Remembering that Tolkien fought in WWI….I noticed there were many themes of trauma after war. No one was able to “heal” from their trauma without death or….”going to heaven”. Like, the characters suffer too much internally to live normal mortal lives. :/ considering Tolkien’s background, can’t help but wonder if this was his way of addressing this in his own life. But, that’s just an idea that’s…..really hella sad 😞

So, as a Catholic I can say that this makes a lot of sense to me. Tolkien, who was also Catholic, did not in fact see death as the end. If you read his books in that context, it makes a lot more sense. Also, side note: Pippin did live after his grave error in taking and using the palantir. He is one example of a character that didn't have to die. Sam also erred with his treatment of Smeagol and went on to live a very full life. I really see his point as "some wounds are so deep they can't be fully healed in this life." And that is true. If you still don't like this aspect of the books, that's fine, but hopefully this clarified some things.

Another example could be Lobelia. She was never evil, but she was portrayed as very greedy. However, she redeemed herself by standing up to Sharkey’s men, and then by giving her money to Frodo so he could help give people back their homes. She died shortly after that, though.

I wrote my undergrad thesis on the Christian mythology of Tolkien and Lewis and in it, I argued that LOTR is a Christian view of a pre-Christ world. In one of the books published by his son, Christopher, there is a reference to a prophecy of a Jesus of Middle-Earth, where Iluvatar will become human, etc. but it hasn't happened yet. So if Tolkien is writing from the Catholic perspective of redemption being the complete forgiveness of sins and of evil actions, then no, there is not full redemption in LOTR. By comparison in Lewis's books, Christ has already come and died for the sins of the world. Both Narnia and his Space Trilogy are post-Christ worlds, so characters, like Edmund Pevensie, can be completely absolved of their wrongdoings. I would also argue that Tolkien doesn't equate a spiritual redemption with the removal of consequences. Just because you are forgiven of your evil does not mean that the evil actions won't still have consequences. Boromir is a good example of this. I love this character and his story arc and will 100% disagree that Boromir was redeemed in LOTR by dying. He was redeemed because he turned away from his desire to steal the ring from Frodo; he immediately came out his lust-haze for the ring and ran to the aid of Merry and Pippin. In Christian terms, Boromir repented and did a 180 from his past evil actions. This is why Aragorn told him "You have conquered. Few have gained such a victory. Be at peace!" However, those actions still had consequences that likely resulted in his death. If Boromir had been where he was supposed to be with the camp instead of being off trying to steal the Ring from Frodo, would he have still died? Maybe not. Or maybe so, because Tolkien also writes from the very realistic perspective that evil doesn't occur in a a vacuum. Many good people suffer the consequences of the evil done by others and Tolkien doesn't just dismiss those consequences because the character didn't deserve it.

The books are definitely more about the struggle of good against evil rather than choosing one side or the other. I think it's fine for some fantasy series to be like this.. the conflicts are more external than internal - but I wouldn't blame someone for wishing there was a little more character development. I think Boromir is the closest thing to real redemption or at least - staring at the edge and backing down. While Gollum's redemption is the one that would make the most sense narratively, it's actually one that would make the least sense in world. His obsession is something akin to an extremely severe drug addiction - extended over hundreds of years - and he's got the drug in his face every moment he's with frodo. A ring presumably more tempting than the ones the ringwraiths wore. Gollum loathes himself and the ring is the only thing that even gives him joy. I think it would take a few centuries in valinor to bring him back to anything like sanity. But I do agree that narratively speaking a redemption arc for gollum would fit in well with the story.

You have some very good points But I always keep in mind the influences of fighting in World War I in mind when considering tokens work. I feel like the way he writes corruption is more like how he might have written about people being traumatized by the War. 2 of his best friends from school died and the othe was never the same. So many came home but were unable to really return to normal life because there were no true understanding of how to treat PTSD.

The Oathbreakers get redeemed; the Elves redeem themselves, in a sense; and the entirety of Dagor Dagorath has a tonne of redemptive and/or closure/catharsis elements, including the rekindling of the Trees and the revival of Túrin - who redeems himself *_and_* kills Morgoth.

