Did Gollum deserve death?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Surely, Tolkien recognizes this as the moral fault. As, from above, do I.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

In ME point of view, even if death was to be a gift, we are not to shorten someone's life wilfully (which goes with the first case as well, this is just the actual meaning of the Old Testament commandment), because the time is given to Gollum, and when it ends, it ends. If we are given our own choice, we should let him live.

We are in agreement then on both accounts. I have expressed similar positions in this thread.

Originally Posted by Macalauare

I would say that justice is inapplicable in Gollum's case.

Hm, I don't know. Even in the primary world, there are many ways in which various cultures see punishment. An american teacher once told me of a tribe which punished two members who killed by having them survive for several days in an harsh environmnent (she said the US governmnent allowed this, instead of a 'modern' trial). Beregond is somewhat punished in a similar fashion, by his 'exile'. I certainly believe that community service is better than any prison; criminals working to atone for what they did is much more helpful for everyone. I have been told that in various parts in Africa, criminals and the families they hurt go together through various programs, of what he may call healing; I believe it is not a singular instance. Perhaps a similar blending, which would stimulate change in Gollum, and give him a chance for good through effort, might attain both scopes.

[Macalaure]

I agree. You have a point there. I was thinking more along the lines of 'traditional' justice and punishment, i.e. locking the one up.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

So, he has morality only when he has to resort to this defence; the only problem is he has to resort to it constantly, even when talking to Gandalf. His moral equilbrium is still highly important for him, and to appease his remorse he resists a lot of Gandalf's pressure. First and foremost he hides the truth from himself, because it still hurts him to acknowledge he is evil.

No he isn't 'evil'. He does evil things.

such a problem that you mention does not exist, in a world where knowledge outside current time and space is still acessible to istari, Men and Elves - esspecially since with the palantir, Gandalf could have looked as back as Feanor creating. I am sorry, but this is a laughable defense, in utter disregard of the story, its elements, and its logic. Even in the text, after the hobbits awake, his voice is at first soft, and then he hisses when he is further pushed, and a green glint flickers in his eyes; Tolkien commented several times about the lack of sophistication of Sam, and how he so missed seeing the change in Gollum.

This simply doesn't stand up. How could anyone within the story possibly know what was going through Gollum's mind at that point? I still say that 'repent' in the context in which it is used in ToY does not imply Gollum concieves of himself as 'evil'. Repenting of leading the Hobbits to Shelob is not repenting of his whole life. What do you consider this 'repentance' consists of - that for a fleeting moment he had decided to help Frodo complete the Quest & destroy the Ring? There was never any point at which Gollum would have even contemplated such a thing. He was overwhelmed by loneliness & despair & didn't want to see Frodo dead. That's all he 'repented' - killing Frodo, the only person in an age who had showed him any compassion.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Might

Your last post is, sorry that I have to say this, pretty much off-topic Lalwende.
As far as I can tell, we are not discussing whether the Ring influenced or didn't influence Gollum, but whether he deserved or didn't deserve death for his actions.

Oh dear. Seeing as the influence of the Ring is pretty central to understanding anything about Gollum then discussing the influence of the Ring is central too or we will just be writing out of context nonsense. Wjhether the Ring did or did not influence Gollum is irrelevant because it did. No need to find quotes for that one, just go and look at most of Lord of the Rings and quite a lot of The Hobbit.

Originally Posted by Mac

Healing can mean two things. First, of course, the healing of the wounds that a crime has caused to the victims of it. Second, the wounds inside the criminal, which are very apparent and visible in Gollum. Of course it would be just to punish him (disregarding the disagreement about Gollum's mental status at this point), but what would come out of it? Would Gollum repent due to it? I can hardly imagine that, given that the Elves of Mirkwood were as kind as possible to him and Gollum still hated them more than anything. In Gollum's case, justice would indeed perpetuate his evil and perhaps further it. So, unless the punishment would have been capital (of course), it would not have changed anything in the long run, except to satisfy our, may I say 'vain'?, sense of justice.

I doubt he could have been healed, but then it was possible as he didn't hang around in custody for long enough for anyone to find out, and both Gandalf and the Elves seem to have had hope that he could be healed. Incidentally, can you imagine Gollum taking Frodo's 'cure' and going to the Undying Lands? Meh. But seriously, maybe the memory of what happened/didn't happen to Gollum is what prompted the Elves to take the other three Hobbit ringbearers overseas.

