Did Gollum deserve death?

[Raynor]

I have no idea what Gollum's conscience told him - no-one can have. Which is my point. You are speculating & speculation (on your part or Tolkien's) is not 'fact',

You ignore that Gollum told Gandalf about all this, he recounted his inner fight stemming from remorse. It seems that not even the books are relevant to you when they don't suit your point. As far as Tolkien's statements, do you know of anything that refutes them? Anything? I have seen this argument before in this thread, a resolute hope that somehow Tolkien contradicts himself. Too bad nothing to contradict this shows up. And please demonstrate in what manner I quoted out of context, it seems a very gratuitous statement on your behalf.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

You ignore that Gollum told Gandalf about all this, he recounted his inner fight stemming from remorse. It seems that not even the books are relevant to you when they don't suit your point. As far as Tolkien's statements, do you know of anything that refutes them? Anything? I have seen this argument before in this thread, a resolute hope that somehow Tolkien contradicts himself. Too bad nothing to contradict this shows up. And please demonstrate in what manner I quoted out of context, it seems a very gratuitous statement on your behalf.

You quoted out of context because you are quoting sections of letters without the context (ie the letter which is being replied to)

Whatever Gollum told Gandalf is not to the point of what was going through his mind on the stairs. And what you fail to take into account is that Gollum is not sane & cannot be judged in the way a sane person would be judged.

[Raynor]

You quoted out of context because you are quoting sections of letters without the context (ie the letter which is being replied to)

The context is obviously LotR; when Tolkien starts speculating about conditions which did not actually occur, he stated so and which they were in particular. So did I, when I said that Gollum's repentance might have equalled the ring's mastery if it were allowed to develop.

Whatever Gollum told Gandalf is not to the point of what was going through his mind on the stairs.

You are changing the subject, this was not what we were talking about. See previous posts. Anyway, regarding the stairs, I gave as many elements if possible. If you stick to your personal interpretation, in disregard of them, it is your choice.

And what you fail to take into account is that Gollum is not sane & cannot be judged in the way a sane person would be judged.

He had some issues; that is true. But he surived through every challenge, and maintained the idea of good and bad, although he didn't live up to it, and needed lies to appease himself. See previous posts, see the books.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

You are missing my point and ignoring the concept of debate, in which common sense and logic ask one to not disregard evidences when they contradict one's position.

And you're missing the point that its a book & most readers will read the book & take from it what they will, that it will mean different things to different readers & they will be affected by it in different ways. It is not holy writ which has only a single 'proper' interpretation - which seems to be your understanding. What is 'relevant' & 'irrelevant' will be different for different readers. If a reader sees Gollum as a tragic victim of circumstances, a broken soul struggling for survival & wholeness (which is, for me, what the Ring symboises for him) you cannot state they are 'wrong' - this is not a maths test where 2+2 must = 4. To be forced to interpret Gollum (or anything else in the novel) in one specific way may ruin the story for the reader. It may no longer speak to them at all. Your position seems to boil down to 'You must read & understand the book in this way or you are WRONG!!!'

[Raynor]

Your position seems to boil down to 'You must read & understand the book in this way or you are WRONG!!!'

No, my position, stated for the third time now, is that we shouldn't ignore elements of the books when we make judgements and when we expect others to consider them valid, and not just purely personal interpretations. Anyway, I won't participate anymore in this thread, as long as it doesn't discuss the topic.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

No, my position, stated for the third time now, is that we shouldn't ignore elements of the books when we make judgements and when we expect others to consider them valid, and not just purely personal interpretations. Anyway, I won't participate anymore in this thread, as long as it doesn't discuss the topic.

And why does it matter to you how people read or understand the books? Any individual's reading of the book is 'valid'. We are talking about 'opinions' here. The topic is whether Gollum deserved death. People have stated their opinions on that & why they hold them. People are free to ignore elements of the books if they want.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

If anyone can interpret the books in any way they see fit, what was the point of such lengthly posts? It would have taken maybe a couple of sentences from each of us to state our personal opinions, after which there would no longer be any point in discussion, because there would be no further basis to support one side or the other. I can't help feeling that I wasted the six hours I spent posting above, since clearly all the research I did was worthless, and my opinion meaningless. After all, it's not based on objective proof: anyone can read whatever they want to into anything.

Rubbish. Even A-level literary criticism demands that you provide quotation and analysis to support your reactions to the text. Simply stating an opinion, even one that can be fully supported by such quotation and analysis will get you at best a C. In any case, why should we disregard Tolkien's opinion when it is not contradicted by the text? Even when discussing his own work he offers citations to support his arguments, so at the very least we should afford him the same status as any other knowledgeable critic. If our own opinions and reactions are all that matters, then this entire discussion forum is a complete waste of bandwidth: just a group of misfits talking at one another and demanding nothing less than slavish agreement. Wherever there are dissenting opinions, only recourse to an agreed objective standard prevents protracted and increasingly acrimonious stalemate, such as has arisen here.

