The Lord of the Rings

Now that Christopher Tolkien has published his final Middle-earth book, The Fall of Gondolin, I've been thinking once more about The Lord of the Rings and its point, especially regarding the Catholic faith of J. R. R. Tolkien.  I now think I have a bit of an understanding of what the elder Tolkien intended.



First of all, J. R. R. Tolkien was "sub-creating" (his term) a mythological world, presumably set in pre-Christian times and among Gentiles.  In other words, a world that (like the real world in pre-Christian times) is innately good, but fallen, and that lacks the grace of Jesus Christ's Sacrifice or even the revelations received by the pre-Christian Israelites.  That is, they only have the natural world, creation, to go by in terms of knowing the true God, its Creator--and that is faulty because it's been corrupted (in this mythology by Morgoth).

But more to the point, given the setting, fallen man (or other races) cannot hope to exert their wills against evil and win.  At most they might endure while trying to resist evil (like someone being tortured for information and desperately trying to keep quiet in the face of such torture), but in the end they will succumb to evil--whether that means being destroyed, killed, or whether that means turning to evil themselves.

Nevertheless, even in such an apparently nightmarish world, there is hope: evil cannot exist in a vacuum, but only as the corruption of good.  Good remains, because God the Creator is all-good, and so all creation is innately good, if corrupted.  Therefore, those resisting evil need not be alone--though given the setting, they need not to know exactly that they aren't alone, or who is with them.  All they need to do is will to merciful love, which is God's will, whether they know it or not.  God planted the capacity and the desire for merciful love in us--both to receive it and to give it--and even pre-Christian pagans have this.

Therefore, the point is that if one persists in willing merciful love, for oneself and for others (especially those who need it the most and to whom one would least want it given), and does this to the last ounce of one's strength even in the face of great evil, even (and especially) when it looks to the world like madness, like suicide--God will show merciful love to that person.



But why?  Why set it there?  I think the reason J. R. R. Tolkien set the story outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition of divine revelation was twofold: 1) lest he take the Lord's Name in vain by writing fiction about a people to whom God had revealed Himself; 2) to show the universality of God, and that His existence and action are independent of our knowledge of or belief in Him (as it must be if He is the all-powerful Creator), by having the setting be one that lacks knowledge of or belief in the Holy Trinity.

But that still doesn't explain why it's a mythological rather than a historical setting, nor why it's an invented mythological setting rather than an established mythological setting.  This answer is beyond the scope of this blog entry, and it may be as simple as J. R. R. Tolkien desiring to emulate God's creativity as best he could, as well as restoring (to some degree, after some fashion) to his country of England something of her culture that was lost with the Norman Conquest (and might have been further lost with World War I): a placeholding mythology that points to God not just in the actual world but in man's desire to know the truth and to use his imagination to fill in the blanks.

I say this is beyond the scope of this blog entry because I hold with Andre Bazin that the most creative act is to tap directly into God's creative power with cinema, specifically documentary--or, probably even more, with what Aristotle called the three "cooperative" arts of farming, healing, and teaching--and if so, J. R R. Tolkien was going in the opposite direction from this.  That's not necessarily to say that Tolkien was wrong (he did try to root his mythology in what he knew of language), and we do have imaginations for a reason, but by its very nature "sub-creation" is going in the opposite direction from tapping directly into God's creative power, even if it is rooted enough in reality that it can still be a tribute to the Lord.



At any rate, here, then, is the reason for the main story thread in The Lord of the Rings: Frodo Baggins's quest was never actually to destroy the One Ring, because he had not the ability to stand up against its great evil, but only to get the Ring close enough to Mount Doom for it to be destroyed--and from thence to exercise hope, which is a theological virtue, that the quest would not be in vain.  It is not entirely his fault that he succumbed to the Ring in the end, claiming it for his own and refusing to destroy it--its influence upon him was too powerful.

But had it not been for Gollum's intervention, the best that could have been hoped for is that Frodo would have suffered Gollum's actual fate--and at worst, the Nazgul would have killed Frodo, taken the One Ring, and returned it to Sauron, who would have conquered Middle-earth with it a second time.  Because of Gollum's intervention, however, Frodo was himself shown mercy from above, being spared the natural and just consequences of his act of claiming the Ring by receiving the mercy that Gollum had rejected, so that Gollum replaced Frodo in suffering the ultimate ill fate.

