Did Gollum deserve death? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

HerenIstarion · 03-25-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

So the effect of just punishment would, in the end, only be to satisfy our sense of justice, which is little. It's difficult to say whether a combination of punishment and healing, like in an asylum, would have had a effect, but I have a feeling he wouldn't have accepted healing from his punishers

Tread gently, for you are treading dangerous soil here. It seems/feels to me that Gandalf's words as quoted in the opening post contain layers of thought, not just what can be read at first glance. "Can you give what is deserved" indicates also (it seems to me) imperfection of the giver of the deserved/undeserved.

(Cf John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her)

For healing as I read it out in your post may be easily substituted with changing and that in turn with moulding of a person, and whose mould is good enough for the task?

As for Frodo, his very being in the same boat must have played the part. If there was no Gollum to look at and antagonize and sympathize with at the same time, [I feel] like Frodo would have fallen sooner.

(It's a frenzy of quick typing out of whatever is being born in on me, I hope you follow)

Bêthberry · 03-25-2007, 02:04 PM

No time now for a full elaboration of my current thoughts about this thread, but yesterday's and today's posts have really made me see that this argument (and it is an argument, gentlemen and ladies, not a discussion and, honestly, sometimes I am very sure that people post not to advance the discussion but because they like the sound of their posts) is very much like a rehash of the sides on the old Canonicity thread.

We've got people who are quoting Letters and other sources from Tolkien and saying herein lies the letter of the law and we've got people who are saying any personal interpretation is just fine and dandy thank you very much. (Okay, I'm being hyperbolic here for clarity of effect.) And it's very much a reductio ab absurdum in many ways. I bet Fordim is laughing in his boots.

Thank you so much, HI, for restating my point that death is not punishment. Very nice also to point out that not only is Gollem's participation crucial to the climax at Mount Doom but also, all along the dreadful way for Frodo's own spiritual journey.

Anyhow, I'm late, can't finish.

03-27-2007, 10:47 AM

Gandalf put the fear of fire onto Gollum whilst in Mirkwood in order to get information out of him about the Ring. Doesn't this count as torture, but in a lighter sense? It may translate to Gollum as a death threat. Do you think Gandalf would have harmed Gollum further if he refused to speak up, e.g. by not giving him any food or drink until he would confess all?

Legate of Amon Lanc · 03-27-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf put the fear of fire onto Gollum whilst in Mirkwood in order to get information out of him about the Ring. Doesn't this count as torture, but in a lighter sense? It may translate to Gollum as a death threat. Do you think Gandalf would have harmed Gollum further if he refused to speak up, e.g. by not giving him any food or drink until he would confess all?

Hardly. This does not go with his character. If he couldn't get the information, he would leave him alone. Every time he "threats" someone, if it is not a servant of the Enemy, he acts more like a parent scolding his children for breaking the neighbour's window. "STOP PLAYING WITH ME, SMÉAGOL! I KNOW YOUR GRANDMA DIDN'T GAVE YOU THIS RING, SO TELL ME WHERE DID YOU GET IT!!!"

03-27-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Hardly. This does not go with his character. If he couldn't get the information, he would leave him alone. Every time he "threats" someone, if it is not a servant of the Enemy, he acts more like a parent scolding his children for breaking the neighbour's window. "STOP PLAYING WITH ME, SMÉAGOL! I KNOW YOUR GRANDMA DIDN'T GAVE YOU THIS RING, SO TELL ME WHERE DID YOU GET IT!!!"

A quote springs to mind in Bree: "Butterbur! If this delay is his fault I will .... roast the old fool over a slow fire" WTTE This does not sound like a guy that will leave you alone, if the situation of saving ME is on the line.

Legate of Amon Lanc · 03-27-2007, 03:20 PM

I don't think he actually meant to roast Butter(bur), not more than he wanted to turn Sam into a frog or something like that. You are surely right about that Gandalf considered this a very serious matter, so he dared to come from threats to deeds, but he'd certainly not torture Gollum. After all, Gollum was not so hard to break. But if he had different nature and proved too obstinate, then Gandalf will probably leave him, seeing that no information is to be collected here, and head to Bag End or maybe for a counsel to Saruman, assuming the worse.

davem · 03-27-2007, 03:30 PM

Of course we also have Aragorn stating he was not 'gentle' in his treatment of Gollum.