Had Gollum been put to death, we have to ask what purpose it would serve? It would have stopped him committing any more crimes, but then so would effective imprisonment and/or an attempt at healing. Deterrent was irrelevant as there aren't many magic rings around to be stolen and taken into deep mountain caves for 500 years, are there? Execution would really have served no more purpose than to satisfy the anger or repulsion of those who sought to execute him.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

No he isn't 'evil'. He does evil things.

Would you care to address my point about his conscience instead of simply stating your opinion, in a going-in-circles way?

How could anyone within the story possibly know what was going through Gollum's mind at that point?

But we don't have to restrict our understanding of Gollum at the level of Sam, at the moment he woke up, now do we?

Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee – but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.
...
- Nothing, nothing, said Gollum softly. Nice Master!

And in the FotR is is said:

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past

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.

He is, in fact, so tough, that he proved "ultimately indomitable" even to Sauron, as I quoted previously. Therefore, even under the almost "unbearable torment" of the ring, he maintains his conscience of good. To resist "as a hobbit might" is indeed very telling, since, as stated in the letters:

Originally Posted by Letter 109

I think that there is no horror conceivable that such creatures cannot surmount, by grace (here appearing in mythological forms) combined with a refusal of their nature and reason at the last pinch to compromise or submit.

I still say that 'repent' in the context in which it is used in ToY does not imply Gollum concieves of himself as 'evil'.

How can you repent if you don't acknowledge that??

What do you consider this 'repentance' consists of - that for a fleeting moment he had decided to help Frodo complete the Quest & destroy the Ring?

It could have been an actual, significant turn towards good; the only one we know that he had. Tolkien himself speculated that if allowed, his dawning change could have matched, if not surpassed in the end, the mastery of the ring.

Originally Posted by Lal

But seriously, maybe the memory of what happened/didn't happen to Gollum is what prompted the Elves to take the other three Hobbit ringbearers overseas.

I agree

Originally Posted by Letter #325

As for Frodo or other mortals, they could only dwell in Aman for a limited time – whether brief or long. The Valar had neither the power nor the right to confer 'immortality' upon them. Their sojourn was a 'purgatory', but one of peace and healing and they would eventually pass away (die at their own desire and of free will) to destinations of which the Elves knew nothing.

Anyway, what about my questions I addressed to you, Lal? They are piling up beginning from page one .

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Would you care to address my point about his conscience instead of simply stating your opinion, in a going-in-circles way?

I have no idea what Gollum's conscience told him - no-one can have. Which is my point. You are speculating & speculation (on your part or Tolkien's) is not 'fact',

It could have been an actual, significant turn towards good; the only one we know that he had. Tolkien himself speculated that if allowed, his dawning change could have matched, if not surpassed in the end, the mastery of the ring.

'speculated', 'could have', I don't see where this is going at all. Sam 'could have' 'speculated' that Gollum merely had indigestion at that point. Tolkien's 'speculating' & 'theorising' in the Letters is neither here nor there, given that we do not have the context (ie the letter he is responding to), that we do not know whether the 'speculation' in the letter is simply the way he felt at that time & whether he would have thought differently ten minutes later. The Letters were not intended for publication. They were not written to be read by you. You are taking bits of them out of context & treating those bits as 'holy writ', as some kind of final, definitive statement on questions about the novel. They are not. They were never intended to be that. The novel itself is what we are dealing with.

[Raynor]

I have no idea what Gollum's conscience told him - no-one can have. Which is my point. You are speculating & speculation (on your part or Tolkien's) is not 'fact',

You ignore that Gollum told Gandalf about all this, he recounted his inner fight stemming from remorse. It seems that not even the books are relevant to you when they don't suit your point. As far as Tolkien's statements, do you know of anything that refutes them? Anything? I have seen this argument before in this thread, a resolute hope that somehow Tolkien contradicts himself. Too bad nothing to contradict this shows up. And please demonstrate in what manner I quoted out of context, it seems a very gratuitous statement on your behalf.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

You ignore that Gollum told Gandalf about all this, he recounted his inner fight stemming from remorse. It seems that not even the books are relevant to you when they don't suit your point. As far as Tolkien's statements, do you know of anything that refutes them? Anything? I have seen this argument before in this thread, a resolute hope that somehow Tolkien contradicts himself. Too bad nothing to contradict this shows up. And please demonstrate in what manner I quoted out of context, it seems a very gratuitous statement on your behalf.

