Sméagol: Hero of the Third Age

[littlemanpoet]

Agreed, Bethberry. That's not at all what I'm thinking or talking about here, just in case anybody was wondering.

So according to Letter #181, my original sense was accurate after all: Gollum was wholly wicked and that little scene with Sam (Sneak!) was indeed really tragic. Thanks, Raynor.

[Glaurung]

I humbly aplogise if this is kind of off-topic... I want to point out that even though Gollum may not have made a tragic sacrifice (though that would have been quite touching), does that mean he was not a hero? Whatever be his motives, it still was him who actually destroyed the Ring. Of course his heroism would have increased if he had been a tragic martyr. But does it completely disappear if his motives were not that noble?

Actually, now that I think of it a weird thought comes to me. What if, after all, it should actually be Gollum who is to be credited of destroying the Ring. Of course I know that Frodo and Sam are to be thanked of that. But why not Gollum too? It was he who led them to Mordor, through places they would never have managed themselves. And, in the bitter end, it was Gollum who destroyed the Ring. So why is he not mentioned as a hero, but as a villain who met his rightful end?

Is it because Gollum did so much evil? But, actually, isn't it so that in all his evil deeds, it has actually been the Ring who made him to do those things? Even in the murder of Déagol, he was attracted by the ring. And even though that murder could not be protected by the involvement of the Ring, then he could be blamed of a murder. But what about Túrin, then? Was he not a hero, even though he murdered a couple of good men and fell in love with his sister?

My main question here is: is a person who does good unwillingly a hero, and how much do motives mean in such great deeds as the destruction of the Dark Lord?

[Raynor]

Glaurung, I disagree with your line of reasoning; according to this, we should glorify Melkor and Sauron, because due to their unwilling mistakes, they brought about the fall of great evil. Turin was someone who was actively and willingly battling a good fight, against a known and recognized evil (welll, most of the times) so I don't think that comparing him to Gollum holds water.

Imo, personal aims and willing effort according to those aims is what makes a hero; even the slaying of the witch-king, though extremely fortunate, still required a great deal of past involvement, effort and sacrifice on behalf of that particular hero; he didn't just woke up besides the witch king, with a dagger fallen out of the sky right into his hand.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Agreed, Bethberry. That's not at all what I'm thinking or talking about here, just in case anybody was wondering.

So according to Letter #181, my original sense was accurate after all: Gollum was wholly wicked and that little scene with Sam (Sneak!) was indeed really tragic. Thanks, Raynor.

This raises the question of can anything or anyone be "wholly wicked"? Is even the possibility of redemption gone for Smeagol (or, for that matter Sauron)? If so then we are perhaps seeing a rather un-Christian version of the tale.

Unless I am misapprehending what you mean by "wholly wicked"...is this distinct from irredeemable evil?

Glaurung: it's interesting to note how Gollum sees himself in light of your comments. He certainly sees himself as the (long suffering) hero, and he would undoubtedly argue that his most heroic moment is that in which he took the Ring -- he would have no problem seeing himself as a 'holy' person achieving his own 'grail' as a reward for his trials. In that sense he really does die a hero...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

This raises the question of can anything or anyone be "wholly wicked"? Is even the possibility of redemption gone for Smeagol (or, for that matter Sauron)? If so then we are perhaps seeing a rather un-Christian version of the tale.

Unless I am misapprehending what you mean by "wholly wicked"...is this distinct from irredeemable evil?

My sense is that this does not fall outside the purview (sp?) of orthodox Christian theology. By way of illustration, Adolf Hitler was 'wholly wicked'. Christians of his time (and later) deem him as not to have been numbered among the saints. This is not to say that there was absolutely no possibility that he could have been somehow miraculously redeemed before his final breath, but it seems realistically impossible..... because ..... he (like Gollum) had gone so far down the road of perdition that he had for all intents and purposes removed himself from all but the remotest chance for Grace. Sorry about how labored that turned out to be, I thought I could be much more concise, but it'll have to do.

[Rikae]

I don't know how well I'll be able to express this thought, but I'll try: does any human being (we've established Smeagol is human, right?) ever act with only one single motivation- and if not, can they ever be, in this life, wholly good or wholly wicked? It seems to me that there were, in Smeagol (as in Frodo) several different impulses at war with each other; furthermore, some of these were more purely his own than others. His wickedness, which seems to have 'won' in the sense that it influenced most of his actions, was strongly influenced by the power of the ring; on the other hand, any chink of light in him existed in spite of the ring's imfluence, and was therefore more truly his own.
If we judge him, we have to not only weigh the objective morality of each action, but also the degree to which that choice was freely made (think of the Catholic idea of mortal sin requiring not only grave matter, but full knowledge and consent). Certainly, Frodo better resisted the power of the ring; but Frodo also had more help; he was armed with more knowledge, and had Gandalf to guide him from the moment the ring came into his possession. If he had first encountered the ring under the circumstances Smeagol did, he might not have resisted it very well at all.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

lmp: so, OK, "wholly wicked" does not rule out the (theoretical?) possibility of grace...this is good, for my sense of LotR is that nobody is ever completely beyond redemption.

So here's an idea. When Gollum goes into the fire can we see that as a moment in which not only is M-E saved by the "grace" or Eru (or whomever) but so is Gollum? Perhaps in that fleeting second, whatever part of Gollum remains human is sufficient to gain forgiveness of his "sins" as he destroys the Ring....? The point is, as Rikae so elegantly points out, is that we will never know.

