Sméagol: Hero of the Third Age

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Many have fallen in the War of the Ring. Remember Théoden's glorious fall before the Gates of Mundburg, the Men of Gondor and Rohan who stood before sure death and scoffed the "Abandon all hope ye who dareth picnic in this place" message that Morannon conveys.

But do we notice the fact that it was Gollum that that made the shedding of blood meaningful?

I know, I know. Gollum fell into Mt. Doom, because he broke his tryst, not because of my damned-fool idea of his sacrifice.

Well, have you looked at it from another angle?

Sméagol's pact was:

We will swears to do what he wants, yes, yess.

That term of the contract is a little ambigous - and may be subject to abuse.

Sméagol will never, never to let Him have it. Never! Sméagol will save it.

Bingo!

Frodo tried to destroy the Ring. He failed. Now Sauron had within his grasp his treasure, and Sméagol might have realised that. So he had to take the Ring - take it with him and spare Frodo the necessity of taking a luxurious lava bath. He had to fulfill the promise his master had failed to keep.

Am I "herofying" Sméagol too much?

Later days!
->Elenrod

[Firefoot]

It's an interesting thought. I personally don't think that Smeagol was taking the Ring to keep it away from Sauron or to save Frodo. He wanted the Ring. He had wanted it ever since Deagol found it. Now he saw that it was going to be destroyed and he wouldn't let that happen, so he attacked Frodo. He probably did see that Sauron could take the Ring at that point but I don't think that that was a motive for trying to take the Ring. And falling into the lava was a pure accident on Gollum's part, with perhaps some intervention on Eru's part.

[Kransha]

Interesting point you make.

I, for one, believe that Smeagol was acting primarily out of his lust for the ring, but still using tact. He knew that if Frodo had the ring, he could get it back. If Sauron had the ring he couldn't. He perhaps knew of the Ring's coming destruction and wanted to prevent that, but I'm not sure he cared about protecting the ring and Frodo as much he did about having the ring, which is why, when he finally got it, he just fell into Mount Doom carelessly.

[Oroaranion]

Basically, Smeagol just danced around on the Sammath Naur, and he went too close to the edge and he fell in. He probably died quite happy, seeing as the Ring was once again in his possession.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

You know, bringing Gollum up, I do remember Gandalf saying that he hated the ring. This, I believe, are his words:"He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter."
Perhaps, just perhaps, Gollum for a split second before entering the fire, realised that he was free at last? Maybe, if he was even given the chance to save himself, he would not even have tried?

[Finwe]

I think of it this way:


Gollum grabbed, or rather, bit, the Ring from Frodo out of pure desire. There was no heroism or selflessness there, it was just a thoroughly complete "I WANT YOU!!!!!" - type thing. Eru "saw" this going on and decided to give Gollum a wee nudge over the edge. The rest of the story we all know.

[Guinevere]

Hm, this is an interesting thought, Nilpaurion Felagund!
Though I agree with the others that in the actual tale Gollum took the Ring from selfish reasons and fell in by "accident".

But do you know that Tolkien himself pictured a scenario that could have happened IF Sméagol had actually repented in that tragic moment on the stairs? (If Sam had acted differently... )
From letter 246(written 1963)

The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side, and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But "possession" satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.
I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together- and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo."

[davem]

Something I threw in on the Frodo at Sammath Naur Thread, but wasn't picked up on there:

'Someone once pointed out to me that when Gandalf agrees with Frodo that Gollum 'deserves' death, he may have meant it differently to Frodo - intending 'death' as a release from centuries of torment, & peace at last. He could no longer live without the Ring, so only death could end his torment, & Eru, in bringing about his death at the Sammath Naur is finally forgiving Smeagol & allowing him to rest.'

Don't know if anyone finds that idea relevant here. Did Illuvatar finally permit Smeagol the 'release' he needed, after all those centuries of suffering? Had Illuvatar decided there was no peace to be had in the world for Smeagol, that He would allow him to obtain, finally, the thing that had obsessed him for so long, & then allow him to finally have the death he 'deserved' - if death is the 'Gift' of Illuvatar to Men (& by extension Hobbits), then denial of it to any mortal creature is a punishment.

