Did Gollum deserve death?

[Mansun]

Gollum was a psychotic serial murderer, a traitor & a liar. He was obviously going to set out to continue this if the Elves released him from Mirkwood. Did he deserve death?:-

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” (FR I:2, 68–69)

Gandalf thinks not, but he also sees that Sauron sent Gollum out of Mordor on an errand. Gollum was perhaps the first ever prisoner to be freed out of Mordor alive & more or less unharmed. Does this mean he had agreed to come under the service of the Darklord? If so, doesn't a servant of Sauron deserve death, or at least substantial punishment by being locked up for eternity? In the real world Gollum would be put to death.

[Folwren]

Gandalf didn't say that Gollum didn't deserve to die! He said Gollum did deserve to die. However, he told Frodo not to be eager to deal out death in judgement. Death is final, and it's too final for a hobbit like Frodo to deal out. It wasn't Frodo's place to judge people unto death, that's what I think Gandalf was saying.

As for Gollum deserving death...yes, I'd say so. He deserved death many times before the LotR began, and he deserved death many times during the LotR. But not everyone gets what they deserve. Other forces work, rather, and for all that Gollum did, no one punished him as he deserved (not even Faramir). That other force had a job for him to do. Justice was still dealt out in the end, but not the way Frodo would have planned, nor Gandalf foreseen.

He shouldn't be locked up for eternity, regardless his crime. Besides, that wouldn't be possible in that world, would it?

[Mithalwen]

Well my country doesn't execute either murderers or the mentally ill :rolleyes: ..theoretically it could execute a traitor, I believe...

For me Gandalf's words, were a factor in shaping my opinions on the death penalty, but given that ME is a world where capital punishment exists I will leave that to one side.

Gollum was tortured in Mordor - if he wsa "relatively unharmed" it was because he was so damaged already ...

You cannot punish people for things that they might do - well the state can't (to no doubt misquote PJ O'Rourke in "Parliament of Whores", "the supreme court can not punish you for having a smart look on your face - which is the difference betwen having a judicial system and having a mother").

Gollum was after the Ring for himself so to that extent, I don't think he was consciously on an errrand for Sauron or his servant .

Gollum's "treachery" if such it was, was essential to the destruction of Sauron.
So I disgree with you other than that I do think, but from a very different perspective, that Gollum deserved his death - as a release from the terrible burden of his life and reunited with his Preciousssss

[Mansun]

Gandalf didn't say that Gollum didn't deserve to die! He said Gollum did deserve to die. However, he told Frodo not to be eager to deal out death in judgement. Death is final, and it's too final for a hobbit like Frodo to deal out. It wasn't Frodo's place to judge people unto death, that's what I think Gandalf was saying.

Where the plague did Gandalf say Gollum did deserve to die?? It seems much more like he is making a case that Gollum deserves a chance to see if he could recover & recapture his former self.

[The Might]

As Mithalwen already pointed out, Gollum never was on an errand for Sauron intentionately.
This matter is presented well in the Hunt for the Ring chapter of the UT.
It is said that after Gollum was allowed to escape, he was followed by spies from Mordor, but that they were unable to follow him in the Dead Marshes. Afterwards he was captured by Aragorn, and taken north to Thranduil's realm.
If he had known that by seeking The Shire he would help Sauron find the Ring, he would have definitely taken much more precaution. Gollum definitely hated Sauron, and saw him as his greatest foe, if it was someone Gollum would have done anything to prevent from getting the Ring, it would have been Sauron.

One could debate that he might deserve death for other deeds such as killing Deagol, but definitely not for serving an evil power.

[Macalaure]

In the real world Gollum would be put to death.I'd say this depends largely on the 'where' in the real world. ;)

Concerning whether servants of Sauron deserve death or substantial punishment:'You think, as is your wont, my lord, of Gondor only,' said Gandalf. 'Yet there are other men and other lives, and time still to be. And for me, I pity even his slaves.'
~The Siege of Gondor

I think it is one of the key elements of the LotR, that even though one might indeed deserve death, he should still be pitied, if this is possible.

[Morwen]

[QUOTE=Folwren]Gandalf didn't say that Gollum didn't deserve to die! He said Gollum did deserve to die. However, he told Frodo not to be eager to deal out death in judgement. Death is final, and it's too final for a hobbit like Frodo to deal out. It wasn't Frodo's place to judge people unto death, that's what I think Gandalf was saying.

QUOTE]

While he addresses Frodo specifically, I thought that by adding the words "For even the wise cannot see all ends" Gandalf's comment implied that not even the wise should deal out death in judgment. Since their knowledge of the future is imperfect, they don't know what role someone may play in the evolving tale of Arda and therefore should not issue a final punishment such as death.

Did Gollum deserve to die? I certainly had no problem with him falling into the cracks of doom. By then he was beyond any sort of redemption. But I agree with Mithalwen that he also deserved to die in the sense that he had far outlived his time. IIRC when he comes upon the sleeping pair of Frodo and Sam in Cirith Ungol (??), Tolkien describes him as old and weary, having lived to long. Death would have been a release.

[Kuruharan]

Where the plague did Gandalf say Gollum did deserve to die??

Right here...

Deserves it! I daresay he does.

[Folwren]

Thank you Kuruharan. Right in the quote you quoted, Mansun, Gandalf said he deserved it.

Just because someone can not see into the future does not mean that they can not deal out punishment. There are crimes that deserve death, and even mortals and those that are immortal and wise are allowed and possibly expected to kill them for it.

Consider it thusly - If Bilbo had killed Gollum when he had a chance, Gandalf wouldn't have rebuked him, would he? Probably said something along the lines, "Well, well, well, I think there's more to this hobbit than meets the eye at first."

Or, if Gandalf himself had come across Gollum cradle stealing, I somehow think he wouldn't've spared his life.

Gandalf's rebuke to Frodo was not a question of 'If Gollum were brought to court for his crimes he wouldn't be killed' it was 'That's not very nice of you, Frodo, nor very wise. The fact that Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance should tell you that Gollum's time hadn't yet come. Don't be so hasty in such a matter and think before you speak and act.'

[Morwen]

I don't equate "dealing out death in judgment" with situations that involve self defense or the defense of others. Bilbo killing Gollum in self defense or a parent killing Gollum for attempting to murder his child is not the same as Frodo sitting in his living room making pronouncements on the fate of someone.

I agree that Gandalf is telling Frodo don't rush to judgment. But as for Gandalf's personal position on "dealing out death in judgment" he refrains from doing so at least twice, in the case of Gollum and Saruman. In the case of Gollum, Legolas reports at the Council of Elrond that Gandalf had told the elves of Mirkwood to hope for a cure. In the case of Saruman, in response to a question by either Merry or Pippin as to what he plans to do with Saruman, he states that he doesn't plan to do anything to him and regrets that much that was good now festers in the tower. Both Gollum and Saruman have done things that one might possibly kill them for but Gandalf does not suggest that such a thing be done and others seem to content to follow his lead.

[Raynor]

I'd say this depends largely on the 'where' in the real world. I agree. I fail to see how dealing out death would redress any past deeds. I also believe that Manwe's words concerning justice/healing in the case of Finwe and Miriel can apply in here too:
Neither must ye forget that in Arda Marred Justice is not Healing. Healing cometh only by suffering and patience, and maketh no demand, not even for Justice. Justice worketh only within the bonds of things as they are, accepting the marring of Arda, and therefore though Justice is itself good and desireth no further evil, it can but perpetuate the evil that was, and doth not prevent it from the bearing of fruit in sorrow.

[Lalwendë]

Well my country doesn't execute either murderers or the mentally ill :rolleyes: ..theoretically it could execute a traitor, I believe...

For me Gandalf's words, were a factor in shaping my opinions on the death penalty, but given that ME is a world where capital punishment exists I will leave that to one side.

Gollum was tortured in Mordor - if he wsa "relatively unharmed" it was because he was so damaged already ...

You cannot punish people for things that they might do - well the state can't (to no doubt misquote PJ O'Rourke in "Parliament of Whores", "the supreme court can not punish you for having a smart look on your face - which is the difference betwen having a judicial system and having a mother").

Gollum was after the Ring for himself so to that extent, I don't think he was consciously on an errrand for Sauron or his servant .

Gollum's "treachery" if such it was, was essential to the destruction of Sauron.
So I disgree with you other than that I do think, but from a very different perspective, that Gollum deserved his death - as a release from the terrible burden of his life and reunited with his Preciousssss

I agree with everything Mithalwen says here. And for me too, Gandalf's words are very important to me in the Real World - together with the words of other wise men and women on this subject. I don't doubt Tolkien had his own experience of summary justice, having been in WWI where men, disturbed by what they had seen, deserted and refused to fight or simply went mad; instead of being cared for and receiving counselling they were seen as Traitors and shot at dawn. Even today, almost 100 years later, few of them have had any kid of pardon. Ask any ex-serviceman about this and they will shake their heads at the injustice and inhumanity of it all.

And it's interesting to note how many traitors there are in Tolkien's work and what 'judgement' is dealt to them - sometimes it is harsh judgement, sometimes there is no judgement. As Morwen says, Gandalf is also kindly with Saruman who is a much bigger traitor than Gollum. Ultimately, in Tolkien's world, it is not the 'place' of Hobbits or Men or Elves or Dwarves or even Wizards to mete out Judgement. We see those who are kindly and who show mercy and pity being revered for their actions whereas those who 'judge' harshly are not painted in this light. Aragorn allows his Men to desert on the way to the Black Gate, he gives the Oathbreakers a chance, Frodo pities Gollum and stays Sam's angry hand, the Ents allow Saruman to walk free, etc. etc. Being merciful is most definitely an act of 'taking the moral high ground' in Tolkien's world. Being judgemental is not.

What did Gollum do though? The only 'crime' we know for sure that he engaged in was to kill his brother for the Ring. Who else did he kill? Orcs, to eat. Was that wrong? The tales about his eating children are just that - tales! Gollum is the classic 'bogeyman' attracting legends and folklore to his reputation, the twisted, shrivelled Hobbit of your nightmares. But what was he really? What drove him? He wanted his Precious - he didn't want to kill for the fun of it, for the kick, he killed and schemed and lied in order to get his Precious back. That puts any judgement of him into a whole different arena I'm afraid.

It's like the story of the Allied soldiers locking the guards of Belsen in a room and then kicking them to death. As soon as something extreme like that happens all normal sense of 'right and wrong' goes flying out of the window. Not for me the job of being a lawyer on a War Crimes tribunal! And that's what Tolkien is telling us, the Readers, through Gandalf's words. He says "while you're sitting in your comfortable armchair, reading about 'crimes' and misdemeanours, can you really know the full story? And if you did know the full story, do you really think it would make 'judgement' any easier?" He tells us that no matter how much we discuss and think about this 'Matter Of Gollum', there are no answers.

There was in the end to be nobody to 'judge' Gollum. He died. In the pursuit of the Ring, this object that had made him who he was, a thing he could not live peacefully without, but a thing which could not be allowed to continue existing anyway. He died reunited with his love, the thing which had destroyed him. And just to add to the perfection of this ending, he died saving Middle-earth as nobody else was going to destroy it.

So rather than asking if Gollum ought to have been executed, maybe we ought to be asking if he was ultimately Middle-earth's ultimate martyr?

;)

[Raynor]

The only 'crime' we know for sure that he engaged in was to kill his brother for the Ring.Hm, where is it stated that Deagol was his brother? He is only reffered to by Gandalf as his friend.
The tales about his eating children are just that - tales! I disagree
The Wood-elves tracked him first, an easy task for them, for his trail was still fresh then. Through Mirkwood and back again it led them, though they never caught him. The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds. The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles.This new terror appears just when Gollum escapes and wanders in Mirkwood. I see no reason to discard this as a mere tale, since it fits with his description of "persistent in wickedness" and "damnable".
So rather than asking if Gollum ought to have been executed, maybe we ought to be asking if he was ultimately Middle-earth's ultimate martyr? I strongly disagree. Gollum had little if any intention to sacrifice himself for the sake of others, not even to kill himself or destroy the ring in the very first place, quite the contrary. If anything would have been up to him, none of this would have happened.
Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes 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 persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

[The Might]

I agree with Raynor here.
As Tolkien shows in Letter #144 (I think that's the one), Gollum would have indeed become a martyr had he repented before entering Shelon's Lair. Had this happened, he would have probably taken the Ring from Frodo and thrown himself in the lava, trying to keep Frodo safe, and ultimately saving Middle-earth.

[Folwren]

I agree with Raynor, and possibly somewhat with something that Lal said.

I didn't say Gollum deserved to die because I thought his treason deserved it. That was no where in my mind. I was thinking more of his murders and his over all corruption. He had to have been pretty corrupt to kill Deagol as soon as he saw the other Hobbit holding the ring in the first place.

I don't deny that Mercy is a wonderful thing and sometimes is better than Judgement, but you can't always put Mercy in as a substitution for Judgement. Not on earth (in this case, Middle-Earth). If you did, what would you be left with? (What's the world today left with?) Either a lot of murderers and criminals (and that doesn't belong in quotation marks, I'm talking real criminals) running around loose, or a lot of murderers and criminals locked up in prison for years upon years. Sometimes, capital punishment is appropriate punishment, and to have mercy in such cases would be jepordizing other people.

I guess in a case like this, one has to choose the lesser evil. That is, unless you believe the Bible, and then you won't have a problem with capital punishment, because that's God's law, when it comes to murderers and just a couple other crimes.

The real mercy comes after life.

But I didn't want to get into all that because it's not LotR or ME related.

I still think Gollum deserved to die, and I think Gandalf knew it.

I also think that Gandalf was supposed to make judgements. He did judge Saruman, to a certain extent.

But judgement and mercy are often mixed together when good people judge.
Aragorn, for instance, judged Beregond (spelling may be incorrect, and I haven't got a book with me), but he did so with mercy.

Won't go farther, I haven't the time.

-- Folwren

[The Might]

Is it me or has the the discussion already long left the original track?
Is this still a lore discussion based on the writings or only on personal emotions?
Because, after all, each person has his/her own opinion on capital punishment, which I respect, but I think that's a bit too off-topic.
As far as laws and capital punishment in ME I remember Boromir88 started an interesting thread on that topic, somewhere around here.
Of course, both Beregond, and Hama are good examples of people, who although broke the law, were only lightly punished by their superiors.
As for Gollum, he would deserve or not deserve death in ME depending on the laws of the areas he commited his crimes. If the Stoors had such a punishment for Hobbitcide (just made that word up), then I guess this was his fate.
If we are to consider this matter on a higher level, then probably Manwe as King of Arda, or Eru himself would be the ones with right to decide on such matters. Anyway, Eru's decision seemed pretty clear judging by his action in the Sammath Naur.

[Thinlómien]

Is it me or has the the discussion already long left the original track?
No it's not just you. I'm afraid this will becaome the next bloody (not used a s a swear word here, though that might be almost appropriate ;)) moral debate thread in the books... :eek:

[Lalwendë]

I agree with Raynor, and possibly somewhat with something that Lal said.

I didn't say Gollum deserved to die because I thought his treason deserved it. That was no where in my mind. I was thinking more of his murders and his over all corruption. He had to have been pretty corrupt to kill Deagol as soon as he saw the other Hobbit holding the ring in the first place.

I don't deny that Mercy is a wonderful thing and sometimes is better than Judgement, but you can't always put Mercy in as a substitution for Judgement. Not on earth (in this case, Middle-Earth). If you did, what would you be left with? (What's the world today left with?) Either a lot of murderers and criminals (and that doesn't belong in quotation marks, I'm talking real criminals) running around loose, or a lot of murderers and criminals locked up in prison for years upon years. Sometimes, capital punishment is appropriate punishment, and to have mercy in such cases would be jepordizing other people.

I guess in a case like this, one has to choose the lesser evil. That is, unless you believe the Bible, and then you won't have a problem with capital punishment, because that's God's law, when it comes to murderers and just a couple other crimes.

The real mercy comes after life.

But I didn't want to get into all that because it's not LotR or ME related.

I still think Gollum deserved to die, and I think Gandalf knew it.

I also think that Gandalf was supposed to make judgements. He did judge Saruman, to a certain extent.

But judgement and mercy are often mixed together when good people judge.
Aragorn, for instance, judged Beregond (spelling may be incorrect, and I haven't got a book with me), but he did so with mercy.

Won't go farther, I haven't the time.

-- Folwren

Firstly I must correct something. The Bible does not say that capital punishment is acceptable. One of the fundamental things I was taught being brought up, at Sunday School and in church was that Mercy comes above all and that to resort to capital punishment was wrong; reacting with violence is allowing oneself to sink to the level of the criminal; that only God was able to make such judgements. Only certain interpretations of scripture says capital punishment is OK and we must also remember that many of the 'laws' contained therein are not God's laws but reflections of the culture of an ancient middle eastern society - e.g. not eating shellfish, stoning adulterers etc. And as for those who are against the cruel treatment of criminals, many of the prime movers in the movement against Capital Punishment were/are committed Christians. Today we have the Quakers solely to thank that prisoners are not beaten and left to rot in foul dungeons.

Now on the matter of Gollum's crimes. Again, there is not enough evidence that he committed much more crime than to kill Deagol. Anything else he 'did' is simply hearsay, as we as Readers are not there when events rumoured to be Gollum's work take place and there is no reliable evidence. Had he been a Real Life criminal the case would be laughed out of court as it's only circumstantial evidence at best - and that's a push of credibility!

And we simply cannot say that because he killed Deagol he was already corrupt. If we do so we are omitting to consider that most powerful of all the dangers in Middle Earth. What's that? The Ring of course. What about the powerful draw that the Ring has on him? If it was so unimportant then we might as well dismiss the whole story of LotR, as it was quite pointless trying to get this risky object out of anyone's hands forever, and we might as well dismiss Frodo's struggles, and decide Boromir really was a nasty pigheaded bully and not just troubled by thoughts of the Ring and what it might do.

I'm afraid that this is one of those examples whereby seeking to impose simplistic Real World moral mores onto Tolkien's complex creation just results in stripping away all the subtlety.

As indeed Gandalf said "can you really judge?" No, none of us can.

[Macalaure]

Is it me or has the the discussion already long left the original track?
Is this still a lore discussion based on the writings or only on personal emotions?
Because, after all, each person has his/her own opinion on capital punishment, which I respect, but I think that's a bit too off-topic.
I think the problem is that, in order to decide whether a particular person does deserve death or not, we would first need to agree on what it takes for somebody to deserve death in general, which leads us almost necessarily into a debate about the good and bad of capital punishment. I doubt such a discussion, though it would surely be interesting (esp. with Middle-earth as background), will ever come to a final result here. It's not off-topic, but pointless.


A minor point: Gandalf says: "I daresay he does.", not "I say he does." This sounds to me like, although it is Gandalf's opinion that Gollum deserves death, he is aware that his opinion alone doesn't make it so.

Anyway, Eru's decision seemed pretty clear judging by his action in the Sammath Naur.Exactly, and I would say that Eru alone can really make such a judgement. What is not clear, however, is Eru's motive, as Gollum's death doesn't necessarily strike me as a punishment.

[Folwren]

I strongly disagree with you on the Bible subject, but I won't get into it here. The Might's right, and I don't want to lead this anymore off track in such a blatant matter.

Gollum, though...

No good person in the books ever killed someone who already had the ring of power. No one ever looked at it and said, "Wow, I really like that Ring, let's kill him for it." The only person who almost did was Boromir, and that was after a long time of struggling with it, and that was also with the knowledge of what it was. Smeagol killed Deagol because Deagol had a pretty gold ring, not because Deagol held a powerful weapon that could defeat Sauron. (Tell me if I'm wrong about there not being anyone else but Boromir, it's really bad practice of me to be in an argument now...I haven't read the books in nearly two years.)

Okay, so if you wish to disregard his cradle stealing, then consider the fact that when he met Bilbo, his soul intention of the riddle game was so that in the end, he could throttle him and eat him. You don't think that's good evidence? And during the riddle game, Gollum is getting hungrier and hungrier and all the while of the riddles, wishes only to kill poor Bilbo. When Bilbo gives him an unanswerable question (unfair, yes, I'm aware of that), Gollum admits defeat, but plans to go, get his precious, and return and kill Bilbo in secret. You don't call that murderous?

As indeed Gandalf said "can you really judge?" No, none of us can.

Ha. I almost said something much like that in my last post, but I didn't.

There's also another meaning to deserves... I just realized that. We've all been thinking of 'deserve' in this thread as a bad thing. But there are times when deserve is meant as a good thing. "He deserves a metal, therefore he shall have one." Did Gollum deserve the right to die?

I'd say he deserved it in both senses - both for justice and for relief.

[Folwren]

Cross posted with Mac, therefore, I'm double posting...


Exactly, and I would say that Eru alone can really make such a judgement. What is not clear, however, is Eru's motive, as Gollum's death doesn't necessarily strike me as a punishment.

If we all agree that Eru had everything under his control (which I believe), then I think, deserving or not, Gollum was spared death by anyone's hand only so that he could go and die while destructing the ring. No, it wasn't punishment, but it was justice. (Heh...whatever that means...)

Gandalf, I think, thought Gollum deserved death, but the fact that he hadn't gotten what he deserved yet made Gandalf think that Eru had something else planned for him. Isn't that what I said at the beginning?

[Thinlómien]

Foley, a few points.

First, Sméagol didn't attack or kill Déagol because he had some random pretty gold ring. He attcaked because he was overtaken by the lust and the lure of the ring. He maybe had some natural inclination to greed since he acted this quickly, but I daresay he didn't do this because he was a bad/evil person. Greed was his weak point and it proved fatal here. (Also, one must consider that it is possible that the Ring put more "luring power" to Sméagol than to Boromir, but I'm not sure why would it so so or can it control itself that much..)

Second, I wouldn't call his actions towards Bilbo murderous. He was hungry. He didn't want to kill Bilbo because he (Gollum) is an evil person, but because he was hungry. A lion doesn't kill an antilope because it's evil. It kills to satisfy its hunger. (And I'd rather not start arguing is it a worse crime to eat people than to eat animals, it's a horrible debate...)

[Lalwendë]

I think the problem is that, in order to decide whether a particular person does deserve death or not, we would first need to agree on what it takes for somebody to deserve death in general, which leads us almost necessarily into a debate about the good and bad of capital punishment. I doubt such a discussion, though it would surely be interesting (esp. with Middle-earth as background), will ever come to a final result here. It's not off-topic, but pointless.


A minor point: Gandalf says: "I daresay he does.", not "I say he does." This sounds to me like, although it is Gandalf's opinion that Gollum deserves death, he is aware that his opinion alone doesn't make it so.

Exactly, and I would say that Eru alone can really make such a judgement. What is not clear, however, is Eru's motive, as Gollum's death doesn't necessarily strike me as a punishment.

I agree. Such a discussion is ultimately pointless as nobody will agree!

Anyway...there's a very good point about what words Gandalf uses. "I daresay..." is incredibly different to "I say...". Remembering that Tolkien was English, it's important to consider how English people use the language, and "I daresay..." is very often used when someone really means "I think you're talking out of your backside, actually". ;) As in when you get into a taxi and the driver lets fly with a stream of racist comments - "I think they should all be sent home, the scrounging foreigners, blah blah blah" may be met by a reply from you along the lines of "I daresay they should, but have you ever thought what it's like for them at home? Could you send them back to being tortured?" "I daresay..." is an opening statement used when we wish to appease the ranter, and is usually followed by an opposing statement of common sense - as is Gandalf's own "I daresay..." Miss out on that subtlety at your peril. ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

Again, there is not enough evidence that he committed much more crime than to kill Deagol. Anything else he 'did' is simply hearsay, as we as Readers are not there when events rumoured to be Gollum's work take place and there is no reliable evidence. Had he been a Real Life criminal the case would be laughed out of court as it's only circumstantial evidence at best - and that's a push of credibility!You are right that the reference to Gollum stealing from cradles is, legally defined, hearsay. In fact, it is (to Frodo), second hand hearsay as Gandalf did not personally witness Gollum doing this, but was presumably told of it by another. To add a further level of complication, it is third hand hearsay to the reader, who is being told of the conversation between Gandalf and Frodo by the author.

However, a work of fiction is not a court of law, and the rules of evidence applicable to a court of law are irrelevant, or, at best, marginally relevant, since they may be used as a technique by an author to convey the extent to which an aspect of the tale may be considered reliable. The principal question here is whether Tolkien intended the reader to believe that Gollum fed on babies or whether he intended the reader to dismiss it as rumour. Tolkien chose to convey this information in a very important conversation between Gandalf and Frodo in which key background information to the tale was imparted, some of which Gandalf himself has no personal experience of (but which we are clearly intended to believe). In these circumstances, there is not doubt in my mind that Tolkien intended us to believe that Gollum snatched and ate babies.

And we simply cannot say that because he killed Deagol he was already corrupt. If we do so we are omitting to consider that most powerful of all the dangers in Middle Earth. What's that? The Ring of course.I agree that the influence of the Ring was pivotal in Smeagol’s murder of Deagol. That said, Smeagol was the only Ringbearer to murder an “innocent” in order to gain possession of it. And he did so on the mere sight of it, without even having touched it. With the exception of Boromir, there is not one character not in the service of Sauron who comes close to murdering for it on the mere sight of it. And Boromir was exposed to it for many months.

I'm afraid that this is one of those examples whereby seeking to impose simplistic Real World moral mores onto Tolkien's complex creation just results in stripping away all the subtlety.For me, the fascination of Gollum, as a character, comes from the fact that he committed all kinds of heinous deeds (let’s not forget that he intended to get Frodo and Sam eaten by a horrific giant spider being), and yet Tolkien is still able to make us feel sympathy for him.

Edit: Crossed with Folwren, who makes much the same point about Gollum's murder of Deagol.

[Folwren]

Foley, a few points.

First, Sméagol didn't attack or kill Déagol because he had some random pretty gold ring. He attcaked because he was overtaken by the lust and the lure of the ring. He maybe had some natural inclination to greed since he acted this quickly, but I daresay he didn't do this because he was a bad/evil person. Greed was his weak point and it proved fatal here. (Also, one must consider that it is possible that the Ring put more "luring power" to Sméagol than to Boromir, but I'm not sure why would it so so or can it control itself that much..)

Bilbo didn't even attack Frodo (much less kill him) when he knew that Frodo had the Ring in Rivendel. And Bilbo had already born the Ring. Don't you suppose the lure was strong on him, too?

And I dearly wish I had the books here with me today...fact is...the library is open now, I'll see if I can hop over there and look some stuff up.

Second, I wouldn't call his actions towards Bilbo murderous. He was hungry. He didn't want to kill Bilbo because he (Gollum) is an evil person, but because he was hungry. A lion doesn't kill an antilope because it's evil. It kills to satisfy its hunger. (And I'd rather not start arguing is it a worse crime to eat people than to eat animals, it's a horrible debate...)

Gollum was not a lion or a wild animal. He wasn't even an orc, and yet an orc would be considered disgusting if it ate another orc or a person (they did, though, didn't they?). Gollum was an intelligent creature, cunning and evil.

And a lion, if it came to a village of people and started slaughtering the inhabitents, whether or not the lion deserved to be hungry and deserved to eat, the people would kill it.

AND Gollum WASN'T hungry at the beginning of the riddle game, but he STILL said, "If I win, I get to eat you."

Pointless? My dear chaps, any discussion on these books are pointless in the long run. "All is vanity and grasping for the wind." :rolleyes:

-- Folwren

[The Saucepan Man]

Tolkien chose to convey this information in a very important conversation between Gandalf and Frodo in which key background information to the tale was imparted, some of which Gandalf himself has no personal experience of (but which we are clearly intended to believe). In these circumstances, there is not doubt in my mind that Tolkien intended us to believe that Gollum snatched and ate babies.I meant also to note here that this information is relayed by Gandalf who, while not necessarily always right, is a trusted and reliable character and most definately not a gossip-monger, at least with regard to such grave matters.

[Lalwendë]

No good person in the books ever killed someone who already had the ring of power. No one ever looked at it and said, "Wow, I really like that Ring, let's kill him for it." The only person who almost did was Boromir, and that was after a long time of struggling with it, and that was also with the knowledge of what it was. Smeagol killed Deagol because Deagol had a pretty gold ring, not because Deagol held a powerful weapon that could defeat Sauron. (Tell me if I'm wrong about there not being anyone else but Boromir, it's really bad practice of me to be in an argument now...I haven't read the books in nearly two years.)

