[davem]

Originally Posted by Esty

I wonder if the fact that he even comes close to being redeemed is due to his hobbit-related nature? After all the centuries that he had the ring and his deep-seated addiction to it, the fact that he has any positive strength left in him shows that, like the other hobbits, he is "tough in the fibre".

Possibly. Yet wouldn't that lessen the meaning - kind of attributing some 'extra' ability to hobbits that men do not have. Hobbits have a kind of innate humility, certainly, which seems lacking (at least to the same degree) in other races, but they are 'relatives of ours'.

I think Tolkien is attempting to show that no-one is beyond the possibility of repentance. Yet the further one goes down the road towards the 'ungood' the more difficult it is to 'turn around'. Its almost as if there's a kind of 'gravitational pull' towards evil, & one must watch out constantly. Like the Road itself you must beware of setting foot on it, because it can drag you off before you realise. Yet there must always be a possibility of repentance - 'damnation' (if there is such a thing in Middle earth) must be 'chosen' - or at least the choices which bring it about must be freely chosen.

So I don't think Smeagol's chance of redemtion & his rejection of it can be put down simply to him being a Hobbit. Anyone - Man, Elf, Dwarf, would have the same opportunity - I think that would be necessary: there would have to be a last chance. Though maybe for others their last chnace would have come at an earlier stage.

Secondly, concerning Boromir: Everything that is said about his family background (father's influence, missing mother, etc.) also applies to Faramir. So what is the decisive difference? Is it the influence of Gandalf on Faramir?

It could be Gandalf's influence - but perhaps its some thing else. Boromir & Faramir are different characters - as I said eolsewhere I see Boromir as an extravert & Faramir as an introvert. Its also quite likely that the influence of Denethor on Boromir played as much a part as Gandalf's on Faramir.

Whether its because their respective nature's lead drew them to their 'teacher's' - Faramir to Gandalf, Boromir to Denethor, or whether their natures were shaped by their teacher's is another matter - I don't think anyone's answered the nature vs nurture question yet.

But that brings us to ask the same question - nature or nurture? - in regard to Eowyn & Smeagol. And if 'damnation' is choice to what extent is it 'pre-figured'? Is it in the nature of some to choose to turn from the Light, or is it a result of experiences & external influences? Melkor is the 'archetype' here, I suppose - did he always have the desire for power & control within him?

What do we know about Smeagol's influences - we only know of Deagol & his Grandmother - did they 'push' him into becoming the type of person he became, or would he have gone bad' anyway - if in a lesser way.

And finally, Eowyn. Who were her influences? Her brother, Theoden & perhaps in a way Grima. Not an ideal triad, yet she still found the inner strength to achieve her own redemption.

As does Boromir. Innate 'goodness' will out, I suppose. Perhaps Tolkien in the end favoured nature over nurture & believed that whatrever the circumstances the individual could rise above their background - something he had learned from personal experience.

So, in the end, no excuses for choosing to turn from the Light as far as Tolkien is concerned. Gollum may be deserving of pity, but he still chooses the darkness.