Oh, yes, I knew that he did ... drew on the Biblical Lucifer and Milton's Lucifer.
No Deimos, we are actually very close to agreement here.
Working backwards:
Ah, but now we come to a couple of points where I would probably be out of kilter with the general feeling of most of the members.
No, I meant to point out that I believe they would be hypocritical if they took the ring to use it for good, as they know that it would end up corrupting everything they did.
I'd say that people don't always do what's good because not everyone is the same as everyone else; being human is to be complicated.
Not quite sure if you answered my question.
Definitely wasn't trying to be evasive, just too vague, which I'm working on!
No, I'm afraid I don't see the analogy and I'm still confused about what you mean by the two Gs being hypocritical or dishonest. They both outright admit that the Ring would be a bad thing for them to have and use. That's hardly being dishonest. Also, neither would be willfully persisting in wickedness. They would persist in doing what they thought was right and it ending up something warped and horrible. Gollum persists in wickedness with or without the Ring for selfish reasons. Most of his life he doesn't give a ring-toss about anyone but himself. You may call Gollum an unsung hero but I would, at best, add 'anti' to that phrase.
A lot of really good points here Radaghast, let me try to offer my responses as succintly.
I don't understand. A comment made is not valid unless it's meant to be published? Anyway, I'm not quite sure what point is being debated or made here. The alternate scenario I mentioned is an ancillary point. But the main point I'm highlighting is that Gollum is inherently bad and he throws away his chance for redemption with the weakest provocation. Sam's saying a "rough word" is not justification for doing the wrong thing (attempted double homicide, for starters), which Gollum unequivocally does, even if it turns out to the good (and this harks back to what Eru says in The Silmarillion*). Tolkien's statement about how this is no credit to Gollum is an explanation of this.
Well the comments in the letters are completely valid, but to my mind they are secondary to what Tolkien deliberately chose to put in LoTR - it's the finished product that he worked on for decades; anything he wanted us to know about any of the characters is there to read in the work he wanted published: a private letter (which has been chosen by a third party at that) to me cannot have the same weight.
You seem to suggest one contradicts the other. But they don't. I'm not using the letter over the text. I'm using the letter to support the text, which it does. Tolkien said he persisted in wickedness, which the book shows he does. He had a chance to be good and even shows signs of goodness, but it all "withers" away too quickly. And, as Tolkien said, that this ultimately worked to the good is no credit to him; it does not excuse his wickedness and it does not award him a gold star. For an analogy, if I'm a vicious serial criminal and I get caught, and I testify against other serial criminals that leads to them being caught, should I get a parade?
A bad person need not be one-dimensional. Also, I never said Sméagol always had it in for Déagol, only that murder is the first thing he thinks to do when he wants to take the Ring, which wasn't even his by rights. So he is also a thief, which is not as bad as being a murderer but it does add to his badness.
Fair enough. At least you're not suggesting Gandalf extracted (through torture) a false confession from Gollum about killing Déagol, as a certain poster here once seemed to do (before I joined the forum).
As a non-arachnophobe (although she is not an actual spider but a monster in spider form) I'm actually a bit sympathetic towards Shelob. I see her as little more than an (un)glorified apex predator. She does what any predator does, i.e. kill things to live. And she is not a danger to the world at large. Also, just like Gollum, she is essential to the success of the Quest. Without her, I don't know how the hobbits would avoid capture by orcs (and this is part of Gollum's wicked acts turning out to be a boon).
No I don't think the text and the letters are contradictory, only that, for me at least, the text is all-important. If you never read anything but TH and LoTR then you have everything that Tolkien wanted to publish about the whole story. The letters may give more evidence and may contain some of the idea included in the text, but they were not published by Tolkien and not included in the text. As I think I said before, they may be looked at as Tolkien discussing things with his colleagues, as a kind of work in progress.
The letter we're discussing was written shortly after the book was published.
If you agree that the letters don't contradict the text then I'm afraid I don't get your point. Tolkien is expounding on his own work and characters he created. You seem to want to disallow this because it was only in a letter. You also seem to be holding out hope that there is a letter where Tolkien, absolves, I guess, Gollum of responsibility? You cannot seem to accept what Tolkien said, outside the book, of his own characters and work. If so, that's just very odd to me. Because the book does not justify what Gollum does either. He ends up a full-on villain.
I believe I've already mentioned these but here goes again: Frodo offers the Ring to Gandalf, Aragorn and Galadriel. None of them have any compunction to strike Frodo dead. Sam gives Frodo the Ring back after he rescues him but first suggests he might carry it a bit longer. Frodo doesn't try to throttle Sam for even saying such a thing, though he does get angry. Sam doesn't try to kill Frodo for wanting the Ring back. Also, Frodo shows mercy towards Gollum while he has the Ring. Back in The Hobbit, Bilbo doesn't run Gollum through, even when he has a legitimate reason for doing so. If the Ring were so pernicious, why didn't it influence Bilbo to do just that, especially when one might normally see the need to anyway? If Bilbo were so inclined and where he might see a need, the Ring might incline him even further, by your argument. But he chooses instead to leap over Gollum, a move that very well might not succeed, instead of running Gollum through. So, I continue to wonder, how can you argue that the Ring turns people into homicidal maniacs when this is demonstrably not true?
Well, it's a nice find for him, as he sees it. And 'gloating' is not some unpardonable find. I'm not sure how Bilbo finding the Ring applies. It certainly doesn't make Bilbo into a murderer.
