[Bêthberry]

Thanks, Gordis, for your optimistic appraisal of these posts.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But as for the second part of your post, you are being too pessimistic, Bb. I think he would be able to cope - but only under the condition that he would be able to put away the thought of possessing it willingly. Like Bilbo, who passed the Ring to Frodo willingly. That was the important thing here, and here it would pass on to the psychological level.

It isn't pessimism that underlays my interpretation, but a comparison with others who bore the Ring, such as Bilbo and Frodo. If Frodo, who carried the Ring and wore it but briefly, and who apparently was an hospitable, kind person to start with--that is, someone with a sense of personal detachment, whose superego manges his id well--was unable to find healing from his guilt at having accepted it, then how likely is it that Gollem, who carried and wore the Ring for decades if not hundreds of years, and who may have been surly and uncompassionate to start with--that is, someone without conscience, whose id was possibly the strongest of his mental aspects , would cope? His attachment would have been tenfold, hundredfold, over Frodo's, and other than that brief flame which Sam extinguised, it's impossible to say if he would feel any remorse or change. And as for Bilbo, I'm not so sure he did of pure heart and mind hand the Ring over to Frodo. It was with mixed feelings and overseen by Gandalf.

Originally Posted by Gordis

Yes, I agree.

Tolkien's entire theory of eucatastrophe would have been undone had the ending not transpired as it did. And after all, are there many readers who, on first reading, have anticipated how the Ring will be destroyed? It is at once the most original of climaxes and the least expected. It is one of the aspects of LotR which raises it far above most fantasy, where readers can easily surmise the outcome and the characters' fates. So Gollem's survival and repentence would have produced a lesser tale aesthetically.