Did Gollum deserve death?

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)?.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Tut tut Mr Sauce. Now, would that really hold up in court? I think not. :P

Well, if we are going to apply courtroom standards, then there might be some doubt as to whether Gollum actually murdered Deagol. After all, there is a suggestion that Gandalf extracted his confession under duress.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Those are Tolkien;s only intentions - as a great artist might merely 'suggest' something with paint he does it with words and it's up to you how you see things like that.

I disagree. Tolkien's purpose (or, to exclude any C-thread style debate ( ), one of his purposes) is to tell us, his readers, a story. In doing so, he relays certain events to us. Some of those he intends us to take as fact. In my view, this is one such event.

Why would Gandalf seek to influence Frodo's impression of Gollum with tales of infant cannibalism if he did not himself believe them to be true? If Gandalf considered them to be mere Woodsman gossip, it would be highly irresponsible for him to colour Frodo's opinion of Gollum in this way. The same applies with regard to the impression that Tolkien gives to his readers of Gollum. We are meant to believe that Gollum carries out these awful deeds. And, when we meet him, we are meant nevertheless to pity him. This, in my view, is where the subtlety lies in Tolkien's characterisation of Gollum.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Most of all, we're not heeding Gandalf's warning not to be too hasty to come to judgements that are beyond our ken.

Hang on. I would say that we are perfectly entitled to form a view as to what Gollum did and whether such things were right or wrong. The point that Gandalf (and Tolkien) was making was that Frodo (and we, the readers) should not be hasty in dealing out death in judgment. In other words, whatever view we might come to as to the rights and wrongs of Gollum's deeds, we should not be so hasty as to condemn him to death for them. That said, had one of the Woodsman caught Gollum in the act, as it were, one might understand if he were to have put an axe through the wretched creature's neck.

[Boromir88]

Just a quick comment regarding this:

If Gandalf considered them to be mere Woodsman gossip, it would be highly irresponsible for him to colour Frodo's opinion of Gollum in this way.~Sauce

Gandalf was capable of making errors in judgement and had some lapses. As Tolkien addresses in Letter 214:

"With regard to (1) Gandalf certainly says at first 'I guess' p. 62; but that is in accordance with his character and wisdom. In more modern language he would have said 'I deduce', referring to matters that had not come under his direct observation, but on which he had formed a conclusion based on study."

And some of Gandalf's conclusions could end up being wrong. So perhaps Gandalf could serve as an expert to share his conclusions with the court...but he's not some all-seeing eyeball here.

I think the Ring's power over people was directly connected with the people's tendency towards evil before they had or saw the Ring. Just look at how different people handled it!~Folwren

True, but the Ring effects and changes everyone...just in different ways and the time varies from person to person. However, eventually the Ring does twist everyone, if given the time.

Bilbo gets quite snappy when Gandalf tells him to give up the Ring. And Bilbo would not have let the Ring go had it not been for Gandalf. As Gandalf tells Frodo, Bilbo did let go of the Ring, but 'I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too.' (The Shadow of the Past)

Frodo, claims the Ring for himself in the end. Yes, Tolkien says in Letter 246 that at that point (in the Sammath Naur) the Ring's power was so strong it was impossible for anyone to destroy...nevertheless Frodo succumbed and claimed the Ring as his own.

Gandalf:

'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused.'~The Shadow of the Past

Sam also reaches a point where he faces the 'pull' of the Ring, he was able to resist it and cast it out of his head...but what if he's faced with that situation again and in a more desperate situation? Had the Ring not been destroyed in the Sammath Naur what would Sam have done, what would the Ring do to try to get itself out?

The Ring is one smart cookie...sure not everyone murders when it comes to the Ring, because not everyone was as 'mean' as Smeagol was. The point is that the Ring causes people to act in ways that they normally wouldn't. It dramatically changes a person's personality. Bilbo as you and I have mentioned lashed out at Gandalf...now Bilbo didn't kill Gandalf, but there is no doubt that was extremely out of Bilbo's character. The Ring plays a huge role in twisting someone's personality. Sure not everyone feels the need to kill over it, but nevertheless it causes individuals to act in ways they never would.

For parting words what does Gandalf say about Gollum's feelings on the Ring:

'He was altogther wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated light more: he hated everything, and the Ring most of all.'
[...]
'You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard,' said Gandalf. 'He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.'~The Shadow of the Past

Well Sauce I simply felt the matter and influence of the Ring was being overlooked in this case. People are so easy to condemn Mr. Gollum for what he did. Sure he was weak-minded and instantly killed over the Ring, but the Ring is at the very center of the evil here. Not everyone reacts as viciously as Gollum did, when it came to the Ring, but it does twist everyone.

I think we all understand and forgive Boromir for his attack on Frodo for the very reasons you have mentioned...Gollum it's a lot harder because we don't see that atonement...but that doesn't chage the fact that the Ring is at the heart of the problem; just as it was at the heart of causing Boromir to attack Frodo.

Gollum was very close to redemption, he had been at a 'crucial point' as Tolkien describes and when Sam mistakes Gollum's 'pawing' at Frodo...Sam over-reacts and Gollum's chance of redemption is gone. That was Gollum's crucial moment where he was nearly redeemed, and it's a lesson to us all that even good-hearted, loving people like Sam can misjudge, over-react, and cause bad problems despite having no intention to do so.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

I don't say he definitely did NOT do it, just that we don't know for sure, which is far more satisfying.

I fail to see what shadow of doubt lies on the account of the woodmen; is it because they are woodmen?? That is just genetical fallacy. The timing and the manner of facts are highly relevant for Gollum's fault, and in tone with his past deeds. It seems to me that you simply re-state your opinion while not addressing counter evidences to it. Nobody in the book, or Tolkien elsewhere, shares or backs this position.

[Mithalwen]

Raynor, I suggest you might like to rephrase your last post .

"The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad..a ghost that drank blood..." is not conclusive proof rather circumstantial evidence and it is no slight on Woodmen to say so.

While I think Gollum had few scruples left at that point, there are many things that an unsophisticated community might regard as terrors, and sometimes people jump to hasty conclusions - especially where children are concerned, cf the story of Gelert ....

And as for Gandalf, it takes the wise one seventy years to twig about the significance of the Ring ... which might affect his credibility ... I can imagine the cross-examination...

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Boro

True, but the Ring effects and changes everyone...just in different ways and the time varies from person to person. However, eventually the Ring does twist everyone, if given the time.

Hang it all, Boromir, that's exactly it - if given the time. Smeagol didn't have time. His mind was so defiled and twisted before even seeing the ring that it instantly captured him, and if he couldn't get Deagol to give it to him, by golly, he was going to take it!

I am done. I'm through arguing my point over and over again. It is in capable hands, with Saucepan Man and Raynor here, I think.

-- Folwren

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

While I think Gollum had few scruples left at that point, there are many things that an unsophisticated community might regard as terrors, and sometimes people jump to hasty conclusions - especially where children are concerned, cf the story of Gelert .

I know of no evidence that the woodmen would start creating stories about dissappearing children due to ghost that drinks blood. After all, this is not some myth from the long past, but a present event, whose traces can be acknowledged by those living in a arguably small community. I don't see any other explanation to this; babies in craddles don't slip out through windows. We know from the Hobbit that Gollum was a cannibal, and nothing I know refutes those referrences, nor the account of the woodmen. Of course, we may choose to ignore all these.

[alatar]

“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)

I think that Gandalf was counseling against rash judgment and 'stabs in the back' - killing in cold blood. Slaying Gollum in the heat of the moment would not have garnered any tut-tutting from the Grey Pilgrim; stabbing the foul creature when Bilbo's situation did not require it (leaving the caves) would have been the first step down a dark road, the same that Smeagol took.

And note that, though Boromir was tempted, he still did not murder anyone over the Ring. Obviously, being a warrior, he'd killed many enemies of his Lord, yet did not draw his sword when confronting Frodo. Smeagol, on the other hand, immediately murders Deagol when the latter will not willingly yield his prize. To me it's also significant that Gollum's own hands do the deed. No weapon, rock or branch are used, but hands upon a living neck crush out a companion's life.

Gollum had it in him to 'do murder;' the Ring just brought it to the fore.

What of Faramir? Doesn't Frodo pass on Gandalf's admonition when Faramir's silent archers make to shoot Gollum unawares? Faramir sees into the black soul of the wretched creature and passes a judgment. Free to go with Frodo; death if found without its Master.

[Mithalwen]

Can't you...?

There is a case being reported currently in Oxford, of a man with severe learning difficulties having been drowned by a group of people who decided he was a paedophile... a couple of years ago a mob attacked the home of a paediatrician because they couldn't tell the difference.... tales start very quickly even here, even now...

I am not ignoring anything I am merely distinguishing between rumour and fact.

[Raynor]

Would you care to give some Middle-Earth related evidence that would refute Gollum's canibalism?

LotR as we know it was, presumably, assembled from notes and accounts not only from the hobbits, but also from Rohan and Gondor, where annotations and corrections were added. Nothing, anywhere, discards what we already know of Gollum.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Tolkien's purpose (or, to exclude any C-thread style debate ( ), one of his purposes) is to tell us, his readers, a story. In doing so, he relays certain events to us. Some of those he intends us to take as fact. In my view, this is one such event.

Why would Gandalf seek to influence Frodo's impression of Gollum with tales of infant cannibalism if he did not himself believe them to be true? If Gandalf considered them to be mere Woodsman gossip, it would be highly irresponsible for him to colour Frodo's opinion of Gollum in this way.

Why would he seek to influence Frodo? I don't think he was doing anything of the sort, as you say, this is story-telling. And Gandalf does say that this is a tale of the Woodsmen, not something he has seen or experienced. The whole little section of story is told in poetic language with metaphor which immediately makes you think "ah! a folk tale!" Beings creeping into nurseries at night is a common 'bogeyman' tale - told nowadays by grannies trying to get restless grandchildren to go to bed and in olden days by villagers frightened of the fairies swapping their babies for changelings. The times Gollum was abroad were times when there were many 'nasties in the woodshed', and in the woods. It could have been anything...

Originally Posted by SpM

Hang on. I would say that we are perfectly entitled to form a view as to what Gollum did and whether such things were right or wrong. The point that Gandalf (and Tolkien) was making was that Frodo (and we, the readers) should not be hasty in dealing out death in judgment. In other words, whatever view we might come to as to the rights and wrongs of Gollum's deeds, we should not be so hasty as to condemn him to death for them.

Isn't that the exact question at stake though? Did Gollum deserve death? I guess your answer there would be no or don't know. We're not discussing his rights and wrongs - if so then we'd all probably agree that Gollum did many 'wrong' things, that's not really in question. But what is, is if he deserved death, as a punishment for these deeds.

Originally Posted by Folwren

Hang it all, Boromir, that's exactly it - if given the time. Smeagol didn't have time. His mind was so defiled and twisted before even seeing the ring that it instantly captured him, and if he couldn't get Deagol to give it to him, by golly, he was going to take it!

The problem with this approach, that Gollum was already twisted, entirely sidesteps the fact that Gollum had that Ring for 500 years, so anything we see of him, anything we know of him is irrevocably coloured by the twisted, damaged Gollum we see. The old Smeagol is very, very difficult to find - and in those instances when we do find him, he is seen to be guilt-ridden for what he did to Deagol, which would not be the reactions of a cold-hearted killer.

And of course yet again, we're ignoring the immense power of the Ring. Not only that, but we are demeaning and diminishing that power. That it acted so quickly is testament to what a terrible thing it is. If we take onboard the argument that the Ring itself has some kind of sentience (which the jury is out on for me!) we can also see just how perfect it is that after being left dormant for centuries, the Ring, on its reappearance instantly provokes violence and murder - what a perfect way, for an evil Ring of power, to begin its journey in the waking world once more? Not only that, but it will then give the new bearer, the new murderer, an incredible sense of guilt and hence an impetus to keep the Ring safe - "if it was worth killing for it is worth keeping it well".

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

There is a case being reported currently in Oxford, of a man with severe learning difficulties having been drowned by a group of people who decided he was a paedophile... a couple of years ago a mob attacked the home of a paediatrician because they couldn't tell the difference.... tales start very quickly even here, even now...

I am not ignoring anything I am merely distinguishing between rumour and fact.

Good example. It's well known that worries soon escalate into paranoia and into myths. And the same can quite well have happened in Gollum's case - as I say he is the classic 'bogeyman'. There is no evidence that he was a cannibal, save his threat to eat Bilbo, and that's exactly that, a threat. He eats goblins, but that is not cannibalism as they are not his 'species', and is really no more wrong than the Rohirrim hunting the Woses just for a bit of a laugh.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Raynor

LotR as we know it was, presumably, assembled from notes and accounts not only from the hobbits, but also from Rohan and Gondor, where annotations and corrections were added. Nothing, anywhere, discards what we already know of Gollum.

LOTR as we know it is a work of fiction ... by someone who kneow how tales developed....

And even to suspend one's disbelief and enter into the conceit of "history" - you would have to take the Hobbit with a bucket of salt, as a infantilised, abridged version... or else you take the account of tralallally camper than a row of tents elves as a reliable documentary of the behaviour of the Noldor in Middle Earth.

I am not saying Gollum did not kill to eat I am saying that you can't take circumstantial evidence and suspicion as proof.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Would you care to give some Middle-Earth related evidence that would refute Gollum's canibalism?

LotR as we know it was, presumably, assembled from notes and accounts not only from the hobbits, but also from Rohan and Gondor, where annotations and corrections were added. Nothing, anywhere, discards what we already know of Gollum.

Doesn't work. A reading of HoM-e gives us so many different versions of the story. Smeagol originally didn't exist & there was only one 'Hobbit' - Digol - who becomes 'Gollum' as a result of his finding the Ring. In the first draft Gandalf states that Gollum himself is the source of the 'stealing from cradles' story ('He boasted of it') & yet even then Gandalf states that Gollum is a liar & his words have to be sifted.

In the published version we have a 'story' about Gollum. And any 'evidence' is circumstantial'. Its entirely possible to read this as Gandalf simply reporting the story to Frodo to make him aware of all that is known about Gollum - the true & the false. Or, more subtly to 'test' Frodo's reaction.

Which reaction is interesting ... Smeagoi, on coming across the Ring responds murderously. Frodo's response on hearing Smeagol's story is equally 'murderous' - 'its a pity Bilbo did not kill him when he had the chance.' That's worth considering - if Frodo could wish Gollum murdered on the basis of a story, one can understand Smeagol's murderous reaction in the presence of the real thing.

Tolkien's only 'judgemental' comment on Smeagol (ie Smeagol prior to the Ring's appearance) seems to be in the letter where he refers to his 'mean little soul' - yet this was written after the event. Leaving this aside one can read Smeagol as 'victim' of the Ring's influence, & I think Tolkien is clear that he is a victim. And even if the story was true I think it would take a very hard hearted approach to the story of stealing babies from cradles for one to interpret it as depicting Gollum's 'evil' or monstrous nature rather than as depicting the horror of his existence, what this 'Hobbit' had been turned into by the Ring.

Yet there are other monsters in Mirkwood with a taste for human flesh, so the reader (as probably intended) is left with the option of whether they believe the story or not - & that, perhaps, says more about the reader than about Gollum himself.

Some readers do seem to prefer to divide the inhabitants of M-e into 'Good' & 'Evil', refusing to believe the 'Good' can do any evil & that the 'Evil' are capable of any attrocity imaginable. Personally, I find such an approach overly simplistic.

[The Might]

Lalwende, with all due respect, I think this has gone a bit too far.
You're being a bit subjective here, and interpreting the whole quotes as it fits your point.
Of course a threat is not equal to a deed, but let's be serious, Tolkien was pretty clearly saying that Gollum would have eaten Bilbo.
It could well be that the Ring had a great influence, and that the old Smeagol was a pretty nice guy, still, the thread topic is "Did Gollum, and not Smeagol, deserve death?"
Bogeymen stories? Even if these were just "stories", let's keep in mind that many stories actually base on real events.
Hobbits and ents only existed as characters in stories for the Rohirrim. Are you saying they are perhaps just bogeymen as well, meant to keep kids out of the forest or something?
Let's be serious, and face the facts, Raynor already gave some very good quotes for this.
Gollum was a murderer and a cannibal and probably would have been killed according to the laws of any kingdom in Middle-earth, with exceptions such as The Shire.

[Boromir88]

One more quick comment...

If we take onboard the argument that the Ring itself has some kind of sentience

I always found it interesting that the Ring seemed to be aware of Isildur's intentions with the Ring.

When he at last felt free to return to his own realm he was in haste, and he wished to go first to Imladris; for he had left his wife and youngest son there, and he had moreover an urgent need for the counsel of Elrond.......

I cannot use it. I dread the pain of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the Three.~Unfinished Tales; The Disaster of Gladden Fields

And in Note 24, CT remarks: The pride that led him to keep the Ring against the counsel of Elrond and Cirdan that it should be destroyed in the fires of Orodruin

It's always been fascinating that the Ring seemed to be aware that Isildur was of no use to it and was about to take it [the Ring] directly into danger (the Keepers of the Three)...therefor Isildur is quickly dealt with before he can reach Rivendell.

Raynor, I don't think anyone is arguing that Gollum is not a cannibal and did not eat human (at least Orc) flesh...but Lal and Mith are saying that 'tales' are just that...'tales.' Which makes them rumours and not something that can be definitively said as 'fact.'

I'm reminded of the Salem Witch Hunt in the U.S. where a whole town was after anyone who showed signs of witchcraft. The hysteria it caused was shocking, yet you can't help but laugh at the stupidity of it. I mean accusations were so weak...an accusation such as 'She was walking by and my cow was struck down by a disease' could put someone in court, accuse them of witchcraft, and send the person to the noose. 'Tales' and such of witchcraft (or in this case the disappearance of babies), could lead to hysteria and a gross misinterpretation of the actual 'facts.'

TM, and while it's true many tales do have a bit of truth to them, the tales can become completely distorted as it passes from one person to the next (especially if the people are filled with hysteria). Even such things as 'eyewitness testimony' may not hold up in court...as eyewitness testimony has been proven (through several psychological studies) to be flat out wrong sometimes. Such little and trivial things as saying 'bludgered' instead of 'hit' can effect the actual accuracy of an eyewitness testimony. (And these are presumably the people who witnessed a crime happening! Not a group of hysteric villagers that have children supposedly disappearing).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Might

Lalwende, with all due respect, I think this has gone a bit too far.
You're being a bit subjective here, and interpreting the whole quotes as it fits your point.
Of course a threat is not equal to a deed, but let's be serious, Tolkien was pretty clearly saying that Gollum would have eaten Bilbo.
It could well be that the Ring had a great influence, and that the old Smeagol was a pretty nice guy, still, the thread topic is "Did Gollum, and not Smeagol, deserve death?"
Bogeymen stories? Even if these were just "stories", let's keep in mind that many stories actually base on real events.
Hobbits and ents only existed as characters in stories for the Rohirrim. Are you saying they are perhaps just bogeymen as well, meant to keep kids out of the forest or something?
Let's be serious, and face the facts, Raynor already gave some very good quotes for this.
Gollum was a murderer and a cannibal and probably would have been killed according to the laws of any kingdom in Middle-earth, with exceptions such as The Shire.

Me subjective? Isn't everybody subjective? Every last one of us? The only person who can be objective is Tolkien and he isn't here - all we have are the scraps to turn over.

A threat is not equal to a deed. Tolkien was particularly skilled in using his own language and I think he would have known the nuances and meanings inherent in every word he wrote down! He also knew well that implied actions and threatened actions are far more effective at scaring the reader than actually seeing the 'gore' - the Wicth King's threats to Eowyn are far more frightening than actually seeing someone having their Hroa ripped from them as without a defined picture, the imagination is able to go wild!

And that's sadly one thing that a lot of people today do not appreciate - the sheer power of the written word to create pictures in the mind, and the way that the writer can suggest things that may or may not have happened, and leave us to imagine and think for ourselves. So much more satisfying than films.

Many stories are based on real events? Many are not. See Mithalwen's great example for modern stories and how they get out of hand.

And which laws would have seen Gollum killed? Certainly not the laws of Thranduil's realm, nor those of Rivendell. And Faramir chose not to enact the normal rules applicable to intruders to the Forbidden Pool.

As davem says, it does not help to reduce this work to black and white. It is far too subtle for that. I don't care how many carefully cherry-picked quotes from the Letters are thrown at me, I have been reading Tolkien for long enough to know full well that there is always a contradictory one, so I am afraid Clever Quotes impress me not at all - mostly because I'm old enough in this game to know they aren't very clever.

And from a personal level, we instantly demean Tolkien's whole wonderful work to the level of a mere factual Maths text book the moment we set boundaries of X or Y upon it. Personally I blame the insidious influence of simplistic good/evil paradigms as seen in games and Jackson's films for this view people take today of the text. We need to listen to good old Gandalf a bit more. Which brings me back to being subjective. Nobody here is more than subjective as nobody here is Tolkien.

EDIT - What Boro says! And Boro knows as well as I do just how easy it is to spread stories and false rumours - that's what playing the Wolf in Werewolf is all about after all...

