Did Gollum deserve death?

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Nah, it's OK. I sense a puckish sense of humor there, which is very cool with me.

I am glad to hear it - the orc filth was a light hearted joke but somebody evidently didn't think so & removed it. Besides, orc filth has been proven to have some healing powers, in a similar manner to that potion, Miruvor, which Elrond gave to the Company.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I am glad to hear it - the orc filth was a light hearted joke but somebody evidently didn't think so & removed it. Besides, orc filth has been proven to have some healing powers, in a similar manner to that potion, Miruvor, which Elrond gave to the Company.

Yes. I'm very curious as to why the two posts were removed. Certainly, I didn't sense any kind of threat in the "orc filth" line.
I thought it was funny and quite germane to the topic.
If I had responded by calling you a cad and a bounder, would I have been banned???
Say it aint so, Joe!

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Gollum didn't deserve death but he needed to die. That was the only way he was going to attain any sort of peace. He was too old, too bitter, too sad to live any normal life. Even if he had never led Sam and Frodo into Shelob's lair and was hailed as a hero there would have been no happy ending. He was doomed from the moment his hands clasped around Deagol's neck.

[Aaron]

Um, no he wasn't. Gollum had plenty of chances to turn back but didn't. He should have been killed ten times over for his pathalogical treachery. Did he deserve death? Well yeah, more than any other character in the story actually because he has the chance for redemption but continuously spurns it.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

But you have to take into account the fact that he really is a slave to the Ring. It's like some filthy junkie, they'll do anything for a fix. They deserve our pity, not our hatred because they have a severe addiction. I mean, what are you saying? That you'd like to see all drug addicts killed?

[Aaron]

You're right I'd like to see them all killed. You have to stop placing the blame on someone else. If a guy murders his family then where is the justice in saying "It's societies fault"? You have to place the blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the criminal. Yes, Gollum had problems but he proved his weakness by succumbing to the power of the Ring. Frodo on the other hand resisted its power and so was able to do a great good. Both had similar experiences but it was the moral fibre which seperated them. Gollum lacked any kind of backbone, he was the worst sort of coward and so was justly killed albeit by his own hand.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Coward? I think not. Gollum tracked the Fellowship for ages, took on two stronger characters by himself, endured torture and had the strength of will to stick to his convictions and try to kill Sam and Frodo. Sure, it was morally the wrong thing to do but it at least showed that he had some force of will. But I think that we're veering off topic here. The question was not based on Gollum's bravery or lack thereof but rather how deserving he was of death.

[Aaron]

Okay then. Let's stick to the topic. What did Gollum do to deserve death?

Killed Deagol and stole the Ring
Spied on his own family
Tried to eat Bilbo
Continuously unpreciativeof the Elves despite the kindness they showed him
Gave up the location of the Ring to Sauron
Basically stalked the Fellowship
Tried to kill Frodo and Sam
Led Frodo and Sam to Shelob
Bit Frodo's finger off
Stole the Ring

There is more than enough there to condemn him as a villain. The ammount of people he hurt was collosal. His wound was just one of many that Frodo had to endure which probably led him going into the West. The crimes he commited were all terrible and despite whatever aspects of tragedy there might have been to his character that does not turn back the clock does it? Some thing once done can never be undone.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Uh, I think Shelob and the Witch-King had a bigger part to play in Frodo leaving then one missing finger.

[Aaron]

It all depends on how you look at it. My point is that Gollum added more pressure onto a mind that was already starting to unravel. His effect on Frodo was akin to psychological torture.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Explain.

[Aaron]

Well, Frodo and Sam constantly had to worry about whether or not Gollum was going to throttle them in their sleep. Whether he would try and take the Ring. Whether he was loyal to them. These feeling of paranoia are what I was refering to.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

But surely if they felt edgy it was based on their own suspicions rather than any wrongdoing Gollum had done. I mean, Sam was antagonistic from the very start. And it was Sam who turned Gollum bad.

