Did Gollum deserve death?

[The Might]

Originally Posted by davem

Oh & Sauce, I wasn't referring to your interpretation as 'simplistic'...

The word "your" is not my emphasis btw.

Please excuse me that my level of literary understanding is not high enough to enable me to make good contributions in such a discussion.
I am however able to read between the lines in many of the posts and see this subtle irony.
I agree with SPM here.

[alatar]

Taking up Bêthberry's point, I think, but are we asking if Gollum deserves punishment? Death in Arda is a Gift, and to this lost soul, though second to having a night out on the town with the One Ring, Death would truly be a gift - no more insatiable desire for the Ring.

So, when Gandalf says that Gollum deserves to die, is he saying that, yes, it surely would be convenient if the wretch weren't running around the place, mudding up the plans of both the Wise and the small? I think that Gandalf, being farsighted, knew that this creature sits between or outside Good or Evil. As I've stated before, Gollum is a rogue - Chaos. Not saintly like Frodo, nor completely evil such as Sauron, but something else. He is the fulcrum, in the end, on which both sides' fates balance.

In the end, Gollum gets death. As stated, he and his Precious share one last dance and the two lovers die together. Was this Eru's reward to this tortured soul? Note that he's not blown away like Sauron or Saruman, some mist or shadow that will gnaw itself in the Void. Gollum just dies.

And though the Ring be a strong addiction, I cannot absolve Gollum of his deeds after he takes the Ring just because the Ring and the Darkness chewed away at his brain. Surely he is miserable and pitiable, yet still he chose to take the Ring, and for that he is guilty.

[Boromir88]

You should have qualified this as a personal statement. As it appeared in the text, I thought it was Tolkien's; I spent some time searching for it.~Raynor

My mistake, I forgot to wrap 'quotes' around the actual letter I was pointing out, it's fixed now. I think I wrote that post at 2am in the morning, so hope you can forgive me.

alatar, good points, and I don't think anyone is trying to absolve Gollum of all the blame here. As Folwren so eloquently argued, Gollum reacted to the Ring in a way that nobody else had (he killed for it!). That to me must be some indication of Gollum's pre-existing wickedness (and has been commented on countless times he already was 'wicked' previously).

The debate however is does Gollum deserve to have been killed/executed...etc. For me, it's no, because I think the 'lesson' is it's not the people of Middle-earth's (or our own) decision.

The 'law' could have come down and decide to have killed Gollum at several points in the story. Frodo thinks Bilbo should have killed Gollum, the family (and community) Gollum lived in could have killed him, Faramir could have had his rangers kill him, but in each of these instances they spared Gollum. And as Gandalf I think accurately states...'Bilbo's Pity may rule the fate of many.' Well I say, 'Everyone's Pity [towards Gollum] may rule the fate of many.' And indeed I would also say that turns out to be true.

Gandalf had hope of Gollum's salvation, I don't see why I shouldn't. Indeed he was close to it, but Sam was unable to find pity for Gollum until it was too late for Gollum's sake (in the Sammath Naur).

Beregond's life was spared when he could have been slapped with the death penalty:

And the King said to Beregond: ’Beregond, by your sword blood was spilled in the Hallows, where that is forbidden. Also you left your post without leave of Lord or of Captain. For these things, of old, death was the penalty. Now therefor I must prounounce your doom.
’All penalty is remitted for your valour in battle, and still more because all you did was for the love of the Lord Faramir. Nontheless you must leave the Guard of the Citadel, and yo much go forth from the City of Minas Tirith.’~The Steward and the King

Saruman and Grima could have been killed by Theoden and co...I doubt anyone would see that as wrong and complain. But the important point is they didn't, they had the pity to spare Grima and Saruman (and offer them salvation at several times throughout the story).

