Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
03-23-2007, 12:45 PM | #81 | |||||||||||||||
Spectre of Decay
|
Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
n.b. I've been working on this for the best part of the afternoon. I am sure to have cross-posted with a lot of people. I apologise in advance.
I've come late to this argument, and although I shall try to address as many of the issues raised as possible I can't guarantee that I won't miss out or misrepresent somebody. At the moment I am still desperately trying to digest an unappetising melange of personal, legal and moral philosophy, speculation and at times insufferably arrogant and unjustifiably rude dismissal. I expect that you all know who you are. The main thing I have noticed up to this point is the woeful paucity of actual quotations. Considering that individual words are taken to be so important in Tolkien's works, there seems very little attention paid to his precise words on certain subjects. One of the reasons I have taken so long to respond is that I have been reading what Tolkien had to say before reaching a conclusion, and much reading it required too. That said, I shall try to respond to some of the points raised in the discussion thus far. Before I do, though, I should like to quote more fully the original passage from which this debate sprang. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also we should consider the almost contemptuous opening to Gandalf's sentence: "Deserves it!" Why the exclamation? Why not simply open with "I daresay"? It seems unpremeditated; a spontaneous outburst. Following on the heels of Frodo's implication that Gandalf or the Elves of Mirkwood should have killed Gollum, this seems significant to me. At the risk of putting words into the old wizard's mouth, I should say that the emotion here is exasperation. Perhaps Gandalf is in his own way saying the same thing as my title (lifted, to please myself and hopefully Mr. Underhill if ever he sees it, from Unforgiven). It is not the place even of Gandalf to judge who should live, since even Gandalf cannot bring the dead to life. As a matter of fact, only one power in LR can: the very Power to which Gandalf leaves Gollum's eventual fate. It is also very noteworthy that he does so in the hope, which he himself acknowledges to be unlikely, that Gollum can be healed. The word most conspicuous by its absence here for me is 'repent'. Repentence and absolution are a healing process. Even those who deserve death should be given the chance to live out their full span so that they can be given every chance to redeem themselves. This is the message of Gandalf's statements, and significantly this is not the only place where such a philosophy appears in Tolkien's writing. Niggle's purgatory is also portrayed as a healing process. Lest it be said that I read far too much into this passage, it should be noted that Gollum does, as has been pointed out above, come within a hair's breadth of repentence on the stairs at Cirith Ungol. Tolkien had even gone so far as to formulate possible outcomes from his repentence, which he gives in Letter #246. More significantly, he points out in a letter already quoted here that Quote:
The above argument basically makes the question of Gollum's guilt or innocence and his level of culpability in his crimes somewhat redundant in my view, but I'll address some of the issues raised anyway. It's possible that Tolkien might have been making a point about the unreliability of hearsay, but given the general accuracy and reliability of hearsay from Gandalf, this seems unlikely. His balanced attitude concerning the treatment of Gollum, and his advocacy of pity in his conversation with Frodo, sit remarkably ill with an idea that he spiced up the evidence to make his subject seem more damnable. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This boils down to whether or not one trusts Gandalf: if he reconstructed this scene faithfully from what Gollum told him, then whereas the Ring had to seduce Boromir with the thought of defending his whole country and the city of his birth, and whereas with Sam it offered him the chance to make Gorgoroth green again, all that Sméagol needed as a motive to strangle his kinsman was the fact that the ring was beautiful. The beauty of the Ring is something that many people forget: the brightness of the gold, the perfection of form and the elegance of the characters used to frame its ugly and unspeakable inscription. It is a beautiful object that can easily be desired for that quality alone, if one's spirit is sufficiently small and mean. It is possible that Sméagol could have done this thing for any gold ring, or indeed any item of sufficient beauty or worth. That Déagol was Sméagol's kinsman (not his brother, as Raynor has quite rightly pointed out) is mentioned in a detailed description of Hobbit birthday customs in Tolkien's letter to A.C. Nunn. A byrding only received presents from relatives, and Tolkien continues: Quote:
