OT - SPOILER - gollum discussion'

[Gryphin]

narf it sounds like my family. If we were not debating something, then someone would check for a pulse. My father’s favorite hobby was playing devils advocate and messing with out minds. He called it educational and assured us someday we would thank him.

As for Gollum’s death on a philosophical level I don’t see him as deserving it so much as beings die every day. Who knows perhaps he went to a far far better place.

[ February 18, 2004, 11:33: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

[geoschmo]

First of all, the ring had unatturally extended Gollums life. This may not have been made clear in the movies, but it was a key point in the books. It had the same affect on Bilbo, to a somewhat lesser degree. The books made a big point about the fact that Bilbo, while having not quite reached an age unheard of for Hobbits, certainly was not showing the effects of his age that you would expect. Once he gave the Ring to Frodo, his age started to "catch up to him", as could be seen at Rivendell. And once the ring was destroyed he began to age very fast. Compare his appearance at the begining of the FOTR with the end of ROTK. He appears to have aged decades in a span of less then two years.

Smeagol was of a race of creatures not very unlike Hobbits. And yet he had outlived his expected lifespan by who knows how long. Perhaps a century or two. Once the ring were destroyed he would have faded away very quickly indeed considering how much longer it had extended his life.

Secondly, Gollum was not totally free of the power of the ring at the end. He wasn't trying to get the ring away from Frodo to save Frodo. He wanted the ring for himself. In the struggle he fell into the pit with the ring, destroying both of them in the process. But saving Gollum would have meant that he didn't fall. And if he didn't fall he wouldn't have thrown the ring in, so the ring would have never been destroyed.

That was the point in the end. That no one had the strength to destroy the ring. Absolute power corrupts absolutly. But just as in real life in the effort to posess something, we often end up destroying it. The only way the ring could be destroyed was indirectly through the effort to posess it. In effect, the ring was destroyed by itself, because only the ring was strong enough to do so.

Gollum would not have had the power to throw the ring into the pit. The only other way that it could have ended, and the ring still be destroyed, would be for the ring to fall in the struggle but neither Gollum of Frodo to fall. But then Gollum would have been overcome by his desire to get the ring and would have jumped in after it regardless of the danger to himself. Frodo almost did that, you could see it on his face. And he was only under a fraction of the rings control that Gollum had been.

[Baron Munchausen]

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

...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

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 ]

[geoschmo]

Heh, it's nice to see my own opinion jived so well with the author. Apparently on some level I got it.

I'd have to disagree with one thing he says in his letter, if I am permitted to disagree with him. He does after all appear to be discussing this from a "what might have really happened" perspective rather than a "what might I have written instead" point of view. I think anyone with an interest in the works could disagree with the former if not the latter.

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 don't disagree that a fully repentant Smegol might have stolen the ring intending to jump and destroy it and himself, and thus simultaneously serving both his masters, but I believe had he been succesful in pilfering it, it's power would have quickly turned his heart dark again. His love for Frodo would have been forgotten, and he would have served the ring alone. He could have fallen, as he did, or jumped after it, as I suggested, but he would have never jumped with it and deliberatly taken an action which would have caused harm to his precious.

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
But just as in real life in the effort to posess something, we often end up destroying it.

Especially if you forget to set your troop ships to the Capture Planet strategy.

[Baron Munchausen]

You think you know better than the author about his own character??

Ah well... you're no diffeent than the newsgroup posters.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

even the writtings of JRRT are debatable. if any mortal ever reaches such a position in the publics eyes that there actions are unquestionable, we're in for some bad times.

mind you, that's a little overdramatic for this thread. oh well.

narf it sounds like my family. If we were not debating something, then someone would check for a pulse.

actually, my dad said he kinda liked him, becuase he was trying to be good.

Perhaps a century or two.

thousand years, if i remember correctly.

[ February 18, 2004, 20:49: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]