Did Gollum deserve death?

Gandalf was prepared to let Saruman off the hook when he ran into him towards the end of the book, despite all the murders & treason he had committed, so one may say that Gollum would have been set free & unharmed also.

Smeagol was a good hobbit. A good friend, and fine fishermen. He was kind and generous. I imagine that on many occasions he would come into the villiage with a basket full of fish and laugh with delight as he handed them out to hungry hobbit children.
But smeagol had a weakness, as with all who walk in this world, and that weakness was his will. The power of his will, by chance or design, was much less than that of other hobbits. And so the Ring chose him. The Ring appeared to Deagol, drawing him, and then revealed itself to Smeagol, and through the passage of his will entered his mind and heart. It was the Ring that murdered Deagol. It was the ring that filled Smeagol with lust and anger. But, and I believe that this touches on the fundamental beauty of Tolkiens moral vision, in the end the powers of good moved also within Gollum, for it was by and through the acts of Smeagol under the influence of the Ring itself that Sauron was destroyed and all Middle-Earth was saved. Gollum saved Middle-Earth. Not by choice of his, certainly, but neither was it then or now either fair, right, or just to suggest that poor Smeagol withstand and overcome, alone, the full omnipotent and overwhelming power of Sauron himself. For men, death is the 'gift of Eru to men'. To hobbits, who knows? But the fear of death has wrought great evil enough in the World. Death to Gollum would have been a reward, a liberation, a gift to one who had struggled alone against Sauron all those years, with no concievable way of helping himself for the greater part of his will was in Sauron's keeping. To his credit- and Can you believe? What strength of heart! To the very end he resisted the evil Sauron put in his heart. He LONGED to be good. He fought so hard. It was a manifest part of the wisdom of Gandalf and the Folly of Sauron that in the very Moment that Gollum's will finally broke and his will become completely beholden to the power of evil, that in that very fact lay the Victory of Good over evil and, as evil oft shall evil mar, "the magnitude of his folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash" and Gollum 'accidently' toppled into the Cracks of Doom. If accident you call it. But there are other powers at work in Middle Earth
This I consider to be revealed universal truth, yea, divine, and it moves me to tears.

[alatar]

Listening to the 'Shadow of the Past,' I noted yet another disturbing thing about Gollum. Gandalf states that, from his conversations with the wretched one, that after murdering Deagol and claiming the Ring that Smeagol lives amongst his family for some time. When visible, he is scorned as he's become a real pain in the community due to his new found powers via the One Ring. Eventually he is banned and booted.

In this time is it not possible that someone of the Clan found out about Gollum's birthday present? Yet in all that time, as far as we know, no one attempts to murder Smeagol for his Ring. What does that say about this unique creature, in regards to how quickly it murdered Deagol, a friend?

Another thing that I noted is that Smeagol is said to be intelligent and curious. Was Tolkien saying something about those who 'nose around' too much?

[Finduilas]

[QUOTE=Neithan Tol Turambar]Smeagol was a good hobbit. A good friend, and fine fishermen. He was kind and generous. I imagine that on many occasions he would come into the villiage with a basket full of fish and laugh with delight as he handed them out to hungry hobbit children.
QUOTE]

I can't find where Tolkien says that. What I found is

The most inquisitive and curious-minded of that family was called Smeagol. He was interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed udner trees and growing plants; he tunneled into green mounds; and he ceased to look up at the hill-tops, or the trees, or the flowers opening in the air: his head and his eyes were downward.

Which I take to mean that he was on an already downwards fall.

[Boo Radley]

Or, he could have been Middle Earth's first paleontologist.

[Finduilas]

Right.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Or, he could have been Middle Earth's first paleontologist.

Paleontology - the study of prehistoric life forms. Does Middle Earth have a time that preceeds (recorded) history? Stuff from before the elves awoke?

Methinks that Gollum may have been searching for old bones, but he was just looking for a nibble, not knowledge.

In the broader sense, was Gollum a biologist/physical scientist? Again, as stated previously, what may have Tolkien been trying to say when he tells us about Gollum, and later about Saruman (who may have deserved death as well) as typically science is the conjoined twin of progress?

