[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It would seem that the author disagrees with your cynical take on the ideals of his book...

Originally Posted by J.R.R Tolkien, Letter #181

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 ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

As far as Gollum gloating, Tolkien referred to Gollum as a "mad thing" capering along the precipice. At that point in time he was completely insane, because "The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol." Gollum could do nothing else but gloat at that point in time, trapped in blind ecstasy, a prisoner more so than a failing heroin addict shooting his last lethal dose. His only words were: "Precious, precious, precious!" Gollum cried. "My precious! O my precious!" He was unconcerned with danger, oblivious to the two hobbits nearby, and hadn't the faintest foresight that he was in Sauron's lair and that the Great Eye was upon him. In his madness he failed to see his predicament, and even the ledge looming to awaiting disaster.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will.

Fate and predestination are two separate issues. There is certainly a great measure of fate that applies to the book, but predestination (as you are using the term) does not require free will on the part of characters, whereas fate does. You are speaking from a Calvinist view of predestination (where even heaven's elect is a small, finite number), and not a Catholic one (to which Tolkien would certainly adhere). The Catholic doctrine holds Calvinist predestination as heretical because it does not include the free will of the individual to choose good or evil (which is certainly an aspect of Tolkien's corpus). Here is a summarization of the Catholic view (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607). Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795).

Eru Iluvatar certainly knows the entire song that was partially hidden from the Ainur; however, I believe there is only one direct intercession on Eru's part in the entire chronology (when the Valar surrendered their governance to Eru in the wake of the Numenorean invasion). If predestination were a fact and the outcome certain, then the Valar would not have deemed it necessary to send the Istari out to do their missionary work to reinvigorate the hearts of the Free Peoples (it would seem that the Valar would have had at least an inkling of such a doctrinal truth). Iluvatar's interference would have been made manifest at other critical junctures in Middle-earth history if that were Tolkien's means in storytelling. Free will and choices are a foundational aspect of LotR, as are the 'altruistic' views of mercy, and the old-fashioned chivalric values of valor, humility and self-sacrifice (beyond any economy or self-interest).

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

But the insidious nature of the Ring, and perhaps one its greatest evils, is that it erodes free will, to the point where the wise (like Gandalf) would not even touch it. At this point I am wondering if you are merely arguing for argument's sake, or whether you merely fail to grasp the insistent and grave tone Tolkien uses regarding the properties of the Ring. Lesser Rings sent great lords and kings to eventual wraithdom, the One Ring destroyed Isildur and Gollum (and nearly so Boromir), and we marvel at the nobility and fortitude of Faramir for refusing it (well, you don't; I guess you merely consider his refusal as a utilitarian piece of strategy). And here we have Frodo the Hobbit -- bitten, speared and stabbed -- blindly flailing at the air in an attempt to ward off the great fiery circle in his waking nightmare, coming at last to Mount Doom, wherein pulses the apex and pinnacle of the Rings arcane power, and you merely assign Frodo's failure to disillusionment? Sorry, that's just plain silly.

Assigning the psychological crudities of modernity (precluding the evil propensities and the dominating magic inherent in the Ring, for instance) to a fantasy written in a traditionalist mode brings us right back to the demeaning and woodenheaded nature that the intellectuals of the current worldview have for Tolkien, or any classical literature for that matter. Rather than synthesize and embrace various literature and come to terms with the norms presented at the time the piece was written (as well as reveling in the historical intonations reverberating from the past), they instead berate entire eras of literature and parade their own addlepated notions as the end-all, be-all to what is correct and aesthetically pleasing.

*The Dark Elf steps down from his well-worn soapbox*

Ummm...yeah, whatever.

Originally Posted by Lush

I think you're right to bring up fate, Morthoron, though I would also remind you that what we are looking at is a world that has been marred, and those who are in it are marred as well. I also didn't say that it was necessarily enlightened self-interest (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, so perhaps if you'd like to explain, I would be interested) - just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless. Which is alright, really, because that's what human nature (or hobbit nature, if you will) is all about.

By enlightened self-interest, I meant that a moral imperative such as ""Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" takes on the added dimension of "By doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, you have a better chance of not having others do unto you as they will", (ie., if you don't treat people like crap, they probably won't treat you like crap). The ideal (the one not requiring self-interest) is a goal that not everyone attains, but assuredly I have met those who adhere to it quite remarkably (I, unfortuantely, am too curmudgeonly and lack the patience to be in that rarified sphere of sanctification).