Did Gollum deserve death?

[The Might]

Is it me or has the the discussion already long left the original track?
Is this still a lore discussion based on the writings or only on personal emotions?
Because, after all, each person has his/her own opinion on capital punishment, which I respect, but I think that's a bit too off-topic.
As far as laws and capital punishment in ME I remember Boromir88 started an interesting thread on that topic, somewhere around here.
Of course, both Beregond, and Hama are good examples of people, who although broke the law, were only lightly punished by their superiors.
As for Gollum, he would deserve or not deserve death in ME depending on the laws of the areas he commited his crimes. If the Stoors had such a punishment for Hobbitcide (just made that word up), then I guess this was his fate.
If we are to consider this matter on a higher level, then probably Manwe as King of Arda, or Eru himself would be the ones with right to decide on such matters. Anyway, Eru's decision seemed pretty clear judging by his action in the Sammath Naur.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by The Might

Is it me or has the the discussion already long left the original track?

No it's not just you. I'm afraid this will becaome the next bloody (not used a s a swear word here, though that might be almost appropriate ) moral debate thread in the books...

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by The Might

Is it me or has the the discussion already long left the original track?
Is this still a lore discussion based on the writings or only on personal emotions?
Because, after all, each person has his/her own opinion on capital punishment, which I respect, but I think that's a bit too off-topic.

I think the problem is that, in order to decide whether a particular person does deserve death or not, we would first need to agree on what it takes for somebody to deserve death in general, which leads us almost necessarily into a debate about the good and bad of capital punishment. I doubt such a discussion, though it would surely be interesting (esp. with Middle-earth as background), will ever come to a final result here. It's not off-topic, but pointless.


A minor point: Gandalf says: "I daresay he does.", not "I say he does." This sounds to me like, although it is Gandalf's opinion that Gollum deserves death, he is aware that his opinion alone doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by The Might

Anyway, Eru's decision seemed pretty clear judging by his action in the Sammath Naur.

Exactly, and I would say that Eru alone can really make such a judgement. What is not clear, however, is Eru's motive, as Gollum's death doesn't necessarily strike me as a punishment.

[Folwren]

Cross posted with Mac, therefore, I'm double posting...

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Exactly, and I would say that Eru alone can really make such a judgement. What is not clear, however, is Eru's motive, as Gollum's death doesn't necessarily strike me as a punishment.

If we all agree that Eru had everything under his control (which I believe), then I think, deserving or not, Gollum was spared death by anyone's hand only so that he could go and die while destructing the ring. No, it wasn't punishment, but it was justice. (Heh...whatever that means...)

Gandalf, I think, thought Gollum deserved death, but the fact that he hadn't gotten what he deserved yet made Gandalf think that Eru had something else planned for him. Isn't that what I said at the beginning?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I think the problem is that, in order to decide whether a particular person does deserve death or not, we would first need to agree on what it takes for somebody to deserve death in general, which leads us almost necessarily into a debate about the good and bad of capital punishment. I doubt such a discussion, though it would surely be interesting (esp. with Middle-earth as background), will ever come to a final result here. It's not off-topic, but pointless.


A minor point: Gandalf says: "I daresay he does.", not "I say he does." This sounds to me like, although it is Gandalf's opinion that Gollum deserves death, he is aware that his opinion alone doesn't make it so.

Exactly, and I would say that Eru alone can really make such a judgement. What is not clear, however, is Eru's motive, as Gollum's death doesn't necessarily strike me as a punishment.

I agree. Such a discussion is ultimately pointless as nobody will agree!

Anyway...there's a very good point about what words Gandalf uses. "I daresay..." is incredibly different to "I say...". Remembering that Tolkien was English, it's important to consider how English people use the language, and "I daresay..." is very often used when someone really means "I think you're talking out of your backside, actually". As in when you get into a taxi and the driver lets fly with a stream of racist comments - "I think they should all be sent home, the scrounging foreigners, blah blah blah" may be met by a reply from you along the lines of "I daresay they should, but have you ever thought what it's like for them at home? Could you send them back to being tortured?" "I daresay..." is an opening statement used when we wish to appease the ranter, and is usually followed by an opposing statement of common sense - as is Gandalf's own "I daresay..." Miss out on that subtlety at your peril.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Again, there is not enough evidence that he committed much more crime than to kill Deagol. Anything else he 'did' is simply hearsay, as we as Readers are not there when events rumoured to be Gollum's work take place and there is no reliable evidence. Had he been a Real Life criminal the case would be laughed out of court as it's only circumstantial evidence at best - and that's a push of credibility!