[Morwen]

Paleontology - the study of prehistoric life forms. Does Middle Earth have a time that preceeds (recorded) history? Stuff from before the elves awoke?

The First Spring of Arda when the Valar still dwelt on Middle Earth should qualify.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf was prepared to let Saruman off the hook when he ran into him towards the end of the book, despite all the murders & treason he had committed, so one may say that Gollum would have been set free & unharmed also.

Neither Gandalf nor Tolkien said that Saruman deserved to be let off the hook, even if he was let off the hook. The question here is not "Would Gandalf have shown Gollum (or anyone else) mercy" it's "Did Gollum deserve death". And that could be extended to, "Did Gollum deserve death, even though Gandalf would not have been the one to deal out justice because he would have shown mercy?"

-- Folwren

[Finduilas]

From what I can find, Tolkien never said that he didn't deserve death, but he said alot of things that sound like he meant he did deserve death.

I see arguements here that since the Ring was evil, it twisted Gollums mind, and therefore he didn't deserve death. Orcs were made evil, they didn't know any better, did they not deserve death? Gollum knew he was wrong.

Originally Posted by Folwren

Neither Gandalf nor Tolkien said that Saruman deserved to be let off the hook, even if he was let off the hook. The question here is not "Would Gandalf have shown Gollum (or anyone else) mercy" it's "Did Gollum deserve death". And that could be extended to, "Did Gollum deserve death, even though Gandalf would not have been the one to deal out justice because he would have shown mercy?"

-- Folwren

I believe it was Frodo who said Saruman should be let off the hook even after he tried to knife him.

There is some inconsistency though - Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree, yet he would have shown Gollum mercy? If the circumstances were such that the Ring was takn by the Nazgul as a result of Gollum then Gandalf would surely have killed Gollum as a just punishment. The fate of the Ring was equally the fate of Gollum & Butterbur

[smeagollives]

i have not red everything. but i do not think he deserves death. NOBODY deserves death.

but i think that may be death was the only way for him ever to be happy again. after all his precious was gone forever. he was old and worn, all his former friends dead and forgotten.

it was not possible for him to become himself again...

i think the only way for him to be okay was to be with his precious. of course that could not happen. so i think it was okay for him that he died. biut he did not deserve it, no human being deserves (and he was like a human being or a hobbit being better to say). no matter how bad.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by smeagollives

i have not red everything. but i do not think he deserves death. NOBODY deserves death.

but i think that may be death was the only way for him ever to be happy again. after all his precious was gone forever. he was old and worn, all his former friends dead and forgotten.

it was not possible for him to become himself again...

i think the only way for him to be okay was to be with his precious. of course that could not happen. so i think it was okay for him that he died. biut he did not deserve it, no human being deserves (and he was like a human being or a hobbit being better to say). no matter how bad.

Well, deserving death depends on your own beliefs. Being a Christian, I personally think that murder, and certian other crimes, deserve death. There is of course such a thing as mercy, but as afore said( I don't know if I ever said it, but I think I remember reading it) just because someone decides to be merciful, doesn't mean that the person didn't deserve death.

Oh, and I also agree with Folwrens post. (see above.)

[smeagollives]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

Well, deserving death depends on your own beliefs. Being a Christian, I personally think that murder, and certian other crimes, deserve death. There is of course such a thing as mercy, but as afore said( I don't know if I ever said it, but I think I remember reading it) just because someone decides to be merciful, doesn't mean that the person didn't deserve death.

Oh, and I also agree with Folwrens post. (see above.)

being a christian too i would not agree with that.

yes murder is a very very bad crime. there is no excuse for murdering. one time i talked with friends about this topikc. i said i could never imagine a situation in which i would become a murder. they called me a hypocrite... but i just cannot imagine a situation in which i would kill... or give orders to kill a person which is about the same.

and if i am wrong about this... if i would kill, than i would put to death myself too... because i could not go on living with that guilt.

but does a murder deserve to be killed. to my mind not. if you kill a murder, you are a murder too.

being not only a christian, but also a man i would say that we all are sinners and that we are forgiven by gods mercy alone.