Okay, so if you wish to disregard his cradle stealing, then consider the fact that when he met Bilbo, his soul intention of the riddle game was so that in the end, he could throttle him and eat him. You don't think that's good evidence? And during the riddle game, Gollum is getting hungrier and hungrier and all the while of the riddles, wishes only to kill poor Bilbo. When Bilbo gives him an unanswerable question (unfair, yes, I'm aware of that), Gollum admits defeat, but plans to go, get his precious, and return and kill Bilbo in secret. You don't call that murderous?

Firstly, we don't know that Gollum was not already 'good'. The whole point of the Ring is that it is such a powerfully evil thing that it could drive even the best people into extremes such as murder. And what could be more humble than a Hobbit? Maybe we could even say that it is Gollum's very innocence (in terms of him not having the faintest clue what this Ring is, unlike most others who come into contact with it) that drives him to the extreme of murdering for it. I'm sure there's a good discussion been had already on just how the Ring works, and it's worth looking for as that is the crucial matter - the 'criminal' here is not Gollum but The Ring and how it works. But really, Lommy puts it very well here:

First, Sméagol didn't attack or kill Déagol because he had some random pretty gold ring. He attcaked because he was overtaken by the lust and the lure of the ring. He maybe had some natural inclination to greed since he acted this quickly, but I daresay he didn't do this because he was a bad/evil person. Greed was his weak point and it proved fatal here. (Also, one must consider that it is possible that the Ring put more "luring power" to Sméagol than to Boromir, but I'm not sure why would it so so or can it control itself that much..)

Anyway, both the alleged cradle stealing and his thoughts of eating Bilbo have to be disregarded in a very ethical sense. The former is hearsay (and adds some mighty fine chills to the tale!) and the latter is only 'intention', it is not 'deed'. Had Gollum come to court then only his deeds would be judged, and there is no evidence he ate babies apart from folk tales and no evidence he did eat Bilbo because as we know, Bilbo got away! And even if there was then we would have to stop and think that all of this is down to The Ring. It exerts a truly horrible effect on anyone it touches and Gollum has it for an incredible amount of time.

I strongly disagree with you on the Bible subject, but I won't get into it here. The Might's right, and I don't want to lead this anymore off track in such a blatant matter.

I agree, this isn't the place! But as you know, if things like that are brought up, people will get their nasty pointy sticks out and prod at them. ;)

[Raynor]

Again, there is not enough evidence that he committed much more crime than to kill Deagol.You also are not taking into consideration that he hunted and ate orcs
He liked meat too. Goblin he thought good, when he could get it; but he took care they never found him out. He just throttled them from behind, if they ever came down alone anywhere near the edge of the water, while he was prowling about. They very seldom did, for they had a feeling that something unpleasant was lurking down there, down at the very roots of the mountain.Frankly, I fail to see what you don't like about the account of the woodmen concerning his deeds. It all falls into the same pattern.
And we simply cannot say that because he killed Deagol he was already corrupt. He was already evil at the time he took the ring
The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sm eagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean son of thief before it crossed his path. Gollum was an intelligent creature, cunning and evil.
I agree; unlike (most) Middle Earth animals, Gollum has the option to choose between right and wrong. Cunning and versatile as he is, he would have had no problem surviving on anything else than this.

[Lalwendë]

You are right that the reference to Gollum stealing from cradles is, legally defined, hearsay. In fact, it is (to Frodo), second hand hearsay as Gandalf did not personally witness Gollum doing this, but was presumably told of it by another. To add a further level of complication, it is third hand hearsay to the reader, who is being told of the conversation between Gandalf and Frodo by the author.

However, a work of fiction is not a court of law, and the rules of evidence applicable to a court of law are irrelevant, or, at best, marginally relevant, since they may be used as a technique by an author to convey the extent to which an aspect of the tale may be considered reliable. The principal question here is whether Tolkien intended the reader to believe that Gollum fed on babies or whether he intended the reader to dismiss it as rumour. Tolkien chose to convey this information in a very important conversation between Gandalf and Frodo in which key background information to the tale was imparted, some of which Gandalf himself has no personal experience of (but which we are clearly intended to believe). In these circumstances, there is not doubt in my mind that Tolkien intended us to believe that Gollum snatched and ate babies.


But again remember the need to read it subtly. This is a work of 'myth' and it includes layers of myth, legend, folklore, story within itself. What Gandalf tells Frodo are "dreadful tales" - not 'truths' but "tales' and it is up to us to decide. Entirely subjective.

These are also tales from a mysterious woodland, one which has suffered from the Shadow, and where the Bogeyman will live large for many, many years gathered around the fireside on a long, cold, wintry evening. What Gandalf tells Frodo is framed in the language of the bedtime story. It drips with poetry and metaphor. Do we really think all the birds and beasts spoke? That Gollum was an actual 'ghost'? No, this is a bedtime story of fabulous power:

The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds. The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles.

It isn't 'fact' at all, here Tolkien is yet again layering story upon story until nobody knows what really happened, and that makes the 'myth' of Gollum even more frightening than the reality. Marvellous writing. :eek:

[Raynor]

The whole point of the Ring is that it is such a powerfully evil thing that it could drive even the best people into extremes such as murder. And what could be more humble than a Hobbit?Quite the reverse argument can be made, that the most resilient beings to evil are hobbits.
I think that there is no horror conceivable that such creatures cannot surmount, by grace (here appearing in mythological forms) combined with a refusal of their nature and reason at the last pinch to compromise or submit. The former is hearsayWithout any evidence to counter this, and with plenty of evidence to support this, then your argument is a fallacy of converse accident; the exception you are arguing is uncalled for.
the latter is only 'intention', it is not 'deed'.The fact that it couldn't get performed to its end doesn't absolve the immorality of Gollum for wanting to do such a thing. Intention is the first thing that defines the morality of one's actions.

[The Saucepan Man]

the latter is only 'intention', it is not 'deed'. To add to what Raynor said, attempted murder, if proved, is a crime. One might describe the riddle game as an attempted murder on Gollum's part. ;)

But again remember the need to read it subtly. This is a work of 'myth' and it includes layers of myth, legend, folklore, story within itself.I agree that there is great subtlety in the way that Tolkien has Gandalf relay this information. Clearly, Gollum's deeds gave rise to wild rumours among the Woodsmen. But, without the deeds, there would be no rumours.

(And it is open to debate whether the birds and the beasts spoke, but quite possible given the fox's musings on the Hobbits' journey through the Shire. ;) )

What Gandalf tells Frodo are "dreadful tales" - not 'truths' but "tales' and it is up to us to decide. Entirely subjective. I of course do not dispute that it is up to the reader to decide. I choose to believe that Gollum snatched infants from theior cradles. And I believe that Tolkien intended me to.

[Raynor]

And it is open to debate whether the birds and the beasts spoke, but quite possible given the fox's musings on the Hobbits' journey through the Shire.Tolkien actually complained about the presence of the talking animals
What of talking beasts and birds with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from less 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot now be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show they are a recognized feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common.

[Boromir88]

There is no doubt that as Raynor has shown, Gollum wasn't a 'good little hobbit' and he did have this 'evil' side to him even before coming across the Ring. But let's not forget the power and the influence of the Ring in this situation. Yes, Gollum is described as 'damnable' and a 'mean son of a thief' before coming into contact with the Ring, but the Ring is also an integral part of the whole situation and let's not forget that.

Gollum went into what some might say a 'fit of rage.' And when emotions are high and you get into these fits of rage, you can not control what you are doing. You could say you black out and have no control over your actions. Boromir gets into one of these fits of rage:
'Miserable trickster!' he shouted. 'Let me get my hands on you! Now I see your mind. You will take the Ring to Sauron and sell us all. You have only waited your chance to leave us in the lurch. Curse you and all halflings to death and darkness!' Then, catching his foot on a stone, he fell sprawling and lay upon his face. For a while he was as still as if his own curse had struck him down; then suddenly he wept.

He rose and passed his hands over his eyes, dashing away the tears. 'What have I said?' he cried. 'What have I done? Frodo, Frodo!' he called. 'Come back! A madness took me, but it has passed. Come back!'~The Breaking of the Fellowship
Yes, Boromir had this idea of using the Ring as a weapon and win him his own glory, but let's not forget the Ring caused Boromir to act in a way we know Boromir never would act. Boromir desired the Ring, and he struggles with this, but when the Ring gets control...it certainly causes Boromir to act in a way he never would. And try to do something he never would. In this moment of Boromir trying to take the Ring, it always seemed like one of those fits of rage/blackout situations; Boromir lost control over himself and the Ring filled him with a maddening rage.

Now what's this have to do with Gollum? Yes, Smeagol wasn't all that good before coming across the Ring, but would it be fair to say that the Ring caused Smeagol to be filled with the same madness as Boromir? The Ring twists, warps, and manipulates people into doing things they never would, and definitely changes them. As Gandalf says to Denethor about Boromir 'He would have kept it for his own, and when he returned you would not have known your son.' (The Siege of Gondor).

Before coming across the Ring could you imagine Smeagol getting into a fit of rage and killing his friend? Before coming across the Ring could you imagine Boromir going in a fit of rage trying to kill Frodo for the Ring? No. Both had their weaknesses, but both were manipulated and controlled by the Ring; and the Ring caused both to do things they never would have done. So before one so easily condemns Smeagol as a murderous, down-right evil, spiteful, deserving of death wretch...let's not forget the part the Ring played in turning Smeagol into a murderous, down-right evil, spiteful deserving of death wretch. I don't think the Ring should be cast so easily out of the equation (and I don't see why it has barely been mentioned in the effect it had in changing Smeagol into a miserable murderer).

[Raynor]

So before one so easily condemns Smeagol as a murderous, down-right evil, spiteful, deserving of death wretch...let's not forget the part the Ring played in turning Smeagol into a murderous, down-right evil, spiteful deserving of death wretch.Then again, as I quoted from letter #181, he was already tainted.

[Folwren]

I know the ring had a great deal to do with Gollum's behavior later on in life. But when he first saw the Ring and when he first had the ring, if he had been a good fellow, like Bilbo and Frodo both were, he wouldn't have 1. killed Deagol for it, 2. wouldn't have used it to steal things from his Grandmother as soon as he got it, and 3. wouldn't have been kicked out of society because of it.

I think the Ring's power over people was directly connected with the people's tendency towards evil before they had or saw the Ring. Just look at how different people handled it!

Bilbo - before he had the Ring, he was a common hobbit, who wished nobody ill. He was childish and sweet and badly frightened, by the time he came across the Ring. When he found it, I don't believe he felt a great pull towards it. He put it in his pocket, which was somewhat strange, I will admit, but he didn't put it on, and he forgot about it until the riddle game. There was no lure, no temptation, no nothing. And when he finally gave the Ring up, he stuck it on the mantel piece, his hand jerked back and it fell, and Gandalf picked it up. Bilbo had a flash of anger pass through him, but he didn't attack Gandalf, he didn't have a 'blackout' of rage. Bilbo's character was one that leaned towards good, rather than evil.

Frodo - was even more pure than Bilbo. He owned the Ring for a long time before the quest. It did affect him some in different places of the books...but never to the point of evil, until he claimed it for himself. When Sam took it from him after he was wounded by Shelob, he didn't attack Sam when Sam admitted having it. He asked for it back, saw Sam as an orc, and snatched it from him, but he didn't attack him.

Sam - purest of all the hobbits. He took the ring off of what he thought was Frodo's dead body, and when Frodo asked for it back, he handed it over.

Tom Bombadil - Ring had no affect on him whatsoever, but that was due to his power in his land as well as to his perfectness.

Others I don't have time for. Sorry. But I believe you see what I'm doing. My point is, Smeagol's character was bent towards evil, and therefore, the evil power of the Ring had an easier time of consuming him.

-- Folwren

[Boromir88]

Then again, as I quoted from letter #181, he was already tainted.
I think the question we should all ask though is could we imagine Smeagol killing his friend (or anyone for that matter) before coming across the Ring? I think not.

I'm going to use Boromir as an example again...here's Pippin's impression of him:
'and Pippin gazing at him saw how closely he resembled his brother Boromir - whom Pippin had liked from the first, admiring the great man's lordly but kindly manner.'
Pippin admires Boromir for his lordliness, yet kind qualities. Boromir trying to kill Frodo for the Ring doesn't make him seem like a kind man...but in truth he was. Could we imagine Boromir trying to kill Frodo if he had never come across the ring? I think not.

Both Smeagol and Boromir were corrupted by the Ring because both were easy prey for the Ring. Gollum's pre-disposition to 'meanness' and Boromir's mindset that the Ring is a weapon both made them easy targets. But, let's not take the Ring out as an important part in the changing of these two characters...causing both to do things I don't think they would ever have done. Afterall a 'mean son of a thief' is a far away from a 'friend murderer' and 'baby eater.'

[Raynor]

Gollum's pre-disposition to 'meanness' I would prefix pre-disposition with "strong". After all, he killed a friend perhaps in mere minutes, if not seconds, after seeing the ring; the only parallel I can think of is the orcs being stirred by the ring in attacking Isildur. Frodo abstained from killing him even after decades of having the ring, even when Gollum was a threat to his quest and most likely his life too. Folwren makes a better case about this.

[Bryangorn]

I think that the ring to Gollum was sort of an addiction like drugs he hated it and loved it at the same time. He i think wanted to be freed from his addiction and become a good person. Just like any addict wants to be free from his addiction.
So i think that he deserved life yet his death saved the world from certain doom.

[The Saucepan Man]

But let's not forget the power and the influence of the Ring in this situation.I don't think that anyone is forgetting the important part that the Ring plays in Gollum's murder of Deagol, which in itself leads to the later heinous acts he commits.

What Folwren has shown, and what I have attempted to show, is that it did not affect any other character (outside those in the service of Sauron) in anything like the same way. The reference to Boromir is a fair one but, as has been noted, Boromir struggled for weeks, if not months, to resist the lure of the Ring. Gollum succumbed in a matter of seconds. Moreover, with Boromir's death in attempting to save Merry and Pippin and in his final words to Aragron, he is essentially portrayed as being required to atone for what he has done. Regardless of the part the Ring played, he is adjudged wrong for having attempted to seize it by force from Frodo.

In any event, to continue Lal's courtroom analogy, the Ring might have been regarded as a mitigating factor when sentencing Gollum for the murder of Deagol, but it would not have absolved him from liability. ;)

[Lalwendë]

One might describe the riddle game as an attempted murder on Gollum's part. ;)

Tut tut Mr Sauce. Now, would that really hold up in court? I think not. :P


I of course do not dispute that it is up to the reader to decide. I choose to believe that Gollum snatched infants from theior cradles. And I believe that Tolkien intended me to.

I think that is the whole point of what Gandalf says, which is "Think for yourself, I'm not going to do it for you!" So with something half-hinted-at, merely 'suggested', the poetic language describing the mysterious events in the woods has been put there for no other 'purpose' than to allow you to come to your own conclusions. Those are Tolkien;s only intentions - as a great artist might merely 'suggest' something with paint he does it with words and it's up to you how you see things like that.

I like that there is no definitive answer. It's much more scary!

I don't say he definitely did NOT do it, just that we don't know for sure, which is far more satisfying.


Frodo - was even more pure than Bilbo. He owned the Ring for a long time before the quest. It did affect him some in different places of the books...but never to the point of evil, until he claimed it for himself. When Sam took it from him after he was wounded by Shelob, he didn't attack Sam when Sam admitted having it. He asked for it back, saw Sam as an orc, and snatched it from him, but he didn't attack him.

Sam - purest of all the hobbits. He took the ring off of what he thought was Frodo's dead body, and when Frodo asked for it back, he handed it over.

Remember how long Gollum had the ring though, much longer than Frodo or Bilbo. And we can see the disturbing effects of it as soon as Sam puts it on and he has his mad delusions of power. That should tell us just how bad the effects would have been on Gollum - i.e. beyond comprehension. And Frodo seeing his own friend as an Orc? That's prety disturbing, seeing as we know Gollum ended up eating Orc flesh. Yet another subtlety about this is that we must also remember Sam saw the effects of the Ring on Frodo 24-7 - he was under no illusions, unlike everyone else.

How come nobody has considered what this Ring did to a certain Numenorean?

And speaking of later Numenoreans...

Both Smeagol and Boromir were corrupted by the Ring because both were easy prey for the Ring. Gollum's pre-disposition to 'meanness' and Boromir's mindset that the Ring is a weapon both made them easy targets. But, let's not take the Ring out as an important part in the changing of these two characters...causing both to do things I don't think they would ever have done. Afterall a 'mean son of a thief' is a far away from a 'friend murderer' and 'baby eater.'

That's it. We're side-stepping away from the most important factor in the story, The Ring and what it does. It serves no purpose to blame the victims of Sauron's work for the evil that this work does - all it serves to do is to cause fighting over trivial matters, both in Middle-earth and outside of it! Whether Gollum was a naughty Hobbit is quite irrelevant - it's The Ring and what it does that matters.

Most of all, we're not heeding Gandalf's warning not to be too hasty to come to judgements that are beyond our ken.

[Mansun]

Right here...



I agree. Such a discussion is ultimately pointless as nobody will agree!

Anyway...there's a very good point about what words Gandalf uses. "I daresay..." is incredibly different to "I say...". Remembering that Tolkien was English, it's important to consider how English people use the language, and "I daresay..." is very often used when someone really means "I think you're talking out of your backside, actually". ;) As in when you get into a taxi and the driver lets fly with a stream of racist comments - "I think they should all be sent home, the scrounging foreigners, blah blah blah" may be met by a reply from you along the lines of "I daresay they should, but have you ever thought what it's like for them at home? Could you send them back to being tortured?" "I daresay..." is an opening statement used when we wish to appease the ranter, and is usually followed by an opposing statement of common sense - as is Gandalf's own "I daresay..." Miss out on that subtlety at your peril. ;)


I totally agree to the above generally, although I don't know where you got this typical english racist taxi driver scenario nonsense from - should it be brought up in the LOTR forum? I am from England, & here things can be meant in a different context to what is written in word. "I dare say he does" - this sounds like a sarcastic comment from Gandalf, he is saying he would be reluctant to give death as punishment. It does not mean he meant Gollum deserves death.

Rather than being put to death, perhaps Gollum could escape under the mental health act & be sent to the equivalent of a ME mental health unit (i.e. in the dungeons of the Elven realm of Mirkwood)?.

[The Saucepan Man]

Tut tut Mr Sauce. Now, would that really hold up in court? I think not. :PWell, if we are going to apply courtroom standards, then there might be some doubt as to whether Gollum actually murdered Deagol. After all, there is a suggestion that Gandalf extracted his confession under duress. :p

Those are Tolkien;s only intentions - as a great artist might merely 'suggest' something with paint he does it with words and it's up to you how you see things like that. I disagree. Tolkien's purpose (or, to exclude any C-thread style debate ( ;) ), one of his purposes) is to tell us, his readers, a story. In doing so, he relays certain events to us. Some of those he intends us to take as fact. In my view, this is one such event.

Why would Gandalf seek to influence Frodo's impression of Gollum with tales of infant cannibalism if he did not himself believe them to be true? If Gandalf considered them to be mere Woodsman gossip, it would be highly irresponsible for him to colour Frodo's opinion of Gollum in this way. The same applies with regard to the impression that Tolkien gives to his readers of Gollum. We are meant to believe that Gollum carries out these awful deeds. And, when we meet him, we are meant nevertheless to pity him. This, in my view, is where the subtlety lies in Tolkien's characterisation of Gollum.

Most of all, we're not heeding Gandalf's warning not to be too hasty to come to judgements that are beyond our ken.Hang on. I would say that we are perfectly entitled to form a view as to what Gollum did and whether such things were right or wrong. The point that Gandalf (and Tolkien) was making was that Frodo (and we, the readers) should not be hasty in dealing out death in judgment. In other words, whatever view we might come to as to the rights and wrongs of Gollum's deeds, we should not be so hasty as to condemn him to death for them. That said, had one of the Woodsman caught Gollum in the act, as it were, one might understand if he were to have put an axe through the wretched creature's neck.

[Boromir88]

Just a quick comment regarding this:
If Gandalf considered them to be mere Woodsman gossip, it would be highly irresponsible for him to colour Frodo's opinion of Gollum in this way.~Sauce
Gandalf was capable of making errors in judgement and had some lapses. As Tolkien addresses in Letter 214:
"With regard to (1) Gandalf certainly says at first 'I guess' p. 62; but that is in accordance with his character and wisdom. In more modern language he would have said 'I deduce', referring to matters that had not come under his direct observation, but on which he had formed a conclusion based on study."
And some of Gandalf's conclusions could end up being wrong. So perhaps Gandalf could serve as an expert to share his conclusions with the court...but he's not some all-seeing eyeball here. :p :rolleyes:

I think the Ring's power over people was directly connected with the people's tendency towards evil before they had or saw the Ring. Just look at how different people handled it!~Folwren
True, but the Ring effects and changes everyone...just in different ways and the time varies from person to person. However, eventually the Ring does twist everyone, if given the time.

Bilbo gets quite snappy when Gandalf tells him to give up the Ring. And Bilbo would not have let the Ring go had it not been for Gandalf. As Gandalf tells Frodo, Bilbo did let go of the Ring, but 'I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too.' (The Shadow of the Past)

Frodo, claims the Ring for himself in the end. Yes, Tolkien says in Letter 246 that at that point (in the Sammath Naur) the Ring's power was so strong it was impossible for anyone to destroy...nevertheless Frodo succumbed and claimed the Ring as his own.

Gandalf:
'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused.'~The Shadow of the Past

Sam also reaches a point where he faces the 'pull' of the Ring, he was able to resist it and cast it out of his head...but what if he's faced with that situation again and in a more desperate situation? Had the Ring not been destroyed in the Sammath Naur what would Sam have done, what would the Ring do to try to get itself out?

The Ring is one smart cookie...sure not everyone murders when it comes to the Ring, because not everyone was as 'mean' as Smeagol was. The point is that the Ring causes people to act in ways that they normally wouldn't. It dramatically changes a person's personality. Bilbo as you and I have mentioned lashed out at Gandalf...now Bilbo didn't kill Gandalf, but there is no doubt that was extremely out of Bilbo's character. The Ring plays a huge role in twisting someone's personality. Sure not everyone feels the need to kill over it, but nevertheless it causes individuals to act in ways they never would.

For parting words what does Gandalf say about Gollum's feelings on the Ring:
'He was altogther wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated light more: he hated everything, and the Ring most of all.'
[...]
'You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard,' said Gandalf. 'He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.'~The Shadow of the Past
Well Sauce I simply felt the matter and influence of the Ring was being overlooked in this case. People are so easy to condemn Mr. Gollum for what he did. Sure he was weak-minded and instantly killed over the Ring, but the Ring is at the very center of the evil here. Not everyone reacts as viciously as Gollum did, when it came to the Ring, but it does twist everyone.

I think we all understand and forgive Boromir for his attack on Frodo for the very reasons you have mentioned...Gollum it's a lot harder because we don't see that atonement...but that doesn't chage the fact that the Ring is at the heart of the problem; just as it was at the heart of causing Boromir to attack Frodo.

Gollum was very close to redemption, he had been at a 'crucial point' as Tolkien describes and when Sam mistakes Gollum's 'pawing' at Frodo...Sam over-reacts and Gollum's chance of redemption is gone. That was Gollum's crucial moment where he was nearly redeemed, and it's a lesson to us all that even good-hearted, loving people like Sam can misjudge, over-react, and cause bad problems despite having no intention to do so.

[Raynor]

I don't say he definitely did NOT do it, just that we don't know for sure, which is far more satisfying.I fail to see what shadow of doubt lies on the account of the woodmen; is it because they are woodmen?? That is just genetical fallacy. The timing and the manner of facts are highly relevant for Gollum's fault, and in tone with his past deeds. It seems to me that you simply re-state your opinion while not addressing counter evidences to it. Nobody in the book, or Tolkien elsewhere, shares or backs this position.

[Mithalwen]

Raynor, I suggest you might like to rephrase your last post .

"The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad..a ghost that drank blood..." is not conclusive proof rather circumstantial evidence and it is no slight on Woodmen to say so.

While I think Gollum had few scruples left at that point, there are many things that an unsophisticated community might regard as terrors, and sometimes people jump to hasty conclusions - especially where children are concerned, cf the story of Gelert ....

And as for Gandalf, it takes the wise one seventy years to twig about the significance of the Ring ... which might affect his credibility ... I can imagine the cross-examination...

[Folwren]

True, but the Ring effects and changes everyone...just in different ways and the time varies from person to person. However, eventually the Ring does twist everyone, if given the time.

Hang it all, Boromir, that's exactly it - if given the time. Smeagol didn't have time. His mind was so defiled and twisted before even seeing the ring that it instantly captured him, and if he couldn't get Deagol to give it to him, by golly, he was going to take it!

I am done. I'm through arguing my point over and over again. It is in capable hands, with Saucepan Man and Raynor here, I think.

-- Folwren

[Raynor]

While I think Gollum had few scruples left at that point, there are many things that an unsophisticated community might regard as terrors, and sometimes people jump to hasty conclusions - especially where children are concerned, cf the story of Gelert .I know of no evidence that the woodmen would start creating stories about dissappearing children due to ghost that drinks blood. After all, this is not some myth from the long past, but a present event, whose traces can be acknowledged by those living in a arguably small community. I don't see any other explanation to this; babies in craddles don't slip out through windows. We know from the Hobbit that Gollum was a cannibal, and nothing I know refutes those referrences, nor the account of the woodmen. Of course, we may choose to ignore all these.

[alatar]

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” (FR I:2, 68–69)
I think that Gandalf was counseling against rash judgment and 'stabs in the back' - killing in cold blood. Slaying Gollum in the heat of the moment would not have garnered any tut-tutting from the Grey Pilgrim; stabbing the foul creature when Bilbo's situation did not require it (leaving the caves) would have been the first step down a dark road, the same that Smeagol took.

And note that, though Boromir was tempted, he still did not murder anyone over the Ring. Obviously, being a warrior, he'd killed many enemies of his Lord, yet did not draw his sword when confronting Frodo. Smeagol, on the other hand, immediately murders Deagol when the latter will not willingly yield his prize. To me it's also significant that Gollum's own hands do the deed. No weapon, rock or branch are used, but hands upon a living neck crush out a companion's life.

Gollum had it in him to 'do murder;' the Ring just brought it to the fore.

What of Faramir? Doesn't Frodo pass on Gandalf's admonition when Faramir's silent archers make to shoot Gollum unawares? Faramir sees into the black soul of the wretched creature and passes a judgment. Free to go with Frodo; death if found without its Master.

[Mithalwen]

Can't you...?

There is a case being reported currently in Oxford, of a man with severe learning difficulties having been drowned by a group of people who decided he was a paedophile... a couple of years ago a mob attacked the home of a paediatrician because they couldn't tell the difference.... tales start very quickly even here, even now...

I am not ignoring anything I am merely distinguishing between rumour and fact.

[Raynor]

Would you care to give some Middle-Earth related evidence that would refute Gollum's canibalism?:)

LotR as we know it was, presumably, assembled from notes and accounts not only from the hobbits, but also from Rohan and Gondor, where annotations and corrections were added. Nothing, anywhere, discards what we already know of Gollum.

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien's purpose (or, to exclude any C-thread style debate ( ), one of his purposes) is to tell us, his readers, a story. In doing so, he relays certain events to us. Some of those he intends us to take as fact. In my view, this is one such event.

Why would Gandalf seek to influence Frodo's impression of Gollum with tales of infant cannibalism if he did not himself believe them to be true? If Gandalf considered them to be mere Woodsman gossip, it would be highly irresponsible for him to colour Frodo's opinion of Gollum in this way.

Why would he seek to influence Frodo? I don't think he was doing anything of the sort, as you say, this is story-telling. And Gandalf does say that this is a tale of the Woodsmen, not something he has seen or experienced. The whole little section of story is told in poetic language with metaphor which immediately makes you think "ah! a folk tale!" Beings creeping into nurseries at night is a common 'bogeyman' tale - told nowadays by grannies trying to get restless grandchildren to go to bed and in olden days by villagers frightened of the fairies swapping their babies for changelings. The times Gollum was abroad were times when there were many 'nasties in the woodshed', and in the woods. It could have been anything...

:eek:

Hang on. I would say that we are perfectly entitled to form a view as to what Gollum did and whether such things were right or wrong. The point that Gandalf (and Tolkien) was making was that Frodo (and we, the readers) should not be hasty in dealing out death in judgment. In other words, whatever view we might come to as to the rights and wrongs of Gollum's deeds, we should not be so hasty as to condemn him to death for them.