You quoted out of context because you are quoting sections of letters without the context (ie the letter which is being replied to)

Whatever Gollum told Gandalf is not to the point of what was going through his mind on the stairs. And what you fail to take into account is that Gollum is not sane & cannot be judged in the way a sane person would be judged.

[Raynor]

You quoted out of context because you are quoting sections of letters without the context (ie the letter which is being replied to)

The context is obviously LotR; when Tolkien starts speculating about conditions which did not actually occur, he stated so and which they were in particular. So did I, when I said that Gollum's repentance might have equalled the ring's mastery if it were allowed to develop.

Whatever Gollum told Gandalf is not to the point of what was going through his mind on the stairs.

You are changing the subject, this was not what we were talking about. See previous posts. Anyway, regarding the stairs, I gave as many elements if possible. If you stick to your personal interpretation, in disregard of them, it is your choice.

And what you fail to take into account is that Gollum is not sane & cannot be judged in the way a sane person would be judged.

He had some issues; that is true. But he surived through every challenge, and maintained the idea of good and bad, although he didn't live up to it, and needed lies to appease himself. See previous posts, see the books.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

You are missing my point and ignoring the concept of debate, in which common sense and logic ask one to not disregard evidences when they contradict one's position.

And you're missing the point that its a book & most readers will read the book & take from it what they will, that it will mean different things to different readers & they will be affected by it in different ways. It is not holy writ which has only a single 'proper' interpretation - which seems to be your understanding. What is 'relevant' & 'irrelevant' will be different for different readers. If a reader sees Gollum as a tragic victim of circumstances, a broken soul struggling for survival & wholeness (which is, for me, what the Ring symboises for him) you cannot state they are 'wrong' - this is not a maths test where 2+2 must = 4. To be forced to interpret Gollum (or anything else in the novel) in one specific way may ruin the story for the reader. It may no longer speak to them at all. Your position seems to boil down to 'You must read & understand the book in this way or you are WRONG!!!'

[Raynor]

Your position seems to boil down to 'You must read & understand the book in this way or you are WRONG!!!'

No, my position, stated for the third time now, is that we shouldn't ignore elements of the books when we make judgements and when we expect others to consider them valid, and not just purely personal interpretations. Anyway, I won't participate anymore in this thread, as long as it doesn't discuss the topic.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

No, my position, stated for the third time now, is that we shouldn't ignore elements of the books when we make judgements and when we expect others to consider them valid, and not just purely personal interpretations. Anyway, I won't participate anymore in this thread, as long as it doesn't discuss the topic.

And why does it matter to you how people read or understand the books? Any individual's reading of the book is 'valid'. We are talking about 'opinions' here. The topic is whether Gollum deserved death. People have stated their opinions on that & why they hold them. People are free to ignore elements of the books if they want.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

If anyone can interpret the books in any way they see fit, what was the point of such lengthly posts? It would have taken maybe a couple of sentences from each of us to state our personal opinions, after which there would no longer be any point in discussion, because there would be no further basis to support one side or the other. I can't help feeling that I wasted the six hours I spent posting above, since clearly all the research I did was worthless, and my opinion meaningless. After all, it's not based on objective proof: anyone can read whatever they want to into anything.

Rubbish. Even A-level literary criticism demands that you provide quotation and analysis to support your reactions to the text. Simply stating an opinion, even one that can be fully supported by such quotation and analysis will get you at best a C. In any case, why should we disregard Tolkien's opinion when it is not contradicted by the text? Even when discussing his own work he offers citations to support his arguments, so at the very least we should afford him the same status as any other knowledgeable critic. If our own opinions and reactions are all that matters, then this entire discussion forum is a complete waste of bandwidth: just a group of misfits talking at one another and demanding nothing less than slavish agreement. Wherever there are dissenting opinions, only recourse to an agreed objective standard prevents protracted and increasingly acrimonious stalemate, such as has arisen here.

