dies, although it doesn't appear to be in payment for an act of evil, unless if it's a very very delayed payment. Because again, Theoden didn't do anything wrong other than being a poor judge of who he had as his counselor.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Pride and despair! As Denethor said. These seem the great downfalls of people in Middle Earth. Overcoming them appears nigh on impossible for a lot of the examples we've shown here.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

"My pride has fallen," and it sounds like Isildur intended to give up the Ring. Whether he would have done so had he ever gone to Imladris, well, won't be known. However, he was urgently in need of Elrond, and his pride had now fallen. Sort of puts an interesting spin on the whole "ambush" scenario...a sentient Ring knowing going to the "Keepers of the Three" would not be an ideal situation? So, let me draw evil in to kill this guy and get lost in a large river for a while?

This certainly seems plausible. It would tie in quite well with Aragorn's own reluctance to attempt to take the Ring, if he'd known that Isildur had fallen to pride and he did not wish to come to the same fate.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

To another example: would you consider Maglor's case as a "repentance"?
No, he and the sons of Fëanor were not "bad" in the manner of Morgoth or Sauron, but they did evil in obedience to a freely taken oath that they knew (or should have known) would lead to much chaos and bloodshed.

Yet, Maglor repented in his heart at least, and was willing to break the oath to avoid further slaughter, having sorrow for what had been done by himself and his brothers. It was apparently only the desire to go along with Maedhros, his last remaining brother, that caused him to fail

Notably, though Meadhros was moved to commit suicide, it was said that Maglor did not die, but wandered around aimlessly thereafter. Perhaps he saw that as penance he must perform?

The sons of Fëanor again seem to display this trope of pride, and a little despair.

Originally Posted by The Silmarillion

"If none can release us then indeed the Everlasting Darkness shall be our lot, whether we keep our oath or break it; but less evil shall we do in the breaking."
Maglor speaking of the Oath of Fëanor

But the oath seems to have sealed them in. They must shatter their own pride in order to break the oath, and so achieve less evil. Maedhros falls to despair, much like Denethor, and burns in the mountain. Maglor settles for, as you say, Inzil, wandering aimlessly. In both cases, if this is redemption, then it is hard bought.

Originally Posted by Rumil

I do have an example, but not exactly one of the greatest or most puissant characters of Middle Earth!!

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins

Now as we all know she starts off mean and spiteful and money-grabbing, determined to wrest Bag-End from the Bagginses and add to her silver spoon collection. After Sharkey's ruffians took over the Shire she 'went for' one of them with her umbrella on being insulted and off to the lockholes they dragged her.

On her release she was cheered by the crowd, became popular, but was crushed by the loss of her son, she returned Bag End to Frodo and retired to Harbottle. Dying the next year, she left all her money to help hobbits made homeless by the troubles.

I'd say that was a pretty good turn-around

Interesting point! Perhaps she is not a villain, but she is an antagonist. She, too, seems to have some degree of pride. There is this sense of wanting to be recognised in the community, also a desire to have what she believes is hers, rather like Gollum's birthday present, or Isildur's 'payment' for the loss of his father and brother. She is 'redeemed' again through hardship; she sees her lands ruined, she is thrown in prison, and eventually, the crowd cheers her. She finally has the social recognition, but perhaps not the kind she had looked for. However, she seems humbled by it, and retires from the grudge match with the Bagginses.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Might we also consider Thorin Oakenshield?

Again, not really evil; more, like Boromir or Gollum, a character defect that can lead to evil.

In Thorin's case, his avarice for wealth was not merely personal, but a hallmark of his race.
Still, upon his deathbed (again!) he found it in his heart to say to Bilbo that such pursuits as money and jewels should be renounced in favor of more simple, hobbit-like pleasures.

I think this is probably the closest we'll get! Like all the others he is brought to 'evil' by his pride, his lust for what he sees as rightfully his. But as you say, he too buys his redemption with death. Not only his own death, but of many others, including some of his company.