Isn't that the exact question at stake though? Did Gollum deserve death? I guess your answer there would be no or don't know. We're not discussing his rights and wrongs - if so then we'd all probably agree that Gollum did many 'wrong' things, that's not really in question. But what is, is if he deserved death, as a punishment for these deeds.

Hang it all, Boromir, that's exactly it - if given the time. Smeagol didn't have time. His mind was so defiled and twisted before even seeing the ring that it instantly captured him, and if he couldn't get Deagol to give it to him, by golly, he was going to take it!

The problem with this approach, that Gollum was already twisted, entirely sidesteps the fact that Gollum had that Ring for 500 years, so anything we see of him, anything we know of him is irrevocably coloured by the twisted, damaged Gollum we see. The old Smeagol is very, very difficult to find - and in those instances when we do find him, he is seen to be guilt-ridden for what he did to Deagol, which would not be the reactions of a cold-hearted killer.

And of course yet again, we're ignoring the immense power of the Ring. Not only that, but we are demeaning and diminishing that power. That it acted so quickly is testament to what a terrible thing it is. If we take onboard the argument that the Ring itself has some kind of sentience (which the jury is out on for me!) we can also see just how perfect it is that after being left dormant for centuries, the Ring, on its reappearance instantly provokes violence and murder - what a perfect way, for an evil Ring of power, to begin its journey in the waking world once more? Not only that, but it will then give the new bearer, the new murderer, an incredible sense of guilt and hence an impetus to keep the Ring safe - "if it was worth killing for it is worth keeping it well".

There is a case being reported currently in Oxford, of a man with severe learning difficulties having been drowned by a group of people who decided he was a paedophile... a couple of years ago a mob attacked the home of a paediatrician because they couldn't tell the difference.... tales start very quickly even here, even now...

I am not ignoring anything I am merely distinguishing between rumour and fact.

Good example. It's well known that worries soon escalate into paranoia and into myths. And the same can quite well have happened in Gollum's case - as I say he is the classic 'bogeyman'. There is no evidence that he was a cannibal, save his threat to eat Bilbo, and that's exactly that, a threat. He eats goblins, but that is not cannibalism as they are not his 'species', and is really no more wrong than the Rohirrim hunting the Woses just for a bit of a laugh.

[Mithalwen]

LotR as we know it was, presumably, assembled from notes and accounts not only from the hobbits, but also from Rohan and Gondor, where annotations and corrections were added. Nothing, anywhere, discards what we already know of Gollum.


LOTR as we know it is a work of fiction ... :rolleyes: by someone who kneow how tales developed....

And even to suspend one's disbelief and enter into the conceit of "history" - you would have to take the Hobbit with a bucket of salt, as a infantilised, abridged version... or else you take the account of tralallally camper than a row of tents elves as a reliable documentary of the behaviour of the Noldor in Middle Earth.

I am not saying Gollum did not kill to eat I am saying that you can't take circumstantial evidence and suspicion as proof.

[davem]

Would you care to give some Middle-Earth related evidence that would refute Gollum's canibalism?:)

LotR as we know it was, presumably, assembled from notes and accounts not only from the hobbits, but also from Rohan and Gondor, where annotations and corrections were added. Nothing, anywhere, discards what we already know of Gollum.

Doesn't work. A reading of HoM-e gives us so many different versions of the story. Smeagol originally didn't exist & there was only one 'Hobbit' - Digol - who becomes 'Gollum' as a result of his finding the Ring. In the first draft Gandalf states that Gollum himself is the source of the 'stealing from cradles' story ('He boasted of it') & yet even then Gandalf states that Gollum is a liar & his words have to be sifted.

In the published version we have a 'story' about Gollum. And any 'evidence' is circumstantial'. Its entirely possible to read this as Gandalf simply reporting the story to Frodo to make him aware of all that is known about Gollum - the true & the false. Or, more subtly to 'test' Frodo's reaction.

Which reaction is interesting ... Smeagoi, on coming across the Ring responds murderously. Frodo's response on hearing Smeagol's story is equally 'murderous' - 'its a pity Bilbo did not kill him when he had the chance.' That's worth considering - if Frodo could wish Gollum murdered on the basis of a story, one can understand Smeagol's murderous reaction in the presence of the real thing.

Tolkien's only 'judgemental' comment on Smeagol (ie Smeagol prior to the Ring's appearance) seems to be in the letter where he refers to his 'mean little soul' - yet this was written after the event. Leaving this aside one can read Smeagol as 'victim' of the Ring's influence, & I think Tolkien is clear that he is a victim. And even if the story was true I think it would take a very hard hearted approach to the story of stealing babies from cradles for one to interpret it as depicting Gollum's 'evil' or monstrous nature rather than as depicting the horror of his existence, what this 'Hobbit' had been turned into by the Ring.

Yet there are other monsters in Mirkwood with a taste for human flesh, so the reader (as probably intended) is left with the option of whether they believe the story or not - & that, perhaps, says more about the reader than about Gollum himself.

Some readers do seem to prefer to divide the inhabitants of M-e into 'Good' & 'Evil', refusing to believe the 'Good' can do any evil & that the 'Evil' are capable of any attrocity imaginable. Personally, I find such an approach overly simplistic.

[The Might]

Lalwende, with all due respect, I think this has gone a bit too far.
You're being a bit subjective here, and interpreting the whole quotes as it fits your point.
Of course a threat is not equal to a deed, but let's be serious, Tolkien was pretty clearly saying that Gollum would have eaten Bilbo.
It could well be that the Ring had a great influence, and that the old Smeagol was a pretty nice guy, still, the thread topic is "Did Gollum, and not Smeagol, deserve death?"
Bogeymen stories? Even if these were just "stories", let's keep in mind that many stories actually base on real events.
Hobbits and ents only existed as characters in stories for the Rohirrim. Are you saying they are perhaps just bogeymen as well, meant to keep kids out of the forest or something?
Let's be serious, and face the facts, Raynor already gave some very good quotes for this.
Gollum was a murderer and a cannibal and probably would have been killed according to the laws of any kingdom in Middle-earth, with exceptions such as The Shire.

[Boromir88]

One more quick comment...
If we take onboard the argument that the Ring itself has some kind of sentience
I always found it interesting that the Ring seemed to be aware of Isildur's intentions with the Ring.
When he at last felt free to return to his own realm he was in haste, and he wished to go first to Imladris; for he had left his wife and youngest son there, and he had moreover an urgent need for the counsel of Elrond.......

I cannot use it. I dread the pain of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the Three.~Unfinished Tales; The Disaster of Gladden Fields
And in Note 24, CT remarks: The pride that led him to keep the Ring against the counsel of Elrond and Cirdan that it should be destroyed in the fires of Orodruin

It's always been fascinating that the Ring seemed to be aware that Isildur was of no use to it and was about to take it [the Ring] directly into danger (the Keepers of the Three)...therefor Isildur is quickly dealt with before he can reach Rivendell. :)

Raynor, I don't think anyone is arguing that Gollum is not a cannibal and did not eat human (at least Orc) flesh...but Lal and Mith are saying that 'tales' are just that...'tales.' Which makes them rumours and not something that can be definitively said as 'fact.'

I'm reminded of the Salem Witch Hunt in the U.S. where a whole town was after anyone who showed signs of witchcraft. The hysteria it caused was shocking, yet you can't help but laugh at the stupidity of it. I mean accusations were so weak...an accusation such as 'She was walking by and my cow was struck down by a disease' could put someone in court, accuse them of witchcraft, and send the person to the noose. 'Tales' and such of witchcraft (or in this case the disappearance of babies), could lead to hysteria and a gross misinterpretation of the actual 'facts.'

TM, and while it's true many tales do have a bit of truth to them, the tales can become completely distorted as it passes from one person to the next (especially if the people are filled with hysteria). Even such things as 'eyewitness testimony' may not hold up in court...as eyewitness testimony has been proven (through several psychological studies) to be flat out wrong sometimes. Such little and trivial things as saying 'bludgered' instead of 'hit' can effect the actual accuracy of an eyewitness testimony. (And these are presumably the people who witnessed a crime happening! Not a group of hysteric villagers that have children supposedly disappearing).

[Lalwendë]

Lalwende, with all due respect, I think this has gone a bit too far.
You're being a bit subjective here, and interpreting the whole quotes as it fits your point.
Of course a threat is not equal to a deed, but let's be serious, Tolkien was pretty clearly saying that Gollum would have eaten Bilbo.
It could well be that the Ring had a great influence, and that the old Smeagol was a pretty nice guy, still, the thread topic is "Did Gollum, and not Smeagol, deserve death?"
Bogeymen stories? Even if these were just "stories", let's keep in mind that many stories actually base on real events.
Hobbits and ents only existed as characters in stories for the Rohirrim. Are you saying they are perhaps just bogeymen as well, meant to keep kids out of the forest or something?
Let's be serious, and face the facts, Raynor already gave some very good quotes for this.
Gollum was a murderer and a cannibal and probably would have been killed according to the laws of any kingdom in Middle-earth, with exceptions such as The Shire.

Me subjective? Isn't everybody subjective? Every last one of us? The only person who can be objective is Tolkien and he isn't here - all we have are the scraps to turn over.

A threat is not equal to a deed. Tolkien was particularly skilled in using his own language and I think he would have known the nuances and meanings inherent in every word he wrote down! He also knew well that implied actions and threatened actions are far more effective at scaring the reader than actually seeing the 'gore' - the Wicth King's threats to Eowyn are far more frightening than actually seeing someone having their Hroa ripped from them as without a defined picture, the imagination is able to go wild!

And that's sadly one thing that a lot of people today do not appreciate - the sheer power of the written word to create pictures in the mind, and the way that the writer can suggest things that may or may not have happened, and leave us to imagine and think for ourselves. So much more satisfying than films.

Many stories are based on real events? Many are not. See Mithalwen's great example for modern stories and how they get out of hand.

And which laws would have seen Gollum killed? Certainly not the laws of Thranduil's realm, nor those of Rivendell. And Faramir chose not to enact the normal rules applicable to intruders to the Forbidden Pool.

As davem says, it does not help to reduce this work to black and white. It is far too subtle for that. I don't care how many carefully cherry-picked quotes from the Letters are thrown at me, I have been reading Tolkien for long enough to know full well that there is always a contradictory one, so I am afraid Clever Quotes impress me not at all - mostly because I'm old enough in this game to know they aren't very clever. ;)

And from a personal level, we instantly demean Tolkien's whole wonderful work to the level of a mere factual Maths text book the moment we set boundaries of X or Y upon it. Personally I blame the insidious influence of simplistic good/evil paradigms as seen in games and Jackson's films for this view people take today of the text. We need to listen to good old Gandalf a bit more. Which brings me back to being subjective. Nobody here is more than subjective as nobody here is Tolkien. ;)

EDIT - What Boro says! And Boro knows as well as I do just how easy it is to spread stories and false rumours - that's what playing the Wolf in Werewolf is all about after all...

You can forget bogus 'magick spells' - it's stories that spread the real magic, whether malicious or not, true or not, it's magic all the same.

[davem]

Of course a threat is not equal to a deed, but let's be serious, Tolkien was pretty clearly saying that Gollum would have eaten Bilbo.

And let's not forget that Gollum did not know 'what' Bilbo was, after having spent half a millenium in a cave. What's being forgotten is that by this time Gollum was insane, & hardly responsible for his actions. Gollum is a tragic figure because he has been driven mad, psychotic, by something far more powerful than he was. His mind was broken by it. Hence, he was a victim. To simply state that 'he deserved to die' is to place oneself on the level of those decadent upper class types who visited mental asylums to laugh at the 'lunatics'.

It could well be that the Ring had a great influence, and that the old Smeagol was a pretty nice guy, still, the thread topic is "Did Gollum, and not Smeagol, deserve death?"

This again is reducing things to a simplistic 'Good' vs 'Evil' judgement. Except this is dividing a person into a 'Good' part & an 'Evil' part (just 'cos Sam does it it doesn't mean its an insightful or compassionate approach). How can one say that 'Gollum' deserves to die & 'Smeagol' does not? How would you kill the one without killing the other? There are not 'two' different 'spirits' inhabiting one body, but a person with a broken mind. Can you imagine the nightmare horror of 'Smeagollum''s existence? Put yourself in his place - your every thought, every perception, is fractured, one desire, hope, dream constantly 'attacked' by an opposing one - every thought you have immediately smashed by its opposite. And all the time you are driven by an overwhelming desire for something you hate.

Anyone who responds to such a supremely tragic remnant of a once whole person by saying 'Well, he certainly deserves to be executed' has missed Tolkien's point by a mile.

[Mansun]

Gandalf didn't say that Gollum didn't deserve to die! He said Gollum did deserve to die.

I think you are hugely mistaken here. Read the quote carefully & explain where he says Gollum should die. At best, one can only make an opinion on what Gandalf meant, but as mentioned earlier in England the spoken word is often different in context to the written one.

[Boo Radley]

I think you are hugely mistaken here. Read the quote carefully & explain where he says Gollum should die. At best, one can only make an opinion on what Gandalf meant, but as mentioned earlier in England the spoken word is often different in context to the written one.


Gandalf's quote reads: "“Deserves it! I daresay he does."
That's pretty straight forward to me.

[The Saucepan Man]

This debate is (as so often seems to be the case these days) getting to the point where I no longer wish to take part.

My own interpretation is that Gollum was responsible for snatching babies from cradles. Despite the fact that Gandalf picked this up from Woodmen's tales, he clearly concluded that Gollum was responsible (or else why raise it). The Woodmen were not telling him that it was Gollum, as they had no idea who Gollum was. All they knew was that children were disappearing from their cradles and they attributed it to a mysterious ghost (rather than one of the other horrors of Mirkwood, with which they were no doubt familiar). I acknowledged before that Gandalf may not get everything right, but he is one of the most reliable sources of information that we have in LotR. In this case, I choose to accept his conclusion. And I believe, in light of all the circumstances, that Tolkien intended his readers to do so.

I also fully accept the influence of the Ring on Gollum's behaviour. But the fact that he, uniquely among all those who came into contact with it, committed murder almost immediately upon first catching sight of it leads me to conclude that he was not the purest of beings, even before it crossed his path.

These are my opinions. I have no problem if others interpret the relevant passages differently or reach a different conclusion from me concerning Tolkien's intentions in the way that he chose to portray these scenes. And I have no problem in debating these issues with those who hold an opposing view.

I do, however, resent the implication that my interpretation of these matters and my conclusions derived from it are somehow "unfair" or "overly-simplistic". And I also greatly resent the suggestion that my intepretation of a fictional tale is somehow akin to the lynch mob mentality that leads to the victimisation of those who are suspected of being paedophiles or (in the past) of being witches on scant evidence.

It seems impossible to discuss anything here these days without some people questioning the character or literary nouse of those putting the opposing view. :rolleyes:

And that is all that I have to say on the matter.

[Folwren]

Some readers do seem to prefer to divide the inhabitants of M-e into 'Good' & 'Evil', refusing to believe the 'Good' can do any evil & that the 'Evil' are capable of any attrocity imaginable. Personally, I find such an approach overly simplistic.

Some readers, p'raps, maybe, but who here has voiced such thoughts? To whom do you refer, sir? Everyone, so far as I know, evil or good, has some tendancy to both evil and good. Boromir, I strongly believe, was a very noble, very good character, but he definitely had his faults and was capable of doing evil. Frodo was an infinitely good character, and yet, he, too, made mistakes.

Gollum...yes, he was a terribly evil character, but no, I never, ever said in this thread that he did not have some good left in him. Every character worth writing about has some shred of goodness that could somehow be redeemed, if the author so wished.

Every murderer usually has some soft spot left in his heart, I don't deny, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't done a crime.

Gollum was evil, with perhaps some tiny shred of goodness left in him by the time of the LotR, and Gollum, with all his murders, his lies, his treachery, and his whole evil self deserved death.

I think you are hugely mistaken here. Read the quote carefully & explain where he says Gollum should die. At best, one can only make an opinion on what Gandalf meant, but as mentioned earlier in England the spoken word is often different in context to the written one.

I would say that Gandalf said he deserved to die when he said this:

Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death.

I would ask you to tell me what Gollum had done NOT to deserve death, but I won't, because I seriously am leaving this thread and this argument.

Saucepan Man is right. But I am guilty, I think, of what he accuses everyone of. Got too fierce and argument here. I do apologize. Of course everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of the story, but this question...! My word, it drives one nuts!

-- Folwren

[Raynor]

Why would he seek to influence Frodo?Why would he present something this significant, if he didn't trust it, esspecially since he had some work to do with Frodo about the value of pitty, and how important it is to this quest?
The problem with this approach, that Gollum was already twisted, entirely sidesteps the fact that Gollum had that Ring for 500 years, so anything we see of him, anything we know of him is irrevocably coloured by the twisted, damaged Gollum we see.Folwren was referring to a moment when Gollum was not yet present, so your argument doesn't apply there.
LOTR as we know it is a work of fiction ... ubb/rolleyes.gif by someone who kneow how tales developed.... Nobody here is more than subjective as nobody here is Tolkien. Yeah, but Tolkien doesn't refute any part of the image of Gollum outside LotR. He reffers to him as damnable and persistent in wickedness.
you would have to take the Hobbit with a bucket of saltWhy? Elves love to sing. I don't see a problem with them having a lighter side. Tom himself is as light as you can get, yet he is the only one who is impervious to the ring, so I am fine with lightness.
A reading of HoM-e gives us so many different versions of the story. What exactly doesn't work? I am not reffering to preivous versions, but to the material we have now; the accounts have gone through numerous hands, but nothing disqualifies the accounts of Gollum's deeds. As pointed above, neither does Tolkien.
A threat is not equal to a deed. You still ignore that intention defines morality.
there is always a contradictory oneToo bad for you that it resolutely refuses to appear :). Hope never dies...
Personally I blame the insidious influence of simplistic good/evil paradigms as seen in games and Jackson's films for this view people take today of the text.But this is a fundamental battle between good and evil and Tolkien acknowledges it so; subtlety and shades doesn't make it any less so.
What's being forgotten is that by this time Gollum was insane, & hardly responsible for his actions.I disagree. Tolkien referrs to him as persisten in wickedness, refusing chances of repentance and damnable. Therefore, he is responsible.

It is interesting to note that not even Sauron in Mordor, with everything at his disposal, the one who made the one ring with his own power, can overcome the evil in Gollum, cf Unfinished Tales, Hunt for the Ring; this is a clearly individual evil. If at the root of it, or if the major part of it, was the ring's power, Saruon could have taken control of him. It was not so.

[davem]

I disagree. Tolkien referrs to him as persisten in wickedness, refusing chances of repentance and damnable. Therefore, he is responsible.

It is interesting to note that not even Sauron in Mordor, with everything at his disposal, the one who made the one ring with his own power, can overcome the evil in Gollum, cf Unfinished Tales, Hunt for the Ring; this is a clearly individual evil. If at the root of it, or if the major part of it, was the ring's power, Saruon could have taken control of him. It was not so.

Smeagol spent 500 years alone in a lightless cave with only the Ring to eat away his mind, constantly afraid of being caught & killed. 500 years alone in the dark with the Ring. If Tolkien thought that what he did was purely down to 'wickedness' then he had no understanding of psychology. My own interpretation is that the refereneces to his 'wickedness' by other characters reflect their own ignorance of his illness.

Oh & Sauce, I wasn't referring to your interpretation as 'simplistic'...

[Boromir88]

Raynor:
But this is a fundamental battle between good and evil and Tolkien acknowledges it so; subtlety and shades doesn't make it any less so.
LOTR has been labelled as a fight of 'good and evil' for a long time, and it's a label I've never fully agreed with. Sure there is the figure of 'Evil' and the side of 'Good' but let's not forget the grey areas.
Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right…In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.~Letter dated 25 September 1954
I wonder if Tolkien was in some way influenced by what he wrote in Letter 66 remarking that in WWII there were many orcs on both sides:
For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed.But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn men and elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are so clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side..
There is good and there is evil...but it's not so easy as a battle of good vs. evil...it is also a battle of good vs. good (evil) and evil vs. evil (good). Sorry...I can't think of a better way of putting it. Anyway as an example...

Denethor was a strong opposer to Sauron, he hated Sauron and he wanted to defeat Sauron. However, as Tolkien remarks, Denethor became corrupted by politics and had he survived the War of the Ring he would have ruled 'as a tyrant.' Denethor opposing Sauron...does that make him automatically good? No, as I don't think a 'tyrant' is something that would be good. LOTR can't be so easily pigeon-holed as 'good vs. evil' there is a what I like to refer to as a 'grey area.'

I disagree. Tolkien referrs to him as persisten in wickedness, refusing chances of repentance and damnable. Therefore, he is responsible.
And no one has yet refuted that murder was something Smeagol was capable of doing before coming across the Ring. Just because he is described in pretty bad light doesn't mean Smeagol would have become a murderer. Also, Gollum nearly was redeemed, yet Sam ruined that chance (albeit unintentionally)...and yes I will repeat my past point, it just goes to show that even good people (like Sam) can make bad decisions that have bad repercussions (in this case it ruined Gollum's last chance of redemption) eventhough he had no intention to do so.

If at the root of it, or if the major part of it, was the ring's power, Saruon could have taken control of him. It was not so.
Sauron (or more specifically the Ring) did get control over Smeagol. So much control and power over Smeagol that his fate became bound to the Ring's.

Sauce:
And I also greatly resent the suggestion that my intepretation of a fictional tale is somehow akin to the lynch mob mentality that leads to the victimisation of those who are suspected of being paedophiles or (in the past) of being witches on scant evidence.
I brought up the witch hunt...so I'm taking it as I am one of the people you are addressing here? I think you've read too deeply into things. The witch hunt was an example of what hysteria could cause. It was an example that 'rumours' and 'tales' don't mean 'truth' and what overwhelming fear can do to people and the 'tales' that come from it. It serves as an example that reminds me of the Woodsmen tales that have been infamously talked about in this thread. In absolutely no way was I making any remarks towards your posts (which I have found to be full of insight).

Of course debates get out of hand and a bit heated...I get into it more than what's good for me; and I think I can say everyone here at one point or another has been in some touchy topic debates. But let's not wave a red flag here, get frustrated and just say 'I'm done.' A thread like this that has gone through a wealth of information, some really thought provoking questions pertaining to real life is something I've been waiting for a long time! Where does any quality discussion get if everyone just says 'I quit?' I fail to see what's so frustrating about this thread...just sit back, read through, relax, and share your input. There's no need to get bent out of shape and call it quits.

[Thinlómien]

Bilbo didn't even attack Frodo (much less kill him) when he knew that Frodo had the Ring in Rivendel. And Bilbo had already born the Ring. Don't you suppose the lure was strong on him, too?I'm not denying that fact. I happen to recall that Bilbo was even briefly overtaken by this lust, but managed to control himself.

And a lion, if it came to a village of people and started slaughtering the inhabitents, whether or not the lion deserved to be hungry and deserved to eat, the people would kill it.Slaughtering many people is different from killing one person. Minor details aside, do you think the lion "deserves" to die because it kills a human or some humans because it's hungry? Or, actually, if this lion had killed a human in the savanna because it was hungry, would you say it deserves to die?

But when he first saw the Ring and when he first had the ring, if he had been a good fellow, like Bilbo and Frodo both were, he wouldn't have 1. killed Deagol for it, 2. wouldn't have used it to steal things from his Grandmother as soon as he got it, and 3. wouldn't have been kicked out of society because of it.I don't like dividing people to good and bad people, even if it's said to be relative. In my opinion Gollum was not evil. Certainly not in the beginning, but not in the end either. Sméagol was a normal guy. Not maybe the every girl's dream guy, but very human (or very hobbit, if that fits better ;)). The main fault in his character was greed. This was the perilous thing. If his fault would have been say laziness or rudeness, nothing would have happened. But it was greed. The Ring used Sméagol's greed. That's why he acted so quickly. The other persons you mention - Frodo, Bilbo, Boromir, Tom Bombadil - were not greedy and thus they managed as well as they did. Not beacuse they were somehow "better".

While speaking about Gollum eating orcs and intending to eat Bilbo, some people seem to assume he had a choice. But how much choice did he really have? What is there to eat in caves? Not much, I say. Maybe the fish, but that's not enough. Catching sly fish with no helpful items is difficult. (It's probably more easy to catch an orc.) The stock of fish in the subterranean pools is limited. And I think that one orc fills your stomach much better than one fish. (Just look at the size of them.)

You still ignore that intention defines morality.That is a personal (yet admittedly common) moral conception, not an universal truth, so I don't think you should present it as a fact. :rolleyes:

[Macalaure]

I think we're drawing on the cradle-stealing too much. Tolkien tells us about it once and never again, as far as I'm aware. If it had a greater importance to even Tolkien himself, he would have told us more or at least would have referred to it again at some point in the story. If he didn't think it was that important, I think we shouldn't overemphasise it, too.

Concerning the ring. Don't beat me to provide quotes, but I have the impression that the ring has two main influences on a person. One is, that it increases the desires in the person and makes one think about how the power of the ring could further them, be it using the ring against Mordor (Boromir), doing good (Gandalf) or trivial things like getting away from the Sackville-Bagginses (Bilbo). This, to me, seems to be the first step. The second thing is the growing desire of possessing the ring. If we take Boromir's example, he first only wants the ring to be used against Mordor, and then later wants himself to be the one using it.

What's Smeagol's first thought when he sees it? He wants to have it - the ring appeals to his desire to have that shiny thing (the greed Lommy mentions). Smeagol wasn't a nice person from the beginning on, but was it already in him to murder? Probably. But at this time, the ring was just a shiny thing to him and I doubt Smeagol would have immediately murdered for any other shiny thing, so the power of the ring was clearly at work and this lessens his guilt, at least to an extent.

It's interesting to see that Gollum is at the same time a very weak and a very strong character. The ring appealed to his weaknesses, greed and lack of self control. His strength is his tenaciousness. He has not only a strong will to get his precious back (though influenced by the ring, it's still his will-power that drives him to go through all those hardships and keeps him from giving in even when tortured by Sauron), but also has an extreme will to survive and he isn't choosy when he needs to eat.


What's being forgotten is that by this time Gollum was insane, & hardly responsible for his actions.This is the important point, I think. Was he responsible or not? It's quite evident to me that he wasn't fully responsible as he clearly was mad - to an extent. But if we argue him to not be responsible for his evils at all we're in a danger, because where does this leave us with Gollum's near-repentance? If he was entirely mad, then the repentance would have been void!

I think this makes this case so difficult. Gollum/Smeagol was wicked to a certain degree, but not entirely evil. Where did his wickedness end and the influence of the ring begin? I don't know, and therefore won't judge whether he deserved death or not.


While speaking about Gollum eating orcs and intending to eat Bilbo, some people seem to assume he had a choice.In the case of orcs I agree. But it is said that Gollum wasn't hungry when he met Bilbo, so it doesn't hold in this case.

[Lalwendë]

These are my opinions. I have no problem if others interpret the relevant passages differently or reach a different conclusion from me concerning Tolkien's intentions in the way that he chose to portray these scenes. And I have no problem in debating these issues with those who hold an opposing view.

And that's why I have no problem discussing opposing views with you - as you quite clearly always state that what you say is opinion, which is all that any of us can say, after all! There is no underlying unpleasantness in disagreeing with you. And sometimes (shhhh, don't tell anyone!) you can be almost convincing. ;)

It seems impossible to discuss anything here these days without some people questioning the character or literary nouse of those putting the opposing view.

Indeed. Things have taken an unpleasant turn lately, what with being accused of being immoral filth and having your intelligence questioned/insulted merely because you do not wish to use what should be a fun discussion site to get into pathetic discussions about logic and whatnot. I like to discuss Tolkien, not the mechanics of debate itself. And I like to make mad speculations.

Anyway, back on track...

I don't like dividing people to good and bad people, even if it's said to be relative. In my opinion Gollum was not evil. Certainly not in the beginning, but not in the end either. Sméagol was a normal guy. Not maybe the every girl's dream guy, but very human (or very hobbit, if that fits better ). The main fault in his character was greed. This was the perilous thing. If his fault would have been say laziness or rudeness, nothing would have happened. But it was greed. The Ring used Sméagol's greed. That's why he acted so quickly. The other persons you mention - Frodo, Bilbo, Boromir, Tom Bombadil - were not greedy and thus they managed as well as they did. Not beacuse they were somehow "better".

