Did Gollum deserve death?

Gollum was a psychotic serial murderer, a traitor & a liar. He was obviously going to set out to continue this if the Elves released him from Mirkwood. Did he deserve death?:-

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” (FR I:2, 68–69)

Gandalf thinks not, but he also sees that Sauron sent Gollum out of Mordor on an errand. Gollum was perhaps the first ever prisoner to be freed out of Mordor alive & more or less unharmed. Does this mean he had agreed to come under the service of the Darklord? If so, doesn't a servant of Sauron deserve death, or at least substantial punishment by being locked up for eternity? In the real world Gollum would be put to death.

[Folwren]

Gandalf didn't say that Gollum didn't deserve to die! He said Gollum did deserve to die. However, he told Frodo not to be eager to deal out death in judgement. Death is final, and it's too final for a hobbit like Frodo to deal out. It wasn't Frodo's place to judge people unto death, that's what I think Gandalf was saying.

As for Gollum deserving death...yes, I'd say so. He deserved death many times before the LotR began, and he deserved death many times during the LotR. But not everyone gets what they deserve. Other forces work, rather, and for all that Gollum did, no one punished him as he deserved (not even Faramir). That other force had a job for him to do. Justice was still dealt out in the end, but not the way Frodo would have planned, nor Gandalf foreseen.

He shouldn't be locked up for eternity, regardless his crime. Besides, that wouldn't be possible in that world, would it?

Originally Posted by Folwren

Gandalf didn't say that Gollum didn't deserve to die! He said Gollum did deserve to die. However, he told Frodo not to be eager to deal out death in judgement. Death is final, and it's too final for a hobbit like Frodo to deal out. It wasn't Frodo's place to judge people unto death, that's what I think Gandalf was saying.

Where the plague did Gandalf say Gollum did deserve to die?? It seems much more like he is making a case that Gollum deserves a chance to see if he could recover & recapture his former self.

[Morwen]

[QUOTE=Folwren]Gandalf didn't say that Gollum didn't deserve to die! He said Gollum did deserve to die. However, he told Frodo not to be eager to deal out death in judgement. Death is final, and it's too final for a hobbit like Frodo to deal out. It wasn't Frodo's place to judge people unto death, that's what I think Gandalf was saying.

QUOTE]

While he addresses Frodo specifically, I thought that by adding the words "For even the wise cannot see all ends" Gandalf's comment implied that not even the wise should deal out death in judgment. Since their knowledge of the future is imperfect, they don't know what role someone may play in the evolving tale of Arda and therefore should not issue a final punishment such as death.

Did Gollum deserve to die? I certainly had no problem with him falling into the cracks of doom. By then he was beyond any sort of redemption. But I agree with Mithalwen that he also deserved to die in the sense that he had far outlived his time. IIRC when he comes upon the sleeping pair of Frodo and Sam in Cirith Ungol (??), Tolkien describes him as old and weary, having lived to long. Death would have been a release.

[Kuruharan]

Where the plague did Gandalf say Gollum did deserve to die??

Right here...

Deserves it! I daresay he does.

[Folwren]

Thank you Kuruharan. Right in the quote you quoted, Mansun, Gandalf said he deserved it.

Just because someone can not see into the future does not mean that they can not deal out punishment. There are crimes that deserve death, and even mortals and those that are immortal and wise are allowed and possibly expected to kill them for it.

Consider it thusly - If Bilbo had killed Gollum when he had a chance, Gandalf wouldn't have rebuked him, would he? Probably said something along the lines, "Well, well, well, I think there's more to this hobbit than meets the eye at first."

Or, if Gandalf himself had come across Gollum cradle stealing, I somehow think he wouldn't've spared his life.

Gandalf's rebuke to Frodo was not a question of 'If Gollum were brought to court for his crimes he wouldn't be killed' it was 'That's not very nice of you, Frodo, nor very wise. The fact that Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance should tell you that Gollum's time hadn't yet come. Don't be so hasty in such a matter and think before you speak and act.'

[Morwen]

I don't equate "dealing out death in judgment" with situations that involve self defense or the defense of others. Bilbo killing Gollum in self defense or a parent killing Gollum for attempting to murder his child is not the same as Frodo sitting in his living room making pronouncements on the fate of someone.

