Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
03-24-2007, 02:27 PM | #121 | |||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|||
03-24-2007, 02:34 PM | #122 |
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
I agree. You have a point there. I was thinking more along the lines of 'traditional' justice and punishment, i.e. locking the one up.
|
03-24-2007, 05:55 PM | #123 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-24-2007, 06:21 PM | #124 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
Quote:
Had Gollum been put to death, we have to ask what purpose it would serve? It would have stopped him committing any more crimes, but then so would effective imprisonment and/or an attempt at healing. Deterrent was irrelevant as there aren't many magic rings around to be stolen and taken into deep mountain caves for 500 years, are there? Execution would really have served no more purpose than to satisfy the anger or repulsion of those who sought to execute him.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||
03-25-2007, 01:23 AM | #125 | |||||||||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|||||||||
03-25-2007, 02:34 AM | #126 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-25-2007, 03:04 AM | #127 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
03-25-2007, 03:10 AM | #128 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Whatever Gollum told Gandalf is not to the point of what was going through his mind on the stairs. And what you fail to take into account is that Gollum is not sane & cannot be judged in the way a sane person would be judged. |
|
03-25-2007, 03:25 AM | #129 | |||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|||
03-25-2007, 05:09 AM | #130 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
03-25-2007, 05:19 AM | #131 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
03-25-2007, 05:30 AM | #132 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 03-25-2007 at 08:45 AM. |
|
03-25-2007, 05:59 AM | #133 |
Spectre of Decay
|
Crime and punishment. Oh, and logic
If anyone can interpret the books in any way they see fit, what was the point of such lengthly posts? It would have taken maybe a couple of sentences from each of us to state our personal opinions, after which there would no longer be any point in discussion, because there would be no further basis to support one side or the other. I can't help feeling that I wasted the six hours I spent posting above, since clearly all the research I did was worthless, and my opinion meaningless. After all, it's not based on objective proof: anyone can read whatever they want to into anything.
Rubbish. Even A-level literary criticism demands that you provide quotation and analysis to support your reactions to the text. Simply stating an opinion, even one that can be fully supported by such quotation and analysis will get you at best a C. In any case, why should we disregard Tolkien's opinion when it is not contradicted by the text? Even when discussing his own work he offers citations to support his arguments, so at the very least we should afford him the same status as any other knowledgeable critic. If our own opinions and reactions are all that matters, then this entire discussion forum is a complete waste of bandwidth: just a group of misfits talking at one another and demanding nothing less than slavish agreement. Wherever there are dissenting opinions, only recourse to an agreed objective standard prevents protracted and increasingly acrimonious stalemate, such as has arisen here. Now that I've got that off my chest, if Gollum is not responsible for his actions then his near-repentence in TT is meaningless. If he is responsible for his actions then he is also morally culpable. If we are to give him credit for coming so close to a change of heart, we must also give him responsibility for his crimes. Indeed, true pity could never be offered to the insane, since their madness forms a third party to which their crimes can be attributed. One cannot be forgiven for the sins of someone else. Therefore, in order to be rehabilitated and healed, Gollum must be fully and knowingly culpable in all his actions. His madness: what I suppose would popularly be called 'multiple personality disorder' results from his attempts to externalise his own guilt, and to deny his actions. He is not the only character to be faced with this decision: Saruman is also offered the chance to repent, atone and be forgiven; he too denies it out of pride and distrust, and so falls from grace. It is a hard moral philosophy, but one that can be traced through Tolkien's letters and his fiction; it seems even harder today, when we are encouraged to do as we please, and told that hard decisions are in some way unfair or to be avoided. Conversely the 'kind' approach that Gollum is mad and not responsible also denies him mercy in its fullest form, which is the utmost cruelty.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? |
03-25-2007, 06:28 AM | #134 |
Guard of the Citadel
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oxon
Posts: 2,205
|
I very much agree with Squatter on this on, he definitely brought up an important point in the second part of the post.
Lalwende, you seem to have missed my point. I never questioned that the Ring didn't influence Gollum, all that I questioned is if this actually matters. As I already said, if someone who is drunk comits a crime, is he innocent just because he wasn't clear in mind at that time? I doubt it. Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?
__________________
“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
Delos B. McKown |
03-25-2007, 06:37 AM | #135 | |||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
BTW - very good points. I would have repped you, but I've been lax in my repping duties of late.....
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 03-25-2007 at 06:41 AM. |
|||||
03-25-2007, 06:44 AM | #136 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
03-25-2007, 07:39 AM | #137 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
Someone committing crimes due to drink is not a good analogy as a couple of beers are far less dangerous than a Ring of Power, and the effects of a beer or two last a few hours, but the effects of wearing/bearing a Ring last forever.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
03-25-2007, 09:18 AM | #138 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
My apologies for [probably] repeating what may have been said above and [probably] taking the debate back to a point it already got past, also putting forward an excuse of being on the run (as is my usual state of affairs of late ) let me address the initial post and forward the following brief statement:
Death is not punishment Or, at least, whilst being partially a 'punishment' from certain point of view, it is at the same time a way of release. It was not 'designed' to be percieved solely as punishment and the fact it is nevertheless perceived so is one of the many consequences of Melkor's meddling with the World's affairs I'm almost sure that were it not Frodo Gandalf discussed the matter with back than in Bag End but one of the Wise the question of 'death as punishment' would not have been raised at all
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
03-25-2007, 09:28 AM | #139 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Then it became a matter of whether Tolkien's opinions on the subject of his characters should be binding on a reader who interpreted the characters differently from the author. Its got a long way off topic & its probably a good thing you've popped up now.... |
|
03-25-2007, 09:50 AM | #140 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
Course, Death being perceived as a 'punishment' being as a result of Melkor's actions, has parallels in the real world, as one of the arguments put across by Quakers and other religious people against capital punishment is that it is only carrying out "an eye for an eye" and has no benefit beyond satisfying our own revenge/anger, and that only God can decide on such things.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
03-25-2007, 09:59 AM | #141 | ||
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
Quote:
Well, let's assume Gollum would have been punished and he would have been locked up for a longer period of time. - This is what I had in mind, Raynor gave a good point that I was thinking a tad too narrowly. - Would he have understood why he was punished? In parts, yes, as we have good evidence that he had a bad conscience because of Déagol. But what about, for example, his eating of orcs? I don't think he saw that as evil. Which brings me to Squatter's point: Quote:
Anyway, would punishment bring Gollum any closer to repentance? I strongly doubt that, given how he reacted to his imprisonments in Mirkwood or Henneth Annűn (though Lal makes a good point that he never was in custody for a longer time). He would rather regard his punishers as wicked than himself. So the effect of just punishment would, in the end, only be to satisfy our sense of justice, which is little. It would not have changed Gollum. It's difficult to say whether a combination of punishment and healing, like in an asylum, would have had a effect, but I have a feeling he wouldn't have accepted healing from his punishers. If we look at Frodo, he didn't punish Gollum, though he could have. In fact, it's his not punishing him, and his being nice to Gollum and caring for him instead, which led to his near-repentance later, which could have been a first step to healing. |
||
03-25-2007, 10:54 AM | #142 | |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Quote:
(Cf John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her) For healing as I read it out in your post may be easily substituted with changing and that in turn with moulding of a person, and whose mould is good enough for the task? As for Frodo, his very being in the same boat must have played the part. If there was no Gollum to look at and antagonize and sympathize with at the same time, [I feel] like Frodo would have fallen sooner. (It's a frenzy of quick typing out of whatever is being born in on me, I hope you follow)
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
|
03-25-2007, 02:04 PM | #143 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
In the year 2 AC
No time now for a full elaboration of my current thoughts about this thread, but yesterday's and today's posts have really made me see that this argument (and it is an argument, gentlemen and ladies, not a discussion and, honestly, sometimes I am very sure that people post not to advance the discussion but because they like the sound of their posts) is very much like a rehash of the sides on the old Canonicity thread.
