[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Yes, I'm still arguing the same too Baran. Thanks once again for the backup [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] .

Jessica Jade, you said

In the end, I know that the story would not have been as powerful as it is without everything that happened in it. Gollum's death was inevitable- remember, the Ring does not truly have the power to create; it only stretches one's life and gives power according to the possesser's native strength. Gollum's life had been stretched beyond his mind's endurance, indeed like "butter scraped over too much bread," in a much worse way than Bilbo began to feel. Since the Ring was the only thing keeping him alive, it makes sense that he should die when the Ring does.

That point, to me makes no sense at all. I mean I used to think the same thing; it sounded believeable, but the more I think about it, the more stupid it sounds. The ring provides long life so the ring-bearer's life is prolonged because of the ring. You say that the ring-bearer who's life is greatly prolonged should die if the ring is destroyed. It doesn't work out.

If having the ring on prolongs life, then having it off should take away some of that prolonged life. Or if that doesn't happen, which it didn't, then not having the ring in your posession should take away some of that prolonged life. But that does not happen. You see this shown in gollum's example. If the ring can only prolong life while you posess it, then not having it should make you die or rot quickly and then die, and gollum should have died a very long time ago if that were true, which it is not. So if the ring cannot prolong your life if you don't currently posess it, then what does it matter if it is destroyed? If it is destroyed, it can't prolong life, just like it can't prolong life when you don't posess it. So if it is destroyed, then why would it take away the time in the ring-bearer's life that ring prolonged? It wouldn't.

"the Ring does not truly have the power to create; it only stretches one's life and gives power according to the possesser's native strength." Right you are. But tell me this: Where the h*ll does it say the ring has the power to take away??? And maybe, it can take away power that it gave, but it can not take away life that it gave. If the ring could not take away life when the person lost it, then why could it when it was destroyed? It couldn't prevent the aging after the person loses posession but it couldn't take away life it gave. The only life it takes away when it is destroyed is Sauron's, and only because he bound his lifeforce into the ring. So when the ring dies, Suaron dies. Gollum would not have died since his life force was not bound to the ring.

You said, 'like "butter scraped over too much bread," in a much worse way than Bilbo began to feel. Since the Ring was the only thing keeping him alive, it makes sense that he should die when the Ring does.' If this were true, then the gollum should have died when he lost the ring. And if the ring was still keeping him alive and prolonging his life then, the ring was still helping gollum and gollum should have all the power's that come with the ring. But since the ring did not do any of this to Gollum while it was out of his possesion, it shouldn't take any thing away from gollum when it dies.

My point is that Gollum would have not died when the ring died. His death was not ineviteable. And therefore, he could have rehabilitated. He would still be scarred by the ring, but relieved in a way since the ring was destroyed.

You also said,

One of my favorite aspects of TOlkien is the bittersweet irony of it all--like Frodo says to sam at the end of the last chapter, "...when things are in danger, someone must give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them." I think that that is a recurrent theme or subtheme interwoven throughout the whole Middle Earth saga.

This kind of realates to 2 themes that I thought of. It's in this thread In praise of Sam's Pans and the themes I see are that some times you must give something up in order to gain some thing and sometimes when you win, you lose. You might find it interesting.

Elven Mistress, you said,

Someone said that Smeagol (Gollum) killed Deagol because of the ring's influence (or am i making this up...?) Well, anyway...he did it because of the ring. Now, let us say that Frodo or Sam had the strength to throw the ring into Mt. Doom. What then? The Ring - the thing that "controlled" Gollum would be gone forever. Slowly Smeagol would come out, and with a little compassion - and the weight of the ring lifted - i believe that Gollum really would have rehabilitated.

You were not making that up, I said it. Thank you for supporting me [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] . I said that in this thread .Gollum vs Other Hobbits And no, you are not getting off topic. It really relates to this thread and discussion. I'm glad you see my point and agree with it.

This reply was very long and confusing. And I'm not sure if I clearly got my point across. So if something is hazy or confusing let me know and I'll try to explain better. Thanks.