This whole 'sparing people from the death penalty' seems to occur quite a lot throughout the story. So, I'm taking it as there is an important moral lesson Tolkien is writing about in his story...and that is of Mercy and Pity. While the 'law' says for murder your punishment is death; is that the 'right' thing to do? Need I remind everyone of Gandalf's words to Frodo that have been quoted more times than I can recall? But instead of quoting Gandalf, I'm going to use another one that no one sees a lot:

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.~HoMe X; Morgoth's Rings

Though the teachings of the Wise were not always listened to when regarding Orcs...Orcs were not beyond some kind of redemption. If Tolkien brings up Orcs pleading for Mercy, I think it's reasonable to say that Orcs were capable of pleading for Mercy. I hope this casts some interesting light upon the Gollum question of this thread.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Saruman and Grima could have been killed by Theoden and co...I doubt anyone would see that as wrong and complain. But the important point is they didn't, they had the pity to spare Grima and Saruman (and offer them salvation at several times throughout the story).

This whole 'sparing people from the death penalty' seems to occur quite a lot throughout the story. So, I'm taking it as there is an important moral lesson Tolkien is writing about in his story...and that is of Mercy and Pity. While the 'law' says for murder your punishment is death; is that the 'right' thing to do? Need I remind everyone of Gandalf's words to Frodo that have been quoted more times than I can recall? But instead of quoting Gandalf, I'm going to use another one that no one sees a lot:

Saruman, even after trying to murder Frodo in the Shire, is spared - incredibly, he was given no penalty for attempted murder! Frodo, now wiser, knows that letting Saruman go free was more of a punishment than slaying him (for what reason, I'm not exactly sure). Grima, however, is quickly slain after he commits murder, and is most like shot in the back as he ran. I know Frodo would have prevented this as well, but...

Thoughts?

EDIT

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

On the whole I think it likely that Gollum was responsible for many horrors but I merely wished ot point out information presentedin such a way presented cannot be taken as absolute proof - any more (to give a Middle Earth example ) than the Rohirric and Gondorian stories of the Lady of the Golden wood could be taken as the truth about Galadriel.

Note that, in regards to the Witch of the Golden Wood, we as the reader know different, and Eomer in the end learns the truth of the matter. This is not the case with Gollum's crib 'cribbing.'

[Mithalwen]

Sauce:
Quote:
And I also greatly resent the suggestion that my intepretation of a fictional tale is somehow akin to the lynch mob mentality that leads to the victimisation of those who are suspected of being paedophiles or (in the past) of being witches on scant evidence.

I brought up the witch hunt...so I'm taking it as I am one of the people you are addressing here? I think you've read too deeply into things. The witch hunt was an example of what hysteria could cause. It was an example that 'rumours' and 'tales' don't mean 'truth' and what overwhelming fear can do to people and the 'tales' that come from it. It serves as an example that reminds me of the Woodsmen tales that have been infamously talked about in this thread. In absolutely no way was I making any remarks towards your posts (which I have found to be full of insight).

Since I brought up the persecution of assumed paedophiles, I guess Iam another and I can only echo Boro's words and state categorically that my comments were not directed at your post but at the one that preceded it (which I assumed was obvious and so did not quote). On the whole I think it likely that Gollum was responsible for many horrors but I merely wished ot point out information presentedin such a way presented cannot be taken as absolute proof - any more (to give a Middle Earth example ) than the Rohirric and Gondorian stories of the Lady of the Golden wood could be taken as the truth about Galadriel.

I wrote my dissertation on Fear, madness and the supernatural in Guy de Maupassant's horror stories, an oevre into which Gollum's alleged escapades would have fitted in nicely. Having spent over a year pondering the "truth" of those tales may have inclined me to pick apart too much the basis of this one but I was not criticising your interpretations ..and indeed I would not dare....

[Child of the 7th Age]

The one thing I can be totally sure of is that, like the Ents, I do not feel comfortable with either side in this equation. However, if compelled to lean one way or the other, I will come down with those who are saying that Gollum does not deserve death. Interestingly, I didn't start my post with this position. I actually began to write in SpM's defense and then discovered I did not agree with him.

Perhaps we are having so much trouble with Gollum's deserving or not deserving death because the question reflects a much larger problem that runs through LotR and possibly the Legendarium as a whole. There is a dichotomy that underlies the Lord of the Rings, or at least a difference in emphasis in terms of what the author is stressing in different places. This dichotomy makes it difficult to come to any firm judgment on Gollum, if we are trying to decipher how Tolkien felt. This interests me more than simply considering how I personally feel. I've been influenced by any number of things in contemporary life and politics, so my judgment may not be the same as JRRT. But having thought about it a while I think Tolkien would have counselled forebearance in terms of Gollum and would not have made a judgment on his "guilt" or his "deserving" death.

