Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Might
Of course a threat is not equal to a deed, but let's be serious, Tolkien was pretty clearly saying that Gollum would have eaten Bilbo.
|
And let's not forget that Gollum did not know 'what' Bilbo was, after having spent half a millenium in a cave. What's being forgotten is that by this time Gollum was insane, & hardly responsible for his actions. Gollum is a tragic figure because he has been driven mad, psychotic, by something far more powerful than he was. His mind was broken by it. Hence, he was a victim. To simply state that 'he deserved to die' is to place oneself on the level of those decadent upper class types who visited mental asylums to laugh at the 'lunatics'.
Quote:
|
It could well be that the Ring had a great influence, and that the old Smeagol was a pretty nice guy, still, the thread topic is "Did Gollum, and not Smeagol, deserve death?"
|
This again is reducing things to a simplistic 'Good' vs 'Evil' judgement. Except this is dividing a person into a 'Good' part & an 'Evil' part (just 'cos Sam does it it doesn't mean its an insightful or compassionate approach). How can one say that 'Gollum' deserves to die & 'Smeagol' does not? How would you kill the one without killing the other? There are not 'two' different 'spirits' inhabiting one body, but a person with a broken mind. Can you imagine the nightmare horror of 'Smeagollum''s existence? Put yourself in his place - your every thought, every perception, is fractured, one desire, hope, dream constantly 'attacked' by an opposing one - every thought you have immediately smashed by its opposite. And all the time you are driven by an overwhelming desire for something you hate.
Anyone who responds to such a supremely tragic remnant of a once whole person by saying 'Well, he certainly deserves to be executed' has missed Tolkien's point by a mile.