And yet, Gollum acted entirely out of selfish, wicked motives.  He did not heroically intervene to save Frodo from himself, and then sacrifice his own life to save Middle-earth from Sauron or anyone similarly powerful who coveted the Ring.  On the contrary, Gollum had so succumbed to his desire for the One Ring above all else that he simply saw Frodo as a rival, and determined to get it back no matter what.  Gollum didn't even kill Frodo to get the Ring, nor did he kill Frodo after getting it back.  Gollum simply leapt for joy at having his "precious" back after all these decades, heedless of where he was, and slipped and fell into Mount Doom.  So Gollum is not the hero of the story either.

So why was Gollum there?  He was there because Frodo and Sam didn't kill him when they had the chance.  Because of pity and mercy.  It began with Bilbo, who first stole the Ring from Gollum and neglected to exploit the invisibility the Ring gave him and kill Gollum to get out of his lair (in The Hobbit); then Frodo, who pitied Gollum when he first saw him, and who noted that they needed a guide into Mordor if their plan was to succeed (and Gollum had been in Mordor before, having been captured and tortured there), and who hoped against hope that Gollum might repent and be saved.  In the end, at Mount Doom, even Sam showed Gollum mercy (and Sam had refused to trust Gollum at all before then).

But how was it that Bilbo, Frodo, and even Sam were able to show mercy to such a wretched creature as Gollum?  Here's where it really gets counter-intuitive when you look at it from a temporal perspective: it was because they had themselves become Ring-bearers by then, and so to some degree (however slight) they were experiencing firsthand what Gollum had experienced for centuries, and so they understood.  In a Christian understanding, they (to a degree) effectively "became sin" but without giving themselves over to evil, even when all signs seemed to point to killing Gollum (he meant to betray and kill them in the end, if need be, in order to get the Ring back).

This seems to me to explain why the opening chapter shows Frodo inheriting the One Ring from Bilbo (though it takes a great effort on Bilbo's part, and even then requires some help from Gandalf, just to part with the Ring), and the next chapter has Gandalf mention that it was pity and mercy that prevented Bilbo from killing Gollum when he had the chance.

In other words, the point of Frodo's quest was as follows: 1) receive the One Ring without stealing it or killing its previous bearer Bilbo--without any evil act on Frodo's part (Bilbo had had it for too long to be a suitable hero for this quest); 2) get the One Ring as close to Mount Doom as possible, meanwhile avoiding the Nazgul as well as anyone else coveting the Ring (or their spies), and resisting putting it on and succumbing to its evil power to the last ounce of his strength; 3) encounter Gollum and show him mercy, borne partly out of his gentle nature and partly out of his own experience with the Ring--as well as prudence in needing a guide to get into Mordor without being caught--even to the point of hoping Gollum might be redeemed, and even when Gollum betrays him unto apparent death.  Beyond that it was out of Frodo's hands.



But in the end, it was Sam who showed the final mercy to Gollum, when Frodo's last words to Gollum had been "Begone, and trouble me no more!  If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom"--and after which Frodo succumbed to the One Ring and so was no longer able to show pity and mercy to Gollum, but only to see him as a rival.  And I think this, even more than simply the fact that Sam carried Frodo along the last leg of the journey when Frodo's burden became too heavy for him to move, is why J. R. R. Tolkien regarded Samwise Gamgee as the true "hero" of The Lord of the Rings.

Therefore, there was a point to Sam being on the quest as well, and that was as follows: 1) while meaning no harm, overhearing Gandalf's and Frodo's conversation about the One Ring, and getting caught by Gandalf, so that he went on the quest with Frodo; 2) continuing to follow Frodo even when Frodo ditched all his other companions after the Breaking of the Fellowship; 3) deferring to Frodo's pity and mercy to Gollum even when he strongly disagreed with it, even if it was only deference to Frodo's status as Ring-bearer or Frodo's superior social status (Sam was Frodo's gardener, his servant); 4) fighting back against Shelob when she poisoned Frodo, so that she would not devour him now that Frodo was helpless to fight back himself; 5) take the One Ring himself with no other intent but to complete the mission that Frodo had started and seemingly could no longer finish; 6) without being caught, discover that Frodo was alive after all; 7) resist the temptation to keep and use the One Ring, instead rescuing Frodo (thereby demonstrating his own merciful love even without thought of the cost to himself, rather than abandoning the still-living Frodo even for the sake of the quest) and returning the Ring to the one who had first offered to take the Ring to Mordor; 8) carrying Frodo to Mount Doom when Frodo's burden became too heavy for Frodo to make it any further on his own; 9) finally, showing Gollum mercy himself when they were at Mount Doom, even when Gollum had already shown himself to be treacherous and murderous and desiring only to have the One Ring back.

