Is there any hope of redemption ...?

[Lalwendë]

How inimitably rude you are to him.

Rude? Not really. I said:

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.

I'm fond of Gollum, and I'd defend him against any claims that he was 'inherently evil'. I see Gollum as a character to appeal to the modern, less certain mind. He cannot be 'cured' of his addiction, and cannot be controlled or made acceptable to 'society' in general. Yet Tolkien shows us how he is not to be hated. He tells us to think carefully:

'But this is terrible!' cried Frodo. 'Far worse than the worst that I imagined from your hints and warnings. O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do? For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!'

'Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.'

'I am sorry,' said Frodo. 'But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.'
'You have not seen him,' Gandalf broke in.
'No, and I don't want to,' said Frodo. 'I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it.

Tolkien also tells us how a creature we might think of as 'evil' may in reality not be so far removed from our own good selves:

'I think it is a sad story,' said the wizard, 'and it might have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known.'
'I can't believe that Gollum was connected with hobbits, however distantly,' said Frodo with some heat. 'What an abominable notion!'

'It is true all the same,' replied Gandalf. 'About their origins, at any rate, I know more than hobbits do themselves. And even Bilbo's story suggests the kinship. There was a great deal in the background of their minds and memories that was very similar. They understood one another remarkably well, very much better than a hobbit would understand, say, a Dwarf, or an Orc, or even an Elf. Think of the riddles they both knew, for one thing.'

'Yes,' said Frodo. 'Though other folk besides hobbits ask riddles, and of much the same sort. And hobbits don't cheat. Gollum meant to cheat all the time. He was just trying to put poor Bilbo off his guard. And I daresay it amused his wickedness to start a game which might end in providing him with an easy victim, but if he lost would not hurt him.'

'Only too true, I fear,' said Gandalf. 'But there was something else in it, I think, which you don't see yet. Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed--as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things.

'But that, of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end--unless it could be conquered. Unless it could be cured.' Gandalf sighed. 'Alas! there is little hope of that for him. Yet not no hope. No, not though he possessed the Ring so long, almost as far back as he can remember. For it was long since he had worn it much: in the black darkness it was seldom needed. Certainly he had never "faded". He is thin and tough still. But the thing was eating up his mind, of course, and the torment had become almost unbearable.

Even Gandalf displays some hope for Gollum where I do not - I would not know what to do with him, though I could certainly not kill or hurt him.

The text you quoted does indeed show that redemption was possible for even the most wicked of characters in Middle Earth; and I indeed think it was possible that Gollum could have been redeemed. But still, was he redeemed? Did he have the chance to be redeemed? Was falling into the Cracks of Doom with the ring enough to redeem him? I certainly hope he was 'saved', I'm rather fond of Gollum.

[HerenIstarion]

and I indeed think it was possible that Gollum could have been redeemed

In fact, he's on the brink of redemption - on the stairs to Cirith Ungol. And it is most sad that it is Sam's part to frighten possible redemption away - with what he imagines Gollum's 'sneaking' startled from sleep. You (innumerable literary critics I mean under you here) tell me LoTR is 'black'n'white'! One of the best heroes to destroy what may have turned out one of the best eventsof the story! Yet again, to quote Lewis, 'simple evil is often used by God to produce complex Good'. or Tolkien himself: 'For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined' - who knows, would the Ring fall into the Cracks of Doom if only Gollum would have been truly redeemed? I know, it is a bit unfair to compare Sam with Melkor - not the same weight, but the result is similar, up to a point.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

As to the question of Gollum's possible redemption, there are two
interesting (if somewhat contradictory) views of this by JRRT in "Letters":

In #181 (written probably Jan. or Feb. 1956) he views Gollum's actual
behavior to have lead to his nonredemption:

Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honorable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would never have had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.Need it ever have crossed his path? A kind of answer cd. be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different! By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Smeagol will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost.

While in Letter #246 (September 1963) he speculates on how a redeemed Gollum might have behaved at Mount Doom:

For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes...when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing', said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!'. His repentence is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense) wasted. Shelob's lair becomes inevitable. This is of course do to the 'logic of the story'. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last III 221-222) but for the good of Gollum too late. If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentence and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.

One interesting change in view seems to be that in the first letter Tolkien lays primary "blame" for Gollum's nonredemption at his feet, while in the second letter Sam bears primary (inadvertent) responsibility.

[Lalwendë]

Those are very interesting quotes. It makes me wonder more about Sam and Gollum in relation to each other. Gollum is presented on the surface level as an evil creature, and Sam as inherently good; yet both are not necessarily these things. Gollum can repent, and Sam can be cruel. Yet more shades of grey in the morality of the story... This again sheds new light on the character of Frodo. He at first thinks of Gollum as evil, then he meets and comes to rely on him; Frodo cannot destroy the ring, and this might be seen as wrong, yet by taking on Gollum and trusting to him, he has done 'good'. Is this a particular type of Christian morality being displayed, in that mercy will eventually result in 'good'?Or is it some form of 'humanism' in that Frodo accepts the failings of another because he sees the common humanity (hobbitry?) in Gollum?

Of one thing I am sure, and that is that this clearly demonstrates the complexity in Tolkien's characters! A good one for arguments with critics.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

A bit more on Gollum/Sam, which I forgot to add above.

I also, on first reading LOTR, thought the saddest/most tragic moment
was Gollum's near repentence (and as an aside, why PJ and Andy Serkis
were so foolish in delighting in ROTK in portraying Gollum's change of heart
as being completely a ruse, against the accurate portrayal in TTT movie).

I actually think a really interesting version of LOTR would have been to
have Shelob kill off Frodo (sorry, Frodo fans ). This would have
led to a fascinating dynamic of Sam and Gollum from there to Mount Doom.
And, paranthetically, it would have quieted initial critics of LOTR that "all"
made it back safe (ignoring, of course, Boromir and the various kinds of
"losses" by the free peoples at the end of the tale).
Might Sam, as a longer term Ringbearer, have gained a greater appreciation
of Gollum's torment and been more inclined to forgiving and help redeeming
him? And as not so long a Ringbearer as Frodo, could he have resisted the
Ring's strength at the end? (Probably not, I think JRRT surmises somewhere
that the power of the Ring at Dol Guldur was too strong for anyone to
resist, which, if so, also helps to ease any criticism of Isildur).

[HerenIstarion]

a really interesting version of LOTR would have been to have Shelob kill off Frodo

I suppose it would not be LoTR any longer (I agree it would be interesting, but that would be quite different story)