Gollum's sacrifice

[Alfirin]

I suppose that is true. I'd like to say that they'd have the advantage that Gollum at least has actually gone toe to toe with orcs and won (assuming you take the usual conceit of assuming the orcs and goblins are one) but those 1. were young orcs 2. were single orcs 3. was on his home turf and 4. was while he was wearing the ring (which as I pointed out, would probably not be a smart move so close to Sauron, especially for someone already so deeply enthralled by it.) They again would have the andvantage of Gollum having as good (if not better) night vision than the orcs, but that really only works if the orcs sent one or two foot soldiers to investigate up close. If they sent out a large group, or simply adopted a "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to a band of three mysterios strangers (given how close they would have to pass, there are probably several orcish archers in the tower with good enough eyes to shoot them in a manner that would not immediately kill them (so they could be questioned) but leave them incapable of escaping.)
I guess we are getting into a plot corner. It's not only a matter of Gollums redemption changing the focus of the narritive from that point on, it's looking more and more like his lack of betrayal makes the narritive as it stands IMPOSSIBLE from that point on. In a certain sense, Gollums betreyal is NECCECARY for the mission to suceed. No wounded frodo means no Mithrl coat found, no mithril coat means no infighting to decimate the tower, no decimation means no way to get past.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

no decimation means no way to get past.

Perhaps their Lórien-cloaks - Frodo would of course still have his - would have aided their cause?

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Professor does not say "Frodo would have sacrificed himself", he instead says that Frodo would have to do the same- sacrificing himself. If he hadn't done so, he'd have failed. Frodo's (Gollum's too) sacrifices would depend on their Free Will. By the end of the book Frodo did not have Free Will, what makes you think Gollum would?

To exactly quote the letter:

Frodo in this tale actually takes the Ring and claims it, and certainly he too would have had a clear vision - but he was not given any time: he was immediately attacked by Gollum. When Sauron was aware of the seizure of the Ring his one hope was in its power: that the claimant would be unable to relinquish it until Sauron had time to deal with him. Frodo too would then probably, if not attacked, have had to take the same way: cast himself with the Ring into the abyss. If not he would of course have completely failed.

So what Professor Tolkien is saying here is that had Gollum not attacked, Frodo would have come to this realisation: he could either go forth and confront Sauron (impossible - he had claimed the Ring, but had to no degree mastered it: in such a confrontation Frodo would be "utterly overthrown") or throw himself into the Fire and so deny Sauron the Ring while simultaneously not having to live without it. We can see here that in this case destroying the Ring has a selfish aspect to it: not destroying the Ring to save the people of Middle-earth, but purely to spite Sauron and serve one's own (corrupt) self-interest. That's why I can see this option as being entirely possible within the Ring-corrupted mindset. Professor Tolkien of course states that it is not definite: the claimant might become sufficiently arrogantly deluded to exit the Sammath Naur with the encouragement of the Nazgûl and be destroyed by Sauron, but the point is that either choice (trying to wield the Ring or destroying it) was possible within the Ring-corrupted mindset because of the selfish and non-righteous motivations which would be behind destroying the Ring in this scenario.

[Lotrelf]

Frodo too would then probably, if not attacked, have had to take the same way: cast himself with the Ring into the abyss. If not he would of course have completely failed.

Isn't he saying that Frodo would have had to take the same way, instead Frodo would have taken the same way? And if he wouldn't have done(sacrificing himself), he would have failed completely.

Originally Posted by Zigùr

We can see here that in this case destroying the Ring has aselfishaspect to it: not destroying the Ring to save the people of Middle-earth, but purely to spite Sauron and serve one's own (corrupt) self-interest.

Would you please elaborate? In these circumstances, I do not think Frodo claimed the Ring, it was the Ring that claimed him instead. If Frodo was really going to commit suicide how it becomes selfish?

[Alfirin]

It's a little complicated to explain, but I'll try.



It has to do with Frodo's possible motivation for throwing himself in with the ring, had he done so. in the scenario he puts out (and that Tolkien's letter seems to insinuate) the destruction of the ring becomes less about destroying the ring and more about doing whatever is necessary to keep Sauron for being able to get it. The ring bearer still wants to posses the ring, and cannot bear to give it up, but realizes that he does not have sufficient power to maintain his grip on it should it come down to an actual face off against Sauron; that Sauron will defeat them and take the ring from them, and there is nothing they can do to stop him. So they throw themselves in with the ring so that they can keep Sauron from getting it without having to give it up themselves. Right up until the moment they die, the ring is theirs and theirs alone. It's sort of a "dog in the manger" situation.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Isn't he saying that Frodo would have had to take the same way, instead Frodo would have taken the same way? And if he wouldn't have done(sacrificing himself), he would have failed completely.

Yes, hence why I said in my original post that Frodo would have cast himself into the Fire if he wasn't enticed to leave the Sammath Naur. Professor Tolkien is saying that casting himself into the fire is the only thing Frodo could have done in his Ring-influenced state of mind if he didn't want Sauron to get the Ring back, but it's not necessarily what he would have done. As I said, he might have been deluded enough to go back outside.

Originally Posted by Alfirin

It has to do with Frodo's possible motivation for throwing himself in with the ring, had he done so. in the scenario he puts out (and that Tolkien's letter seems to insinuate) the destruction of the ring becomes less about destroying the ring and more about doing whatever is necessary to keep Sauron for being able to get it.

Exactly. Motives are important. Professor Tolkien is not a consequentialist, which is to say that he does not believe that the ends justify the means. His villains often do have that belief - Sauron and Saruman are perfectly content to use force to bring about their respective visions of an ordered world. The Professor takes it a little further, however. The motive is important too. Thus in this scenario the Ringbearer is destroying the Ring as the only way of "keeping" it and spiting Sauron, who would inevitably take it from them otherwise, and that is an evil motive, because the motive is only to not forsake this evil thing and to harm a rival for its possession. The motive is not to save the people of Middle-earth. So even though the outcome is the same as voluntarily destroying the Ring (which is actually impossible) the motivation here derives from the evil inspired by the Ring itself, which engenders only possessiveness and not pity for the suffering of others.