Or, is Smeagol's death the final punishment of a wicked creature, leading to eternal damnation, or is it Illuvatar's final act of forgiveness?

[Gorwingel]

So from what I have read it was very much fate that caused Gollum to fall and thus distroy the ring.

Though going back to if his death was a gift or a curse. I could not see Gollum being punished for what he did. Even though I never did like him as a character, he was just too twisted and poisoned because of the ring, he really had no control over his life.

I could see how his death could be considered a "gift". He did have a long, you could say terrible life, that was mostly governed over by the ring. But of course my more truth driven side of my brain says it would most likely be an accident.

It was the right thing to happen though

[Ashton]

This is kind of off topic, but wouldn't Gollum have died anyway when the ring was destroyed? He was so bound to the ring that I think that he would have been either physically destroyed or killed himself for want of the ring. What do you think? Maybe he would have just collapsed because the ring extended his life and once the ring was destroyed the life extension wouldn't be there anymore. He would probably die of old age.

[Lyta_Underhill]

This reply was made earlier today, but did not make the transition to the new forum, so I'm pasting it from the old. To continue:

Or, is Smeagol's death the final punishment of a wicked creature, leading to eternal damnation, or is it Illuvatar's final act of forgiveness?

As I recall, even Tolkien was reticent to speculate on the final fate of Gollum, assigning it to the realm of "Goddes privitee" (I hope I spelled that right!), but he does say that Gollum ended his days in "persistent wickedness" and the fact that his final action worked to the good is no credit to Smeagol himself. It is interesting to speculate on the possibility that there is a seed of evolution of Gollum's psyche to encompass a dawning love for Frodo and perhaps a subconscious desire to sacrifice himself for Frodo's good, but it seems to me that the Ring is overwhelmingly the dominant influence in Gollum's decision at Sammath Naur. (But, like Frodo, he would not have been able to resist its power here.) One can only speculate whether his deeds towards the end of his life would be judged by Iluvatar to his favor or not. But, it is always irresistible to peer over the edge into the great unknowable, isn't it?

Cheers,
Lyta

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I see many have reacted...good!

I personally don't think that Smeagol was taking the Ring to keep it away from Sauron or to save Frodo. He wanted the Ring.

Smeagol just danced around on the Sammath Naur...

I, for one, believe that Smeagol was acting primarily out of his lust for the ring...

Sméagol? Or Gollum? From what I see it was Gollum who assaulted Frodo on Sammath Naur and rejoiced upon being reunited with his precious. Now could it be that Sméagol had become more dominant after Gollum's failure at Torech Ungol (one can see a comparison to Stalinist purges - a failure results in elimination) and, seeing the strong doom guiding the Ring-bearer's quest, had "unleashed" Gollum(and his lust) for one more time, for the reasons of sparing his master the sacrifice required for the Ring's destruction, and freeing himself from bondage?

...the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together...

He did promise his master never to let Sauron have it. But there's only one way to do it.

In essence, this:

Sméagol will never, never to let Him have it. Never! Sméagol will save it.

might have been his death warrant.

Later days!
->Elenrod

Nilpaurion Felagund, I don't think your theory is plausible. Gollum suppressed the good that is in him, to the point that, by the time he met Frodo, it was almost non-existent. He collaborated with the evil side of Sméagol, the one that killed Déagol in the first place, allowing both personalities to be corrupted by their lust for the Ring, which had the same effect on them as it had on Morgoth and Sauron--it dried up their potential for life, for the chance to awaken from their bondage.

Maybe the good side of Sméagol was briefly awakened during his encounter with Frodo, but it was in such a bad shape it never had a chance to really stand out--except probably during Cirith Ungol. Even then, it was so volatile, that only a sharp word from Master Samwise was needed to bring it into exile forever.

[symestreem]

Perhaps Smollum realized that with the ending of the Ring would come his death, so he decided to try and take it, seeing as he had nothing to lose. Except his duct tape.

[Nirvana II]

he stole it from usss.....

technically he was taking back his "birthday present" that he got from Deagol.....and he decided to destroy it, so that means Frodo shouldn't get credit for destroying the Ring

[Iaurhirwen]

Back to the original question posted by Nilpaurion Felagund:

Smeagol pledged to save the precious, obey the master of the precious, and never let him have it. Smeagol made a solemn promise to do this.