Now that I've got that off my chest, if Gollum is not responsible for his actions then his near-repentence in TT is meaningless. If he is responsible for his actions then he is also morally culpable. If we are to give him credit for coming so close to a change of heart, we must also give him responsibility for his crimes. Indeed, true pity could never be offered to the insane, since their madness forms a third party to which their crimes can be attributed. One cannot be forgiven for the sins of someone else. Therefore, in order to be rehabilitated and healed, Gollum must be fully and knowingly culpable in all his actions. His madness: what I suppose would popularly be called 'multiple personality disorder' results from his attempts to externalise his own guilt, and to deny his actions. He is not the only character to be faced with this decision: Saruman is also offered the chance to repent, atone and be forgiven; he too denies it out of pride and distrust, and so falls from grace. It is a hard moral philosophy, but one that can be traced through Tolkien's letters and his fiction; it seems even harder today, when we are encouraged to do as we please, and told that hard decisions are in some way unfair or to be avoided.

Conversely the 'kind' approach that Gollum is mad and not responsible also denies him mercy in its fullest form, which is the utmost cruelty.

[The Might]

I very much agree with Squatter on this on, he definitely brought up an important point in the second part of the post.
Lalwende, you seem to have missed my point.
I never questioned that the Ring didn't influence Gollum, all that I questioned is if this actually matters.
As I already said, if someone who is drunk comits a crime, is he innocent just because he wasn't clear in mind at that time? I doubt it.
Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Might

As I already said, if someone who is drunk comits a crime, is he innocent just because he wasn't clear in mind at that time? I doubt it.
Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?

But what if his drink was spiked & didn't realise?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Might

Lalwende, you seem to have missed my point.
I never questioned that the Ring didn't influence Gollum, all that I questioned is if this actually matters.
As I already said, if someone who is drunk comits a crime, is he innocent just because he wasn't clear in mind at that time? I doubt it.

It does matter because the Ring is an incredible influence, to the degree that there wouldn't be the story without it! All that effort that Frodo and Sam (and others, but these two especially) go through in order to destroy it was about as extreme as it gets, and there has to be a very good reason for sacrificing people to that extent. The quest is anything but trivial, and seeing what happened to Gollum serves to underline the importance of what is given up in order to fulfill the quest.

Someone committing crimes due to drink is not a good analogy as a couple of beers are far less dangerous than a Ring of Power, and the effects of a beer or two last a few hours, but the effects of wearing/bearing a Ring last forever.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

If anyone can interpret the books in any way they see fit, what was the point of such lengthly posts? It would have taken maybe a couple of sentences from each of us to state our personal opinions, after which there would no longer be any point in discussion, because there would be no further basis to support one side or the other. I can't help feeling that I wasted the six hours I spent posting above, since clearly all the research I did was worthless, and my opinion meaningless. After all, it's not based on objective proof: anyone can read whatever they want to into anything.

To which I can only reply that that is what people do, because people are affected by stories in different ways & take different things from them. For some Bombadil is one of the most significant characters Tolkien created, For others he is so annoying that they skip the three chapters in which he makes an appearance. I personally have spent more than six hours on this thread because I enjoyed doing it. I'm not even sure I agree now with everything I posted - though I meant it at the time. I was exploring ideas & concepts which may have gone off at all kinds of tangents, but at least I hope that some readers were entertained or provoked.

Rubbish. Even A-level literary criticism demands that you provide quotation and analysis to support your reactions to the text. Simply stating an opinion, even one that can be fully supported by such quotation and analysis will get you at best a C. In any case, why should we disregard Tolkien's opinion when it is not contradicted by the text? Even when discussing his own work he offers citations to support his arguments, so at the very least we should afford him the same status as any other knowledgeable critic. If our own opinions and reactions are all that matters, then this entire discussion forum is a complete waste of bandwidth: just a group of misfits talking at one another and demanding nothing less than slavish agreement. Wherever there are dissenting opinions, only recourse to an agreed objective standard prevents protracted and increasingly acrimonious stalemate, such as has arisen here.

Oh, its not an 'acrimonious stalemate' as far as I'm concerned. It was mild teasing on both sides - at least that's how I took it. A few custard pies have been thrown that's all. Anyway, this is not a-level literary criticism & I'm not looking for marks (the inverted snob in me likes to proudly proclaim I never even got as far as taking a-levels). I don't accept that

'If our own opinions and reactions are all that matters, then this entire discussion forum is a complete waste of bandwidth: just a group of misfits talking at one another and demanding nothing less than slavish agreement.

is the case. I've learned a great deal about other poster's opinions & perceptions on this whole matter. This whole question will never be solved to the satisfaction of everybody. I reiterate that if anyone expects all readers accept a specific, definitive interpretation of the text that doesn't touch their hearts then the expectee is bound for disappointment. I will not say my reading of the text is the 'right' one, let alone a 'superior' one. I'll simply offer it as mine, & defend it if anyone criticises it.

Now that I've got that off my chest, if Gollum is not responsible for his actions then his near-repentence in TT is meaningless. If he is responsible for his actions then he is also morally culpable. If we are to give him credit for coming so close to a change of heart, we must also give him responsibility for his crimes.

But as I stated, we are not told exactly what he is 'repenting' of - all of his acts, some of them, one of them. Is it simply the act of leading Frodo to be killed by Shelob? Can we draw the conclusion from this single incident of a moment's duration that he is 'repenting' of anything more than an act that will lead to Frodo's death, & wishing that he could get the Ring for himself without hurting his 'Master'. For all Raynor's quotes I can't see that Gollum at any point ceased to desire to possess the Ring.

Indeed, true pity could never be offered to the insane, since their madness forms a third party to which their crimes can be attributed. One cannot be forgiven for the sins of someone else.

No, one can't - but I don't see how this prevents us offering pity to the insane.

BTW - very good points. I would have repped you, but I've been lax in my repping duties of late.....