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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thinlómien
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.