[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.....