The question of the murdered babies seems very emotive to fellow members. It is not so for me, since as I mentioned above, whether or not Gollum ate babies is largely irrelevant. However, it seems to me that context is very important here, so I shall quote the passage again. Quote:
Quote:
Was Gollum a victim of the ring or a naturally evil monster? It seems that he was both. Everything Tolkien wrote about him suggests that he was a deeply unpleasant individual long before the Ring came to him; he appears to wrest the Ring violently from another bearer before it has much of a chance to call out to him, and he immediately uses it for malicious purposes. However, it is also evident that the Ring twisted and tormented him, and eventually abandoned him alone in the dark. The threads are too tangled fully to separate them, but it seems to me that the Ring gained almost instant mastery over Gollum because that within him that responded to it was already so pronounced. Like Lotho Sackville-Baggins, for selfish greed he becomes involved with an evil beyond his power to control or capacity to understand, but the destruction of his character and personality can still be traced to his own actions. Tolkien's world was not morally relative, and he genuinely believed the Gospel philosophy that the intent is the action. Whether or not we believe it is just as irrelevant as whether or not we personally believe in capital punishment. Gollum's eventual tortured corruption is so complete because his immediate response is not, like Bilbo's, pity, but instead immediate homicide. I'll end with a thought that seems to have been missed in the general haggling: what is the great virtue in pity if it is only offered to the deserving? Surely it becomes a matter of greater moral courage, a genuine leap of faith, if those on whom we take pity are guilty. What if there is every likelihood that they will do more evil if left alive? Tolkien even considered this in respect of Gollum and Frodo: Quote:
Finally, at the enormous risk of missing too many arguments, I'll address Bêthberry's very pertinent question: Quote:
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? Last edited by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh; 03-24-2007 at 05:50 AM. Reason: Corrections of typos |
|||||||||||||||
03-23-2007, 01:02 PM | #82 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
The problem we have is in trying to get into Gollum's mind & see things in the way he does. A third party may make a judgement on Gollum's actions/choices, & decide they are 'wicked' & deserving of death, but did Gollum see his actions in that way - hence Raynor's point about judging on 'intention' seems to miss the point - particularly when one is dealing with someone who is (leaving aside the issue of his 'morality') clinically insane & technically 'possessed' by the Ring. If Gollum's psychosis lead him to really believe that anyone who kept the Precious from him was 'evil' that would mean that from his point of view he was right in trying to execute them... Again, even if he did steal & eat the babies, did he really see the babies he stole as 'human beings' like him, or did he, in his insanity, see them simply as 'food'? Ultimately passing judgement on someone who is insane because they so things that are 'unnacceptable' to sane, civilised folk ignores the central fact of Smeagol's nature - he is insane. His perceptions, values, & yes, his 'morality' is not the same as those who are judging him. |
|
03-23-2007, 01:15 PM | #83 | |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ohio. Believe it or not.
Posts: 145
|
Quote:
__________________
Don't believe everything you read on the interwebs. That's how World War 1 got started! |
|
03-23-2007, 01:19 PM | #84 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
Or am I just not seeing what you mean? I guess that Gollum, eating children, could be just foraging for food. Okay and well enough. I'm some denizen of Mirkwood, and I'm going to try to catch anything that tries to enter my window at night, and most likely kill it as that seems okay to me as well. Makes sense, and probably is what really occurs in life - we give ear to 'morality' but at times must be practical as well in order to survive.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|
03-23-2007, 01:28 PM | #85 |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Squatter - An amazing post and very well researched, though I don't agree with it all. I believe we cross posted,and my own emphasis is different than your own.
