Nice Master :(

Seeking knowledge in, of, and about Middle-earth.
User avatar
IdylleSeethes
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm

Post by IdylleSeethes »

A little aside on Tolkien and redemption.

I mentioned elsewhere that Tolkien was greatly influencd by the West Midlands translations done as part of his professional work. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, for example, establishes the pattern for LOTR.

Tolkien also spent many years working with a colleague, E. V. Gordon, starting in the 1920s, on editing Pearl. He eventually asked Gordon to finish the work on his own and it was published in 1953, after Gordon's death. His widow gives Tolkien credit in the introduction. I found a 1st edition today. Christopher included Pearl in an edited volume with Sir Gawain and Sir Orfeo.

The importance is that Pearl is a story of redemption. This is best seen in the middle stanzas. Around a discussion of the Parable of the Vineyard :shock: , there is a dialog about redemption. Pearl declares that all are equal members of the Body of Christ, which is a very Catholic view. The narrator disagrees and claims that God rewards individuals for their own good works, which seems to me a very Protestant view. Pearl then restates that redemption is equally available to all.

I suspect Pearl's view is the one that Tolkien holds and that he considered Gollum eligible for redemption. This leaves the problem of the Ring's influence on Gollum. It seems difficult to argue that any of the "Ring Bearers" made a conscious decision to be controlled by the Ring. Possession of the Ring robs the bearer of his free will. I'm not sure how to reconcile this, but the dinner bell is ringing and I will have to return later.
Image
User avatar
Frelga
Meanwhile...
Posts: 23335
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:31 pm
Location: Home, where else

Post by Frelga »

Alatar wrote:I agree with most of what you said, but not this. To my mind, Sam lets Gollum go, not because he believes him redeemable but because he does not have the heart to kill him in cold blood. He says "I don't trust you, not as far as I could kick you" and means it. He still does not see Gollum as redeemable, but he is unable to "mete out death and judgement". It may be mercy after a fashion, but its born out of pity and disgust, not a belief in the possibility of redemption.
I agree, mostly. But also it is simply not right to kill a defenseless creature, even if it's only briefly vulnerable. Back in Emyn Muil, when he first meets Gollum, Sam proposes to tie him up and leave him. Even then Sam is not willing to commit the act of killing Gollum directly while he is at their mercy, even if his solution is only a deferred form of killing.

Veering away from the theme of free will and redemption - in Tolkien's world one must always do the right thing, as best as one can see what it is. No matter how expedient a moral compromise appears at the time, is a sure road to ruin. Saruman was the one willing to put up with "evils done along the way" and we know where he ended up.

This reminds me of Faramir's "I would not snare an orc with a falsehood" -not because an orc is redeemable, or merits pity, but simply because Faramir will not tell a lie, no matter to whom.

Another thought - as someone (Alatar?) pointed out in Teremia's thread, Gollum's near-redemption is about the only passage in which Tolkien is acting as an omniscient narrator. (OK, the fox is the other such passage, but it can be construed as simply a whimsical invention by a hobbit author). There are no witnesses to Sméagol's change of heart - Sam and Frodo are both asleep.
TH wrote:Because, if it's the former, then at this point he's just returned from his betrayal! Yes, for a fraction of time is sorry for it, but that wouldn't make the betrayal undone.
Trying to be pragmatic for a moment - a repentant Sméagol could have warned the hobbits of the danger. But what then? He already alerted Shelob. Did he know of another, safer way? My impression is that there simply wasn't one.

Gollum abandons the hobbits in the tunnel. Does he go to fetch Shelob or just gets himself out of harm's way? We don't know, but if it's the first then again his repentance may have made the difference.

But if Frodo and Sam got through the tunnel unscathed, what then? They'd be caught by the orcs. Would Frodo put on the Ring leaving Sam to fend for himself? I can't imagine that he would. If Sam was caught by the orcs, there would have been no mithril coat for orcs to fight over, and no way for Frodo to save him.
"What a place! What a situation! What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."

Terry Pratchett, Going Postal
User avatar
Athrabeth
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:54 am

Post by Athrabeth »

Faramond wrote:But ... I think we are asked to still act as if he is redeemable. This is very hard, of course. But Sam is asked to act as if he is redeemable in the sense that he is placed in a position to deliver judgement onto Gollum, and he does not deliver judgement.
Frelga wrote:
Alatar wrote:I agree with most of what you said, but not this. To my mind, Sam lets Gollum go, not because he believes him redeemable but because he does not have the heart to kill him in cold blood. He says "I don't trust you, not as far as I could kick you" and means it. He still does not see Gollum as redeemable, but he is unable to "mete out death and judgement". It may be mercy after a fashion, but its born out of pity and disgust, not a belief in the possibility of redemption.
I agree, mostly. But also it is simply not right to kill a defenseless creature, even if it's only briefly vulnerable. Back in Emyn Muil, when he first meets Gollum, Sam proposes to tie him up and leave him. Even then Sam is not willing to commit the act of killing Gollum directly while he is at their mercy, even if his solution is only a deferred form of killing.