Now at the Cracks of Doom, I do not believe that Gollum was acting because he thought of the pledge and that he had a momentary change of heart or anything at that time. There, he was fully corrupted and only desired his precious back.

However, I do believe, that it was in this moment that fate/Eru/the Ring, made this moment the time when Smeagol's pledge was fulfilled. IMHO because Smeagol promised that he would:
[

never, never, to let him have it

and

to serve the master of the precious

whatever outside power, be it the ring, fate, or Eru, held him to his promise and caused the destruction of the ring, and subsequently, himself.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

One thing that struck me just now, was that Gullom swore by the One Ring (his precioussss) never to let Sauron have it. If Gollum had sworn by Illuvator like Feanor and his sons, I suppose Illuvator would have stepped in eventually to set things right. Obviously, Gollum was counting on the possession of the Ring to sidestep his oath. It had been in his mind ever since his oath, to take the Ring and yet fulfill his oath.

'But the Precious holds the promise,' the voice of Smeagol objected.

'Then take it,' said the other, 'and let's hold it ourselfs! Then we shall be master, gollum! Make the other hobbit, the nasty suspicious hobbit, make him crawl, yes, gollum!'

Once Gollum possessed the Ring again, he might have nulled his oath since he is serving himself. What might come next would be unavoidable: i.e. Sauron taking the Ring back from him, but while Gollum is still the Master of the Ring, he would be under no obligation to fulfill his oath.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I've been doing more of a researh and found out I was wrong.

Elenrod shrugs his shoulders.

It's only a theory, anyway.

[Em]

i think that although he did 'steal' the ring, if Gollum hadn't of done, it might never have been destroyed.

[Orcrist]

I agree with Firefoot. Gollum wanted the ring for himself. in truth he did do what you say but i dont think that was his intention. he didnt mean to destroy the ring either. he just fell. intereting point though

[Rikae]

Well, I was about to start a new thread on the topic of Smeagol's stumble, but then I found this.

Nilpaurion, I'm curious, how can you be sure you were wrong? Doesn't this come down to speculation about Smeagol's unconscious motivations? I know that, to me at least, this brings to mind Freud's theory that "there are no accidents". I certainly believe Gollum/Smeagol's total conscious motivation was to get the ring back and nothing more, and this is what made him bite off Frodo's finger, take the ring and do his little dance of victory...but there was also a "chink of light" in his soul. There was some part of his mind, buried in his subconscious, perhaps, that was aware the ring was evil; always aware, for his long, long life that the murder of Deagol and his subsequent wretched existance was caused by the ring. I think that we can't discount the fact that there was some part of him that hated the ring, and perhaps desired its destruction. Now, if that part of him had so little control over his actions, there is no way he could have thrown the ring in the fire, something even Frodo, who consciously desired it, could not do. The only good action within the power of his will at that point was the one he took - he "stepped too far". I see it as one last desperate, half conscious impulse for good that caused him to fall.
Now, I'm aware there is an article on this site, and several posters here, that flatly dismiss this idea, but to me it makes more sense than either the idea of a random fall, or of Eru pushing people into the crack of doom. (Actually, though, if it was some sudden impulse in Smeagol's psyche, this could itself be seen as an act of Eru, although it would also include a subconscious choice on Smeagol's part).

[Farael]

Originally Posted by RoTK

Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the figure there spoke a commanding voice.
'Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'

Now, we all know of the power the Ring had on Gollum. As a matter of fact, at some point (I can't remember exactly when) Frodo says to Smeagol/Gollum that if he ever attacks him again he will put on the ring and Gollum will have to obey him.

I picked up on that quote last time I read LoTR. To me it means that Frodo's words were like an order to Gollum. Once he attacked Frodo and took the Ring from him (touching Frodo in the process) he was forced (although subconsciously) to comply with Frodo's words. He casts himself into the fires of Mt. Doom and he brings the Ring along for the Ride... and ends with his his life and his precious.

[Rikae]

Ah! A prophecy. Yes, why didn't I see that before?

