If Smeagol had not died...?

[Melilot Brandybuck]

In re-reading LOTR for the umpteenth time, I got to wondering. Had Frodo managed to destroy the Ring on his own, and Smeagol had not died, could Smeagol have been rehabilitated? Clearly he would never return to who he was when he lived his youth by the river, but could he have gone on to become a productive member of society?

Had he lived, the hobbits or the elves or maybe Gandalf even, would have had to take responsibility for him. Perhaps under the influence of the elves, and without the dreadful pull of the Ring, Smeagol could have spent the remainder of his life doing something positive.

I could see him given a little cottage of his own at Rivendell. The elves would not allow him to live there for nothing, he would have to "earn his keep," perhaps he would be assigned to work on the land as a gardener or groundsman. Gradually he might begin to heal. Would he ever be pleasant to be around? Could he ever be trusted? I like to think he could. But then, as one of the Ring bearers, and one who was cruelly used by Sauron, would he have been allowed to sail into the West? What do you think?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I think he might have been trusted, and indeed, that he would have been rehabilited. If he managed to get past his old self, and mainly, with the Ring finally being gone - that would be a relief. And I find the idea of Sam Gamgee living in Bag End with his family and Sméagol working on the lawn outside the house quite cute (in Bag End! Not Rivendell - see below why.)

However, there are a few things which make me doubt. First, sailing to the West - indeed, I am really not sure if he would have been admitted, even to some "healing stay" on Eresseä. Let us not forget that he was a murderer. That does not quite fit, and I get the feeling that he won't get away with it so easily in Arda. Another thing is if he himself would want to be there: I mean, staying among the Elves - not sure if he will like it. In the Shire, perhaps, yes, that's possibly the only place where I can imagine him living. But among the Elves?

One "smooth" alternative would be that at the same year when Frodo will be leaving Middle-Earth, Gollum would simply die of old age. Why not: he was old enough, far older than Bilbo, for example. He would die peacefully, among the hobbits. That will be also a part of the signal for Frodo to leave these shores at last.

One side thing - I find it interesting to think of this; you have to consider that Gollum would have probably met Bilbo again, had he remained alive. That might have been nice, don't you think? A bit weird, perhaps, but...? I imagine it in a similar way as I imagine Frodo might have returned to good terms with the Sackville-Bagginses after his return home.

[Elmo]

If you think anyone who likes to eat babies could ever be rehabilitated...

[Bêthberry]

Wasn't it the Ring that kept Gollem alive for these many long centuries? He is something over 500, almost 600, years old when he dies, a span far exceeding that of most Hobbits.

If so, then with the Ring destroyed, would he not then succumb to his very old, unnatural age, facing the same fate as the Nazgul? And even if he survived, it is quite possible he would face the tremendous psychological trauma of suddenly knowing that his Presciousss had been destroyed. He's already been driven into a kind of split personality. The loss might bring on a final breakdown, complete and utter insanity that not even the hands of the King could heal--or Elrond, who was unable to help his wife recover from her trauma at the hands of orcs.

I really don't see Gollem as a gardener, although I know that is one of the calming activities made available to those with alzheimer's. Perhaps fishing would be more in line with his interests?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, the point is, he was not bound to the Ring in any "metaphysical" way like the Nazgul were, in the simple language, he was not held together by a spell. He would not suddenly die, the same way as Bilbo did not suddenly die - it's not that now all these years he gained would disappear upon destroying the Ring. But he would perhaps be close to die of old age, yes, like I said above. Mainly, because there will be no will for him now to keep living: no hunt for the Preciouss, which was the main "motor" for him to drive him to live. Perhaps he could find a new meaning of his life after this, if somebody (Frodo, Gandalf...) helped him to find one. And he would certainly not have any active "job", truly. He would rather dwell somewhere in retirement, much like Bilbo in Rivendell, and eventually do some simple things to pass his time, often probably just walking around in the nature, or fishing. But even the gardening is not that far - I mean, Sméagol liked to "dig in the ground" (perhaps he will eat some nice wormses while gardening. And the rest he will put in his bait bucket).

But as for the second part of your post, you are being too pessimistic, Bb. I think he would be able to cope - but only under the condition that he would be able to put away the thought of possessing it willingly. Like Bilbo, who passed the Ring to Frodo willingly. That was the important thing here, and here it would pass on to the psychological level.

[Gordis]

You are all too optimistic.

I believe Gollum would almost instantly die with the Ring destroyed, turn into dust literally. It was the Ring that kept the 500++ years old hobbit alive.