It's true that there are some things pointing in the opposite direction. We find many quotes and scenes in both the book and the letters that suggest Tolkien believed there were clear and immutable standards of right and wrong. The best known of these is by Aragorn:

Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among men.

We are a long way here from the moral relativism that has such enormous impact on our contemporary culture and influences how many of us regard right and wrong (myself included). My honest opinion, however, is that Tolkien saw right and wrong as absolute in essence rather than relative. (I am not talking here about the nature of an individual but rather the moral standards as a whole.) There are also scenes and quotes in the book where it is clearly stated that the good guys are expected to step forward and take a stand to preserve the right against those who would take a stand on the opposite side. While Gollum is not Sauron's agent, he clearly did not want to see the Ring destroyed, which was the whole point of Frodo and Sam's journey. As such, he was an enemy.

It's a small step to start from those premises in the text and go on to condemn Gollum or at least to conclude that he "deserved death". He clearly murdered someone within thirty seconds of seeing the Ring.....the only character we know who acquired the Ring in quite that way. Murder is wrong, and just how much influence can the Ring have in 30 seconds? Some of this nastiness has to be coming from within Gollum himself. Given this situation and an absolute moral standard, it would not be difficult to say that Gollum "deserves" death.

Interestingly, Tolkien does not do that. In fact, he spends a huge chunk of the book setting up a conflict between Sam and Frodo over what to do with Gollum (with other characters like Faramir occasionally poking their nose in). In many ways the journey to Mount Doom can be interpreted as the struggle to answer the question that Mansun has posed for us in this thread. By trying to answer this question, we are actually following in the footsteps of Sam and Frodo.

Given the fact that Tolkien believed in absolute standards of good and evil, and that he clearly felt that Frodo made the right choice by not making an overall judgment on Gollum or Saruman (let alone executing them), I can only believe this..... Although Tolkien believed absolute standards existed, he also felt that only Eru was in a position to read the truth, make "true" judgments, and enforce those standards. No one else --not an immortal maia or a hobbit or a man --is in a position to make a true judgment on Gollum (or anyone else for that matter). Tolkien spends most of the book slowly spelling out this lesson in the scenes with Frodo and Sam. And just to make sure we "got it" he comes back in the Scouring and says the same thing in the final scenes between Saruman and Frodo.

I can see how someone might feel differently about this, but I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of those who are saying we are in no position to make a definitive judgment on Gollum. Obviously, Tolkien was not a pacifist. His characters had to step forward and fight for what they believed was good, but they could not take the one extra step and make the ultimate pronouncement on their enemies--whether Gollum or Saruman actually "deserved" death in the ultimate sense. That was reserved for something or someone with a wider view of what was happening, by implication Eru Given the flawed nature of our world and our limitations in thinking, even if a person "deserves" death by Eru's standards, we are in no position to dish it out.
********************

Whoops! I crossposted. Others are also discussing Saruman.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Might

The word "your" is not my emphasis btw.

Please excuse me that my level of literary understanding is not high enough to enable me to make good contributions in such a discussion.
I am however able to read between the lines in many of the posts and see this subtle irony.
I agree with SPM here.

Well, once again I have to disappoint another poster & point out that it wasn't you either... I can only put this down to my natural charisma in that everything I write seems to be read by some posters as aimed at them, as if they are the only person in the world as far as I am concerned....

The problem we have is in trying to get into Gollum's mind & see things in the way he does. A third party may make a judgement on Gollum's actions/choices, & decide they are 'wicked' & deserving of death, but did Gollum see his actions in that way - hence Raynor's point about judging on 'intention' seems to miss the point - particularly when one is dealing with someone who is (leaving aside the issue of his 'morality') clinically insane & technically 'possessed' by the Ring.

