Did Gollum deserve death?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

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.

'I am sorry,' said Frodo. 'But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.'

'You have not seen him,' Gandalf broke in.

'No, and I don't want to,' said Frodo. 'I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least. In any case we did not kill him: he is old and very wretched. The Wood-elves have him in prison, but they treat him with such kindness as they can find in their wise hearts.'

LR Book I, ch. 2: 'The Shadow of the Past' (50th anniversary ed.)

A lot of energy has been expended on the single word daresay in this passage.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

A minor point: Gandalf says: "I daresay he does.", not "I say he does." This sounds to me like, although it is Gandalf's opinion that Gollum deserves death, he is aware that his opinion alone doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

"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".

Originally Posted by Mansun

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.

Before I enter into any interpretation of what I think Tolkien meant Gandalf to say, we need some sort of objective source for the word. I have two.

-PHRASES I dare say (or daresay) used to indicate that one believes something is probable: I dare say you've heard about her

The Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd ed. (2003), entry for dare

I ~ say (rare exc[ept] in 1st person; 3rd sing[ular] in reported speech, he ~s to say, past he ~d say or to say), am prepared to believe, do not deny, = very likely (often iron[ic])

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 4th ed. (1951), entry for dare

Of these, naturally the definition given in the 1951 fourth edition of the Concise Oxford will be the more interesting, since it records usage at about the time LR was composed. As we can see above, the ironic meaning given by Lalwendë is recorded as common in the 1950s, but I do not believe that Gandalf means it in this sense. I think he means it in the primary sense 'I do not deny' or 'I am prepared to believe'. My reasoning is quite simple: why would someone sarcastically refute the idea that someone is deserving of death, only to give the moral reasoning behind leaving such a person alive in the very next sentence? If death is not deserved, then the moral implications need no explanation. Gandalf says: "Many that live deserve death," which is absolutely true, and follows it with "some that die deserve life". This is also true, but whereas it is all too easy to kill someone, bringing the dead back to life is rather more difficult. In an indirect way this suggests that who lives and who dies should be up to those who are capable of dispensing both life and death.

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

I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

Letter #181 (drafts) to Michael Straight (c. Jan/Feb 1956)

In short, then, Gollum may or may not deserve death, but this is irrelevant to the moral message of this chapter, which states that whether or not someone has done things that justify their death is for God to decide, just as is the choice of who is to live or die. Doubtless in our secular world it is difficult to grasp a theory which relies on the presence of an omniscient judge: in an atheistic world, either people deserve to die (or it would be more beneficial to the world to kill them) and should be killed or they don't and should be allowed to live. Tolkien cuts through all of it with the simple question: 'Can you bring the dead back to life?' It's a question that implies a warning: 'don't take authority to yourself that you have no right to claim.' Significantly this is just as appropriate in an atheistic universal model as in Tolkien's. We're all agreed that people can't re-animate the dead (unless they have a genetically engineered zombie virus, or some giant lightning-powered machine and a good hand for needlework, but let's not get into that). Gollum might as well argue (if present) using Gawain's words: "But if on floor should fall my head I cannot it restore" (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight ll. 2282-3 (stanza 91). Tolkien's translation).

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

First, Sméagol didn't attack or kill Déagol because he had some random pretty gold ring. He attcaked because he was overtaken by the lust and the lure of the ring. He maybe had some natural inclination to greed since he acted this quickly, but I daresay he didn't do this because he was a bad/evil person.

Second, I wouldn't call his actions towards Bilbo murderous. He was hungry. He didn't want to kill Bilbo because he (Gollum) is an evil person, but because he was hungry. A lion doesn't kill an antilope because it's evil. It kills to satisfy its hunger.

Again, I think the answer is to be found by careful analysis of the passages in LR:

But Sméagol had been watching him from behind a tree , and as Déagol gloated over the ring, Sméagol came softly up behind.

'"Give us that, Déagol, my love," said Sméagol, over his friend's shoulder.

'"Why?" said Déagol.

'"Because it's my birthday, my love, and I wants it," said Sméagol.

