Tar-Palantir wrote:
Quote:
|
Pardon my ignorance here, but you'll need to provide a source or reference for that. I've never read anything that has specifically said it is Sam's fault Gollum didn't repent. I find this a ludicrous notion.
|
I appreciate your patience for my efforts to provide the sources/references. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Here they are ...
Tolkien writes to his son, Christopher, "For myself, I was prob. most moved by . . . the scene where Frodo goes to sleep on his [Sam's] breast, and the tragedy of Gollum who at that moment came within a hair of repentance--but for one rough word from Sam." (Letter #94)
Tolkien writes to Houghton-Mifflin, "[I am] most grieved by Gollum's failure (just) to repent when interrupted by Sam; this seems to me really like the
real world in which the instruments of just retribution are seldom themselves just or holy; and the good are often stumbling blocks ....." (Letter #165)
Tolkien writes to Michael Straights, "But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous
pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly* betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultiamte 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 . . . 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. . . I am afraid . . . we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptations, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. The '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 domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths? A kind of answer cd. be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different! By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly Smeagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost." (Letter #181)
Christopher(? JRR?) Tolkien added an asterisk to this letter saying, "Not quite 'certainly'. The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum over the brink, when about to repent."
Whew!
The italics abbreviations are Tolkien's; the bracketed parts are mine as are most of the ellipses.
I think this supports and validates much of what Willie & I have posted thus far. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
#2 post coming up ...
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ]