Sméagol: Hero of the Third Age

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

This reply was made earlier today, but did not make the transition to the new forum, so I'm pasting it from the old. To continue:

As I recall, even Tolkien was reticent to speculate on the final fate of Gollum, assigning it to the realm of "Goddes privitee" (I hope I spelled that right!), but he does say that Gollum ended his days in "persistent wickedness" and the fact that his final action worked to the good is no credit to Smeagol himself. It is interesting to speculate on the possibility that there is a seed of evolution of Gollum's psyche to encompass a dawning love for Frodo and perhaps a subconscious desire to sacrifice himself for Frodo's good, but it seems to me that the Ring is overwhelmingly the dominant influence in Gollum's decision at Sammath Naur. (But, like Frodo, he would not have been able to resist its power here.) One can only speculate whether his deeds towards the end of his life would be judged by Iluvatar to his favor or not. But, it is always irresistible to peer over the edge into the great unknowable, isn't it?

Cheers,
Lyta

I could be wrong, but I thought that Tolkien never provides any suggestion about what awaits men after death. We have hints and suggestions about dwarven mythology and elven fate tied in with that of Arda, but of men's fate we know nothing. So how can we speculate about "eternal damnation" or any kind of judgement? Isn't the emphasis on how men live their lives rather than on any kind of eternal reward or punishment?

[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.