'"I don't care," said Déagol. "I have given you a present already, more than I could afford. I found this, and I'm going to keep it."

'"Oh are you indeed, my love," said Sméagol; and he caught Déagol by the throat and strangled him, because the gold looked so bright and beautiful. Then he put the ring on his finger.

LR Book I ch. 2 The Shadow of the Past, 50th anniv. ed. (p.53)

Now this is a conversation which is entirely reported by Gandalf, more than 540 years after the fact, but at the end of his tale, he mentions to Frodo that: "What I have told you is what Gollum was willing to tell". He also says that "Gollum is a liar, and you have to sift his words". How much of this conversation is a fabrication or reconstruction of Gandalf's? Obviously not the murder, since that appears in the Tale of Years as an addendum to the formation of the White Council in 2463 (although this is not the exact year, as the annalist notes). More significantly, Gollum doesn't deny it, and the idea that he actually killed for the Ring provides the most realistic psychological explanation for his subsequent fixation with birthdays. But where does the interpretation of Sméagol's motivation come from? It looks like an intrusion of an omniscient narrator, but in this case the narrator is Gandalf, who isn't omniscient at all. Strangely it skims over Déagol's murder, but is almost poetic about its motive: the gold looked so bright and beautiful that Sméagol killed for it.

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:

A trace of this can be seen in the account of Sméagol and Déagol - modified by the individual characters of these rather miserable specimens. Déagol, evidently a relative (as no doubt all the members of the small community were), had already given his customary present to Sméagol, although they probably set out on their expedition v. early in the morning. Being a mean little soul he grudged it. Sméagol, being meaner and greedier, tried to use the 'birthday' as an excuse for an act of tyranny. 'Because I wants it' was his frank statement of his chief claim. But he also implied that D's gift was a poor and insufficient token: hence D's retort that on the contrary it was more than he could afford.

Letter #214 to A.C. Nunn (c. l. 1958 - e. 1959)

Importantly, Tolkien treats the entire conversation between Sméagol and Déagol not as reported speech, but as the actual words of the two characters. Implicitly he accepts that Gandalf has, like an idealised nineteenth-century philologist, assembled a pivotal account from scraps and fragments with complete accuracy. Of course, since everything that happens in LR was invented by Tolkien in the first place, he was in a good position to know the 'facts' of the case, so there's no need to accuse him of credulity. It was also part of his job to reassemble factual accounts from disparate, incomplete and often inaccurate sources, so he had a vested interest in believing that such a thing was possible and reliable, if one can wield the wisdom of Gandalf.

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.

'...[Gollum] set out and came back westward, as far as the Great River. But then he turned aside. He was not daunted by the distance, I am sure. No, something else drew him away. So my friends think, those that hunted him for me.

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

The Shadow of the Past LR p. 58 (super-duper bonus nested emphasis mine)

This time, Gandalf deals with second and third-hand accounts that he has collected from those who have hunted Gollum on his behalf. The theft of children from cradles is reported by the Wood-elves as something reported by the Woodmen, but why should the Woodmen invent such a thing? Surely children have been taken, and a mythology has built up around these events of a ghost that drinks blood. Tolkien's profession and inclination had given him a certain respect for folklore which is not encouraged in schools. As the rôle of Ioreth in The Houses of Healing makes abundantly clear, he believed that at the heart of myths, legends and folklore could be found useful kernels of truth. The rhymes remembered by Ioreth identify Aragorn as king and also cause Gandalf to fetch him to tend Éowyn, Faramir and Merry; and Celeborn says to Boromir:

'...do not despise the lore that has come down from distant years; for oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know.'