This also explains why it was Frodo, Sam, and Gollum in particular who made most of the journey to Mount Doom, though it doesn't explain the other parts.

********

If you've been following my blog entries for this year, you might suspect that my use of the term "merciful love" came from Father Michael E. Gaitley's books.  And it is from another of his books, The Second Greatest Story Ever Told, that I was inspired to another conclusion about The Lord of the Rings.

In The Second Greatest Story Ever Told, Father Michael E. Gaitley argues that Pope Saint John Paul II was a martyr for the faith--more specifically, that the pope was martyred on May 13, 1981, the day he was shot and almost killed.  Indeed, the Holy Father's death was reported prematurely, and doctors could not explain how he survived.  What's more, Father Michael E. Gaitley said that, in anticipation of Pope John Paul II's death, his blood was collected as relics.

But Pope John Paul II survived, not dying until April 2, 2005, almost 24 years later--so how does he still count as a martyr?  Father Michael E. Gaitley notes that the doctors couldn't explain how he survived, and that Pope John Paul II believed he had been spared miraculously, for a divine purpose.  Also he took note of the date, May 13, the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, who had prophesied that "the Holy Father will have much to suffer" without a consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart.  And indeed, on March 25, 1984, Pope John Paul II (with all the bishops of the world) finally satisfied heaven in consecrating Russia and the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, confirmed by Sister Lucia Santos (the one surviving child seer at Fatima) and by the end of the Cold War exactly 7 years and 9 months later, on December 25, 1991.  Also, April 2, 2005, the day that Pope John Paul II actually died, was the First Saturday of the month, and First Saturdays are devoted to Mary.

In short, Father Michael E. Gaitley suggests that God intervened, through Mary (as Our Lady of Fatima), to save Pope John Paul II's life--that, without this miraculous intervention, Pope John Paul II would undoubtedly have died from the attempt on his life (and presumably have gone to heaven).  In other words, the Holy Father gave his life as a martyr for the faith, but God decided it wasn't time for him to die yet, because He wanted him to do this great deed (and not only this, since Pope John Paul II lived over 21 years after the consecration, and over 13 years after the Cold War ended).  It was only by April 2, 2005, that Pope John Paul II had done what God wanted him to do, and therefore it was only then that the Holy Father died and went to heaven.



What does this have to do with The Lord of the Rings?  I would argue that J. R. R. Tolkien's intent, whether he would have described it this way or not, is that Frodo Baggins was effectively a martyr as well.  In the 11th chapter, Frodo is stabbed by the Morgul blade of the Witch-king of Angmar, the leader of the Nazgul--and while he is healed by Elves in Rivendell, he is not healed completely.  His injury flares up every year on the anniversary of the day he was stabbed.  Moreover, the same thing happened on the anniversary of the day he was stung by Shelob and paralyzed.  Because of this, Frodo was unable to find rest in Middle-earth once his quest was completed, and only found peace by leaving Middle-earth for Aman in the last chapter (hence probably why it was the last chapter).

In other words, I suspect that J. R. R. Tolkien intended for Frodo Baggins to have suffered martyrdom, but to have been miraculously spared because his purpose was not yet accomplished.  Once it was, however (once the One Ring was destroyed), Frodo remained a martyr, if a living one, and so could not find peace afterward.  Aside from his injuries flaring up every year on the anniversaries of the days he received them, Frodo returned home to find the Shire taken over by Saruman and ruffians.  Only in the undying lands, the home of the Ainur and the rightful home of the Elves, could Frodo be completely healed of his wounds and find peace at last before he died.

In short, Frodo Baggins was effectively "not meant for" Middle-earth, as he received the One Ring on his 33rd birthday (for a Hobbit, his coming of age), in anticipation of his quest, and he did not die in Middle-earth, nor did Bilbo (and we're told that Sam would not either, though the epic ends before Sam follows them).

