Did Gollum deserve death?

[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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Let it be known that I find this paragraph as extremely funny .

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

And therein lies something that so many readers have simply missed. For Tolkien, as a Catholic, it would be impossible to view Gollum as simply 'evil', as he is a human being. For Tolkien, even the most 'evil' human would always retain some goodness. It's perfectly allowable to dislike the deeds that someone does, but it is not permissible to hate the person for what they do, that is going beyond the pale.

In many ways Gollum exists as a character to shoulder the burden of Sauron's supernatural evil. He demonstrates just how evil Sauron is by showing us what his craft can and does do to people. He shows us what unnatural long life does to a mortal, in a far more comprehensive and effective way than any Numenorean king can do. Gollum was once an ordinary Hobbit like us and then he sees this beautiful, shiny thing and kills for it; the shadow latent within him, within everybody (certainly according to both the Catholic and oddly enough the Jungian viewpoint), is stirred by the sight of a beautiful yet perilous object. Doesn't Tolkien tell us that all that is gold does not glitter? That's a warning - beauty does not always mean goodness! It's all too easy, as a humble human being, to be stirred by such things to wrongdoing.

You could say that most of the evils of the modern world are due to Rings of power, beautiful, blinging objects that we all want - 4x4s, big mansions, plasma TVs, i-Pods, fancy trainers etc - we want this stuff, it's tempting. We might not kill for it (though some do) but we certainly get ourselves into debt for them, submit ourselves to virtual slavery to earn the money for them, are blinded by the sight of celebrities and the urge to live in at least some small way their lifestyle, even if it is just having a shinier car or faster internet connection so we too can use YouTube, because that's what we are. Humans. And we are by nature greedy. That celebrity we see is like Annatar, tempting us.

Anyway, back off the mad rambling stuff...Gollum maybe scares us and we shout "He's evil!" because frankly, any one of us could end up like him if driven mad by greed. Just as much as we have potential for good, we have potential for greed.

The Ring too, symbolises corruption, things of such unutterable power that many simply cannot resist them. I'm not surprised that so many see the Ring as symbolic of nuclear weapons - there is a strong resemblance in the symbolism. These are things of great terror and power (and not a little terrible beauty too in their capabilities) and possessing one confers the owner with immense bargaining power. Then once you have one, it's just about impossible to get rid of it, as who wants to get rid of their power? I'm someone who is against nuclear weapons, but I have to admit that even I feel a bit scared at the prospect of my country not having them when others do. The Ring works in that way - having it gives you power, potential, protection, no matter how evil it is.

Gollum doesn't know any of this when he gets the Ring, but nor did governments when they first got their warheads really realise what a "terrible beauty they had unleashed onto the world". The Ring is merely utterly beautiful, and it exerts a pull on Gollum, the human with his shadow, his sin, his potential for doing wrong like any of us. Would you cut off your own hand if offered a billion pounds? You might say of course not, but until put into that situation, none of us can really answer that. That's the warning Tolkien, as a Catholic, gives us, that we all have the potential to be Gollums, so be careful, and don't judge what you do not and cannot understand.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

And therein lies something that so many readers have simply missed. For Tolkien, as a Catholic, it would be impossible to view Gollum as simply 'evil', as he is a human being. For Tolkien, even the most 'evil' human would always retain some goodness. It's perfectly allowable to dislike the deeds that someone does, but it is not permissible to hate the person for what they do, that is going beyond the pale.

Do you know these readers, and did they express such opinions on this thread? Or is this statement made for the heck of it? I am not aware that anyone argued here that Gollum doesn't have good in him too, so I am curious about your answer. Having some good side doesn't exclude being culpable; it actually makes the responsibility even greater.

[The Might]

No hard thoughts davem, still perhaps such remarks should be avoided in the future for the sake of the discussion.
I personally still agree with Raynor on this one.
Yes, Gollum had good in him.
Yes, Gollum was very much tempted by the Ring, that had a great influence and power over him.
Yes, he is pitiable after spending 500 years alone in a cave.
So what?
Your last post is, sorry that I have to say this, pretty much off-topic Lalwende.
As far as I can tell, we are not discussing whether the Ring influenced or didn't influence Gollum, but whether he deserved or didn't deserve death for his actions.
Does it mean that if I drink too much or take drugs and that break the law that I am innocent and the police should sue Johnny Walker or Martini?
Of course not, that's not a reason to say Gollum is no longer responsible and culpable for his actions.
And also, we are not discussing whether Gollum is given here as an example for what you can become yourself.
Of course he can be seen as one, still this is not the topic of the discussion.
He commited crimes, and even though he has some...I don't know how they're called in English...maybe Raynor can translate this term (circumstante atenuante), he still is guilty for theose actions and should be punished for them.
Now, whether the punishment he would receive would be the capital one or not, probably would depend on who would give the sentence.
He killed Deagol, perhaps also babies of the woodmen, perhaps would have eaten Bilbo, attacked Frodo and Sam, planned to get them killed with Shelob's and perhaps some other things as well.
And for all those things he is guilty.

[davem]

The question still remains - to what extent was Gollum compos mentis? It strikes me that he was not 'sane'. Hence we can't judge him as we would judge a sane person. Now, a psychopath must be removed to a place of safety for the good of themselves & others - but they are not judged in the same way or by the same standards as sane people. This is because their perception of what is right & wrong, acceptable & unacceptable, is skewed. In order to judge Gollum as a criminal you would have to prove that he not only knew what he was doing, but that he knew that what he was doing was wrong. I don't see any real evidence of this in his behaviour. Even his near repentance on the stairs does not provide evidence that he felt betraying the Hobbits to Shelob was 'wrong' in any moral sense - merely that he felt sad that they 'had' to die that way.

Gollum seems to lack any 'higher' or rational consciousness. Quite fitting really, for a being who throughout the story acts almost as Frodo's projected 'id' or 'Shadow'. He is the repressed, the rejected, the despised. The thing nobody wants around &, while most of them would not actually execute him, most of them wish he would just go away & die out of their sight.

We know that even before the Ring came he was a 'mean little soul' (Tolkien's words), yet it seems odd that a 'Hobbit' child/adolescent should behave in the way Smeagol did. Either some childhood trauma affected him deeply, or he was born with some kind of psychological problems (possibly even some kind of autism) or brain damage. Whatever - Smeagol seems always to have been a uniquely 'odd' & alienated Hobbit. His behaviour - whatever its cause - lead him to be shunned & the resulting isolation seems to have profoundly affected his thinking - including his moral value system. Add to this the effect of the Ring & you have a uniquely screwed up individual. What standards of judgement can you possibly apply?

Hence Smeagol-Gollum is the most difficult character for the reader to deal with. He is simply as he is. We are in an impossible position - its not possible to judge him fairly because none of our standards can encompass him. He must be 'accepted' for what he is- almost a 'force of nature' (even in a way an 'Act of God'). He is like no other character. All the other characters make 'sense' - in a way Gollum doesn't. He is a dark mystery. There may be a light in his eyes but there is a darkness behind them. A 'void'. He is almost a personification of the Ring itself - a hard surface surrounding emptiness. He should not exist, & it would be easier if he did not. But he does exist & there it is.