Was Tolkien being a hypocrite?

[Kronos]

Was Tolkien a hypocrite in regards to his feelings towards Frodo and Gollum. He expresses many views on Gollum in his letters but in one he expresses the feeling that Gollum may not receive salvation because he ended in "wickedness".

By wickedness we have to assume that he means trying to reclaim the Ring and doing so by force.But was he being too harsh on Gollum?

He also reflects on Frodo claiming the Ring at the end and not being able to destroy it. He reflects that this did not mean that Frodo failed because the Ring's will becomes stronger as they near the place of it's making and no-one could be expected to resist at Mount Doom itself. In this way he absolves Frodo of failure and states that he had done all that he could be expected to do.

This seems a little generous when you compare it to what Gollum could be expected to do.
Gollum had born the Ring for far longer than Frodo and therefore was more corrupted by it. As he neared Mount Doom so his desire would likewise grow. In the same way as Frodo's did.
Why would we expect Gollum to be able to resist when his chances of it were probably far worse than Frodo's.

If Sam had withheld the Ring from Frodo would not Frodo have tried to reclaim it? Using all means necessary no doubt.
At the ultimate moment it seems to me that Frodo obviously desired the Ring for himself, was extremely likely to use every power at his disposal to retain it, and would attempt to slay any who attempted to withhold it from him should they get it.

Was this any different to Gollum, who had longer exposure and started out on the journey with far less chance of withstanding it than Frodo.

Can you condemn one whilst praise the other?
Should the author, as a Christian, assume that one of them would be denied salvation?

Was Tolkien favouring one and damning the other too harshly?

[Evisse the Blue]

It may appear that Tolkien was condemning Gollum unfairly, but remember also that he was not entirely good before stumbling upon the Ring: the 'wickedness' was there, or else he wouldn't have slain Deagol after only a brief glimpse of the Ring.

In my opinion, Tolkien was aware of the fine line between good and evil, and how even an instant of evilness in a lifetime of virtue may doom one to eternal pain. Gollum had many instances of evil, but also quite a few chances of redemtion, that he failed to take.

What made Tolkien 'favour' Frodo - justly, I deem, and what ultimately saved him and the rest of the world is his ability to show kindness and mercy to Gollum.

[Dunadun]

Also, Frodo did desire to destroy the Ring when it did not have control over him. Gollum desired it all the time. Gollum was consumed by greed for the Ring while Frodo wanted to destroy it.
The reason that Frodo couldn't destroy the ring was it had such a strong hold of him that he couldn't even remember home.

[Finwe]

Frodo had one redeeming quality that Gollum never had... mercy. Throughout his ownership of the Ring and the journey to Mordor, Frodo constantly showed mercy, even where he would have been fully justified and understood if he had acted like an insomniac crab. The rest of the Fellowship would have understood if he became possessive, but he didn't. He had the chance to do it, but he didn't. That made Frodo so much stronger and nobler than Gollum. The latter had many chances to redeem himself, but he didn't. For example, Gollum had probably gone through the Pass of Cirith Ungol many times, safely. He could have easily shown Frodo and Sam a safe path through. But he didn't. He could have told them that there was an easier path through. But he didn't. That is what separates Frodo from Gollum.