Note that after the Ring had been destroyed, Bilbo aged very fast:

Arwen: "For you know the power of that thing which is now destroyed; and all that was done by that power is now passing away. But your kinsman possessed this thing longer than you. He is ancient in years now, according to his kind; and he awaits you, for he will not again make any long journey save one."-LOTR, Many partings.

I think it was like that. Bilbo was 50 when he got the Ring. He remained the same age (physically) until 3001, then started to age again. So by 3018 he was 50+17=67 years old physically. With the Ring destroyed, he became 111+17=128 years old all of a sudden, which is very old for a hobbit. Still Bilbo didn't die immediately: the Old Took reached 130 without any magic rings.

As for Gollum, let us say he was 17 in TA 2463, when he got the Ring. He was physically still 17 when he lost it in 2941. He started to age normally, so by 3018 he was 17+77= 94 years old. He was still fit and quite well adapted to the life in the wilderness. In addition there might have been some lingering effects of the ring, making those who had it once age at a slower rate afterwards.
However, Gollum knew that with the Ring destroyed he would die (becoming suddenly 573 years old and thus dead):

And when Precious goes we’ll die, yes, die into the dust.’

And if hypothetically Gollum would have survived the destruction of the Ring, his future would be bleak: madness and misery. Frodo was unable to recover from the shock of seeing the Ring gone, and he had the Ring for only 18 years. What then about Gollum who possessed the evil thing for 500 years? He was better off in the lava of Orodruin, I believe. At least his shrunken tortured soul has found peace.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Gordis

I believe Gollum would almost instantly die with the Ring destroyed, turn into dust literally. It was the Ring that kept the 500++ years old hobbit alive.

Well, what you lay in front of us here is very well calculated, but I don't accept it so easily. Certainly not Arwen's statement: of course Bilbo was ancient in his age now, and of course now that the Ring was destroyed, it had some effect - on all that's been done with the power of the Rings, we know about that well (Lothlórien etc.). But that does not mean that all of a sudden, the things that were not really closely tied to the Ring (like the Nazgul) would have crumbled into dust in a minute. Bilbo (and Gollum) would just start to age even faster now than usual, true, but I do not think that it would be so dramatic.

As for your quote about dust - I believe Gollum was speaking a bit metaphorically here. He just meant that he would lose the meaning of his life, which would be the same as losing the life itself.

And if hypothetically Gollum would have survived the destruction of the Ring, his future would be bleak: madness and misery. Frodo was unable to recover from the shock of seeing the Ring gone, and he had the Ring for only 18 years. What then about Gollum who possessed the evil thing for 500 years? He was better off in the lava of Orodruin, I believe. At least his shrunken tortured soul has found peace.

All right, I more or less agree with what you say about Gollum in the end - his ending was really probably the most, well, fitting, or how to put it - one still has to consider that it would be really weird for him to survive; let us not forget that in Middle-Earth, there are certain powers at work which seem to kind of balance people's fates, and it does not seem to me - from the way I understand Arda - that Gollum the murderer would get away with it so easily. Please, now I strongly appeal on you not to get me wrong. You have to look at it from the "outside", not from the "inside". The way Gollum died just fits the pattern of the tale of Arda, if he didn't, it would seem weird. That does not mean I am saying he deserved to die, and certainly not by some inner mechanism of law that would work inside Arda. It does not seem to me to work like that. It was just fitting that he died, putting all questions of morality or law away (putting them away = not even thinking about them! Not even thinking whether they do or do not exist). Okay, I am not sure if I made much sense, but I hope the point can be seen at least a bit.

Err... all right, whatever, but what was I saying? Yes, that I agree with the end - but not with the beginning of what you say. I think, like I said, if Gollum let go, he would be able to get rid of it. And was it so that Frodo was really unable to recover from the shock of seeing the Ring gone? Does it really say so?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I think one must defer to Gandalf on the chance of Gollum being redeemed.

I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.

And to be redeemed he probably would need to live for a period of time to be
really healed, although most likely in the Shire, not Aman.
However, the Professor's theorizing on an alternate Gollum may be of
some value and not require a post-Ring long-lived Gollum

In Letters # 246 (September, 1963)
(If Sam had had pity on Gollum)

The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach
Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The
interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would
have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and
the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not
have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted
and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design)
to o satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would
have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as in the actual Tale). But
'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for
Frodo's sake and voluntarily have cast himself into the fiery abyss.