Now that I've got that off my chest, if Gollum is not responsible for his actions then his near-repentence in TT is meaningless. If he is responsible for his actions then he is also morally culpable. If we are to give him credit for coming so close to a change of heart, we must also give him responsibility for his crimes. Indeed, true pity could never be offered to the insane, since their madness forms a third party to which their crimes can be attributed. One cannot be forgiven for the sins of someone else. Therefore, in order to be rehabilitated and healed, Gollum must be fully and knowingly culpable in all his actions. His madness: what I suppose would popularly be called 'multiple personality disorder' results from his attempts to externalise his own guilt, and to deny his actions. He is not the only character to be faced with this decision: Saruman is also offered the chance to repent, atone and be forgiven; he too denies it out of pride and distrust, and so falls from grace. It is a hard moral philosophy, but one that can be traced through Tolkien's letters and his fiction; it seems even harder today, when we are encouraged to do as we please, and told that hard decisions are in some way unfair or to be avoided.

Conversely the 'kind' approach that Gollum is mad and not responsible also denies him mercy in its fullest form, which is the utmost cruelty.

[The Might]

I very much agree with Squatter on this on, he definitely brought up an important point in the second part of the post.
Lalwende, you seem to have missed my point.
I never questioned that the Ring didn't influence Gollum, all that I questioned is if this actually matters.
As I already said, if someone who is drunk comits a crime, is he innocent just because he wasn't clear in mind at that time? I doubt it.
Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

If anyone can interpret the books in any way they see fit, what was the point of such lengthly posts? It would have taken maybe a couple of sentences from each of us to state our personal opinions, after which there would no longer be any point in discussion, because there would be no further basis to support one side or the other. I can't help feeling that I wasted the six hours I spent posting above, since clearly all the research I did was worthless, and my opinion meaningless. After all, it's not based on objective proof: anyone can read whatever they want to into anything.

To which I can only reply that that is what people do, because people are affected by stories in different ways & take different things from them. For some Bombadil is one of the most significant characters Tolkien created, For others he is so annoying that they skip the three chapters in which he makes an appearance. I personally have spent more than six hours on this thread because I enjoyed doing it. I'm not even sure I agree now with everything I posted - though I meant it at the time. I was exploring ideas & concepts which may have gone off at all kinds of tangents, but at least I hope that some readers were entertained or provoked.

Rubbish. Even A-level literary criticism demands that you provide quotation and analysis to support your reactions to the text. Simply stating an opinion, even one that can be fully supported by such quotation and analysis will get you at best a C. In any case, why should we disregard Tolkien's opinion when it is not contradicted by the text? Even when discussing his own work he offers citations to support his arguments, so at the very least we should afford him the same status as any other knowledgeable critic. If our own opinions and reactions are all that matters, then this entire discussion forum is a complete waste of bandwidth: just a group of misfits talking at one another and demanding nothing less than slavish agreement. Wherever there are dissenting opinions, only recourse to an agreed objective standard prevents protracted and increasingly acrimonious stalemate, such as has arisen here.

Oh, its not an 'acrimonious stalemate' as far as I'm concerned. It was mild teasing on both sides - at least that's how I took it. A few custard pies have been thrown that's all. Anyway, this is not a-level literary criticism & I'm not looking for marks (the inverted snob in me likes to proudly proclaim I never even got as far as taking a-levels). I don't accept that

'If our own opinions and reactions are all that matters, then this entire discussion forum is a complete waste of bandwidth: just a group of misfits talking at one another and demanding nothing less than slavish agreement.

is the case. I've learned a great deal about other poster's opinions & perceptions on this whole matter. This whole question will never be solved to the satisfaction of everybody. I reiterate that if anyone expects all readers accept a specific, definitive interpretation of the text that doesn't touch their hearts then the expectee is bound for disappointment. I will not say my reading of the text is the 'right' one, let alone a 'superior' one. I'll simply offer it as mine, & defend it if anyone criticises it.

Now that I've got that off my chest, if Gollum is not responsible for his actions then his near-repentence in TT is meaningless. If he is responsible for his actions then he is also morally culpable. If we are to give him credit for coming so close to a change of heart, we must also give him responsibility for his crimes.