I don't like dividing people up like that either. For one you can often be surprised by a person's character - most 'chavs' and 'hoodies' (supposedly bad) are actually quite decent young people and I personally know a Reverend (supposedly good) who is an unpleasant piece of work. It's not actually a very clever thing to do, dividing people up and judging them - do you really know that those 'good' people can be trusted?

Anyhow, there's a very good point here, that the Ring works on character flaws/'sins' or whatever we want to call 'em. Gollum's flaw is greed so of course he wants that Ring and he wants it now! Lommy is right. As a contrast, Boromir's flaw is Pride, which would not prompt someone to act so quickly and impulsively. Bilbo's flaw seems to be a tendency towards being light fingered (and he is recruited as a Burglar, after all!) - note that it doesn't take him long to 'turn', either! No sooner has he got his mitts on the Ring than he is deceiving Gollum! He goes on to use the Ring primarily to maintain his (very English) need for privacy and uses it to hide from neighbours and relations when he can't be bothered with them - oh, how good would that be? But it's not exactly very nice, is it? Deceiving your own family? Is Bilbo inherently evil too? His lucky escape is that he shows pity to Gollum and does not pop him off when he could have done - and I should think so, too, after nicking his bling!

Lommy's onto something here.

LOTR has been labelled as a fight of 'good and evil' for a long time, and it's a label I've never fully agreed with. Sure there is the figure of 'Evil' and the side of 'Good' but let's not forget the grey areas.
Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories.

If you read what the professional scholars say about Tolkien's work it quickly becomes clear that it isn't a simple good/evil fight, it's far more complex than the surface impression, which is in itself not straightforward! I wonder to what extent viewing the work in this way depends upon your own view of the world as it is? Whether you view the world in black/white terms?

EDIT to note a very good point:
I think this makes this case so difficult. Gollum/Smeagol was wicked to a certain degree, but not entirely evil. Where did his wickedness end and the influence of the ring begin? I don't know, and therefore won't judge whether he deserved death or not.

Very fair, and very Gandalfian/Gandalvian (???) :)

[Raynor]

If Tolkien thought that what he did was purely down to 'wickedness' then he had no understanding of psychology.Irrelevant conclusion, since Tolkien never held such a position, nor did anyone else in this thread, as far as I am aware.
Rohirrim hunting the Woses just for a bit of a laugh.I believe I have already shown in another thread that this is an unsuported speculation.
LOTR has been labelled as a fight of 'good and evil' for a long time, and it's a label I've never fully agreed with. Sure there is the figure of 'Evil' and the side of 'Good' but let's not forget the grey areas.Imo, you should have qualified this as a personal statement. As it appeared in the text, I thought it was Tolkien's; I spent some time searching for it. Anyway, we are in agreement of the existence of grey areas, as it can be seen from my statement you quoted. However, the fight between good and evil still is the central theme, and, if I understand you correctly, you agree.
Sauron (or more specifically the Ring) did get control over Smeagol. So much control and power over Smeagol that his fate became bound to the Ring's.Gollum's strong desire for the ring is one thing, while operative control of the ring of or Sauron over Gollum is another. Neither Sauron nor the ring could have used Gollum to return the ring to Sauron, no matter the effort.
Minor details aside, do you think the lion "deserves" to die because it kills a human or some humans because it's hungry? Or, actually, if this lion had killed a human in the savanna because it was hungry, would you say it deserves to die?But comparing the morality of humans with that of animals is a false analogy, since the later don't, arguably, have morality. Anyway, imo, a lion should be killed if he represents an unavoidable danger to human life, or if the risk is unacceptable.
The other persons you mention - Frodo, Bilbo, Boromir, Tom Bombadil - were not greedy and thus they managed as well as they did. Not beacuse they were somehow "better".Are you arguing that a person can have any immoral values and still be as safe from the ring as Frodo, Bilbo, or Tom?
That is a personal (yet admittedly common) moral conception, not an universal truth, so I don't think you should present it as a fact.What does define morality firstly in your view, if not intention?
While speaking about Gollum eating orcs and intending to eat Bilbo, some people seem to assume he had a choice.I know of no evidence that he would starve on 'normal' food. And it wasn't something distasteful which he did as a last resort, he liked doing it whenever the chance.
He goes on to use the Ring primarily to maintain his (very English) need for privacy and uses it to hide from neighbours and relations when he can't be bothered with themAre you saying that avoiding annoying persons is immoral?

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps we are looking at this question from an inappropriate perspective, one derived more from attitudes in the Primary World than from those in the sub-created world. In Middle-earth, death is the gift of Eru. Therefore, it should not be used or seen as a form of punishment. All Men deserve death.

Gollem is a hobbit, and hobbits belong to the race of Men. They share this gift. Thus, Gollem does 'deserve' death, as it is his birthright.

Even more, his fate is one of the strongest aesthetic elements in the story. To imagine any other ending for him would, I think, rob the story of one of its most poignant moments. Its irony and the unexpected climax represents poetic justice, of the kind we often see in stories and rarely in history. (Well, I suppose we could, along with Batman's The Penguin, debate whether this is simply tragic irony.) This is one of the traditional markers used to suggest the priority of story over history.

We could perhaps debate if this attitude towards death is sufficiently developed in LotR for readers to recognise it as very different from the usual western attitude towards death as something to be feared and a punishment. We could also consider if this gift to Man represents Eru's form of revision of his creation. Is it possible to say that he recognised how morose and melancoly the Elves became because of their longevity and 'corrected' this by granting death to Men? This, however, would be a Legendarium topic rather than one simply related to LotR.

"The story's the thing wherein to catch the conscience of the Ring."

[Raynor]

We could also consider if this gift to Man represents Eru's form of revision of his creation.However, the Silmarillion, the letters and the Athrabeth all show that Men were designed from the beginning to die
[Finrod] remains, nonetheless, in the opinion that the condition of Men before the disaster (or as we might say, of unfallen Man) cannot have been the same as that of the Elves. That is, their 'immortality' cannot have been the longevity within Arda of the Elves; otherwise they would have been simply Elves, and their separate introduction later into the Drama by Eru would have no function. I said, or meant to say, that the 'message' was the hideous peril of confusing true 'immortality' with limitless serial longevity. Freedom from Time, and clinging to Time. The confusion is the work of the Enemy, and one of the chief causes of human disaster.

[Lalwendë]

Bb, well Death is a good topic to discuss at any time as it is one of the major themes of LotR - didn't Tolkien himself say that the book is "about Death" (as opposed to just being about good versus evil - which is reductive - and wrong). Men do have the gift of Death, but they don't all approach it in the same way; the Rohirrim for one have a distinct cultural notion of Death. Might be worth a thread of its own? Exploring cultural attitudes towards death (and maybe funerary practises too) in middle-earth?

And in that sense of the word 'deserve', Gollum does indeed deserve Death in that it is natural and will bring him rest and succour from his troubles (presuming that in Middle-earth there might be some kind of afterlife as opposed to being superior worm fodder!). Mithalwen also brings this up and you're both right when looking at it that way. But was that the definition of 'deserve' that the OP intended? Not everyone is defining it the same way are they? ;)

Even more, his fate is one of the strongest aesthetic elements in the story. To imagine any other ending for him would, I think, rob the story of one of its most poignant moments. Its irony and the unexpected climax represents poetic justice, of the kind we often see in stories and rarely in history. (Well, I suppose we could, along with Batman's The Penguin, debate whether this is simply tragic irony.) This is one of the traditional markers used to suggest the priority of story over history.

Nice one! I'm with you all the way so excuse me while I drag this point out! I often marvel over the way Tolkien brought the story to its climactic moment - it provides the perfect ending for Gollum - he could not live without the Ring, nor could the Ring live, and like a pair of star-crossed lovers they plunge to their end together. Gollum gets the happiness of being reunited with his Precious (not for nothing did Tolkien choose that word) and although he dies at this point, he also gets release from the suffering his love has brought him. And this is not just tragic, and masterfully consistent with character and plot, (and unbelievably twisty!) but it is also deeply, deeply ironic.

It's probably one of the biggest "Ha!" moments in literature when Frodo fails and claims the ring only to be attacked by Gollum, who in his dance of euphoria falls to his end, taking the Ring with him. Deep irony on so many levels. Perhaps the biggest irony of all is that if people had judged Gollum and put him to death - ho! the whole of Middle-earth would have fallen to Sauron! You can imagine Gandalf saying "Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, self-righteous brigade!" :p

And at the same time, its utterly tragic. Tolkien actually wept as he wrote of Gollum's end.

Its on a par with the climax to Romeo and Juliet! Just unimaginably perfect.

[Bêthberry]

However, the Silmarillion, the letters and the Athrabeth all show that Men were designed from the beginning to die

Oh dear, it appears I haven't made myself clear, and for that I do apologise, as I certainly didn't intend my remarks to mean that Men were originally given elven longevity. What I had hoped my context, and especially the sentence following one you quote, would have shown is the idea that this designation for Men represents a change in Eru's ideas about how to create or form lifeforms. My use of revision relates to the entire concept of creating life. Was his thought of Men simultaneous with his thought about Elves or did he think to create Men later in time. (Oh there's that bothersome issue about the nature of time with Eru.) Given the metaphor of music, which occurs chronologically (beginning and end not heard simultaneously for the audience at least, although perhaps for the creator), did Eru see that his shaping of Elves had an inherent negative element, so that his next creation (so to speak), Men, corrected this error. As in, "Oh bother. This longevity thing isn't working so well with the elves. Let me try a different model."

Or I suppose it could have gone like this: "Ho hum. I'm immortal. What do I do with myself? Do I really know what this means? Would others? I wonder, what would happen if there were others who didn't understand immortality like I do? Why don't I sing into existence various life forms and see what they make of time and immortality. Hmmm. This little piggy will have thousands of years and this little piggy will have few."

;) :)

EDIT: Opps, didn't see Lal's post and now RL puts an end to my participation here. Perhaps afterRL I can return. ;)

[Raynor]

Was his thought of Men simultaneous with his thought about Elves or did he think to create Men later in time.I don't think we could figure that. In the music, they both appeared in the Third Theme, and they represent, according to Tolkien's interpretation, the first intrusions of God into Creation.

Tolkien did state they represent the experiments of the same problem
Elves and Men are just different aspects of the Humane, and represent the problem of Death as seen by a finite but willing and self-conscious person.

[The Might]

Oh & Sauce, I wasn't referring to your interpretation as 'simplistic'...The word "your" is not my emphasis btw.

Please excuse me that my level of literary understanding is not high enough to enable me to make good contributions in such a discussion.
I am however able to read between the lines in many of the posts and see this subtle irony.
I agree with SPM here.

[alatar]

Taking up Bêthberry's point, I think, but are we asking if Gollum deserves punishment? Death in Arda is a Gift, and to this lost soul, though second to having a night out on the town with the One Ring, Death would truly be a gift - no more insatiable desire for the Ring.

So, when Gandalf says that Gollum deserves to die, is he saying that, yes, it surely would be convenient if the wretch weren't running around the place, mudding up the plans of both the Wise and the small? I think that Gandalf, being farsighted, knew that this creature sits between or outside Good or Evil. As I've stated before, Gollum is a rogue - Chaos. Not saintly like Frodo, nor completely evil such as Sauron, but something else. He is the fulcrum, in the end, on which both sides' fates balance.

In the end, Gollum gets death. As stated, he and his Precious share one last dance and the two lovers die together. Was this Eru's reward to this tortured soul? Note that he's not blown away like Sauron or Saruman, some mist or shadow that will gnaw itself in the Void. Gollum just dies.

And though the Ring be a strong addiction, I cannot absolve Gollum of his deeds after he takes the Ring just because the Ring and the Darkness chewed away at his brain. Surely he is miserable and pitiable, yet still he chose to take the Ring, and for that he is guilty.

[Boromir88]

You should have qualified this as a personal statement. As it appeared in the text, I thought it was Tolkien's; I spent some time searching for it.~Raynor
My mistake, I forgot to wrap 'quotes' around the actual letter I was pointing out, it's fixed now. I think I wrote that post at 2am in the morning, so hope you can forgive me. :p

alatar, good points, and I don't think anyone is trying to absolve Gollum of all the blame here. As Folwren so eloquently argued, Gollum reacted to the Ring in a way that nobody else had (he killed for it!). That to me must be some indication of Gollum's pre-existing wickedness (and has been commented on countless times he already was 'wicked' previously).

The debate however is does Gollum deserve to have been killed/executed...etc. For me, it's no, because I think the 'lesson' is it's not the people of Middle-earth's (or our own) decision.

The 'law' could have come down and decide to have killed Gollum at several points in the story. Frodo thinks Bilbo should have killed Gollum, the family (and community) Gollum lived in could have killed him, Faramir could have had his rangers kill him, but in each of these instances they spared Gollum. And as Gandalf I think accurately states...'Bilbo's Pity may rule the fate of many.' Well I say, 'Everyone's Pity [towards Gollum] may rule the fate of many.' And indeed I would also say that turns out to be true.

Gandalf had hope of Gollum's salvation, I don't see why I shouldn't. Indeed he was close to it, but Sam was unable to find pity for Gollum until it was too late for Gollum's sake (in the Sammath Naur).

Beregond's life was spared when he could have been slapped with the death penalty:
And the King said to Beregond: ’Beregond, by your sword blood was spilled in the Hallows, where that is forbidden. Also you left your post without leave of Lord or of Captain. For these things, of old, death was the penalty. Now therefor I must prounounce your doom.
’All penalty is remitted for your valour in battle, and still more because all you did was for the love of the Lord Faramir. Nontheless you must leave the Guard of the Citadel, and yo much go forth from the City of Minas Tirith.’~The Steward and the King
Saruman and Grima could have been killed by Theoden and co...I doubt anyone would see that as wrong and complain. But the important point is they didn't, they had the pity to spare Grima and Saruman (and offer them salvation at several times throughout the story).

This whole 'sparing people from the death penalty' seems to occur quite a lot throughout the story. So, I'm taking it as there is an important moral lesson Tolkien is writing about in his story...and that is of Mercy and Pity. While the 'law' says for murder your punishment is death; is that the 'right' thing to do? Need I remind everyone of Gandalf's words to Frodo that have been quoted more times than I can recall? :D But instead of quoting Gandalf, I'm going to use another one that no one sees a lot:
But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.~HoMe X; Morgoth's Rings
Though the teachings of the Wise were not always listened to when regarding Orcs...Orcs were not beyond some kind of redemption. If Tolkien brings up Orcs pleading for Mercy, I think it's reasonable to say that Orcs were capable of pleading for Mercy. I hope this casts some interesting light upon the Gollum question of this thread. :)

[Mithalwen]

Sauce:
Quote:
And I also greatly resent the suggestion that my intepretation of a fictional tale is somehow akin to the lynch mob mentality that leads to the victimisation of those who are suspected of being paedophiles or (in the past) of being witches on scant evidence.

I brought up the witch hunt...so I'm taking it as I am one of the people you are addressing here? I think you've read too deeply into things. The witch hunt was an example of what hysteria could cause. It was an example that 'rumours' and 'tales' don't mean 'truth' and what overwhelming fear can do to people and the 'tales' that come from it. It serves as an example that reminds me of the Woodsmen tales that have been infamously talked about in this thread. In absolutely no way was I making any remarks towards your posts (which I have found to be full of insight).

Since I brought up the persecution of assumed paedophiles, I guess Iam another and I can only echo Boro's words and state categorically that my comments were not directed at your post but at the one that preceded it (which I assumed was obvious and so did not quote). On the whole I think it likely that Gollum was responsible for many horrors but I merely wished ot point out information presentedin such a way presented cannot be taken as absolute proof - any more (to give a Middle Earth example :rolleyes: ) than the Rohirric and Gondorian stories of the Lady of the Golden wood could be taken as the truth about Galadriel.

I wrote my dissertation on Fear, madness and the supernatural in Guy de Maupassant's horror stories, an oevre into which Gollum's alleged escapades would have fitted in nicely. Having spent over a year pondering the "truth" of those tales may have inclined me to pick apart too much the basis of this one but I was not criticising your interpretations ..and indeed I would not dare.... :cool:

[alatar]

Saruman and Grima could have been killed by Theoden and co...I doubt anyone would see that as wrong and complain. But the important point is they didn't, they had the pity to spare Grima and Saruman (and offer them salvation at several times throughout the story).

This whole 'sparing people from the death penalty' seems to occur quite a lot throughout the story. So, I'm taking it as there is an important moral lesson Tolkien is writing about in his story...and that is of Mercy and Pity. While the 'law' says for murder your punishment is death; is that the 'right' thing to do? Need I remind everyone of Gandalf's words to Frodo that have been quoted more times than I can recall? :D But instead of quoting Gandalf, I'm going to use another one that no one sees a lot:
Saruman, even after trying to murder Frodo in the Shire, is spared - incredibly, he was given no penalty for attempted murder! Frodo, now wiser, knows that letting Saruman go free was more of a punishment than slaying him (for what reason, I'm not exactly sure). Grima, however, is quickly slain after he commits murder, and is most like shot in the back as he ran. I know Frodo would have prevented this as well, but...

Thoughts?

EDIT
On the whole I think it likely that Gollum was responsible for many horrors but I merely wished ot point out information presentedin such a way presented cannot be taken as absolute proof - any more (to give a Middle Earth example ) than the Rohirric and Gondorian stories of the Lady of the Golden wood could be taken as the truth about Galadriel.
Note that, in regards to the Witch of the Golden Wood, we as the reader know different, and Eomer in the end learns the truth of the matter. This is not the case with Gollum's crib 'cribbing.'

[Child of the 7th Age]

The one thing I can be totally sure of is that, like the Ents, I do not feel comfortable with either side in this equation. :D However, if compelled to lean one way or the other, I will come down with those who are saying that Gollum does not deserve death. Interestingly, I didn't start my post with this position. I actually began to write in SpM's defense and then discovered I did not agree with him. :eek:

Perhaps we are having so much trouble with Gollum's deserving or not deserving death because the question reflects a much larger problem that runs through LotR and possibly the Legendarium as a whole. There is a dichotomy that underlies the Lord of the Rings, or at least a difference in emphasis in terms of what the author is stressing in different places. This dichotomy makes it difficult to come to any firm judgment on Gollum, if we are trying to decipher how Tolkien felt. This interests me more than simply considering how I personally feel. I've been influenced by any number of things in contemporary life and politics, so my judgment may not be the same as JRRT. But having thought about it a while I think Tolkien would have counselled forebearance in terms of Gollum and would not have made a judgment on his "guilt" or his "deserving" death.

It's true that there are some things pointing in the opposite direction. We find many quotes and scenes in both the book and the letters that suggest Tolkien believed there were clear and immutable standards of right and wrong. The best known of these is by Aragorn:

Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among men.

We are a long way here from the moral relativism that has such enormous impact on our contemporary culture and influences how many of us regard right and wrong (myself included). My honest opinion, however, is that Tolkien saw right and wrong as absolute in essence rather than relative. (I am not talking here about the nature of an individual but rather the moral standards as a whole.) There are also scenes and quotes in the book where it is clearly stated that the good guys are expected to step forward and take a stand to preserve the right against those who would take a stand on the opposite side. While Gollum is not Sauron's agent, he clearly did not want to see the Ring destroyed, which was the whole point of Frodo and Sam's journey. As such, he was an enemy.

It's a small step to start from those premises in the text and go on to condemn Gollum or at least to conclude that he "deserved death". He clearly murdered someone within thirty seconds of seeing the Ring.....the only character we know who acquired the Ring in quite that way. Murder is wrong, and just how much influence can the Ring have in 30 seconds? Some of this nastiness has to be coming from within Gollum himself. Given this situation and an absolute moral standard, it would not be difficult to say that Gollum "deserves" death.

Interestingly, Tolkien does not do that. In fact, he spends a huge chunk of the book setting up a conflict between Sam and Frodo over what to do with Gollum (with other characters like Faramir occasionally poking their nose in). In many ways the journey to Mount Doom can be interpreted as the struggle to answer the question that Mansun has posed for us in this thread. By trying to answer this question, we are actually following in the footsteps of Sam and Frodo.

Given the fact that Tolkien believed in absolute standards of good and evil, and that he clearly felt that Frodo made the right choice by not making an overall judgment on Gollum or Saruman (let alone executing them), I can only believe this..... Although Tolkien believed absolute standards existed, he also felt that only Eru was in a position to read the truth, make "true" judgments, and enforce those standards. No one else --not an immortal maia or a hobbit or a man --is in a position to make a true judgment on Gollum (or anyone else for that matter). Tolkien spends most of the book slowly spelling out this lesson in the scenes with Frodo and Sam. And just to make sure we "got it" he comes back in the Scouring and says the same thing in the final scenes between Saruman and Frodo.

I can see how someone might feel differently about this, but I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of those who are saying we are in no position to make a definitive judgment on Gollum. Obviously, Tolkien was not a pacifist. His characters had to step forward and fight for what they believed was good, but they could not take the one extra step and make the ultimate pronouncement on their enemies--whether Gollum or Saruman actually "deserved" death in the ultimate sense. That was reserved for something or someone with a wider view of what was happening, by implication Eru Given the flawed nature of our world and our limitations in thinking, even if a person "deserves" death by Eru's standards, we are in no position to dish it out.
********************

Whoops! I crossposted. Others are also discussing Saruman.

[Mansun]

Gandalf's quote reads: "“Deserves it! I daresay he does."
That's pretty straight forward to me.

In England, this would translate as: "I would be reluctant to say that he does." Sarcasm is important here, as what is said is not always what is meant in the written word. In the US, judging from what has been said by some posters, it would mean: "I believe he does." Tolkein was English of course, & it is clear from the prose & the sharp nature of his words that he is being sarcastic on the side of caution. Besides, it would be hypocritical of Gandalf to say Gollum deserves death & then immediately tell Frodo off for contemplating the idea as though he doesn't. What he is effectively saying is death should not be even considered as punishment to Gollum, regardless of who is making the decision.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

n.b. I've been working on this for the best part of the afternoon. I am sure to have cross-posted with a lot of people. I apologise in advance.

I've come late to this argument, and although I shall try to address as many of the issues raised as possible I can't guarantee that I won't miss out or misrepresent somebody. At the moment I am still desperately trying to digest an unappetising melange of personal, legal and moral philosophy, speculation and at times insufferably arrogant and unjustifiably rude dismissal. I expect that you all know who you are.

The main thing I have noticed up to this point is the woeful paucity of actual quotations. Considering that individual words are taken to be so important in Tolkien's works, there seems very little attention paid to his precise words on certain subjects. One of the reasons I have taken so long to respond is that I have been reading what Tolkien had to say before reaching a conclusion, and much reading it required too.

That said, I shall try to respond to some of the points raised in the discussion thus far. Before I do, though, I should like to quote more fully the original passage from which this debate sprang.

'I am sorry,' said Frodo. 'But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.'

'You have not seen him,' Gandalf broke in.

'No, and I don't want to,' said Frodo. 'I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least. In any case we did not kill him: he is old and very wretched. The Wood-elves have him in prison, but they treat him with such kindness as they can find in their wise hearts.'

LR Book I, ch. 2: 'The Shadow of the Past' (50th anniversary ed.)

A lot of energy has been expended on the single word daresay in this passage.

A minor point: Gandalf says: "I daresay he does.", not "I say he does." This sounds to me like, although it is Gandalf's opinion that Gollum deserves death, he is aware that his opinion alone doesn't make it so.

"I daresay..." is incredibly different to "I say...". Remembering that Tolkien was English, it's important to consider how English people use the language, and "I daresay..." is very often used when someone really means "I think you're talking out of your backside, actually".

I am from England, & here things can be meant in a different context to what is written in word. "I dare say he does" - this sounds like a sarcastic comment from Gandalf, he is saying he would be reluctant to give death as punishment. It does not mean he meant Gollum deserves death.

Before I enter into any interpretation of what I think Tolkien meant Gandalf to say, we need some sort of objective source for the word. I have two.

-PHRASES I dare say (or daresay) used to indicate that one believes something is probable: I dare say you've heard about her

The Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd ed. (2003), entry for dare

I ~ say (rare exc[ept] in 1st person; 3rd sing[ular] in reported speech, he ~s to say, past he ~d say or to say), am prepared to believe, do not deny, = very likely (often iron)

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 4th ed. (1951), entry for dare


Of these, naturally the definition given in the 1951 fourth edition of the Concise Oxford will be the more interesting, since it records usage at about the time LR was composed. As we can see above, the ironic meaning given by Lalwendë is recorded as common in the 1950s, but I do not believe that Gandalf means it in this sense. I think he means it in the primary sense 'I do not deny' or 'I am prepared to believe'. My reasoning is quite simple: why would someone sarcastically refute the idea that someone is deserving of death, only to give the moral reasoning behind leaving such a person alive in the very next sentence? If death is not deserved, then the moral implications need no explanation. Gandalf says: "Many that live deserve death," which is absolutely true, and follows it with "some that die deserve life". This is also true, but whereas it is all too easy to kill someone, bringing the dead back to life is rather more difficult. In an indirect way this suggests that who lives and who dies should be up to those who are capable of dispensing both life and death.

Also we should consider the almost contemptuous opening to Gandalf's sentence: "Deserves it!" Why the exclamation? Why not simply open with "I daresay"? It seems unpremeditated; a spontaneous outburst. Following on the heels of Frodo's implication that Gandalf or the Elves of Mirkwood should have killed Gollum, this seems significant to me. At the risk of putting words into the old wizard's mouth, I should say that the emotion here is exasperation. Perhaps Gandalf is in his own way saying the same thing as my title (lifted, to please myself and hopefully Mr. Underhill if ever he sees it, from Unforgiven). It is not the place even of Gandalf to judge who should live, since even Gandalf cannot bring the dead to life. As a matter of fact, only one power in LR can: the very Power to which Gandalf leaves Gollum's eventual fate. It is also very noteworthy that he does so in the hope, which he himself acknowledges to be unlikely, that Gollum can be healed. The word most conspicuous by its absence here for me is 'repent'. Repentence and absolution are a healing process. Even those who deserve death should be given the chance to live out their full span so that they can be given every chance to redeem themselves. This is the message of Gandalf's statements, and significantly this is not the only place where such a philosophy appears in Tolkien's writing. Niggle's purgatory is also portrayed as a healing process.

Lest it be said that I read far too much into this passage, it should be noted that Gollum does, as has been pointed out above, come within a hair's breadth of repentence on the stairs at Cirith Ungol. Tolkien had even gone so far as to formulate possible outcomes from his repentence, which he gives in Letter #246. More significantly, he points out in a letter already quoted here that

I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

Letter #181 (drafts) to Michael Straight (c. Jan/Feb 1956)

In short, then, Gollum may or may not deserve death, but this is irrelevant to the moral message of this chapter, which states that whether or not someone has done things that justify their death is for God to decide, just as is the choice of who is to live or die. Doubtless in our secular world it is difficult to grasp a theory which relies on the presence of an omniscient judge: in an atheistic world, either people deserve to die (or it would be more beneficial to the world to kill them) and should be killed or they don't and should be allowed to live. Tolkien cuts through all of it with the simple question: 'Can you bring the dead back to life?' It's a question that implies a warning: 'don't take authority to yourself that you have no right to claim.' Significantly this is just as appropriate in an atheistic universal model as in Tolkien's. We're all agreed that people can't re-animate the dead (unless they have a genetically engineered zombie virus, or some giant lightning-powered machine and a good hand for needlework, but let's not get into that). Gollum might as well argue (if present) using Gawain's words: "But if on floor should fall my head I cannot it restore" (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight ll. 2282-3 (stanza 91). Tolkien's translation).

The above argument basically makes the question of Gollum's guilt or innocence and his level of culpability in his crimes somewhat redundant in my view, but I'll address some of the issues raised anyway. It's possible that Tolkien might have been making a point about the unreliability of hearsay, but given the general accuracy and reliability of hearsay from Gandalf, this seems unlikely. His balanced attitude concerning the treatment of Gollum, and his advocacy of pity in his conversation with Frodo, sit remarkably ill with an idea that he spiced up the evidence to make his subject seem more damnable.

Leaving this aside one can read Smeagol as 'victim' of the Ring's influence, & I think Tolkien is clear that he is a victim. And even if the story was true I think it would take a very hard hearted approach to the story of stealing babies from cradles for one to interpret it as depicting Gollum's 'evil' or monstrous nature rather than as depicting the horror of his existence, what this 'Hobbit' had been turned into by the Ring

First, Sméagol didn't attack or kill Déagol because he had some random pretty gold ring. He attcaked because he was overtaken by the lust and the lure of the ring. He maybe had some natural inclination to greed since he acted this quickly, but I daresay he didn't do this because he was a bad/evil person.