[skip spence]

In a perfect world Gollum could have been rehabilitated yes. The real world however (well, let's say the fantasy world of the Shire) would not receive the little baby-eating rascal too well I'm afraid. Frodo was or became rather saintlike and had a special understanding of the hell Gollum had been through because he knew what the ring could do to a fella. Therefore he came somewhat close at making Gollum repent. Had the Shire been populated exclusively by post-ring Frodos there's a chance he'd make it all the way. Unfortunately, not all Shire-folk would show the kind of tolerance required, and once scorned Smeagol would revert to his bad old ways, leading to a downwards spiral and so forth... So no, not a chance. Maybe in Amsterdam...

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But that does not mean that all of a sudden, the things that were not really closely tied to the Ring (like the Nazgul) would have crumbled into dust in a minute. Bilbo (and Gollum) would just start to age even faster now than usual, true, but I do not think that it would be so dramatic.

I have to disagree. IMO, Bilbo and Gollum were much more closely tied to the One Ring than the nazgul. Sauron himself was tied to the One. The nazgul were primarily tied to the Nine, not the One. It were the Nine Rings that made them wraiths. It was the One that had prolonged Gollum's life far beyond his normal life span.

The One had melted, and everything done by its power directly crumbled immediately: Sauron became disembodied, Barad-Dur fell to ruin, Bilbo has become 128 years old all of a sudden +Gollum would have turned to dust, had he not fallen down into the lava.

The Three, the rest of the Seven and the Nine Rings were not melted, they only started to lose there power: slower or faster, but not at once. The golden Wood hasn't disappeared in a cloud of yellow smoke, it simply started to fade fast, as the power that had supported it, the Power of Nenya, was passing away.

What about the nazgul?

And into the heart of the storm, with a cry that pierced all other sounds, tearing the clouds asunder, the Nazgûl came, shooting like flaming bolts, as caught in the fiery ruin of hill and sky they crackled, withered, and went out. LOTR

The nazgul perished in the explosion of Orodruin, because they happened to be quite close to the volcano. What if they were a bit further away or already in Sammath Naur?

My answer is: they wouldn't have died immediately. This conclusion is supported by Tolkien's earlier outlines where the nazgul are very much alive, bodies and all, after the destruction of the Ring:

Perhaps better would be to make Gollum repent in a way. He is utterly wretched, and commits suicide. Gollum has it, he cried. No one else shall have it. I will destroy you all. He leaps into crack. Fire goes mad. Frodo is like to be destroyed.

Nazgûl shape at the door. Frodo is caught in the fire-chamber and cannot get out!

"Here we all end together," said the Ring Wraith.

Frodo is too weary and lifeless to say nay.

You first, said a voice, and Sam (with Sting?) stabs the Black Rider from behind.

Frodo and Sam escape and flee down mountain-side. But they could not escape the running molten lava. They see Eagles driving the Nazgûl. Eagles rescue them.

- The Story of Sam and Frodo in Mordor, Version I, Sauron Defeated, p. 5

But note: the nazgul sounds suicidal: "Here we all end together," he says. He knows he has little left to live. With the destruction of the Ruling Ring, the power of the Nine would swiftly wane, so the Nazgûl were doomed all the same. Sooner or later, the Nine Rings would loose their power and that's how the Nazgûl would end.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

All right, I more or less agree with what you say about Gollum in the end - his ending was really probably the most, well, fitting, or how to put it - one still has to consider that it would be really weird for him to survive;

Yes, I agree.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Gordis

I have to disagree. IMO, Bilbo and Gollum were much more closely tied to the One Ring than the nazgul. Sauron himself was tied to the One. The nazgul were primarily tied to the Nine, not the One. It were the Nine Rings that made them wraiths. It was the One that had prolonged Gollum's life far beyond his normal life span.

The One had melted, and everything done by its power directly crumbled immediately: Sauron became disembodied, Barad-Dur fell to ruin, Bilbo has become 128 years old all of a sudden +Gollum would have turned to dust, had he not fallen down into the lava.

The Three, the rest of the Seven and the Nine Rings were not melted, they only started to lose there power: slower or faster, but not at once. The golden Wood hasn't disappeared in a cloud of yellow smoke, it simply started to fade fast, as the power that had supported it, the Power of Nenya, was passing away.