And because this is the final fate for Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam, it is not only a final peace for those who had been Ring-bearers but also a reward for their mercy, especially to Gollum.  It didn't save Gollum but it did save themselves.

But it was only Frodo who was martyred.  Bilbo and Sam both gave up the One Ring of their own free will, though it took a lot of effort (and presumably did not happen without help, though Sam wouldn't have been aware of his help).  Hence, perhaps, why J. R. R. Tolkien also called Sam the true heir to Bilbo as the latter is in The Hobbit.  Even in The Hobbit, Bilbo never suffers anything like Frodo's two wounds, but returns to the Shire in the end, presumably to live comfortably (because there is no indication as yet of The Lord of the Rings).  Therefore, unlike Frodo, Bilbo and Sam return from their respective adventures to live long and comfortable lives in the Shire, but in the end to go to Aman to be completely healed of the effects of the One Ring on them, before they die.



And in the end, perhaps this is why The Lord of the Rings begins and ends where it does.  At least, this is one reason, and the most obvious.  But there are hints to another reason.

In the third chapter, when Frodo, Sam, and Pippin encounter Gildor and the Elves leaving Middle-earth for Aman (foreshadowing the last of the Elves doing the same in the last chapter!), Gildor names Frodo "Elf-friend", which is a blessing.  Bilbo had already been so named by Thranduil, the Elvenking of Mirkwood (and Legolas's father), when he gave the Arkenstone to Bard and Thranduil in hopes of averting a war between Dwarves on the one hand, and Men and Elves on the other.

Also, Arwen asks that the grace given to her pass to Frodo--so that, in effect, with Arwen's decision to live a mortal life as Aragorn's queen, what might have been her place on the last boat to Aman was instead given to Frodo.  This even further indicates that Frodo is an Elf-friend, almost an adopted son to Elrond Half-Elven, Arwen's father, who bore one of the Three Rings and who (having chosen the immortal life of an Elf) did leave Middle-earth forever, just as Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam did.

And this points to the long-term reason for The Lord of the Rings to end where it does, which I'll get into next.

********

J. R. R. Tolkien started The Lord of the Rings as a sequel to his children's book The Hobbit, but in the end it became a conclusion to his Middle-earth legendarium which he began during World War I.  He originally desired co-publication as "one long saga of the Jewels and the Rings", the "Jewels" being the Silmarils that give The Silmarillion its title.

If the Silmarils are thought of as having a similar role to the Rings of Power, then Earendil must be the equivalent of Frodo: Earendil inherits a Silmaril from his wife Elwing, the granddaughter of Beren who cut it from Morgoth's crown, and it is Earendil's efforts that (however indirectly) lead to the defeat of Morgoth and the end of the First Age--and he is rewarded with becoming the morning star (from which light is contained in the phial of Galadriel, used by Sam against Shelob).

But J. R. R. Tolkien never wrote the story of Earendil in as much depth.  Rather, similarly to how The Lord of the Rings is both a sequel to The Hobbit and to the never-published story of the Fall of Numenor, Earendil's tale is a sequel to The Fall of Gondolin and to Beren and Luthien.  (He never finished either, and they were only published this year and last year, but he wrote more to each of these than to the story of Earendil himself.)  Of those, it is Beren and Luthien specifically that deals with the Silmaril, as well as the uniting of the races of Elves and Men (they were the ancestors of Aragorn and Arwen, as their granddaughter Elwing was the mother, and Earendil was the father, of Elrond and his brother Elros, the latter of whom was ancestor to Aragorn).



But why did J. R. R. Tolkien consider the two to be inseparable?  This gets into the other reason why The Lord of the Rings ends where it does.  Specifically, why were the Rings of Power forged at all?  And why were there more than just the One Ring?  Obviously Sauron desired the Rings of Power so that he could dominate their bearers with his One Ring, but he only forged the One Ring on his own: the rest were forged either in part or in their entirety by the Elf Celebrimbor.  But why?  Ah, therein lies the tie to the Silmarils.

When Melkor stole the Silmarils, explaining why he had them in his crown (and why he was renamed Morgoth) and took them from Aman to Middle-earth, Feanor (who forged the Silmarils) and his sons swore an oath that they would recover the Silmarils at all costs, and kill anyone who hindered them (against the will of the Valar).  This led them and the Noldor Elves to commit the First Kinslaying of the Teleri Elves, which brought upon them the Doom of Mandos.  And this doom was that they had earned the enmity of the Valar, shut out from their old home of Aman, and that they would not succeed in their quest.  In short, the Noldor Elves would fail, their efforts turning to ill, and they would not be able to return home.

