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.

[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.