From a theological perspective, it does make a kind of sense for him to write it with this kind of… severity. He wrote it to be an English and a European mythology in a lost ancient past; that’s implicitly pre-Christian, and thus under a more Old Testament set of conditions. Think about how people in the Old Testament were hardly ever portrayed as having their sins just lifted off of them; there still had to be major consequences. Moses never seeing the promised land; the death of David’s first child by Bathsheba. People were extended forgiveness on a sort of credit that was going to be paid off later by Christ, but they seemed not able to be as fully liberated as people were in the Christian Era. Which is not to say that consequences went away. And as others have noted, Tolkien must have seen a whole lot of consequences during WWI, where the most trivial errors destroyed people. Why should Grima not suffer tragedy even when he has realized his error, when Tolkien likely knew several people who died for straightening up a little too high or stepping to the left at the wrong moment?

I think Bilbo might be an exception to this. He didn’t fall to corruption, but taking the Arkenstone was a rather selfish thing to do, that he felt guilty about, even if he ‘technically’ had a right to do it. But, he redeemed himself by trying to use it to end the war, by offering up his own share of the treasure, which earned him the respect of Bard and Thranduil, and he was even able to make peace with his friends after all of that. He, like Sam, was allowed to live a long and fulfilling life after his adventures, before leaving to Valinor.

I would point to one person with an extremely long redemption arc - Galadriel, who came to Middle-Earth from Ereseä as part of the Noldorian host to try and reclaim the Silmarils, and was banished due to her refusal to acknowledge the evils that cause had produced. When she refuses the Ring, she says, "I will diminish, and pass into the West, and remain Galadriel." Her refusal to seize power was her redemption.

Would disagree and say that Tolkien is one of the authors that understand the gravity of redemption. Unlike many modern stories have their "character arcs" as the protagonist just deciding that they are good now, with no realistic weight behind. Tolkien is more in line with reality. Also as an other comment pointed out, Tolkiens world is more similar to the world of the Old Testament by design.

These aren’t quite redemption arcs but for those coming back from the touch of evil, you have Gandalf and more relatably Theoden. Gandalfs fall and physical resurrection is more obvious and less significant than his elevation to his intended position as head of the five. He ‘fought the good fight’, resisted the betrayal of his leader and the temptation to sieze power. Theoden succumbed to the quiet whisperings designed to weaken him, his family and his kingdom. But he was freed from the poisoning and possibly possesion of his soul. More significantly, after that he had to go through an arc that took him from “Where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?”, to riding to Gondor’s aid. His trust in honour and goodwill restored by the intervention of the Elves. But despite that, I would agree with you that Tolkien had no space in his world for forgiveness. Although his writings were simpler, Lewis understood forgiveness in a way that Tolkein never showed.

Tolkien as a devout catholic accually regretted he made the orcs unredeemable, while obvoiusly having a soul. That really bothered him later

I always got the impression that the orcs being made from corrupted young elflings was more of a boogeyman type tale told to young elves to keep them from straying too far from home. The type of tale you use to kids to warn them of something they’d never perceive as dangerous - exploring a cool area a smidge too far away from home and parental comfort.

As others have said I believe his experiences in WW1 shaped a lot of his views and writing style. He had first hand experiences of "there is no going back", "for some there is no opportunity for redemption" and even if there is redemption its the difference of dying with honor or dying with guilt and shame. I think we tend to glorify or romantices war and conflict in media. We like when everyone is at least given the chance to redeem themselves. Tolkien saw first hand that that's not how reality works out in most cases. Just my thoughts but his harshness in this area, to me, reads of someone who is trying to show reality through the medium of fantasy. He was part of a generation that probably found his stories much more relatable too. For all of our complaints we live a much more comfortable life then many of his generation.

First I want to tell you I find your knowledge of Tolkien's work refreshing and your point of view is interesting; however, I think you misunderstand the concept of redemption. Redemption is regaining something that was lost after commiting an evil act, by mistake or intentionaly. This doesn't imply that responsability or the consecuences of their actions stop from happening. You have great examples but I will límit myself ti the first one. After Boromir saves the hobbits, he confess to Aragorn what he did, and Aragorn tells him that he gets to keep his honor (the thing he had lost); that doesn't heal his Wounds magicaly, he would had died with ir without beign redeemed. Something similar can be said about you other examples; however Orcs aré a complicated topic because Tolkien died before making his mind obout their creation. As you mentioned, there's sn Obscure letter innwich he explicitly denied that Orcs (or any created thing) were inherently irredeemably. Letter 153, near the end. [Eru] gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings.... Of course within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions. But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be'... They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.)..... I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. By this we see that Tolkien imagined that even beings created by the Evil powers could not have been "irredeemably bad", being ruined by Evil, not created by it. As far as I am aware, he never wrote about any such redemption happening, though. Sorry if my english is bad, have a nivel day.

