Was Gollum the Unwitting Savior of Middle-earth?

Archive Home > Advanced Lore
Arthur Weasley 29/Jun/2006 at 03:54 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Interesting thought.  Gollum guarded and protected the One Ring for over 500 years.  Then it was stolen by a Hobbit family that foolishly almost allowed Sauron to recapture it.  Of course, Sauron would never have known Baggins or Shire if it were not from torturing Gollum - Or Would Sauron have found out another way?    If Gollum had not guided Frodo and Sam out of Emyn Muil, through the Dead Marshes, right to the Black Gate, then to Ithilien and then to the long stairway past Minas Morgul, and finally to Shelob’s tunnel ( so what if Gollum was leading them into a trap - intent is not the issue - the results are all that are important), Frodo and Sam would probably have never gotten as far as they did without being caught by any number of Orcs, Easterlings, Southrons, etc.  And then Gollum destroyed the One Ring.  Certainly Frodo was unwilling to do so right at the very edge of the Cracks of Doom and Sam was unable to convince Frodo that he should throw the Ring into the lava.  If Gollum had not fought Frodo, then the Ring would have most likely been reclaimed by one of the Nazgul returning to Mt. Doom.  Sure gollum bit off Frodo’s right third finger (not counting his thumb as a finger) but if he did not do so and then slip when he finally regained his Precious we would have had a very different ending in the Red Book (written by Sauron after conquering Middle Earth).  While it is true that Gollum had no intent to destroy the One Ring, intent is not the issue.  Or is it?  In short, was Gollum the inadvertant or unwitting savior of Middle Earth who did more than anyone to destory the One Ring and Sauron?  Certainly Frodo "forgiving," Gollum immediately after the Ring was destroyed was appropriate. 
Arthur Weasley 29/Jun/2006 at 03:54 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Interesting thought.  Gollum guarded and protected the One Ring for over 500 years.  Then it was stolen by a Hobbit family that foolishly almost allowed Sauron to recapture it.  Of course, Sauron would never have known Baggins or Shire if it were not from torturing Gollum - Or Would Sauron have found out another way?    If Gollum had not guided Frodo and Sam out of Emyn Muil, through the Dead Marshes, right to the Black Gate, then to Ithilien and then to the long stairway past Minas Morgul, and finally to Shelob’s tunnel ( so what if Gollum was leading them into a trap - intent is not the issue - the results are all that are important), Frodo and Sam would probably have never gotten as far as they did without being caught by any number of Orcs, Easterlings, Southrons, etc.  And then Gollum destroyed the One Ring.  Certainly Frodo was unwilling to do so right at the very edge of the Cracks of Doom and Sam was unable to convince Frodo that he should throw the Ring into the lava.  If Gollum had not fought Frodo, then the Ring would have most likely been reclaimed by one of the Nazgul returning to Mt. Doom.  Sure gollum bit off Frodo’s right third finger (not counting his thumb as a finger) but if he did not do so and then slip when he finally regained his Precious we would have had a very different ending in the Red Book (written by Sauron after conquering Middle Earth).  While it is true that Gollum had no intent to destroy the One Ring, intent is not the issue.  Or is it?  In short, was Gollum the inadvertant or unwitting savior of Middle Earth who did more than anyone to destory the One Ring and Sauron?  Certainly Frodo "forgiving," Gollum immediately after the Ring was destroyed was appropriate. 
Boromir88 29/Jun/2006 at 04:10 PM
Merchant of Minas Tirith Points: 3627 Posts: 2473 Joined: 24/Mar/2005
Gollum plays an important role in the fate of the Ring, but it was Eru in the end who had caused Gollum to fall in:
Frodo deserved all honour because he spend every last drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), ’that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named’~Letter 192
Both Frodo and Gollum play crucial roles in the fate of the Ring...but to answer the question is Gollum the "saviour of Middle-earth?"  I’d say it was Eru, because he is the one that stepped in and caused Gollum’s fall.

Boromir88 29/Jun/2006 at 04:10 PM
Merchant of Minas Tirith Points: 3627 Posts: 2473 Joined: 24/Mar/2005
Gollum plays an important role in the fate of the Ring, but it was Eru in the end who had caused Gollum to fall in:
Frodo deserved all honour because he spend every last drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), ’that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named’~Letter 192
Both Frodo and Gollum play crucial roles in the fate of the Ring...but to answer the question is Gollum the "saviour of Middle-earth?"  I’d say it was Eru, because he is the one that stepped in and caused Gollum’s fall.

Celebrimbor 29/Jun/2006 at 05:16 PM
Chieftain of the Mark Points: 8047 Posts: 4093 Joined: 26/Jan/2005
I would not say that Gollum was some kind of unwitting saviour but his unique fate was a substantial catalyst to the realisation of the victory over Sauron and the satisfying of the will of Eru. However, in a strange kind of dichotomy Gollum’s role and fate was primarily a catalyst but also a hindrance. One might therefore ask the question of how much guidance was required, and indeed proffered, by Eru in addressing the balance in favour of being a catalyst as opposed to a hindrance.
Celebrimbor 29/Jun/2006 at 05:16 PM
Chieftain of the Mark Points: 8047 Posts: 4093 Joined: 26/Jan/2005
I would not say that Gollum was some kind of unwitting saviour but his unique fate was a substantial catalyst to the realisation of the victory over Sauron and the satisfying of the will of Eru. However, in a strange kind of dichotomy Gollum’s role and fate was primarily a catalyst but also a hindrance. One might therefore ask the question of how much guidance was required, and indeed proffered, by Eru in addressing the balance in favour of being a catalyst as opposed to a hindrance.
Vugar 29/Jun/2006 at 06:02 PM
Chieftain of Mordor Points: 8170 Posts: 5398 Joined: 01/Jun/2004
I recall a rather interesting scenario that Tolkien once described. The paragraph follows after Tolkien’s discussion of what may have been to him ’the most tragic moment in the Tale.’ It involves what would have happened had Sam took pity on Gollum earlier in the story:

"This is due of course to the ’logic of the story’. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last (III 221-222) but for the good of Gollum too late.) If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But ’possession’ satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo’s sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss." (Letter #246, Letters of Tolkien)
Vugar 29/Jun/2006 at 06:02 PM
Chieftain of Mordor Points: 8170 Posts: 5398 Joined: 01/Jun/2004
I recall a rather interesting scenario that Tolkien once described. The paragraph follows after Tolkien’s discussion of what may have been to him ’the most tragic moment in the Tale.’ It involves what would have happened had Sam took pity on Gollum earlier in the story:

"This is due of course to the ’logic of the story’. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last (III 221-222) but for the good of Gollum too late.) If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But ’possession’ satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo’s sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss." (Letter #246, Letters of Tolkien)
Faralas Crestal 29/Jun/2006 at 06:39 PM
Apprentice of Minas Tirith Points: 315 Posts: 27 Joined: 19/Jun/2006
I believe that Gollum was a very important person when it came to the destruction of the One Ring. If not for him, Frodo and Sam wouldn’t have made it out of the Emyn Muil. The quest to destroy the ring would have failed utterly without the unwitting assistance of Gollum. 
Faralas Crestal 29/Jun/2006 at 06:39 PM
Apprentice of Minas Tirith Points: 315 Posts: 27 Joined: 19/Jun/2006
I believe that Gollum was a very important person when it came to the destruction of the One Ring. If not for him, Frodo and Sam wouldn’t have made it out of the Emyn Muil. The quest to destroy the ring would have failed utterly without the unwitting assistance of Gollum. 
Arthur Weasley 29/Jun/2006 at 07:20 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
I believe now I agree with Vugar and Faralas Crestal.    My conclusion would be that Gollum was the unwitting or unintentional savior of Middle Earth.  Perhaps on a subconscious level (here we go into psychological gobbledeegook but it is always soooo funnnnn!) Gollum may have guessed all along what Frodo and Samwere planning to do and realized that it would be the only way to end his own mental torment.  Gollum was certainly NOT stupid.  He knew that Frodo and Sam were going to Mordor.  He knew that Frodo and Sam were not going to Mordor to give the Ring to Sauron (otherwise they would have simply knocked on the Black Gate and said ’Hello - Special Deilvery for Sauron Gonthar!’).  Gollum knew that Frodo and Sam were trying to sneak into Mordor singlehanded and wanted to avoid Sauron’s minions at all costs.  Gee.....Hummmm......I wonder what else could Frodo and Sam hope to accomplish by taking the Ring to Mordor? 
Arthur Weasley 29/Jun/2006 at 07:20 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
I believe now I agree with Vugar and Faralas Crestal.    My conclusion would be that Gollum was the unwitting or unintentional savior of Middle Earth.  Perhaps on a subconscious level (here we go into psychological gobbledeegook but it is always soooo funnnnn!) Gollum may have guessed all along what Frodo and Samwere planning to do and realized that it would be the only way to end his own mental torment.  Gollum was certainly NOT stupid.  He knew that Frodo and Sam were going to Mordor.  He knew that Frodo and Sam were not going to Mordor to give the Ring to Sauron (otherwise they would have simply knocked on the Black Gate and said ’Hello - Special Deilvery for Sauron Gonthar!’).  Gollum knew that Frodo and Sam were trying to sneak into Mordor singlehanded and wanted to avoid Sauron’s minions at all costs.  Gee.....Hummmm......I wonder what else could Frodo and Sam hope to accomplish by taking the Ring to Mordor? 
Brandywine74 29/Jun/2006 at 10:13 PM
Foolhardy Ent of Fangorn Points: 1291 Posts: 562 Joined: 20/Apr/2006
I don’t think we can call him the saviour. Of course it wouldn’t have happened without him but then it wouldn’t have happened had Frodo not taken it upon himself to get there in the first place, or if Sam hadn’t gone along as well. Calling Gollum the saviour down plays the role that the others played- there’s was voluntary and Gollum would never have gone to Mount Doom.
geordie 30/Jun/2006 at 12:02 AM
Hugo Bracegirdle Points: 20570 Posts: 14087 Joined: 06/Mar/2005
I like the version in Bored of the Rings.

Oh look said Spam - an indian head penny. [Sam bends over]. Oops says Frito knockng Goddam over Sam. Aiee says Goddam. ’Gloop’ suggests the waiting tar-pit.

much more straightforward, and strangely, better than PJ’s atttempt.
RaistlinMajere 30/Jun/2006 at 07:37 AM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 261 Posts: 72 Joined: 28/Jun/2006
I don’t think Gollum was the saviour of Middle Earth. If Frodo hadn’t taken the burden of the ring upon himself, then Gollum wouldn’’t even have gone to Mount Doom. If he hadn’t fell into Mount Doom, then he would be in possession of the ring again, which since they were in Sauron’s domain, would eventually fall into the hands of its master. I think Gollum’s fall was kind of by chance. He was there with Frodo to obtain the ring for himself to satisfy his greedy needs.
RaistlinMajere 30/Jun/2006 at 07:37 AM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 261 Posts: 72 Joined: 28/Jun/2006
I don’t think Gollum was the saviour of Middle Earth. If Frodo hadn’t taken the burden of the ring upon himself, then Gollum wouldn’’t even have gone to Mount Doom. If he hadn’t fell into Mount Doom, then he would be in possession of the ring again, which since they were in Sauron’s domain, would eventually fall into the hands of its master. I think Gollum’s fall was kind of by chance. He was there with Frodo to obtain the ring for himself to satisfy his greedy needs.
Menelvagor 30/Jun/2006 at 08:34 AM
Scout of the Lone Lands Points: 1392 Posts: 4183 Joined: 21/Feb/2005

Actually, the Guild of Twisted Lore believe that  Gollum was sent to Middle Earth by Eru as his secret agent to ensure that the Ring was Destroyed..

Gollum may have appeared on the surface to be a nasty self serving creature that cared nothing for the fate of Middle Earth, but this in fact was just his cover.. he in fact was an agent of Eru, sent to make sure that the one ring was kept from Sauron until it could be destroyed..
He took up his position by the Great River, suspecting that the Ring would show itself sooner or later.. and also to shadow Saurons agent Deagol, who was also looking for the Ring..When Deagol managed to find the Ring, he was left with no option but to eliminate him, and hid out away from Sauron in the misty mountains..He was not sure who he could trust.. the Wizard Saruman was suspected of being self serving.. He hoped that he could find the whereabouts of Gandalf by listening to the Goblin and Warg spy reports..when he heard they had been captured, he followed them and when he saw that the hobbit, Bilbo had been seperated from the rest, he saw his chance to return the Ring to the wise..it was a wrench, only with the great powers gifted to him by Eru was he able to let go of it,and sneak it to Bilbo, whom he knew was travelling with Gandalf.. trusting that Gandalf would know it’s importance and would immediately destroy it. Unfortuneatly, Gandalf didnt get it.. so Gollum spent the next years trying to track it down to make sure that it was destroyed.. but was inadvertently trapped and taken to Sauron.. later, when he was released and found by Aragorn, he had to continue to play his part.. these Men and even Olorin were not allowed to know his true mission.. he could not be seen to interfere.. so he escaped the elves to continue his mission, picking up the trail in moria and eventually catching up with Sam and Frodo in Emyn Muil.. he guided them into Mordor.. he knew that Frodo and Sam would be able to kill Shelob, so led them into her caves, to deepen his cover and get them past the orcs.. Sam didnt see that gollum helped start the fight in the orc tower by whispering suggestions to Shagrat on his way back to the tower.. and obviously at the end he performs his act of true self sacrifice...

Menelvagor 30/Jun/2006 at 08:34 AM
Scout of the Lone Lands Points: 1392 Posts: 4183 Joined: 21/Feb/2005

Actually, the Guild of Twisted Lore believe that  Gollum was sent to Middle Earth by Eru as his secret agent to ensure that the Ring was Destroyed..

Gollum may have appeared on the surface to be a nasty self serving creature that cared nothing for the fate of Middle Earth, but this in fact was just his cover.. he in fact was an agent of Eru, sent to make sure that the one ring was kept from Sauron until it could be destroyed..
He took up his position by the Great River, suspecting that the Ring would show itself sooner or later.. and also to shadow Saurons agent Deagol, who was also looking for the Ring..When Deagol managed to find the Ring, he was left with no option but to eliminate him, and hid out away from Sauron in the misty mountains..He was not sure who he could trust.. the Wizard Saruman was suspected of being self serving.. He hoped that he could find the whereabouts of Gandalf by listening to the Goblin and Warg spy reports..when he heard they had been captured, he followed them and when he saw that the hobbit, Bilbo had been seperated from the rest, he saw his chance to return the Ring to the wise..it was a wrench, only with the great powers gifted to him by Eru was he able to let go of it,and sneak it to Bilbo, whom he knew was travelling with Gandalf.. trusting that Gandalf would know it’s importance and would immediately destroy it. Unfortuneatly, Gandalf didnt get it.. so Gollum spent the next years trying to track it down to make sure that it was destroyed.. but was inadvertently trapped and taken to Sauron.. later, when he was released and found by Aragorn, he had to continue to play his part.. these Men and even Olorin were not allowed to know his true mission.. he could not be seen to interfere.. so he escaped the elves to continue his mission, picking up the trail in moria and eventually catching up with Sam and Frodo in Emyn Muil.. he guided them into Mordor.. he knew that Frodo and Sam would be able to kill Shelob, so led them into her caves, to deepen his cover and get them past the orcs.. Sam didnt see that gollum helped start the fight in the orc tower by whispering suggestions to Shagrat on his way back to the tower.. and obviously at the end he performs his act of true self sacrifice...

Qtpie 30/Jun/2006 at 11:12 AM
Commander of Mordor Points: 22280 Posts: 12880 Joined: 17/Nov/2005
Menelvagor: Thats an interesting theory, and I like it. But if he was the secret agent of Eru, why did he reveal who held the Ring to Sauron? He would only endanger Gandalf and the Baggins because Sauron would send his servants after them. Also the Ring had a negative effect on those who hold it, except the Valar. Even Gandalf was afraid of it. If Gollum was really a secret agent he would have to have power at least as great as the Valar to overcome the Ring’s influence. But that is still an interesting theory!
Qtpie 30/Jun/2006 at 11:13 AM
Commander of Mordor Points: 22280 Posts: 12880 Joined: 17/Nov/2005
Menelvagor: Thats an interesting theory, and I like it. But if he was the secret agent of Eru, why did he reveal who held the Ring to Sauron? He would only endanger Gandalf and the Baggins because Sauron would send his servants after them. Also the Ring had a negative effect on those who hold it, except the Valar. Even Gandalf was afraid of it. If Gollum was really a secret agent he would have to have power at least as great as the Valar to overcome the Ring’s influence. But that is still an interesting theory!
Pistons369 30/Jun/2006 at 01:17 PM
Gardener of the Shire Points: 168 Posts: 34 Joined: 30/Jun/2006
It is an interesting though, but a lot of people are influential in the destruction of the ring, and just because he helped them in the end doesn’t mean he is a savior. Without Strider/Aragorn they would have never gotten past weathertop and most probally would have gotten caught before Rivendell.
The Spork Man 30/Jun/2006 at 01:29 PM
Craftsman of Minas Tirith Points: 1340 Posts: 3398 Joined: 29/Jul/2004
Well, if it weren’t for Gollum biting off Frodo’s finger and falling into the Cracks of Doom, I don’t think Frodo would have thrown the Ring in. I mean, Frodo seemed kinda hesitant standing over the pits of lava with the Ring in hand. So yes, gollum was the unwilling savior of Middle Earth. It’s kinda ironic if you really think about it, I mean, he had the Ring for 500 years, and after Bilbo got it, he would stop at nothing to get it back. The he goes and destroys it.
Menelvagor 30/Jun/2006 at 02:34 PM
Scout of the Lone Lands Points: 1392 Posts: 4183 Joined: 21/Feb/2005

aha....

 But if he was the secret agent of Eru, why did he reveal who held the Ring to Sauron? He would only endanger Gandalf and the Baggins because Sauron would send his servants after them. Taragollian;  indeed a good point; well after all, although he was Eru’s servant, he didnt have enough power to resist the awful tortures of Baradur; in fact ; the very fact that he had to be tortured for this information shows that he was trying to hide it and protect the hobbits...

Also the Ring had a negative effect on those who hold it, except the Valar. Even Gandalf was afraid of it. If Gollum was really a secret agent he would have to have power at least as great as the Valar to overcome the Ring’s influence. Another good point; as raised in my point here "was a wrench, only with the great powers gifted to him by Eru was he able to let go of it,and sneak it to Bilbo, whom he knew was travelling with Gandalf" the power I speak of was given to him specifically to resist the ring and not for any other purpose.

I also think that following quotes illustrate this further:

Lost it is my precious!" Riddles in the Dark, the Hobbit. are we to believe that Gollum who has such a close connection with the Ring hasnt noticed that he wasnt wearing it after killing the young goblin? we see how paranoid Frodo and Bilbo are about keeping it under their eye at all times..
"Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the ring maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring and not by its maker" Gandalf in the Shadow of the Past FotR.. here we see Gandalf picking up the inconsistencies in Bilbos finding of the ring. against its and Saurons desires. Gollum was not able to communicate with Gandalf about his mission, but Gandalf senses something of his purpose.."And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet for good or ill before the end, and when that comes the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.."

Menelvagor 30/Jun/2006 at 02:34 PM
Scout of the Lone Lands Points: 1392 Posts: 4183 Joined: 21/Feb/2005

aha....

 But if he was the secret agent of Eru, why did he reveal who held the Ring to Sauron? He would only endanger Gandalf and the Baggins because Sauron would send his servants after them. Taragollian;  indeed a good point; well after all, although he was Eru’s servant, he didnt have enough power to resist the awful tortures of Baradur; in fact ; the very fact that he had to be tortured for this information shows that he was trying to hide it and protect the hobbits...

Also the Ring had a negative effect on those who hold it, except the Valar. Even Gandalf was afraid of it. If Gollum was really a secret agent he would have to have power at least as great as the Valar to overcome the Ring’s influence. Another good point; as raised in my point here "was a wrench, only with the great powers gifted to him by Eru was he able to let go of it,and sneak it to Bilbo, whom he knew was travelling with Gandalf" the power I speak of was given to him specifically to resist the ring and not for any other purpose.

I also think that following quotes illustrate this further:

Lost it is my precious!" Riddles in the Dark, the Hobbit. are we to believe that Gollum who has such a close connection with the Ring hasnt noticed that he wasnt wearing it after killing the young goblin? we see how paranoid Frodo and Bilbo are about keeping it under their eye at all times..
"Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the ring maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring and not by its maker" Gandalf in the Shadow of the Past FotR.. here we see Gandalf picking up the inconsistencies in Bilbos finding of the ring. against its and Saurons desires. Gollum was not able to communicate with Gandalf about his mission, but Gandalf senses something of his purpose.."And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet for good or ill before the end, and when that comes the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.."

Qtpie 30/Jun/2006 at 04:25 PM
Commander of Mordor Points: 22280 Posts: 12880 Joined: 17/Nov/2005
Menelvagor: So Gollum was just a being empowered by Eru to destroy the Ring? Why was Gollum chosen to be Eru’s servant? Surely there were better candidates that could have been chosen. Such as a tough sturdy dwarf or a Hobbit. Another point is the Vala sent the Istari to aid and encourage the Free People to defeat Sauron on their own. This meant that the Istari were not to challenge Sauron’s powers on their own. So if Eru sent a secret agent to destroy the Ring, then why would the Vala send the Istari to aid the Free People?
Qtpie 30/Jun/2006 at 04:25 PM
Commander of Mordor Points: 22280 Posts: 12880 Joined: 17/Nov/2005
Menelvagor: So Gollum was just a being empowered by Eru to destroy the Ring? Why was Gollum chosen to be Eru’s servant? Surely there were better candidates that could have been chosen. Such as a tough sturdy dwarf or a Hobbit. Another point is the Vala sent the Istari to aid and encourage the Free People to defeat Sauron on their own. This meant that the Istari were not to challenge Sauron’s powers on their own. So if Eru sent a secret agent to destroy the Ring, then why would the Vala send the Istari to aid the Free People?
Arthur Weasley 30/Jun/2006 at 08:14 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Interesting Theory Menelvagor:  "Actually, the Guild of Twisted Lore believe that  Gollum was sent to Middle Earth by Eru as his secret agent to ensure that the Ring was Destroyed."  Anything is possible and Eru Iluvatar moves in mysterious ways.  But I do love the theory of Irony that the Spork Man mentions above how Gollum would never have destroyed the Ring but OOPS! he did do so.  Does intent really matter?  If someone accidently shoots someone else, it is hardly possible for them to get off with the police or a judge by saying "I did not know it was loaded," or "I did not mean to kill him."  This is why I dub Gollum the "Unwitting Savior," of Middle Earth.  This may be a shot in the dark but there is no point getting all fired up over this.  Of course this discussion is a real blast and there is nothing wrong with discharging all views.  I do not want to shoot my mouth off but these bad puns may get me a loose cannon reputation.   

Arthur Weasley 30/Jun/2006 at 08:14 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Interesting Theory Menelvagor:  "Actually, the Guild of Twisted Lore believe that  Gollum was sent to Middle Earth by Eru as his secret agent to ensure that the Ring was Destroyed."  Anything is possible and Eru Iluvatar moves in mysterious ways.  But I do love the theory of Irony that the Spork Man mentions above how Gollum would never have destroyed the Ring but OOPS! he did do so.  Does intent really matter?  If someone accidently shoots someone else, it is hardly possible for them to get off with the police or a judge by saying "I did not know it was loaded," or "I did not mean to kill him."  This is why I dub Gollum the "Unwitting Savior," of Middle Earth.  This may be a shot in the dark but there is no point getting all fired up over this.  Of course this discussion is a real blast and there is nothing wrong with discharging all views.  I do not want to shoot my mouth off but these bad puns may get me a loose cannon reputation.   

Eglaernil 30/Jun/2006 at 09:59 PM
Garment-crafter of Lothlorien Points: 493 Posts: 39 Joined: 25/Jun/2006
I’m a big believer in the Eru effect as a parallel to God in this Earth. But I don’t think that Gollum is a secret agent, I just think he was another player in the game. He commited an awful crime, lots of awful crimes actually, so he required redemption, and Eru the just game him that. It’s like the question in our world, why doesn’t God just fix the problems in the world? But all of the darkness in our world, and middle earth is needed to make people better. I mean obviously everyone on the journey came out scarred with sacrifices, but it made them better people. I mean just for example, Bilbo and Frodo now get to go over the seas.
Eglaernil 30/Jun/2006 at 09:59 PM
Garment-crafter of Lothlorien Points: 493 Posts: 39 Joined: 25/Jun/2006
I’m a big believer in the Eru effect as a parallel to God in this Earth. But I don’t think that Gollum is a secret agent, I just think he was another player in the game. He commited an awful crime, lots of awful crimes actually, so he required redemption, and Eru the just game him that. It’s like the question in our world, why doesn’t God just fix the problems in the world? But all of the darkness in our world, and middle earth is needed to make people better. I mean obviously everyone on the journey came out scarred with sacrifices, but it made them better people. I mean just for example, Bilbo and Frodo now get to go over the seas.
Sermela Calalen 01/Jul/2006 at 06:03 PM
Herald of Lothlorien Points: 5268 Posts: 5633 Joined: 05/Jan/2004

 But if he was the secret agent of Eru, why did he reveal who held the Ring to Sauron? He would only endanger Gandalf and the Baggins because Sauron would send his servants after them. Nelly is correct in saying that even the servant of Eru couldn’t withstand the torture of the enemy, yet there is another possibility. Without the enemy learning of its finding and who was carrying it the pressure to destroy it would not have been so strong. It could have stayed hidden in the Shire or Rivendell indefinitely while Sauron built up his strength and perhaps this was literally their only chance to destroy it. 

Why was Gollum chosen to be Eru’s servant? As we can see no mortal is strong enough to destroy the Ring. So anyone that Eru chose would indeed become wretched. So why not use someone like Smeagol? After all Tolkien did not believe in complete evil so he would have allowed for Smeagol to have the opportunity to redeem himself through serving Eru. Eglaernil so you see his choosing him as his servant was his redemption.

So if Eru sent a secret agent to destroy the Ring, then why would the Vala send the Istari to aid the Free People? Do we need to define the term "secret"? The Valar did not know. Anyway the Gandalf only helped Smeagol accomplish his task. He brought Bilbo to the appointed spot, he spoke to Frodo and helped the plant the seeds of pity in him by telling him of Smeagol’s hobbitness, he too fit into Eru’s plan to use Smeagol. 

Sermela Calalen 01/Jul/2006 at 06:03 PM
Herald of Lothlorien Points: 5268 Posts: 5633 Joined: 05/Jan/2004

 But if he was the secret agent of Eru, why did he reveal who held the Ring to Sauron? He would only endanger Gandalf and the Baggins because Sauron would send his servants after them. Nelly is correct in saying that even the servant of Eru couldn’t withstand the torture of the enemy, yet there is another possibility. Without the enemy learning of its finding and who was carrying it the pressure to destroy it would not have been so strong. It could have stayed hidden in the Shire or Rivendell indefinitely while Sauron built up his strength and perhaps this was literally their only chance to destroy it. 

Why was Gollum chosen to be Eru’s servant? As we can see no mortal is strong enough to destroy the Ring. So anyone that Eru chose would indeed become wretched. So why not use someone like Smeagol? After all Tolkien did not believe in complete evil so he would have allowed for Smeagol to have the opportunity to redeem himself through serving Eru. Eglaernil so you see his choosing him as his servant was his redemption.

So if Eru sent a secret agent to destroy the Ring, then why would the Vala send the Istari to aid the Free People? Do we need to define the term "secret"? The Valar did not know. Anyway the Gandalf only helped Smeagol accomplish his task. He brought Bilbo to the appointed spot, he spoke to Frodo and helped the plant the seeds of pity in him by telling him of Smeagol’s hobbitness, he too fit into Eru’s plan to use Smeagol. 