If Gollum's psychosis lead him to really believe that anyone who kept the Precious from him was 'evil' that would mean that from his point of view he was right in trying to execute them...

Again, even if he did steal & eat the babies, did he really see the babies he stole as 'human beings' like him, or did he, in his insanity, see them simply as 'food'? Ultimately passing judgement on someone who is insane because they so things that are 'unnacceptable' to sane, civilised folk ignores the central fact of Smeagol's nature - he is insane. His perceptions, values, & yes, his 'morality' is not the same as those who are judging him.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Again, even if he did steal & eat the babies, did he really see the babies he stole as 'human beings' like him, or did he, in his insanity, see them simply as 'food'? Ultimately passing judgement on someone who is insane because they so things that are 'unnacceptable' to sane, civilised folk ignores the central fact of Smeagol's nature - he is insane. His perceptions, values, & yes, his 'morality' is not the same as those who are judging him.

Sounds a bit too 'relative' and so anyone - Sauron, Melkor, etc - are just doing what seems sane to them, as surely anyone silly enough to take one's Creator could be considered by some insane. At what point do we say that anyone is guilty of anything - it's my nature, my genes, my lot, etc. No one guilty?

Or am I just not seeing what you mean?

I guess that Gollum, eating children, could be just foraging for food. Okay and well enough. I'm some denizen of Mirkwood, and I'm going to try to catch anything that tries to enter my window at night, and most likely kill it as that seems okay to me as well. Makes sense, and probably is what really occurs in life - we give ear to 'morality' but at times must be practical as well in order to survive.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Sounds a bit too 'relative' and so anyone - Sauron, Melkor, etc - are just doing what seems sane to them, as surely anyone silly enough to take one's Creator could be considered by some insane. At what point do we say that anyone is guilty of anything - it's my nature, my genes, my lot, etc. No one guilty?

Or am I just not seeing what you mean?

I'm saying he 'deserves' to be sectioned under the M-e equivalent of the Mental Health Act, not executed - which, if you think about it, is what the Elves did......

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm saying he 'deserves' to be sectioned under the M-e equivalent of the Mental Health Act, not executed - which, if you think about it, is what the Elves did......

I'm with you, but (and this may be off-thread and opening a can of worms) at what point is someone culpable for their actions? One could make the case that anyone murdering another is insane, as only the insane would commit such an act. Do all criminals end up in the asylum?

I'm sure that persons have argued this before I sought fit to post , so if I'm retreading worn ground, just point me down the better path.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

I'm with you, but (and this may be off-thread and opening a can of worms) at what point is someone culpable for their actions? One could make the case that anyone murdering another is insane, as only the insane would commit such an act. Do all criminals end up in the asylum?

No, I don't think so. Smeagol could have been judged guilty of murdering Deagol immediately after the act - but after 500 years alone on the dark with the Ring I'm not sure how one could judge fairly of his actions - how 'sane' was he? Were there still some 'fragments' of his original self which could have been judged guilty? Yet were those parts the ones responsible for the 'evil' acts he committed, or was it the 'insane' parts.

Its interesting that his own people chose banishment over execution - implying that they felt that they did not have the right to do execute him - or that he was not fully culpable - maybe they saw into his soul & realised that he had always been slightly 'mad'.

There is a difference between someone who commits murder (or any other crime) out of simple wickedness & one who commits murder because they are insane. One of the most heinous crimes in British history was the 'Moors Murders'. Ian Brady & Myra Hindley tortured & murder a number of children. Brady was judged insane & sectioned to an asylum for the rest of his life. Hindley was judged to be quite sane, but irredeemably wicked & was sentenced to life in prison.

As to the 'daresay' issue, my own feeling is that Gandalf's response could be summed up along the lines of 'Er, yes, OK Frodo.....Now let's grow up & take this thing seriously shall we?'

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Smeagol could have been judged guilty of murdering Deagol immediately after the act - but after 500 years alone on the dark with the Ring I'm not sure how one could judge fairly of his actions - how 'sane' was he? Were there still some 'fragments' of his original self which could have been judged guilty? Yet were those parts the ones responsible for the 'evil' acts he committed, or was it the 'insane' parts.