It's possible Boromir would have killed Frodo. It's also possible he would have just relieved him of the burden; there's certainly no reason Boromir would need to kill Frodo to get the Ring. But, in any case, rather than for selfish reasons, Boromir is desperate to save his homeland and momentarily loses his faculties. But he is shortly thereafter very rueful of his behavior. The Ring is definitely a very dangerous thing around certain personality types. I'm not excusing Boromir for his behavior, by the way, I'm simply saying his motives were different from Gollum's (also, incidentally, this encounter proves necessary for the Quest).
I'm responding to this post as I go through it rather than read it first, so I'm coming across incidents I've already mentioned. Anyway, you're listing points that seem to argue against your point. Frodo gets angry, yes, but he doesn't so much as raise a hand towards Sam. Gollum strangles his cousin without even trying to wrest it from him first. This is noteworthy, because Tolkien could have written it that Gollum accidentally killed his cousin, thereby widening the possibility of redemption. But he chose to go with what he did, probably based on how he'd already written the character.
Frodo is at the very end of his endurance, underfed and under-watered. If he were to have any chance to throw the Ring into the fire it would, very understandably (by any rational person) ,have been gone by then. This does not justify Gollum's murder and attempted murders (nor any of the other things he did in the past, including very likely taking babies from their cribs).
As demonstrated, they do.
May I quickly say, Radaghast, how much I'm enjoying these discussions (and indeed the various discussions about other matters with the other members of the forum); I've been away for a long time and can only say what an extremely enjoyable place you have all created.
If Tolkien wrote such a letter that would mean he regretted the way he wrote the book and I find no indication of that in any letter. I continue to be befuddled about your point about the text having precedence over a letter. It has no relevance in this particular discussion. Neither contradicts the other, and one is in support and explanation of the other. The letter basically says Gollum is not a hero, even if they lead to the success of the Quest. Do you disagree? Then please make your argument. If you don't disagree, I don't know what this disagreement is about. Also, I would guess there is no unpublished letter where Tolkien absolves Gollum of his crimes.
I, on the other hand, am not certain at all certain that Boromir would kill Frodo. And his motives for wanting the Ring are noble and I don't see what's delusional about that. Yes, he has been told the Ring corrupts and he ignores this wisdom. But I never said he was wise. Yes, I do have more sympathy with Boromir's desire for his homeland not to be overwhelmed over Gollum's love of shiny things and his non-existent provocation to commit murder.
I didn't say he was evil from the start (presumably that means birth). I said I think something perhaps turned him on the wrong path before he encountered the Ring. Perhaps he was born a psychopath (which doesn't necessarily result in something bad) who had some malignant influence in his youth.
Frodo is nearing the end of his endurance and in enemy territory where the influence of the Ring is getting stronger and he has had the Ring in his keep for nearly two decades. Despite all this his first instinct isn't to wrap his fingers around Sam's throat and squeeze. Gollum is hundreds of miles away from Mordor when he commits murder against a friend and relative, before even laying a finger on the Ring. Also, you highlight Frodo but don't mention Sam. If the Ring's influence were so pervasive, why doesn't Sam kill Frodo?
I don't know. Perhaps things would then have gotten ugly if Sam was obstinate. But see my previous point.
There's not much to go on as far as pitying Gollum. I don't see him as you do, some innocent victim of the Ring. Also remember that when we first see him he eyes Bilbo as potential dinner and it's only blind luck that Gollum isn't hungry at the time:
Same here. It's always fun to discuss the works of Tolkien.
If Tolkien wrote such a letter that would mean he regretted the way he wrote the book and I find no indication of that in any letter. I continue to be consternated about your point about the text having precedence over a letter. It has no relevance in this particular discussion. Neither contradicts they other, and one is in support and explanation of the other. The letter basically says Gollum is not a hero, even if they lead to the success of the Quest. Do you disagree? Then please make your argument. If you don't disagree, I don't know what this disagreement is about.
I, on the other hand, am not certain at all certain that Boromir would kill Frodo. And his motives for wanting the Ring are noble and I don't see what's delusional about that. Yes, he has been told the Ring corrupts and he ignores this wisdom. But I never said he was wise. Yes, I do have more sympathy with Boromir's desire for his homeland not to be swallowed by Darkness over Gollum's non-existent provocation to commit murder.
I didn't say he was evil from the start (presumably birth). I said I think something perhaps turned him on the wrong path before he encountered the Ring. Perhaps he was born a psychopath who had some malign influence in his youth.
Frodo is nearing the end of his endurance and in enemy territory where the influence of the Ring is getting stronger and he has had the Ring in his keep for nearly two decades. Despite all this his first instinct isn't to wrap his fingers around Sam's throat and squeeze. Gollum is hundreds of miles away from Mordor when he commits murder against a friend and relative, before even laying a finger on the Ring. Also, you highlight Frodo but don't mention Sam. If the Ring's influence were so pervasive, why doesn't Sam kill Frodo?
I honestly couldn't say. Perhaps things would then have gotten ugly if Sam was obstinate. But see my previous point.
There's not much to go on as far as pitying Gollum. I don't see him as you do, some innocent victim of the Ring. Also remember that when we first see him he eyes Bilbo as potential dinner and it's only blind luck that Gollum isn't hungry at the time:
Well I've been arguing that, generally, I put the finished works (TH, LoTR, SIL - though I know the latter work could be much more complicated as to its provenance) at a much higher level than anything else Tolkien wrote; I use the word wrote deliberately, as Tolkien never published them, and perhaps never intended them to be published. Even if he did, they are an incomplete record as HC hasn't (to my knowledge) published every letter Tolkien wrote about his finished books. So instead of the complete published works of Tolkien himself, we have an incomplete record chosen by a third party; the material isn't contradictory but, to my mind, it has to be secondary.