Qtpie 01/Jul/2006 at 09:36 PM
Commander of Mordor Points: 22280 Posts: 12880 Joined: 17/Nov/2005
Sermela Calalen and Menelvagor:Ok, I’m satisfied and persuaded that Gollum could indeed be the secret agent of Eru. Good thinking to the Guild of Twisted Lore!
Arvellas 02/Jul/2006 at 08:36 AM
Warrior of Imladris Points: 5462 Posts: 3016 Joined: 16/May/2006
Welcome to the Plaza, Pistons369!
Menelvagor- I like this theory, and it has made me quite ecstatic, what with it being a whole new way to look at the same old matter.  It makes sense to me that Eru would choose such a small and seemingly weak creature to be his agent, because that makes Gollum all the harder to see for what he really is.  He is not your typical hero, which helps ensure that the enemy will not try to eliminate him, and therefore makes him better suited to the task.  Of course, since the Red Book (Whoa, I almost wrote "Rad Book" by mistake!) was written by Bilbo and Frodo and finished by Sam, it of course would not show us the truth of the matter, since these Hobbits were under the illusion that Gollum was an evil, insolent little wretch- exactly as he wanted them to think.  Moral of the story: do not judge a book by its cover...or even what you read in the book, until you check for invisible ink!  Wow, this really puts a whole new spin on Gollum and LOTR!  Thanks for sharing this!
Arvellas 02/Jul/2006 at 08:36 AM
Warrior of Imladris Points: 5462 Posts: 3016 Joined: 16/May/2006
Welcome to the Plaza, Pistons369!
Menelvagor- I like this theory, and it has made me quite ecstatic, what with it being a whole new way to look at the same old matter.  It makes sense to me that Eru would choose such a small and seemingly weak creature to be his agent, because that makes Gollum all the harder to see for what he really is.  He is not your typical hero, which helps ensure that the enemy will not try to eliminate him, and therefore makes him better suited to the task.  Of course, since the Red Book (Whoa, I almost wrote "Rad Book" by mistake!) was written by Bilbo and Frodo and finished by Sam, it of course would not show us the truth of the matter, since these Hobbits were under the illusion that Gollum was an evil, insolent little wretch- exactly as he wanted them to think.  Moral of the story: do not judge a book by its cover...or even what you read in the book, until you check for invisible ink!  Wow, this really puts a whole new spin on Gollum and LOTR!  Thanks for sharing this!
Menelvagor 02/Jul/2006 at 11:58 AM
Scout of the Lone Lands Points: 1392 Posts: 4183 Joined: 21/Feb/2005
     Wow!!! another success for the Guild of Twisted Lore! thanks for your support guys !
Arthur Weasley 03/Jul/2006 at 12:39 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

I have never heard of the Guild of Twisted Lore.  s this just a fabricated invention to tease all of us or have there been other discussions and members involved with them?   I love looking at books, characters and plotlines in new ways and am excited that this forum has sparked such interest (opps I have probably killed it now).   If Gollum was the unwitting Savior of Middle Earth, then should not a plaza house be dedicated to him?  I noticed also that there are several Gollums in the Special Ranks for different houses and wondered if one of the Website Administrators should investigate and perhaps appropriate the Gollum title for a Plaza administrator (Vala).  This is all speculation for fun.  But I salute the character Gollum and agree that Frodo was right to forgive him at the end.  This iswhat makes Gollum so interesting.

Arthur Weasley 03/Jul/2006 at 12:39 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

I have never heard of the Guild of Twisted Lore.  s this just a fabricated invention to tease all of us or have there been other discussions and members involved with them?   I love looking at books, characters and plotlines in new ways and am excited that this forum has sparked such interest (opps I have probably killed it now).   If Gollum was the unwitting Savior of Middle Earth, then should not a plaza house be dedicated to him?  I noticed also that there are several Gollums in the Special Ranks for different houses and wondered if one of the Website Administrators should investigate and perhaps appropriate the Gollum title for a Plaza administrator (Vala).  This is all speculation for fun.  But I salute the character Gollum and agree that Frodo was right to forgive him at the end.  This iswhat makes Gollum so interesting.

Sermela Calalen 03/Jul/2006 at 02:08 PM
Herald of Lothlorien Points: 5268 Posts: 5633 Joined: 05/Jan/2004
Darth- The Guild of Twisted Lore is a small, but dedicated group of people on the plaza who love lore; but wish to put a different spin on things than most. Its just a fun new way to study lore that many members of the plaza were doing for fun and I just gave them a place to bind together. You are welcome to check us out and our past theories here.
Arthur Weasley 03/Jul/2006 at 09:20 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
I just had an epiphany!  Thank you very much God Bless Amelica and I accept your most gracious invitation for membership in the Guild of Twisted Lore.  This is very exciting and I have never been a part of a Palace before.  Any other thoughts about Gollum anyone?
CirthErebor 04/Jul/2006 at 02:55 PM
Defender of Imladris Points: 715 Posts: 268 Joined: 05/Jan/2006

"I knew that Gollum would play a part, if for good or for evil..." -Gandalf.

Ok, wording may be a little off on that one, but it’s essentially what Gandalf said. Gollum lead Frodo and Sam to Mount Doom, saving them from many things along the way, and then Gollum ended up destroying the ring. If not for Gollum, Sam and Frodo might have ended up wandering blindly about on the way to Mordor until some orcs killed them. So yeah, Gollum essentially was the savior of Middle-Earth...whether he liked it or not.

However, the way that Gandalf says he knew Gollum would play a part suggests that perhaps it was fate or the work of Eru that drew Gollum to fall off the side, so perhaps he wasn’t...bu then again, he was the one who guided them past the Black Gate, so of course he still played an important role, even if he wasn’t responsible for what happened on Mount Doom.

CirthErebor 04/Jul/2006 at 02:55 PM
Defender of Imladris Points: 715 Posts: 268 Joined: 05/Jan/2006

"I knew that Gollum would play a part, if for good or for evil..." -Gandalf.

Ok, wording may be a little off on that one, but it’s essentially what Gandalf said. Gollum lead Frodo and Sam to Mount Doom, saving them from many things along the way, and then Gollum ended up destroying the ring. If not for Gollum, Sam and Frodo might have ended up wandering blindly about on the way to Mordor until some orcs killed them. So yeah, Gollum essentially was the savior of Middle-Earth...whether he liked it or not.

However, the way that Gandalf says he knew Gollum would play a part suggests that perhaps it was fate or the work of Eru that drew Gollum to fall off the side, so perhaps he wasn’t...bu then again, he was the one who guided them past the Black Gate, so of course he still played an important role, even if he wasn’t responsible for what happened on Mount Doom.

Uzakul 10/Jul/2006 at 02:55 PM
Thief of Mordor Points: 295 Posts: 64 Joined: 23/Jan/2006

Unwitting is a great way to descirbe the part that Gollum played within the tale, ever was he driven on by his need for the ring, higher powers may of placed him in such a predicament, but i belive that in the end his need for the ring drove him to go with Frodo. And it fell to fate that he shud fall in Mt Doom.

Though something bothers me, when did Gollum realise that Frodo was going to destroy the ring, because I dont think he would of ever of lead Frodo to Mordor if he knew.