Veering away from the theme of free will and redemption - in Tolkien's world one must always do the right thing, as best as one can see what it is. No matter how expedient a moral compromise appears at the time, is a sure road to ruin. Saruman was the one willing to put up with "evils done along the way" and we know where he ended up.
I'm not so sure that this is veering away from the theme, Frelga. :) I notice that Faramond didn't say that Sam actually believes that Gollum is redeemable, but rather that he is "asked to act as if" Gollum is redeemable. Those are two quite separate and distinct ideas. I think Tolkien presents us with "good men" like Aragorn or Faramir or Frodo or Sam or Théoden, who do "the right thing" without any kind of real "sight" into the certainties of Eru's design, and yet, through their actions, demonstrate a dynamic relationship with its unfolding consequences. They help insert "good" into the story and carry it forward to places unhoped for through decisions that often defy cold logic or self-preservation. It's not really important if they truly believe that Gollum or Wormtongue or Saruman is or is not redeemable; indeed, if they did, I would think that they would have a measure of saintliness that only Gandalf possesses (although I believe Frodo does attain a form of "heightened clarity" after the Quest is fulfilled). What is important is that they believe, deeply and unshakeably, as Faramond said about Sam, that they do "not know all there is to know of" the person that is at their mercy. And perhaps, of equal importance, they do not know all there is to know of themselves and their own role within the tale.

I think when Sam raises his sword on the slopes of Mt. Doom, the course of his own life is on the line every bit as much as Gollum's. If he had struck Gollum down, justly and deservedly executing him, what would this have done to his own heart, his own "soul"? Just as Gollum betrayed that tiny, fragile remnant of his own humanity on the stairs, wouldn't Sam be betraying his own great well of humanity by killing the wretch? Isn't this part of doing "the right thing", of being "good" in Tolkien's world: to not allow the certainty of what is "just" or "deserved" or "lawful" in dealing out "death and judgment" outweigh even one small doubt that enters the heart? We may all agree that Sam killing Gollum would be perfectly understandable, prudent and justified........but I also think that we may all agree that if he had done so, something "right and good" about Sam would be lost forever. It would be a terrible "fall", yielding to a kind of twisted and deceitful temptation of good after having the strength to resist the same kind of righteous certainty the Ring offered him as he gazed down upon Mordor. Gollum, by this time, has finally lost all hope of redemption, but that is not for Sam to recognize nor act upon. All he can do is heed that one small doubt that enters his heart, and because it is a good and true heart, he knows, even if unconsciously, without hope of personal articulation and understanding, that it is the right thing to do, and that somehow, "what should be shall be".
Faramond wrote:Free will is a partnership between a person and God, and here Sam, whether he knows it or not, is working in partnership with Eru.
:agree:
Image

Who could be so lucky? Who comes to a lake for water and sees the reflection of moon.
Jalal ad-Din Rumi
User avatar
Sassafras
still raining, still dreaming
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:55 am
Location: On the far side of nowhere
Contact:

Post by Sassafras »

Faramond wrote:
Free will is a partnership between a person and God,
Would either you, or Ath or Voronwë (who say they agree) care to extrapolate and explain in detail exactly what you mean by this?

I'm afraid my pedestrian brain does not make the connection.

What does free will have to do with God?

What if there is no God?

Is a partnership a necessary requirement?

<PM me if you think it will osgilliate the thread too much.
Please. I really do want to understand the thinking behind the statement.>
Image

Ever mindful of the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit, axordil sums up the Sil:


"Too many Fingolfins, not enough Sams."

Yes.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 47800
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Sassafras wrote:Faramond wrote:
Free will is a partnership between a person and God,
Would either you, or Ath or Voronwë (who say they agree) care to extrapolate and explain in detail exactly what you mean by this?

I'm afraid my pedestrian brain does not make the connection.

What does free will have to do with God?

What if there is no God?
Dear Sass, I would not deem to speak for Faramond (who is extremely well-suited to speaking for himself), but I will say a few words. First, remember that we are talking about free will as it exists in Tolkien's universe, which by definition includes "God". In a universe in which there is "God" what other source could there be for the free will of any individual within that universe?

Indeed, I have to say that I have increasingly come to conclude that the existence of free will is the one thing that has convinced me that God does exist.
Last edited by Voronwë the Faithful on Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
Athrabeth
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:54 am

Post by Athrabeth »

Hola, Voronwë! :wave: :hug: :love:

Sass, I'm working on a reply..........one more looooonnnnnngg day at work, and then I'll give it the attention it deserves (ditto for your Sil post). I promise. :hug:

Thanks for making me ponder over this one. I like pondering, you know.......at least one thing we have in common, eh? ;)

Along with our unshakable belief in teh utter kewlness of cats. :horse:
Image

Who could be so lucky? Who comes to a lake for water and sees the reflection of moon.
Jalal ad-Din Rumi
User avatar
Sassafras
still raining, still dreaming
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:55 am
Location: On the far side of nowhere
Contact:

Post by Sassafras »

Voronwë wrote:
Dear Sass, I would not deem to speak for Faramond (who is extremely well-suited to speaking for himself), but I will say a few words. First, remember that we are talking about free will as it exists in Tolkien's universe, which by definition includes "God". In a universe in which there is "God" what other source could there be for the free will of any individual within that universe?
Yes. Of course.
But since Faramond used 'God' in place of 'Eru' or 'Ilúvatar', I made the leap and assumed that the statement might have crossed the invisible line from Tolkien's Arda and was obliquely meant to apply to our own world.