[Aaron]

No it wasn't. Sam was willing to give Gollum a chance but was continuously antagonised by him. Gollum was isolated based on his own sense of worthlessness. He pushed Frodo and Sam away because subconciously he knew that he deserved to be alone.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Oh puh-lease. I assume that you've read the part where Gollum almost decides not to lead Frodo and Sam to their deaths? Well Doctor Freud, answer me this? When Gollum was on the verge of doing something right who was it that ensured he went ahead with his original plan? Whose words and constant jibes sent him totally over the edge? Yup, it was a certain S. Gamgee was it not? Gollum could have been saved, he could have enjoyed a happy ending but the reluctance of others to accept him as anything more than a nuiscance put paid to those hopes.

[Aaron]

"Dr. Freud"? Yeah, good one
I'll admit that Sam could have treated him better but not because he deserved good treatment but due to the simple fact that a dangerous schizophrenic should not be antagonised. The Shelob incident was the result of the machinations of a mentally disturbed sinner and nothing more.
But why don't you answer this question then? Where was Sam when Smeagol killed Deagol? Hmm, maybe my mind ain't what it used to be but I don't recall any teasing there. No, Gollum simply killed without provocation based on a lust for an inanimate object. No better than other murderers who kill for money to be honest. He was motivated for selfish intrests and acted wrongly because he sought to protect an object which bought him joy. The definition of an egocentric personality, how can you defend someone so morally bankrupt?

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Because in Tolkien's work no one is completely flawless. Look at Frodo, what does he do? At the very end he gives in and claims the ring for himself out of that same selfishness which drove Smeagol to commit that first murder. And Aragon, how many men do you think he killed? Hardly a model citizen. Gimli and Legolas, when we first meet them they are the equivalent of what we would call "racists", not too nice eh? When taking into account these shortcomings would you condemn all these characters too?

[Aaron]

Of course not. And I'll tell you why. These sins were either isolated or resolved by the end of the story. They either sprung up from momentary weakness or ignorance that was remedied by the end. Gollum though lived for many years as an evil being and it was basically all he knew hence why he does not attain the redemption that someone like Saruman does.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Saruman never attained redemption. Plus, Gollum knew how to be kind in his own way. Playing riddle games, catching food, constant flattery. He was initially a simple Stoor and still retained simple values. He was never wholly evil.

[Aaron]

You don't think that biting off a guys finger and then celebrating about it is evil?

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

He wasn't celebrating about biting off the finger, it was an expression of joy because he was finally reunited with the Ring he loved so much.

[Aaron]

It's not a romantic comedy mate. Don't sugarcoat the fact that he mutilated someone. It was a horrible act and one worthy of derision.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And Gollum's acts during the main narrative are just icing on the cake. Already in Chapter II Gandalf himself affirms that Gollum deserves death, in the key passage under discussion here. Make no mistake: Gandalf is distinguishing between what Gollum deserves, and whether he should get it. 'Mercy', the key word in the passage, is precisely the act of witholding *merited* punishment.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Gothbogg the Ripper

But surely if they felt edgy it was based on their own suspicions rather than any wrongdoing Gollum had done. I mean, Sam was antagonistic from the very start. And it was Sam who turned Gollum bad.

Gollum was bad before Sam showed up. Gollum was even bad before Gollum showed up. He killed Deagol BEFORE he had even touched the ring.
Nah, he was a roight nasty bit o' news and as Gandalf implied, he definitely deserved to die, which... he did.

[Aaron]

Exactly. He was completely irredeemable and no one can deny it.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Aaron

It all depends on how you look at it. My point is that Gollum added more pressure onto a mind that was already starting to unravel. His effect on Frodo was akin to psychological torture.

I would disagree. Gollum was essential to Frodo's journey, and I'm not writing about the one that he took with his hairy feet. On the side we have Gollum - kills Deagol within minutes of seeing the Ring. On the other,we have Sam. Not only does he resist the temptation longer than many (though it's within his grasp for the entire story, and one of the days may even have been his birthday!), when he finally claims the Ring, he, alone in history, freely gives the Ring away, even while on the steps of Mordor, where, purportedly, the Ring's influence would be even stronger than in the Gladden Fields in Sauron's absence.

