Did Gollum deserve death?

[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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

Tolkien actually complained about the presence of the talking animals

Originally Posted by orcs, Myths Transformed, HoME X

What of talking beasts and birds with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from less 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot now be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show they are a recognized feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

One might describe the riddle game as an attempted murder on Gollum's part.

Tut tut Mr Sauce. Now, would that really hold up in court? I think not. :P

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.

I think that is the whole point of what Gandalf says, which is "Think for yourself, I'm not going to do it for you!" So with something half-hinted-at, merely 'suggested', the poetic language describing the mysterious events in the woods has been put there for no other 'purpose' than to allow you to come to your own conclusions. Those are Tolkien;s only intentions - as a great artist might merely 'suggest' something with paint he does it with words and it's up to you how you see things like that.

I like that there is no definitive answer. It's much more scary!

I don't say he definitely did NOT do it, just that we don't know for sure, which is far more satisfying.

Originally Posted by Folwren

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.

Remember how long Gollum had the ring though, much longer than Frodo or Bilbo. And we can see the disturbing effects of it as soon as Sam puts it on and he has his mad delusions of power. That should tell us just how bad the effects would have been on Gollum - i.e. beyond comprehension. And Frodo seeing his own friend as an Orc? That's prety disturbing, seeing as we know Gollum ended up eating Orc flesh. Yet another subtlety about this is that we must also remember Sam saw the effects of the Ring on Frodo 24-7 - he was under no illusions, unlike everyone else.

How come nobody has considered what this Ring did to a certain Numenorean?

And speaking of later Numenoreans...

Originally Posted by Boro

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.'

That's it. We're side-stepping away from the most important factor in the story, The Ring and what it does. It serves no purpose to blame the victims of Sauron's work for the evil that this work does - all it serves to do is to cause fighting over trivial matters, both in Middle-earth and outside of it! Whether Gollum was a naughty Hobbit is quite irrelevant - it's The Ring and what it does that matters.

Most of all, we're not heeding Gandalf's warning not to be too hasty to come to judgements that are beyond our ken.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Tut tut Mr Sauce. Now, would that really hold up in court? I think not. :P

Well, if we are going to apply courtroom standards, then there might be some doubt as to whether Gollum actually murdered Deagol. After all, there is a suggestion that Gandalf extracted his confession under duress.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Those are Tolkien;s only intentions - as a great artist might merely 'suggest' something with paint he does it with words and it's up to you how you see things like that.

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

Why would Gandalf seek to influence Frodo's impression of Gollum with tales of infant cannibalism if he did not himself believe them to be true? If Gandalf considered them to be mere Woodsman gossip, it would be highly irresponsible for him to colour Frodo's opinion of Gollum in this way. The same applies with regard to the impression that Tolkien gives to his readers of Gollum. We are meant to believe that Gollum carries out these awful deeds. And, when we meet him, we are meant nevertheless to pity him. This, in my view, is where the subtlety lies in Tolkien's characterisation of Gollum.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Most of all, we're not heeding Gandalf's warning not to be too hasty to come to judgements that are beyond our ken.

Hang on. I would say that we are perfectly entitled to form a view as to what Gollum did and whether such things were right or wrong. The point that Gandalf (and Tolkien) was making was that Frodo (and we, the readers) should not be hasty in dealing out death in judgment. In other words, whatever view we might come to as to the rights and wrongs of Gollum's deeds, we should not be so hasty as to condemn him to death for them. That said, had one of the Woodsman caught Gollum in the act, as it were, one might understand if he were to have put an axe through the wretched creature's neck.

[Boromir88]

Just a quick comment regarding this:

If Gandalf considered them to be mere Woodsman gossip, it would be highly irresponsible for him to colour Frodo's opinion of Gollum in this way.~Sauce

Gandalf was capable of making errors in judgement and had some lapses. As Tolkien addresses in Letter 214:

"With regard to (1) Gandalf certainly says at first 'I guess' p. 62; but that is in accordance with his character and wisdom. In more modern language he would have said 'I deduce', referring to matters that had not come under his direct observation, but on which he had formed a conclusion based on study."

And some of Gandalf's conclusions could end up being wrong. So perhaps Gandalf could serve as an expert to share his conclusions with the court...but he's not some all-seeing eyeball here.

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!~Folwren

True, but the Ring effects and changes everyone...just in different ways and the time varies from person to person. However, eventually the Ring does twist everyone, if given the time.

Bilbo gets quite snappy when Gandalf tells him to give up the Ring. And Bilbo would not have let the Ring go had it not been for Gandalf. As Gandalf tells Frodo, Bilbo did let go of the Ring, but 'I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too.' (The Shadow of the Past)

Frodo, claims the Ring for himself in the end. Yes, Tolkien says in Letter 246 that at that point (in the Sammath Naur) the Ring's power was so strong it was impossible for anyone to destroy...nevertheless Frodo succumbed and claimed the Ring as his own.