Second, I wouldn't call his actions towards Bilbo murderous. He was hungry. He didn't want to kill Bilbo because he (Gollum) is an evil person, but because he was hungry. A lion doesn't kill an antilope because it's evil. It kills to satisfy its hunger.

Again, I think the answer is to be found by careful analysis of the passages in LR:

But Sméagol had been watching him from behind a tree , and as Déagol gloated over the ring, Sméagol came softly up behind.

'"Give us that, Déagol, my love," said Sméagol, over his friend's shoulder.

'"Why?" said Déagol.

'"Because it's my birthday, my love, and I wants it," said Sméagol.

'"I don't care," said Déagol. "I have given you a present already, more than I could afford. I found this, and I'm going to keep it."

'"Oh are you indeed, my love," said Sméagol; and he caught Déagol by the throat and strangled him, because the gold looked so bright and beautiful. Then he put the ring on his finger.

LR Book I ch. 2 [i]The Shadow of the Past, 50th anniv. ed. (p.53)

Now this is a conversation which is entirely reported by Gandalf, more than 540 years after the fact, but at the end of his tale, he mentions to Frodo that: "What I have told you is what Gollum was willing to tell". He also says that "Gollum is a liar, and you have to sift his words". How much of this conversation is a fabrication or reconstruction of Gandalf's? Obviously not the murder, since that appears in the Tale of Years as an addendum to the formation of the White Council in 2463 (although this is not the exact year, as the annalist notes). More significantly, Gollum doesn't deny it, and the idea that he actually killed for the Ring provides the most realistic psychological explanation for his subsequent fixation with birthdays. But where does the interpretation of Sméagol's motivation come from? It looks like an intrusion of an omniscient narrator, but in this case the narrator is Gandalf, who isn't omniscient at all. Strangely it skims over Déagol's murder, but is almost poetic about its motive: the gold looked so bright and beautiful that Sméagol killed for it.

This boils down to whether or not one trusts Gandalf: if he reconstructed this scene faithfully from what Gollum told him, then whereas the Ring had to seduce Boromir with the thought of defending his whole country and the city of his birth, and whereas with Sam it offered him the chance to make Gorgoroth green again, all that Sméagol needed as a motive to strangle his kinsman was the fact that the ring was beautiful. The beauty of the Ring is something that many people forget: the brightness of the gold, the perfection of form and the elegance of the characters used to frame its ugly and unspeakable inscription. It is a beautiful object that can easily be desired for that quality alone, if one's spirit is sufficiently small and mean. It is possible that Sméagol could have done this thing for any gold ring, or indeed any item of sufficient beauty or worth.

That Déagol was Sméagol's kinsman (not his brother, as Raynor has quite rightly pointed out) is mentioned in a detailed description of Hobbit birthday customs in Tolkien's letter to A.C. Nunn. A byrding only received presents from relatives, and Tolkien continues:

A trace of this can be seen in the account of Sméagol and Déagol - modified by the individual characters of these rather miserable specimens. Déagol, evidently a relative (as no doubt all the members of the small community were), had already given his customary present to Sméagol, although they probably set out on their expedition v. early in the morning. Being a mean little soul he grudged it. Sméagol, being meaner and greedier, tried to use the 'birthday' as an excuse for an act of tyranny. 'Because I wants it' was his frank statement of his chief claim. But he also implied that D's gift was a poor and insufficient token: hence D's retort that on the contrary it was more than he could afford.

Letter #214 to A.C. Nunn (c. l. 1958 - e. 1959)

Importantly, Tolkien treats the entire conversation between Sméagol and Déagol not as reported speech, but as the actual words of the two characters. Implicitly he accepts that Gandalf has, like an idealised nineteenth-century philologist, assembled a pivotal account from scraps and fragments with complete accuracy. Of course, since everything that happens in LR was invented by Tolkien in the first place, he was in a good position to know the 'facts' of the case, so there's no need to accuse him of credulity. It was also part of his job to reassemble factual accounts from disparate, incomplete and often inaccurate sources, so he had a vested interest in believing that such a thing was possible and reliable, if one can wield the wisdom of Gandalf.

The question of the murdered babies seems very emotive to fellow members. It is not so for me, since as I mentioned above, whether or not Gollum ate babies is largely irrelevant. However, it seems to me that context is very important here, so I shall quote the passage again.

'...[Gollum] set out and came back westward, as far as the Great River. But then he turned aside. He was not daunted by the distance, I am sure. No, something else drew him away. So my friends think, those that hunted him for me.

'The Wood-elves tracked him first, an easy task for them, for his trail was still fresh then. Through Mirkwood and back again it led them, though they never caught him. The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds. The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed into trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles.'

The Shadow of the Past LR p. 58 (super-duper bonus nested emphasis mine)

This time, Gandalf deals with second and third-hand accounts that he has collected from those who have hunted Gollum on his behalf. The theft of children from cradles is reported by the Wood-elves as something reported by the Woodmen, but why should the Woodmen invent such a thing? Surely children have been taken, and a mythology has built up around these events of a ghost that drinks blood. Tolkien's profession and inclination had given him a certain respect for folklore which is not encouraged in schools. As the rôle of Ioreth in The Houses of Healing makes abundantly clear, he believed that at the heart of myths, legends and folklore could be found useful kernels of truth. The rhymes remembered by Ioreth identify Aragorn as king and also cause Gandalf to fetch him to tend Éowyn, Faramir and Merry; and Celeborn says to Boromir:
'...do not despise the lore that has come down from distant years; for oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know.'

LR, Farewell to Lórien (p.374)

It does not take a great leap of the imagination to apply this same rule to the vague murmurings of the Woodmen about the nocturnal infanticide. The facts have been clothed in legend, but this is always so when terrible things are done and the perpetrator cannot be identified. There is more legend and speculation surrounding Jack the Ripper than survives about the adventures of Oðinn. Moreover, I think the context of Gandalf's remarks is significant. The Wood-elves have used the Woodmen's legends to track Gollum. If they were merely superstitious fiction this would have been at best coincidence. It is also significant that the terror that stalks the eaves of Mirkwood is not a traditional bogey, but a new horror. Circumstantial evidence at best, but as Saucepan pointed out, a novel is not a court of law. Through Gandalf, Tolkien uses the vocabulary and style of folklore to conjure up a horror of a character's action when to describe it would have a lesser, perhaps almost an unnoticeable effect. It should also be noted that talking birds are not out of order in LR, just as they are perfectly reasonable in Volsunga Saga. Indeed, while there are certainly questions about the origins of the Eagles, the fact remains that Gandalf reports conversations with Gwaihir the Windlord, who is, in fact, a bird. Tolkien uses talking birds rather less in LR than he did in The Hobbit, but they are a possibility within his world, and the Elves' conversations with them are quite reasonable, even likely in that context. In any case, the idea that the Elves of Mirkwood might be able to communicate with animals that are dumb to Men does not seem entirely unlikely, given their closer relationship with the matter of Arda.

Was Gollum a victim of the ring or a naturally evil monster? It seems that he was both. Everything Tolkien wrote about him suggests that he was a deeply unpleasant individual long before the Ring came to him; he appears to wrest the Ring violently from another bearer before it has much of a chance to call out to him, and he immediately uses it for malicious purposes. However, it is also evident that the Ring twisted and tormented him, and eventually abandoned him alone in the dark. The threads are too tangled fully to separate them, but it seems to me that the Ring gained almost instant mastery over Gollum because that within him that responded to it was already so pronounced. Like Lotho Sackville-Baggins, for selfish greed he becomes involved with an evil beyond his power to control or capacity to understand, but the destruction of his character and personality can still be traced to his own actions. Tolkien's world was not morally relative, and he genuinely believed the Gospel philosophy that the intent is the action. Whether or not we believe it is just as irrelevant as whether or not we personally believe in capital punishment. Gollum's eventual tortured corruption is so complete because his immediate response is not, like Bilbo's, pity, but instead immediate homicide.

I'll end with a thought that seems to have been missed in the general haggling: what is the great virtue in pity if it is only offered to the deserving? Surely it becomes a matter of greater moral courage, a genuine leap of faith, if those on whom we take pity are guilty. What if there is every likelihood that they will do more evil if left alive? Tolkien even considered this in respect of Gollum and Frodo:
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. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden.

[Tolkien's footnote]

*Not quite 'certainly'. The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum over the brink, when about to repent.
Letter #181 op. cit.

The question that arises is: what would have been the result for the world if temporal 'justice' had been served on Gollum? Very likely the victory and dominion of Sauron. A typically hard-hitting expression of Tolkien's own moral beliefs.

Finally, at the enormous risk of missing too many arguments, I'll address Bêthberry's very pertinent question:
Perhaps we are looking at this question from an inappropriate perspective, one derived more from attitudes in the Primary World than from those in the sub-created world. In Middle-earth, death is the gift of Eru. Therefore, it should not be used or seen as a form of punishment. All Men deserve death.

My foregoing comments have probably made it clear that I share your belief that this debate is looking at all the wrong angles, and although I'm looking at the question as one of the right to judge, and to exercise the high justice as well as the low, yours is also a valid point. Part of Sméagol's misery and tragedy is that he has lived far beyond his natural span, but a poor sort of life and one scarcely preferable to death. Although he seems terrified at the prospect of death in his final confrontation with Sam on the slopes of Orodruin, his actual death looks much more like a release. Doubtless he wouldn't have agreed with me as he plummeted into the fire, but I think that Tolkien might.

[davem]

The word "your" is not my emphasis btw.

Please excuse me that my level of literary understanding is not high enough to enable me to make good contributions in such a discussion.
I am however able to read between the lines in many of the posts and see this subtle irony.
I agree with SPM here.

Well, once again I have to disappoint another poster & point out that it wasn't you either... I can only put this down to my natural charisma in that everything I write seems to be read by some posters as aimed at them, as if they are the only person in the world as far as I am concerned.... :p

The problem we have is in trying to get into Gollum's mind & see things in the way he does. A third party may make a judgement on Gollum's actions/choices, & decide they are 'wicked' & deserving of death, but did Gollum see his actions in that way - hence Raynor's point about judging on 'intention' seems to miss the point - particularly when one is dealing with someone who is (leaving aside the issue of his 'morality') clinically insane & technically 'possessed' by the Ring.

If Gollum's psychosis lead him to really believe that anyone who kept the Precious from him was 'evil' that would mean that from his point of view he was right in trying to execute them...

Again, even if he did steal & eat the babies, did he really see the babies he stole as 'human beings' like him, or did he, in his insanity, see them simply as 'food'? Ultimately passing judgement on someone who is insane because they so things that are 'unnacceptable' to sane, civilised folk ignores the central fact of Smeagol's nature - he is insane. His perceptions, values, & yes, his 'morality' is not the same as those who are judging him.

[Boo Radley]

In England, this would translate as: "I would be reluctant to say that he does." Sarcasm is important here, as what is said is not always what is meant in the written word. In the US, judging from what has been said by some posters, it would mean: "I believe he does." Tolkein was English of course, & it is clear from the prose & the sharp nature of his words that he is being sarcastic on the side of caution. Besides, it would be hypocritical of Gandalf to say Gollum deserves death & then immediately tell Frodo off for contemplating the idea as though he doesn't. What he is effectively saying is death should not be even considered as punishment to Gollum, regardless of who is making the decision.

Sorry. I don't buy it. I'll have to go along with Squatter on this one.

[alatar]

Again, even if he did steal & eat the babies, did he really see the babies he stole as 'human beings' like him, or did he, in his insanity, see them simply as 'food'? Ultimately passing judgement on someone who is insane because they so things that are 'unnacceptable' to sane, civilised folk ignores the central fact of Smeagol's nature - he is insane. His perceptions, values, & yes, his 'morality' is not the same as those who are judging him.
Sounds a bit too 'relative' and so anyone - Sauron, Melkor, etc - are just doing what seems sane to them, as surely anyone silly enough to take one's Creator could be considered by some insane. At what point do we say that anyone is guilty of anything - it's my nature, my genes, my lot, etc. No one guilty?

Or am I just not seeing what you mean? :)

I guess that Gollum, eating children, could be just foraging for food. Okay and well enough. I'm some denizen of Mirkwood, and I'm going to try to catch anything that tries to enter my window at night, and most likely kill it as that seems okay to me as well. Makes sense, and probably is what really occurs in life - we give ear to 'morality' but at times must be practical as well in order to survive.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Squatter - An amazing post and very well researched, though I don't agree with it all. I believe we cross posted,and my own emphasis is different than your own.

Still, we do concur on several things...that we need to approach this question from a different angle. I would specifically say from a much broader perspective that recognizes the underlying tensions and dichomoties that exist throughout the entire book and not just in the character of Gollum. I also concur that Eru is pivotal to any discussion of moral judgment in Middle-eath. He is the only one in Tolkien's eyes who had the right to make these ultimate pronouncements.

Finally, in regards to all the intellectual energy focusing on the word "daresay", I feel that the meaning of that word is frankly not central to the question in the way that we are making it. (This is true for those on both sides of this issue.) What is more important is what Gandalf says after using that word. When I encounter the word "daresay", I almost automatically hear a tiny whispered "but" coming shortly thereafter . I feel it is the content of that "but" which is critical to this discussion.

[davem]

Sounds a bit too 'relative' and so anyone - Sauron, Melkor, etc - are just doing what seems sane to them, as surely anyone silly enough to take one's Creator could be considered by some insane. At what point do we say that anyone is guilty of anything - it's my nature, my genes, my lot, etc. No one guilty?

Or am I just not seeing what you mean? :)

I'm saying he 'deserves' to be sectioned under the M-e equivalent of the Mental Health Act, not executed - which, if you think about it, is what the Elves did......

[alatar]

I'm saying he 'deserves' to be sectioned under the M-e equivalent of the Mental Health Act, not executed - which, if you think about it, is what the Elves did......
I'm with you, but (and this may be off-thread and opening a can of worms) at what point is someone culpable for their actions? One could make the case that anyone murdering another is insane, as only the insane would commit such an act. Do all criminals end up in the asylum?

I'm sure that persons have argued this before I sought fit to post ;) , so if I'm retreading worn ground, just point me down the better path.

[davem]

I'm with you, but (and this may be off-thread and opening a can of worms) at what point is someone culpable for their actions? One could make the case that anyone murdering another is insane, as only the insane would commit such an act. Do all criminals end up in the asylum?

No, I don't think so. Smeagol could have been judged guilty of murdering Deagol immediately after the act - but after 500 years alone on the dark with the Ring I'm not sure how one could judge fairly of his actions - how 'sane' was he? Were there still some 'fragments' of his original self which could have been judged guilty? Yet were those parts the ones responsible for the 'evil' acts he committed, or was it the 'insane' parts.

Its interesting that his own people chose banishment over execution - implying that they felt that they did not have the right to do execute him - or that he was not fully culpable - maybe they saw into his soul & realised that he had always been slightly 'mad'.

There is a difference between someone who commits murder (or any other crime) out of simple wickedness & one who commits murder because they are insane. One of the most heinous crimes in British history was the 'Moors Murders'. Ian Brady & Myra Hindley tortured & murder a number of children. Brady was judged insane & sectioned to an asylum for the rest of his life. Hindley was judged to be quite sane, but irredeemably wicked & was sentenced to life in prison.

As to the 'daresay' issue, my own feeling is that Gandalf's response could be summed up along the lines of 'Er, yes, OK Frodo.....Now let's grow up & take this thing seriously shall we?'

[Thenamir]

I am in agreement with Child:What is more important is what Gandalf says after using that word. When I encounter the word "daresay", I almost automatically hear a tiny whispered "but" coming shortly thereafter . I feel it is the content of that "but" which is critical to this discussion.

I think the consensus here (and my apologies to those who do not share it) is that Gollum indeed deserves death for all his evil actions. And yet, the wise (Gandalf, Aragorn, and the elves) do not carry out an execution. Why? Gandalf shares his premonition ("my heart tells me") that Gollum still had a part to play in the great unfolding drama of the Ring saga. Whence does this "feeling" come from? I believe* it can only come from whatever connection to or remembrance of Eru still remains after so many long years incarnate in Middle Earth. (And what understatement, to say "the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.")

Gandalf, and apparantly the elves as well, were content to let things play out in Gollum's case, confident that the guiding force (Eru) was in charge and would work things out as they should. And since Frodo stopped Faramir and his men from killing Gollum when the opportunity arose, it is evident that Gandalf's lesson to Frodo was learned.

After all has been said, I think the key point to take from this is "Not even the wise can see all ends." But in Tolkien's subcreation there was One who could, and those decisions should be left in His hands.

* - I italicized these words so that no one will mistake me for making a dogmatic statement which requires refutation.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
Smeagol could have been judged guilty of murdering Deagol immediately after the act - but after 500 years alone on the dark with the Ring I'm not sure how one could judge fairly of his actions - how 'sane' was he? Were there still some 'fragments' of his original self which could have been judged guilty? Yet were those parts the ones responsible for the 'evil' acts he committed, or was it the 'insane' parts.

I think you make an important point; one cannot view the actions of a person under the influence of the Ring in exactly the same way that one would view the same actions in an un-influenced person. But I would not err on the other extreme either. Just as the Ring cannot be seen as exclusively a sort of 'psychic amplifier' (to use Shippey's term), it also cannot be seen as an indomitable force that takes over or possesses its victims wholly and utterly. There is something almost paradoxical about the way the Ring works; its bearers seem simultaneously to have and not to have free will. And yet it is believable; it is as though in the Ring domination by fate and freedom of choice are unified and made into one and the same thing. I think that this sort of justified paradox, this synthesis of antitheses, if you will, is one of the most brilliant features of Tolkien's writing.

But as far as the morality of any Ringbearer's actions, as far as our judgement of their culpability - the paradoxical nature of the Ring makes these things difficult if not impossible. Moral philosophy is tricky even in the real world. It's hard enough to judge the actions of real people; how can we hope to judge Smeagol's?

And is that not, perhaps, a lesson to be learned from Tolkien's Ring? Maybe the union of guilt and guiltlessness, of culpability and of justified excuse, in the Ringbearers reflects the nature of misdeeds in general.

As to the 'daresay' issue, my own feeling is that Gandalf's response could be summed up along the lines of 'Er, yes, OK Frodo.....Now let's grow up & take this thing seriously shall we?'

I do not mean to suggest that your interpretation is wrong - but why not take Gandalf at his word? If you ask me, Gandalf does think that Gollum deserves to die - but Gandalf also recognizes that it is not his place to judge such things.

[Morwen]

"Its interesting that his own people chose banishment over execution - implying that they felt that they did not have the right to do execute him - or that he was not fully culpable - maybe they saw into his soul & realised that he had always been slightly 'mad'."

I don't recall Gandalf telling Frodo that Smeagol's people knew that he had killed Deagol. I don't have the book in front of me but IIRC Gollum's grandmother kicked him out of the family hole because he was causing problems in family. Far from seeing into his soul they seemed (if Gandalf's tale is accurate) to consider him a nuisance and wanted him gone.

[davem]

I think the consensus here (and my apologies to those who do not share it) is that Gollum indeed deserves death for all his evil actions. And yet, the wise (Gandalf, Aragorn, and the elves) do not carry out an execution. Why? Gandalf shares his premonition ("my heart tells me") that Gollum still had a part to play in the great unfolding drama of the Ring saga. Whence does this "feeling" come from? I believe* it can only come from whatever connection to or remembrance of Eru still remains after so many long years incarnate in Middle Earth. (And what understatement, to say "the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.")

My feeling is that they don't kill him because they never actually needed to - killing in self defence is one thing. Executing someone in cold blood is another. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that they simply kept Gollum around because he might prove 'useful'. A very utilitarian approach which strikes me as more in Sauron or Saruman's line. I think Gandalf's motive was the same as Frodo's - hope that in some way, given time & the right circumstances, Smeagol may have been healed.


I don't recall Gandalf telling Frodo that Smeagol's people knew that he had killed Deagol. I don't have the book in front of me but IIRC Gollum's grandmother kicked him out of the family hole because he was causing problems in family. Far from seeing into his soul they seemed (if Gandalf's tale is accurate) to consider him a nuisance and wanted him gone.

Well, I'm sure they noticed that Deagol hadn't been around since the fishing trip & must have had their suspicions.

We're told that no Hobbit in the Shire have ever killed another intentionally & it seems to me that this speaks to the innate distaste for execution among Hobbits.

Aiwendil. Ok - I accept your points - up to a point. But it wasn't simply a matter of the effect of the Ring itself - it was the fact that Smeagol had spent 500 years alone in the dark brooding on it. I strongly suspect that if he'd spent 500 years alone in the dark brooding on his big toe he'd have become quite equally insane (or attained Nirvana.....)

[Thenamir]

My feeling is that they don't kill him because they never actually needed to - killing in self defence is one thing. Executing someone in cold blood is another. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that they simply kept Gollum around because he might prove 'useful'.
I am in agreement here -- it was quoted earlier that even orcs were given mercy if they asked. And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for a last stand of desperate battle. But the most part fled eastward as they could; and some cast their weapons down and sued for mercy. Though the text does not explicitly state what happened after this, the expectation is that those who asked mercy were given it, and the ones who continued fighting were probably slain or driven off.

Gandalf said "Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement" [emphasis mine] This says nothing of dealing out death in clean battle, only (in my opinion) of pronouncing sentence on deeds done previously.

[Kuruharan]

it was quoted earlier that even orcs were given mercy if they asked.

-and-

And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for a last stand of desperate battle. But the most part fled eastward as they could; and some cast their weapons down and sued for mercy.

That passage does not refer to orcs.

Note:

And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold

The orcs were...

orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope.

It didn't occur to them to beg for mercy. They weren't rational anymore.

[Lalwendë]

I think the consensus here (and my apologies to those who do not share it) is that Gollum indeed deserves death for all his evil actions. And yet, the wise (Gandalf, Aragorn, and the elves) do not carry out an execution. Why? Gandalf shares his premonition ("my heart tells me") that Gollum still had a part to play in the great unfolding drama of the Ring saga. Whence does this "feeling" come from? I believe* it can only come from whatever connection to or remembrance of Eru still remains after so many long years incarnate in Middle Earth. (And what understatement, to say "the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.")

Gandalf, and apparantly the elves as well, were content to let things play out in Gollum's case, confident that the guiding force (Eru) was in charge and would work things out as they should. And since Frodo stopped Faramir and his men from killing Gollum when the opportunity arose, it is evident that Gandalf's lesson to Frodo was learned.

After all has been said, I think the key point to take from this is "Not even the wise can see all ends." But in Tolkien's subcreation there was One who could, and those decisions should be left in His hands.

* - I italicized these words so that no one will mistake me for making a dogmatic statement which requires refutation.

Err, not quite sure where you got the meaning of the word 'consensus' from there. But I'm prepared you might mean a consensus on the many meanings of another word - 'deserved'. The fact we're all still shouting about it tells us we're about as far from anything like a 'consensus' as ever we can be. Sorry, had to be a pedant.
;)

But you make a very good point. In Middle-earth we know that there is something other than the mere laws that Men and Elves can construct, and that's Eru. Ultimately Eru offers judgement in this world - and in allowing someone like Gollum to live, the people who variously capture him or have the opportunity otherwise to murder him take a very definite step. The step they take is to allow something else to decide Gollum's fate - whether they know what that 'something else' is or not. Some, like Gandalf, know of Eru, and maybe know that execution would not be acceptable to him - it being his judgement ultimately (and note the Elves, who also know of Eru, certainly do not think of putting Gollum to death). But others. Why do they not kill him according to their laws?

Now something thorny; obviously some kind of death penalty does exist in some cultures in Middle-earth, so why did they not put Gollum to death? Not all of them had heard Gandalf's words after all, and some of these cultures could be quite vicious/violent. Not all of these people had there merest inkling of who or what Eru was, some may have lived entirely without Gods of any kind. What is it about Gollum which stays their hands?

Is it Pity in every case?

Perhaps to put to death a victim of Sauron's craft and treachery is far worse than to allow Gollum to live? I could see this as sinking to Sauron's level, as submitting to the evil of the Ring itself, doing Sauron's work for him. He would expect that the people of Middle-earth would kill one another for this Ring, and they did, but would it have been right to kill one another as punishment for the effects of Sauron's magic? I think Gandalf thought quite clearly that it was not the wisest move to make - not just for this reason but for many.

And another thought. A very telling effect of the Ring is what it makes its bearers and those who see it want. Frodo sees himself as some kind of robed godhead; Sam as Samwise the Strong, a hero; Galadriel as an horrific queen; Boromir as a great patriotic warrior. And Gollum? He sees himself eating fish three times a day. Maybe it was lucky that someone as low as Gollum bore this thing for so long if all he wanted was food. ;)

[Raynor]

A third party may make a judgement on Gollum's actions/choices, & decide they are 'wicked' & deserving of death, but did Gollum see his actions in that way - hence Raynor's point about judging on 'intention' seems to miss the point - particularly when one is dealing with someone who is (leaving aside the issue of his 'morality') clinically insane & technically 'possessed' by the Ring.But in this case you seem to disregard that we do actually have insight into his mind. You ignore Tolkien's opinion on Gollum, even if he is the author of the story. To quote for the nth time, he is portrayed as persistent in wickedness, refusing repentance and as damnable. All of this mean responsibility. This is not an argument from ignorance, quite the contrary. However, I have a nagging feeling I quoted this, for the nth+1 time, in vain.
Some, like Gandalf, know of Eru, and maybe know that execution would not be acceptable to himBut there have been executions. Turgon ordered Eol to be killed, and Mandos executed Melkor.
Perhaps to put to death a victim of Sauron's craft and treachery is far worse than to allow Gollum to live? I don't agree with killing as punishment. Although I do argue that one who represents an unacceptable risk to the lives of others should be stopped one way or the other (peacefully, when possible). Stopping such a person, using the most adequate way, would not be immoral, or doing Sauron's work.

[Boromir88]

I'm with you, but (and this may be off-thread and opening a can of worms) at what point is someone culpable for their actions?~alatar
Well said...those who commit acts of 'evil' I think have to always be held accountable to a point. The 'evil-doers' see themselves as being in the right and what they're doing is not wrong at all...however does that make them not evil? I don't think so; everyone has to be held accountable for the decisions they make. The Ring may have been too strong of an influence for Smeagol to face, but what he did was inexcusable.

I would like to bring up what is exactly 'evil' in the Lord of the Rings; as I think it could clear some things up. Tolkien does paint us a good picture of evil at various times...and though I don't think 'good and evil' is so 'black and white' (as has been discussed in this thread); but still we can get an idea what is 'evil' in Tolkien's story:
It may become possessive, clinging to the things made as ’its own’, the sub-creator wishes to be the Lord and God of his private creation. He will rebel againast the laws of the Creator.~Letter 131
Letter 131 also talks about one who 'bulldozes and seeks to dominate' over someone's will. This is also an evil act. Taking these into account I think Morgoth and Sauron fit quite nicely with the concept of evil in the story. And as Tolkien remarks both were in 'absolute satanic rebellion' against Eru:
But in this ’mythology’ all the ’angellic’ powers concerned themselves with world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the Absolute Satanic Rebellion of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the faineance of some of the other higher powers or ’gods.’~Letter 156
So, Tolkien sets up these varying 'degrees of error and failing' that anyone is capable of committing. Morgoth and Sauron are the 'most evil' as they do seek to dominate over other's wills/bulldoze, and there were in direct rebellion against Eru.

Which leads me to say that I think Child and Squatter have hit the nail on the head, Eru is the important factor in this matter over Gollum. Gollum did horrible deeds and broke laws that society had in place. But, did Gollum willingly rebel against Eru? Did Gollum willingly want to dominate over other people? Those are the questions. ;)

The defense of 'I believe what I'm doing is the right thing' just doesn't fly, for me. Everyone believes they are doing the 'right' thing (whether good or evil). Eventhough if good and evil isn't always easily defined...I would call rebelling against Eru and seeking to dominate others' wills the two greatest evils (in Tolkien's story that is). :)

As an interesting side note, just to let everyone know ignorance to the law is no excuse for breaking the law. I found that out the hard way. In the States, laws vary from state to state (in my case it was driving). You see I had no clue in Pennsylvania you were only allowed to stay in the passing lane for a maximum of 2 miles (don't ask me how they keep track of this stuff)...the officer didn't care. I was hit with a little fine and was told it's the drivers responsbility to know the laws of the states they're driving through. I forget who brought it up...but not knowing what the 'laws of the land' isn't an excuse for breaking the law.