We've got people who are quoting Letters and other sources from Tolkien and saying herein lies the letter of the law and we've got people who are saying any personal interpretation is just fine and dandy thank you very much. (Okay, I'm being hyperbolic here for clarity of effect.) And it's very much a reductio ab absurdum in many ways. I bet Fordim is laughing in his boots. Thank you so much, HI, for restating my point that death is not punishment. Very nice also to point out that not only is Gollem's participation crucial to the climax at Mount Doom but also, all along the dreadful way for Frodo's own spiritual journey. Anyhow, I'm late, can't finish.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
03-27-2007, 10:47 AM | #144 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Gandalf put the fear of fire onto Gollum whilst in Mirkwood in order to get information out of him about the Ring. Doesn't this count as torture, but in a lighter sense? It may translate to Gollum as a death threat. Do you think Gandalf would have harmed Gollum further if he refused to speak up, e.g. by not giving him any food or drink until he would confess all?
|
03-27-2007, 11:55 AM | #145 | |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Quote:
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
|
03-27-2007, 01:58 PM | #146 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
03-27-2007, 03:20 PM | #147 |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
I don't think he actually meant to roast Butter(bur), not more than he wanted to turn Sam into a frog or something like that. You are surely right about that Gandalf considered this a very serious matter, so he dared to come from threats to deeds, but he'd certainly not torture Gollum. After all, Gollum was not so hard to break. But if he had different nature and proved too obstinate, then Gandalf will probably leave him, seeing that no information is to be collected here, and head to Bag End or maybe for a counsel to Saruman, assuming the worse.
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
03-27-2007, 03:30 PM | #148 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Of course we also have Aragorn stating he was not 'gentle' in his treatment of Gollum.
Whatever Gandalf did one would have to imagine Gollum's situation - locked in a cell, alone, afraid, deprived of his only comfort (the Ring). For Gandalf to come into his cell & 'put the fear of fire on him' would be equivalent at the least of psychological torture. It strikes me that Gandalf was desperate for information at that point & could well have terroised Gollum into speaking. This opens a wider question - how far should one go in that kind of desperate need? If the information Gandalf could obtain from Gollum could save thousands of innocent lives - or hundreds, or tens .... & if Gandalf knew (or felt) that not using 'terror' (even torture) to get the information could put the fate of Middle-earth at risk, what should he do? This is a difficult moral question. The fate of the world could depend on getting information out of Gollum, & Gollum is withholding that information. Personally I think Gandalf did exactly what he said he did - why lie about it, or exagerate. I think he did put the fear of fire on Gollum, & 'luckily' for Gandalf, by the sound of it, he didn't have to put his threat into practice. Another example, to my mind, of the 'good' guys not being entirely good.... |
03-27-2007, 04:09 PM | #149 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Last edited by Mansun; 03-27-2007 at 04:13 PM. |
|
03-27-2007, 04:21 PM | #150 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
And yet, it was necessary to get the information. So Gandalf did what was necessary. Now this is an incident that Tolkien did not have to put into the story. What is Tolkien saying here - is he agreeing with Gandalf's action, or is he merely stating that in desperate circumstances such things are necessary? Yet is that correct - does it fit with the overall 'philosophy' of the work - that one should always do the right thing, even if it makes one vulnerable to defeat? For one line in such a long book this opens a whole can of worms.... |
|
03-28-2007, 11:08 AM | #151 | |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Quote:
I'm afraid of plunging into it lest we come to justification of 'necessary cruelty' And yet it is my firm belief that would 'fear of fire' prove tool insufficient to make Gollum talk, Gandalf would not have forced him with fire proper.
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
|
03-28-2007, 11:14 AM | #152 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
03-28-2007, 11:52 AM | #153 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Perhaps you're right
But also it seems to me that mention of 'fear of fire' by Gandalf was some form of admission of guilt
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
03-28-2007, 12:10 PM | #154 | |
Shade of Carn Dűm
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 274
|
Quote:
Besides doesn't Gandalf go on to tell Frodo that even with the fear of fire threat there came a point when Gollum refused to say any more and Gandalf perceived that he (Gollum) was haunted by some greater fear? And, perceiving that, Gandalf lets Gollum be and leaves him in the custody of the Wood Elves, asking that they treat Gollum kindly. In the circumstances I think that Gandalf struck the best balance that he could between getting Gollum to give him necessary information and while at the same time not being unduly cruel. |
|
03-28-2007, 12:31 PM | #155 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
03-28-2007, 01:22 PM | #156 | |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Quote:
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
|
03-28-2007, 01:26 PM | #157 | |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ohio. Believe it or not.