One thought that comes to my mind: I'm pretty sure the Shire was rebuilt after the Scouring, so there's at least one instance of land/structures that get "corrupted" being redeemed. An argument can also be made about Frodo & Sam overhearing the orcs talking about rogues that we know literally nothing more than they abandoned Sauron... some take that to mean they weren't all irredeemable, others take it as still being evil but not wanting to bow to Sauron... I see it as fanfiction territory lol

"I have never met a man so crippled, that he could not be further crippled." - Joe Abercrombie Tolkien might be pessimistic, but I can't imagine what redemption is supposed to look like except for "going over the horizon" and dissolution. Because scars never truly heal, and our crimes never stop hurting our victems. (Also, subbed! I never thought of Tolkien as goth until this video!)

i do recall that Tolkien had a problem with how he portrayed the Orcs... he never came up with a solution for it by the time he published the Lord or the Rings, and his later works, were, I think based on his earlier writings. Now Frodo was corrupted by the Ring.... claiming it for himself before Gollum bit it off his hand leading to his death, but that mostly Tolkien inserting Deus ex Machina in the story (Clearly done several times with the Eagles)..... I think it is a little strong to say that Valinor in the equivalence of heaven... since generally speaking only Elves can go there and the elves in theory could return to Middle Earth....

You know what? You're right. As a fan of Tolkien, I take your reflection as my way to reflection. Thank you, I never stop learning, I can say now I seeing things with more facets, especially with an author like Tolkien and his legendary universe.

I wonder if Tolkien's view was influenced by the two world wars that he experienced - especially fighting himself in the first one. Some people can overcome that sort of trauma, but for many it never leaves them. I don't know if there's any evidence for Tolkien being the latter case, but I wouldn't be surprised if those people who encounter evil, who touch and get corrupted by it, were a reflection of the people who he saw being traumatized in war and never able to forget it or completely move past it until their death - until they can leave the earth.

Actions have consequences, and redemption does not give one immunity from those consequences. Redemption is change of mental and moral state, not a life stile improvement program.

This! I have always been frustrated by Tolkein's fatalistic attitude. He treats victims as part of the problem and implies that they either must die, or they cannot change.

Like i get what you are saying, but when you mentioned the orc, what were the people of middle earth suppose to do, open up or rehabilitation centers? Create social services that explain to the orcs what is good and evil xd?

While I agree with you, the orcs in particular have always bothered me You missed a couple of things. The obvious one is the Army of the Dead, but that is a very simplistic one and again their reward is death The others "redemption" i can think of is generational rather than individual. Aragon wants to be the redemption of the line of Isildor, its quite explicitly one of his motivations.

"I have never met a man so crippled, that he can't be further crippled." - Joe Abercrombie GRRM might be more optimistic, but I can't think Tolkien is wrong in that redemption is a horizon that can never be reached except in the sublime.

Bruh I did not know Celebrian was a real character, I've only heard about her from... certain infamous fanfics.

I love to adjust a few things to my own head cannon based on my degrees in ethics, health and sustainability and based on my husband a real life Legolas 😊 The nature in the books is my favorite part and where we base our eco activism elven cosplay. 🌿 This is an interesting video, I also love characters with a redemption arc. It would be nice to see more redemption and healing in the tales. Though, I have in a way gone to Valinor myself... we left civilization to live in the wild where we feel much happier. So in that sense, I embarked on a physical departure, but we still volunteer every day for a kinder more sustainable world. 😊❤

I think something to keep in mind is that Tolkien believed in the power of evil. He didn't LIKE it, but he believed in it. C.S. Lewis dedicated the Screwtape Letters to Tolkien, and Tolkien was angry with him over it, because Tolkien didn't think you should delve into the mind of the enemy (Evil) the way Lewis does in Screwtape. So, in Middle Earth, the idea that evil is corruptive is utterly central to the setting. The fact that Gollum can't resist the Ring, that Frodo is so scarred by his experience that he can't stay... this is a direct consequence of Morgoth's lingering influence on the world, going all the way back to the Ailinulidae (sp?). I'd also say that Tolkien also believed that the world, and all in it, would be redeemed at the Last Battle, which takes place in the future of Middle Earth. As such, it's hard for temporal beings to judge the final result until that happens.