[Raynor]

But, did Gollum willingly rebel against Eru? Did Gollum willingly want to dominate over other people? Those are the questions.Are you arguing that only rebellion against Eru per se (and no indirect instances of it, such as stealing, killing, etc), or willing to dominate others are immoral? Seeing that you call this the greatest (not the only) evil acts, I am inclined to think no.

[davem]

But in this case you seem to disregard that we do actually have insight into his mind. You ignore Tolkien's opinion on Gollum, even if he is the author of the story. To quote for the nth time, he is portrayed as persistent in wickedness, refusing repentance and as damnable. All of this mean responsibility. This is not an argument from ignorance, quite the contrary. However, I have a nagging feeling I quoted this, for the nth+1 time, in vain.

He is also portrayed as pitiable, broken, confused, lonely, insane & overwhelmed by a power he cannot hope to stand against or break free from.

(and if anyone wants to know who I was referring to...)

This is not a matter of whether what Smeagol/Gollum did was 'acceptable', but of his mental state & whether that should be taken into account. Gandalf hoped for his healing, not his damnation. So did Frodo. The point is that those who encountered him responded with pity - Gandalf, Bilbo, Frodo & even, at the end, Sam. Why did they respond so? Because they saw what he had become. If he was simply 'wicked & damnable' why would he inspire pity?

It seems to me you are taking a 'Balrog's Wings' approach here - Tolkien uses the word 'wings' & you take it literally. Tolkien uses the word 'wicked' & you reduce Smeagol to a two dimensional pantomime villain. Gollum is probably the most complex, multi-faceted character Tolkien ever created (in comparison to whom many of his other characters are reduced to pastel shades or simple black & white). This simplistic 'he was wicked' approach misses the whole point of the character. Tolkien is showing us a being racked by the consequences of his own wrong choices, broken by his own wifullness, & whose very mind & being is shattered until he becomes an embodiment of chaos, his identity fragmented into jagged shards which constantly rip & tear at any remnant of his original self that may have survived.

[Raynor]

If he was simply 'wicked & damnable' why would he inspire pity?Because they saw he has the choice to repent; Tolkien stated that nothing is wholly evil, since it would be absolute zero. The same would apply to Gollum. Also, Tolkien stated that one must show pity even when doing so may seem disadvantageous; true pity is present when it is contrary to prudence.
It seems to me you are taking a 'Balrog's Wings' approach here - Tolkien uses the word 'wings' & you take it literally. Was that an attempt to somehow demean my argument? Because the barlog wings debate is no settled, unless you consider your word the ultimate authority ;). While Tolkien may have acknowledged Gollum's problems, he still considers him as such, and I don't see how either of the three labels can be taken figuratively. Surely, you are allowed to do so, if you want.

[davem]

Because they saw he has the choice to repent; Tolkien stated that nothing is wholly evil, since it would be absolute zero. The same would apply to Gollum. Also, Tolkien stated that one must show pity even when doing so may seem disadvantageous; true pity is present when it is contrary to prudence..

Bilbo almost stopped breathing, and went stiff himself. He was desperate. He must get away, out of this horrible darkness, while he had any strength left. He must fight. He must stab the most foul thing, put its eye out, kill it. It meant to kill him. No, not a fair fight. He was invisible now. Gollum had no sword. Gollum had not actually threatened to kill him, or tried to yet. And he was miserable, alone, lost. A sudden understanding, a pity mixed with horror, welled up in Bilbo's heart: a glimpse of endless unmarked days without light or hope of betterment, hard stone, cold fish, sneaking and whispering. All these thoughts passed in a flash of a second. He trembled. And then quite suddenly in another flash, as if lifted by a new strength and resolve, he leaped.
No great leap for a man, but a leap in the dark. Straight over Gollum's head he jumped, seven feet forward and three in the air; indeed, had he known it, he only just missed cracking his skull on the low arch of the passage. (Riddles in the Dark)

"For now that I see him, I do pity him." (Taming of Smeagol)

Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee--but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.

The first example gives Bilbo's thoughts, the second Frodo's, the third can only be Tolkien's own (as he is the 'omnipotent narrator' at that point). I think you're discounting all this in favour of an overly simplistic interpretation of Gollum as simply 'wicked'. Tolkien, & his characters, knew there was much more to Gollum than just 'wickedness'.

There are two characters in Tolkien's work that could only have been written by a 20th century man who had seen real horror on the Somme & been confronted by the horrors of Belsen & Hiroshima - Frodo & Gollum. Neither character could have been written (or concieved for that matter) in an earlier period. Frodo is so broken by his suffering that he can no longer live in the world. Gollum commits attrocities but Tolkien knew that human beings did commit attrocities but that did not simply make them 'wicked'. That was too simple. People committed attrocities because they were flawed, weak, & in many cases didn't understand what they were doing till it was too late. Yet those people lived in the world alongside the rest of us & we had to deal with them. What should our response be? Execute them? Remove them from existence so that we do not have to think about that aspect of 'the human'? No. What Tolkien does is have his characters refuse that easy option, so that we, the readers, cannot take it. We have to confront, live with, Gollum. We are forced by Tolkien to see the 'wicked monster' as a person. I'm sure there are some reasers who find this difficult - they will either like Gollum so much that they reject any idea that he was a baby eating, selfish wretch, driven only by his own desires & try to make him out to be a helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control, & put down all those accusations as lies & 'rumours'. Others will dislike him so much that they will just dismiss him as a wicked monster who deserves no compassion or understanding.

Yet Tolkien does not want us to do either. He wants us to know Gollum is a wicked monster. He also wants us to be clear that he is also a broken soul, an an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing. This is the clearest demonstration I can think of of Tolkien's humanity, & of his refusal to take the easy way out when it comes to the darker side of humanity. Tolkien hates the sin, but refuses to simply hate the sinner. But his response is not so simple as to 'love' the sinner. He shows us that for all Gollum is a monster he is a human monster. He is not an Orc - though he may do Orcish things. A human being who does terrible things is still a human being, & we are all our brother's keeper. We cannot simply execute, remove, the Gollums - that's too simple. Actually, its a way of avoiding our own responsibility, a way of pretending that that aspect of the human doesn't exist. Tolkien tells us that it does exist & forces us to think about it by not having Gollum executed.

This, I think, is Gandalf's point - having Gollum around (specifically having him around Frodo) will force Frodo to see things he needs to see, to learn things he needs to know. Without Gollum LotR would be a lot less profound & a lot more of a 'sword & sorcery' novel.

[Raynor]

I think you're discounting all this in favour of an overly simplistic interpretation of Gollum as simply 'wicked'.If you read my argument, you would have seen I quoted Tolkien as stating that nothing is wholly evil. I guess you didn't.
Tolkien hates the sin, but refuses to simply hate the sinner.We're in agreement over this, as seen from my previous post.

[davem]

If you read my argument, you would have seen I quoted Tolkien as stating that nothing is wholly evil. I guess you didn't.
.

Well, as I remember it was Elrond who stated that "nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." One assumes Tolkien shared this opinion though.

[Raynor]

Well, as I remember it was Elrond who stated that "nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." One assumes Tolkien shared this opinion though.Well, that is not as relevant (since it talks about the past) as the letters:
In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero.

[davem]

Well, that is not as relevant (since it talks about the past) as the letters:

Well, the phrase nothing is evil is used in LotR not in the Letters.

Anyway, I think I've won this argument so I'm not bovvered - Do you think I'm bovvered? (Points at face) Face. Bovvered? Look. Face. Bovvered? Look. Face. Bovvered? I ain't bovvered. :p

[Raynor]

Anyway, I think I've won this argument so I'm not bovvered - Do you think I'm bovvered? (Points at face) Face. Bovvered? Look. Face. Bovvered? Look. Face. Bovvered? I ain't bovvered.Let it be known that I find this paragraph as extremely funny :D.

[Lalwendë]

Yet Tolkien does not want us to do either. He wants us to know Gollum is a wicked monster. He also wants us to be clear that he is also a broken soul, an an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing. This is the clearest demonstration I can think of of Tolkien's humanity, & of his refusal to take the easy way out when it comes to the darker side of humanity. Tolkien hates the sin, but refuses to simply hate the sinner. But his response is not so simple as to 'love' the sinner. He shows us that for all Gollum is a monster he is a human monster. He is not an Orc - though he may do Orcish things. A human being who does terrible things is still a human being, & we are all our brother's keeper. We cannot simply execute, remove, the Gollums - that's too simple. Actually, its a way of avoiding our own responsibility, a way of pretending that that aspect of the human doesn't exist. Tolkien tells us that it does exist & forces us to think about it by not having Gollum executed.

And therein lies something that so many readers have simply missed. For Tolkien, as a Catholic, it would be impossible to view Gollum as simply 'evil', as he is a human being. For Tolkien, even the most 'evil' human would always retain some goodness. It's perfectly allowable to dislike the deeds that someone does, but it is not permissible to hate the person for what they do, that is going beyond the pale.

In many ways Gollum exists as a character to shoulder the burden of Sauron's supernatural evil. He demonstrates just how evil Sauron is by showing us what his craft can and does do to people. He shows us what unnatural long life does to a mortal, in a far more comprehensive and effective way than any Numenorean king can do. Gollum was once an ordinary Hobbit like us and then he sees this beautiful, shiny thing and kills for it; the shadow latent within him, within everybody (certainly according to both the Catholic and oddly enough the Jungian viewpoint), is stirred by the sight of a beautiful yet perilous object. Doesn't Tolkien tell us that all that is gold does not glitter? That's a warning - beauty does not always mean goodness! It's all too easy, as a humble human being, to be stirred by such things to wrongdoing.

You could say that most of the evils of the modern world are due to Rings of power, beautiful, blinging objects that we all want - 4x4s, big mansions, plasma TVs, i-Pods, fancy trainers etc - we want this stuff, it's tempting. We might not kill for it (though some do) but we certainly get ourselves into debt for them, submit ourselves to virtual slavery to earn the money for them, are blinded by the sight of celebrities and the urge to live in at least some small way their lifestyle, even if it is just having a shinier car or faster internet connection so we too can use YouTube, because that's what we are. Humans. And we are by nature greedy. That celebrity we see is like Annatar, tempting us.

Anyway, back off the mad rambling stuff...Gollum maybe scares us and we shout "He's evil!" because frankly, any one of us could end up like him if driven mad by greed. Just as much as we have potential for good, we have potential for greed.

The Ring too, symbolises corruption, things of such unutterable power that many simply cannot resist them. I'm not surprised that so many see the Ring as symbolic of nuclear weapons - there is a strong resemblance in the symbolism. These are things of great terror and power (and not a little terrible beauty too in their capabilities) and possessing one confers the owner with immense bargaining power. Then once you have one, it's just about impossible to get rid of it, as who wants to get rid of their power? I'm someone who is against nuclear weapons, but I have to admit that even I feel a bit scared at the prospect of my country not having them when others do. The Ring works in that way - having it gives you power, potential, protection, no matter how evil it is.

Gollum doesn't know any of this when he gets the Ring, but nor did governments when they first got their warheads really realise what a "terrible beauty they had unleashed onto the world". The Ring is merely utterly beautiful, and it exerts a pull on Gollum, the human with his shadow, his sin, his potential for doing wrong like any of us. Would you cut off your own hand if offered a billion pounds? You might say of course not, but until put into that situation, none of us can really answer that. That's the warning Tolkien, as a Catholic, gives us, that we all have the potential to be Gollums, so be careful, and don't judge what you do not and cannot understand.

[Raynor]

And therein lies something that so many readers have simply missed. For Tolkien, as a Catholic, it would be impossible to view Gollum as simply 'evil', as he is a human being. For Tolkien, even the most 'evil' human would always retain some goodness. It's perfectly allowable to dislike the deeds that someone does, but it is not permissible to hate the person for what they do, that is going beyond the pale.Do you know these readers, and did they express such opinions on this thread? Or is this statement made for the heck of it? I am not aware that anyone argued here that Gollum doesn't have good in him too, so I am curious about your answer. Having some good side doesn't exclude being culpable; it actually makes the responsibility even greater.

[The Might]

No hard thoughts davem, still perhaps such remarks should be avoided in the future for the sake of the discussion.
I personally still agree with Raynor on this one.
Yes, Gollum had good in him.
Yes, Gollum was very much tempted by the Ring, that had a great influence and power over him.
Yes, he is pitiable after spending 500 years alone in a cave.
So what?
Your last post is, sorry that I have to say this, pretty much off-topic Lalwende.
As far as I can tell, we are not discussing whether the Ring influenced or didn't influence Gollum, but whether he deserved or didn't deserve death for his actions.
Does it mean that if I drink too much or take drugs and that break the law that I am innocent and the police should sue Johnny Walker or Martini?
Of course not, that's not a reason to say Gollum is no longer responsible and culpable for his actions.
And also, we are not discussing whether Gollum is given here as an example for what you can become yourself.
Of course he can be seen as one, still this is not the topic of the discussion.
He commited crimes, and even though he has some...I don't know how they're called in English...maybe Raynor can translate this term (circumstante atenuante), he still is guilty for theose actions and should be punished for them.
Now, whether the punishment he would receive would be the capital one or not, probably would depend on who would give the sentence.
He killed Deagol, perhaps also babies of the woodmen, perhaps would have eaten Bilbo, attacked Frodo and Sam, planned to get them killed with Shelob's and perhaps some other things as well.
And for all those things he is guilty.

[davem]

The question still remains - to what extent was Gollum compos mentis? It strikes me that he was not 'sane'. Hence we can't judge him as we would judge a sane person. Now, a psychopath must be removed to a place of safety for the good of themselves & others - but they are not judged in the same way or by the same standards as sane people. This is because their perception of what is right & wrong, acceptable & unacceptable, is skewed. In order to judge Gollum as a criminal you would have to prove that he not only knew what he was doing, but that he knew that what he was doing was wrong. I don't see any real evidence of this in his behaviour. Even his near repentance on the stairs does not provide evidence that he felt betraying the Hobbits to Shelob was 'wrong' in any moral sense - merely that he felt sad that they 'had' to die that way.

Gollum seems to lack any 'higher' or rational consciousness. Quite fitting really, for a being who throughout the story acts almost as Frodo's projected 'id' or 'Shadow'. He is the repressed, the rejected, the despised. The thing nobody wants around &, while most of them would not actually execute him, most of them wish he would just go away & die out of their sight.

We know that even before the Ring came he was a 'mean little soul' (Tolkien's words), yet it seems odd that a 'Hobbit' child/adolescent should behave in the way Smeagol did. Either some childhood trauma affected him deeply, or he was born with some kind of psychological problems (possibly even some kind of autism) or brain damage. Whatever - Smeagol seems always to have been a uniquely 'odd' & alienated Hobbit. His behaviour - whatever its cause - lead him to be shunned & the resulting isolation seems to have profoundly affected his thinking - including his moral value system. Add to this the effect of the Ring & you have a uniquely screwed up individual. What standards of judgement can you possibly apply?

Hence Smeagol-Gollum is the most difficult character for the reader to deal with. He is simply as he is. We are in an impossible position - its not possible to judge him fairly because none of our standards can encompass him. He must be 'accepted' for what he is- almost a 'force of nature' (even in a way an 'Act of God'). He is like no other character. All the other characters make 'sense' - in a way Gollum doesn't. He is a dark mystery. There may be a light in his eyes but there is a darkness behind them. A 'void'. He is almost a personification of the Ring itself - a hard surface surrounding emptiness. He should not exist, & it would be easier if he did not. But he does exist & there it is.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

We are in an impossible position - its not possible to judge him fairly because none of our standards can encompass him.
And this is why I think there is no actual judgement we can make. Not a "just" one. This is also, I think, why Tolkien himself is reluctant to make any final judgement as well. I think all we can discuss here is "would Gollum be executed in Gondor?" or "would Gollum be executed by the Elves?" or "would you execute Gollum?" (which is, I think, what was this thread turning to at some points - as it happens, unfortunately, many times in threads like that). There is no "did Gollum deserve death" objectively - we are not gods, we are mere humans... and Downers, which is even worse :D And if Tolkien himself refused to make final judgement on this, he probably thought the same.

[Raynor]

Davem, if I remember correctly, it was either you or Lal who who mentioned how haunted Gollum is by the killing of Deagol; remorse and the defense he builds can only show a presence of morality.
Even his near repentance on the stairs does not provide evidence that he felt betraying the Hobbits to Shelob was 'wrong' in any moral sense - merely that he felt sad that they 'had' to die that way.So, of what would he have repented, if not of his evil? How can we read repent in any other way than the moral one? You ignore Tolkien's opinion on him too, but I have gone throught that way too many times; or maybe not enough?

[davem]

Davem, if I remember correctly, it was either you or Lal who who mentioned how haunted Gollum is by the killing of Deagol; remorse and the defense he builds can only show a presence of morality.

I accept that there was a 'remnant' of Smeagol in there somewhere. But there's too much else in there too for us to come to a simple judgement.


So, of what would he have repented, if not of his evil? How can we read repent in any other way than the moral one? You ignore Tolkien's opinion on him too, but I have gone throught that way too many times; or maybe not enough?

I meant to put 'repentance' in brackets.

Oh Tolkien was always changing his mind on stuff & too much in the letters is (in Hutton's words ) 'reflective glosses', written after the event. He is giving his own interpretation of events/characters. The story stands or falls by its own internal logic - whatever the author wants the reader to think.

[Raynor]

There is no "did Gollum deserve death" objectively - we are not gods, we are mere humans.While Tolkien does not assume the moral and ultimate authority of God, and what He actually does to sinners, a matter in which humans or Men have arguably no insight, he has no problem in recognising the moral fault of Gollum.
I accept that there was a 'remnant' of Smeagol in there somewhere. - The murder of Deal haunted Gollum, and he had made up a defence, repeating it to his "precious" over and over again, as he gnawed bones in the dark, until he almost believed it. It _was_ his birthday. Deal ought to have given the ring to him. It had previously turned up just so as to be a present. It _was_ his birthday present, and so on, and on.

- I endured him as long as I could, but the truth was desperately important, and in the end I had to be harsh. It is Gollum who is haunted, persistently, by his evil deeds, even after five centuries. Your downplaying is unwarranted.
Oh Tolkien was always changing his mind on stuff & too much in the letters is (in Hutton's words ) 'reflective glosses', written after the event.You will find that Tolkien was writting about Gollum coming within a hair of repentance, if it wasn't for Sam, as early as 1945. You can't brush this aside as you see fit. In the book itself, it is said "the fleeting moment had passed, beyond recall".

[davem]

It is Gollum who is haunted, persistently, by his evil deeds, even after five centuries. Your downplaying is unwarranted.

Nope. This implies that he had almost completely convinced himself that there was nothing to feel guilty about.

You will find that Tolkien was writting about Gollum coming within a hair of repentance, if it wasn't for Sam, as early as 1945. You can't brush this aside as you see fit. .

I can. Its not your book, so you can't, I'm afraid, tell me how to read it. And neither can Tolkien. My understanding of Gollum's nature is perfectly logical (though not everyone may agree with it).

[Raynor]

Nope. This implies that he had almost completely convinced himself that there was nothing to feel guilty about. But the very fact that he had to come up with excuses, and resort to them time and again shows he has morality.
I can. Its not your book, so you can't, I'm afraid, tell me how to read it. And neither can Tolkien. My understanding of Gollum's nature is perfectly logical (though not everyone may agree with it).Ok, here something more to prove just how inaccurate your position is, in regards to the book itself:
Gollum visits Shelob, but seeing Frodo asleep nearly repents. Is this good enough? I somehow doubt it...

[davem]

But the very fact that he had to come up with excuses, and resort to them time and again shows he has morality.

It showed he had morality. And 'morality', in the sense of a moral value system, will be skewed by the individual's mental state.

Ok, here something more to prove just how inaccurate your position is, in regards to the book itself:
Is this good enough? I somehow doubt it...

This is shorthand. Whoever compiled the Tale of Years is referring to the incident, but how the compiler (Tolkien, Findegil or whoever) knows what was going through Gollum's mind at that point is beyond me. In the story itself the incident as described does not mention 'repentance'. The 'repentance' is an interpretation which the reader does not have to accept. You seem to take a very literalist approach to the whole thing....

[Raynor]

It showed he had morality.So, he has morality only when he has to resort to this defence; the only problem is he has to resort to it constantly, even when talking to Gandalf. His moral equilbrium is still highly important for him, and to appease his remorse he resists a lot of Gandalf's pressure. First and foremost he hides the truth from himself, because it still hurts him to acknowledge he is evil.
how the compiler (Tolkien, Findegil or whoever) knows what was going through Gollum's mind at that point is beyond me. such a problem that you mention does not exist, in a world where knowledge outside current time and space is still acessible to istari, Men and Elves - esspecially since with the palantir, Gandalf could have looked as back as Feanor creating. I am sorry, but this is a laughable defense, in utter disregard of the story, its elements, and its logic. Even in the text, after the hobbits awake, his voice is at first soft, and then he hisses when he is further pushed, and a green glint flickers in his eyes; Tolkien commented several times about the lack of sophistication of Sam, and how he so missed seeing the change in Gollum.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Whoever compiled the Tale of Years is referring to the incident, but how the compiler (Tolkien, Findegil or whoever) knows what was going through Gollum's mind at that point is beyond me.
Well, I always took it that this is supposed to be "objective summary" (Tolkien's, since no one else can be objective at that point), so I take it that when we are presented it, it is what happened at that point (what Tolkien thought Gollum thought when he wrote it).

So, I also agree that Gollum "almost repented" at that point, he possibly (almost) felt pity for his deeds. This also implies, that he still had some conscience. And there are more examples. And even if he suppressed his guilt, this does not mean he didn't feel it in the first place. So - even if "Gollum" wasn't to be judged for extenuating circumstances - his insanity, then still Sméagol would, for his crimes. Sméagol could repent, he didn't; that he suppressed the guilt was his choice, even if later he was denied the opportunity to choose, even by circumstances he couldn't control, the first choice was his alone, when he was still sane. For this, he is to be considered guilty.
While Tolkien does not assume the moral and ultimate authority of God, and what He actually does to sinners, a matter in which humans or Men have arguably no insight, he has no problem in recognising the moral fault of Gollum.
Surely, Tolkien recognizes this as the moral fault. As, from above, do I. But the problem is, how can we judge Gollum for this. Cf. my post above. I think, if I sum it all up, this is what comes out:


Gollum was guilty (of many things). He knew about that what he did was wrong.
We don't know whether Tolkien had his Christian belief in mind when thinking about Gollum, or if he thought just about ME system without being influenced anyhow by his belief. From Christian point of view: Gollum deserved death, as everyone does. And he dies, as everyone does (not by anyone's hands, mind you - this is left to God). There was no Messiah in Middle-Earth, so we can only speculate if one was to come to pay for Gollum's sins instead of him and save him from eternal death (this is somewhat limping a bit, because death represented ultimately something different in the light of all Silmarillions&co., and the most, Athrabeth). In Middle-Earth w. Silmarillion&co. point of view: Gollum deserves death, as everyone does. I don't see that far into it, since Tolkien's opinions change on that quite much. But, still I think here comes the idea of the death coming by itself. But concerning the question if he was doomed to die, why, of course he was. He would have to be an immortal Elf not to face death - totally different rules apply to the Elves, not taking physical (natural) death into account at all.
BUT, in both the views the important thing is, that we cannot make hasty judgements and draw the sword and kill Gollum. As even Gandalf says. In Christian point of view, we are to show mercy because we were shown mercy. In ME point of view, even if death was to be a gift, we are not to shorten someone's life wilfully (which goes with the first case as well, this is just the actual meaning of the Old Testament commandment), because the time is given to Gollum, and when it ends, it ends. If we are given our own choice, we should let him live.

[Macalaure]

He commited crimes, and even though he has some...I don't know how they're called in English...maybe Raynor can translate this term (circumstante atenuante), he still is guilty for theose actions and should be punished for them.
Now, whether the punishment he would receive would be the capital one or not, probably would depend on who would give the sentence.

I think the notions of justice, that we are all used to, are not of much use in Gollum's case. I'm aware this is a tangent, so I'll try to be short. I'm quoting TM here, but similar points have been made by others, too, I think. I will re-quote a quote Raynor gave many moons ago, and which went quite unnoticed.

Neither must ye forget that in Arda Marred Justice is not Healing. Healing cometh only by suffering and patience, and maketh no demand, not even for Justice. Justice worketh only within the bonds of things as they are, accepting the marring of Arda, and therefore though Justice is itself good and desireth no further evil, it can but perpetuate the evil that was, and doth not prevent it from the bearing of fruit in sorrow.

Healing can mean two things. First, of course, the healing of the wounds that a crime has caused to the victims of it. Second, the wounds inside the criminal, which are very apparent and visible in Gollum. Of course it would be just to punish him (disregarding the disagreement about Gollum's mental status at this point), but what would come out of it? Would Gollum repent due to it? I can hardly imagine that, given that the Elves of Mirkwood were as kind as possible to him and Gollum still hated them more than anything. In Gollum's case, justice would indeed perpetuate his evil and perhaps further it. So, unless the punishment would have been capital (of course), it would not have changed anything in the long run, except to satisfy our, may I say 'vain'?, sense of justice.

I would say that justice is inapplicable in Gollum's case. If our goal is to "get him back for the good side" then we must offer healing, of which Frodo's pity was a beginning. Because of Gollum's complicated and intriguing nature, healing and justice are more or less irreconcilable.

In reality, this approach is of course inapplicable itself, as we need a system of justice to maintain order. If brought to the real world, a proper court would probably see him as criminally incapable. Though I don't see him as insane, he's surely insane enough to fit into that category. So he would go to an asylum, which would try to give healing, but wouldn't succeed as Gollum would doubtlessly still see it as punishment. It's good that we are in Middle-earth. ;)

[Raynor]

Surely, Tolkien recognizes this as the moral fault. As, from above, do I. In ME point of view, even if death was to be a gift, we are not to shorten someone's life wilfully (which goes with the first case as well, this is just the actual meaning of the Old Testament commandment), because the time is given to Gollum, and when it ends, it ends. If we are given our own choice, we should let him live.We are in agreement then on both accounts. I have expressed similar positions in this thread.
I would say that justice is inapplicable in Gollum's case.Hm, I don't know. Even in the primary world, there are many ways in which various cultures see punishment. An american teacher once told me of a tribe which punished two members who killed by having them survive for several days in an harsh environmnent (she said the US governmnent allowed this, instead of a 'modern' trial). Beregond is somewhat punished in a similar fashion, by his 'exile'. I certainly believe that community service is better than any prison; criminals working to atone for what they did is much more helpful for everyone. I have been told that in various parts in Africa, criminals and the families they hurt go together through various programs, of what he may call healing; I believe it is not a singular instance. Perhaps a similar blending, which would stimulate change in Gollum, and give him a chance for good through effort, might attain both scopes.

[Macalaure]

I agree. You have a point there. I was thinking more along the lines of 'traditional' justice and punishment, i.e. locking the one up.

[davem]

So, he has morality only when he has to resort to this defence; the only problem is he has to resort to it constantly, even when talking to Gandalf. His moral equilbrium is still highly important for him, and to appease his remorse he resists a lot of Gandalf's pressure. First and foremost he hides the truth from himself, because it still hurts him to acknowledge he is evil.

No he isn't 'evil'. He does evil things.

such a problem that you mention does not exist, in a world where knowledge outside current time and space is still acessible to istari, Men and Elves - esspecially since with the palantir, Gandalf could have looked as back as Feanor creating. I am sorry, but this is a laughable defense, in utter disregard of the story, its elements, and its logic. Even in the text, after the hobbits awake, his voice is at first soft, and then he hisses when he is further pushed, and a green glint flickers in his eyes; Tolkien commented several times about the lack of sophistication of Sam, and how he so missed seeing the change in Gollum.

This simply doesn't stand up. How could anyone within the story possibly know what was going through Gollum's mind at that point? I still say that 'repent' in the context in which it is used in ToY does not imply Gollum concieves of himself as 'evil'. Repenting of leading the Hobbits to Shelob is not repenting of his whole life. What do you consider this 'repentance' consists of - that for a fleeting moment he had decided to help Frodo complete the Quest & destroy the Ring? There was never any point at which Gollum would have even contemplated such a thing. He was overwhelmed by loneliness & despair & didn't want to see Frodo dead. That's all he 'repented' - killing Frodo, the only person in an age who had showed him any compassion.

[Lalwendë]

Your last post is, sorry that I have to say this, pretty much off-topic Lalwende.
As far as I can tell, we are not discussing whether the Ring influenced or didn't influence Gollum, but whether he deserved or didn't deserve death for his actions.