I think you make an important point; one cannot view the actions of a person under the influence of the Ring in exactly the same way that one would view the same actions in an un-influenced person. But I would not err on the other extreme either. Just as the Ring cannot be seen as exclusively a sort of 'psychic amplifier' (to use Shippey's term), it also cannot be seen as an indomitable force that takes over or possesses its victims wholly and utterly. There is something almost paradoxical about the way the Ring works; its bearers seem simultaneously to have and not to have free will. And yet it is believable; it is as though in the Ring domination by fate and freedom of choice are unified and made into one and the same thing. I think that this sort of justified paradox, this synthesis of antitheses, if you will, is one of the most brilliant features of Tolkien's writing.

But as far as the morality of any Ringbearer's actions, as far as our judgement of their culpability - the paradoxical nature of the Ring makes these things difficult if not impossible. Moral philosophy is tricky even in the real world. It's hard enough to judge the actions of real people; how can we hope to judge Smeagol's?

And is that not, perhaps, a lesson to be learned from Tolkien's Ring? Maybe the union of guilt and guiltlessness, of culpability and of justified excuse, in the Ringbearers reflects the nature of misdeeds in general.

As to the 'daresay' issue, my own feeling is that Gandalf's response could be summed up along the lines of 'Er, yes, OK Frodo.....Now let's grow up & take this thing seriously shall we?'

I do not mean to suggest that your interpretation is wrong - but why not take Gandalf at his word? If you ask me, Gandalf does think that Gollum deserves to die - but Gandalf also recognizes that it is not his place to judge such things.

[Morwen]

"Its interesting that his own people chose banishment over execution - implying that they felt that they did not have the right to do execute him - or that he was not fully culpable - maybe they saw into his soul & realised that he had always been slightly 'mad'."

I don't recall Gandalf telling Frodo that Smeagol's people knew that he had killed Deagol. I don't have the book in front of me but IIRC Gollum's grandmother kicked him out of the family hole because he was causing problems in family. Far from seeing into his soul they seemed (if Gandalf's tale is accurate) to consider him a nuisance and wanted him gone.

[Thenamir]

I am in agreement with Child:

What is more important is what Gandalf says after using that word. When I encounter the word "daresay", I almost automatically hear a tiny whispered "but" coming shortly thereafter . I feel it is the content of that "but" which is critical to this discussion.

I think the consensus here (and my apologies to those who do not share it) is that Gollum indeed deserves death for all his evil actions. And yet, the wise (Gandalf, Aragorn, and the elves) do not carry out an execution. Why? Gandalf shares his premonition ("my heart tells me") that Gollum still had a part to play in the great unfolding drama of the Ring saga. Whence does this "feeling" come from? I believe* it can only come from whatever connection to or remembrance of Eru still remains after so many long years incarnate in Middle Earth. (And what understatement, to say "the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.")

Gandalf, and apparantly the elves as well, were content to let things play out in Gollum's case, confident that the guiding force (Eru) was in charge and would work things out as they should. And since Frodo stopped Faramir and his men from killing Gollum when the opportunity arose, it is evident that Gandalf's lesson to Frodo was learned.

After all has been said, I think the key point to take from this is "Not even the wise can see all ends." But in Tolkien's subcreation there was One who could, and those decisions should be left in His hands.

* - I italicized these words so that no one will mistake me for making a dogmatic statement which requires refutation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I think the consensus here (and my apologies to those who do not share it) is that Gollum indeed deserves death for all his evil actions. And yet, the wise (Gandalf, Aragorn, and the elves) do not carry out an execution. Why? Gandalf shares his premonition ("my heart tells me") that Gollum still had a part to play in the great unfolding drama of the Ring saga. Whence does this "feeling" come from? I believe* it can only come from whatever connection to or remembrance of Eru still remains after so many long years incarnate in Middle Earth. (And what understatement, to say "the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.")

My feeling is that they don't kill him because they never actually needed to - killing in self defence is one thing. Executing someone in cold blood is another. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that they simply kept Gollum around because he might prove 'useful'. A very utilitarian approach which strikes me as more in Sauron or Saruman's line. I think Gandalf's motive was the same as Frodo's - hope that in some way, given time & the right circumstances, Smeagol may have been healed.