You can forget bogus 'magick spells' - it's stories that spread the real magic, whether malicious or not, true or not, it's magic all the same.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Might

Of course a threat is not equal to a deed, but let's be serious, Tolkien was pretty clearly saying that Gollum would have eaten Bilbo.

And let's not forget that Gollum did not know 'what' Bilbo was, after having spent half a millenium in a cave. What's being forgotten is that by this time Gollum was insane, & hardly responsible for his actions. Gollum is a tragic figure because he has been driven mad, psychotic, by something far more powerful than he was. His mind was broken by it. Hence, he was a victim. To simply state that 'he deserved to die' is to place oneself on the level of those decadent upper class types who visited mental asylums to laugh at the 'lunatics'.

It could well be that the Ring had a great influence, and that the old Smeagol was a pretty nice guy, still, the thread topic is "Did Gollum, and not Smeagol, deserve death?"

This again is reducing things to a simplistic 'Good' vs 'Evil' judgement. Except this is dividing a person into a 'Good' part & an 'Evil' part (just 'cos Sam does it it doesn't mean its an insightful or compassionate approach). How can one say that 'Gollum' deserves to die & 'Smeagol' does not? How would you kill the one without killing the other? There are not 'two' different 'spirits' inhabiting one body, but a person with a broken mind. Can you imagine the nightmare horror of 'Smeagollum''s existence? Put yourself in his place - your every thought, every perception, is fractured, one desire, hope, dream constantly 'attacked' by an opposing one - every thought you have immediately smashed by its opposite. And all the time you are driven by an overwhelming desire for something you hate.

Anyone who responds to such a supremely tragic remnant of a once whole person by saying 'Well, he certainly deserves to be executed' has missed Tolkien's point by a mile.

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.

[The Saucepan Man]

This debate is (as so often seems to be the case these days) getting to the point where I no longer wish to take part.

My own interpretation is that Gollum was responsible for snatching babies from cradles. Despite the fact that Gandalf picked this up from Woodmen's tales, he clearly concluded that Gollum was responsible (or else why raise it). The Woodmen were not telling him that it was Gollum, as they had no idea who Gollum was. All they knew was that children were disappearing from their cradles and they attributed it to a mysterious ghost (rather than one of the other horrors of Mirkwood, with which they were no doubt familiar). I acknowledged before that Gandalf may not get everything right, but he is one of the most reliable sources of information that we have in LotR. In this case, I choose to accept his conclusion. And I believe, in light of all the circumstances, that Tolkien intended his readers to do so.

I also fully accept the influence of the Ring on Gollum's behaviour. But the fact that he, uniquely among all those who came into contact with it, committed murder almost immediately upon first catching sight of it leads me to conclude that he was not the purest of beings, even before it crossed his path.

These are my opinions. I have no problem if others interpret the relevant passages differently or reach a different conclusion from me concerning Tolkien's intentions in the way that he chose to portray these scenes. And I have no problem in debating these issues with those who hold an opposing view.

I do, however, resent the implication that my interpretation of these matters and my conclusions derived from it are somehow "unfair" or "overly-simplistic". And I also greatly resent the suggestion that my intepretation of a fictional tale is somehow akin to the lynch mob mentality that leads to the victimisation of those who are suspected of being paedophiles or (in the past) of being witches on scant evidence.

It seems impossible to discuss anything here these days without some people questioning the character or literary nouse of those putting the opposing view.

And that is all that I have to say on the matter.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by davem

Some readers do seem to prefer to divide the inhabitants of M-e into 'Good' & 'Evil', refusing to believe the 'Good' can do any evil & that the 'Evil' are capable of any attrocity imaginable. Personally, I find such an approach overly simplistic.

Some readers, p'raps, maybe, but who here has voiced such thoughts? To whom do you refer, sir? Everyone, so far as I know, evil or good, has some tendancy to both evil and good. Boromir, I strongly believe, was a very noble, very good character, but he definitely had his faults and was capable of doing evil. Frodo was an infinitely good character, and yet, he, too, made mistakes.

Gollum...yes, he was a terribly evil character, but no, I never, ever said in this thread that he did not have some good left in him. Every character worth writing about has some shred of goodness that could somehow be redeemed, if the author so wished.

Every murderer usually has some soft spot left in his heart, I don't deny, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't done a crime.

Gollum was evil, with perhaps some tiny shred of goodness left in him by the time of the LotR, and Gollum, with all his murders, his lies, his treachery, and his whole evil self deserved death.

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.

I would say that Gandalf said he deserved to die when he said this:

Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death.

I would ask you to tell me what Gollum had done NOT to deserve death, but I won't, because I seriously am leaving this thread and this argument.

Saucepan Man is right. But I am guilty, I think, of what he accuses everyone of. Got too fierce and argument here. I do apologize. Of course everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of the story, but this question...! My word, it drives one nuts!

-- Folwren

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Why would he seek to influence Frodo?

Why would he present something this significant, if he didn't trust it, esspecially since he had some work to do with Frodo about the value of pitty, and how important it is to this quest?

Originally Posted by Lal

The problem with this approach, that Gollum was already twisted, entirely sidesteps the fact that Gollum had that Ring for 500 years, so anything we see of him, anything we know of him is irrevocably coloured by the twisted, damaged Gollum we see.

Folwren was referring to a moment when Gollum was not yet present, so your argument doesn't apply there.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

LOTR as we know it is a work of fiction ... [img]ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img] by someone who kneow how tales developed....

Originally Posted by Lal

Nobody here is more than subjective as nobody here is Tolkien.

Yeah, but Tolkien doesn't refute any part of the image of Gollum outside LotR. He reffers to him as damnable and persistent in wickedness.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

you would have to take the Hobbit with a bucket of salt

Why? Elves love to sing. I don't see a problem with them having a lighter side. Tom himself is as light as you can get, yet he is the only one who is impervious to the ring, so I am fine with lightness.

Originally Posted by davem

A reading of HoM-e gives us so many different versions of the story.

What exactly doesn't work? I am not reffering to preivous versions, but to the material we have now; the accounts have gone through numerous hands, but nothing disqualifies the accounts of Gollum's deeds. As pointed above, neither does Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Lal

A threat is not equal to a deed.

You still ignore that intention defines morality.

Originally Posted by Lal

there is always a contradictory one

Too bad for you that it resolutely refuses to appear . Hope never dies...

Originally Posted by Lal

Personally I blame the insidious influence of simplistic good/evil paradigms as seen in games and Jackson's films for this view people take today of the text.

But this is a fundamental battle between good and evil and Tolkien acknowledges it so; subtlety and shades doesn't make it any less so.

Originally Posted by davem

What's being forgotten is that by this time Gollum was insane, & hardly responsible for his actions.

I disagree. Tolkien referrs to him as persisten in wickedness, refusing chances of repentance and damnable. Therefore, he is responsible.

It is interesting to note that not even Sauron in Mordor, with everything at his disposal, the one who made the one ring with his own power, can overcome the evil in Gollum, cf Unfinished Tales, Hunt for the Ring; this is a clearly individual evil. If at the root of it, or if the major part of it, was the ring's power, Saruon could have taken control of him. It was not so.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree. Tolkien referrs to him as persisten in wickedness, refusing chances of repentance and damnable. Therefore, he is responsible.