Still, we do concur on several things...that we need to approach this question from a different angle. I would specifically say from a much broader perspective that recognizes the underlying tensions and dichomoties that exist throughout the entire book and not just in the character of Gollum. I also concur that Eru is pivotal to any discussion of moral judgment in Middle-eath. He is the only one in Tolkien's eyes who had the right to make these ultimate pronouncements. Finally, in regards to all the intellectual energy focusing on the word "daresay", I feel that the meaning of that word is frankly not central to the question in the way that we are making it. (This is true for those on both sides of this issue.) What is more important is what Gandalf says after using that word. When I encounter the word "daresay", I almost automatically hear a tiny whispered "but" coming shortly thereafter . I feel it is the content of that "but" which is critical to this discussion.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
03-23-2007, 02:00 PM | #86 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
03-23-2007, 02:11 PM | #87 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
I'm sure that persons have argued this before I sought fit to post , so if I'm retreading worn ground, just point me down the better path.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|
03-23-2007, 02:51 PM | #88 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Its interesting that his own people chose banishment over execution - implying that they felt that they did not have the right to do execute him - or that he was not fully culpable - maybe they saw into his soul & realised that he had always been slightly 'mad'. There is a difference between someone who commits murder (or any other crime) out of simple wickedness & one who commits murder because they are insane. One of the most heinous crimes in British history was the 'Moors Murders'. Ian Brady & Myra Hindley tortured & murder a number of children. Brady was judged insane & sectioned to an asylum for the rest of his life. Hindley was judged to be quite sane, but irredeemably wicked & was sentenced to life in prison. As to the 'daresay' issue, my own feeling is that Gandalf's response could be summed up along the lines of 'Er, yes, OK Frodo.....Now let's grow up & take this thing seriously shall we?' |
|
03-23-2007, 03:15 PM | #89 | |
Spectre of Capitalism
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Battling evil bureaucrats at Zeta Aquilae
Posts: 987
|
I am in agreement with Child:
Quote:
Gandalf, and apparantly the elves as well, were content to let things play out in Gollum's case, confident that the guiding force (Eru) was in charge and would work things out as they should. And since Frodo stopped Faramir and his men from killing Gollum when the opportunity arose, it is evident that Gandalf's lesson to Frodo was learned. After all has been said, I think the key point to take from this is "Not even the wise can see all ends." But in Tolkien's subcreation there was One who could, and those decisions should be left in His hands. * - I italicized these words so that no one will mistake me for making a dogmatic statement which requires refutation.
__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~~ Marcus Aurelius |
|
03-23-2007, 03:17 PM | #90 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Davem wrote:
Quote:
But as far as the morality of any Ringbearer's actions, as far as our judgement of their culpability - the paradoxical nature of the Ring makes these things difficult if not impossible. Moral philosophy is tricky even in the real world. It's hard enough to judge the actions of real people; how can we hope to judge Smeagol's? And is that not, perhaps, a lesson to be learned from Tolkien's Ring? Maybe the union of guilt and guiltlessness, of culpability and of justified excuse, in the Ringbearers reflects the nature of misdeeds in general. Quote:
|
||
03-23-2007, 03:20 PM | #91 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 274
|
"Its interesting that his own people chose banishment over execution - implying that they felt that they did not have the right to do execute him - or that he was not fully culpable - maybe they saw into his soul & realised that he had always been slightly 'mad'."
I don't recall Gandalf telling Frodo that Smeagol's people knew that he had killed Deagol. I don't have the book in front of me but IIRC Gollum's grandmother kicked him out of the family hole because he was causing problems in family. Far from seeing into his soul they seemed (if Gandalf's tale is accurate) to consider him a nuisance and wanted him gone. |
03-23-2007, 03:22 PM | #92 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
We're told that no Hobbit in the Shire have ever killed another intentionally & it seems to me that this speaks to the innate distaste for execution among Hobbits. Aiwendil. Ok - I accept your points - up to a point. But it wasn't simply a matter of the effect of the Ring itself - it was the fact that Smeagol had spent 500 years alone in the dark brooding on it. I strongly suspect that if he'd spent 500 years alone in the dark brooding on his big toe he'd have become quite equally insane (or attained Nirvana.....)
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 03-23-2007 at 03:31 PM. |
||
03-23-2007, 03:40 PM | #93 | ||
Spectre of Capitalism
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Battling evil bureaucrats at Zeta Aquilae
Posts: 987
|
Quote:
Quote:
Gandalf said "Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement" [emphasis mine] This says nothing of dealing out death in clean battle, only (in my opinion) of pronouncing sentence on deeds done previously.