I don't recall Gandalf telling Frodo that Smeagol's people knew that he had killed Deagol. I don't have the book in front of me but IIRC Gollum's grandmother kicked him out of the family hole because he was causing problems in family. Far from seeing into his soul they seemed (if Gandalf's tale is accurate) to consider him a nuisance and wanted him gone.

Well, I'm sure they noticed that Deagol hadn't been around since the fishing trip & must have had their suspicions.

We're told that no Hobbit in the Shire have ever killed another intentionally & it seems to me that this speaks to the innate distaste for execution among Hobbits.

Aiwendil. Ok - I accept your points - up to a point. But it wasn't simply a matter of the effect of the Ring itself - it was the fact that Smeagol had spent 500 years alone in the dark brooding on it. I strongly suspect that if he'd spent 500 years alone in the dark brooding on his big toe he'd have become quite equally insane (or attained Nirvana.....)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I think the consensus here (and my apologies to those who do not share it) is that Gollum indeed deserves death for all his evil actions. And yet, the wise (Gandalf, Aragorn, and the elves) do not carry out an execution. Why? Gandalf shares his premonition ("my heart tells me") that Gollum still had a part to play in the great unfolding drama of the Ring saga. Whence does this "feeling" come from? I believe* it can only come from whatever connection to or remembrance of Eru still remains after so many long years incarnate in Middle Earth. (And what understatement, to say "the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.")

Gandalf, and apparantly the elves as well, were content to let things play out in Gollum's case, confident that the guiding force (Eru) was in charge and would work things out as they should. And since Frodo stopped Faramir and his men from killing Gollum when the opportunity arose, it is evident that Gandalf's lesson to Frodo was learned.

After all has been said, I think the key point to take from this is "Not even the wise can see all ends." But in Tolkien's subcreation there was One who could, and those decisions should be left in His hands.

* - I italicized these words so that no one will mistake me for making a dogmatic statement which requires refutation.

Err, not quite sure where you got the meaning of the word 'consensus' from there. But I'm prepared you might mean a consensus on the many meanings of another word - 'deserved'. The fact we're all still shouting about it tells us we're about as far from anything like a 'consensus' as ever we can be. Sorry, had to be a pedant.


But you make a very good point. In Middle-earth we know that there is something other than the mere laws that Men and Elves can construct, and that's Eru. Ultimately Eru offers judgement in this world - and in allowing someone like Gollum to live, the people who variously capture him or have the opportunity otherwise to murder him take a very definite step. The step they take is to allow something else to decide Gollum's fate - whether they know what that 'something else' is or not. Some, like Gandalf, know of Eru, and maybe know that execution would not be acceptable to him - it being his judgement ultimately (and note the Elves, who also know of Eru, certainly do not think of putting Gollum to death). But others. Why do they not kill him according to their laws?

Now something thorny; obviously some kind of death penalty does exist in some cultures in Middle-earth, so why did they not put Gollum to death? Not all of them had heard Gandalf's words after all, and some of these cultures could be quite vicious/violent. Not all of these people had there merest inkling of who or what Eru was, some may have lived entirely without Gods of any kind. What is it about Gollum which stays their hands?

Is it Pity in every case?

Perhaps to put to death a victim of Sauron's craft and treachery is far worse than to allow Gollum to live? I could see this as sinking to Sauron's level, as submitting to the evil of the Ring itself, doing Sauron's work for him. He would expect that the people of Middle-earth would kill one another for this Ring, and they did, but would it have been right to kill one another as punishment for the effects of Sauron's magic? I think Gandalf thought quite clearly that it was not the wisest move to make - not just for this reason but for many.

And another thought. A very telling effect of the Ring is what it makes its bearers and those who see it want. Frodo sees himself as some kind of robed godhead; Sam as Samwise the Strong, a hero; Galadriel as an horrific queen; Boromir as a great patriotic warrior. And Gollum? He sees himself eating fish three times a day. Maybe it was lucky that someone as low as Gollum bore this thing for so long if all he wanted was food.