Of course, it still doesn't rule out the prophecy working through Smeagol, and his actions ... some part of him deciding, midjump, to swing one leg a few inches too far.
The fate of Middle Earth hanging in the balance - Smeagol loses his balance.
For some reason, I really like it & I think it's a shame Peter Jackson felt the need to change it.

[Raynor]

I don't think it was those words of Frodo that caused the fall of Gollum - but Grace:

Originally Posted by Letter #151

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!

Originally Posted by Letter #191

He (and the Cause) were saved - by Mercy : by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.

And more evidently here:

Originally Posted by Letter #192

Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said).

[Rikae]

Just to be clear, I wouldn't say they caused it either, but predicted it; it wasn't a spell Frodo cast, but a flash of intuitive knowledge on his part, though he mostly likely wasn't aware of it at the time.

[littlemanpoet]

Interesting.... :

Originally Posted by Rikae

I see it as one last desperate, half conscious impulse for good that caused him to fall.

From Letter #192:
Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said).

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't think it was those words of Frodo that caused the fall of Gollum - but Grace

Originally Posted by Rikae

Ah! A prophecy. .... it wasn't a spell Frodo cast, but a flash of intuitive knowledge on his part, though he mostly likely wasn't aware of it at the time.

I had it in my mind that Sam's denouncing of Gollum (Sneak!) closed down any good left in him. But maybe that little unconscious (I wouldn't call if half-conscious) chink in his mind played a part. And the Grace of an ever-present Person played a part. And Frodo's command/prophecy played a part. And Pity played a part. Isn't life like that? Everything is interweaved and all of a piece. Try to tease apart the weave of reality and you end up with a potentially polemical tangle of polarized views, one emphasizing this, another that. Meanwhile it's all there, working together toward the ultimate evangelium, the eucatastrophe. LotR is most powerful when it is most like real life. Like Gollum's evil being absolutely necessary for the great good to happen.

Oh, and a belated welcome to the Downs, Rikae.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

You might want to visit this thread and cast your own vote.

My own theory about what happened with gollum is explained there.

[littlemanpoet]

The problem with such a poll, my friend, is that you don't have "most of the above" as an option. Thus, I cannot vote.

[Raynor]

Concerning the initial question, I would also note that in letter #181 Tolkien excludes pretty much any merit Gollum could have:

Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

This reply was made earlier today, but did not make the transition to the new forum, so I'm pasting it from the old. To continue:

As I recall, even Tolkien was reticent to speculate on the final fate of Gollum, assigning it to the realm of "Goddes privitee" (I hope I spelled that right!), but he does say that Gollum ended his days in "persistent wickedness" and the fact that his final action worked to the good is no credit to Smeagol himself. It is interesting to speculate on the possibility that there is a seed of evolution of Gollum's psyche to encompass a dawning love for Frodo and perhaps a subconscious desire to sacrifice himself for Frodo's good, but it seems to me that the Ring is overwhelmingly the dominant influence in Gollum's decision at Sammath Naur. (But, like Frodo, he would not have been able to resist its power here.) One can only speculate whether his deeds towards the end of his life would be judged by Iluvatar to his favor or not. But, it is always irresistible to peer over the edge into the great unknowable, isn't it?

Cheers,
Lyta

I could be wrong, but I thought that Tolkien never provides any suggestion about what awaits men after death. We have hints and suggestions about dwarven mythology and elven fate tied in with that of Arda, but of men's fate we know nothing. So how can we speculate about "eternal damnation" or any kind of judgement? Isn't the emphasis on how men live their lives rather than on any kind of eternal reward or punishment?

[littlemanpoet]

Agreed, Bethberry. That's not at all what I'm thinking or talking about here, just in case anybody was wondering.

So according to Letter #181, my original sense was accurate after all: Gollum was wholly wicked and that little scene with Sam (Sneak!) was indeed really tragic. Thanks, Raynor.

[Glaurung]

I humbly aplogise if this is kind of off-topic... I want to point out that even though Gollum may not have made a tragic sacrifice (though that would have been quite touching), does that mean he was not a hero? Whatever be his motives, it still was him who actually destroyed the Ring. Of course his heroism would have increased if he had been a tragic martyr. But does it completely disappear if his motives were not that noble?

