Did Gollum deserve death?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Tolkien's purpose (or, to exclude any C-thread style debate ( ), one of his purposes) is to tell us, his readers, a story. In doing so, he relays certain events to us. Some of those he intends us to take as fact. In my view, this is one such event.

Why would Gandalf seek to influence Frodo's impression of Gollum with tales of infant cannibalism if he did not himself believe them to be true? If Gandalf considered them to be mere Woodsman gossip, it would be highly irresponsible for him to colour Frodo's opinion of Gollum in this way.

Why would he seek to influence Frodo? I don't think he was doing anything of the sort, as you say, this is story-telling. And Gandalf does say that this is a tale of the Woodsmen, not something he has seen or experienced. The whole little section of story is told in poetic language with metaphor which immediately makes you think "ah! a folk tale!" Beings creeping into nurseries at night is a common 'bogeyman' tale - told nowadays by grannies trying to get restless grandchildren to go to bed and in olden days by villagers frightened of the fairies swapping their babies for changelings. The times Gollum was abroad were times when there were many 'nasties in the woodshed', and in the woods. It could have been anything...

Originally Posted by SpM

Hang on. I would say that we are perfectly entitled to form a view as to what Gollum did and whether such things were right or wrong. The point that Gandalf (and Tolkien) was making was that Frodo (and we, the readers) should not be hasty in dealing out death in judgment. In other words, whatever view we might come to as to the rights and wrongs of Gollum's deeds, we should not be so hasty as to condemn him to death for them.

Isn't that the exact question at stake though? Did Gollum deserve death? I guess your answer there would be no or don't know. We're not discussing his rights and wrongs - if so then we'd all probably agree that Gollum did many 'wrong' things, that's not really in question. But what is, is if he deserved death, as a punishment for these deeds.

Originally Posted by Folwren

Hang it all, Boromir, that's exactly it - if given the time. Smeagol didn't have time. His mind was so defiled and twisted before even seeing the ring that it instantly captured him, and if he couldn't get Deagol to give it to him, by golly, he was going to take it!

The problem with this approach, that Gollum was already twisted, entirely sidesteps the fact that Gollum had that Ring for 500 years, so anything we see of him, anything we know of him is irrevocably coloured by the twisted, damaged Gollum we see. The old Smeagol is very, very difficult to find - and in those instances when we do find him, he is seen to be guilt-ridden for what he did to Deagol, which would not be the reactions of a cold-hearted killer.

And of course yet again, we're ignoring the immense power of the Ring. Not only that, but we are demeaning and diminishing that power. That it acted so quickly is testament to what a terrible thing it is. If we take onboard the argument that the Ring itself has some kind of sentience (which the jury is out on for me!) we can also see just how perfect it is that after being left dormant for centuries, the Ring, on its reappearance instantly provokes violence and murder - what a perfect way, for an evil Ring of power, to begin its journey in the waking world once more? Not only that, but it will then give the new bearer, the new murderer, an incredible sense of guilt and hence an impetus to keep the Ring safe - "if it was worth killing for it is worth keeping it well".

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

There is a case being reported currently in Oxford, of a man with severe learning difficulties having been drowned by a group of people who decided he was a paedophile... a couple of years ago a mob attacked the home of a paediatrician because they couldn't tell the difference.... tales start very quickly even here, even now...

I am not ignoring anything I am merely distinguishing between rumour and fact.

Good example. It's well known that worries soon escalate into paranoia and into myths. And the same can quite well have happened in Gollum's case - as I say he is the classic 'bogeyman'. There is no evidence that he was a cannibal, save his threat to eat Bilbo, and that's exactly that, a threat. He eats goblins, but that is not cannibalism as they are not his 'species', and is really no more wrong than the Rohirrim hunting the Woses just for a bit of a laugh.

[Boromir88]

One more quick comment...

If we take onboard the argument that the Ring itself has some kind of sentience

I always found it interesting that the Ring seemed to be aware of Isildur's intentions with the Ring.

When he at last felt free to return to his own realm he was in haste, and he wished to go first to Imladris; for he had left his wife and youngest son there, and he had moreover an urgent need for the counsel of Elrond.......

I cannot use it. I dread the pain of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the Three.~Unfinished Tales; The Disaster of Gladden Fields

And in Note 24, CT remarks: The pride that led him to keep the Ring against the counsel of Elrond and Cirdan that it should be destroyed in the fires of Orodruin

It's always been fascinating that the Ring seemed to be aware that Isildur was of no use to it and was about to take it [the Ring] directly into danger (the Keepers of the Three)...therefor Isildur is quickly dealt with before he can reach Rivendell.

Raynor, I don't think anyone is arguing that Gollum is not a cannibal and did not eat human (at least Orc) flesh...but Lal and Mith are saying that 'tales' are just that...'tales.' Which makes them rumours and not something that can be definitively said as 'fact.'

I'm reminded of the Salem Witch Hunt in the U.S. where a whole town was after anyone who showed signs of witchcraft. The hysteria it caused was shocking, yet you can't help but laugh at the stupidity of it. I mean accusations were so weak...an accusation such as 'She was walking by and my cow was struck down by a disease' could put someone in court, accuse them of witchcraft, and send the person to the noose. 'Tales' and such of witchcraft (or in this case the disappearance of babies), could lead to hysteria and a gross misinterpretation of the actual 'facts.'

TM, and while it's true many tales do have a bit of truth to them, the tales can become completely distorted as it passes from one person to the next (especially if the people are filled with hysteria). Even such things as 'eyewitness testimony' may not hold up in court...as eyewitness testimony has been proven (through several psychological studies) to be flat out wrong sometimes. Such little and trivial things as saying 'bludgered' instead of 'hit' can effect the actual accuracy of an eyewitness testimony. (And these are presumably the people who witnessed a crime happening! Not a group of hysteric villagers that have children supposedly disappearing).