The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Lalwendë · 11-25-2004, 01:57 PM

Nice 'bump-up' HI. I know it's for purposes of the discussion in Chapter by Chapter but I can't resist this one.

Thinking of the concept of redemption as taught by the Roman Catholic Church - it does not necessarily follow that Tolkien himself followed the creeds of his church to the letter and had his works reflect all of these. As he said "I cannot understand how I should be labelled 'a believer in moral didacticism'. It is in any case the exact opposite of my procedure in The Lord of the Rings." So here Tolkien himself is admitting that the moral aspects of Middle Earth are not entirely black and white. He clearly saw that redemption was possible.

And so to Gollum, one of the most complex characters in all of literature. Sometimes, I wonder if Tolkien created him to demonstrate how we cannot simply sit back and say 'yes he is evil' or 'he is the epitome of goodness'. Gollum does very bad things, and he is treacherous, but is he really bad? I think not. He is corrupted, but not bad right through. However, was he redeemed?

He came to no admission of his failings or guilt, there was no apology from him, he was unrepentant, yet he was tormented by what he had become. This was very clever writing from Tolkien. To show us first of all this incredibly creepy, twisted character, develop him to show us how he was tormented by his needs and then mess around with the readers' perceptions by having him, ultimately, save the day.

And then, there is the perfection of Gollum's end. He never recovered from his needs. He was never sorry for them, apart from feeling sorry for himself. What is to be done with somebody like that? As Gandalf says, could you kill him? he could not even be locked away. So his end, ultimately, was simply perfection. Negative, yet perfect. An incredibly modern character, in Gollum we see a creature beset with failings so unimaginable, we can see there is no hope for him, and yet we see a creature we simply cannot just hate.

As a final thought, Gollum took the ring and wore it in all innocence; it was merely a big sparkler to him. As did Bilbo, who just thought he had stumbled upon something fortuitous. But Frodo only wore it when he knew what the ring was about. Who is the real innocent?

11-25-2004, 01:57 PM	#29
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	Nice 'bump-up' HI. I know it's for purposes of the discussion in Chapter by Chapter but I can't resist this one. Thinking of the concept of redemption as taught by the Roman Catholic Church - it does not necessarily follow that Tolkien himself followed the creeds of his church to the letter and had his works reflect all of these. As he said "I cannot understand how I should be labelled 'a believer in moral didacticism'. It is in any case the exact opposite of my procedure in The Lord of the Rings." So here Tolkien himself is admitting that the moral aspects of Middle Earth are not entirely black and white. He clearly saw that redemption was possible. And so to Gollum, one of the most complex characters in all of literature. Sometimes, I wonder if Tolkien created him to demonstrate how we cannot simply sit back and say 'yes he is evil' or 'he is the epitome of goodness'. Gollum does very bad things, and he is treacherous, but is he really bad? I think not. He is corrupted, but not bad right through. However, was he redeemed? He came to no admission of his failings or guilt, there was no apology from him, he was unrepentant, yet he was tormented by what he had become. This was very clever writing from Tolkien. To show us first of all this incredibly creepy, twisted character, develop him to show us how he was tormented by his needs and then mess around with the readers' perceptions by having him, ultimately, save the day. And then, there is the perfection of Gollum's end. He never recovered from his needs. He was never sorry for them, apart from feeling sorry for himself. What is to be done with somebody like that? As Gandalf says, could you kill him? he could not even be locked away. So his end, ultimately, was simply perfection. Negative, yet perfect. An incredibly modern character, in Gollum we see a creature beset with failings so unimaginable, we can see there is no hope for him, and yet we see a creature we simply cannot just hate. As a final thought, Gollum took the ring and wore it in all innocence; it was merely a big sparkler to him. As did Bilbo, who just thought he had stumbled upon something fortuitous. But Frodo only wore it when he knew what the ring was about. Who is the real innocent? __________________ Gordon's alive!