You are right that the reference to Gollum stealing from cradles is, legally defined, hearsay. In fact, it is (to Frodo), second hand hearsay as Gandalf did not personally witness Gollum doing this, but was presumably told of it by another. To add a further level of complication, it is third hand hearsay to the reader, who is being told of the conversation between Gandalf and Frodo by the author.

However, a work of fiction is not a court of law, and the rules of evidence applicable to a court of law are irrelevant, or, at best, marginally relevant, since they may be used as a technique by an author to convey the extent to which an aspect of the tale may be considered reliable. The principal question here is whether Tolkien intended the reader to believe that Gollum fed on babies or whether he intended the reader to dismiss it as rumour. Tolkien chose to convey this information in a very important conversation between Gandalf and Frodo in which key background information to the tale was imparted, some of which Gandalf himself has no personal experience of (but which we are clearly intended to believe). In these circumstances, there is not doubt in my mind that Tolkien intended us to believe that Gollum snatched and ate babies.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And we simply cannot say that because he killed Deagol he was already corrupt. If we do so we are omitting to consider that most powerful of all the dangers in Middle Earth. What's that? The Ring of course.

I agree that the influence of the Ring was pivotal in Smeagol’s murder of Deagol. That said, Smeagol was the only Ringbearer to murder an “innocent” in order to gain possession of it. And he did so on the mere sight of it, without even having touched it. With the exception of Boromir, there is not one character not in the service of Sauron who comes close to murdering for it on the mere sight of it. And Boromir was exposed to it for many months.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm afraid that this is one of those examples whereby seeking to impose simplistic Real World moral mores onto Tolkien's complex creation just results in stripping away all the subtlety.

For me, the fascination of Gollum, as a character, comes from the fact that he committed all kinds of heinous deeds (let’s not forget that he intended to get Frodo and Sam eaten by a horrific giant spider being), and yet Tolkien is still able to make us feel sympathy for him.

Edit: Crossed with Folwren, who makes much the same point about Gollum's murder of Deagol.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

You are right that the reference to Gollum stealing from cradles is, legally defined, hearsay. In fact, it is (to Frodo), second hand hearsay as Gandalf did not personally witness Gollum doing this, but was presumably told of it by another. To add a further level of complication, it is third hand hearsay to the reader, who is being told of the conversation between Gandalf and Frodo by the author.

However, a work of fiction is not a court of law, and the rules of evidence applicable to a court of law are irrelevant, or, at best, marginally relevant, since they may be used as a technique by an author to convey the extent to which an aspect of the tale may be considered reliable. The principal question here is whether Tolkien intended the reader to believe that Gollum fed on babies or whether he intended the reader to dismiss it as rumour. Tolkien chose to convey this information in a very important conversation between Gandalf and Frodo in which key background information to the tale was imparted, some of which Gandalf himself has no personal experience of (but which we are clearly intended to believe). In these circumstances, there is not doubt in my mind that Tolkien intended us to believe that Gollum snatched and ate babies.

But again remember the need to read it subtly. This is a work of 'myth' and it includes layers of myth, legend, folklore, story within itself. What Gandalf tells Frodo are "dreadful tales" - not 'truths' but "tales' and it is up to us to decide. Entirely subjective.

These are also tales from a mysterious woodland, one which has suffered from the Shadow, and where the Bogeyman will live large for many, many years gathered around the fireside on a long, cold, wintry evening. What Gandalf tells Frodo is framed in the language of the bedtime story. It drips with poetry and metaphor. Do we really think all the birds and beasts spoke? That Gollum was an actual 'ghost'? No, this is a bedtime story of fabulous power:

The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds. The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles.