i remeber when i was and had my confirmation and i told myself "yeah, from this day on, i will never sin again" and i have sinned so many a times after that and it made me feel miserable as sin.

back then in my life situation i thought there were no other choices available to me, but i was wrong. one day a saw that there always is another choice and i turned my life around. and then i saw i had been a disgrace to me family and that i had made many good people unhappy. and i have to go on living with that. i have to tell myself "those were the choices you made". i have to deal with that.

and now: i always try to do the right thing... but don`t i sin now? of course i do. everybody does all the time.
each time you put something elese first and nozt got you sin, each time you are jealous at somebodies possesssions or somebodies life you sin, each time you smoke a cigarette you sin (because "do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? you are not your own" (1 cor. 6:19)

[Bard the Bowman]

before i go any further,i would just like take my hat off to you downers,iv been reading your threads and posts and i was awed by all your knowledege on toilkens middle eart

[Morthoron]

No one deserves death; but you're going to get it sooner or later, deserving or not. Perhaps it was a mercy that Gollum died when he did, at a point beyond madness. Had he lived, the Nazgul would have taken the Ring from him, and it would have broken him utterly (and Frodo as well).

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is some inconsistency though - Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree, yet he would have shown Gollum mercy? If the circumstances were such that the Ring was takn by the Nazgul as a result of Gollum then Gandalf would surely have killed Gollum as a just punishment. The fate of the Ring was equally the fate of Gollum & Butterbur

Great heavens above! Who or what said that Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree?

Originally Posted by Folwren

Great heavens above! Who or what said that Gandalf would have killed Butterbur if the Ring was taken by the Nazgul in Bree?

Recall the words of Gandalf in the Council of Elrond, "I shall roast the old fool over a slow fire". If the ring had been taken by the Nazgul, Gandalf would have killed Butterbur.

[Finduilas]

Yes, yes, but the old fellow wasn't being serious. Sure he was grumpy, but he wouldn't have done that. He was more likely to turn him into a toad and fill the garden with snakes.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Recall the words of Gandalf in the Council of Elrond, "I shall roast the old fool over a slow fire". If the ring had been taken by the Nazgul, Gandalf would have killed Butterbur.

I'm not sure if he meant it, as well as I am not sure that even then he would use exactly the method he named. I can hardly imagine Gandalf attacking, stunning and then burning Butterbur (not taking into account that he could hardly do so before the eyes of the townsfolk). Also note that it's Gandalf narrating, describing what he thought at that moment. It may be just "poetic licence" to express his feelings at the moment to the audience.
"Butterbur they call him," thought I. "If this delay was his fault, I will melt all the butter in him. I will roast the old fool over a slow fire."
He expected no less, and when he saw my face he fell down flat and began to melt on the spot.
It is the same way as I don't believe Gandalf wanted to "roast" Butterbur, I don't believe that Butterbur really started to "melt". "Poetic licence", as I said. Also if you look at the context, and take into account whole Gandalf's personality, I strongly disbelieve he would ever kill anyone similar to Butterbur, a simple person who just failed his duty but otherwise is okay. I can even hardly imagine him killing Men. Maybe if he was assailed by a troop of Easterlings, in self-defence, but he did not even kill any Gondorian who blocked the passage to Faramir (unlike Beregond - and not that I would even expect him to do that).

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I'm not sure if he meant it, as well as I am not sure that even then he would use exactly the method he named. I can hardly imagine Gandalf attacking, stunning and then burning Butterbur (not taking into account that he could hardly do so before the eyes of the townsfolk). Also note that it's Gandalf narrating, describing what he thought at that moment.

With the Ring taken by the Nazgul, & the fall of Middle Earth beckoning, there is no knowing what Gandalf could have done to Butterbur. Maybe he would have decided there was no time to lose & give chase to battle the Ring off the Nazgul before they reached Mordor.

On the other hand, Gandalf would be seen as the fool for letting all the responsibility of Middle Earth lay on a letter which Butterbur was entrusted to deliver. This is very foolish & I doubt anybody here would have done the same thing for such an important matter. The wise would acknowledge that the safety of the Ring should come first, ahead of the aid of Saruman.