Gollum did not mentally torture Frodo; on the contrary, he showed Frodo daily that, "But for the will of Eru and the love of Sam, there be I."

Gandalf was prepared to let Saruman off the hook when he ran into him towards the end of the book, despite all the murders & treason he had committed, so one may say that Gollum would have been set free & unharmed also.

Smeagol was a good hobbit. A good friend, and fine fishermen. He was kind and generous. I imagine that on many occasions he would come into the villiage with a basket full of fish and laugh with delight as he handed them out to hungry hobbit children.
But smeagol had a weakness, as with all who walk in this world, and that weakness was his will. The power of his will, by chance or design, was much less than that of other hobbits. And so the Ring chose him. The Ring appeared to Deagol, drawing him, and then revealed itself to Smeagol, and through the passage of his will entered his mind and heart. It was the Ring that murdered Deagol. It was the ring that filled Smeagol with lust and anger. But, and I believe that this touches on the fundamental beauty of Tolkiens moral vision, in the end the powers of good moved also within Gollum, for it was by and through the acts of Smeagol under the influence of the Ring itself that Sauron was destroyed and all Middle-Earth was saved. Gollum saved Middle-Earth. Not by choice of his, certainly, but neither was it then or now either fair, right, or just to suggest that poor Smeagol withstand and overcome, alone, the full omnipotent and overwhelming power of Sauron himself. For men, death is the 'gift of Eru to men'. To hobbits, who knows? But the fear of death has wrought great evil enough in the World. Death to Gollum would have been a reward, a liberation, a gift to one who had struggled alone against Sauron all those years, with no concievable way of helping himself for the greater part of his will was in Sauron's keeping. To his credit- and Can you believe? What strength of heart! To the very end he resisted the evil Sauron put in his heart. He LONGED to be good. He fought so hard. It was a manifest part of the wisdom of Gandalf and the Folly of Sauron that in the very Moment that Gollum's will finally broke and his will become completely beholden to the power of evil, that in that very fact lay the Victory of Good over evil and, as evil oft shall evil mar, "the magnitude of his folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash" and Gollum 'accidently' toppled into the Cracks of Doom. If accident you call it. But there are other powers at work in Middle Earth
This I consider to be revealed universal truth, yea, divine, and it moves me to tears.

[alatar]

Listening to the 'Shadow of the Past,' I noted yet another disturbing thing about Gollum. Gandalf states that, from his conversations with the wretched one, that after murdering Deagol and claiming the Ring that Smeagol lives amongst his family for some time. When visible, he is scorned as he's become a real pain in the community due to his new found powers via the One Ring. Eventually he is banned and booted.

In this time is it not possible that someone of the Clan found out about Gollum's birthday present? Yet in all that time, as far as we know, no one attempts to murder Smeagol for his Ring. What does that say about this unique creature, in regards to how quickly it murdered Deagol, a friend?

Another thing that I noted is that Smeagol is said to be intelligent and curious. Was Tolkien saying something about those who 'nose around' too much?

[Finduilas]

[QUOTE=Neithan Tol Turambar]Smeagol was a good hobbit. A good friend, and fine fishermen. He was kind and generous. I imagine that on many occasions he would come into the villiage with a basket full of fish and laugh with delight as he handed them out to hungry hobbit children.
QUOTE]

I can't find where Tolkien says that. What I found is

The most inquisitive and curious-minded of that family was called Smeagol. He was interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed udner trees and growing plants; he tunneled into green mounds; and he ceased to look up at the hill-tops, or the trees, or the flowers opening in the air: his head and his eyes were downward.

Which I take to mean that he was on an already downwards fall.

[Boo Radley]

Or, he could have been Middle Earth's first paleontologist.

