Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mansun
It seemed to me that Gandalf lit a brand of fire close to Gollum to get him to talk, but the need to burn him did not arise thankfully. If it meant saving ME, torturing a murderer would appear more acceptable given the circumstances, if somewhat immoral.
|
But clearly Gandalf made Gollum believe he would torture him with fire - possibly burn him alive, or at least do him serious harm. And Gollum
did talk - how far would Gandalf have had to go to
make Gollum talk - we know how stubborn he could be. One can imagine Gollum screaming in terror at Gandalf's hands.
And yet, it was necessary to get the information. So Gandalf did what was necessary. Now this is an incident that Tolkien did not have to put into the story. What is Tolkien saying here - is he agreeing with Gandalf's action, or is he merely stating that in desperate circumstances such things are necessary?
Yet is that correct - does it fit with the overall 'philosophy' of the work - that one should always do the right thing, even if it makes one vulnerable to defeat?
For one line in such a long book this opens a whole can of worms....