It isn't 'fact' at all, here Tolkien is yet again layering story upon story until nobody knows what really happened, and that makes the 'myth' of Gollum even more frightening than the reality. Marvellous writing.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

the latter is only 'intention', it is not 'deed'.

To add to what Raynor said, attempted murder, if proved, is a crime. One might describe the riddle game as an attempted murder on Gollum's part.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But again remember the need to read it subtly. This is a work of 'myth' and it includes layers of myth, legend, folklore, story within itself.

I agree that there is great subtlety in the way that Tolkien has Gandalf relay this information. Clearly, Gollum's deeds gave rise to wild rumours among the Woodsmen. But, without the deeds, there would be no rumours.

(And it is open to debate whether the birds and the beasts spoke, but quite possible given the fox's musings on the Hobbits' journey through the Shire. )

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What Gandalf tells Frodo are "dreadful tales" - not 'truths' but "tales' and it is up to us to decide. Entirely subjective.

I of course do not dispute that it is up to the reader to decide. I choose to believe that Gollum snatched infants from theior cradles. And I believe that Tolkien intended me to.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Folwren

No good person in the books ever killed someone who already had the ring of power. No one ever looked at it and said, "Wow, I really like that Ring, let's kill him for it." The only person who almost did was Boromir, and that was after a long time of struggling with it, and that was also with the knowledge of what it was. Smeagol killed Deagol because Deagol had a pretty gold ring, not because Deagol held a powerful weapon that could defeat Sauron. (Tell me if I'm wrong about there not being anyone else but Boromir, it's really bad practice of me to be in an argument now...I haven't read the books in nearly two years.)

Okay, so if you wish to disregard his cradle stealing, then consider the fact that when he met Bilbo, his soul intention of the riddle game was so that in the end, he could throttle him and eat him. You don't think that's good evidence? And during the riddle game, Gollum is getting hungrier and hungrier and all the while of the riddles, wishes only to kill poor Bilbo. When Bilbo gives him an unanswerable question (unfair, yes, I'm aware of that), Gollum admits defeat, but plans to go, get his precious, and return and kill Bilbo in secret. You don't call that murderous?

Firstly, we don't know that Gollum was not already 'good'. The whole point of the Ring is that it is such a powerfully evil thing that it could drive even the best people into extremes such as murder. And what could be more humble than a Hobbit? Maybe we could even say that it is Gollum's very innocence (in terms of him not having the faintest clue what this Ring is, unlike most others who come into contact with it) that drives him to the extreme of murdering for it. I'm sure there's a good discussion been had already on just how the Ring works, and it's worth looking for as that is the crucial matter - the 'criminal' here is not Gollum but The Ring and how it works. But really, Lommy puts it very well here:

Originally Posted by Thinlomien

First, Sméagol didn't attack or kill Déagol because he had some random pretty gold ring. He attcaked because he was overtaken by the lust and the lure of the ring. He maybe had some natural inclination to greed since he acted this quickly, but I daresay he didn't do this because he was a bad/evil person. Greed was his weak point and it proved fatal here. (Also, one must consider that it is possible that the Ring put more "luring power" to Sméagol than to Boromir, but I'm not sure why would it so so or can it control itself that much..)

Anyway, both the alleged cradle stealing and his thoughts of eating Bilbo have to be disregarded in a very ethical sense. The former is hearsay (and adds some mighty fine chills to the tale!) and the latter is only 'intention', it is not 'deed'. Had Gollum come to court then only his deeds would be judged, and there is no evidence he ate babies apart from folk tales and no evidence he did eat Bilbo because as we know, Bilbo got away! And even if there was then we would have to stop and think that all of this is down to The Ring. It exerts a truly horrible effect on anyone it touches and Gollum has it for an incredible amount of time.

Originally Posted by Folwren

I strongly disagree with you on the Bible subject, but I won't get into it here. The Might's right, and I don't want to lead this anymore off track in such a blatant matter.

I agree, this isn't the place! But as you know, if things like that are brought up, people will get their nasty pointy sticks out and prod at them.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

The whole point of the Ring is that it is such a powerfully evil thing that it could drive even the best people into extremes such as murder. And what could be more humble than a Hobbit?

Quite the reverse argument can be made, that the most resilient beings to evil are hobbits.