Well, I disagree, although we should probably not get too deeply into that, as that would be for another thread. But whatever, I think that the Rings - Three, Nine etc. - lost their power immediately. So, speaking in a very simple way, Galadriel could not anymore "do any magic" with her Ring (like if a painter runs out of paint for the picture - he cannot add anything more), but the things made with the Ring started to vanish slowly, like everything else in Arda did, impossible to be renewed and alien to the "age of Men", indeed, like something preserved from ages past, which should not have been here anymore under normal circumstances (the same as Gollum). You have a dead Neanderthalian frozen in a glacier, his body is preserved. You put him in a freezer (the Ring). Your freezer becomes broken (the Ring destroyed), the ice starts to melt, as soon as it melts completely, nothing prevents the body to dissolve in the way it should have ages ago.

What about the nazgul?
The nazgul perished in the explosion of Orodruin, because they happened to be quite close to the volcano. What if they were a bit further away or already in Sammath Naur?

My answer is: they wouldn't have died immediately. This conclusion is supported by Tolkien's earlier outlines where the nazgul are very much alive, bodies and all, after the destruction of the Ring:

This really sounds interesting, but it would be certainly for another thread (Let me just say that I am not quick to accept this theory, even with the outlining - it was just a draft after all, not thought through completely.)

[Bêthberry]

Thanks, Gordis, for your optimistic appraisal of these posts.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But as for the second part of your post, you are being too pessimistic, Bb. I think he would be able to cope - but only under the condition that he would be able to put away the thought of possessing it willingly. Like Bilbo, who passed the Ring to Frodo willingly. That was the important thing here, and here it would pass on to the psychological level.

It isn't pessimism that underlays my interpretation, but a comparison with others who bore the Ring, such as Bilbo and Frodo. If Frodo, who carried the Ring and wore it but briefly, and who apparently was an hospitable, kind person to start with--that is, someone with a sense of personal detachment, whose superego manges his id well--was unable to find healing from his guilt at having accepted it, then how likely is it that Gollem, who carried and wore the Ring for decades if not hundreds of years, and who may have been surly and uncompassionate to start with--that is, someone without conscience, whose id was possibly the strongest of his mental aspects , would cope? His attachment would have been tenfold, hundredfold, over Frodo's, and other than that brief flame which Sam extinguised, it's impossible to say if he would feel any remorse or change. And as for Bilbo, I'm not so sure he did of pure heart and mind hand the Ring over to Frodo. It was with mixed feelings and overseen by Gandalf.

Originally Posted by Gordis

Yes, I agree.

Tolkien's entire theory of eucatastrophe would have been undone had the ending not transpired as it did. And after all, are there many readers who, on first reading, have anticipated how the Ring will be destroyed? It is at once the most original of climaxes and the least expected. It is one of the aspects of LotR which raises it far above most fantasy, where readers can easily surmise the outcome and the characters' fates. So Gollem's survival and repentence would have produced a lesser tale aesthetically.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, I disagree, although we should probably not get too deeply into that, as that would be for another thread. But whatever, I think that the Rings - Three, Nine etc. - lost their power immediately. So, speaking in a very simple way, Galadriel could not anymore "do any magic" with her Ring (like if a painter runs out of paint for the picture - he cannot add anything more), but the things made with the Ring started to vanish slowly, like everything else in Arda did, impossible to be renewed and alien to the "age of Men", indeed, like something preserved from ages past, which should not have been here anymore under normal circumstances (the same as Gollum).

You see Legate, if the Three (and the Nine) had lost their power immediately, like the One, then the effect of this on the rings' creations would have been similar. Barad-Dur didn't start to wane slowly - it disappeared in a blast, its foundations suddenly gone. As did Morannon. Sauron had lost shape in mere seconds, and, according to your theory, his material body would be slowly losing substance instead. Nay, there was difference.

Also, once the Rings lose power, they become visible to everyone, it seems. Frodo had traveled with Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel back from Gondor, but he saw their Rings only on the road to the Havens two years later, in 3021. I think it took two years for the Three to lose power.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

It isn't pessimism that underlays my interpretation, but a comparison with others who bore the Ring, such as Bilbo and Frodo. If Frodo, who carried the Ring and wore it but briefly, and who apparently was an hospitable, kind person to start with--that is, someone with a sense of personal detachment, whose superego manges his id well--was unable to find healing from his guilt at having accepted it, then how likely is it that Gollem, who carried and wore the Ring for decades if not hundreds of years, and who may have been surly and uncompassionate to start with--that is, someone without conscience, whose id was possibly the strongest of his mental aspects , would cope? His attachment would have been tenfold, hundredfold, over Frodo's, and other than that brief flame which Sam extinguised, it's impossible to say if he would feel any remorse or change. And as for Bilbo, I'm not so sure he did of pure heart and mind hand the Ring over to Frodo. It was with mixed feelings and overseen by Gandalf.