Oh dear. Seeing as the influence of the Ring is pretty central to understanding anything about Gollum then discussing the influence of the Ring is central too or we will just be writing out of context nonsense. Wjhether the Ring did or did not influence Gollum is irrelevant because it did. No need to find quotes for that one, just go and look at most of Lord of the Rings and quite a lot of The Hobbit.


Healing can mean two things. First, of course, the healing of the wounds that a crime has caused to the victims of it. Second, the wounds inside the criminal, which are very apparent and visible in Gollum. Of course it would be just to punish him (disregarding the disagreement about Gollum's mental status at this point), but what would come out of it? Would Gollum repent due to it? I can hardly imagine that, given that the Elves of Mirkwood were as kind as possible to him and Gollum still hated them more than anything. In Gollum's case, justice would indeed perpetuate his evil and perhaps further it. So, unless the punishment would have been capital (of course), it would not have changed anything in the long run, except to satisfy our, may I say 'vain'?, sense of justice.

I doubt he could have been healed, but then it was possible as he didn't hang around in custody for long enough for anyone to find out, and both Gandalf and the Elves seem to have had hope that he could be healed. Incidentally, can you imagine Gollum taking Frodo's 'cure' and going to the Undying Lands? Meh. But seriously, maybe the memory of what happened/didn't happen to Gollum is what prompted the Elves to take the other three Hobbit ringbearers overseas.

Had Gollum been put to death, we have to ask what purpose it would serve? It would have stopped him committing any more crimes, but then so would effective imprisonment and/or an attempt at healing. Deterrent was irrelevant as there aren't many magic rings around to be stolen and taken into deep mountain caves for 500 years, are there? ;) Execution would really have served no more purpose than to satisfy the anger or repulsion of those who sought to execute him.

[Raynor]

No he isn't 'evil'. He does evil things.Would you care to address my point about his conscience instead of simply stating your opinion, in a going-in-circles way?
How could anyone within the story possibly know what was going through Gollum's mind at that point? But we don't have to restrict our understanding of Gollum at the level of Sam, at the moment he woke up, now do we?
Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee – but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.
...
- Nothing, nothing, said Gollum softly. Nice Master!And in the FotR is is said:
Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed -as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past.He is, in fact, so tough, that he proved "ultimately indomitable" even to Sauron, as I quoted previously. Therefore, even under the almost "unbearable torment" of the ring, he maintains his conscience of good. To resist "as a hobbit might" is indeed very telling, since, as stated in the letters:
I think that there is no horror conceivable that such creatures cannot surmount, by grace (here appearing in mythological forms) combined with a refusal of their nature and reason at the last pinch to compromise or submit. I still say that 'repent' in the context in which it is used in ToY does not imply Gollum concieves of himself as 'evil'. How can you repent if you don't acknowledge that??
What do you consider this 'repentance' consists of - that for a fleeting moment he had decided to help Frodo complete the Quest & destroy the Ring?It could have been an actual, significant turn towards good; the only one we know that he had. Tolkien himself speculated that if allowed, his dawning change could have matched, if not surpassed in the end, the mastery of the ring. But seriously, maybe the memory of what happened/didn't happen to Gollum is what prompted the Elves to take the other three Hobbit ringbearers overseas.I agree
As for Frodo or other mortals, they could only dwell in Aman for a limited time – whether brief or long. The Valar had neither the power nor the right to confer 'immortality' upon them. Their sojourn was a 'purgatory', but one of peace and healing and they would eventually pass away (die at their own desire and of free will) to destinations of which the Elves knew nothing. Anyway, what about my questions I addressed to you, Lal? They are piling up beginning from page one :).

[davem]

Would you care to address my point about his conscience instead of simply stating your opinion, in a going-in-circles way?

I have no idea what Gollum's conscience told him - no-one can have. Which is my point. You are speculating & speculation (on your part or Tolkien's) is not 'fact',

It could have been an actual, significant turn towards good; the only one we know that he had. Tolkien himself speculated that if allowed, his dawning change could have matched, if not surpassed in the end, the mastery of the ring.

'speculated', 'could have', I don't see where this is going at all. Sam 'could have' 'speculated' that Gollum merely had indigestion at that point. Tolkien's 'speculating' & 'theorising' in the Letters is neither here nor there, given that we do not have the context (ie the letter he is responding to), that we do not know whether the 'speculation' in the letter is simply the way he felt at that time & whether he would have thought differently ten minutes later. The Letters were not intended for publication. They were not written to be read by you. You are taking bits of them out of context & treating those bits as 'holy writ', as some kind of final, definitive statement on questions about the novel. They are not. They were never intended to be that. The novel itself is what we are dealing with.

[Raynor]

I have no idea what Gollum's conscience told him - no-one can have. Which is my point. You are speculating & speculation (on your part or Tolkien's) is not 'fact',You ignore that Gollum told Gandalf about all this, he recounted his inner fight stemming from remorse. It seems that not even the books are relevant to you when they don't suit your point. As far as Tolkien's statements, do you know of anything that refutes them? Anything? I have seen this argument before in this thread, a resolute hope that somehow Tolkien contradicts himself. Too bad nothing to contradict this shows up. And please demonstrate in what manner I quoted out of context, it seems a very gratuitous statement on your behalf.

[davem]

You ignore that Gollum told Gandalf about all this, he recounted his inner fight stemming from remorse. It seems that not even the books are relevant to you when they don't suit your point. As far as Tolkien's statements, do you know of anything that refutes them? Anything? I have seen this argument before in this thread, a resolute hope that somehow Tolkien contradicts himself. Too bad nothing to contradict this shows up. And please demonstrate in what manner I quoted out of context, it seems a very gratuitous statement on your behalf.

You quoted out of context because you are quoting sections of letters without the context (ie the letter which is being replied to)

Whatever Gollum told Gandalf is not to the point of what was going through his mind on the stairs. And what you fail to take into account is that Gollum is not sane & cannot be judged in the way a sane person would be judged.

[Raynor]

You quoted out of context because you are quoting sections of letters without the context (ie the letter which is being replied to)The context is obviously LotR; when Tolkien starts speculating about conditions which did not actually occur, he stated so and which they were in particular. So did I, when I said that Gollum's repentance might have equalled the ring's mastery if it were allowed to develop.
Whatever Gollum told Gandalf is not to the point of what was going through his mind on the stairs. You are changing the subject, this was not what we were talking about. See previous posts. Anyway, regarding the stairs, I gave as many elements if possible. If you stick to your personal interpretation, in disregard of them, it is your choice.
And what you fail to take into account is that Gollum is not sane & cannot be judged in the way a sane person would be judged.He had some issues; that is true. But he surived through every challenge, and maintained the idea of good and bad, although he didn't live up to it, and needed lies to appease himself. See previous posts, see the books.

[davem]

You are missing my point and ignoring the concept of debate, in which common sense and logic ask one to not disregard evidences when they contradict one's position.

And you're missing the point that its a book & most readers will read the book & take from it what they will, that it will mean different things to different readers & they will be affected by it in different ways. It is not holy writ which has only a single 'proper' interpretation - which seems to be your understanding. What is 'relevant' & 'irrelevant' will be different for different readers. If a reader sees Gollum as a tragic victim of circumstances, a broken soul struggling for survival & wholeness (which is, for me, what the Ring symboises for him) you cannot state they are 'wrong' - this is not a maths test where 2+2 must = 4. To be forced to interpret Gollum (or anything else in the novel) in one specific way may ruin the story for the reader. It may no longer speak to them at all. Your position seems to boil down to 'You must read & understand the book in this way or you are WRONG!!!'

[Raynor]

Your position seems to boil down to 'You must read & understand the book in this way or you are WRONG!!!'No, my position, stated for the third time now, is that we shouldn't ignore elements of the books when we make judgements and when we expect others to consider them valid, and not just purely personal interpretations. Anyway, I won't participate anymore in this thread, as long as it doesn't discuss the topic.

[davem]

No, my position, stated for the third time now, is that we shouldn't ignore elements of the books when we make judgements and when we expect others to consider them valid, and not just purely personal interpretations. Anyway, I won't participate anymore in this thread, as long as it doesn't discuss the topic.

And why does it matter to you how people read or understand the books? Any individual's reading of the book is 'valid'. We are talking about 'opinions' here. The topic is whether Gollum deserved death. People have stated their opinions on that & why they hold them. People are free to ignore elements of the books if they want.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

If anyone can interpret the books in any way they see fit, what was the point of such lengthly posts? It would have taken maybe a couple of sentences from each of us to state our personal opinions, after which there would no longer be any point in discussion, because there would be no further basis to support one side or the other. I can't help feeling that I wasted the six hours I spent posting above, since clearly all the research I did was worthless, and my opinion meaningless. After all, it's not based on objective proof: anyone can read whatever they want to into anything.

Rubbish. Even A-level literary criticism demands that you provide quotation and analysis to support your reactions to the text. Simply stating an opinion, even one that can be fully supported by such quotation and analysis will get you at best a C. In any case, why should we disregard Tolkien's opinion when it is not contradicted by the text? Even when discussing his own work he offers citations to support his arguments, so at the very least we should afford him the same status as any other knowledgeable critic. If our own opinions and reactions are all that matters, then this entire discussion forum is a complete waste of bandwidth: just a group of misfits talking at one another and demanding nothing less than slavish agreement. Wherever there are dissenting opinions, only recourse to an agreed objective standard prevents protracted and increasingly acrimonious stalemate, such as has arisen here.

Now that I've got that off my chest, if Gollum is not responsible for his actions then his near-repentence in TT is meaningless. If he is responsible for his actions then he is also morally culpable. If we are to give him credit for coming so close to a change of heart, we must also give him responsibility for his crimes. Indeed, true pity could never be offered to the insane, since their madness forms a third party to which their crimes can be attributed. One cannot be forgiven for the sins of someone else. Therefore, in order to be rehabilitated and healed, Gollum must be fully and knowingly culpable in all his actions. His madness: what I suppose would popularly be called 'multiple personality disorder' results from his attempts to externalise his own guilt, and to deny his actions. He is not the only character to be faced with this decision: Saruman is also offered the chance to repent, atone and be forgiven; he too denies it out of pride and distrust, and so falls from grace. It is a hard moral philosophy, but one that can be traced through Tolkien's letters and his fiction; it seems even harder today, when we are encouraged to do as we please, and told that hard decisions are in some way unfair or to be avoided.

Conversely the 'kind' approach that Gollum is mad and not responsible also denies him mercy in its fullest form, which is the utmost cruelty.

[The Might]

I very much agree with Squatter on this on, he definitely brought up an important point in the second part of the post.
Lalwende, you seem to have missed my point.
I never questioned that the Ring didn't influence Gollum, all that I questioned is if this actually matters.
As I already said, if someone who is drunk comits a crime, is he innocent just because he wasn't clear in mind at that time? I doubt it.
Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?

[davem]

If anyone can interpret the books in any way they see fit, what was the point of such lengthly posts? It would have taken maybe a couple of sentences from each of us to state our personal opinions, after which there would no longer be any point in discussion, because there would be no further basis to support one side or the other. I can't help feeling that I wasted the six hours I spent posting above, since clearly all the research I did was worthless, and my opinion meaningless. After all, it's not based on objective proof: anyone can read whatever they want to into anything.

To which I can only reply that that is what people do, because people are affected by stories in different ways & take different things from them. For some Bombadil is one of the most significant characters Tolkien created, For others he is so annoying that they skip the three chapters in which he makes an appearance. I personally have spent more than six hours on this thread because I enjoyed doing it. I'm not even sure I agree now with everything I posted - though I meant it at the time. I was exploring ideas & concepts which may have gone off at all kinds of tangents, but at least I hope that some readers were entertained or provoked.

Rubbish. Even A-level literary criticism demands that you provide quotation and analysis to support your reactions to the text. Simply stating an opinion, even one that can be fully supported by such quotation and analysis will get you at best a C. In any case, why should we disregard Tolkien's opinion when it is not contradicted by the text? Even when discussing his own work he offers citations to support his arguments, so at the very least we should afford him the same status as any other knowledgeable critic. If our own opinions and reactions are all that matters, then this entire discussion forum is a complete waste of bandwidth: just a group of misfits talking at one another and demanding nothing less than slavish agreement. Wherever there are dissenting opinions, only recourse to an agreed objective standard prevents protracted and increasingly acrimonious stalemate, such as has arisen here.

Oh, its not an 'acrimonious stalemate' as far as I'm concerned. It was mild teasing on both sides - at least that's how I took it. A few custard pies have been thrown that's all. Anyway, this is not a-level literary criticism & I'm not looking for marks (the inverted snob in me likes to proudly proclaim I never even got as far as taking a-levels). I don't accept that 'If our own opinions and reactions are all that matters, then this entire discussion forum is a complete waste of bandwidth: just a group of misfits talking at one another and demanding nothing less than slavish agreement. is the case. I've learned a great deal about other poster's opinions & perceptions on this whole matter. This whole question will never be solved to the satisfaction of everybody. I reiterate that if anyone expects all readers accept a specific, definitive interpretation of the text that doesn't touch their hearts then the expectee is bound for disappointment. I will not say my reading of the text is the 'right' one, let alone a 'superior' one. I'll simply offer it as mine, & defend it if anyone criticises it.

Now that I've got that off my chest, if Gollum is not responsible for his actions then his near-repentence in TT is meaningless. If he is responsible for his actions then he is also morally culpable. If we are to give him credit for coming so close to a change of heart, we must also give him responsibility for his crimes.

But as I stated, we are not told exactly what he is 'repenting' of - all of his acts, some of them, one of them. Is it simply the act of leading Frodo to be killed by Shelob? Can we draw the conclusion from this single incident of a moment's duration that he is 'repenting' of anything more than an act that will lead to Frodo's death, & wishing that he could get the Ring for himself without hurting his 'Master'. For all Raynor's quotes I can't see that Gollum at any point ceased to desire to possess the Ring.


Indeed, true pity could never be offered to the insane, since their madness forms a third party to which their crimes can be attributed. One cannot be forgiven for the sins of someone else.

No, one can't - but I don't see how this prevents us offering pity to the insane.

BTW - very good points. I would have repped you, but I've been lax in my repping duties of late.....

[davem]

As I already said, if someone who is drunk comits a crime, is he innocent just because he wasn't clear in mind at that time? I doubt it.
Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?

But what if his drink was spiked & didn't realise?

[Lalwendë]

Lalwende, you seem to have missed my point.
I never questioned that the Ring didn't influence Gollum, all that I questioned is if this actually matters.
As I already said, if someone who is drunk comits a crime, is he innocent just because he wasn't clear in mind at that time? I doubt it.


It does matter because the Ring is an incredible influence, to the degree that there wouldn't be the story without it! All that effort that Frodo and Sam (and others, but these two especially) go through in order to destroy it was about as extreme as it gets, and there has to be a very good reason for sacrificing people to that extent. The quest is anything but trivial, and seeing what happened to Gollum serves to underline the importance of what is given up in order to fulfill the quest.

Someone committing crimes due to drink is not a good analogy as a couple of beers are far less dangerous than a Ring of Power, and the effects of a beer or two last a few hours, but the effects of wearing/bearing a Ring last forever. ;)

[HerenIstarion]

My apologies for [probably] repeating what may have been said above and [probably] taking the debate back to a point it already got past, also putting forward an excuse of being on the run (as is my usual state of affairs of late ;)) let me address the initial post and forward the following brief statement:

Death is not punishment

Or, at least, whilst being partially a 'punishment' from certain point of view, it is at the same time a way of release. It was not 'designed' to be percieved solely as punishment and the fact it is nevertheless perceived so is one of the many consequences of Melkor's meddling with the World's affairs

I'm almost sure that were it not Frodo Gandalf discussed the matter with back than in Bag End but one of the Wise the question of 'death as punishment' would not have been raised at all

[davem]

My apologies for [probably] repeating what may have been said above and [probably] taking the debate back to a point it already got past, also putting forward an excuse of being on the run (as is my usual state of affairs of late ;)) let me address the initial post and forward the following brief statement:

Death is not punishmentl

Good point. It does seem that throughout the thread we have been treating the question as 'Does Gollum deserve to be executed?' Death is not really the issue, as it is efectively inevitable for any (or most) mortals. The question turned into 'Would it be right to put Gollum to death?' And then the arguments ensued about Gollum's psychological/spiritual state & whether he could, or should, rightfully & justly be judged, found guilty, & put to death.

Then it became a matter of whether Tolkien's opinions on the subject of his characters should be binding on a reader who interpreted the characters differently from the author.

Its got a long way off topic & its probably a good thing you've popped up now....

[Lalwendë]

Death is not punishment

Or, at least, whilst being partially a 'punishment' from certain point of view, it is at the same time a way of release. It was not 'designed' to be percieved solely as punishment and the fact it is nevertheless perceived so is one of the many consequences of Melkor's meddling with the World's affairs



Nice point! So from the point of view of 'morals' in Middle-earth (and the simple nature of people), execution is actually the wrong way to go, as Death is a gift, not a punishment. That makes me wonder if the point originally put by Mithalwen, that Gandalf perhaps means Gollum deserves death as a release from suffering, is the one we've missed all along!

Course, Death being perceived as a 'punishment' being as a result of Melkor's actions, has parallels in the real world, as one of the arguments put across by Quakers and other religious people against capital punishment is that it is only carrying out "an eye for an eye" and has no benefit beyond satisfying our own revenge/anger, and that only God can decide on such things.

[Macalaure]

Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?
Hmm, I tried to explain that in the other post. I'll try to make myself clearer:

Well, let's assume Gollum would have been punished and he would have been locked up for a longer period of time. - This is what I had in mind, Raynor gave a good point that I was thinking a tad too narrowly. - Would he have understood why he was punished? In parts, yes, as we have good evidence that he had a bad conscience because of Déagol. But what about, for example, his eating of orcs? I don't think he saw that as evil. Which brings me to Squatter's point:

Therefore, in order to be rehabilitated and healed, Gollum must be fully and knowingly culpable in all his actions. His madness: what I suppose would popularly be called 'multiple personality disorder' results from his attempts to externalise his own guilt, and to deny his actions.
I disagree, a little. I would regard a gradual process of becoming aware of his full guilt already as a part of the healing - a necessary first step, not a premise.

Anyway, would punishment bring Gollum any closer to repentance? I strongly doubt that, given how he reacted to his imprisonments in Mirkwood or Henneth Annûn (though Lal makes a good point that he never was in custody for a longer time). He would rather regard his punishers as wicked than himself.

So the effect of just punishment would, in the end, only be to satisfy our sense of justice, which is little. It would not have changed Gollum. It's difficult to say whether a combination of punishment and healing, like in an asylum, would have had a effect, but I have a feeling he wouldn't have accepted healing from his punishers.

If we look at Frodo, he didn't punish Gollum, though he could have. In fact, it's his not punishing him, and his being nice to Gollum and caring for him instead, which led to his near-repentance later, which could have been a first step to healing.

[HerenIstarion]

So the effect of just punishment would, in the end, only be to satisfy our sense of justice, which is little. It's difficult to say whether a combination of punishment and healing, like in an asylum, would have had a effect, but I have a feeling he wouldn't have accepted healing from his punishers

Tread gently, for you are treading dangerous soil here. It seems/feels to me that Gandalf's words as quoted in the opening post contain layers of thought, not just what can be read at first glance. "Can you give what is deserved" indicates also (it seems to me) imperfection of the giver of the deserved/undeserved.

(Cf John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her)

For healing as I read it out in your post may be easily substituted with changing and that in turn with moulding of a person, and whose mould is good enough for the task?

As for Frodo, his very being in the same boat must have played the part. If there was no Gollum to look at and antagonize and sympathize with at the same time, [I feel] like Frodo would have fallen sooner.

(It's a frenzy of quick typing out of whatever is being born in on me, I hope you follow)

[Bêthberry]

No time now for a full elaboration of my current thoughts about this thread, but yesterday's and today's posts have really made me see that this argument (and it is an argument, gentlemen and ladies, not a discussion and, honestly, sometimes I am very sure that people post not to advance the discussion but because they like the sound of their posts) is very much like a rehash of the sides on the old Canonicity thread.

We've got people who are quoting Letters and other sources from Tolkien and saying herein lies the letter of the law and we've got people who are saying any personal interpretation is just fine and dandy thank you very much. (Okay, I'm being hyperbolic here for clarity of effect.) And it's very much a reductio ab absurdum in many ways. I bet Fordim is laughing in his boots.

Thank you so much, HI, for restating my point that death is not punishment. Very nice also to point out that not only is Gollem's participation crucial to the climax at Mount Doom but also, all along the dreadful way for Frodo's own spiritual journey.

Anyhow, I'm late, can't finish.

[Mansun]

Gandalf put the fear of fire onto Gollum whilst in Mirkwood in order to get information out of him about the Ring. Doesn't this count as torture, but in a lighter sense? It may translate to Gollum as a death threat. Do you think Gandalf would have harmed Gollum further if he refused to speak up, e.g. by not giving him any food or drink until he would confess all?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Gandalf put the fear of fire onto Gollum whilst in Mirkwood in order to get information out of him about the Ring. Doesn't this count as torture, but in a lighter sense? It may translate to Gollum as a death threat. Do you think Gandalf would have harmed Gollum further if he refused to speak up, e.g. by not giving him any food or drink until he would confess all?

Hardly. This does not go with his character. If he couldn't get the information, he would leave him alone. Every time he "threats" someone, if it is not a servant of the Enemy, he acts more like a parent scolding his children for breaking the neighbour's window. "STOP PLAYING WITH ME, SMÉAGOL! I KNOW YOUR GRANDMA DIDN'T GAVE YOU THIS RING, SO TELL ME WHERE DID YOU GET IT!!!"

[Mansun]

Hardly. This does not go with his character. If he couldn't get the information, he would leave him alone. Every time he "threats" someone, if it is not a servant of the Enemy, he acts more like a parent scolding his children for breaking the neighbour's window. "STOP PLAYING WITH ME, SMÉAGOL! I KNOW YOUR GRANDMA DIDN'T GAVE YOU THIS RING, SO TELL ME WHERE DID YOU GET IT!!!"

A quote springs to mind in Bree: "Butterbur! If this delay is his fault I will .... roast the old fool over a slow fire" WTTE This does not sound like a guy that will leave you alone, if the situation of saving ME is on the line.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I don't think he actually meant to roast Butter(bur), not more than he wanted to turn Sam into a frog or something like that. You are surely right about that Gandalf considered this a very serious matter, so he dared to come from threats to deeds, but he'd certainly not torture Gollum. After all, Gollum was not so hard to break. But if he had different nature and proved too obstinate, then Gandalf will probably leave him, seeing that no information is to be collected here, and head to Bag End or maybe for a counsel to Saruman, assuming the worse.

[davem]

Of course we also have Aragorn stating he was not 'gentle' in his treatment of Gollum.

Whatever Gandalf did one would have to imagine Gollum's situation - locked in a cell, alone, afraid, deprived of his only comfort (the Ring). For Gandalf to come into his cell & 'put the fear of fire on him' would be equivalent at the least of psychological torture. It strikes me that Gandalf was desperate for information at that point & could well have terroised Gollum into speaking.

This opens a wider question - how far should one go in that kind of desperate need? If the information Gandalf could obtain from Gollum could save thousands of innocent lives - or hundreds, or tens .... & if Gandalf knew (or felt) that not using 'terror' (even torture) to get the information could put the fate of Middle-earth at risk, what should he do?

This is a difficult moral question. The fate of the world could depend on getting information out of Gollum, & Gollum is withholding that information.

Personally I think Gandalf did exactly what he said he did - why lie about it, or exagerate. I think he did put the fear of fire on Gollum, & 'luckily' for Gandalf, by the sound of it, he didn't have to put his threat into practice.

Another example, to my mind, of the 'good' guys not being entirely good....

[Mansun]

Personally I think Gandalf did exactly what he said he did - why lie about it, or exagerate. I think he did put the fear of fire on Gollum, & 'luckily' for Gandalf, by the sound of it, he didn't have to put his threat into practice

It seemed to me that Gandalf lit a brand of fire close to Gollum to get him to talk, but the need to burn him did not arise thankfully. If it meant saving ME, torturing a murderer would appear more acceptable given the circumstances, if somewhat immoral.

[davem]

It seemed to me that Gandalf lit a brand of fire close to Gollum to get him to talk, but the need to burn him did not arise thankfully. If it meant saving ME, torturing a murderer would appear more acceptable given the circumstances, if somewhat immoral.

But clearly Gandalf made Gollum believe he would torture him with fire - possibly burn him alive, or at least do him serious harm. And Gollum did talk - how far would Gandalf have had to go to make Gollum talk - we know how stubborn he could be. One can imagine Gollum screaming in terror at Gandalf's hands.

And yet, it was necessary to get the information. So Gandalf did what was necessary. Now this is an incident that Tolkien did not have to put into the story. What is Tolkien saying here - is he agreeing with Gandalf's action, or is he merely stating that in desperate circumstances such things are necessary?

Yet is that correct - does it fit with the overall 'philosophy' of the work - that one should always do the right thing, even if it makes one vulnerable to defeat?

For one line in such a long book this opens a whole can of worms....

[HerenIstarion]

For one line in such a long book this opens a whole can of worms....

It does

I'm afraid of plunging into it lest we come to justification of 'necessary cruelty'

And yet it is my firm belief that would 'fear of fire' prove tool insufficient to make Gollum talk, Gandalf would not have forced him with fire proper.

[davem]

It does

I'm afraid of plunging into it lest we come to justification of 'necessary cruelty'

And yet it is my firm belief that would 'fear of fire' prove tool insufficient to make Gollum talk, Gandalf would not have forced him with fire proper.

Equivalent, perhaps, of the 'fake' firing squads used as part of psychological torture....And often the worst part of torture is the fear of it - which Gandalf must have realised.....

[HerenIstarion]

Perhaps you're right

But also it seems to me that mention of 'fear of fire' by Gandalf was some form of admission of guilt

[Morwen]

But also it seems to me that mention of 'fear of fire' by Gandalf was some form of admission of guilt

I didn't see it as an admission of guilt. What would he have been guilty of? He simply recounts to Frodo what he had to do to extract any useful information from Gollum - he threatens but doesn't actually harm Gollum.
Besides doesn't Gandalf go on to tell Frodo that even with the fear of fire threat there came a point when Gollum refused to say any more and Gandalf perceived that he (Gollum) was haunted by some greater fear? And, perceiving that, Gandalf lets Gollum be and leaves him in the custody of the Wood Elves, asking that they treat Gollum kindly. In the circumstances I think that Gandalf struck the best balance that he could between getting Gollum to give him necessary information and while at the same time not being unduly cruel.

[Mansun]

I didn't see it as an admission of guilt. What would he have been guilty of? He simply recounts to Frodo what he had to do to extract any useful information from Gollum - he threatens but doesn't actually harm Gollum.
Besides doesn't Gandalf go on to tell Frodo that even with the fear of fire threat there came a point when Gollum refused to say any more and Gandalf perceived that he (Gollum) was haunted by some greater fear? And, perceiving that, Gandalf lets Gollum be and leaves him in the custody of the Wood Elves, asking that they treat Gollum kindly. In the circumstances I think that Gandalf struck the best balance that he could between getting Gollum to give him necessary information and while at the same time not being unduly cruel.

Gollum got off lightly, considering that he had become the equivalent of an orc.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Gollum got off lightly, considering that he had become the equivalent of an orc.

Really? When? :rolleyes:

[Boo Radley]

For one line in such a long book this opens a whole can of worms....

OK, I know I'm possibly going to get flamed for this... I can already hear the cries of "Heretic! Recant!! Recant!!!", but isn't it possible that you're looking too closely at this? That maybe when Tolkien wrote it he wasn't thinking that deeply about it? That it was just a line? It moved the story arc along?
I mean no offense, but if Tolkien gave as much thought to every single freakin' line that some people around here do, parsing every fragment to death... the books would never have been written.
Now, if these are just fun mental exercises, that's cool. But some of the posts I read here... you guys are kinda scary.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I think there is no trouble in this. And I must say I agree with Morwen and do not see what case you are trying to make out of it. Gandalf merely tells a story, and I think that Gandalf's scaring of Gollum was nothing much more than what he showed to Bilbo when he wanted to keep the Ring. You must consider that Gandalf never forced anyone to do anything. So, though the fate of Middle-earth depended on it, Gandalf probably wouldn't force Gollum to tell the story by violence. The same way you may ask whether he would force Bilbo by violence, to leave the Ring to Frodo. Both Bilbo&Gollum, fortunately for them, chose to do what Gandalf asked of them before he did more than only demonstrating his power (Gandalf says he only scared Gollum, so I think this is what he actually did). And one can also think of what would've happened if they didn't: for example in Bilbo's case, there was no other choice than that Bilbo would totally harden against Gandalf, and put the Ring on, and flee into the night (because he would consider Gandalf his enemy and seeing the power he couldn't face, he'd flee). Gollum was not armed in any way, he could only desperate try to escape (the Elves possibly knocking him out, if not killing him when he'd jump on them, and on Gandalf's intervention locking him up probably for eternity - Gandalf might from time to time come to check whether Gollum would tell anything, but he probably wouldn't - I can quite imagine him sitting in the cell forever, unless some time mysteriously escaping).