Uzakul 10/Jul/2006 at 02:55 PM
Thief of Mordor Points: 295 Posts: 64 Joined: 23/Jan/2006

Unwitting is a great way to descirbe the part that Gollum played within the tale, ever was he driven on by his need for the ring, higher powers may of placed him in such a predicament, but i belive that in the end his need for the ring drove him to go with Frodo. And it fell to fate that he shud fall in Mt Doom.

Though something bothers me, when did Gollum realise that Frodo was going to destroy the ring, because I dont think he would of ever of lead Frodo to Mordor if he knew.

Arthur Weasley 10/Jul/2006 at 09:14 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
In the books Frodo never reveals this to Gollum until he is at Mt. Doom.  Though as I mentioned above, I believe Gollum should have realized what was happening much sooner.  If Frodo and Sam were trying evade Sauron and his minions and yet want to sneak into Mordor, what other task could they be doing with the Ring but destroy it? 
Arthur Weasley 10/Jul/2006 at 09:14 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
In the books Frodo never reveals this to Gollum until he is at Mt. Doom.  Though as I mentioned above, I believe Gollum should have realized what was happening much sooner.  If Frodo and Sam were trying evade Sauron and his minions and yet want to sneak into Mordor, what other task could they be doing with the Ring but destroy it? 
Lupul Alb 11/Jul/2006 at 01:46 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 466 Posts: 549 Joined: 10/Jul/2006
Smeagol-Gollum is a key person in the books. He saved Frodo’s life in the the swamps and at the Black Gate were the foolish hobbit would have given Sauron the ring on a silver plate. Yes he wanted the ring but that is not important. If he kept the ring safe for 500 years he could of kept it for as long as Arda in the caverns. Only when the ring leaves him is when Sauron makes his move. What is that Gollum says: that Sauron mustn’t have the ring. Who could tell that the ring wraiths would have capture Smeagol. He did a pretty job by leading the hobbits to the tunnel unnoticed. Yes he was the one who by mistake saved Middle-Earth and sincerely I relly like the guy. If not for him we would of seen Sauron dealing with the rest of Aragorn’s suicidal army.
Lupul Alb 11/Jul/2006 at 01:46 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 466 Posts: 549 Joined: 10/Jul/2006
Smeagol-Gollum is a key person in the books. He saved Frodo’s life in the the swamps and at the Black Gate were the foolish hobbit would have given Sauron the ring on a silver plate. Yes he wanted the ring but that is not important. If he kept the ring safe for 500 years he could of kept it for as long as Arda in the caverns. Only when the ring leaves him is when Sauron makes his move. What is that Gollum says: that Sauron mustn’t have the ring. Who could tell that the ring wraiths would have capture Smeagol. He did a pretty job by leading the hobbits to the tunnel unnoticed. Yes he was the one who by mistake saved Middle-Earth and sincerely I relly like the guy. If not for him we would of seen Sauron dealing with the rest of Aragorn’s suicidal army.
Arthur Weasley 11/Jul/2006 at 04:02 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Yes. Lupul Alb!  I could not agree with you more.  Gollum is an unappreciative character and perhaps hated Sauron more than anyone else because Sauron was his greatest rival for his beloved Precious.  What does your signature say?  Is it Elvish?  Be sure to consider joining the Istari Plaza Kingdom after you take the Knowledge Hall quizzes!
Arthur Weasley 11/Jul/2006 at 04:02 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Yes. Lupul Alb!  I could not agree with you more.  Gollum is an unappreciative character and perhaps hated Sauron more than anyone else because Sauron was his greatest rival for his beloved Precious.  What does your signature say?  Is it Elvish?  Be sure to consider joining the Istari Plaza Kingdom after you take the Knowledge Hall quizzes!
Lupul Alb 11/Jul/2006 at 04:35 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 466 Posts: 549 Joined: 10/Jul/2006
Thanx DarthEnalan! The signature means : I’m the son of man and the race of a thought, I carry stars in my eyes and fire in my hands. And I feel my heart beating in millions of romanians. It’s in romanian, and I don’t know why but it sounds better in romanian. Or I translated it wrong. but this is the general ideea. How can I join a house?
Lupul Alb 11/Jul/2006 at 04:35 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 466 Posts: 549 Joined: 10/Jul/2006
Thanx DarthEnalan! The signature means : I’m the son of man and the race of a thought, I carry stars in my eyes and fire in my hands. And I feel my heart beating in millions of romanians. It’s in romanian, and I don’t know why but it sounds better in romanian. Or I translated it wrong. but this is the general ideea. How can I join a house?
Arthur Weasley 11/Jul/2006 at 06:36 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Congratulations on Joining the Forces of Mordor Lupul Alb!  I used to have some neighbors from Romania and the beautiful language seems to sound Latin for me.  Usually House owners invite people to join.  I am not a house owner and am only unofficially part of the Guild of Twisted Lore (see Lorien Plaza Houses).  Once I advance another rank I may then create my own house and I will let you know.
Arthur Weasley 11/Jul/2006 at 06:36 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Congratulations on Joining the Forces of Mordor Lupul Alb!  I used to have some neighbors from Romania and the beautiful language seems to sound Latin for me.  Usually House owners invite people to join.  I am not a house owner and am only unofficially part of the Guild of Twisted Lore (see Lorien Plaza Houses).  Once I advance another rank I may then create my own house and I will let you know.
laurina 12/Jul/2006 at 11:42 PM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 293 Posts: 26 Joined: 05/Jul/2006

I don’t believe Gollum was as much an unwitting savior as he was an unwitting accomplice.  Throughout the books, as well as the rest of Tolkien’s writing, the theme of fate and destiny weigh rather heavily.  Rather than using Gollum as a savior, logic follows, Tolkien would use him to illustrate how fate and destiny, as well as higher, all-knowing powers, use many to accomplish their ends.

Without the loss of the ring to Bilbo, or Frodo’s journey to destory it, much of the rich history and foundational principles of the Third and Fourth Age would be lost - if the Second War of the Ring had no occured, Aragorn’s ascension to the throne of Gondor would have been further delayed.

laurina 12/Jul/2006 at 11:42 PM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 293 Posts: 26 Joined: 05/Jul/2006

I don’t believe Gollum was as much an unwitting savior as he was an unwitting accomplice.  Throughout the books, as well as the rest of Tolkien’s writing, the theme of fate and destiny weigh rather heavily.  Rather than using Gollum as a savior, logic follows, Tolkien would use him to illustrate how fate and destiny, as well as higher, all-knowing powers, use many to accomplish their ends.

Without the loss of the ring to Bilbo, or Frodo’s journey to destory it, much of the rich history and foundational principles of the Third and Fourth Age would be lost - if the Second War of the Ring had no occured, Aragorn’s ascension to the throne of Gondor would have been further delayed.