Actually, now that I think of it a weird thought comes to me. What if, after all, it should actually be Gollum who is to be credited of destroying the Ring. Of course I know that Frodo and Sam are to be thanked of that. But why not Gollum too? It was he who led them to Mordor, through places they would never have managed themselves. And, in the bitter end, it was Gollum who destroyed the Ring. So why is he not mentioned as a hero, but as a villain who met his rightful end?

Is it because Gollum did so much evil? But, actually, isn't it so that in all his evil deeds, it has actually been the Ring who made him to do those things? Even in the murder of Déagol, he was attracted by the ring. And even though that murder could not be protected by the involvement of the Ring, then he could be blamed of a murder. But what about Túrin, then? Was he not a hero, even though he murdered a couple of good men and fell in love with his sister?

My main question here is: is a person who does good unwillingly a hero, and how much do motives mean in such great deeds as the destruction of the Dark Lord?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Agreed, Bethberry. That's not at all what I'm thinking or talking about here, just in case anybody was wondering.

So according to Letter #181, my original sense was accurate after all: Gollum was wholly wicked and that little scene with Sam (Sneak!) was indeed really tragic. Thanks, Raynor.

This raises the question of can anything or anyone be "wholly wicked"? Is even the possibility of redemption gone for Smeagol (or, for that matter Sauron)? If so then we are perhaps seeing a rather un-Christian version of the tale.

Unless I am misapprehending what you mean by "wholly wicked"...is this distinct from irredeemable evil?

Glaurung: it's interesting to note how Gollum sees himself in light of your comments. He certainly sees himself as the (long suffering) hero, and he would undoubtedly argue that his most heroic moment is that in which he took the Ring -- he would have no problem seeing himself as a 'holy' person achieving his own 'grail' as a reward for his trials. In that sense he really does die a hero...

[Raynor]

Glaurung, I disagree with your line of reasoning; according to this, we should glorify Melkor and Sauron, because due to their unwilling mistakes, they brought about the fall of great evil. Turin was someone who was actively and willingly battling a good fight, against a known and recognized evil (welll, most of the times) so I don't think that comparing him to Gollum holds water.

Imo, personal aims and willing effort according to those aims is what makes a hero; even the slaying of the witch-king, though extremely fortunate, still required a great deal of past involvement, effort and sacrifice on behalf of that particular hero; he didn't just woke up besides the witch king, with a dagger fallen out of the sky right into his hand.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

This raises the question of can anything or anyone be "wholly wicked"? Is even the possibility of redemption gone for Smeagol (or, for that matter Sauron)? If so then we are perhaps seeing a rather un-Christian version of the tale.

Unless I am misapprehending what you mean by "wholly wicked"...is this distinct from irredeemable evil?

My sense is that this does not fall outside the purview (sp?) of orthodox Christian theology. By way of illustration, Adolf Hitler was 'wholly wicked'. Christians of his time (and later) deem him as not to have been numbered among the saints. This is not to say that there was absolutely no possibility that he could have been somehow miraculously redeemed before his final breath, but it seems realistically impossible..... because ..... he (like Gollum) had gone so far down the road of perdition that he had for all intents and purposes removed himself from all but the remotest chance for Grace. Sorry about how labored that turned out to be, I thought I could be much more concise, but it'll have to do.

[Rikae]

I don't know how well I'll be able to express this thought, but I'll try: does any human being (we've established Smeagol is human, right?) ever act with only one single motivation- and if not, can they ever be, in this life, wholly good or wholly wicked? It seems to me that there were, in Smeagol (as in Frodo) several different impulses at war with each other; furthermore, some of these were more purely his own than others. His wickedness, which seems to have 'won' in the sense that it influenced most of his actions, was strongly influenced by the power of the ring; on the other hand, any chink of light in him existed in spite of the ring's imfluence, and was therefore more truly his own.
If we judge him, we have to not only weigh the objective morality of each action, but also the degree to which that choice was freely made (think of the Catholic idea of mortal sin requiring not only grave matter, but full knowledge and consent). Certainly, Frodo better resisted the power of the ring; but Frodo also had more help; he was armed with more knowledge, and had Gandalf to guide him from the moment the ring came into his possession. If he had first encountered the ring under the circumstances Smeagol did, he might not have resisted it very well at all.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

lmp: so, OK, "wholly wicked" does not rule out the (theoretical?) possibility of grace...this is good, for my sense of LotR is that nobody is ever completely beyond redemption.