I just want to say I see where you are coming from and the examples you gave are valid. But! You are forgetting my man Beregond! he literally killed his fellow Gondorian soldiers. And even though he did it to save Faramir it's still basically murder. Then he could have died, Tolkien had a chance to kill off his character during the last battle. And then because Aragorn is a chad he "banishes" him to pretty much his dream job. Another example would be when the evil men that have been fighting alongside the orcs are shown kindness by Aragorn after they have been defeated and sort of have this realization that maybe they were lied to about why they were sent off to war, maybe these people they are fighting aren't as bad as they were lead to believe. That's more of a start to a redemption arc that we don't really get to see but I can't imagine it ends in death. Or there's that part (I don't know if this counts, I just really like it) when Aragorn is going to march on the black gates and he tells his men that anyone who wants to can stay behind and help free the outskirts of Gondor and he will see them as no less honourable for it. So basically Aragorn at least believes in redemption. I don't remember it being as present in the book but there is that thing about him seeking redemption for his forefathers. Which I don't subscribe to the sins of the father being the sins of the son but it might be why he is so for redemption. Or he is just inherently the greatest person ever and he doesn't need a reason for being awesome. But yeah, I guess redemption isn't really a thing that is front and center in Tolkien's works but it is there.

I have always questioned the redemption in these books as well, especially in the case of Gollum since he seemed slowly returning to himself then lost it at the end

Very interesting thoughts! Thanks!

This is very provocative and probably very correct.

Borrimir's redemption arc is rather apparent though. He gets ensnared by the temptation power of the Ring, and nearly kills the hobbits to take the Ring for himself ,and then after realizing what he had done, sacrifices himself against insurmountable odds to save them That seems like a pretty dern clear redemption arc. Also, you have King Theodan being rescued from the temptation of Grima Wormtongue, and you even have Gollum briefly remembering he was Smegol Redemption is all over the place in LOTR

Yeah, I agree. It's something that has bothered me for a long time too. But Tolkien based his stories on mythology and myths always have bad decisions met with bad fates (at least when they're done by humans, as gods get away with a lot). In Greek myths, even if those characters are otherwise good, noble and heroic, if they do one evil thing then they end up dead like with Odysseus or Theseus. Fairy tales also do this. It's like a kind of warning to readers and audiences to not do evil.

One could say that the failed destruction of the one ring by Ilsildor all the way to frodo destroying the ring as a redemption arc. A symbolic arc of all creatures in Middle Earth as opposed to single character arcs. That it took all races to defeat evil. 🤷‍♂️

Frodo didn't need to stay, his job was done. Gollum, what life could he have had once the ring was gone? It had become such a part of him, he'd be half a man with it gone. Not to mention living with the shame/regret of all the things he had done. Celebrian, we don't know how long she lived in Middle Earth before leaving, to Elves it could have been hundreds of years before she left. Orcs, they were thousands if years removed from their Elvish orgins and while we don't know what happened to the original ones, we do know these ones Evolved into something wholly savage. And most their "industry" came from Sauron's influence, hence them all running away from the Black Gates one he was destroyed. The Nazgul, truly tragic figures, but they made their choices. Could they be redeemed? Perhaps. Did thry want to repent? We'll never know. As to Grima i think he more regretted following Saruman because he no longer had power, moreso than feeling bad about the things he had done. But those are my interpretations, which is why Tolkien is so great, he's endlessly debatable with no clear way to tell us to believe. And of course Good wins against Evil. As it should be.

I kinda thought about it too, and I don't know if it's because of the source materials that he used (fairy tales and epics have a really low redemption arc rate), or because he wanted to place his world before any organized religion (and some religious people see redemption only coming from the divine), in which case it would be a kind of "redemption was scarce and far-between in the Old Testament, and this is even before then". Also, yeah, I quite like some of Lewis' takes.

