Did Gollum deserve death?

[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.....)

[Thenamir]

Originally Posted by davem

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'.

I am in agreement here -- it was quoted earlier that even orcs were given mercy if they asked.

Originally Posted by The Field of Cormallen

And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for a last stand of desperate battle. But the most part fled eastward as they could; and some cast their weapons down and sued for mercy.

Though the text does not explicitly state what happened after this, the expectation is that those who asked mercy were given it, and the ones who continued fighting were probably slain or driven off.

Gandalf said "Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement" [emphasis mine] This says nothing of dealing out death in clean battle, only (in my opinion) of pronouncing sentence on deeds done previously.

[Kuruharan]

it was quoted earlier that even orcs were given mercy if they asked.

-and-

And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for a last stand of desperate battle. But the most part fled eastward as they could; and some cast their weapons down and sued for mercy.

That passage does not refer to orcs.

Note:

And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold

The orcs were...

orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope.

It didn't occur to them to beg for mercy. They weren't rational anymore.

[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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

But in this case you seem to disregard that we do actually have insight into his mind. You ignore Tolkien's opinion on Gollum, even if he is the author of the story. To quote for the nth time, he is portrayed as persistent in wickedness, refusing repentance and as damnable. All of this mean responsibility. This is not an argument from ignorance, quite the contrary. However, I have a nagging feeling I quoted this, for the nth+1 time, in vain.

Originally Posted by Lal

Some, like Gandalf, know of Eru, and maybe know that execution would not be acceptable to him

But there have been executions. Turgon ordered Eol to be killed, and Mandos executed Melkor.

Perhaps to put to death a victim of Sauron's craft and treachery is far worse than to allow Gollum to live?

I don't agree with killing as punishment. Although I do argue that one who represents an unacceptable risk to the lives of others should be stopped one way or the other (peacefully, when possible). Stopping such a person, using the most adequate way, would not be immoral, or doing Sauron's work.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But in this case you seem to disregard that we do actually have insight into his mind. You ignore Tolkien's opinion on Gollum, even if he is the author of the story. To quote for the nth time, he is portrayed as persistent in wickedness, refusing repentance and as damnable. All of this mean responsibility. This is not an argument from ignorance, quite the contrary. However, I have a nagging feeling I quoted this, for the nth+1 time, in vain.

He is also portrayed as pitiable, broken, confused, lonely, insane & overwhelmed by a power he cannot hope to stand against or break free from.

(and if anyone wants to know who I was referring to...)

This is not a matter of whether what Smeagol/Gollum did was 'acceptable', but of his mental state & whether that should be taken into account. Gandalf hoped for his healing, not his damnation. So did Frodo. The point is that those who encountered him responded with pity - Gandalf, Bilbo, Frodo & even, at the end, Sam. Why did they respond so? Because they saw what he had become. If he was simply 'wicked & damnable' why would he inspire pity?

It seems to me you are taking a 'Balrog's Wings' approach here - Tolkien uses the word 'wings' & you take it literally. Tolkien uses the word 'wicked' & you reduce Smeagol to a two dimensional pantomime villain. Gollum is probably the most complex, multi-faceted character Tolkien ever created (in comparison to whom many of his other characters are reduced to pastel shades or simple black & white). This simplistic 'he was wicked' approach misses the whole point of the character. Tolkien is showing us a being racked by the consequences of his own wrong choices, broken by his own wifullness, & whose very mind & being is shattered until he becomes an embodiment of chaos, his identity fragmented into jagged shards which constantly rip & tear at any remnant of his original self that may have survived.

[Raynor]

If he was simply 'wicked & damnable' why would he inspire pity?

Because they saw he has the choice to repent; Tolkien stated that nothing is wholly evil, since it would be absolute zero. The same would apply to Gollum. Also, Tolkien stated that one must show pity even when doing so may seem disadvantageous; true pity is present when it is contrary to prudence.

It seems to me you are taking a 'Balrog's Wings' approach here - Tolkien uses the word 'wings' & you take it literally.

Was that an attempt to somehow demean my argument? Because the barlog wings debate is no settled, unless you consider your word the ultimate authority . While Tolkien may have acknowledged Gollum's problems, he still considers him as such, and I don't see how either of the three labels can be taken figuratively. Surely, you are allowed to do so, if you want.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Because they saw he has the choice to repent; Tolkien stated that nothing is wholly evil, since it would be absolute zero. The same would apply to Gollum. Also, Tolkien stated that one must show pity even when doing so may seem disadvantageous; true pity is present when it is contrary to prudence..

Bilbo almost stopped breathing, and went stiff himself. He was desperate. He must get away, out of this horrible darkness, while he had any strength left. He must fight. He must stab the most foul thing, put its eye out, kill it. It meant to kill him. No, not a fair fight. He was invisible now. Gollum had no sword. Gollum had not actually threatened to kill him, or tried to yet. And he was miserable, alone, lost. A sudden understanding, a pity mixed with horror, welled up in Bilbo's heart: a glimpse of endless unmarked days without light or hope of betterment, hard stone, cold fish, sneaking and whispering. All these thoughts passed in a flash of a second. He trembled. And then quite suddenly in another flash, as if lifted by a new strength and resolve, he leaped.
No great leap for a man, but a leap in the dark. Straight over Gollum's head he jumped, seven feet forward and three in the air; indeed, had he known it, he only just missed cracking his skull on the low arch of the passage. (Riddles in the Dark)

"For now that I see him, I do pity him." (Taming of Smeagol)

Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee--but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.