It is interesting to note that not even Sauron in Mordor, with everything at his disposal, the one who made the one ring with his own power, can overcome the evil in Gollum, cf Unfinished Tales, Hunt for the Ring; this is a clearly individual evil. If at the root of it, or if the major part of it, was the ring's power, Saruon could have taken control of him. It was not so.

Smeagol spent 500 years alone in a lightless cave with only the Ring to eat away his mind, constantly afraid of being caught & killed. 500 years alone in the dark with the Ring. If Tolkien thought that what he did was purely down to 'wickedness' then he had no understanding of psychology. My own interpretation is that the refereneces to his 'wickedness' by other characters reflect their own ignorance of his illness.

Oh & Sauce, I wasn't referring to your interpretation as 'simplistic'...

[Boromir88]

Raynor:

But this is a fundamental battle between good and evil and Tolkien acknowledges it so; subtlety and shades doesn't make it any less so.

LOTR has been labelled as a fight of 'good and evil' for a long time, and it's a label I've never fully agreed with. Sure there is the figure of 'Evil' and the side of 'Good' but let's not forget the grey areas.

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right…In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.~Letter dated 25 September 1954

I wonder if Tolkien was in some way influenced by what he wrote in Letter 66

remarking that in WWII there were many orcs on both sides:
For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed.But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn men and elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are so clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side..

There is good and there is evil...but it's not so easy as a battle of good vs. evil...it is also a battle of good vs. good (evil) and evil vs. evil (good). Sorry...I can't think of a better way of putting it. Anyway as an example...

Denethor was a strong opposer to Sauron, he hated Sauron and he wanted to defeat Sauron. However, as Tolkien remarks, Denethor became corrupted by politics and had he survived the War of the Ring he would have ruled 'as a tyrant.' Denethor opposing Sauron...does that make him automatically good? No, as I don't think a 'tyrant' is something that would be good. LOTR can't be so easily pigeon-holed as 'good vs. evil' there is a what I like to refer to as a 'grey area.'

I disagree. Tolkien referrs to him as persisten in wickedness, refusing chances of repentance and damnable. Therefore, he is responsible.

And no one has yet refuted that murder was something Smeagol was capable of doing before coming across the Ring. Just because he is described in pretty bad light doesn't mean Smeagol would have become a murderer. Also, Gollum nearly was redeemed, yet Sam ruined that chance (albeit unintentionally)...and yes I will repeat my past point, it just goes to show that even good people (like Sam) can make bad decisions that have bad repercussions (in this case it ruined Gollum's last chance of redemption) eventhough he had no intention to do so.

If at the root of it, or if the major part of it, was the ring's power, Saruon could have taken control of him. It was not so.

Sauron (or more specifically the Ring) did get control over Smeagol. So much control and power over Smeagol that his fate became bound to the Ring's.

Sauce:

And I also greatly resent the suggestion that my intepretation of a fictional tale is somehow akin to the lynch mob mentality that leads to the victimisation of those who are suspected of being paedophiles or (in the past) of being witches on scant evidence.

I brought up the witch hunt...so I'm taking it as I am one of the people you are addressing here? I think you've read too deeply into things. The witch hunt was an example of what hysteria could cause. It was an example that 'rumours' and 'tales' don't mean 'truth' and what overwhelming fear can do to people and the 'tales' that come from it. It serves as an example that reminds me of the Woodsmen tales that have been infamously talked about in this thread. In absolutely no way was I making any remarks towards your posts (which I have found to be full of insight).

Of course debates get out of hand and a bit heated...I get into it more than what's good for me; and I think I can say everyone here at one point or another has been in some touchy topic debates. But let's not wave a red flag here, get frustrated and just say 'I'm done.' A thread like this that has gone through a wealth of information, some really thought provoking questions pertaining to real life is something I've been waiting for a long time! Where does any quality discussion get if everyone just says 'I quit?' I fail to see what's so frustrating about this thread...just sit back, read through, relax, and share your input. There's no need to get bent out of shape and call it quits.

[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.

[Macalaure]

I think we're drawing on the cradle-stealing too much. Tolkien tells us about it once and never again, as far as I'm aware. If it had a greater importance to even Tolkien himself, he would have told us more or at least would have referred to it again at some point in the story. If he didn't think it was that important, I think we shouldn't overemphasise it, too.

Concerning the ring. Don't beat me to provide quotes, but I have the impression that the ring has two main influences on a person. One is, that it increases the desires in the person and makes one think about how the power of the ring could further them, be it using the ring against Mordor (Boromir), doing good (Gandalf) or trivial things like getting away from the Sackville-Bagginses (Bilbo). This, to me, seems to be the first step. The second thing is the growing desire of possessing the ring. If we take Boromir's example, he first only wants the ring to be used against Mordor, and then later wants himself to be the one using it.

What's Smeagol's first thought when he sees it? He wants to have it - the ring appeals to his desire to have that shiny thing (the greed Lommy mentions). Smeagol wasn't a nice person from the beginning on, but was it already in him to murder? Probably. But at this time, the ring was just a shiny thing to him and I doubt Smeagol would have immediately murdered for any other shiny thing, so the power of the ring was clearly at work and this lessens his guilt, at least to an extent.

It's interesting to see that Gollum is at the same time a very weak and a very strong character. The ring appealed to his weaknesses, greed and lack of self control. His strength is his tenaciousness. He has not only a strong will to get his precious back (though influenced by the ring, it's still his will-power that drives him to go through all those hardships and keeps him from giving in even when tortured by Sauron), but also has an extreme will to survive and he isn't choosy when he needs to eat.

Originally Posted by davem

What's being forgotten is that by this time Gollum was insane, & hardly responsible for his actions.

This is the important point, I think. Was he responsible or not? It's quite evident to me that he wasn't fully responsible as he clearly was mad - to an extent. But if we argue him to not be responsible for his evils at all we're in a danger, because where does this leave us with Gollum's near-repentance? If he was entirely mad, then the repentance would have been void!

I think this makes this case so difficult. Gollum/Smeagol was wicked to a certain degree, but not entirely evil. Where did his wickedness end and the influence of the ring begin? I don't know, and therefore won't judge whether he deserved death or not.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

While speaking about Gollum eating orcs and intending to eat Bilbo, some people seem to assume he had a choice.

In the case of orcs I agree. But it is said that Gollum wasn't hungry when he met Bilbo, so it doesn't hold in this case.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sauce

These are my opinions. I have no problem if others interpret the relevant passages differently or reach a different conclusion from me concerning Tolkien's intentions in the way that he chose to portray these scenes. And I have no problem in debating these issues with those who hold an opposing view.

And that's why I have no problem discussing opposing views with you - as you quite clearly always state that what you say is opinion, which is all that any of us can say, after all! There is no underlying unpleasantness in disagreeing with you. And sometimes (shhhh, don't tell anyone!) you can be almost convincing.

Originally Posted by Sauce

It seems impossible to discuss anything here these days without some people questioning the character or literary nouse of those putting the opposing view.

Indeed. Things have taken an unpleasant turn lately, what with being accused of being immoral filth and having your intelligence questioned/insulted merely because you do not wish to use what should be a fun discussion site to get into pathetic discussions about logic and whatnot. I like to discuss Tolkien, not the mechanics of debate itself. And I like to make mad speculations.