There is no moment so private, so entirely individual and so profoundly our own, as the moment of our death. I like to think that as Gollum went into the flames he realised in some manner the depth and breadth of his depravity, and that he died with that thought in his mind. That's some manner of redemption.

[Raynor]

So here's an idea. When Gollum goes into the fire can we see that as a moment in which not only is M-E saved by the "grace" or Eru (or whomever) but so is Gollum?

The least that can be said is that Gollum won't sin anymore, which is also a manifestation of Eru's grace, holding one from perpetual error, which threaten's to lead to an even lower morality - I make this argument often in referrrence to the drowning of Numenor by Eru, as they resorted to killing, torturing, slaying each other, enslaving, etc. Ending such dramas is necessary; in the end, as Tolkien states in letter #212, a divine punishment is also a divine blessing.

[Boromir88]

Is it because Gollum did so much evil? But, actually, isn't it so that in all his evil deeds, it has actually been the Ring who made him to do those things? Even in the murder of Déagol, he was attracted by the ring.~Glaurung

Raynor brings up some very good points about Gollum that I'd like to expand upon just a little bit.

I think there is this general thinking that Smeagol was a victim of the Ring. The Ring brought out 'Gollum' and turned this nice little, loving Smeagol into the little wretch he becomes. I disagree, Gollum was already within Smeagol, it's just the Ring that brings out the 'Gollum.'

Before coming across the Ring I kind of think of Smeagol's mind with two opposite extremes. There's the good side that we get a brief glimpse at (him and Deagol beforethey came across the Ring), but also the evil that was already within Smeagol even before he came across the Ring. I kind of think of Smeagol's mind as a scale of conscience - which is something I think we all possess as humans. (Note: this is all before he comes across the Ring):

Evil (Gollum)----------------------------------------------------------------------Good (Smeagol)

Raynor quotes Letter 181 and to add in some descriptors Tolkien describes Smeagol as 'damnable' a 'mean soul' and a 'mean son of a thief.'

But, also I think if we look at how Smeagol acts when he gets the Ring we can see just what type of persona he had before coming across the Ring. The Ring plays with the nature of its bearer. It gives power according to the person's stature, but it also brings out the nature of the individual.

Just for some examples, when Bilbo gets the Ring he acquires it out of Pity. Why is it that when Bilbo acquires the Ring that he doesn't turn into an angry, bitter, murdering Gollum? Because Bilbo prior to the Ring wasn't a Gollum. He uses the Ring as an occasional trick and to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses.

Boromir desires for Gondor's victory and to achieve his own glory along with it. So, he sees the Ring as a weapon, and the Ring uses this desire:

What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? What could not Aragorn do? Or if he refuses, why not Boromir? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!"~The Breaking of the Fellowship

The Ring doesn't 'create' any feeling or sense of evil within anybody. It uses what is already within the person and brings that desire out. It works with what is already within the person.

Let's look at what Smeagol does after killing Deagol to get the Ring:

'No one ever found out what had become of Deagol; he was murdered far from home, and his body was cunningly hidden. But Smeagol returned alone; and he found that none of his family could see him, when he was wearing the ring. He was very pleased with his discovery and he concealed it; and he used it to find secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. He became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful. The ring had given him power according to his stature. It is not to be wondered at that he became very unpopular and was shunned (when visible) by all his relations. They kicked him, and he bit their feet. He took to thieving, and going about muttering to himself, and gurgling in his throat. So they called him Gollum, and cursed him, and told him to go far away; and his grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole.'~Shadow in the Past

1. Not only does Gollum murder Deagol to get the Ring, but he also hides the body and covers up what he did. No one found out what had happened to Deagol until Gollum spilled the beans to Gandalf.

2. He uses the Ring for malicious purposes. He doesn't use it as a trick, or use it on occasion. He uses it to start thieving, spying, and other 'malicious uses.'

3. We see the expulsion by the grandmother was not wrong either. She had desired it out of peace. Peace is good...right?

The Ring didn't 'create' Gollum and turn Smeagol into some wicked, spiteful, creature. Smeagol was already pre-disposed to evil, and the Ring takes that to use to it's advantage. Gollum is brought out from within Smeagol, because of the Ring, and becomes the dominant personality, but that personality had already existed in Smeagol before he came across the Ring.

So, to answer the question. I still pity him, as he comes so close to his own redemption, yet because of Sam's attitude towards him and the strong influence of the Ring, Smeagol is unable to overcome it and he falls short. Which is truly the sad part, as he comes so close to redemption, yet just falls short. The fact remains though that he did fall short.

His intentions weren't in anyway honorable at all. He didn't take the Ring from Frodo so Sauron wouldn't get it. He wanted the Ring for himself. I do believe that he wanted to keep it away from Sauron, but he also wanted to keep it away from everyone else. Gollum made very clear from when he first set eyes on the Ring, he deserved it and only him. It was his birthday present and his justification to claim the Ring as to why he's the only one that deserves it. Since, Gollum is only after the Ring to appease himself, this to me, doesn't make him honorable or a hero at all. Eventhough he does fall into Mount Doom with the Ring, it wasn't some voluntary act to save Frodo or anyone else. It was all about him getting the Ring and only him. The means don't justify the ends....and sociologists would term that as an innovater...with a corrupted official as a great example. An innovator agrees with the ends, but will go about illegal practices (the means) to reach that end....which begs the question is it 'right?' Do the means justify the end? Does it even matter?