__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~~ Marcus Aurelius |
||
03-23-2007, 04:16 PM | #94 | ||||
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,591
|
...a minor correction
Quote:
Quote:
Note: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
||||
03-23-2007, 04:34 PM | #95 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
But you make a very good point. In Middle-earth we know that there is something other than the mere laws that Men and Elves can construct, and that's Eru. Ultimately Eru offers judgement in this world - and in allowing someone like Gollum to live, the people who variously capture him or have the opportunity otherwise to murder him take a very definite step. The step they take is to allow something else to decide Gollum's fate - whether they know what that 'something else' is or not. Some, like Gandalf, know of Eru, and maybe know that execution would not be acceptable to him - it being his judgement ultimately (and note the Elves, who also know of Eru, certainly do not think of putting Gollum to death). But others. Why do they not kill him according to their laws? Now something thorny; obviously some kind of death penalty does exist in some cultures in Middle-earth, so why did they not put Gollum to death? Not all of them had heard Gandalf's words after all, and some of these cultures could be quite vicious/violent. Not all of these people had there merest inkling of who or what Eru was, some may have lived entirely without Gods of any kind. What is it about Gollum which stays their hands? Is it Pity in every case? Perhaps to put to death a victim of Sauron's craft and treachery is far worse than to allow Gollum to live? I could see this as sinking to Sauron's level, as submitting to the evil of the Ring itself, doing Sauron's work for him. He would expect that the people of Middle-earth would kill one another for this Ring, and they did, but would it have been right to kill one another as punishment for the effects of Sauron's magic? I think Gandalf thought quite clearly that it was not the wisest move to make - not just for this reason but for many. And another thought. A very telling effect of the Ring is what it makes its bearers and those who see it want. Frodo sees himself as some kind of robed godhead; Sam as Samwise the Strong, a hero; Galadriel as an horrific queen; Boromir as a great patriotic warrior. And Gollum? He sees himself eating fish three times a day. Maybe it was lucky that someone as low as Gollum bore this thing for so long if all he wanted was food.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
03-23-2007, 05:02 PM | #96 | |||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|||
03-23-2007, 05:07 PM | #97 | |||
Laconic Loreman
|
Quote:
I would like to bring up what is exactly 'evil' in the Lord of the Rings; as I think it could clear some things up. Tolkien does paint us a good picture of evil at various times...and though I don't think 'good and evil' is so 'black and white' (as has been discussed in this thread); but still we can get an idea what is 'evil' in Tolkien's story: Quote:
Quote:
Which leads me to say that I think Child and Squatter have hit the nail on the head, Eru is the important factor in this matter over Gollum. Gollum did horrible deeds and broke laws that society had in place. But, did Gollum willingly rebel against Eru? Did Gollum willingly want to dominate over other people? Those are the questions. The defense of 'I believe what I'm doing is the right thing' just doesn't fly, for me. Everyone believes they are doing the 'right' thing (whether good or evil). Eventhough if good and evil isn't always easily defined...I would call rebelling against Eru and seeking to dominate others' wills the two greatest evils (in Tolkien's story that is). As an interesting side note, just to let everyone know ignorance to the law is no excuse for breaking the law. I found that out the hard way. In the States, laws vary from state to state (in my case it was driving). You see I had no clue in Pennsylvania you were only allowed to stay in the passing lane for a maximum of 2 miles (don't ask me how they keep track of this stuff)...the officer didn't care. I was hit with a little fine and was told it's the drivers responsbility to know the laws of the states they're driving through. I forget who brought it up...but not knowing what the 'laws of the land' isn't an excuse for breaking the law.