Anyway, back on track...

Originally Posted by Lommy

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".

I don't like dividing people up like that either. For one you can often be surprised by a person's character - most 'chavs' and 'hoodies' (supposedly bad) are actually quite decent young people and I personally know a Reverend (supposedly good) who is an unpleasant piece of work. It's not actually a very clever thing to do, dividing people up and judging them - do you really know that those 'good' people can be trusted?

Anyhow, there's a very good point here, that the Ring works on character flaws/'sins' or whatever we want to call 'em. Gollum's flaw is greed so of course he wants that Ring and he wants it now! Lommy is right. As a contrast, Boromir's flaw is Pride, which would not prompt someone to act so quickly and impulsively. Bilbo's flaw seems to be a tendency towards being light fingered (and he is recruited as a Burglar, after all!) - note that it doesn't take him long to 'turn', either! No sooner has he got his mitts on the Ring than he is deceiving Gollum! He goes on to use the Ring primarily to maintain his (very English) need for privacy and uses it to hide from neighbours and relations when he can't be bothered with them - oh, how good would that be? But it's not exactly very nice, is it? Deceiving your own family? Is Bilbo inherently evil too? His lucky escape is that he shows pity to Gollum and does not pop him off when he could have done - and I should think so, too, after nicking his bling!

Lommy's onto something here.

Originally Posted by Boro

LOTR has been labelled as a fight of 'good and evil' for a long time, and it's a label I've never fully agreed with. Sure there is the figure of 'Evil' and the side of 'Good' but let's not forget the grey areas.
Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories.

If you read what the professional scholars say about Tolkien's work it quickly becomes clear that it isn't a simple good/evil fight, it's far more complex than the surface impression, which is in itself not straightforward! I wonder to what extent viewing the work in this way depends upon your own view of the world as it is? Whether you view the world in black/white terms?

EDIT to note a very good point:

Originally Posted by Mac

I think this makes this case so difficult. Gollum/Smeagol was wicked to a certain degree, but not entirely evil. Where did his wickedness end and the influence of the ring begin? I don't know, and therefore won't judge whether he deserved death or not.

Very fair, and very Gandalfian/Gandalvian (???)

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

If Tolkien thought that what he did was purely down to 'wickedness' then he had no understanding of psychology.

Irrelevant conclusion, since Tolkien never held such a position, nor did anyone else in this thread, as far as I am aware.

Originally Posted by davem

Rohirrim hunting the Woses just for a bit of a laugh.

I believe I have already shown in another thread that this is an unsuported speculation.

Originally Posted by Boro

LOTR has been labelled as a fight of 'good and evil' for a long time, and it's a label I've never fully agreed with. Sure there is the figure of 'Evil' and the side of 'Good' but let's not forget the grey areas.

Imo, you should have qualified this as a personal statement. As it appeared in the text, I thought it was Tolkien's; I spent some time searching for it. Anyway, we are in agreement of the existence of grey areas, as it can be seen from my statement you quoted. However, the fight between good and evil still is the central theme, and, if I understand you correctly, you agree.

Originally Posted by Boro

Sauron (or more specifically the Ring) did get control over Smeagol. So much control and power over Smeagol that his fate became bound to the Ring's.

Gollum's strong desire for the ring is one thing, while operative control of the ring of or Sauron over Gollum is another. Neither Sauron nor the ring could have used Gollum to return the ring to Sauron, no matter the effort.

Originally Posted by Lomy

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?

But comparing the morality of humans with that of animals is a false analogy, since the later don't, arguably, have morality. Anyway, imo, a lion should be killed if he represents an unavoidable danger to human life, or if the risk is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Lomy

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".

Are you arguing that a person can have any immoral values and still be as safe from the ring as Frodo, Bilbo, or Tom?

Originally Posted by Lomy

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.

What does define morality firstly in your view, if not intention?

Originally Posted by Lomy

While speaking about Gollum eating orcs and intending to eat Bilbo, some people seem to assume he had a choice.

I know of no evidence that he would starve on 'normal' food. And it wasn't something distasteful which he did as a last resort, he liked doing it whenever the chance.

Originally Posted by Lal

He goes on to use the Ring primarily to maintain his (very English) need for privacy and uses it to hide from neighbours and relations when he can't be bothered with them

Are you saying that avoiding annoying persons is immoral?

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps we are looking at this question from an inappropriate perspective, one derived more from attitudes in the Primary World than from those in the sub-created world. In Middle-earth, death is the gift of Eru. Therefore, it should not be used or seen as a form of punishment. All Men deserve death.

Gollem is a hobbit, and hobbits belong to the race of Men. They share this gift. Thus, Gollem does 'deserve' death, as it is his birthright.

Even more, his fate is one of the strongest aesthetic elements in the story. To imagine any other ending for him would, I think, rob the story of one of its most poignant moments. Its irony and the unexpected climax represents poetic justice, of the kind we often see in stories and rarely in history. (Well, I suppose we could, along with Batman's The Penguin, debate whether this is simply tragic irony.) This is one of the traditional markers used to suggest the priority of story over history.

We could perhaps debate if this attitude towards death is sufficiently developed in LotR for readers to recognise it as very different from the usual western attitude towards death as something to be feared and a punishment. We could also consider if this gift to Man represents Eru's form of revision of his creation. Is it possible to say that he recognised how morose and melancoly the Elves became because of their longevity and 'corrected' this by granting death to Men? This, however, would be a Legendarium topic rather than one simply related to LotR.

"The story's the thing wherein to catch the conscience of the Ring."

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Beth

We could also consider if this gift to Man represents Eru's form of revision of his creation.

However, the Silmarillion, the letters and the Athrabeth all show that Men were designed from the beginning to die

Originally Posted by Athrabeth

[Finrod] remains, nonetheless, in the opinion that the condition of Men before the disaster (or as we might say, of unfallen Man) cannot have been the same as that of the Elves. That is, their 'immortality' cannot have been the longevity within Arda of the Elves; otherwise they would have been simply Elves, and their separate introduction later into the Drama by Eru would have no function.

Originally Posted by Letter #208

I said, or meant to say, that the 'message' was the hideous peril of confusing true 'immortality' with limitless serial longevity. Freedom from Time, and clinging to Time. The confusion is the work of the Enemy, and one of the chief causes of human disaster.

[Lalwendë]

Bb, well Death is a good topic to discuss at any time as it is one of the major themes of LotR - didn't Tolkien himself say that the book is "about Death" (as opposed to just being about good versus evil - which is reductive - and wrong). Men do have the gift of Death, but they don't all approach it in the same way; the Rohirrim for one have a distinct cultural notion of Death. Might be worth a thread of its own? Exploring cultural attitudes towards death (and maybe funerary practises too) in middle-earth?

And in that sense of the word 'deserve', Gollum does indeed deserve Death in that it is natural and will bring him rest and succour from his troubles (presuming that in Middle-earth there might be some kind of afterlife as opposed to being superior worm fodder!). Mithalwen also brings this up and you're both right when looking at it that way. But was that the definition of 'deserve' that the OP intended? Not everyone is defining it the same way are they?