I agree that Gandalf is telling Frodo don't rush to judgment. But as for Gandalf's personal position on "dealing out death in judgment" he refrains from doing so at least twice, in the case of Gollum and Saruman. In the case of Gollum, Legolas reports at the Council of Elrond that Gandalf had told the elves of Mirkwood to hope for a cure. In the case of Saruman, in response to a question by either Merry or Pippin as to what he plans to do with Saruman, he states that he doesn't plan to do anything to him and regrets that much that was good now festers in the tower. Both Gollum and Saruman have done things that one might possibly kill them for but Gandalf does not suggest that such a thing be done and others seem to content to follow his lead.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Right here...

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I agree. Such a discussion is ultimately pointless as nobody will agree!

Anyway...there's a very good point about what words Gandalf uses. "I daresay..." is incredibly different to "I say...". Remembering that Tolkien was English, it's important to consider how English people use the language, and "I daresay..." is very often used when someone really means "I think you're talking out of your backside, actually". As in when you get into a taxi and the driver lets fly with a stream of racist comments - "I think they should all be sent home, the scrounging foreigners, blah blah blah" may be met by a reply from you along the lines of "I daresay they should, but have you ever thought what it's like for them at home? Could you send them back to being tortured?" "I daresay..." is an opening statement used when we wish to appease the ranter, and is usually followed by an opposing statement of common sense - as is Gandalf's own "I daresay..." Miss out on that subtlety at your peril.

I totally agree to the above generally, although I don't know where you got this typical english racist taxi driver scenario nonsense from - should it be brought up in the LOTR forum? I am from England, & here things can be meant in a different context to what is written in word. "I dare say he does" - this sounds like a sarcastic comment from Gandalf, he is saying he would be reluctant to give death as punishment. It does not mean he meant Gollum deserves death.

Rather than being put to death, perhaps Gollum could escape under the mental health act & be sent to the equivalent of a ME mental health unit (i.e. in the dungeons of the Elven realm of Mirkwood)?.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Bilbo didn't even attack Frodo (much less kill him) when he knew that Frodo had the Ring in Rivendel. And Bilbo had already born the Ring. Don't you suppose the lure was strong on him, too?

I'm not denying that fact. I happen to recall that Bilbo was even briefly overtaken by this lust, but managed to control himself.

Originally Posted by Folwren

And a lion, if it came to a village of people and started slaughtering the inhabitents, whether or not the lion deserved to be hungry and deserved to eat, the people would kill it.

Slaughtering many people is different from killing one person. Minor details aside, do you think the lion "deserves" to die because it kills a human or some humans because it's hungry? Or, actually, if this lion had killed a human in the savanna because it was hungry, would you say it deserves to die?

Originally Posted by Folwren

But when he first saw the Ring and when he first had the ring, if he had been a good fellow, like Bilbo and Frodo both were, he wouldn't have 1. killed Deagol for it, 2. wouldn't have used it to steal things from his Grandmother as soon as he got it, and 3. wouldn't have been kicked out of society because of it.

I don't like dividing people to good and bad people, even if it's said to be relative. In my opinion Gollum was not evil. Certainly not in the beginning, but not in the end either. Sméagol was a normal guy. Not maybe the every girl's dream guy, but very human (or very hobbit, if that fits better ). The main fault in his character was greed. This was the perilous thing. If his fault would have been say laziness or rudeness, nothing would have happened. But it was greed. The Ring used Sméagol's greed. That's why he acted so quickly. The other persons you mention - Frodo, Bilbo, Boromir, Tom Bombadil - were not greedy and thus they managed as well as they did. Not beacuse they were somehow "better".

While speaking about Gollum eating orcs and intending to eat Bilbo, some people seem to assume he had a choice. But how much choice did he really have? What is there to eat in caves? Not much, I say. Maybe the fish, but that's not enough. Catching sly fish with no helpful items is difficult. (It's probably more easy to catch an orc.) The stock of fish in the subterranean pools is limited. And I think that one orc fills your stomach much better than one fish. (Just look at the size of them.)

Originally Posted by Raynor

You still ignore that intention defines morality.

That is a personal (yet admittedly common) moral conception, not an universal truth, so I don't think you should present it as a fact.

Originally Posted by Folwren

Gandalf didn't say that Gollum didn't deserve to die! He said Gollum did deserve to die.

I think you are hugely mistaken here. Read the quote carefully & explain where he says Gollum should die. At best, one can only make an opinion on what Gandalf meant, but as mentioned earlier in England the spoken word is often different in context to the written one.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I think you are hugely mistaken here. Read the quote carefully & explain where he says Gollum should die. At best, one can only make an opinion on what Gandalf meant, but as mentioned earlier in England the spoken word is often different in context to the written one.