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
|||
03-23-2007, 05:19 PM | #98 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
03-23-2007, 05:52 PM | #99 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
(and if anyone wants to know who I was referring to...) This is not a matter of whether what Smeagol/Gollum did was 'acceptable', but of his mental state & whether that should be taken into account. Gandalf hoped for his healing, not his damnation. So did Frodo. The point is that those who encountered him responded with pity - Gandalf, Bilbo, Frodo & even, at the end, Sam. Why did they respond so? Because they saw what he had become. If he was simply 'wicked & damnable' why would he inspire pity? It seems to me you are taking a 'Balrog's Wings' approach here - Tolkien uses the word 'wings' & you take it literally. Tolkien uses the word 'wicked' & you reduce Smeagol to a two dimensional pantomime villain. Gollum is probably the most complex, multi-faceted character Tolkien ever created (in comparison to whom many of his other characters are reduced to pastel shades or simple black & white). This simplistic 'he was wicked' approach misses the whole point of the character. Tolkien is showing us a being racked by the consequences of his own wrong choices, broken by his own wifullness, & whose very mind & being is shattered until he becomes an embodiment of chaos, his identity fragmented into jagged shards which constantly rip & tear at any remnant of his original self that may have survived. |
|
03-23-2007, 06:20 PM | #100 | ||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." Last edited by Raynor; 03-24-2007 at 12:36 AM. |
||
03-24-2007, 01:45 AM | #101 | ||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There are two characters in Tolkien's work that could only have been written by a 20th century man who had seen real horror on the Somme & been confronted by the horrors of Belsen & Hiroshima - Frodo & Gollum. Neither character could have been written (or concieved for that matter) in an earlier period. Frodo is so broken by his suffering that he can no longer live in the world. Gollum commits attrocities but Tolkien knew that human beings did commit attrocities but that did not simply make them 'wicked'. That was too simple. People committed attrocities because they were flawed, weak, & in many cases didn't understand what they were doing till it was too late. Yet those people lived in the world alongside the rest of us & we had to deal with them. What should our response be? Execute them? Remove them from existence so that we do not have to think about that aspect of 'the human'? No. What Tolkien does is have his characters refuse that easy option, so that we, the readers, cannot take it. We have to confront, live with, Gollum. We are forced by Tolkien to see the 'wicked monster' as a person. I'm sure there are some reasers who find this difficult - they will either like Gollum so much that they reject any idea that he was a baby eating, selfish wretch, driven only by his own desires & try to make him out to be a helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control, & put down all those accusations as lies & 'rumours'. Others will dislike him so much that they will just dismiss him as a wicked monster who deserves no compassion or understanding. Yet Tolkien does not want us to do either. He wants us to know Gollum is a wicked monster. He also wants us to be clear that he is also a broken soul, an an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing. This is the clearest demonstration I can think of of Tolkien's humanity, & of his refusal to take the easy way out when it comes to the darker side of humanity. Tolkien hates the sin, but refuses to simply hate the sinner. But his response is not so simple as to 'love' the sinner. He shows us that for all Gollum is a monster he is a human monster. He is not an Orc - though he may do Orcish things. A human being who does terrible things is still a human being, & we are all our brother's keeper. We cannot simply execute, remove, the Gollums - that's too simple. Actually, its a way of avoiding our own responsibility, a way of pretending that that aspect of the human doesn't exist. Tolkien tells us that it does exist & forces us to think about it by not having Gollum executed. This, I think, is Gandalf's point - having Gollum around (specifically having him around Frodo) will force Frodo to see things he needs to see, to learn things he needs to know. Without Gollum LotR would be a lot less profound & a lot more of a 'sword & sorcery' novel. |
||||
03-24-2007, 02:36 AM | #102 | ||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
||
03-24-2007, 02:45 AM | #103 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
03-24-2007, 02:50 AM | #104 | ||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
||
03-24-2007, 03:00 AM | #105 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Anyway, I think I've won this argument so I'm not bovvered - Do you think I'm bovvered? (Points at face) Face. Bovvered? Look. Face. Bovvered? Look. Face. Bovvered? I ain't bovvered. |
|
03-24-2007, 03:04 AM | #106 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
03-24-2007, 05:32 AM | #107 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