So here's an idea. When Gollum goes into the fire can we see that as a moment in which not only is M-E saved by the "grace" or Eru (or whomever) but so is Gollum? Perhaps in that fleeting second, whatever part of Gollum remains human is sufficient to gain forgiveness of his "sins" as he destroys the Ring....? The point is, as Rikae so elegantly points out, is that we will never know.

There is no moment so private, so entirely individual and so profoundly our own, as the moment of our death. I like to think that as Gollum went into the flames he realised in some manner the depth and breadth of his depravity, and that he died with that thought in his mind. That's some manner of redemption.

[Raynor]

So here's an idea. When Gollum goes into the fire can we see that as a moment in which not only is M-E saved by the "grace" or Eru (or whomever) but so is Gollum?

The least that can be said is that Gollum won't sin anymore, which is also a manifestation of Eru's grace, holding one from perpetual error, which threaten's to lead to an even lower morality - I make this argument often in referrrence to the drowning of Numenor by Eru, as they resorted to killing, torturing, slaying each other, enslaving, etc. Ending such dramas is necessary; in the end, as Tolkien states in letter #212, a divine punishment is also a divine blessing.

[Boromir88]

Is it because Gollum did so much evil? But, actually, isn't it so that in all his evil deeds, it has actually been the Ring who made him to do those things? Even in the murder of Déagol, he was attracted by the ring.~Glaurung

Raynor brings up some very good points about Gollum that I'd like to expand upon just a little bit.

I think there is this general thinking that Smeagol was a victim of the Ring. The Ring brought out 'Gollum' and turned this nice little, loving Smeagol into the little wretch he becomes. I disagree, Gollum was already within Smeagol, it's just the Ring that brings out the 'Gollum.'

Before coming across the Ring I kind of think of Smeagol's mind with two opposite extremes. There's the good side that we get a brief glimpse at (him and Deagol beforethey came across the Ring), but also the evil that was already within Smeagol even before he came across the Ring. I kind of think of Smeagol's mind as a scale of conscience - which is something I think we all possess as humans. (Note: this is all before he comes across the Ring):

Evil (Gollum)----------------------------------------------------------------------Good (Smeagol)

Raynor quotes Letter 181 and to add in some descriptors Tolkien describes Smeagol as 'damnable' a 'mean soul' and a 'mean son of a thief.'

But, also I think if we look at how Smeagol acts when he gets the Ring we can see just what type of persona he had before coming across the Ring. The Ring plays with the nature of its bearer. It gives power according to the person's stature, but it also brings out the nature of the individual.

Just for some examples, when Bilbo gets the Ring he acquires it out of Pity. Why is it that when Bilbo acquires the Ring that he doesn't turn into an angry, bitter, murdering Gollum? Because Bilbo prior to the Ring wasn't a Gollum. He uses the Ring as an occasional trick and to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses.

Boromir desires for Gondor's victory and to achieve his own glory along with it. So, he sees the Ring as a weapon, and the Ring uses this desire:

What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? What could not Aragorn do? Or if he refuses, why not Boromir? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!"~The Breaking of the Fellowship

The Ring doesn't 'create' any feeling or sense of evil within anybody. It uses what is already within the person and brings that desire out. It works with what is already within the person.

Let's look at what Smeagol does after killing Deagol to get the Ring:

'No one ever found out what had become of Deagol; he was murdered far from home, and his body was cunningly hidden. But Smeagol returned alone; and he found that none of his family could see him, when he was wearing the ring. He was very pleased with his discovery and he concealed it; and he used it to find secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. He became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful. The ring had given him power according to his stature. It is not to be wondered at that he became very unpopular and was shunned (when visible) by all his relations. They kicked him, and he bit their feet. He took to thieving, and going about muttering to himself, and gurgling in his throat. So they called him Gollum, and cursed him, and told him to go far away; and his grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole.'~Shadow in the Past

1. Not only does Gollum murder Deagol to get the Ring, but he also hides the body and covers up what he did. No one found out what had happened to Deagol until Gollum spilled the beans to Gandalf.