But at the end of the First Age, Earendil, whose mother was a Noldor Elf, took one of the Silmarils back toward Aman and begged for mercy of the Valar at a time when Morgoth was taking over the entirety of Middle-earth.  And the Valar showed mercy and fought back, defeating Morgoth and sending him to the Void, and rewarding Earendil and his descendants.  They also offered forgiveness and pardon to the Noldor Elves, allowing them to be freed of the Doom of Mandos and to come home to Aman again--if they would repent.



But not all did.  Some Noldor Elves stubbornly refused to return (notably Celebrimbor, grandson of Feanor), and so they allowed themselves to remain under the influence of Morgoth's corruption of Middle-earth.  Even though Morgoth was in the Void and so was no longer able to exert active and deliberate influence, the effects of his corruption of Middle-earth remained.  Therefore, the stubbornness of the Noldor Elves who remained in Middle-earth doomed them to suffer the same fate as the land itself: diminishing, corrupting, fading away, before the world might be renewed in the future.

Rather than accept the choice of either this terrible fate or humbling themselves as the price to be freed from it and return home, Celebrimbor fell victim to the temptation of Sauron in the Second Age.  While Sauron had his own evil intent, Celebrimbor's intent with forging what would become the Seven Rings and the Nine Rings (with Sauron's help), and the Three Rings (without it), was to provide a third option, a way out of this choice that he and the other Noldor Elves remaining in Middle-earth considered unacceptable.  That is, the intent was to forge Rings of Power that would preserve the realms of Middle-earth ruled by their bearers, in an (ultimately vain) attempt to make Middle-earth enough like Aman to where they felt they could continue to live there comfortably instead of returning to Aman in humility, or suffering in Middle-earth.

But Sauron had deceived Celebrimbor: not only did the Ring-making craft he revealed include (without Celebrimbor's knowledge) the ability to be dominated by the One Ring, but it also included the fact that if the One Ring were ever destroyed, so would the power of all the others--in hopes that, therefore, there would be no incentive to even think of destroying the One Ring.

Therefore, once the One Ring was destroyed, the power of even the Three Rings, untouched by Sauron's evil, faded away, and the corruption due to Morgoth's actions of the First Age set in once again.  And this forced the remaining Noldor Elves to face the music: either they could humble themselves and return home to Aman, or they could stay in Middle-earth and suffer diminishment as Middle-earth became more and more corrupted over time.  (This does not apply to half-Elves who chose mortal lives, like Arwen.)  Once they have made this choice, the Fourth Age and the reign of Men can begin.

Hence the other reason The Lord of the Rings ends where it does, with the last of the Elf-boats leaving Middle-earth never to return, now that the Rings of Power are no more.  And hence why there are other elements of The Lord of the Rings besides the main storyline of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum and the quest to take the One Ring to Mordor and Mount Doom, determined that the Ring must be destroyed to save Middle-earth from Sauron's domination or that of another of similar power coveting the Ring (like Saruman).  Besides the aforementioned seeing of Gildor and his Elves leaving Middle-earth, these include seeing Rivendell and Lothlorien, both of which are as they are because of two of the Three Rings, on the way towards Mordor.  These also include the absence of Elves' direct collective participation in the War of the Ring (notwithstanding Legolas), and the fact that the only true "third way" is for half-Elves who choose the mortal life of Men (such as Arwen), and for Men distantly descended from Elves (such as Aragorn, and the Men of Gondor).  Middle-earth is for Men, not for Elves, just as Aman is for Elves, not for Men.

********

And what does this tale of the Jewels have to do with what I just said about interpreting The Lord of the Rings from a Catholic perspective?

First, the whole reason that Morgoth was able to steal the Silmarils in the first place is because Feanor, the Noldo Elf who forged them, refused to give them to the Vala Yavanna, so that she could restore the Two Trees that once gave light to Valinor (the originals having been destroyed by the giant Spider Ungoliant).  Once Morgoth had them, Feanor and the Noldor Elves did not have the ability to resist Morgoth's evil on their own, and so their quest to get the Silmarils back was doomed from the beginning--they were doomed either to be destroyed by Morgoth or to turn evil themselves, especially since they swore their oath and brought upon themselves the Doom of Mandos.  Only by repenting could they be redeemed of this and return home to Aman--but at first some stubbornly refused, making themselves vulnerable to the temptations of Sauron--and the effects of this were only undone with the destruction of the One Ring.