LR, Farewell to Lórien (p.374)

It does not take a great leap of the imagination to apply this same rule to the vague murmurings of the Woodmen about the nocturnal infanticide. The facts have been clothed in legend, but this is always so when terrible things are done and the perpetrator cannot be identified. There is more legend and speculation surrounding Jack the Ripper than survives about the adventures of Oðinn. Moreover, I think the context of Gandalf's remarks is significant. The Wood-elves have used the Woodmen's legends to track Gollum. If they were merely superstitious fiction this would have been at best coincidence. It is also significant that the terror that stalks the eaves of Mirkwood is not a traditional bogey, but a new horror. Circumstantial evidence at best, but as Saucepan pointed out, a novel is not a court of law. Through Gandalf, Tolkien uses the vocabulary and style of folklore to conjure up a horror of a character's action when to describe it would have a lesser, perhaps almost an unnoticeable effect. It should also be noted that talking birds are not out of order in LR, just as they are perfectly reasonable in Volsunga Saga. Indeed, while there are certainly questions about the origins of the Eagles, the fact remains that Gandalf reports conversations with Gwaihir the Windlord, who is, in fact, a bird. Tolkien uses talking birds rather less in LR than he did in The Hobbit, but they are a possibility within his world, and the Elves' conversations with them are quite reasonable, even likely in that context. In any case, the idea that the Elves of Mirkwood might be able to communicate with animals that are dumb to Men does not seem entirely unlikely, given their closer relationship with the matter of Arda.

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:

At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly* betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden.

[Tolkien's footnote]

*Not quite 'certainly'. The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum over the brink, when about to repent.
Letter #181 op. cit.

The question that arises is: what would have been the result for the world if temporal 'justice' had been served on Gollum? Very likely the victory and dominion of Sauron. A typically hard-hitting expression of Tolkien's own moral beliefs.

Finally, at the enormous risk of missing too many arguments, I'll address Bêthberry's very pertinent question:

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.

My foregoing comments have probably made it clear that I share your belief that this debate is looking at all the wrong angles, and although I'm looking at the question as one of the right to judge, and to exercise the high justice as well as the low, yours is also a valid point. Part of Sméagol's misery and tragedy is that he has lived far beyond his natural span, but a poor sort of life and one scarcely preferable to death. Although he seems terrified at the prospect of death in his final confrontation with Sam on the slopes of Orodruin, his actual death looks much more like a release. Doubtless he wouldn't have agreed with me as he plummeted into the fire, but I think that Tolkien might.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Might

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.

Well, once again I have to disappoint another poster & point out that it wasn't you either... I can only put this down to my natural charisma in that everything I write seems to be read by some posters as aimed at them, as if they are the only person in the world as far as I am concerned....

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.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Mansun

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

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

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Sounds a bit too 'relative' and so anyone - Sauron, Melkor, etc - are just doing what seems sane to them, as surely anyone silly enough to take one's Creator could be considered by some insane. At what point do we say that anyone is guilty of anything - it's my nature, my genes, my lot, etc. No one guilty?

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.

[Child of the 7th Age]

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Sounds a bit too 'relative' and so anyone - Sauron, Melkor, etc - are just doing what seems sane to them, as surely anyone silly enough to take one's Creator could be considered by some insane. At what point do we say that anyone is guilty of anything - it's my nature, my genes, my lot, etc. No one guilty?

Or am I just not seeing what you mean?

I'm saying he 'deserves' to be sectioned under the M-e equivalent of the Mental Health Act, not executed - which, if you think about it, is what the Elves did......

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm saying he 'deserves' to be sectioned under the M-e equivalent of the Mental Health Act, not executed - which, if you think about it, is what the Elves did......

I'm with you, but (and this may be off-thread and opening a can of worms) at what point is someone culpable for their actions? One could make the case that anyone murdering another is insane, as only the insane would commit such an act. Do all criminals end up in the asylum?

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

I'm with you, but (and this may be off-thread and opening a can of worms) at what point is someone culpable for their actions? One could make the case that anyone murdering another is insane, as only the insane would commit such an act. Do all criminals end up in the asylum?

No, I don't think so. Smeagol could have been judged guilty of murdering Deagol immediately after the act - but after 500 years alone on the dark with the Ring I'm not sure how one could judge fairly of his actions - how 'sane' was he? Were there still some 'fragments' of his original self which could have been judged guilty? Yet were those parts the ones responsible for the 'evil' acts he committed, or was it the 'insane' parts.