Celebrimbor 13/Jul/2006 at 05:36 AM
Chieftain of the Mark Points: 8047 Posts: 4093 Joined: 26/Jan/2005
laurina. I think your phrase "I don’t believe Gollum was as much an unwitting saviour as he was an unwitting accomplice" sums up the issue perfectly. In his own mind he would loathe to acquire the title of saviour if it meant that he would have to sacrifice his precious. He knew he could never again possess the Ring and live his old life and thus I think his efforts were, obviously, intended to be a hindrance and the fact that he actually facilitated the destruction of the One Ring, an occurence he feared, makes him an unwitting accomplice rather than a saviour. Indeed if he had the choice he would condemn all others to keep the Ring in tact and thus I don’t think we might ever call him a saviour, whether willing or otherwise.
Celebrimbor 13/Jul/2006 at 05:36 AM
Chieftain of the Mark Points: 8047 Posts: 4093 Joined: 26/Jan/2005
laurina. I think your phrase "I don’t believe Gollum was as much an unwitting saviour as he was an unwitting accomplice" sums up the issue perfectly. In his own mind he would loathe to acquire the title of saviour if it meant that he would have to sacrifice his precious. He knew he could never again possess the Ring and live his old life and thus I think his efforts were, obviously, intended to be a hindrance and the fact that he actually facilitated the destruction of the One Ring, an occurence he feared, makes him an unwitting accomplice rather than a saviour. Indeed if he had the choice he would condemn all others to keep the Ring in tact and thus I don’t think we might ever call him a saviour, whether willing or otherwise.
Arthur Weasley 13/Jul/2006 at 06:50 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
The issue of intent here seems to be paramount.  But if one disregards intent and focuses on results, then Gollum could be described as a Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth.  Gollum’s intentions or motives would never destroy the One Ring but he did do precisely that.  Frodo was nursing his finger and Sam was not close enough to push Gollum off the cliff.  When someone shoots and kills someone else, the intent almost does not matter under law (i.e. I did not know the pistol was loaded).  The murderer would still be convicted and sent to prison.  Gollum destroyed the Ring, permanently disabled/destroyed Sauron, hurled Mordor and her minions to ruin, and allowed Gondor to flourish in Peace with its rightful King.  In my humble opinion, intent only matters to lawyers.  It is results that should matter.
Arthur Weasley 13/Jul/2006 at 06:50 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
The issue of intent here seems to be paramount.  But if one disregards intent and focuses on results, then Gollum could be described as a Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth.  Gollum’s intentions or motives would never destroy the One Ring but he did do precisely that.  Frodo was nursing his finger and Sam was not close enough to push Gollum off the cliff.  When someone shoots and kills someone else, the intent almost does not matter under law (i.e. I did not know the pistol was loaded).  The murderer would still be convicted and sent to prison.  Gollum destroyed the Ring, permanently disabled/destroyed Sauron, hurled Mordor and her minions to ruin, and allowed Gondor to flourish in Peace with its rightful King.  In my humble opinion, intent only matters to lawyers.  It is results that should matter.
Arwen Lirimaer 16/Jul/2006 at 01:52 PM
Banned Points: 456 Posts: 202 Joined: 11/Jul/2006
I think that Gollum is the most tragic character in lotr. Yes, he could be a "saviour" in some way. If he wouldn’t get the Ring, Sauron would probably find it.
Alec_Lotr 16/Jul/2006 at 02:08 PM
Elfling of Lothlorien Points: 33 Posts: 19 Joined: 16/Jul/2006
I think that Goullum could be considered the "saviour" of the ring but I myself would not consider him that because I think Sauron had help finding the ring from him.
Arthur Weasley 16/Jul/2006 at 06:14 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Good comments Arwen Lirimaer and Welcome to the LOTR Plaza Hobbitsmoke!  When you are ready Hobbitsmoke, I hope you select the Order of the Istari as your Plaza Kingdom (though with a name like yours I could see you also joining the Shire).  These threads throughout the Plaza are fun and I hope to see you guys more.  Do you both have any other thoughts on Gollum?  While Gollum would never purposely destroy his Precious, that is exactly what he did.  So in my opinion, Gollum saved all of Middle Earth from Sauron.  What do you guys think?

Arthur Weasley 16/Jul/2006 at 06:14 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Good comments Arwen Lirimaer and Welcome to the LOTR Plaza Hobbitsmoke!  When you are ready Hobbitsmoke, I hope you select the Order of the Istari as your Plaza Kingdom (though with a name like yours I could see you also joining the Shire).  These threads throughout the Plaza are fun and I hope to see you guys more.  Do you both have any other thoughts on Gollum?  While Gollum would never purposely destroy his Precious, that is exactly what he did.  So in my opinion, Gollum saved all of Middle Earth from Sauron.  What do you guys think?

Arwen Lirimaer 17/Jul/2006 at 02:57 AM
Banned Points: 456 Posts: 202 Joined: 11/Jul/2006
Yes but still, if Frodo wouldn’t get to the Cracks of Doom, then Gollum couldn’t destroy it-so it’s not just thanks to Gollum. I don’t know, I kinda liked Gollum because he tried not to be bad, to be Smeagol again etc. He could be one of the main characters in lotr because Frodo wouldn’t get the ring if Gollum... I’m complicating. The thing is, Gollum is very important though he looks like the most annoying character ever.
Arwen Lirimaer 17/Jul/2006 at 02:57 AM
Banned Points: 456 Posts: 202 Joined: 11/Jul/2006
Yes but still, if Frodo wouldn’t get to the Cracks of Doom, then Gollum couldn’t destroy it-so it’s not just thanks to Gollum. I don’t know, I kinda liked Gollum because he tried not to be bad, to be Smeagol again etc. He could be one of the main characters in lotr because Frodo wouldn’t get the ring if Gollum... I’m complicating. The thing is, Gollum is very important though he looks like the most annoying character ever.
Arthur Weasley 17/Jul/2006 at 04:58 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Arwen Lirimaer - Go ahead and get complicated!  If Gollum did not find the Ring (Ok Deagol found it and Gollum killed him for it) it and Sauron would never have been destroyed.  Bilbo and Frodo’s involvement only jeprodized the Shire, Middle Earth and all of their friends.  Still, Frodo (and Sam) did bear the Ring from the Shire to Mordor.  I love this stuff!  Next!
Arthur Weasley 17/Jul/2006 at 04:58 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Arwen Lirimaer - Go ahead and get complicated!  If Gollum did not find the Ring (Ok Deagol found it and Gollum killed him for it) it and Sauron would never have been destroyed.  Bilbo and Frodo’s involvement only jeprodized the Shire, Middle Earth and all of their friends.  Still, Frodo (and Sam) did bear the Ring from the Shire to Mordor.  I love this stuff!  Next!
Arwen Lirimaer 17/Jul/2006 at 06:15 AM
Banned Points: 456 Posts: 202 Joined: 11/Jul/2006
Right... Was Gollum Sauron’s and Frodo’s "tool"? Sauron had power over him and Frodo also had some power over Gollum. So, when we’re talking about Smeagol, are we actually talking about Frodo’s part of Gollum? Gollum was dedicated to the Ring, he jumped inot the Cracks of Doom to get it... If he was stronger, would he be the ringbearer? Is what I wrote complicated enough  or should I write more?
Arwen Lirimaer 17/Jul/2006 at 06:15 AM
Banned Points: 456 Posts: 202 Joined: 11/Jul/2006
Right... Was Gollum Sauron’s and Frodo’s "tool"? Sauron had power over him and Frodo also had some power over Gollum. So, when we’re talking about Smeagol, are we actually talking about Frodo’s part of Gollum? Gollum was dedicated to the Ring, he jumped inot the Cracks of Doom to get it... If he was stronger, would he be the ringbearer? Is what I wrote complicated enough  or should I write more?
Arthur Weasley 24/Jul/2006 at 04:41 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Even Wizzies, scholars and Istari Lords are considering this very topic in the Isengard Istari Forum.  Maybe Gollum could also have been the servant of Eru Iluvatar that was sent by the powers of Valinor to ensure the Ring’s destruction as the Guild of Twisted Lore suggests?  In both the books and the movies, Frodo succumbs to the Ring’s power and refuses to destroy it.  Gollum felt the same way.  But Gollum was the one who slipped and fell into the Lava with the Ring.  Gollums actions, not his desires or even interests, brought about the Happy Ending that everyone seems to require sometimes in Fantasy Novels.