Gandalf's quote reads: "“Deserves it! I daresay he does."
That's pretty straight forward to me.

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Gandalf's quote reads: "“Deserves it! I daresay he does."
That's pretty straight forward to me.

In England, this would translate as: "I would be reluctant to say that he does." Sarcasm is important here, as what is said is not always what is meant in the written word. In the US, judging from what has been said by some posters, it would mean: "I believe he does." Tolkein was English of course, & it is clear from the prose & the sharp nature of his words that he is being sarcastic on the side of caution. Besides, it would be hypocritical of Gandalf to say Gollum deserves death & then immediately tell Frodo off for contemplating the idea as though he doesn't. What he is effectively saying is death should not be even considered as punishment to Gollum, regardless of who is making the decision.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Mansun

In England, this would translate as: "I would be reluctant to say that he does." Sarcasm is important here, as what is said is not always what is meant in the written word. In the US, judging from what has been said by some posters, it would mean: "I believe he does." Tolkein was English of course, & it is clear from the prose & the sharp nature of his words that he is being sarcastic on the side of caution. Besides, it would be hypocritical of Gandalf to say Gollum deserves death & then immediately tell Frodo off for contemplating the idea as though he doesn't. What he is effectively saying is death should not be even considered as punishment to Gollum, regardless of who is making the decision.

Sorry. I don't buy it. I'll have to go along with Squatter on this one.

[Mithalwen]

Well my country doesn't execute either murderers or the mentally ill ..theoretically it could execute a traitor, I believe...

For me Gandalf's words, were a factor in shaping my opinions on the death penalty, but given that ME is a world where capital punishment exists I will leave that to one side.

Gollum was tortured in Mordor - if he wsa "relatively unharmed" it was because he was so damaged already ...

You cannot punish people for things that they might do - well the state can't (to no doubt misquote PJ O'Rourke in "Parliament of Whores", "the supreme court can not punish you for having a smart look on your face - which is the difference betwen having a judicial system and having a mother").

Gollum was after the Ring for himself so to that extent, I don't think he was consciously on an errrand for Sauron or his servant .

Gollum's "treachery" if such it was, was essential to the destruction of Sauron.
So I disgree with you other than that I do think, but from a very different perspective, that Gollum deserved his death - as a release from the terrible burden of his life and reunited with his Preciousssss

[The Might]

As Mithalwen already pointed out, Gollum never was on an errand for Sauron intentionately.
This matter is presented well in the Hunt for the Ring chapter of the UT.
It is said that after Gollum was allowed to escape, he was followed by spies from Mordor, but that they were unable to follow him in the Dead Marshes. Afterwards he was captured by Aragorn, and taken north to Thranduil's realm.
If he had known that by seeking The Shire he would help Sauron find the Ring, he would have definitely taken much more precaution. Gollum definitely hated Sauron, and saw him as his greatest foe, if it was someone Gollum would have done anything to prevent from getting the Ring, it would have been Sauron.

One could debate that he might deserve death for other deeds such as killing Deagol, but definitely not for serving an evil power.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Mansun

In the real world Gollum would be put to death.

I'd say this depends largely on the 'where' in the real world.

Concerning whether servants of Sauron deserve death or substantial punishment:

'You think, as is your wont, my lord, of Gondor only,' said Gandalf. 'Yet there are other men and other lives, and time still to be. And for me, I pity even his slaves.'
~The Siege of Gondor

I think it is one of the key elements of the LotR, that even though one might indeed deserve death, he should still be pitied, if this is possible.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I'd say this depends largely on the 'where' in the real world.

I agree. I fail to see how dealing out death would redress any past deeds. I also believe that Manwe's words concerning justice/healing in the case of Finwe and Miriel can apply in here too:

Originally Posted by Of the severance of marriage, Manuscript A, Later Quenta Silmarillion, HoME X

Neither must ye forget that in Arda Marred Justice is not Healing. Healing cometh only by suffering and patience, and maketh no demand, not even for Justice. Justice worketh only within the bonds of things as they are, accepting the marring of Arda, and therefore though Justice is itself good and desireth no further evil, it can but perpetuate the evil that was, and doth not prevent it from the bearing of fruit in sorrow.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Well my country doesn't execute either murderers or the mentally ill ..theoretically it could execute a traitor, I believe...