In many ways Gollum exists as a character to shoulder the burden of Sauron's supernatural evil. He demonstrates just how evil Sauron is by showing us what his craft can and does do to people. He shows us what unnatural long life does to a mortal, in a far more comprehensive and effective way than any Numenorean king can do. Gollum was once an ordinary Hobbit like us and then he sees this beautiful, shiny thing and kills for it; the shadow latent within him, within everybody (certainly according to both the Catholic and oddly enough the Jungian viewpoint), is stirred by the sight of a beautiful yet perilous object. Doesn't Tolkien tell us that all that is gold does not glitter? That's a warning - beauty does not always mean goodness! It's all too easy, as a humble human being, to be stirred by such things to wrongdoing. You could say that most of the evils of the modern world are due to Rings of power, beautiful, blinging objects that we all want - 4x4s, big mansions, plasma TVs, i-Pods, fancy trainers etc - we want this stuff, it's tempting. We might not kill for it (though some do) but we certainly get ourselves into debt for them, submit ourselves to virtual slavery to earn the money for them, are blinded by the sight of celebrities and the urge to live in at least some small way their lifestyle, even if it is just having a shinier car or faster internet connection so we too can use YouTube, because that's what we are. Humans. And we are by nature greedy. That celebrity we see is like Annatar, tempting us. Anyway, back off the mad rambling stuff...Gollum maybe scares us and we shout "He's evil!" because frankly, any one of us could end up like him if driven mad by greed. Just as much as we have potential for good, we have potential for greed. The Ring too, symbolises corruption, things of such unutterable power that many simply cannot resist them. I'm not surprised that so many see the Ring as symbolic of nuclear weapons - there is a strong resemblance in the symbolism. These are things of great terror and power (and not a little terrible beauty too in their capabilities) and possessing one confers the owner with immense bargaining power. Then once you have one, it's just about impossible to get rid of it, as who wants to get rid of their power? I'm someone who is against nuclear weapons, but I have to admit that even I feel a bit scared at the prospect of my country not having them when others do. The Ring works in that way - having it gives you power, potential, protection, no matter how evil it is. Gollum doesn't know any of this when he gets the Ring, but nor did governments when they first got their warheads really realise what a "terrible beauty they had unleashed onto the world". The Ring is merely utterly beautiful, and it exerts a pull on Gollum, the human with his shadow, his sin, his potential for doing wrong like any of us. Would you cut off your own hand if offered a billion pounds? You might say of course not, but until put into that situation, none of us can really answer that. That's the warning Tolkien, as a Catholic, gives us, that we all have the potential to be Gollums, so be careful, and don't judge what you do not and cannot understand.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
03-24-2007, 08:17 AM | #108 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
03-24-2007, 09:15 AM | #109 |
Guard of the Citadel
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oxon
Posts: 2,205
|
No hard thoughts davem, still perhaps such remarks should be avoided in the future for the sake of the discussion.
I personally still agree with Raynor on this one. Yes, Gollum had good in him. Yes, Gollum was very much tempted by the Ring, that had a great influence and power over him. Yes, he is pitiable after spending 500 years alone in a cave. So what? Your last post is, sorry that I have to say this, pretty much off-topic Lalwende. As far as I can tell, we are not discussing whether the Ring influenced or didn't influence Gollum, but whether he deserved or didn't deserve death for his actions. Does it mean that if I drink too much or take drugs and that break the law that I am innocent and the police should sue Johnny Walker or Martini? Of course not, that's not a reason to say Gollum is no longer responsible and culpable for his actions. And also, we are not discussing whether Gollum is given here as an example for what you can become yourself. Of course he can be seen as one, still this is not the topic of the discussion. He commited crimes, and even though he has some...I don't know how they're called in English...maybe Raynor can translate this term (circumstante atenuante), he still is guilty for theose actions and should be punished for them. Now, whether the punishment he would receive would be the capital one or not, probably would depend on who would give the sentence. He killed Deagol, perhaps also babies of the woodmen, perhaps would have eaten Bilbo, attacked Frodo and Sam, planned to get them killed with Shelob's and perhaps some other things as well. And for all those things he is guilty.
__________________
“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
Delos B. McKown |
03-24-2007, 10:48 AM | #110 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
The question still remains - to what extent was Gollum compos mentis? It strikes me that he was not 'sane'. Hence we can't judge him as we would judge a sane person. Now, a psychopath must be removed to a place of safety for the good of themselves & others - but they are not judged in the same way or by the same standards as sane people. This is because their perception of what is right & wrong, acceptable & unacceptable, is skewed. In order to judge Gollum as a criminal you would have to prove that he not only knew what he was doing, but that he knew that what he was doing was wrong. I don't see any real evidence of this in his behaviour. Even his near repentance on the stairs does not provide evidence that he felt betraying the Hobbits to Shelob was 'wrong' in any moral sense - merely that he felt sad that they 'had' to die that way.