[Finduilas]

Right.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf was prepared to let Saruman off the hook when he ran into him towards the end of the book, despite all the murders & treason he had committed, so one may say that Gollum would have been set free & unharmed also.

Neither Gandalf nor Tolkien said that Saruman deserved to be let off the hook, even if he was let off the hook. The question here is not "Would Gandalf have shown Gollum (or anyone else) mercy" it's "Did Gollum deserve death". And that could be extended to, "Did Gollum deserve death, even though Gandalf would not have been the one to deal out justice because he would have shown mercy?"

-- Folwren

[Finduilas]

From what I can find, Tolkien never said that he didn't deserve death, but he said alot of things that sound like he meant he did deserve death.

I see arguements here that since the Ring was evil, it twisted Gollums mind, and therefore he didn't deserve death. Orcs were made evil, they didn't know any better, did they not deserve death? Gollum knew he was wrong.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Or, he could have been Middle Earth's first paleontologist.

Paleontology - the study of prehistoric life forms. Does Middle Earth have a time that preceeds (recorded) history? Stuff from before the elves awoke?

Methinks that Gollum may have been searching for old bones, but he was just looking for a nibble, not knowledge.

In the broader sense, was Gollum a biologist/physical scientist? Again, as stated previously, what may have Tolkien been trying to say when he tells us about Gollum, and later about Saruman (who may have deserved death as well) as typically science is the conjoined twin of progress?

[Morwen]

Paleontology - the study of prehistoric life forms. Does Middle Earth have a time that preceeds (recorded) history? Stuff from before the elves awoke?

The First Spring of Arda when the Valar still dwelt on Middle Earth should qualify.

Originally Posted by Folwren

Neither Gandalf nor Tolkien said that Saruman deserved to be let off the hook, even if he was let off the hook. The question here is not "Would Gandalf have shown Gollum (or anyone else) mercy" it's "Did Gollum deserve death". And that could be extended to, "Did Gollum deserve death, even though Gandalf would not have been the one to deal out justice because he would have shown mercy?"

-- Folwren

I believe it was Frodo who said Saruman should be let off the hook even after he tried to knife him.

There is some inconsistency though - Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree, yet he would have shown Gollum mercy? If the circumstances were such that the Ring was takn by the Nazgul as a result of Gollum then Gandalf would surely have killed Gollum as a just punishment. The fate of the Ring was equally the fate of Gollum & Butterbur

[smeagollives]

i have not red everything. but i do not think he deserves death. NOBODY deserves death.

but i think that may be death was the only way for him ever to be happy again. after all his precious was gone forever. he was old and worn, all his former friends dead and forgotten.

it was not possible for him to become himself again...

i think the only way for him to be okay was to be with his precious. of course that could not happen. so i think it was okay for him that he died. biut he did not deserve it, no human being deserves (and he was like a human being or a hobbit being better to say). no matter how bad.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is some inconsistency though - Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree, yet he would have shown Gollum mercy? If the circumstances were such that the Ring was takn by the Nazgul as a result of Gollum then Gandalf would surely have killed Gollum as a just punishment. The fate of the Ring was equally the fate of Gollum & Butterbur

Great heavens above! Who or what said that Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree?

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by smeagollives

i have not red everything. but i do not think he deserves death. NOBODY deserves death.

but i think that may be death was the only way for him ever to be happy again. after all his precious was gone forever. he was old and worn, all his former friends dead and forgotten.

it was not possible for him to become himself again...

i think the only way for him to be okay was to be with his precious. of course that could not happen. so i think it was okay for him that he died. biut he did not deserve it, no human being deserves (and he was like a human being or a hobbit being better to say). no matter how bad.

Well, deserving death depends on your own beliefs. Being a Christian, I personally think that murder, and certian other crimes, deserve death. There is of course such a thing as mercy, but as afore said( I don't know if I ever said it, but I think I remember reading it) just because someone decides to be merciful, doesn't mean that the person didn't deserve death.

Oh, and I also agree with Folwrens post. (see above.)