For me Gandalf's words, were a factor in shaping my opinions on the death penalty, but given that ME is a world where capital punishment exists I will leave that to one side.

Gollum was tortured in Mordor - if he wsa "relatively unharmed" it was because he was so damaged already ...

You cannot punish people for things that they might do - well the state can't (to no doubt misquote PJ O'Rourke in "Parliament of Whores", "the supreme court can not punish you for having a smart look on your face - which is the difference betwen having a judicial system and having a mother").

Gollum was after the Ring for himself so to that extent, I don't think he was consciously on an errrand for Sauron or his servant .

Gollum's "treachery" if such it was, was essential to the destruction of Sauron.
So I disgree with you other than that I do think, but from a very different perspective, that Gollum deserved his death - as a release from the terrible burden of his life and reunited with his Preciousssss

I agree with everything Mithalwen says here. And for me too, Gandalf's words are very important to me in the Real World - together with the words of other wise men and women on this subject. I don't doubt Tolkien had his own experience of summary justice, having been in WWI where men, disturbed by what they had seen, deserted and refused to fight or simply went mad; instead of being cared for and receiving counselling they were seen as Traitors and shot at dawn. Even today, almost 100 years later, few of them have had any kid of pardon. Ask any ex-serviceman about this and they will shake their heads at the injustice and inhumanity of it all.

And it's interesting to note how many traitors there are in Tolkien's work and what 'judgement' is dealt to them - sometimes it is harsh judgement, sometimes there is no judgement. As Morwen says, Gandalf is also kindly with Saruman who is a much bigger traitor than Gollum. Ultimately, in Tolkien's world, it is not the 'place' of Hobbits or Men or Elves or Dwarves or even Wizards to mete out Judgement. We see those who are kindly and who show mercy and pity being revered for their actions whereas those who 'judge' harshly are not painted in this light. Aragorn allows his Men to desert on the way to the Black Gate, he gives the Oathbreakers a chance, Frodo pities Gollum and stays Sam's angry hand, the Ents allow Saruman to walk free, etc. etc. Being merciful is most definitely an act of 'taking the moral high ground' in Tolkien's world. Being judgemental is not.

What did Gollum do though? The only 'crime' we know for sure that he engaged in was to kill his brother for the Ring. Who else did he kill? Orcs, to eat. Was that wrong? The tales about his eating children are just that - tales! Gollum is the classic 'bogeyman' attracting legends and folklore to his reputation, the twisted, shrivelled Hobbit of your nightmares. But what was he really? What drove him? He wanted his Precious - he didn't want to kill for the fun of it, for the kick, he killed and schemed and lied in order to get his Precious back. That puts any judgement of him into a whole different arena I'm afraid.

It's like the story of the Allied soldiers locking the guards of Belsen in a room and then kicking them to death. As soon as something extreme like that happens all normal sense of 'right and wrong' goes flying out of the window. Not for me the job of being a lawyer on a War Crimes tribunal! And that's what Tolkien is telling us, the Readers, through Gandalf's words. He says "while you're sitting in your comfortable armchair, reading about 'crimes' and misdemeanours, can you really know the full story? And if you did know the full story, do you really think it would make 'judgement' any easier?" He tells us that no matter how much we discuss and think about this 'Matter Of Gollum', there are no answers.

There was in the end to be nobody to 'judge' Gollum. He died. In the pursuit of the Ring, this object that had made him who he was, a thing he could not live peacefully without, but a thing which could not be allowed to continue existing anyway. He died reunited with his love, the thing which had destroyed him. And just to add to the perfection of this ending, he died saving Middle-earth as nobody else was going to destroy it.

So rather than asking if Gollum ought to have been executed, maybe we ought to be asking if he was ultimately Middle-earth's ultimate martyr?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

The only 'crime' we know for sure that he engaged in was to kill his brother for the Ring.

Hm, where is it stated that Deagol was his brother? He is only reffered to by Gandalf as his friend.

Originally Posted by Lal

The tales about his eating children are just that - tales!

I disagree

Originally Posted by The Shadow of the Past, FotR

The Wood-elves tracked him first, an easy task for them, for his trail was still fresh then. Through Mirkwood and back again it led them, though they never caught him. The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds. The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles.

This new terror appears just when Gollum escapes and wanders in Mirkwood. I see no reason to discard this as a mere tale, since it fits with his description of "persistent in wickedness" and "damnable".