2. He uses the Ring for malicious purposes. He doesn't use it as a trick, or use it on occasion. He uses it to start thieving, spying, and other 'malicious uses.'

3. We see the expulsion by the grandmother was not wrong either. She had desired it out of peace. Peace is good...right?

The Ring didn't 'create' Gollum and turn Smeagol into some wicked, spiteful, creature. Smeagol was already pre-disposed to evil, and the Ring takes that to use to it's advantage. Gollum is brought out from within Smeagol, because of the Ring, and becomes the dominant personality, but that personality had already existed in Smeagol before he came across the Ring.

So, to answer the question. I still pity him, as he comes so close to his own redemption, yet because of Sam's attitude towards him and the strong influence of the Ring, Smeagol is unable to overcome it and he falls short. Which is truly the sad part, as he comes so close to redemption, yet just falls short. The fact remains though that he did fall short.

His intentions weren't in anyway honorable at all. He didn't take the Ring from Frodo so Sauron wouldn't get it. He wanted the Ring for himself. I do believe that he wanted to keep it away from Sauron, but he also wanted to keep it away from everyone else. Gollum made very clear from when he first set eyes on the Ring, he deserved it and only him. It was his birthday present and his justification to claim the Ring as to why he's the only one that deserves it. Since, Gollum is only after the Ring to appease himself, this to me, doesn't make him honorable or a hero at all. Eventhough he does fall into Mount Doom with the Ring, it wasn't some voluntary act to save Frodo or anyone else. It was all about him getting the Ring and only him. The means don't justify the ends....and sociologists would term that as an innovater...with a corrupted official as a great example. An innovator agrees with the ends, but will go about illegal practices (the means) to reach that end....which begs the question is it 'right?' Do the means justify the end? Does it even matter?

[Rikae]

Why is it that when Bilbo acquires the Ring that he doesn't turn into an angry, bitter, murdering Gollum? Because Bilbo prior to the Ring wasn't a Gollum. He uses the Ring as an occasional trick and to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses.

I'm not denying Bilbo is different than Smeagol, but it is also implied that the circumstances in which a person obtains the ring affect the subsequent power the ring has over that person:

'Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy, not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he bagan his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity." (FOTR 69)

If beginning his ownership of the ring with pity had a protective effect on Bilbo, as Gandalf implies (it doesn't seem as if he's referring merely to Bilbo's innate good nature, but to the specific events surrounding his finding the ring), beginning with a murder would have the opposite effect: increasing the ring's influence all the more over the person's subsequent actions.
The influence of the Ring doesn't seem, initially at least, to be to turn people toward a sort of generalized 'evil'; rather, it seems mostly to draw people to it, to create a powerful desire to own it and use it. Bilbo didn't act against this influence when he spared Gollum; he already had the ring and was able to escape with it.

Desire for the ring, though, can bring out a darker side even in Bilbo, who began his ownership with Pity:

'Well, if you want my ring yourself, say so!' cried Bilbo. 'But you won't get it. I won't give my precious away, I tell you.' His hand strayed to the hilt of his small sword. (FOTR 42)

When Smeagol killed Deagol, it wasn't because the Ring amplified his personality; it was because he was possessed with an overpowering desire for it, and Deagol stood in the way. The desire was the effect of the Ring; the same effect it had on everyone who encountered it. Whether this desire inspired actual violence would have depended on:
1. Whether violence would help one get or keep the ring (obviously if one finds or inherits it, there is no need to resort to violence)
2. How violent, impulsive, weak etc. the person is by nature.
3. How much prior knowledge the person had:
-knowing that the Ring is perilous, and that it will be tempting, would help a person resist its power.
-knowing the Ring is evil.
4. Whether the person had time to consider his actions, or acted on impulse.

Was Smeagol 'more evil' than Bilbo, before encountering the Ring? I don't doubt it. Was he 'evil' in the absolute sense? I would say he was only a rather unstable, impulsive and ignorant young hobbit who encountered a temptation that he could not resist was subsequently very quick to succomb to the ring's influence.