It's interesting to see the same questions crop up, and the same sorts of answers, as have appeared in the usenet Tolkien Groups.
But... there are some more authoritative sources available than most people here seem to have consulted.
First of all,
all of the Rings of Power are turned to evil, excepting only the Three Elven Rings because Sauron never touched them. (Although 'evil' is a relative concept as the ultimate fate and meaning of Gollum shows.) That only the One Ring was powerful enough to corrupt and over-whelm anyone that tried to use it does not mean that the others weren't also evil. And even the works of the Three would be turned to evil if Sauron got the One back, because then he would have become aware of everything that had been done with them and been able to turn all of those works to his own uses.
On Gollum, the original topic of this thread, Tolkien had quite a bit to say in the
Letters. I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand Tolkien's view of his works.
The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien
Edited by Humphrey Carter,
with assistance from Christopher Tolkien
1981, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston
ISBN 0-395-31555-7
Quote:
...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. He was very justly accorded the highest honours - since it is clear that he & Sam never concealed the precise course of events. Into the ultimate judgement of Gollum I would not care to inquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes Privitee', as the Medievals said. 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 portentious, but not honourable. 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. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for Smeagol. But he would never have had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths? A kind of answer cd. be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different! By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Smeagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost.
J.R.R. Tolkien, Letters, #181, p. 234
|
Quote:
Sam was cocksure, and deep down a little conceited; but his conceit had been transformed by his devotion to Frodo. He did not think of himself as heroic or even brave, or in any way admirable - except in his service and loyalty to his master. That had an ingredient (probably inevitable) of pride and possessiveness: it is difficult to exclude it from the devotion of those who perform such service. In any case it prevented him from fully understanding the master that he loved, and from following him in his gradual education to the nobility of service to the unlovable and of perception of damaged good in the corrupt. He plainly did not fully understand Frodo's motives or his distress in the incident of the Forbidden Pool. If he had understood better what was going on between Frodo and Gollum, things might have turned out differently in the end. For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes in II 323 ff. when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing', said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!'. His repentance is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense) wasted. Shelob's lair became inevitable.
This is due of course to the 'logic of the story'. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at Last (III 221-222) but for the good of Gollum too late.) If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. 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.
J.R.R. Tolkien, Letters, #246, p. 330
|
[ February 18, 2004, 17:36: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]