Posts: 145
|
Quote:
I mean no offense, but if Tolkien gave as much thought to every single freakin' line that some people around here do, parsing every fragment to death... the books would never have been written. Now, if these are just fun mental exercises, that's cool. But some of the posts I read here... you guys are kinda scary.
__________________
Don't believe everything you read on the interwebs. That's how World War 1 got started! |
|
03-28-2007, 01:39 PM | #158 |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
I think there is no trouble in this. And I must say I agree with Morwen and do not see what case you are trying to make out of it. Gandalf merely tells a story, and I think that Gandalf's scaring of Gollum was nothing much more than what he showed to Bilbo when he wanted to keep the Ring. You must consider that Gandalf never forced anyone to do anything. So, though the fate of Middle-earth depended on it, Gandalf probably wouldn't force Gollum to tell the story by violence. The same way you may ask whether he would force Bilbo by violence, to leave the Ring to Frodo. Both Bilbo&Gollum, fortunately for them, chose to do what Gandalf asked of them before he did more than only demonstrating his power (Gandalf says he only scared Gollum, so I think this is what he actually did). And one can also think of what would've happened if they didn't: for example in Bilbo's case, there was no other choice than that Bilbo would totally harden against Gandalf, and put the Ring on, and flee into the night (because he would consider Gandalf his enemy and seeing the power he couldn't face, he'd flee). Gollum was not armed in any way, he could only desperate try to escape (the Elves possibly knocking him out, if not killing him when he'd jump on them, and on Gandalf's intervention locking him up probably for eternity - Gandalf might from time to time come to check whether Gollum would tell anything, but he probably wouldn't - I can quite imagine him sitting in the cell forever, unless some time mysteriously escaping).
Needless to say, the information Gandalf wanted to get out of Gollum wasn't as important; if he couldn't get confirmation of his fears here, he would probably go and ask Saruman, or if he felt reluctant, to check Bag End. As I said earlier. Concerning Gandalf's character, you might confirm it also at how Gandalf behaved to Saruman, or to Gríma Wormtongue - people who were his enemies and he argued about something with him. Gandalf never used force in the "material" way (not even shooting lightnings on them or something like that). And only as a bonus. Similar situation of the same moral question we have in the moment when Isildur chose to take the Ring, and both Elrond and Círdan chose not to push on him. This was at least of the same importance as those moments mentioned above, if not greater. But there was no "throw it in the fire or...!", not even forcing by words from what Elrond says (he speaks only of a "counsel"). And I think it was not fear of being killed by Isildur that lead Elrond and Círdan to choose not to force him.
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories Last edited by Legate of Amon Lanc; 03-28-2007 at 01:43 PM. |
03-28-2007, 02:11 PM | #159 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
I still think its interesting that Gandalf would not only use those means but that he would tell Frodo about doing it.
The other thing to consider is the effect this would have on Gollum - Aragorn captures him & does not (in his own words) treat him 'gently'. Gandalf 'puts the fear of fire on him'. Aragorn brutalises him. Gandalf terrorises him in his cell. Sauron tortures him. If Gollum hadn't felt completely isolated before this would have done it anyway. Talk about not being on anyone's side because no-one's on my side..... |
03-28-2007, 02:21 PM | #160 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ohio. Believe it or not.
Posts: 145
|
Nah, it's OK. I sense a puckish sense of humor there, which is very cool with me.
Here's the thing, I will freely admit that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. As a matter of fact, my mother's nickname for me is "Big Dummy", (Gotta love a person like that). And when it comes to reading, I tend to... underanalyze the story. I read for entertainment. Not for enlightenment. Life does that for me and reading is a respite. That's why I would be the worst possible person to have in a book discussion. While everybody else would be talking about character development and motivation and throwing out words like "gestalt" and "angst" and "Dickinsian", I'd be in the corner, saying, "But... er... what if he just put that bit in there cuz it made for a ripping good yarn?"* And then I'd tug my forelock. And then I would be stoned. And not the fun way. Sad, really. So, I'm just sayin'... *[/i](A paraphrase of something that Stephen King once reportedly said in a creative writing class in college. Which, you could say, "So what? He's a hack" and althought I'd have to agree with you now, in his earlier days I thought he could toss off a "ripping good yarn")[/i]
__________________
Don't believe everything you read on the interwebs. That's how World War 1 got started! |
|
|