But there's another thread, that of the Half-Elves.  Where the Noldor Elves failed, Beren alone succeeded in taking one of the Silmarils from Morgoth's crown and not suffering the burning of his hands in the process.  Beren succeeded out of love for Luthien, the daughter of Thingol of Doriath.  As a result of his self-sacrificial love, Beren was allowed to marry Luthien, the first time a Man married an Elf maid, and their line continued to inherit the Silmaril until their granddaughter Elwing married Earendil (himself a Half-Elf)--though they also inherited the enmity of Feanor's sons as they determined to get the Silmaril back and to kill whoever had it (to say nothing of Morgoth!).

In the end, there were two lines of half-Elves: the descendants of Beren and Luthien, and the descendants of Tuor and Idril, and they united when the former couple's granddaughter Elwing married the latter couple's son Earendil and they had two sons named Elrond and Elros.  Thus the two lines became one.  In addition, thanks to the efforts of Earendil, his sons were rewarded with the choice of which fate to have: the immortal life of an Elf or the mortal life of a Man.  In the end, it was Elros alone who chose the mortal life of a Man, and was given the island of Numenor as his kingdom.  (And Aragorn and the Men of Gondor are descended from the Numenoreans.)



But Earendil, Elwing, and Elrond all chose the immortal lives of Elves, which meant that Middle-earth was not for them.  Indeed, Earendil would have chosen the mortal life of a Man (and so presumably would have stayed in Middle-earth or possibly Numenor, where his son Elros was the first king), but for the fact that his wife Elwing chose the immortal life of an Elf, and he didn't want to be parted from her.  So, again out of love, he instead chose the immortal life of an Elf, and therefore chose to renounce Middle-earth and Numenor as possible homes for himself despite probably desiring them.  Indeed, before thus choosing, Earendil was the first mortal to set foot in Valinor, no small thing!  Therefore it was a sign of his humility and desire for mercy that prompted the Valar to allow him there at all, never mind acting on his request and defeating Morgoth, as well as offering mercy to the Noldor Elves who would repent.

Only Elrond, of those who had chosen the immortal life of an Elf, stayed in Middle-earth, where he would eventually become a bearer of one of the Three Rings, until he left for Aman at the end of The Lord of the Rings.  But the same choice of fate was granted to his children, and his daughter Arwen, out of love for the mortal Man Aragorn, chose a mortal life, becoming his queen--and so the grace given to her as a child of the Elves was passed on to Frodo, who accompanied Elrond in leaving Middle-earth for good.

Even before the end, it was Elrond who declared that the One Ring must be destroyed (refusing to touch it himself), knowing full well that this would mean the power of his own Ring would die, and that (having already chosen the immortal life of an Elf) he would have to make his choice--and he made the right choice, repenting and leaving for Aman, even though that also meant being parted from his children who stayed behind.  So Elrond made a heavy sacrifice in the end and was rewarded for it.

Indeed, The Fellowship of the Ring has all three bearers of the Three Rings (Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel) come into close proximity with the One Ring, and so being tempted to take it--and they all refuse, as is right.  Aside from the fact that the One Ring is evil and needs to be destroyed, all three of them have too much power, and could easily become as terrible as Sauron if they claimed the One Ring for their own.

Indeed, Saruman presents a contrast with Gandalf in this regard.  But, perhaps tellingly, there is no comparable wicked Elf who covets the One Ring as Saruman does, even though Elrond and Galadriel both have the most reason to do so (and Galadriel comes closest), and Legolas is the Elf who is in the closest proximity to the One Ring for the longest time, as part of the Fellowship of the Ring.  Perhaps this fact, then, shows the redemption of the Elves collectively, and therefore The Lord of the Rings ends with them going to their reward.  And perhaps, then, one reason for the existence of Saruman as a secondary villain to Sauron is to demonstrate the absence of a comparable character who is an Elf (someone comparable to Feanor and his sons with the Silmarils--I suppose the most likely would have been a hypothetical descendant of Celebrimbor who forged the Rings of Power other than the One Ring).