Originally Posted by Letter #109

I think that there is no horror conceivable that such creatures cannot surmount, by grace (here appearing in mythological forms) combined with a refusal of their nature and reason at the last pinch to compromise or submit.

The former is hearsay

Without any evidence to counter this, and with plenty of evidence to support this, then your argument is a fallacy of converse accident; the exception you are arguing is uncalled for.

the latter is only 'intention', it is not 'deed'.

The fact that it couldn't get performed to its end doesn't absolve the immorality of Gollum for wanting to do such a thing. Intention is the first thing that defines the morality of one's actions.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Again, there is not enough evidence that he committed much more crime than to kill Deagol.

You also are not taking into consideration that he hunted and ate orcs

Originally Posted by Riddles in the dark, The Hobbit

He liked meat too. Goblin he thought good, when he could get it; but he took care they never found him out. He just throttled them from behind, if they ever came down alone anywhere near the edge of the water, while he was prowling about. They very seldom did, for they had a feeling that something unpleasant was lurking down there, down at the very roots of the mountain.

Frankly, I fail to see what you don't like about the account of the woodmen concerning his deeds. It all falls into the same pattern.

Originally Posted by Lal

And we simply cannot say that because he killed Deagol he was already corrupt.

He was already evil at the time he took the ring

Originally Posted by Letter #181

The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sm eagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean son of thief before it crossed his path.

Originally Posted by Folwren

Gollum was an intelligent creature, cunning and evil.

I agree; unlike (most) Middle Earth animals, Gollum has the option to choose between right and wrong. Cunning and versatile as he is, he would have had no problem surviving on anything else than this.

[Boromir88]

There is no doubt that as Raynor has shown, Gollum wasn't a 'good little hobbit' and he did have this 'evil' side to him even before coming across the Ring. But let's not forget the power and the influence of the Ring in this situation. Yes, Gollum is described as 'damnable' and a 'mean son of a thief' before coming into contact with the Ring, but the Ring is also an integral part of the whole situation and let's not forget that.

Gollum went into what some might say a 'fit of rage.' And when emotions are high and you get into these fits of rage, you can not control what you are doing. You could say you black out and have no control over your actions. Boromir gets into one of these fits of rage:

'Miserable trickster!' he shouted. 'Let me get my hands on you! Now I see your mind. You will take the Ring to Sauron and sell us all. You have only waited your chance to leave us in the lurch. Curse you and all halflings to death and darkness!' Then, catching his foot on a stone, he fell sprawling and lay upon his face. For a while he was as still as if his own curse had struck him down; then suddenly he wept.

He rose and passed his hands over his eyes, dashing away the tears. 'What have I said?' he cried. 'What have I done? Frodo, Frodo!' he called. 'Come back! A madness took me, but it has passed. Come back!'~The Breaking of the Fellowship

Yes, Boromir had this idea of using the Ring as a weapon and win him his own glory, but let's not forget the Ring caused Boromir to act in a way we know Boromir never would act. Boromir desired the Ring, and he struggles with this, but when the Ring gets control...it certainly causes Boromir to act in a way he never would. And try to do something he never would. In this moment of Boromir trying to take the Ring, it always seemed like one of those fits of rage/blackout situations; Boromir lost control over himself and the Ring filled him with a maddening rage.

Now what's this have to do with Gollum? Yes, Smeagol wasn't all that good before coming across the Ring, but would it be fair to say that the Ring caused Smeagol to be filled with the same madness as Boromir? The Ring twists, warps, and manipulates people into doing things they never would, and definitely changes them. As Gandalf says to Denethor about Boromir 'He would have kept it for his own, and when he returned you would not have known your son.' (The Siege of Gondor).

Before coming across the Ring could you imagine Smeagol getting into a fit of rage and killing his friend? Before coming across the Ring could you imagine Boromir going in a fit of rage trying to kill Frodo for the Ring? No. Both had their weaknesses, but both were manipulated and controlled by the Ring; and the Ring caused both to do things they never would have done. So before one so easily condemns Smeagol as a murderous, down-right evil, spiteful, deserving of death wretch...let's not forget the part the Ring played in turning Smeagol into a murderous, down-right evil, spiteful deserving of death wretch. I don't think the Ring should be cast so easily out of the equation (and I don't see why it has barely been mentioned in the effect it had in changing Smeagol into a miserable murderer).