Gollum seems to lack any 'higher' or rational consciousness. Quite fitting really, for a being who throughout the story acts almost as Frodo's projected 'id' or 'Shadow'. He is the repressed, the rejected, the despised. The thing nobody wants around &, while most of them would not actually execute him, most of them wish he would just go away & die out of their sight. We know that even before the Ring came he was a 'mean little soul' (Tolkien's words), yet it seems odd that a 'Hobbit' child/adolescent should behave in the way Smeagol did. Either some childhood trauma affected him deeply, or he was born with some kind of psychological problems (possibly even some kind of autism) or brain damage. Whatever - Smeagol seems always to have been a uniquely 'odd' & alienated Hobbit. His behaviour - whatever its cause - lead him to be shunned & the resulting isolation seems to have profoundly affected his thinking - including his moral value system. Add to this the effect of the Ring & you have a uniquely screwed up individual. What standards of judgement can you possibly apply? Hence Smeagol-Gollum is the most difficult character for the reader to deal with. He is simply as he is. We are in an impossible position - its not possible to judge him fairly because none of our standards can encompass him. He must be 'accepted' for what he is- almost a 'force of nature' (even in a way an 'Act of God'). He is like no other character. All the other characters make 'sense' - in a way Gollum doesn't. He is a dark mystery. There may be a light in his eyes but there is a darkness behind them. A 'void'. He is almost a personification of the Ring itself - a hard surface surrounding emptiness. He should not exist, & it would be easier if he did not. But he does exist & there it is.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 03-24-2007 at 10:57 AM. |
03-24-2007, 11:11 AM | #111 | |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Quote:
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
|
03-24-2007, 11:28 AM | #112 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Davem, if I remember correctly, it was either you or Lal who who mentioned how haunted Gollum is by the killing of Deagol; remorse and the defense he builds can only show a presence of morality.
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
03-24-2007, 11:37 AM | #113 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Oh Tolkien was always changing his mind on stuff & too much in the letters is (in Hutton's words ) 'reflective glosses', written after the event. He is giving his own interpretation of events/characters. The story stands or falls by its own internal logic - whatever the author wants the reader to think. |
||
03-24-2007, 11:56 AM | #114 | ||||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
||||
03-24-2007, 12:08 PM | #115 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-24-2007, 12:14 PM | #116 | |||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|||
03-24-2007, 12:21 PM | #117 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-24-2007, 12:49 PM | #118 | ||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
||
03-24-2007, 01:34 PM | #119 | ||
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Let's speak it all and openly, otherwise we get never nowhere
Quote:
So, I also agree that Gollum "almost repented" at that point, he possibly (almost) felt pity for his deeds. This also implies, that he still had some conscience. And there are more examples. And even if he suppressed his guilt, this does not mean he didn't feel it in the first place. So - even if "Gollum" wasn't to be judged for extenuating circumstances - his insanity, then still Sméagol would, for his crimes. Sméagol could repent, he didn't; that he suppressed the guilt was his choice, even if later he was denied the opportunity to choose, even by circumstances he couldn't control, the first choice was his alone, when he was still sane. For this, he is to be considered guilty. Quote:
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories Last edited by Legate of Amon Lanc; 03-24-2007 at 01:40 PM. |
||
03-24-2007, 01:44 PM | #120 | ||
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
Quote:
Quote:
I would say that justice is inapplicable in Gollum's case. If our goal is to "get him back for the good side" then we must offer healing, of which Frodo's pity was a beginning. Because of Gollum's complicated and intriguing nature, healing and justice are more or less irreconcilable. In reality, this approach is of course inapplicable itself, as we need a system of justice to maintain order. If brought to the real world, a proper court would probably see him as criminally incapable. Though I don't see him as insane, he's surely insane enough to fit into that category. So he would go to an asylum, which would try to give healing, but wouldn't succeed as Gollum would doubtlessly still see it as punishment. It's good that we are in Middle-earth. |
||
|
|