Granted, someone in the 1950's who wasn't familiar with Middle-earth wouldn't have reason to regard this as an omission, but aside from showing Elrond and Galadriel in Book II, this might have been part of the reason the Ring-rhyme begins "Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky...."



In short, the mercy rejected by Feanor and his sons is granted to the Half-Elves and their ancestors Beren, Luthien, Tuor, and Idril.  In particular, Idril is a Noldo Elf, like Feanor and his sons.

This isn't an exact analogue to the mercy rejected by Gollum being granted to the Hobbits Bilbo, Samwise, and especially Frodo.  Most obviously, the tale of the Silmarils doesn't end with the First Age.  The point, ultimately, is for the Silmarils to be returned to Yavanna so she can use their light to restore the Two Trees of Aman--but that is in the future from the perspective of the characters in The Lord of the Rings.  At the end of the First Age, the three Silmarils are in three of the elements: one in the fiery pit, one in the sea, and one in the sky as the Evening Star (the Star of Earendil).

Nevertheless, since the Noldor Elves brought the Doom of Mandos upon them by the Kinslaying (and Smeagol killed Deagol to possess the One Ring, Smeagol who would become Gollum as a result), my guess is that the Half-Elves and their Elvish ancestors Luthien and Idril did not participate in any kinslaying.  And Feanor and his sons would count, especially in Idril's case, so that refusing to kill them would mean constantly being targeted by them, just as with Morgoth whom they could not possibly kill anyway even though he doesn't deserve mercy at all.

And indeed, the fate of one of Feanor's sons, Maedhros, seems to foreshadow that of Gollum: because of his unworthiness, the Silmaril burned his hand and he cast it and himself into a fiery chasm.

********

One more thing:

Before Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the last Harry Potter book by J. K. Rowling, was published in 2007, Orson Scott Card wrote an essay called "Who is Snape?"  He wrote this by way of attempting to solve the mystery of what side Severus Snape was on and what he thought he was doing when he killed Albus Dumbledore--by analyzing what he knew of Snape from the first six books and what he would have done as a writer himself given that.

But for the purposes of this blog entry, in his essay Card said that Severus Snape is as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings: "the center of moral ambiguity, the character who, seeming evil, might also serve the good."  In other words, he is "not the character we are rooting for, but he may be the character whose moral struggle means the most to us in the end."



If Gollum is such a character, as certainly he seems to be--a "wild card" in a world of good and evil--then it seems that Feanor and his sons were similar characters in The Silmarillion, given their obvious parallel.  They do not want either the Valar or Morgoth or anyone else but themselves to have the Silmarils.  They are not evil in the sense of supporting Morgoth (quite the opposite!), but they are evil in the sense of opposing the Valar--just as Gollum is not evil inasmuch as he doesn't want Sauron to have the One Ring back, but he is evil in the sense of having allowed himself to desire the One Ring for himself so passionately.

This might explain why J. R. R. Tolkien had it be Feanor who made the Silmarils in the first place.  Although he made them and he is not the irredeemably evil Dark Lord, they were made with light from the Two Trees, and it is there that the light rightly belongs.  Therefore the right thing to do, once the Two Trees were destroyed, was to give the Silmarils to Yavanna so that she could use their light to restore the Two Trees.  Feanor didn't do this, and that allowed Melkor (whom Feanor renamed "Morgoth" as a result) to steal them.  Hence probably why this story is called The Silmarillion.

That being the case, then, if it wasn't Gollum (if The Lord of the Rings hadn't started as a sequel to The Hobbit, for which J. R. R. Tolkien invented the character of Gollum in the first place), perhaps a comparable character would have been an Elf, possibly a son of Celebrimbor who forged the Rings of Power other than the One Ring (and therefore a great-grandson of Feanor).  That, too, would have provided a contrast with Saruman, who (though shown mercy multiple times) never showed any sign of possible redemption, where Gollum at least came close.

Then again, an Elf would have been more powerful than Gollum, and probably better able to dominate Frodo and Sam, so perhaps that wouldn't have worked as well anyway.  Indeed, it wasn't until The Lord of the Rings that J. R. R. Tolkien even decided what Gollum originally was: a Hobbit.

********

Finally, I'm partly saying this to indicate what J. R. R. Tolkien meant for his readers to take from his story, and partly to get it into words so that I can take inspiration for my own story.  Please pray for me in that regard.



Thank you for being with me.  God bless you.