Originally Posted by Bb

Even more, his fate is one of the strongest aesthetic elements in the story. To imagine any other ending for him would, I think, rob the story of one of its most poignant moments. Its irony and the unexpected climax represents poetic justice, of the kind we often see in stories and rarely in history. (Well, I suppose we could, along with Batman's The Penguin, debate whether this is simply tragic irony.) This is one of the traditional markers used to suggest the priority of story over history.

Nice one! I'm with you all the way so excuse me while I drag this point out! I often marvel over the way Tolkien brought the story to its climactic moment - it provides the perfect ending for Gollum - he could not live without the Ring, nor could the Ring live, and like a pair of star-crossed lovers they plunge to their end together. Gollum gets the happiness of being reunited with his Precious (not for nothing did Tolkien choose that word) and although he dies at this point, he also gets release from the suffering his love has brought him. And this is not just tragic, and masterfully consistent with character and plot, (and unbelievably twisty!) but it is also deeply, deeply ironic.

It's probably one of the biggest "Ha!" moments in literature when Frodo fails and claims the ring only to be attacked by Gollum, who in his dance of euphoria falls to his end, taking the Ring with him. Deep irony on so many levels. Perhaps the biggest irony of all is that if people had judged Gollum and put him to death - ho! the whole of Middle-earth would have fallen to Sauron! You can imagine Gandalf saying "Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, self-righteous brigade!"

And at the same time, its utterly tragic. Tolkien actually wept as he wrote of Gollum's end.

Its on a par with the climax to Romeo and Juliet! Just unimaginably perfect.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, the Silmarillion, the letters and the Athrabeth all show that Men were designed from the beginning to die

Oh dear, it appears I haven't made myself clear, and for that I do apologise, as I certainly didn't intend my remarks to mean that Men were originally given elven longevity. What I had hoped my context, and especially the sentence following one you quote, would have shown is the idea that this designation for Men represents a change in Eru's ideas about how to create or form lifeforms. My use of revision relates to the entire concept of creating life. Was his thought of Men simultaneous with his thought about Elves or did he think to create Men later in time. (Oh there's that bothersome issue about the nature of time with Eru.) Given the metaphor of music, which occurs chronologically (beginning and end not heard simultaneously for the audience at least, although perhaps for the creator), did Eru see that his shaping of Elves had an inherent negative element, so that his next creation (so to speak), Men, corrected this error. As in, "Oh bother. This longevity thing isn't working so well with the elves. Let me try a different model."

Or I suppose it could have gone like this: "Ho hum. I'm immortal. What do I do with myself? Do I really know what this means? Would others? I wonder, what would happen if there were others who didn't understand immortality like I do? Why don't I sing into existence various life forms and see what they make of time and immortality. Hmmm. This little piggy will have thousands of years and this little piggy will have few."



EDIT: Opps, didn't see Lal's post and now RL puts an end to my participation here. Perhaps afterRL I can return.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Beth

Was his thought of Men simultaneous with his thought about Elves or did he think to create Men later in time.

I don't think we could figure that. In the music, they both appeared in the Third Theme, and they represent, according to Tolkien's interpretation, the first intrusions of God into Creation.

Tolkien did state they represent the experiments of the same problem

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Elves and Men are just different aspects of the Humane, and represent the problem of Death as seen by a finite but willing and self-conscious person.

[The Might]

Originally Posted by davem

Oh & Sauce, I wasn't referring to your interpretation as 'simplistic'...

The word "your" is not my emphasis btw.

Please excuse me that my level of literary understanding is not high enough to enable me to make good contributions in such a discussion.
I am however able to read between the lines in many of the posts and see this subtle irony.
I agree with SPM here.

[alatar]

Taking up Bêthberry's point, I think, but are we asking if Gollum deserves punishment? Death in Arda is a Gift, and to this lost soul, though second to having a night out on the town with the One Ring, Death would truly be a gift - no more insatiable desire for the Ring.

So, when Gandalf says that Gollum deserves to die, is he saying that, yes, it surely would be convenient if the wretch weren't running around the place, mudding up the plans of both the Wise and the small? I think that Gandalf, being farsighted, knew that this creature sits between or outside Good or Evil. As I've stated before, Gollum is a rogue - Chaos. Not saintly like Frodo, nor completely evil such as Sauron, but something else. He is the fulcrum, in the end, on which both sides' fates balance.

In the end, Gollum gets death. As stated, he and his Precious share one last dance and the two lovers die together. Was this Eru's reward to this tortured soul? Note that he's not blown away like Sauron or Saruman, some mist or shadow that will gnaw itself in the Void. Gollum just dies.

And though the Ring be a strong addiction, I cannot absolve Gollum of his deeds after he takes the Ring just because the Ring and the Darkness chewed away at his brain. Surely he is miserable and pitiable, yet still he chose to take the Ring, and for that he is guilty.

[Boromir88]

You should have qualified this as a personal statement. As it appeared in the text, I thought it was Tolkien's; I spent some time searching for it.~Raynor

My mistake, I forgot to wrap 'quotes' around the actual letter I was pointing out, it's fixed now. I think I wrote that post at 2am in the morning, so hope you can forgive me.

alatar, good points, and I don't think anyone is trying to absolve Gollum of all the blame here. As Folwren so eloquently argued, Gollum reacted to the Ring in a way that nobody else had (he killed for it!). That to me must be some indication of Gollum's pre-existing wickedness (and has been commented on countless times he already was 'wicked' previously).

The debate however is does Gollum deserve to have been killed/executed...etc. For me, it's no, because I think the 'lesson' is it's not the people of Middle-earth's (or our own) decision.

The 'law' could have come down and decide to have killed Gollum at several points in the story. Frodo thinks Bilbo should have killed Gollum, the family (and community) Gollum lived in could have killed him, Faramir could have had his rangers kill him, but in each of these instances they spared Gollum. And as Gandalf I think accurately states...'Bilbo's Pity may rule the fate of many.' Well I say, 'Everyone's Pity [towards Gollum] may rule the fate of many.' And indeed I would also say that turns out to be true.

Gandalf had hope of Gollum's salvation, I don't see why I shouldn't. Indeed he was close to it, but Sam was unable to find pity for Gollum until it was too late for Gollum's sake (in the Sammath Naur).

Beregond's life was spared when he could have been slapped with the death penalty:

And the King said to Beregond: ’Beregond, by your sword blood was spilled in the Hallows, where that is forbidden. Also you left your post without leave of Lord or of Captain. For these things, of old, death was the penalty. Now therefor I must prounounce your doom.
’All penalty is remitted for your valour in battle, and still more because all you did was for the love of the Lord Faramir. Nontheless you must leave the Guard of the Citadel, and yo much go forth from the City of Minas Tirith.’~The Steward and the King

Saruman and Grima could have been killed by Theoden and co...I doubt anyone would see that as wrong and complain. But the important point is they didn't, they had the pity to spare Grima and Saruman (and offer them salvation at several times throughout the story).

This whole 'sparing people from the death penalty' seems to occur quite a lot throughout the story. So, I'm taking it as there is an important moral lesson Tolkien is writing about in his story...and that is of Mercy and Pity. While the 'law' says for murder your punishment is death; is that the 'right' thing to do? Need I remind everyone of Gandalf's words to Frodo that have been quoted more times than I can recall? But instead of quoting Gandalf, I'm going to use another one that no one sees a lot:

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.~HoMe X; Morgoth's Rings

Though the teachings of the Wise were not always listened to when regarding Orcs...Orcs were not beyond some kind of redemption. If Tolkien brings up Orcs pleading for Mercy, I think it's reasonable to say that Orcs were capable of pleading for Mercy. I hope this casts some interesting light upon the Gollum question of this thread.