But as I stated, we are not told exactly what he is 'repenting' of - all of his acts, some of them, one of them. Is it simply the act of leading Frodo to be killed by Shelob? Can we draw the conclusion from this single incident of a moment's duration that he is 'repenting' of anything more than an act that will lead to Frodo's death, & wishing that he could get the Ring for himself without hurting his 'Master'. For all Raynor's quotes I can't see that Gollum at any point ceased to desire to possess the Ring.

Indeed, true pity could never be offered to the insane, since their madness forms a third party to which their crimes can be attributed. One cannot be forgiven for the sins of someone else.

No, one can't - but I don't see how this prevents us offering pity to the insane.

BTW - very good points. I would have repped you, but I've been lax in my repping duties of late.....

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Might

As I already said, if someone who is drunk comits a crime, is he innocent just because he wasn't clear in mind at that time? I doubt it.
Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?

But what if his drink was spiked & didn't realise?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Might

Lalwende, you seem to have missed my point.
I never questioned that the Ring didn't influence Gollum, all that I questioned is if this actually matters.
As I already said, if someone who is drunk comits a crime, is he innocent just because he wasn't clear in mind at that time? I doubt it.

It does matter because the Ring is an incredible influence, to the degree that there wouldn't be the story without it! All that effort that Frodo and Sam (and others, but these two especially) go through in order to destroy it was about as extreme as it gets, and there has to be a very good reason for sacrificing people to that extent. The quest is anything but trivial, and seeing what happened to Gollum serves to underline the importance of what is given up in order to fulfill the quest.

Someone committing crimes due to drink is not a good analogy as a couple of beers are far less dangerous than a Ring of Power, and the effects of a beer or two last a few hours, but the effects of wearing/bearing a Ring last forever.

[HerenIstarion]

My apologies for [probably] repeating what may have been said above and [probably] taking the debate back to a point it already got past, also putting forward an excuse of being on the run (as is my usual state of affairs of late ) let me address the initial post and forward the following brief statement:

Death is not punishment

Or, at least, whilst being partially a 'punishment' from certain point of view, it is at the same time a way of release. It was not 'designed' to be percieved solely as punishment and the fact it is nevertheless perceived so is one of the many consequences of Melkor's meddling with the World's affairs

I'm almost sure that were it not Frodo Gandalf discussed the matter with back than in Bag End but one of the Wise the question of 'death as punishment' would not have been raised at all

[davem]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

My apologies for [probably] repeating what may have been said above and [probably] taking the debate back to a point it already got past, also putting forward an excuse of being on the run (as is my usual state of affairs of late ) let me address the initial post and forward the following brief statement:

Death is not punishmentl

Good point. It does seem that throughout the thread we have been treating the question as 'Does Gollum deserve to be executed?' Death is not really the issue, as it is efectively inevitable for any (or most) mortals. The question turned into 'Would it be right to put Gollum to death?' And then the arguments ensued about Gollum's psychological/spiritual state & whether he could, or should, rightfully & justly be judged, found guilty, & put to death.

Then it became a matter of whether Tolkien's opinions on the subject of his characters should be binding on a reader who interpreted the characters differently from the author.

Its got a long way off topic & its probably a good thing you've popped up now....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Death is not punishment

Or, at least, whilst being partially a 'punishment' from certain point of view, it is at the same time a way of release. It was not 'designed' to be percieved solely as punishment and the fact it is nevertheless perceived so is one of the many consequences of Melkor's meddling with the World's affairs

Nice point! So from the point of view of 'morals' in Middle-earth (and the simple nature of people), execution is actually the wrong way to go, as Death is a gift, not a punishment. That makes me wonder if the point originally put by Mithalwen, that Gandalf perhaps means Gollum deserves death as a release from suffering, is the one we've missed all along!

Course, Death being perceived as a 'punishment' being as a result of Melkor's actions, has parallels in the real world, as one of the arguments put across by Quakers and other religious people against capital punishment is that it is only carrying out "an eye for an eye" and has no benefit beyond satisfying our own revenge/anger, and that only God can decide on such things.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by TM

Macalaure you say the traditional justice doesn't work in his case...but why?

Hmm, I tried to explain that in the other post. I'll try to make myself clearer:

Well, let's assume Gollum would have been punished and he would have been locked up for a longer period of time. - This is what I had in mind, Raynor gave a good point that I was thinking a tad too narrowly. - Would he have understood why he was punished? In parts, yes, as we have good evidence that he had a bad conscience because of Déagol. But what about, for example, his eating of orcs? I don't think he saw that as evil. Which brings me to Squatter's point:

Originally Posted by Squatter

Therefore, in order to be rehabilitated and healed, Gollum must be fully and knowingly culpable in all his actions. His madness: what I suppose would popularly be called 'multiple personality disorder' results from his attempts to externalise his own guilt, and to deny his actions.

I disagree, a little. I would regard a gradual process of becoming aware of his full guilt already as a part of the healing - a necessary first step, not a premise.

Anyway, would punishment bring Gollum any closer to repentance? I strongly doubt that, given how he reacted to his imprisonments in Mirkwood or Henneth Annûn (though Lal makes a good point that he never was in custody for a longer time). He would rather regard his punishers as wicked than himself.

So the effect of just punishment would, in the end, only be to satisfy our sense of justice, which is little. It would not have changed Gollum. 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.

If we look at Frodo, he didn't punish Gollum, though he could have. In fact, it's his not punishing him, and his being nice to Gollum and caring for him instead, which led to his near-repentance later, which could have been a first step to healing.

[HerenIstarion]

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]

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.

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]

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!!!"

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]

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]

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....

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mansun

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.

But clearly Gandalf made Gollum believe he would torture him with fire - possibly burn him alive, or at least do him serious harm. And Gollum did talk - how far would Gandalf have had to go to make Gollum talk - we know how stubborn he could be. One can imagine Gollum screaming in terror at Gandalf's hands.

And yet, it was necessary to get the information. So Gandalf did what was necessary. Now this is an incident that Tolkien did not have to put into the story. What is Tolkien saying here - is he agreeing with Gandalf's action, or is he merely stating that in desperate circumstances such things are necessary?

Yet is that correct - does it fit with the overall 'philosophy' of the work - that one should always do the right thing, even if it makes one vulnerable to defeat?

For one line in such a long book this opens a whole can of worms....

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

For one line in such a long book this opens a whole can of worms....

It does

I'm afraid of plunging into it lest we come to justification of 'necessary cruelty'

And yet it is my firm belief that would 'fear of fire' prove tool insufficient to make Gollum talk, Gandalf would not have forced him with fire proper.

[davem]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

It does

I'm afraid of plunging into it lest we come to justification of 'necessary cruelty'

And yet it is my firm belief that would 'fear of fire' prove tool insufficient to make Gollum talk, Gandalf would not have forced him with fire proper.

Equivalent, perhaps, of the 'fake' firing squads used as part of psychological torture....And often the worst part of torture is the fear of it - which Gandalf must have realised.....

[HerenIstarion]

Perhaps you're right

But also it seems to me that mention of 'fear of fire' by Gandalf was some form of admission of guilt

[Morwen]

But also it seems to me that mention of 'fear of fire' by Gandalf was some form of admission of guilt

I didn't see it as an admission of guilt. What would he have been guilty of? He simply recounts to Frodo what he had to do to extract any useful information from Gollum - he threatens but doesn't actually harm Gollum.
Besides doesn't Gandalf go on to tell Frodo that even with the fear of fire threat there came a point when Gollum refused to say any more and Gandalf perceived that he (Gollum) was haunted by some greater fear? And, perceiving that, Gandalf lets Gollum be and leaves him in the custody of the Wood Elves, asking that they treat Gollum kindly. In the circumstances I think that Gandalf struck the best balance that he could between getting Gollum to give him necessary information and while at the same time not being unduly cruel.

Originally Posted by Morwen

I didn't see it as an admission of guilt. What would he have been guilty of? He simply recounts to Frodo what he had to do to extract any useful information from Gollum - he threatens but doesn't actually harm Gollum.
Besides doesn't Gandalf go on to tell Frodo that even with the fear of fire threat there came a point when Gollum refused to say any more and Gandalf perceived that he (Gollum) was haunted by some greater fear? And, perceiving that, Gandalf lets Gollum be and leaves him in the custody of the Wood Elves, asking that they treat Gollum kindly. In the circumstances I think that Gandalf struck the best balance that he could between getting Gollum to give him necessary information and while at the same time not being unduly cruel.

Gollum got off lightly, considering that he had become the equivalent of an orc.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gollum got off lightly, considering that he had become the equivalent of an orc.

