[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sauce

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.

Originally Posted by Sauce

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...

Originally Posted by Lommy

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.

Originally Posted by Boro

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:

Originally Posted by Mac

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 (???)