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?'

[Thenamir]

I am in agreement with Child:

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.

I think the consensus here (and my apologies to those who do not share it) is that Gollum indeed deserves death for all his evil actions. And yet, the wise (Gandalf, Aragorn, and the elves) do not carry out an execution. Why? Gandalf shares his premonition ("my heart tells me") that Gollum still had a part to play in the great unfolding drama of the Ring saga. Whence does this "feeling" come from? I believe* it can only come from whatever connection to or remembrance of Eru still remains after so many long years incarnate in Middle Earth. (And what understatement, to say "the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.")

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.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Smeagol could have been judged guilty of murdering Deagol immediately after the act - but after 500 years alone on the dark with the Ring I'm not sure how one could judge fairly of his actions - how 'sane' was he? Were there still some 'fragments' of his original self which could have been judged guilty? Yet were those parts the ones responsible for the 'evil' acts he committed, or was it the 'insane' parts.

I think you make an important point; one cannot view the actions of a person under the influence of the Ring in exactly the same way that one would view the same actions in an un-influenced person. But I would not err on the other extreme either. Just as the Ring cannot be seen as exclusively a sort of 'psychic amplifier' (to use Shippey's term), it also cannot be seen as an indomitable force that takes over or possesses its victims wholly and utterly. There is something almost paradoxical about the way the Ring works; its bearers seem simultaneously to have and not to have free will. And yet it is believable; it is as though in the Ring domination by fate and freedom of choice are unified and made into one and the same thing. I think that this sort of justified paradox, this synthesis of antitheses, if you will, is one of the most brilliant features of Tolkien's writing.

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.

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?'

I do not mean to suggest that your interpretation is wrong - but why not take Gandalf at his word? If you ask me, Gandalf does think that Gollum deserves to die - but Gandalf also recognizes that it is not his place to judge such things.

[Morwen]

"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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I think the consensus here (and my apologies to those who do not share it) is that Gollum indeed deserves death for all his evil actions. And yet, the wise (Gandalf, Aragorn, and the elves) do not carry out an execution. Why? Gandalf shares his premonition ("my heart tells me") that Gollum still had a part to play in the great unfolding drama of the Ring saga. Whence does this "feeling" come from? I believe* it can only come from whatever connection to or remembrance of Eru still remains after so many long years incarnate in Middle Earth. (And what understatement, to say "the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.")

My feeling is that they don't kill him because they never actually needed to - killing in self defence is one thing. Executing someone in cold blood is another. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that they simply kept Gollum around because he might prove 'useful'. A very utilitarian approach which strikes me as more in Sauron or Saruman's line. I think Gandalf's motive was the same as Frodo's - hope that in some way, given time & the right circumstances, Smeagol may have been healed.

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.

Well, I'm sure they noticed that Deagol hadn't been around since the fishing trip & must have had their suspicions.

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.....)

[Thenamir]

Originally Posted by davem

My feeling is that they don't kill him because they never actually needed to - killing in self defence is one thing. Executing someone in cold blood is another. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that they simply kept Gollum around because he might prove 'useful'.

I am in agreement here -- it was quoted earlier that even orcs were given mercy if they asked.

Originally Posted by The Field of Cormallen

And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for a last stand of desperate battle. But the most part fled eastward as they could; and some cast their weapons down and sued for mercy.

Though the text does not explicitly state what happened after this, the expectation is that those who asked mercy were given it, and the ones who continued fighting were probably slain or driven off.

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.

[Kuruharan]

it was quoted earlier that even orcs were given mercy if they asked.

-and-

And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for a last stand of desperate battle. But the most part fled eastward as they could; and some cast their weapons down and sued for mercy.

That passage does not refer to orcs.

Note:

And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold

The orcs were...

orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope.