Really? When?

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by davem

For one line in such a long book this opens a whole can of worms....

OK, I know I'm possibly going to get flamed for this... I can already hear the cries of "Heretic! Recant!! Recant!!!", but isn't it possible that you're looking too closely at this? That maybe when Tolkien wrote it he wasn't thinking that deeply about it? That it was just a line? It moved the story arc along?
I mean no offense, but if Tolkien gave as much thought to every single freakin' line that some people around here do, parsing every fragment to death... the books would never have been written.
Now, if these are just fun mental exercises, that's cool. But some of the posts I read here... you guys are kinda scary.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I think there is no trouble in this. And I must say I agree with Morwen and do not see what case you are trying to make out of it. Gandalf merely tells a story, and I think that Gandalf's scaring of Gollum was nothing much more than what he showed to Bilbo when he wanted to keep the Ring. You must consider that Gandalf never forced anyone to do anything. So, though the fate of Middle-earth depended on it, Gandalf probably wouldn't force Gollum to tell the story by violence. The same way you may ask whether he would force Bilbo by violence, to leave the Ring to Frodo. Both Bilbo&Gollum, fortunately for them, chose to do what Gandalf asked of them before he did more than only demonstrating his power (Gandalf says he only scared Gollum, so I think this is what he actually did). And one can also think of what would've happened if they didn't: for example in Bilbo's case, there was no other choice than that Bilbo would totally harden against Gandalf, and put the Ring on, and flee into the night (because he would consider Gandalf his enemy and seeing the power he couldn't face, he'd flee). Gollum was not armed in any way, he could only desperate try to escape (the Elves possibly knocking him out, if not killing him when he'd jump on them, and on Gandalf's intervention locking him up probably for eternity - Gandalf might from time to time come to check whether Gollum would tell anything, but he probably wouldn't - I can quite imagine him sitting in the cell forever, unless some time mysteriously escaping).

Needless to say, the information Gandalf wanted to get out of Gollum wasn't as important; if he couldn't get confirmation of his fears here, he would probably go and ask Saruman, or if he felt reluctant, to check Bag End. As I said earlier.

Concerning Gandalf's character, you might confirm it also at how Gandalf behaved to Saruman, or to Gríma Wormtongue - people who were his enemies and he argued about something with him. Gandalf never used force in the "material" way (not even shooting lightnings on them or something like that).

And only as a bonus. Similar situation of the same moral question we have in the moment when Isildur chose to take the Ring, and both Elrond and Círdan chose not to push on him. This was at least of the same importance as those moments mentioned above, if not greater. But there was no "throw it in the fire or...!", not even forcing by words from what Elrond says (he speaks only of a "counsel"). And I think it was not fear of being killed by Isildur that lead Elrond and Círdan to choose not to force him.

[davem]

I still think its interesting that Gandalf would not only use those means but that he would tell Frodo about doing it.

The other thing to consider is the effect this would have on Gollum - Aragorn captures him & does not (in his own words) treat him 'gently'. Gandalf 'puts the fear of fire on him'. Aragorn brutalises him. Gandalf terrorises him in his cell. Sauron tortures him. If Gollum hadn't felt completely isolated before this would have done it anyway. Talk about not being on anyone's side because no-one's on my side.....

[Boo Radley]

Nah, it's OK. I sense a puckish sense of humor there, which is very cool with me.

Here's the thing, I will freely admit that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. As a matter of fact, my mother's nickname for me is "Big Dummy", (Gotta love a person like that). And when it comes to reading, I tend to... underanalyze the story.
I read for entertainment. Not for enlightenment. Life does that for me and reading is a respite.
That's why I would be the worst possible person to have in a book discussion. While everybody else would be talking about character development and motivation and throwing out words like "gestalt" and "angst" and "Dickinsian", I'd be in the corner, saying,

"But... er... what if he just put that bit in there cuz it made for a ripping good yarn?"*

And then I'd tug my forelock.

And then I would be stoned.
And not the fun way.

Sad, really.

So, I'm just sayin'...

*[/i](A paraphrase of something that Stephen King once reportedly said in a creative writing class in college. Which, you could say, "So what? He's a hack" and althought I'd have to agree with you now, in his earlier days I thought he could toss off a "ripping good yarn")[/i]