The first example gives Bilbo's thoughts, the second Frodo's, the third can only be Tolkien's own (as he is the 'omnipotent narrator' at that point). I think you're discounting all this in favour of an overly simplistic interpretation of Gollum as simply 'wicked'. Tolkien, & his characters, knew there was much more to Gollum than just 'wickedness'.

There are two characters in Tolkien's work that could only have been written by a 20th century man who had seen real horror on the Somme & been confronted by the horrors of Belsen & Hiroshima - Frodo & Gollum. Neither character could have been written (or concieved for that matter) in an earlier period. Frodo is so broken by his suffering that he can no longer live in the world. Gollum commits attrocities but Tolkien knew that human beings did commit attrocities but that did not simply make them 'wicked'. That was too simple. People committed attrocities because they were flawed, weak, & in many cases didn't understand what they were doing till it was too late. Yet those people lived in the world alongside the rest of us & we had to deal with them. What should our response be? Execute them? Remove them from existence so that we do not have to think about that aspect of 'the human'? No. What Tolkien does is have his characters refuse that easy option, so that we, the readers, cannot take it. We have to confront, live with, Gollum. We are forced by Tolkien to see the 'wicked monster' as a person. I'm sure there are some reasers who find this difficult - they will either like Gollum so much that they reject any idea that he was a baby eating, selfish wretch, driven only by his own desires & try to make him out to be a helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control, & put down all those accusations as lies & 'rumours'. Others will dislike him so much that they will just dismiss him as a wicked monster who deserves no compassion or understanding.

Yet Tolkien does not want us to do either. He wants us to know Gollum is a wicked monster. He also wants us to be clear that he is also a broken soul, an an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing. This is the clearest demonstration I can think of of Tolkien's humanity, & of his refusal to take the easy way out when it comes to the darker side of humanity. Tolkien hates the sin, but refuses to simply hate the sinner. But his response is not so simple as to 'love' the sinner. He shows us that for all Gollum is a monster he is a human monster. He is not an Orc - though he may do Orcish things. A human being who does terrible things is still a human being, & we are all our brother's keeper. We cannot simply execute, remove, the Gollums - that's too simple. Actually, its a way of avoiding our own responsibility, a way of pretending that that aspect of the human doesn't exist. Tolkien tells us that it does exist & forces us to think about it by not having Gollum executed.

This, I think, is Gandalf's point - having Gollum around (specifically having him around Frodo) will force Frodo to see things he needs to see, to learn things he needs to know. Without Gollum LotR would be a lot less profound & a lot more of a 'sword & sorcery' novel.

[Boromir88]

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?~alatar

Well said...those who commit acts of 'evil' I think have to always be held accountable to a point. The 'evil-doers' see themselves as being in the right and what they're doing is not wrong at all...however does that make them not evil? I don't think so; everyone has to be held accountable for the decisions they make. The Ring may have been too strong of an influence for Smeagol to face, but what he did was inexcusable.

I would like to bring up what is exactly 'evil' in the Lord of the Rings; as I think it could clear some things up. Tolkien does paint us a good picture of evil at various times...and though I don't think 'good and evil' is so 'black and white' (as has been discussed in this thread); but still we can get an idea what is 'evil' in Tolkien's story:

It may become possessive, clinging to the things made as ’its own’, the sub-creator wishes to be the Lord and God of his private creation. He will rebel againast the laws of the Creator.~Letter 131

Letter 131 also talks about one who 'bulldozes and seeks to dominate' over someone's will. This is also an evil act. Taking these into account I think Morgoth and Sauron fit quite nicely with the concept of evil in the story. And as Tolkien remarks both were in 'absolute satanic rebellion' against Eru:

But in this ’mythology’ all the ’angellic’ powers concerned themselves with world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the Absolute Satanic Rebellion of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the faineance of some of the other higher powers or ’gods.’~Letter 156

So, Tolkien sets up these varying 'degrees of error and failing' that anyone is capable of committing. Morgoth and Sauron are the 'most evil' as they do seek to dominate over other's wills/bulldoze, and there were in direct rebellion against Eru.

Which leads me to say that I think Child and Squatter have hit the nail on the head, Eru is the important factor in this matter over Gollum. Gollum did horrible deeds and broke laws that society had in place. But, did Gollum willingly rebel against Eru? Did Gollum willingly want to dominate over other people? Those are the questions.

The defense of 'I believe what I'm doing is the right thing' just doesn't fly, for me. Everyone believes they are doing the 'right' thing (whether good or evil). Eventhough if good and evil isn't always easily defined...I would call rebelling against Eru and seeking to dominate others' wills the two greatest evils (in Tolkien's story that is).

As an interesting side note, just to let everyone know ignorance to the law is no excuse for breaking the law. I found that out the hard way. In the States, laws vary from state to state (in my case it was driving). You see I had no clue in Pennsylvania you were only allowed to stay in the passing lane for a maximum of 2 miles (don't ask me how they keep track of this stuff)...the officer didn't care. I was hit with a little fine and was told it's the drivers responsbility to know the laws of the states they're driving through. I forget who brought it up...but not knowing what the 'laws of the land' isn't an excuse for breaking the law.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Boro

But, did Gollum willingly rebel against Eru? Did Gollum willingly want to dominate over other people? Those are the questions.

Are you arguing that only rebellion against Eru per se (and no indirect instances of it, such as stealing, killing, etc), or willing to dominate others are immoral? Seeing that you call this the greatest (not the only) evil acts, I am inclined to think no.