Gandalf:

'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused.'~The Shadow of the Past

Sam also reaches a point where he faces the 'pull' of the Ring, he was able to resist it and cast it out of his head...but what if he's faced with that situation again and in a more desperate situation? Had the Ring not been destroyed in the Sammath Naur what would Sam have done, what would the Ring do to try to get itself out?

The Ring is one smart cookie...sure not everyone murders when it comes to the Ring, because not everyone was as 'mean' as Smeagol was. The point is that the Ring causes people to act in ways that they normally wouldn't. It dramatically changes a person's personality. Bilbo as you and I have mentioned lashed out at Gandalf...now Bilbo didn't kill Gandalf, but there is no doubt that was extremely out of Bilbo's character. The Ring plays a huge role in twisting someone's personality. Sure not everyone feels the need to kill over it, but nevertheless it causes individuals to act in ways they never would.

For parting words what does Gandalf say about Gollum's feelings on the Ring:

'He was altogther wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated light more: he hated everything, and the Ring most of all.'
[...]
'You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard,' said Gandalf. 'He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.'~The Shadow of the Past

Well Sauce I simply felt the matter and influence of the Ring was being overlooked in this case. People are so easy to condemn Mr. Gollum for what he did. Sure he was weak-minded and instantly killed over the Ring, but the Ring is at the very center of the evil here. Not everyone reacts as viciously as Gollum did, when it came to the Ring, but it does twist everyone.

I think we all understand and forgive Boromir for his attack on Frodo for the very reasons you have mentioned...Gollum it's a lot harder because we don't see that atonement...but that doesn't chage the fact that the Ring is at the heart of the problem; just as it was at the heart of causing Boromir to attack Frodo.

Gollum was very close to redemption, he had been at a 'crucial point' as Tolkien describes and when Sam mistakes Gollum's 'pawing' at Frodo...Sam over-reacts and Gollum's chance of redemption is gone. That was Gollum's crucial moment where he was nearly redeemed, and it's a lesson to us all that even good-hearted, loving people like Sam can misjudge, over-react, and cause bad problems despite having no intention to do so.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

I don't say he definitely did NOT do it, just that we don't know for sure, which is far more satisfying.

I fail to see what shadow of doubt lies on the account of the woodmen; is it because they are woodmen?? That is just genetical fallacy. The timing and the manner of facts are highly relevant for Gollum's fault, and in tone with his past deeds. It seems to me that you simply re-state your opinion while not addressing counter evidences to it. Nobody in the book, or Tolkien elsewhere, shares or backs this position.

[Mithalwen]

Raynor, I suggest you might like to rephrase your last post .

"The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad..a ghost that drank blood..." is not conclusive proof rather circumstantial evidence and it is no slight on Woodmen to say so.

While I think Gollum had few scruples left at that point, there are many things that an unsophisticated community might regard as terrors, and sometimes people jump to hasty conclusions - especially where children are concerned, cf the story of Gelert ....

And as for Gandalf, it takes the wise one seventy years to twig about the significance of the Ring ... which might affect his credibility ... I can imagine the cross-examination...

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

While I think Gollum had few scruples left at that point, there are many things that an unsophisticated community might regard as terrors, and sometimes people jump to hasty conclusions - especially where children are concerned, cf the story of Gelert .

I know of no evidence that the woodmen would start creating stories about dissappearing children due to ghost that drinks blood. After all, this is not some myth from the long past, but a present event, whose traces can be acknowledged by those living in a arguably small community. I don't see any other explanation to this; babies in craddles don't slip out through windows. We know from the Hobbit that Gollum was a cannibal, and nothing I know refutes those referrences, nor the account of the woodmen. Of course, we may choose to ignore all these.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Boro

True, but the Ring effects and changes everyone...just in different ways and the time varies from person to person. However, eventually the Ring does twist everyone, if given the time.

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

I am done. I'm through arguing my point over and over again. It is in capable hands, with Saucepan Man and Raynor here, I think.

-- Folwren

[alatar]

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” (FR I:2, 68–69)

I think that Gandalf was counseling against rash judgment and 'stabs in the back' - killing in cold blood. Slaying Gollum in the heat of the moment would not have garnered any tut-tutting from the Grey Pilgrim; stabbing the foul creature when Bilbo's situation did not require it (leaving the caves) would have been the first step down a dark road, the same that Smeagol took.

And note that, though Boromir was tempted, he still did not murder anyone over the Ring. Obviously, being a warrior, he'd killed many enemies of his Lord, yet did not draw his sword when confronting Frodo. Smeagol, on the other hand, immediately murders Deagol when the latter will not willingly yield his prize. To me it's also significant that Gollum's own hands do the deed. No weapon, rock or branch are used, but hands upon a living neck crush out a companion's life.

Gollum had it in him to 'do murder;' the Ring just brought it to the fore.

What of Faramir? Doesn't Frodo pass on Gandalf's admonition when Faramir's silent archers make to shoot Gollum unawares? Faramir sees into the black soul of the wretched creature and passes a judgment. Free to go with Frodo; death if found without its Master.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

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

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

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

Originally Posted by SpM

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

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

Originally Posted by Folwren

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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

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

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