If that isn't the case, then I should withdraw the question ... because, of course, you are correct. In Tolkien's universe all things have their foundation in Eru. Free will AND fate.

On the other hand .... if it IS the case ... then I am very much interested in the answer.

:D

Ath, have I told you lately how much I love you :love:
Image

Ever mindful of the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit, axordil sums up the Sil:


"Too many Fingolfins, not enough Sams."

Yes.
User avatar
Athrabeth
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:54 am

Post by Athrabeth »

My "Tolkien universe" answer first:

As you well know by now Sass, I hold that Eru creates both the Valar and his Children with the capacity for free will so that they can be truly and actively involved in the telling of the tale of Arda. Free will bridges the gap between that which would be merely set and static and that which would be infinite, because Arda can be neither. Without a defined concept of sin and its "eternal consequences" - without a heaven or hell - free will affords Sam or Gollum or Frodo or Saruman what I think is actually a great measure of freedom and independent authority over their own part in the story, which in turn results in impacting on the thoughts and actions of others. Free will then is a force that exerts its influence on all the characters in the tale BY all the characters in the tale, and this, to me, means some kind of an active "partnership" with its primary author.

You know, I think it’s one of many reasons why LOTR and the Sil seem so special and dear to me now - because through them, I've been able to piece together a far more personally meaningful view of a monotheistic belief system, something that quite honestly, has baffled me, or perhaps more precisely, eluded me for the better part of my life. It is not a belief system that carries over to my life in the real world, but it is one that intrigues me and moves me, and makes me think that this world just might be a better place if there were more Faramirs looking towards the West-that-was and more Sams looking up at one clear, bright star. I know that if I had to choose an “ideal” construct of a singular, omniscient creator’s design, it would not be that of any of the more familiar choices that have been presented to me over the years…….it would be the one Tolkien has created. Go figure. :)

Now, my "personal universe" anwser:

God or no God, Tao or no Tao, we are conscious beings. To be a conscious being without free will is, to me, simply impossible.

Hmmmmmm........that was certainly concise, but in a nutshell, well, that just about covers it. 8)
Ath, have I told you lately how much I love you :love:
Sass, have I told you lately how privileged I feel to volley these ideas back and forth with someone as intelligent and honest as you? :love: :hug:
Image

Who could be so lucky? Who comes to a lake for water and sees the reflection of moon.
Jalal ad-Din Rumi
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 47800
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

And have I told both of you both how much I love both of you, and how privileged I feel to discuss these questions with both of you, and all of you.

:love:
Last edited by Voronwë the Faithful on Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
Athrabeth
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:54 am

Post by Athrabeth »

:love: :grouphug: :love:
Image

Who could be so lucky? Who comes to a lake for water and sees the reflection of moon.
Jalal ad-Din Rumi
User avatar
Sassafras
still raining, still dreaming
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:55 am
Location: On the far side of nowhere
Contact:

Post by Sassafras »

Ath wrote:
It < LOTR and the Sil> is not a belief system that carries over to my life in the real world, but it is one that intrigues me and moves me, and makes me think that this world just might be a better place if there were more Faramirs looking towards the West-that-was and more Sams looking up at one clear, bright star. I know that if I had to choose an “ideal” construct of a singular, omniscient creator’s design, it would not be that of any of the more familiar choices that have been presented to me over the years…….it would be the one Tolkien has created. Go figure
:love: :love: :love:

I couldn't agree more!

There is an integrity, a viable philosophy that runs the width and breadth of Arda ... one that we (sometimes subconsciously) recognize as truth with a capital T. A transcendent truth that goes far beyond the beauty of the prose or the simple story of a quest.

Somehow, Tolkien was able to embody his philosophy in his work... the books are more than just a vehicle to express his thought ... his work is the incarnation of his truths ... and that, I believe, is why Middle-earth is so real and why it strikes a corresponding sympathetic chord for so many of us.

If I were of the believing sort, I'd say it was inspired. By Eru.You know, like Bach's B Minor Mass or Mozart's Requim.

Hmmm. Perhaps I should start a thread on the transmutation of Tolkien's philosopy into story?
.
.
.
.

I'll be answering your first paragraph soon. =:)
.
.
.
.
.
Voronwë ... :hug: My dream would be for the three of us to spend a little bit of time together talking Tolkien. :love:
Image

Ever mindful of the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit, axordil sums up the Sil:


"Too many Fingolfins, not enough Sams."

Yes.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 47800
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Sass, sometimes dreams come true. :)

And I do hope you start that thread, which I remember you mentioning back when HoF itself was just a dream.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Post Reply