Originally Posted by Lal

So rather than asking if Gollum ought to have been executed, maybe we ought to be asking if he was ultimately Middle-earth's ultimate martyr?

I strongly disagree. Gollum had little if any intention to sacrifice himself for the sake of others, not even to kill himself or destroy the ring in the very first place, quite the contrary. If anything would have been up to him, none of this would have happened.

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

[The Might]

I agree with Raynor here.
As Tolkien shows in Letter #144 (I think that's the one), Gollum would have indeed become a martyr had he repented before entering Shelon's Lair. Had this happened, he would have probably taken the Ring from Frodo and thrown himself in the lava, trying to keep Frodo safe, and ultimately saving Middle-earth.

[Folwren]

I agree with Raynor, and possibly somewhat with something that Lal said.

I didn't say Gollum deserved to die because I thought his treason deserved it. That was no where in my mind. I was thinking more of his murders and his over all corruption. He had to have been pretty corrupt to kill Deagol as soon as he saw the other Hobbit holding the ring in the first place.

I don't deny that Mercy is a wonderful thing and sometimes is better than Judgement, but you can't always put Mercy in as a substitution for Judgement. Not on earth (in this case, Middle-Earth). If you did, what would you be left with? (What's the world today left with?) Either a lot of murderers and criminals (and that doesn't belong in quotation marks, I'm talking real criminals) running around loose, or a lot of murderers and criminals locked up in prison for years upon years. Sometimes, capital punishment is appropriate punishment, and to have mercy in such cases would be jepordizing other people.

I guess in a case like this, one has to choose the lesser evil. That is, unless you believe the Bible, and then you won't have a problem with capital punishment, because that's God's law, when it comes to murderers and just a couple other crimes.

The real mercy comes after life.

But I didn't want to get into all that because it's not LotR or ME related.

I still think Gollum deserved to die, and I think Gandalf knew it.

I also think that Gandalf was supposed to make judgements. He did judge Saruman, to a certain extent.

But judgement and mercy are often mixed together when good people judge.
Aragorn, for instance, judged Beregond (spelling may be incorrect, and I haven't got a book with me), but he did so with mercy.

Won't go farther, I haven't the time.

-- Folwren

[HerenIstarion]

My apologies for [probably] repeating what may have been said above and [probably] taking the debate back to a point it already got past, also putting forward an excuse of being on the run (as is my usual state of affairs of late ) let me address the initial post and forward the following brief statement:

Death is not punishment

Or, at least, whilst being partially a 'punishment' from certain point of view, it is at the same time a way of release. It was not 'designed' to be percieved solely as punishment and the fact it is nevertheless perceived so is one of the many consequences of Melkor's meddling with the World's affairs

I'm almost sure that were it not Frodo Gandalf discussed the matter with back than in Bag End but one of the Wise the question of 'death as punishment' would not have been raised at all

[davem]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

My apologies for [probably] repeating what may have been said above and [probably] taking the debate back to a point it already got past, also putting forward an excuse of being on the run (as is my usual state of affairs of late ) let me address the initial post and forward the following brief statement:

Death is not punishmentl

Good point. It does seem that throughout the thread we have been treating the question as 'Does Gollum deserve to be executed?' Death is not really the issue, as it is efectively inevitable for any (or most) mortals. The question turned into 'Would it be right to put Gollum to death?' And then the arguments ensued about Gollum's psychological/spiritual state & whether he could, or should, rightfully & justly be judged, found guilty, & put to death.

Then it became a matter of whether Tolkien's opinions on the subject of his characters should be binding on a reader who interpreted the characters differently from the author.

Its got a long way off topic & its probably a good thing you've popped up now....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Death is not punishment

Or, at least, whilst being partially a 'punishment' from certain point of view, it is at the same time a way of release. It was not 'designed' to be percieved solely as punishment and the fact it is nevertheless perceived so is one of the many consequences of Melkor's meddling with the World's affairs

Nice point! So from the point of view of 'morals' in Middle-earth (and the simple nature of people), execution is actually the wrong way to go, as Death is a gift, not a punishment. That makes me wonder if the point originally put by Mithalwen, that Gandalf perhaps means Gollum deserves death as a release from suffering, is the one we've missed all along!

Course, Death being perceived as a 'punishment' being as a result of Melkor's actions, has parallels in the real world, as one of the arguments put across by Quakers and other religious people against capital punishment is that it is only carrying out "an eye for an eye" and has no benefit beyond satisfying our own revenge/anger, and that only God can decide on such things.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by TM

Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?