It didn't occur to them to beg for mercy. They weren't rational anymore.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I think the consensus here (and my apologies to those who do not share it) is that Gollum indeed deserves death for all his evil actions. And yet, the wise (Gandalf, Aragorn, and the elves) do not carry out an execution. Why? Gandalf shares his premonition ("my heart tells me") that Gollum still had a part to play in the great unfolding drama of the Ring saga. Whence does this "feeling" come from? I believe* it can only come from whatever connection to or remembrance of Eru still remains after so many long years incarnate in Middle Earth. (And what understatement, to say "the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.")

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.

Err, not quite sure where you got the meaning of the word 'consensus' from there. But I'm prepared you might mean a consensus on the many meanings of another word - 'deserved'. The fact we're all still shouting about it tells us we're about as far from anything like a 'consensus' as ever we can be. Sorry, had to be a pedant.


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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

But in this case you seem to disregard that we do actually have insight into his mind. You ignore Tolkien's opinion on Gollum, even if he is the author of the story. To quote for the nth time, he is portrayed as persistent in wickedness, refusing repentance and as damnable. All of this mean responsibility. This is not an argument from ignorance, quite the contrary. However, I have a nagging feeling I quoted this, for the nth+1 time, in vain.

Originally Posted by Lal

Some, like Gandalf, know of Eru, and maybe know that execution would not be acceptable to him

But there have been executions. Turgon ordered Eol to be killed, and Mandos executed Melkor.

Perhaps to put to death a victim of Sauron's craft and treachery is far worse than to allow Gollum to live?

I don't agree with killing as punishment. Although I do argue that one who represents an unacceptable risk to the lives of others should be stopped one way or the other (peacefully, when possible). Stopping such a person, using the most adequate way, would not be immoral, or doing Sauron's work.

[Boromir88]

I'm with you, but (and this may be off-thread and opening a can of worms) at what point is someone culpable for their actions?~alatar

Well said...those who commit acts of 'evil' I think have to always be held accountable to a point. The 'evil-doers' see themselves as being in the right and what they're doing is not wrong at all...however does that make them not evil? I don't think so; everyone has to be held accountable for the decisions they make. The Ring may have been too strong of an influence for Smeagol to face, but what he did was inexcusable.

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:

It may become possessive, clinging to the things made as ’its own’, the sub-creator wishes to be the Lord and God of his private creation. He will rebel againast the laws of the Creator.~Letter 131

Letter 131 also talks about one who 'bulldozes and seeks to dominate' over someone's will. This is also an evil act. Taking these into account I think Morgoth and Sauron fit quite nicely with the concept of evil in the story. And as Tolkien remarks both were in 'absolute satanic rebellion' against Eru:

But in this ’mythology’ all the ’angellic’ powers concerned themselves with world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the Absolute Satanic Rebellion of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the faineance of some of the other higher powers or ’gods.’~Letter 156

So, Tolkien sets up these varying 'degrees of error and failing' that anyone is capable of committing. Morgoth and Sauron are the 'most evil' as they do seek to dominate over other's wills/bulldoze, and there were in direct rebellion against Eru.

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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Boro

But, did Gollum willingly rebel against Eru? Did Gollum willingly want to dominate over other people? Those are the questions.

Are you arguing that only rebellion against Eru per se (and no indirect instances of it, such as stealing, killing, etc), or willing to dominate others are immoral? Seeing that you call this the greatest (not the only) evil acts, I am inclined to think no.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But in this case you seem to disregard that we do actually have insight into his mind. You ignore Tolkien's opinion on Gollum, even if he is the author of the story. To quote for the nth time, he is portrayed as persistent in wickedness, refusing repentance and as damnable. All of this mean responsibility. This is not an argument from ignorance, quite the contrary. However, I have a nagging feeling I quoted this, for the nth+1 time, in vain.

He is also portrayed as pitiable, broken, confused, lonely, insane & overwhelmed by a power he cannot hope to stand against or break free from.

(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.

[Raynor]

If he was simply 'wicked & damnable' why would he inspire pity?

Because they saw he has the choice to repent; Tolkien stated that nothing is wholly evil, since it would be absolute zero. The same would apply to Gollum. Also, Tolkien stated that one must show pity even when doing so may seem disadvantageous; true pity is present when it is contrary to prudence.