I haven't read the books but just from the movies Boromir was painful. I wanted him to live. I believe his belief comes from the place that if you fall as in sin redemption does not always happen. You always have to be vigilant not to sin. I guess he based his beliefs on The Parable of the Ten Virgins but he got it wrong. As for grief in the movies most of them had grief and strife but maybe some of us cannot go on we have to change completely. But I do get you Elizabeth. This is a wonderful subject to study. On the other hand Narnia is about being saved is about redemption os about 360° change. Both authors were christian and telling a christian story?; nevertheless, their personal beliefs were so different.

Boromir i think would have protected Merry and Pippin failing to Temptation or not Grima had been offered repeatingly chances to make amends and repent, Gollum, you mean the Kinslayer, the murderer of children -babys to be precise refused. Broke his Oath They did refused grace If the Orcs came from corrupted elves or other we do not really know. Aule OTOH reöented for his act and was forgiven, more Eru gave his creation life Frodo earned Grace carrying the Ring as far as he could and the Eru acted

Tolkien's redemption is an act of restoring something that has been lost or damaged to its original state. Redemption is not just one, it can be emotional, physical, moral or spiritual and includes the steps of forgiveness, atonement and reparation. Perhaps the characters were not in a position to carry out that process.

I’m perfectly happy with the impact of the shadow in lotr having such dire and long term/permanent effects. You have to show evidence that the shadow is something to fear and that even defeating it creates wounds that never truly go away. That is the reality of something as traumatic as war. I do appreciate that your use of examples are a comment on a trend rather than something that you would individually change. However, with the regards to the Orcs, yes of course you kill them. They have consistently fought for the Dark for thousands of years. It would have taken centuries to make them properly civilised and would cost tons of lives to do so and you risk a significant uprising in that time. Of course you eradicate them. Again, this is the reality of war. I think you mistake his desire to properly depict trauma and raising stakes with an issue with redemption.

While I agree that a reedamtion arc can be quite compeling. Not everyone get's one, or even desereved one. Aside from that nowaday's there are almost always reedemtion arcs in storys, so I like that realysticly for some things there is no coming back from.

Interesting video. I think you're looking at Tolkien analytically and critically and that's great. But I think you're missing some nuance. The primary one is, I think, Death. You, like pretty much all humans today, see death as a generally bad thing. But one of the MAJOR plot points in Tolkien's Legendarium is that mortality and death are GIFTS to Men (i.e., the race of, which includes Hobbits) from Ilúvarar (God). Elves actually envy the Gift of Men. It was only after becoming corrupted by Sauron that Men believed Death to be bad. They then keep trying to prolong their lives unnaturally. Aragorn marks a shift back to the old ways as he willingly lays down and dies when the time is right. But also there are redemptive character arcs to be found without immediate death. Two which spring to mind are Lobelia and Galadriel. Would love to discuss this in more detail with you. If you're interested, please reach out.

I now feel vindicated for preferring Lewis to Tolkein. Yes, I too love them both; but I am so used to hearing people say Tolkein was the better writer that I wonder if I'm missing something! 😅 I've always felt Lewis' world was more cogently crafted, but seems most people think the opposite! Appreciate your video 🙂 (I think the answer is probably rooted in the distinctions between the Catholicism and Anglicanism of the respective aithors; but that is a theological discussion rather than a literary one!)

With places like Minas Morgul and similar, one thing to really consider on top of everything else is that a chunk of it is symbolic of tearing a place down that is a symbol of evil there, torn down and never to rise again.

I had a similar revelation about the works of Shakespeare. Growing up I idolized his works as The Epitome of English language literature. Then I started to notice this obsession with female virtue, and how his heroines were punished for even being perceived as impure. Othello, Much Ado About Nothing, A Winter's Tale, Cymbeline, Titus Andronicus...

I appreciate you putting to words what I never quite could. This is why his world has alwaya felt quite dark to me. I have major respect and appreciation for the work, but not my favorite. Star Wars has my heart 🤣 so much redemption.

I want to point out that Aman, containing both Valinor and Eldamar, was not "heaven." The Timeless Halls where Eru Iluvatar resided, were "heaven." Only humans, after death, were permitted/required to return. Aman was certainly a wonderful place, but it was the consolation prize.

That's actually a really good point

Its like "wash the sin with blood".

I'm going to have to think on this 🤔

This has always bothered me too!

