Did Gollum deserve death?

[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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I think you're discounting all this in favour of an overly simplistic interpretation of Gollum as simply 'wicked'.

If you read my argument, you would have seen I quoted Tolkien as stating that nothing is wholly evil. I guess you didn't.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien hates the sin, but refuses to simply hate the sinner.

We're in agreement over this, as seen from my previous post.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

If you read my argument, you would have seen I quoted Tolkien as stating that nothing is wholly evil. I guess you didn't.
.

Well, as I remember it was Elrond who stated that "nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." One assumes Tolkien shared this opinion though.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, as I remember it was Elrond who stated that "nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." One assumes Tolkien shared this opinion though.

Well, that is not as relevant (since it talks about the past) as the letters:

Originally Posted by Letter #183

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, that is not as relevant (since it talks about the past) as the letters:

Well, the phrase nothing is evil is used in LotR not in the Letters.

Anyway, I think I've won this argument so I'm not bovvered - Do you think I'm bovvered? (Points at face) Face. Bovvered? Look. Face. Bovvered? Look. Face. Bovvered? I ain't bovvered.