It seems to me you are taking a 'Balrog's Wings' approach here - Tolkien uses the word 'wings' & you take it literally.

Was that an attempt to somehow demean my argument? Because the barlog wings debate is no settled, unless you consider your word the ultimate authority . While Tolkien may have acknowledged Gollum's problems, he still considers him as such, and I don't see how either of the three labels can be taken figuratively. Surely, you are allowed to do so, if you want.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Because they saw he has the choice to repent; Tolkien stated that nothing is wholly evil, since it would be absolute zero. The same would apply to Gollum. Also, Tolkien stated that one must show pity even when doing so may seem disadvantageous; true pity is present when it is contrary to prudence..

Bilbo almost stopped breathing, and went stiff himself. He was desperate. He must get away, out of this horrible darkness, while he had any strength left. He must fight. He must stab the most foul thing, put its eye out, kill it. It meant to kill him. No, not a fair fight. He was invisible now. Gollum had no sword. Gollum had not actually threatened to kill him, or tried to yet. And he was miserable, alone, lost. A sudden understanding, a pity mixed with horror, welled up in Bilbo's heart: a glimpse of endless unmarked days without light or hope of betterment, hard stone, cold fish, sneaking and whispering. All these thoughts passed in a flash of a second. He trembled. And then quite suddenly in another flash, as if lifted by a new strength and resolve, he leaped.
No great leap for a man, but a leap in the dark. Straight over Gollum's head he jumped, seven feet forward and three in the air; indeed, had he known it, he only just missed cracking his skull on the low arch of the passage. (Riddles in the Dark)

"For now that I see him, I do pity him." (Taming of Smeagol)

Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee--but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld 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.

The first example gives Bilbo's thoughts, the second Frodo's, the third can only be Tolkien's own (as he is the 'omnipotent narrator' at that point). I think you're discounting all this in favour of an overly simplistic interpretation of Gollum as simply 'wicked'. Tolkien, & his characters, knew there was much more to Gollum than just 'wickedness'.

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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I think you're discounting all this in favour of an overly simplistic interpretation of Gollum as simply 'wicked'.

If you read my argument, you would have seen I quoted Tolkien as stating that nothing is wholly evil. I guess you didn't.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien hates the sin, but refuses to simply hate the sinner.

We're in agreement over this, as seen from my previous post.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

If you read my argument, you would have seen I quoted Tolkien as stating that nothing is wholly evil. I guess you didn't.
.

Well, as I remember it was Elrond who stated that "nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." One assumes Tolkien shared this opinion though.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, as I remember it was Elrond who stated that "nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." One assumes Tolkien shared this opinion though.

Well, that is not as relevant (since it talks about the past) as the letters:

Originally Posted by Letter #183

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, that is not as relevant (since it talks about the past) as the letters:

Well, the phrase nothing is evil is used in LotR not in the Letters.

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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Let it be known that I find this paragraph as extremely funny .

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

And therein lies something that so many readers have simply missed. For Tolkien, as a Catholic, it would be impossible to view Gollum as simply 'evil', as he is a human being. For Tolkien, even the most 'evil' human would always retain some goodness. It's perfectly allowable to dislike the deeds that someone does, but it is not permissible to hate the person for what they do, that is going beyond the pale.

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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

And therein lies something that so many readers have simply missed. For Tolkien, as a Catholic, it would be impossible to view Gollum as simply 'evil', as he is a human being. For Tolkien, even the most 'evil' human would always retain some goodness. It's perfectly allowable to dislike the deeds that someone does, but it is not permissible to hate the person for what they do, that is going beyond the pale.

Do you know these readers, and did they express such opinions on this thread? Or is this statement made for the heck of it? I am not aware that anyone argued here that Gollum doesn't have good in him too, so I am curious about your answer. Having some good side doesn't exclude being culpable; it actually makes the responsibility even greater.

[The Might]

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.

[davem]

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.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

We are in an impossible position - its not possible to judge him fairly because none of our standards can encompass him.