The main thing I disliked about Tolkien's works is the concept of a being of absolute, irredeemable evil. It perpetrates the theory that there is black and white, pure good pure evil concepts. But I don't believe there is such a thing, every evil person in history has had their good points, Ghengis Khan is, objectively considered a ruthless conquerer, and by many standards of today, evil, but he was a good ruler. Even Hitler had his good points, as much evil as he did. That is not to say that those good points should automatically allow them the option of forgiveness, or even redemption. But it proved my point that there is no such thing as true, pure, and utter evil. There are always shades of gray.

This is a really cool point! I'd never noticed it before, but you're right.

While Tolkien has some deficiencies and biases and I see a lot of validity in this critique.... He was a much better world builder, more origininal and immersive, and integrated so many more characters subplots, lore etc. I HATE CS Lewis' works if I compare them to anything else. I always find them inferior. And only 3 of them were tolerable for me. But I'm a completionist so I trudged on. Even Roald Dahl who is highly problematic when I read him as an adult is preferable.... all that being said there were missed opportunities for redemption arcs as you said, unless it was intentional allegory. Although Tolkien was critical of allegory so unlikely....

You're not the first person to notice that Tolkien's Orcs are a problem in terms of redemption. The Orcs appear irredeemable, although Tolkien at the same time is clear that evil cannot create anything new, only mar what has been created by God. The Orcs should inherit the same possibilities of redemption as their elvish ancestors, and yet they appear to be beyond hope. Personally, I would have like to have seen some hint of redemption for Orcs, and for Gollum, as well.

You are actually wrong. Melkor is not the originator of evil. Remember, Melkor is one of the ainur. Melkor was created by Eru. Tolkien probably wouldn't have believed in this because he was a devout catholic, but Eru or god is the originator of evil. He just makes sure that his reputation remains clean from corruption by handpicking some of his underlings to do his evil deeds for him. What does he say to Melkor when he's having a temper tantrum? "You can try to lash out, but everything you do contributes to my creation." more or less. In other words. "I made you the way you are, you have no choice but to participate in my creation. You think by being evil you are going against my wishes, but you are fulfilling my divine plan." He knows just what to tell Melkor to make him do what he wants. Melkor may believe he is doing this on his own, but thats the power of an all powerful god. Making you do stuff and thinking it was your idea.

Frodo and Bilbo? I mean, look, I'm a novice in the Tolkien journey, but... ... the Elves can come back from Valinor. Frodo, I don't have the exact reference to hand, is said to have been forgiven for "being corrupted and falling", because he gave absolutely everything he had before his fall. Yes, he suffered and had to leave Middle-earth, but that's because of the injury. And besides: isn't it, depending on your denomination (because of course there are multiple passages and interpretations), the Christian attitude that nothing you DO can redeem you, it's only your relationship to God that in any way saves you from hell? How much preaching is there in the Catholic Tolkien's books as to how one cannot be saved unless you get on your knees and pray to Eru Ilúvatar? Squat nothin'. Ain't even mentioned. (Nitpicky, my apologies: Tolkien names beginning with a C are pronounced with a hard C.)

Oh my god. I never realized this! You are absolutely right!

VALID!

Your point about the "race" of Orcs is devastating. There was no path to redemption for them. What is the significance of this .fact in Tolkien's Middle Earth? Personally I have to abandon any pretense that Tolkien had something coherent to say about "good" and "evil" in order to enjoy his superb storytelling.

If you actually need to see Redemption as a primary driver for Tolkien's story arc, you are in the wrong place. To that end, you are correct. But, why attempt to impose your requirements on someone else's tale? Put Redemptive Themes in your own work and stop attempting to critique Tolkien's work against your own requirements. Granted, he may well have done that to your works, as well, given the opportunity. He was quite opinionated! But, at this juncture, we'll never know, will we?

Yeah G R R Martin definitely has better redemption arcs

This is something I want to do differently in my books. My debut has a few redemption arcs and I very specifically don’t want them to immediately die so that there’s time to see them as a redeemed character and not to mention their internal conflict of guilt and whatnot afterwards which is something cool to explore as well

Adding to your point, his treatment of Eowyn: a mighty warrior who was so broken she became a healer. What the hell. In a sense though, it's the ultimate Christian thing to do: hypocrisy. Say you believe in redemption and then cast out everyone who's ever sinned according to your moral values. I respect Rings of Powers for having a more nuanced take on the nature of evil, ie Sauron did try to atone in Numenor

Lewis had a great concept of redemption....unless your name was Susan.

You don't understand what redemption means.