Needless to say, the information Gandalf wanted to get out of Gollum wasn't as important; if he couldn't get confirmation of his fears here, he would probably go and ask Saruman, or if he felt reluctant, to check Bag End. As I said earlier.

Concerning Gandalf's character, you might confirm it also at how Gandalf behaved to Saruman, or to Gríma Wormtongue - people who were his enemies and he argued about something with him. Gandalf never used force in the "material" way (not even shooting lightnings on them or something like that).

And only as a bonus. Similar situation of the same moral question we have in the moment when Isildur chose to take the Ring, and both Elrond and Círdan chose not to push on him. This was at least of the same importance as those moments mentioned above, if not greater. But there was no "throw it in the fire or...!", not even forcing by words from what Elrond says (he speaks only of a "counsel"). And I think it was not fear of being killed by Isildur that lead Elrond and Círdan to choose not to force him.

[davem]

I still think its interesting that Gandalf would not only use those means but that he would tell Frodo about doing it.

The other thing to consider is the effect this would have on Gollum - Aragorn captures him & does not (in his own words) treat him 'gently'. Gandalf 'puts the fear of fire on him'. Aragorn brutalises him. Gandalf terrorises him in his cell. Sauron tortures him. If Gollum hadn't felt completely isolated before this would have done it anyway. Talk about not being on anyone's side because no-one's on my side.....

[Boo Radley]

Nah, it's OK. I sense a puckish sense of humor there, which is very cool with me.

Here's the thing, I will freely admit that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. As a matter of fact, my mother's nickname for me is "Big Dummy", (Gotta love a person like that). And when it comes to reading, I tend to... underanalyze the story.
I read for entertainment. Not for enlightenment. Life does that for me and reading is a respite.
That's why I would be the worst possible person to have in a book discussion. While everybody else would be talking about character development and motivation and throwing out words like "gestalt" and "angst" and "Dickinsian", I'd be in the corner, saying,

"But... er... what if he just put that bit in there cuz it made for a ripping good yarn?"*

And then I'd tug my forelock.

And then I would be stoned.
And not the fun way.

Sad, really.

So, I'm just sayin'...

*[/i](A paraphrase of something that Stephen King once reportedly said in a creative writing class in college. Which, you could say, "So what? He's a hack" and althought I'd have to agree with you now, in his earlier days I thought he could toss off a "ripping good yarn")[/i]

[Mansun]

Nah, it's OK. I sense a puckish sense of humor there, which is very cool with me.

I am glad to hear it - the orc filth was a light hearted joke but somebody evidently didn't think so & removed it. Besides, orc filth has been proven to have some healing powers, in a similar manner to that potion, Miruvor, which Elrond gave to the Company.

[Boo Radley]

I am glad to hear it - the orc filth was a light hearted joke but somebody evidently didn't think so & removed it. Besides, orc filth has been proven to have some healing powers, in a similar manner to that potion, Miruvor, which Elrond gave to the Company.

Yes. I'm very curious as to why the two posts were removed. Certainly, I didn't sense any kind of threat in the "orc filth" line.
I thought it was funny and quite germane to the topic.
If I had responded by calling you a cad and a bounder, would I have been banned???
Say it aint so, Joe!

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Gollum didn't deserve death but he needed to die. That was the only way he was going to attain any sort of peace. He was too old, too bitter, too sad to live any normal life. Even if he had never led Sam and Frodo into Shelob's lair and was hailed as a hero there would have been no happy ending. He was doomed from the moment his hands clasped around Deagol's neck.

[Aaron]

Um, no he wasn't. Gollum had plenty of chances to turn back but didn't. He should have been killed ten times over for his pathalogical treachery. Did he deserve death? Well yeah, more than any other character in the story actually because he has the chance for redemption but continuously spurns it.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

But you have to take into account the fact that he really is a slave to the Ring. It's like some filthy junkie, they'll do anything for a fix. They deserve our pity, not our hatred because they have a severe addiction. I mean, what are you saying? That you'd like to see all drug addicts killed?

[Aaron]

You're right I'd like to see them all killed. You have to stop placing the blame on someone else. If a guy murders his family then where is the justice in saying "It's societies fault"? You have to place the blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the criminal. Yes, Gollum had problems but he proved his weakness by succumbing to the power of the Ring. Frodo on the other hand resisted its power and so was able to do a great good. Both had similar experiences but it was the moral fibre which seperated them. Gollum lacked any kind of backbone, he was the worst sort of coward and so was justly killed albeit by his own hand.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Coward? I think not. Gollum tracked the Fellowship for ages, took on two stronger characters by himself, endured torture and had the strength of will to stick to his convictions and try to kill Sam and Frodo. Sure, it was morally the wrong thing to do but it at least showed that he had some force of will. But I think that we're veering off topic here. The question was not based on Gollum's bravery or lack thereof but rather how deserving he was of death.

[Aaron]

Okay then. Let's stick to the topic. What did Gollum do to deserve death?

Killed Deagol and stole the Ring
Spied on his own family
Tried to eat Bilbo
Continuously unpreciativeof the Elves despite the kindness they showed him
Gave up the location of the Ring to Sauron
Basically stalked the Fellowship
Tried to kill Frodo and Sam
Led Frodo and Sam to Shelob
Bit Frodo's finger off
Stole the Ring

There is more than enough there to condemn him as a villain. The ammount of people he hurt was collosal. His wound was just one of many that Frodo had to endure which probably led him going into the West. The crimes he commited were all terrible and despite whatever aspects of tragedy there might have been to his character that does not turn back the clock does it? Some thing once done can never be undone.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Uh, I think Shelob and the Witch-King had a bigger part to play in Frodo leaving then one missing finger.

[Aaron]

It all depends on how you look at it. My point is that Gollum added more pressure onto a mind that was already starting to unravel. His effect on Frodo was akin to psychological torture.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Explain.

[Aaron]

Well, Frodo and Sam constantly had to worry about whether or not Gollum was going to throttle them in their sleep. Whether he would try and take the Ring. Whether he was loyal to them. These feeling of paranoia are what I was refering to.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

But surely if they felt edgy it was based on their own suspicions rather than any wrongdoing Gollum had done. I mean, Sam was antagonistic from the very start. And it was Sam who turned Gollum bad.

[Aaron]

No it wasn't. Sam was willing to give Gollum a chance but was continuously antagonised by him. Gollum was isolated based on his own sense of worthlessness. He pushed Frodo and Sam away because subconciously he knew that he deserved to be alone.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Oh puh-lease. I assume that you've read the part where Gollum almost decides not to lead Frodo and Sam to their deaths? Well Doctor Freud, answer me this? When Gollum was on the verge of doing something right who was it that ensured he went ahead with his original plan? Whose words and constant jibes sent him totally over the edge? Yup, it was a certain S. Gamgee was it not? Gollum could have been saved, he could have enjoyed a happy ending but the reluctance of others to accept him as anything more than a nuiscance put paid to those hopes.

[Aaron]

"Dr. Freud"? Yeah, good one :rolleyes:
I'll admit that Sam could have treated him better but not because he deserved good treatment but due to the simple fact that a dangerous schizophrenic should not be antagonised. The Shelob incident was the result of the machinations of a mentally disturbed sinner and nothing more.
But why don't you answer this question then? Where was Sam when Smeagol killed Deagol? Hmm, maybe my mind ain't what it used to be but I don't recall any teasing there. No, Gollum simply killed without provocation based on a lust for an inanimate object. No better than other murderers who kill for money to be honest. He was motivated for selfish intrests and acted wrongly because he sought to protect an object which bought him joy. The definition of an egocentric personality, how can you defend someone so morally bankrupt?

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Because in Tolkien's work no one is completely flawless. Look at Frodo, what does he do? At the very end he gives in and claims the ring for himself out of that same selfishness which drove Smeagol to commit that first murder. And Aragon, how many men do you think he killed? Hardly a model citizen. Gimli and Legolas, when we first meet them they are the equivalent of what we would call "racists", not too nice eh? When taking into account these shortcomings would you condemn all these characters too?

[Aaron]

Of course not. And I'll tell you why. These sins were either isolated or resolved by the end of the story. They either sprung up from momentary weakness or ignorance that was remedied by the end. Gollum though lived for many years as an evil being and it was basically all he knew hence why he does not attain the redemption that someone like Saruman does.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Saruman never attained redemption. Plus, Gollum knew how to be kind in his own way. Playing riddle games, catching food, constant flattery. He was initially a simple Stoor and still retained simple values. He was never wholly evil.

[Aaron]

You don't think that biting off a guys finger and then celebrating about it is evil?

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

He wasn't celebrating about biting off the finger, it was an expression of joy because he was finally reunited with the Ring he loved so much.

[Aaron]

It's not a romantic comedy mate. Don't sugarcoat the fact that he mutilated someone. It was a horrible act and one worthy of derision.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And Gollum's acts during the main narrative are just icing on the cake. Already in Chapter II Gandalf himself affirms that Gollum deserves death, in the key passage under discussion here. Make no mistake: Gandalf is distinguishing between what Gollum deserves, and whether he should get it. 'Mercy', the key word in the passage, is precisely the act of witholding *merited* punishment.

[Boo Radley]

But surely if they felt edgy it was based on their own suspicions rather than any wrongdoing Gollum had done. I mean, Sam was antagonistic from the very start. And it was Sam who turned Gollum bad.

Gollum was bad before Sam showed up. Gollum was even bad before Gollum showed up. He killed Deagol BEFORE he had even touched the ring.
Nah, he was a roight nasty bit o' news and as Gandalf implied, he definitely deserved to die, which... he did.

[Aaron]

Exactly. He was completely irredeemable and no one can deny it.

[alatar]

It all depends on how you look at it. My point is that Gollum added more pressure onto a mind that was already starting to unravel. His effect on Frodo was akin to psychological torture.
I would disagree. Gollum was essential to Frodo's journey, and I'm not writing about the one that he took with his hairy feet. On the side we have Gollum - kills Deagol within minutes of seeing the Ring. On the other,we have Sam. Not only does he resist the temptation longer than many (though it's within his grasp for the entire story, and one of the days may even have been his birthday!), when he finally claims the Ring, he, alone in history, freely gives the Ring away, even while on the steps of Mordor, where, purportedly, the Ring's influence would be even stronger than in the Gladden Fields in Sauron's absence.

Gollum did not mentally torture Frodo; on the contrary, he showed Frodo daily that, "But for the will of Eru and the love of Sam, there be I."

[Mansun]

Gandalf was prepared to let Saruman off the hook when he ran into him towards the end of the book, despite all the murders & treason he had committed, so one may say that Gollum would have been set free & unharmed also.

[Neithan Tol Turambar]

Smeagol was a good hobbit. A good friend, and fine fishermen. He was kind and generous. I imagine that on many occasions he would come into the villiage with a basket full of fish and laugh with delight as he handed them out to hungry hobbit children.
But smeagol had a weakness, as with all who walk in this world, and that weakness was his will. The power of his will, by chance or design, was much less than that of other hobbits. And so the Ring chose him. The Ring appeared to Deagol, drawing him, and then revealed itself to Smeagol, and through the passage of his will entered his mind and heart. It was the Ring that murdered Deagol. It was the ring that filled Smeagol with lust and anger. But, and I believe that this touches on the fundamental beauty of Tolkiens moral vision, in the end the powers of good moved also within Gollum, for it was by and through the acts of Smeagol under the influence of the Ring itself that Sauron was destroyed and all Middle-Earth was saved. Gollum saved Middle-Earth. Not by choice of his, certainly, but neither was it then or now either fair, right, or just to suggest that poor Smeagol withstand and overcome, alone, the full omnipotent and overwhelming power of Sauron himself. For men, death is the 'gift of Eru to men'. To hobbits, who knows? But the fear of death has wrought great evil enough in the World. Death to Gollum would have been a reward, a liberation, a gift to one who had struggled alone against Sauron all those years, with no concievable way of helping himself for the greater part of his will was in Sauron's keeping. To his credit- and Can you believe? What strength of heart! To the very end he resisted the evil Sauron put in his heart. He LONGED to be good. He fought so hard. It was a manifest part of the wisdom of Gandalf and the Folly of Sauron that in the very Moment that Gollum's will finally broke and his will become completely beholden to the power of evil, that in that very fact lay the Victory of Good over evil and, as evil oft shall evil mar, "the magnitude of his folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash" and Gollum 'accidently' toppled into the Cracks of Doom. If accident you call it. But there are other powers at work in Middle Earth
This I consider to be revealed universal truth, yea, divine, and it moves me to tears.

[alatar]

Listening to the 'Shadow of the Past,' I noted yet another disturbing thing about Gollum. Gandalf states that, from his conversations with the wretched one, that after murdering Deagol and claiming the Ring that Smeagol lives amongst his family for some time. When visible, he is scorned as he's become a real pain in the community due to his new found powers via the One Ring. Eventually he is banned and booted.

In this time is it not possible that someone of the Clan found out about Gollum's birthday present? Yet in all that time, as far as we know, no one attempts to murder Smeagol for his Ring. What does that say about this unique creature, in regards to how quickly it murdered Deagol, a friend?

Another thing that I noted is that Smeagol is said to be intelligent and curious. Was Tolkien saying something about those who 'nose around' too much?

[Finduilas]

Smeagol was a good hobbit. A good friend, and fine fishermen. He was kind and generous. I imagine that on many occasions he would come into the villiage with a basket full of fish and laugh with delight as he handed them out to hungry hobbit children.
QUOTE]

I can't find where Tolkien says that. What I found is[QUOTE]The most inquisitive and curious-minded of that family was called Smeagol. He was interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed udner trees and growing plants; he tunneled into green mounds; and he ceased to look up at the hill-tops, or the trees, or the flowers opening in the air: his head and his eyes were downward.

Which I take to mean that he was on an already downwards fall.

[Boo Radley]

Or, he could have been Middle Earth's first paleontologist. :D

[Finduilas]

Right.

[Folwren]

Gandalf was prepared to let Saruman off the hook when he ran into him towards the end of the book, despite all the murders & treason he had committed, so one may say that Gollum would have been set free & unharmed also.

Neither Gandalf nor Tolkien said that Saruman deserved to be let off the hook, even if he was let off the hook. The question here is not "Would Gandalf have shown Gollum (or anyone else) mercy" it's "Did Gollum deserve death". And that could be extended to, "Did Gollum deserve death, even though Gandalf would not have been the one to deal out justice because he would have shown mercy?"

-- Folwren

[Finduilas]

From what I can find, Tolkien never said that he didn't deserve death, but he said alot of things that sound like he meant he did deserve death.

I see arguements here that since the Ring was evil, it twisted Gollums mind, and therefore he didn't deserve death. Orcs were made evil, they didn't know any better, did they not deserve death? Gollum knew he was wrong.

[alatar]

Or, he could have been Middle Earth's first paleontologist. :D
Paleontology - the study of prehistoric life forms. Does Middle Earth have a time that preceeds (recorded) history? Stuff from before the elves awoke?

Methinks that Gollum may have been searching for old bones, but he was just looking for a nibble, not knowledge. ;)

In the broader sense, was Gollum a biologist/physical scientist? Again, as stated previously, what may have Tolkien been trying to say when he tells us about Gollum, and later about Saruman (who may have deserved death as well) as typically science is the conjoined twin of progress?

[Morwen]

Paleontology - the study of prehistoric life forms. Does Middle Earth have a time that preceeds (recorded) history? Stuff from before the elves awoke?



The First Spring of Arda when the Valar still dwelt on Middle Earth should qualify.

[Mansun]

Neither Gandalf nor Tolkien said that Saruman deserved to be let off the hook, even if he was let off the hook. The question here is not "Would Gandalf have shown Gollum (or anyone else) mercy" it's "Did Gollum deserve death". And that could be extended to, "Did Gollum deserve death, even though Gandalf would not have been the one to deal out justice because he would have shown mercy?"

-- Folwren

I believe it was Frodo who said Saruman should be let off the hook even after he tried to knife him.

There is some inconsistency though - Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree, yet he would have shown Gollum mercy? If the circumstances were such that the Ring was takn by the Nazgul as a result of Gollum then Gandalf would surely have killed Gollum as a just punishment. The fate of the Ring was equally the fate of Gollum & Butterbur

[smeagollives]

i have not red everything. but i do not think he deserves death. NOBODY deserves death.

but i think that may be death was the only way for him ever to be happy again. after all his precious was gone forever. he was old and worn, all his former friends dead and forgotten.

it was not possible for him to become himself again...

i think the only way for him to be okay was to be with his precious. of course that could not happen. so i think it was okay for him that he died. biut he did not deserve it, no human being deserves (and he was like a human being or a hobbit being better to say). no matter how bad.

[Folwren]

There is some inconsistency though - Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree, yet he would have shown Gollum mercy? If the circumstances were such that the Ring was takn by the Nazgul as a result of Gollum then Gandalf would surely have killed Gollum as a just punishment. The fate of the Ring was equally the fate of Gollum & Butterbur

Great heavens above! Who or what said that Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree?

[Finduilas]

i have not red everything. but i do not think he deserves death. NOBODY deserves death.

but i think that may be death was the only way for him ever to be happy again. after all his precious was gone forever. he was old and worn, all his former friends dead and forgotten.

it was not possible for him to become himself again...

i think the only way for him to be okay was to be with his precious. of course that could not happen. so i think it was okay for him that he died. biut he did not deserve it, no human being deserves (and he was like a human being or a hobbit being better to say). no matter how bad.


Well, deserving death depends on your own beliefs. Being a Christian, I personally think that murder, and certian other crimes, deserve death. There is of course such a thing as mercy, but as afore said( I don't know if I ever said it, but I think I remember reading it) just because someone decides to be merciful, doesn't mean that the person didn't deserve death.

Oh, and I also agree with Folwrens post. (see above.)

[smeagollives]

Well, deserving death depends on your own beliefs. Being a Christian, I personally think that murder, and certian other crimes, deserve death. There is of course such a thing as mercy, but as afore said( I don't know if I ever said it, but I think I remember reading it) just because someone decides to be merciful, doesn't mean that the person didn't deserve death.

Oh, and I also agree with Folwrens post. (see above.)

being a christian too i would not agree with that.

yes murder is a very very bad crime. there is no excuse for murdering. one time i talked with friends about this topikc. i said i could never imagine a situation in which i would become a murder. they called me a hypocrite... but i just cannot imagine a situation in which i would kill... or give orders to kill a person which is about the same.

and if i am wrong about this... if i would kill, than i would put to death myself too... because i could not go on living with that guilt.

but does a murder deserve to be killed. to my mind not. if you kill a murder, you are a murder too.

being not only a christian, but also a man i would say that we all are sinners and that we are forgiven by gods mercy alone.

i remeber when i was and had my confirmation and i told myself "yeah, from this day on, i will never sin again" and i have sinned so many a times after that and it made me feel miserable as sin.

back then in my life situation i thought there were no other choices available to me, but i was wrong. one day a saw that there always is another choice and i turned my life around. and then i saw i had been a disgrace to me family and that i had made many good people unhappy. and i have to go on living with that. i have to tell myself "those were the choices you made". i have to deal with that.

and now: i always try to do the right thing... but don`t i sin now? of course i do. everybody does all the time.
each time you put something elese first and nozt got you sin, each time you are jealous at somebodies possesssions or somebodies life you sin, each time you smoke a cigarette you sin (because "do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? you are not your own" (1 cor. 6:19)

[Mansun]

Great heavens above! Who or what said that Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree?

Recall the words of Gandalf in the Council of Elrond, "I shall roast the old fool over a slow fire". If the ring had been taken by the Nazgul, Gandalf would have killed Butterbur.

[Finduilas]

Yes, yes, but the old fellow wasn't being serious. Sure he was grumpy, but he wouldn't have done that. He was more likely to turn him into a toad and fill the garden with snakes.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Recall the words of Gandalf in the Council of Elrond, "I shall roast the old fool over a slow fire". If the ring had been taken by the Nazgul, Gandalf would have killed Butterbur.
I'm not sure if he meant it, as well as I am not sure that even then he would use exactly the method he named. I can hardly imagine Gandalf attacking, stunning and then burning Butterbur (not taking into account that he could hardly do so before the eyes of the townsfolk). Also note that it's Gandalf narrating, describing what he thought at that moment. It may be just "poetic licence" to express his feelings at the moment to the audience.
"Butterbur they call him," thought I. "If this delay was his fault, I will melt all the butter in him. I will roast the old fool over a slow fire."
He expected no less, and when he saw my face he fell down flat and began to melt on the spot.
It is the same way as I don't believe Gandalf wanted to "roast" Butterbur, I don't believe that Butterbur really started to "melt". "Poetic licence", as I said. Also if you look at the context, and take into account whole Gandalf's personality, I strongly disbelieve he would ever kill anyone similar to Butterbur, a simple person who just failed his duty but otherwise is okay. I can even hardly imagine him killing Men. Maybe if he was assailed by a troop of Easterlings, in self-defence, but he did not even kill any Gondorian who blocked the passage to Faramir (unlike Beregond - and not that I would even expect him to do that).

[Mansun]

I'm not sure if he meant it, as well as I am not sure that even then he would use exactly the method he named. I can hardly imagine Gandalf attacking, stunning and then burning Butterbur (not taking into account that he could hardly do so before the eyes of the townsfolk). Also note that it's Gandalf narrating, describing what he thought at that moment.


With the Ring taken by the Nazgul, & the fall of Middle Earth beckoning, there is no knowing what Gandalf could have done to Butterbur. Maybe he would have decided there was no time to lose & give chase to battle the Ring off the Nazgul before they reached Mordor.

On the other hand, Gandalf would be seen as the fool for letting all the responsibility of Middle Earth lay on a letter which Butterbur was entrusted to deliver. This is very foolish & I doubt anybody here would have done the same thing for such an important matter. The wise would acknowledge that the safety of the Ring should come first, ahead of the aid of Saruman.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

With the Ring taken by the Nazgul, & the fall of Middle Earth beckoning, there is no knowing what Gandalf could have done to Butterbur. Maybe he would have decided there was no time to lose & give chase to battle the Ring off the Nazgul before they reached Mordor.
Actually, if Gandalf returned to Bree and found that the Ring was taken by the Nazgul (and Barney is responsible), I doubt even more that he would waste time with him. "Fool! You don't know what you've done!" - then he'd jump on the horse and be away. And, let's face it and I say it for the last time, he would not kill anyone just like that. That what you are speaking about is NOT Gandalf. After all (and it's funny that we are returning to the main topic of this thread from the other way), he did NOT kill Gollum, who - deserved or not deserved - was surely (at least from what we know) more "guilty" than Butterbur.

On the other hand, Gandalf would be seen as the fool for letting all the responsibility of Middle Earth lay on a letter which Butterbur was entrusted to deliver. This is very foolish & I doubt anybody here would have done the same thing for such an important matter. The wise would acknowledge that the safety of the Ring should come first, ahead of the aid of Saruman.
Sorry for the little irony, but you here speak exactly like Saruman. Logical, technical, but it does not work like that and never worked. Saruman - and you, apparently - would have chosen some sort of similar "better" way to take care of the fate of Middle-Earth. The question what fool would let the fate of the Middle Earth lay on a forgetful bartender is exactly the same as what fool would let the fate of the Middle-Earth lay on a little hobbit. Had Saruman been there instead of Gandalf, and had he been still "on the good side" and wanted to destroy the Ring (and not used it), I am quite sure he would have planned carefully each step to Mount Doom, sent at least six Rangers and one Elf Lord (like Glorfindel) with the Ring and also send some "decoy Fellowships" to force the Nazgul to split (oh, I'm getting too far to it... lovely idea), but I doubt it would've worked. Because ultimately, he'd have persuaded the Council to choose someone else than Frodo to carry the Ring, probably a strong Man, like... for example Boromir. We don't have to press too hard on our imagination to think of what would've happened.
Sorry for the little off-topicness...

[Mansun]

Sorry for the little irony, but you here speak exactly like Saruman. Logical, technical, but it does not work like that and never worked. Saruman - and you, apparently - would have chosen some sort of similar "better" way to take care of the fate of Middle-Earth. ...

Prey, do not speak of others like you know them - stick to the Lord of the Rings, & not individual posters like Mansun, who has greater wit than you, & an education behind him that can only be bettered by Harvard or Oxbridge graduates.

[Lotrelf]

I'd guess he DESERVED death. But as you said that he was the servant of the Enemy and servant of the Enemy deserves death. You're right. But he repented his own doing. This show he still had a part of him "alive." a part that wanted to come back from the swamp of evil. He deserved death, not because he was evil, but because he could no longer go on on his own(i.e. without the Ring), and his fate and life and death were tied to it. His life and death were tragedy.

[Galadriel55]

I'd guess he DESERVED death. But as you said that he was the servant of the Enemy and servant of the Enemy deserves death. You're right. But he repented his own doing. This show he still had a part of him "alive." a part that wanted to come back from the swamp of evil. He deserved death, not because he was evil, but because he could no longer go on on his own(i.e. without the Ring), and his fate and life and death were tied to it. His life and death were tragedy.

Well said!

I would say that no one "deserves" death, but everybody deserves it, so what's the question? :cool: If the question is about death being a punishment or atonement for Gollum - no, I don't think it was. Consequence - yes, but even that wasn't necessarily necessary, if you get what I mean.

[Bard the Bowman]

before i go any further,i would just like take my hat off to you downers,iv been reading your threads and posts and i was awed by all your knowledege on toilkens middle eart:cool:

[Morthoron]

No one deserves death; but you're going to get it sooner or later, deserving or not. Perhaps it was a mercy that Gollum died when he did, at a point beyond madness. Had he lived, the Nazgul would have taken the Ring from him, and it would have broken him utterly (and Frodo as well).

[Mithalwen]

Hm death can be a blessed release, speaking as someone who has nursed much love parents until their deaths from cancer and dementia. When we think of not dying we imagine ourselves perpetually young and strong not held in a perpetual state of pain and fear completely beyond any pleasure. I think Gollum's death was a release from the torment of his long years. He had the ring and was happy. Possibly more than he deserved as a murderer but he was essential in the end to the triumph.

[Lotrelf]

Gollum wasn't happy when he had the Ring,Mithalwen. "He hates and loves the Ring, ashe hates and loves himself." was what Gandalf had said. This doesn't sound like being happy to me.

[Inziladun]

Gollum wasn't happy when he had the Ring,Mithalwen. was what Gandalf had said. This doesn't sound like being happy to me.

I think what Mith meant was that at the moment of Gollum's fall into the Cracks, he was then fully content. He had his Precious again, he was saving Frodo, for whom he actually did have some genuine affection, he was forever depriving Sauron of the Ring, and Gollum himself could die, finally free of the Ring's influence forever.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

‘Precious, precious, precious!’ Gollum cried. ‘My Precious! O my Precious!’ And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, and he was gone.

I think what Mith meant was that at the moment of Gollum's fall into the Cracks, he was then fully content. He had his Precious again, he was saving Frodo, for whom he actually did have some genuine affection, he was forever depriving Sauron of the Ring, and Gollum himself could die, finally free of the Ring's influence forever.

I suppose that could be a credible insight into Gollum's psychology, although I can't help but think the final state of his mind might be more nearly and concisely summarized by the expression "Oh, bollocks."

[Lotrelf]

I think what Mith meant was that at the moment of Gollum's fall into the Cracks, he was then fully content. He had his Precious again, he was saving Frodo, for whom he actually did have some genuine affection, he was forever depriving Sauron of the Ring, and Gollum himself could die, finally free of the Ring's influence forever.

Doesn't that sound like his "promise"? The promise he made to Frodo of never letting Him have the Ring.? Content thing is fine, I guess.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.
I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together – and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo.

--Letter no. 246

[Lotrelf]

I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.
I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together ¨C and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo.

--Letter no. 246

This gives me chills! This letter has lots of information about the quest.