Did Gollum deserve death?

[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.

[Mithalwen]

Can't you...?

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.

[Raynor]

Would you care to give some Middle-Earth related evidence that would refute Gollum's canibalism?

LotR as we know it was, presumably, assembled from notes and accounts not only from the hobbits, but also from Rohan and Gondor, where annotations and corrections were added. Nothing, anywhere, discards what we already know of Gollum.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Raynor

LotR as we know it was, presumably, assembled from notes and accounts not only from the hobbits, but also from Rohan and Gondor, where annotations and corrections were added. Nothing, anywhere, discards what we already know of Gollum.

LOTR as we know it is a work of fiction ... by someone who kneow how tales developed....

And even to suspend one's disbelief and enter into the conceit of "history" - you would have to take the Hobbit with a bucket of salt, as a infantilised, abridged version... or else you take the account of tralallally camper than a row of tents elves as a reliable documentary of the behaviour of the Noldor in Middle Earth.

I am not saying Gollum did not kill to eat I am saying that you can't take circumstantial evidence and suspicion as proof.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Would you care to give some Middle-Earth related evidence that would refute Gollum's canibalism?

LotR as we know it was, presumably, assembled from notes and accounts not only from the hobbits, but also from Rohan and Gondor, where annotations and corrections were added. Nothing, anywhere, discards what we already know of Gollum.

Doesn't work. A reading of HoM-e gives us so many different versions of the story. Smeagol originally didn't exist & there was only one 'Hobbit' - Digol - who becomes 'Gollum' as a result of his finding the Ring. In the first draft Gandalf states that Gollum himself is the source of the 'stealing from cradles' story ('He boasted of it') & yet even then Gandalf states that Gollum is a liar & his words have to be sifted.

In the published version we have a 'story' about Gollum. And any 'evidence' is circumstantial'. Its entirely possible to read this as Gandalf simply reporting the story to Frodo to make him aware of all that is known about Gollum - the true & the false. Or, more subtly to 'test' Frodo's reaction.

Which reaction is interesting ... Smeagoi, on coming across the Ring responds murderously. Frodo's response on hearing Smeagol's story is equally 'murderous' - 'its a pity Bilbo did not kill him when he had the chance.' That's worth considering - if Frodo could wish Gollum murdered on the basis of a story, one can understand Smeagol's murderous reaction in the presence of the real thing.

Tolkien's only 'judgemental' comment on Smeagol (ie Smeagol prior to the Ring's appearance) seems to be in the letter where he refers to his 'mean little soul' - yet this was written after the event. Leaving this aside one can read Smeagol as 'victim' of the Ring's influence, & I think Tolkien is clear that he is a victim. And even if the story was true I think it would take a very hard hearted approach to the story of stealing babies from cradles for one to interpret it as depicting Gollum's 'evil' or monstrous nature rather than as depicting the horror of his existence, what this 'Hobbit' had been turned into by the Ring.

Yet there are other monsters in Mirkwood with a taste for human flesh, so the reader (as probably intended) is left with the option of whether they believe the story or not - & that, perhaps, says more about the reader than about Gollum himself.

Some readers do seem to prefer to divide the inhabitants of M-e into 'Good' & 'Evil', refusing to believe the 'Good' can do any evil & that the 'Evil' are capable of any attrocity imaginable. Personally, I find such an approach overly simplistic.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Why would he seek to influence Frodo?

Why would he present something this significant, if he didn't trust it, esspecially since he had some work to do with Frodo about the value of pitty, and how important it is to this quest?

Originally Posted by Lal

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.

Folwren was referring to a moment when Gollum was not yet present, so your argument doesn't apply there.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

LOTR as we know it is a work of fiction ... [img]ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img] by someone who kneow how tales developed....

Originally Posted by Lal

Nobody here is more than subjective as nobody here is Tolkien.

Yeah, but Tolkien doesn't refute any part of the image of Gollum outside LotR. He reffers to him as damnable and persistent in wickedness.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

you would have to take the Hobbit with a bucket of salt

Why? Elves love to sing. I don't see a problem with them having a lighter side. Tom himself is as light as you can get, yet he is the only one who is impervious to the ring, so I am fine with lightness.

Originally Posted by davem

A reading of HoM-e gives us so many different versions of the story.

What exactly doesn't work? I am not reffering to preivous versions, but to the material we have now; the accounts have gone through numerous hands, but nothing disqualifies the accounts of Gollum's deeds. As pointed above, neither does Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Lal

A threat is not equal to a deed.

You still ignore that intention defines morality.

Originally Posted by Lal

there is always a contradictory one

Too bad for you that it resolutely refuses to appear . Hope never dies...

Originally Posted by Lal

Personally I blame the insidious influence of simplistic good/evil paradigms as seen in games and Jackson's films for this view people take today of the text.

But this is a fundamental battle between good and evil and Tolkien acknowledges it so; subtlety and shades doesn't make it any less so.

Originally Posted by davem

What's being forgotten is that by this time Gollum was insane, & hardly responsible for his actions.

I disagree. Tolkien referrs to him as persisten in wickedness, refusing chances of repentance and damnable. Therefore, he is responsible.

It is interesting to note that not even Sauron in Mordor, with everything at his disposal, the one who made the one ring with his own power, can overcome the evil in Gollum, cf Unfinished Tales, Hunt for the Ring; this is a clearly individual evil. If at the root of it, or if the major part of it, was the ring's power, Saruon could have taken control of him. It was not so.

[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.

[Boromir88]

One more quick comment...

If we take onboard the argument that the Ring itself has some kind of sentience

I always found it interesting that the Ring seemed to be aware of Isildur's intentions with the Ring.

When he at last felt free to return to his own realm he was in haste, and he wished to go first to Imladris; for he had left his wife and youngest son there, and he had moreover an urgent need for the counsel of Elrond.......

I cannot use it. I dread the pain of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the Three.~Unfinished Tales; The Disaster of Gladden Fields

And in Note 24, CT remarks: The pride that led him to keep the Ring against the counsel of Elrond and Cirdan that it should be destroyed in the fires of Orodruin

It's always been fascinating that the Ring seemed to be aware that Isildur was of no use to it and was about to take it [the Ring] directly into danger (the Keepers of the Three)...therefor Isildur is quickly dealt with before he can reach Rivendell.

Raynor, I don't think anyone is arguing that Gollum is not a cannibal and did not eat human (at least Orc) flesh...but Lal and Mith are saying that 'tales' are just that...'tales.' Which makes them rumours and not something that can be definitively said as 'fact.'

I'm reminded of the Salem Witch Hunt in the U.S. where a whole town was after anyone who showed signs of witchcraft. The hysteria it caused was shocking, yet you can't help but laugh at the stupidity of it. I mean accusations were so weak...an accusation such as 'She was walking by and my cow was struck down by a disease' could put someone in court, accuse them of witchcraft, and send the person to the noose. 'Tales' and such of witchcraft (or in this case the disappearance of babies), could lead to hysteria and a gross misinterpretation of the actual 'facts.'

TM, and while it's true many tales do have a bit of truth to them, the tales can become completely distorted as it passes from one person to the next (especially if the people are filled with hysteria). Even such things as 'eyewitness testimony' may not hold up in court...as eyewitness testimony has been proven (through several psychological studies) to be flat out wrong sometimes. Such little and trivial things as saying 'bludgered' instead of 'hit' can effect the actual accuracy of an eyewitness testimony. (And these are presumably the people who witnessed a crime happening! Not a group of hysteric villagers that have children supposedly disappearing).