Whatever Gandalf did one would have to imagine Gollum's situation - locked in a cell, alone, afraid, deprived of his only comfort (the Ring). For Gandalf to come into his cell & 'put the fear of fire on him' would be equivalent at the least of psychological torture. It strikes me that Gandalf was desperate for information at that point & could well have terroised Gollum into speaking.

This opens a wider question - how far should one go in that kind of desperate need? If the information Gandalf could obtain from Gollum could save thousands of innocent lives - or hundreds, or tens .... & if Gandalf knew (or felt) that not using 'terror' (even torture) to get the information could put the fate of Middle-earth at risk, what should he do?

This is a difficult moral question. The fate of the world could depend on getting information out of Gollum, & Gollum is withholding that information.

Personally I think Gandalf did exactly what he said he did - why lie about it, or exagerate. I think he did put the fear of fire on Gollum, & 'luckily' for Gandalf, by the sound of it, he didn't have to put his threat into practice.

Another example, to my mind, of the 'good' guys not being entirely good....

03-27-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

Personally I think Gandalf did exactly what he said he did - why lie about it, or exagerate. I think he did put the fear of fire on Gollum, & 'luckily' for Gandalf, by the sound of it, he didn't have to put his threat into practice

It seemed to me that Gandalf lit a brand of fire close to Gollum to get him to talk, but the need to burn him did not arise thankfully. If it meant saving ME, torturing a murderer would appear more acceptable given the circumstances, if somewhat immoral.

03-25-2007, 02:04 PM	#2
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	In the year 2 AC No time now for a full elaboration of my current thoughts about this thread, but yesterday's and today's posts have really made me see that this argument (and it is an argument, gentlemen and ladies, not a discussion and, honestly, sometimes I am very sure that people post not to advance the discussion but because they like the sound of their posts) is very much like a rehash of the sides on the old Canonicity thread. We've got people who are quoting Letters and other sources from Tolkien and saying herein lies the letter of the law and we've got people who are saying any personal interpretation is just fine and dandy thank you very much. (Okay, I'm being hyperbolic here for clarity of effect.) And it's very much a reductio ab absurdum in many ways. I bet Fordim is laughing in his boots. Thank you so much, HI, for restating my point that death is not punishment. Very nice also to point out that not only is Gollem's participation crucial to the climax at Mount Doom but also, all along the dreadful way for Frodo's own spiritual journey. Anyhow, I'm late, can't finish. __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.

03-27-2007, 03:20 PM	#6
Legate of Amon Lanc A Voice That Gainsayeth Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: In that far land beyond the Sea Posts: 7,431	I don't think he actually meant to roast Butter(bur), not more than he wanted to turn Sam into a frog or something like that. You are surely right about that Gandalf considered this a very serious matter, so he dared to come from threats to deeds, but he'd certainly not torture Gollum. After all, Gollum was not so hard to break. But if he had different nature and proved too obstinate, then Gandalf will probably leave him, seeing that no information is to be collected here, and head to Bag End or maybe for a counsel to Saruman, assuming the worse. __________________ "Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories

03-27-2007, 03:30 PM	#7
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	Of course we also have Aragorn stating he was not 'gentle' in his treatment of Gollum. Whatever Gandalf did one would have to imagine Gollum's situation - locked in a cell, alone, afraid, deprived of his only comfort (the Ring). For Gandalf to come into his cell & 'put the fear of fire on him' would be equivalent at the least of psychological torture. It strikes me that Gandalf was desperate for information at that point & could well have terroised Gollum into speaking. This opens a wider question - how far should one go in that kind of desperate need? If the information Gandalf could obtain from Gollum could save thousands of innocent lives - or hundreds, or tens .... & if Gandalf knew (or felt) that not using 'terror' (even torture) to get the information could put the fate of Middle-earth at risk, what should he do? This is a difficult moral question. The fate of the world could depend on getting information out of Gollum, & Gollum is withholding that information. Personally I think Gandalf did exactly what he said he did - why lie about it, or exagerate. I think he did put the fear of fire on Gollum, & 'luckily' for Gandalf, by the sound of it, he didn't have to put his threat into practice. Another example, to my mind, of the 'good' guys not being entirely good.... __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

03-27-2007, 10:47 AM	#3
Mansun Guest Posts: n/a	Gandalf put the fear of fire onto Gollum whilst in Mirkwood in order to get information out of him about the Ring. Doesn't this count as torture, but in a lighter sense? It may translate to Gollum as a death threat. Do you think Gandalf would have harmed Gollum further if he refused to speak up, e.g. by not giving him any food or drink until he would confess all?