[Mithalwen]

Sauce:
Quote:
And I also greatly resent the suggestion that my intepretation of a fictional tale is somehow akin to the lynch mob mentality that leads to the victimisation of those who are suspected of being paedophiles or (in the past) of being witches on scant evidence.

I brought up the witch hunt...so I'm taking it as I am one of the people you are addressing here? I think you've read too deeply into things. The witch hunt was an example of what hysteria could cause. It was an example that 'rumours' and 'tales' don't mean 'truth' and what overwhelming fear can do to people and the 'tales' that come from it. It serves as an example that reminds me of the Woodsmen tales that have been infamously talked about in this thread. In absolutely no way was I making any remarks towards your posts (which I have found to be full of insight).

Since I brought up the persecution of assumed paedophiles, I guess Iam another and I can only echo Boro's words and state categorically that my comments were not directed at your post but at the one that preceded it (which I assumed was obvious and so did not quote). On the whole I think it likely that Gollum was responsible for many horrors but I merely wished ot point out information presentedin such a way presented cannot be taken as absolute proof - any more (to give a Middle Earth example ) than the Rohirric and Gondorian stories of the Lady of the Golden wood could be taken as the truth about Galadriel.

I wrote my dissertation on Fear, madness and the supernatural in Guy de Maupassant's horror stories, an oevre into which Gollum's alleged escapades would have fitted in nicely. Having spent over a year pondering the "truth" of those tales may have inclined me to pick apart too much the basis of this one but I was not criticising your interpretations ..and indeed I would not dare....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Saruman and Grima could have been killed by Theoden and co...I doubt anyone would see that as wrong and complain. But the important point is they didn't, they had the pity to spare Grima and Saruman (and offer them salvation at several times throughout the story).

This whole 'sparing people from the death penalty' seems to occur quite a lot throughout the story. So, I'm taking it as there is an important moral lesson Tolkien is writing about in his story...and that is of Mercy and Pity. While the 'law' says for murder your punishment is death; is that the 'right' thing to do? Need I remind everyone of Gandalf's words to Frodo that have been quoted more times than I can recall? But instead of quoting Gandalf, I'm going to use another one that no one sees a lot:

Saruman, even after trying to murder Frodo in the Shire, is spared - incredibly, he was given no penalty for attempted murder! Frodo, now wiser, knows that letting Saruman go free was more of a punishment than slaying him (for what reason, I'm not exactly sure). Grima, however, is quickly slain after he commits murder, and is most like shot in the back as he ran. I know Frodo would have prevented this as well, but...

Thoughts?

EDIT

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

On the whole I think it likely that Gollum was responsible for many horrors but I merely wished ot point out information presentedin such a way presented cannot be taken as absolute proof - any more (to give a Middle Earth example ) than the Rohirric and Gondorian stories of the Lady of the Golden wood could be taken as the truth about Galadriel.

Note that, in regards to the Witch of the Golden Wood, we as the reader know different, and Eomer in the end learns the truth of the matter. This is not the case with Gollum's crib 'cribbing.'

[Child of the 7th Age]

The one thing I can be totally sure of is that, like the Ents, I do not feel comfortable with either side in this equation. However, if compelled to lean one way or the other, I will come down with those who are saying that Gollum does not deserve death. Interestingly, I didn't start my post with this position. I actually began to write in SpM's defense and then discovered I did not agree with him.

Perhaps we are having so much trouble with Gollum's deserving or not deserving death because the question reflects a much larger problem that runs through LotR and possibly the Legendarium as a whole. There is a dichotomy that underlies the Lord of the Rings, or at least a difference in emphasis in terms of what the author is stressing in different places. This dichotomy makes it difficult to come to any firm judgment on Gollum, if we are trying to decipher how Tolkien felt. This interests me more than simply considering how I personally feel. I've been influenced by any number of things in contemporary life and politics, so my judgment may not be the same as JRRT. But having thought about it a while I think Tolkien would have counselled forebearance in terms of Gollum and would not have made a judgment on his "guilt" or his "deserving" death.

It's true that there are some things pointing in the opposite direction. We find many quotes and scenes in both the book and the letters that suggest Tolkien believed there were clear and immutable standards of right and wrong. The best known of these is by Aragorn:

Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among men.

We are a long way here from the moral relativism that has such enormous impact on our contemporary culture and influences how many of us regard right and wrong (myself included). My honest opinion, however, is that Tolkien saw right and wrong as absolute in essence rather than relative. (I am not talking here about the nature of an individual but rather the moral standards as a whole.) There are also scenes and quotes in the book where it is clearly stated that the good guys are expected to step forward and take a stand to preserve the right against those who would take a stand on the opposite side. While Gollum is not Sauron's agent, he clearly did not want to see the Ring destroyed, which was the whole point of Frodo and Sam's journey. As such, he was an enemy.

It's a small step to start from those premises in the text and go on to condemn Gollum or at least to conclude that he "deserved death". He clearly murdered someone within thirty seconds of seeing the Ring.....the only character we know who acquired the Ring in quite that way. Murder is wrong, and just how much influence can the Ring have in 30 seconds? Some of this nastiness has to be coming from within Gollum himself. Given this situation and an absolute moral standard, it would not be difficult to say that Gollum "deserves" death.

Interestingly, Tolkien does not do that. In fact, he spends a huge chunk of the book setting up a conflict between Sam and Frodo over what to do with Gollum (with other characters like Faramir occasionally poking their nose in). In many ways the journey to Mount Doom can be interpreted as the struggle to answer the question that Mansun has posed for us in this thread. By trying to answer this question, we are actually following in the footsteps of Sam and Frodo.

Given the fact that Tolkien believed in absolute standards of good and evil, and that he clearly felt that Frodo made the right choice by not making an overall judgment on Gollum or Saruman (let alone executing them), I can only believe this..... Although Tolkien believed absolute standards existed, he also felt that only Eru was in a position to read the truth, make "true" judgments, and enforce those standards. No one else --not an immortal maia or a hobbit or a man --is in a position to make a true judgment on Gollum (or anyone else for that matter). Tolkien spends most of the book slowly spelling out this lesson in the scenes with Frodo and Sam. And just to make sure we "got it" he comes back in the Scouring and says the same thing in the final scenes between Saruman and Frodo.

I can see how someone might feel differently about this, but I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of those who are saying we are in no position to make a definitive judgment on Gollum. Obviously, Tolkien was not a pacifist. His characters had to step forward and fight for what they believed was good, but they could not take the one extra step and make the ultimate pronouncement on their enemies--whether Gollum or Saruman actually "deserved" death in the ultimate sense. That was reserved for something or someone with a wider view of what was happening, by implication Eru Given the flawed nature of our world and our limitations in thinking, even if a person "deserves" death by Eru's standards, we are in no position to dish it out.
********************

Whoops! I crossposted. Others are also discussing Saruman.

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.