And this is why I think there is no actual judgement we can make. Not a "just" one. This is also, I think, why Tolkien himself is reluctant to make any final judgement as well. I think all we can discuss here is "would Gollum be executed in Gondor?" or "would Gollum be executed by the Elves?" or "would you execute Gollum?" (which is, I think, what was this thread turning to at some points - as it happens, unfortunately, many times in threads like that). There is no "did Gollum deserve death" objectively - we are not gods, we are mere humans... and Downers, which is even worse And if Tolkien himself refused to make final judgement on this, he probably thought the same.

[Raynor]

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.

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.

So, of what would he have repented, if not of his evil? How can we read repent in any other way than the moral one? You ignore Tolkien's opinion on him too, but I have gone throught that way too many times; or maybe not enough?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

I accept that there was a 'remnant' of Smeagol in there somewhere. But there's too much else in there too for us to come to a simple judgement.

So, of what would he have repented, if not of his evil? How can we read repent in any other way than the moral one? You ignore Tolkien's opinion on him too, but I have gone throught that way too many times; or maybe not enough?

I meant to put 'repentance' in brackets.

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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

There is no "did Gollum deserve death" objectively - we are not gods, we are mere humans.

While Tolkien does not assume the moral and ultimate authority of God, and what He actually does to sinners, a matter in which humans or Men have arguably no insight, he has no problem in recognising the moral fault of Gollum.

Originally Posted by davem

I accept that there was a 'remnant' of Smeagol in there somewhere.

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

- The murder of Deal haunted Gollum, and he had made up a defence, repeating it to his "precious" over and over again, as he gnawed bones in the dark, until he almost believed it. It _was_ his birthday. Deal ought to have given the ring to him. It had previously turned up just so as to be a present. It _was_ his birthday present, and so on, and on.

- I endured him as long as I could, but the truth was desperately important, and in the end I had to be harsh.

It is Gollum who is haunted, persistently, by his evil deeds, even after five centuries. Your downplaying is unwarranted.

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.

You will find that Tolkien was writting about Gollum coming within a hair of repentance, if it wasn't for Sam, as early as 1945. You can't brush this aside as you see fit. In the book itself, it is said "the fleeting moment had passed, beyond recall".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

It is Gollum who is haunted, persistently, by his evil deeds, even after five centuries. Your downplaying is unwarranted.

Nope. This implies that he had almost completely convinced himself that there was nothing to feel guilty about.

You will find that Tolkien was writting about Gollum coming within a hair of repentance, if it wasn't for Sam, as early as 1945. You can't brush this aside as you see fit. .

I can. Its not your book, so you can't, I'm afraid, tell me how to read it. And neither can Tolkien. My understanding of Gollum's nature is perfectly logical (though not everyone may agree with it).

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Nope. This implies that he had almost completely convinced himself that there was nothing to feel guilty about.

But the very fact that he had to come up with excuses, and resort to them time and again shows he has morality.

I can. Its not your book, so you can't, I'm afraid, tell me how to read it. And neither can Tolkien. My understanding of Gollum's nature is perfectly logical (though not everyone may agree with it).

Ok, here something more to prove just how inaccurate your position is, in regards to the book itself:

Originally Posted by March 11, 3019, Tale of Years, RotK

Gollum visits Shelob, but seeing Frodo asleep nearly repents.

Is this good enough? I somehow doubt it...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But the very fact that he had to come up with excuses, and resort to them time and again shows he has morality.

It showed he had morality. And 'morality', in the sense of a moral value system, will be skewed by the individual's mental state.

Ok, here something more to prove just how inaccurate your position is, in regards to the book itself:
Is this good enough? I somehow doubt it...

This is shorthand. Whoever compiled the Tale of Years is referring to the incident, but how the compiler (Tolkien, Findegil or whoever) knows what was going through Gollum's mind at that point is beyond me. In the story itself the incident as described does not mention 'repentance'. The 'repentance' is an interpretation which the reader does not have to accept. You seem to take a very literalist approach to the whole thing....

[Raynor]

It showed he had morality.