I can't agree more...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It isn't pessimism that underlays my interpretation, but a comparison with others who bore the Ring, such as Bilbo and Frodo.

Well, all right, let me formulate it in different words: it's lack of optimism. Or, lack of hope (this estel that works so strongly in Tolkien's works) for Gollum, simply, not believing that it would be possible for him to get rid of his "addiction" to the Ring, despite all his natural dispositions (or the habit, the "addiction" he had developed). I think that is certainly out of place, not to believe that there was hope for Gollum. (Even Gandalf thinks that.)

Originally Posted by Gordis

You see Legate, if the Three (and the Nine) had lost their power immediately, like the One, then the effect of this on the rings' creations would have been similar. Barad-Dur didn't start to wane slowly - it disappeared in a blast, its foundations suddenly gone. As did Morannon. Sauron had lost shape in mere seconds, and, according to your theory, his material body would be slowly losing substance instead. Nay, there was difference.

Hmm... well yes, though one can argue that Sauron himself put so much into the One, he put a part of himself into it - that was the point of Tolkien, I am sure, he makes it clear on the analogical tale of the Drugh Aghan and his statue in the UT. There is nothing like that in the relation of the bearers of the Three, Seven and Nine to their Rings. (With the Nazgul, what I consider the problem is the fact that they were dead - Bilbo, Frodo and Gollum were not. The Ring[s? All right, now just thinking along these lines, that might go to further lengths than we might like. Let's leave this topic now.] made them un-dead, after the destruction, you can remove the prefix: they just became dead.)
.
However, your point is taken. It is certainly worth thinking about and you are right that one cannot just dismiss these facts.

Also, once the Rings lose power, they become visible to everyone, it seems. Frodo had traveled with Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel back from Gondor, but he saw their Rings only on the road to the Havens two years later, in 3021. I think it took two years for the Three to lose power.

But I certainly cannot accept this as a proof. The Ringbearers simply wore the Rings uncovered, in any way, it is even told there that they bore it openly - so emphasised, I believe it was simply so that this was the last journey of the Ringbearers, that was the last sign that the time of the Rings is over, and so they were wearing them totally openly - in all ways you can imagine. Back then when returning home, it was not yet quite the time - not that it would have mattered, but when going to the Grey Havens, it also might be that it had to be clear that they are the Ringbearers, and they were openly showing everybody that they are leaving these shores.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, all right, let me formulate it in different words: it's lack of optimism. Or, lack of hope (this estel that works so strongly in Tolkien's works) for Gollum, simply, not believing that it would be possible for him to get rid of his "addiction" to the Ring, despite all his natural dispositions (or the habit, the "addiction" he had developed). I think that is certainly out of place, not to believe that there was hope for Gollum. (Even Gandalf thinks that.)

Um, not a lack of hope so much as a sombre, sobre recognition of just how much hope it would take. Gollem would certainly need his road to Damascus. Gandalf certainly shows mercy to Gollem and pity. But I don't think that Gandalf specifically believes there is hope for the possibility of repentance for Gollem. He counsels against serving death out of judgement. His faith is that he senses Gollem may be connected with the destruction of the Ring--and that Gollem's "premature" death, if you will, would harm that. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by Gandalf, The Shadow of the Past

For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Um, not a lack of hope so much as a sombre, sobre recognition of just how much hope it would take. Gollem would certainly need his road to Damascus. Gandalf certainly shows mercy to Gollem and pity. But I don't think that Gandalf specifically believes there is hope for the possibility of repentance for Gollem. He counsels against serving death out of judgement. His faith is that he senses Gollem may be connected with the destruction of the Ring--and that Gollem's "premature" death, if you will, would harm that. There's a difference.

Yes, I know that, but still, I think still there is this possibility hanging somewhere in the air that it would have been possible for him to recover.

As for what you said, now Gollum's road to Damascus, now that would be something impressive indeed (Though one wonders how much his meeting with Frodo might not have been *almost* something of that sort for him.)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Yes, I know that, but still, I think still there is this possibility hanging somewhere in the air that it would have been possible for him to recover.

As for what you said, now Gollum's road to Damascus, now that would be something impressive indeed (Though one wonders how much his meeting with Frodo might not have been *almost* something of that sort for him.)

Perhaps, having restored Saruman to the wise ways of the White Council in a previous WW game, you can now contemplate Gollem recovering in a WW game.