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

So before one so easily condemns Smeagol as a murderous, down-right evil, spiteful, deserving of death wretch...let's not forget the part the Ring played in turning Smeagol into a murderous, down-right evil, spiteful deserving of death wretch.

Then again, as I quoted from letter #181, he was already tainted.

[Boromir88]

Then again, as I quoted from letter #181, he was already tainted.

I think the question we should all ask though is could we imagine Smeagol killing his friend (or anyone for that matter) before coming across the Ring? I think not.

I'm going to use Boromir as an example again...here's Pippin's impression of him:

'and Pippin gazing at him saw how closely he resembled his brother Boromir - whom Pippin had liked from the first, admiring the great man's lordly but kindly manner.'

Pippin admires Boromir for his lordliness, yet kind qualities. Boromir trying to kill Frodo for the Ring doesn't make him seem like a kind man...but in truth he was. Could we imagine Boromir trying to kill Frodo if he had never come across the ring? I think not.

Both Smeagol and Boromir were corrupted by the Ring because both were easy prey for the Ring. Gollum's pre-disposition to 'meanness' and Boromir's mindset that the Ring is a weapon both made them easy targets. But, let's not take the Ring out as an important part in the changing of these two characters...causing both to do things I don't think they would ever have done. Afterall a 'mean son of a thief' is a far away from a 'friend murderer' and 'baby eater.'

[Raynor]

Gollum's pre-disposition to 'meanness'

I would prefix pre-disposition with "strong". After all, he killed a friend perhaps in mere minutes, if not seconds, after seeing the ring; the only parallel I can think of is the orcs being stirred by the ring in attacking Isildur. Frodo abstained from killing him even after decades of having the ring, even when Gollum was a threat to his quest and most likely his life too. Folwren makes a better case about this.

I think that the ring to Gollum was sort of an addiction like drugs he hated it and loved it at the same time. He i think wanted to be freed from his addiction and become a good person. Just like any addict wants to be free from his addiction.
So i think that he deserved life yet his death saved the world from certain doom.

[Folwren]

I know the ring had a great deal to do with Gollum's behavior later on in life. But when he first saw the Ring and when he first had the ring, if he had been a good fellow, like Bilbo and Frodo both were, he wouldn't have 1. killed Deagol for it, 2. wouldn't have used it to steal things from his Grandmother as soon as he got it, and 3. wouldn't have been kicked out of society because of it.

I think the Ring's power over people was directly connected with the people's tendency towards evil before they had or saw the Ring. Just look at how different people handled it!

Bilbo - before he had the Ring, he was a common hobbit, who wished nobody ill. He was childish and sweet and badly frightened, by the time he came across the Ring. When he found it, I don't believe he felt a great pull towards it. He put it in his pocket, which was somewhat strange, I will admit, but he didn't put it on, and he forgot about it until the riddle game. There was no lure, no temptation, no nothing. And when he finally gave the Ring up, he stuck it on the mantel piece, his hand jerked back and it fell, and Gandalf picked it up. Bilbo had a flash of anger pass through him, but he didn't attack Gandalf, he didn't have a 'blackout' of rage. Bilbo's character was one that leaned towards good, rather than evil.

Frodo - was even more pure than Bilbo. He owned the Ring for a long time before the quest. It did affect him some in different places of the books...but never to the point of evil, until he claimed it for himself. When Sam took it from him after he was wounded by Shelob, he didn't attack Sam when Sam admitted having it. He asked for it back, saw Sam as an orc, and snatched it from him, but he didn't attack him.

Sam - purest of all the hobbits. He took the ring off of what he thought was Frodo's dead body, and when Frodo asked for it back, he handed it over.

Tom Bombadil - Ring had no affect on him whatsoever, but that was due to his power in his land as well as to his perfectness.

Others I don't have time for. Sorry. But I believe you see what I'm doing. My point is, Smeagol's character was bent towards evil, and therefore, the evil power of the Ring had an easier time of consuming him.

-- Folwren