So, he has morality only when he has to resort to this defence; the only problem is he has to resort to it constantly, even when talking to Gandalf. His moral equilbrium is still highly important for him, and to appease his remorse he resists a lot of Gandalf's pressure. First and foremost he hides the truth from himself, because it still hurts him to acknowledge he is evil.

how the compiler (Tolkien, Findegil or whoever) knows what was going through Gollum's mind at that point is beyond me.

such a problem that you mention does not exist, in a world where knowledge outside current time and space is still acessible to istari, Men and Elves - esspecially since with the palantir, Gandalf could have looked as back as Feanor creating. I am sorry, but this is a laughable defense, in utter disregard of the story, its elements, and its logic. Even in the text, after the hobbits awake, his voice is at first soft, and then he hisses when he is further pushed, and a green glint flickers in his eyes; Tolkien commented several times about the lack of sophistication of Sam, and how he so missed seeing the change in Gollum.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Whoever compiled the Tale of Years is referring to the incident, but how the compiler (Tolkien, Findegil or whoever) knows what was going through Gollum's mind at that point is beyond me.

Well, I always took it that this is supposed to be "objective summary" (Tolkien's, since no one else can be objective at that point), so I take it that when we are presented it, it is what happened at that point (what Tolkien thought Gollum thought when he wrote it).

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.

Originally Posted by Raynor

While Tolkien does not assume the moral and ultimate authority of God, and what He actually does to sinners, a matter in which humans or Men have arguably no insight, he has no problem in recognising the moral fault of Gollum.

Surely, Tolkien recognizes this as the moral fault. As, from above, do I. But the problem is, how can we judge Gollum for this. Cf. my post above. I think, if I sum it all up, this is what comes out:

1. Gollum was guilty (of many things). He knew about that what he did was wrong.
2. We don't know whether Tolkien had his Christian belief in mind when thinking about Gollum, or if he thought just about ME system without being influenced anyhow by his belief. From Christian point of view: Gollum deserved death, as everyone does. And he dies, as everyone does (not by anyone's hands, mind you - this is left to God). There was no Messiah in Middle-Earth, so we can only speculate if one was to come to pay for Gollum's sins instead of him and save him from eternal death (this is somewhat limping a bit, because death represented ultimately something different in the light of all Silmarillions&co., and the most, Athrabeth). In Middle-Earth w. Silmarillion&co. point of view: Gollum deserves death, as everyone does. I don't see that far into it, since Tolkien's opinions change on that quite much. But, still I think here comes the idea of the death coming by itself. But concerning the question if he was doomed to die, why, of course he was. He would have to be an immortal Elf not to face death - totally different rules apply to the Elves, not taking physical (natural) death into account at all.
3. BUT, in both the views the important thing is, that we cannot make hasty judgements and draw the sword and kill Gollum. As even Gandalf says. In Christian point of view, we are to show mercy because we were shown mercy. In ME point of view, even if death was to be a gift, we are not to shorten someone's life wilfully (which goes with the first case as well, this is just the actual meaning of the Old Testament commandment), because the time is given to Gollum, and when it ends, it ends. If we are given our own choice, we should let him live.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by The Might

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.

I think the notions of justice, that we are all used to, are not of much use in Gollum's case. I'm aware this is a tangent, so I'll try to be short. I'm quoting TM here, but similar points have been made by others, too, I think. I will re-quote a quote Raynor gave many moons ago, and which went quite unnoticed.

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

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

Healing can mean two things. First, of course, the healing of the wounds that a crime has caused to the victims of it. Second, the wounds inside the criminal, which are very apparent and visible in Gollum. Of course it would be just to punish him (disregarding the disagreement about Gollum's mental status at this point), but what would come out of it? Would Gollum repent due to it? I can hardly imagine that, given that the Elves of Mirkwood were as kind as possible to him and Gollum still hated them more than anything. In Gollum's case, justice would indeed perpetuate his evil and perhaps further it. So, unless the punishment would have been capital (of course), it would not have changed anything in the long run, except to satisfy our, may I say 'vain'?, sense of justice.

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.