Hmm, I tried to explain that in the other post. I'll try to make myself clearer:

Well, let's assume Gollum would have been punished and he would have been locked up for a longer period of time. - This is what I had in mind, Raynor gave a good point that I was thinking a tad too narrowly. - Would he have understood why he was punished? In parts, yes, as we have good evidence that he had a bad conscience because of Déagol. But what about, for example, his eating of orcs? I don't think he saw that as evil. Which brings me to Squatter's point:

Originally Posted by Squatter

Therefore, in order to be rehabilitated and healed, Gollum must be fully and knowingly culpable in all his actions. His madness: what I suppose would popularly be called 'multiple personality disorder' results from his attempts to externalise his own guilt, and to deny his actions.

I disagree, a little. I would regard a gradual process of becoming aware of his full guilt already as a part of the healing - a necessary first step, not a premise.

Anyway, would punishment bring Gollum any closer to repentance? I strongly doubt that, given how he reacted to his imprisonments in Mirkwood or Henneth Annûn (though Lal makes a good point that he never was in custody for a longer time). He would rather regard his punishers as wicked than himself.

So the effect of just punishment would, in the end, only be to satisfy our sense of justice, which is little. It would not have changed Gollum. It's difficult to say whether a combination of punishment and healing, like in an asylum, would have had a effect, but I have a feeling he wouldn't have accepted healing from his punishers.

If we look at Frodo, he didn't punish Gollum, though he could have. In fact, it's his not punishing him, and his being nice to Gollum and caring for him instead, which led to his near-repentance later, which could have been a first step to healing.

[HerenIstarion]

So the effect of just punishment would, in the end, only be to satisfy our sense of justice, which is little. It's difficult to say whether a combination of punishment and healing, like in an asylum, would have had a effect, but I have a feeling he wouldn't have accepted healing from his punishers

Tread gently, for you are treading dangerous soil here. It seems/feels to me that Gandalf's words as quoted in the opening post contain layers of thought, not just what can be read at first glance. "Can you give what is deserved" indicates also (it seems to me) imperfection of the giver of the deserved/undeserved.

(Cf John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her)

For healing as I read it out in your post may be easily substituted with changing and that in turn with moulding of a person, and whose mould is good enough for the task?

As for Frodo, his very being in the same boat must have played the part. If there was no Gollum to look at and antagonize and sympathize with at the same time, [I feel] like Frodo would have fallen sooner.

(It's a frenzy of quick typing out of whatever is being born in on me, I hope you follow)

[Bêthberry]

No time now for a full elaboration of my current thoughts about this thread, but yesterday's and today's posts have really made me see that this argument (and it is an argument, gentlemen and ladies, not a discussion and, honestly, sometimes I am very sure that people post not to advance the discussion but because they like the sound of their posts) is very much like a rehash of the sides on the old Canonicity thread.

We've got people who are quoting Letters and other sources from Tolkien and saying herein lies the letter of the law and we've got people who are saying any personal interpretation is just fine and dandy thank you very much. (Okay, I'm being hyperbolic here for clarity of effect.) And it's very much a reductio ab absurdum in many ways. I bet Fordim is laughing in his boots.

Thank you so much, HI, for restating my point that death is not punishment. Very nice also to point out that not only is Gollem's participation crucial to the climax at Mount Doom but also, all along the dreadful way for Frodo's own spiritual journey.

Anyhow, I'm late, can't finish.

[Lotrelf]

I'd guess he DESERVED death. But as you said that he was the servant of the Enemy and servant of the Enemy deserves death. You're right. But he repented his own doing. This show he still had a part of him "alive." a part that wanted to come back from the swamp of evil. He deserved death, not because he was evil, but because he could no longer go on on his own(i.e. without the Ring), and his fate and life and death were tied to it. His life and death were tragedy.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I'd guess he DESERVED death. But as you said that he was the servant of the Enemy and servant of the Enemy deserves death. You're right. But he repented his own doing. This show he still had a part of him "alive." a part that wanted to come back from the swamp of evil. He deserved death, not because he was evil, but because he could no longer go on on his own(i.e. without the Ring), and his fate and life and death were tied to it. His life and death were tragedy.

Well said!

I would say that no one "deserves" death, but everybody deserves it, so what's the question? If the question is about death being a punishment or atonement for Gollum - no, I don't think it was. Consequence - yes, but even that wasn't necessarily necessary, if you get what I mean.