Arthur Weasley 24/Jul/2006 at 04:41 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Even Wizzies, scholars and Istari Lords are considering this very topic in the Isengard Istari Forum.  Maybe Gollum could also have been the servant of Eru Iluvatar that was sent by the powers of Valinor to ensure the Ring’s destruction as the Guild of Twisted Lore suggests?  In both the books and the movies, Frodo succumbs to the Ring’s power and refuses to destroy it.  Gollum felt the same way.  But Gollum was the one who slipped and fell into the Lava with the Ring.  Gollums actions, not his desires or even interests, brought about the Happy Ending that everyone seems to require sometimes in Fantasy Novels.

Lupul Alb 24/Jul/2006 at 05:03 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 466 Posts: 549 Joined: 10/Jul/2006

Hy there Darth Enalan still talking about Gollum? I don’t think that it was Gollum the servant of Eru but Smeagol! Didn’t you seen the part when Smeagol is dancing in the Mountain of Doom with the ring? (Ok I know that it is like that in the movies I really don’t know that it’s like that in the book to.). In the movies is Gollum who bites Frodo’s finger and then is Smeagol who enjoys the victory over the reluctant hobbit. Smeagol is the one who saves Frodo from the marshes, Smeagol is the one who warns the hobbits at the Black Gate (Sauron mustn’t get the ring!) and it is Smeagol that watches Frodo speech that he is going to destroy the ring. Then Gollum apears and attacks Frodo. Could it be that Gollum is of another influence? An evil one! The ring or Sauron itself? I don’t know.  So Darth when are you going to make that house of yours cause I would like to join one, and you are the first one who treated me with respect and enthusiasm. I really enjoyed your question about my elfish signature!  .

Lupul Alb 24/Jul/2006 at 05:03 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 466 Posts: 549 Joined: 10/Jul/2006

Hy there Darth Enalan still talking about Gollum? I don’t think that it was Gollum the servant of Eru but Smeagol! Didn’t you seen the part when Smeagol is dancing in the Mountain of Doom with the ring? (Ok I know that it is like that in the movies I really don’t know that it’s like that in the book to.). In the movies is Gollum who bites Frodo’s finger and then is Smeagol who enjoys the victory over the reluctant hobbit. Smeagol is the one who saves Frodo from the marshes, Smeagol is the one who warns the hobbits at the Black Gate (Sauron mustn’t get the ring!) and it is Smeagol that watches Frodo speech that he is going to destroy the ring. Then Gollum apears and attacks Frodo. Could it be that Gollum is of another influence? An evil one! The ring or Sauron itself? I don’t know.  So Darth when are you going to make that house of yours cause I would like to join one, and you are the first one who treated me with respect and enthusiasm. I really enjoyed your question about my elfish signature!  .

Arthur Weasley 24/Jul/2006 at 05:41 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Greetings Again Lupul Alb!  I was wondering how you were getting along and if you were having fun!  For now, I am trying to get myself to Rank VII (check the Ranks and privileges page at the career center) so then afterwards I can create a house.  I am also harranging my Internet provider which has been performing upgrades to its system so I can create my own website.  One cannot join a house, one has to be invited (beyond my power since I am only the newest member of the GoTL - see more).  I am also eager to learn Elvish and for the last few days I have been snooping around the Languages forum.  In the meantime, visit the ’Guild of Twisted Lore’ Plaza House (found in the Lothlorien list) and hopefully we can chat more there.  It may be a month or two, but one day I hope to start my own house and then we shall see what is possible.

As for the Supreme Moment when the Ring is destroyed, let’s compare the Movies and books.  In the book, Gollum and Frodo are struggling and Frodo is invisible with Sam watching.  Gollum then gropes and bites Frodo’s finger (right ring finger I think but I will check) off and seizes the Ring.  He then holds it high up to "gloat over his prize," slips, then then "topples" over into the abyss with Lava waiting for him.  In the movies, Frodo and Gollum fall over the cliff together and then Frodo miraculously hangs on to some outcropping rocks while Sam hoists him back up to safety (after the typical ’Don’t let go,’ dialogue).  I think Peter Jackson (who I believe did a wonderful and best job possible bringing the books to the screen) simply wanted to make the Supreme Moment more dramatic but it does not really differ so much from the books.  Gollum makes all of this possible.

Arthur Weasley 24/Jul/2006 at 05:41 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Greetings Again Lupul Alb!  I was wondering how you were getting along and if you were having fun!  For now, I am trying to get myself to Rank VII (check the Ranks and privileges page at the career center) so then afterwards I can create a house.  I am also harranging my Internet provider which has been performing upgrades to its system so I can create my own website.  One cannot join a house, one has to be invited (beyond my power since I am only the newest member of the GoTL - see more).  I am also eager to learn Elvish and for the last few days I have been snooping around the Languages forum.  In the meantime, visit the ’Guild of Twisted Lore’ Plaza House (found in the Lothlorien list) and hopefully we can chat more there.  It may be a month or two, but one day I hope to start my own house and then we shall see what is possible.

As for the Supreme Moment when the Ring is destroyed, let’s compare the Movies and books.  In the book, Gollum and Frodo are struggling and Frodo is invisible with Sam watching.  Gollum then gropes and bites Frodo’s finger (right ring finger I think but I will check) off and seizes the Ring.  He then holds it high up to "gloat over his prize," slips, then then "topples" over into the abyss with Lava waiting for him.  In the movies, Frodo and Gollum fall over the cliff together and then Frodo miraculously hangs on to some outcropping rocks while Sam hoists him back up to safety (after the typical ’Don’t let go,’ dialogue).  I think Peter Jackson (who I believe did a wonderful and best job possible bringing the books to the screen) simply wanted to make the Supreme Moment more dramatic but it does not really differ so much from the books.  Gollum makes all of this possible.

Bearamir 24/Jul/2006 at 05:09 PM
Emeritus Points: 16276 Posts: 16742 Joined: 21/Sep/2008

Ladies & Gentlemen:  This thread has been nominated for transfer to Ad Lore.  In order to see if we can develop some additional insight into the topic, I am going to do so.  Moving forward, however, I remind everyone that Ad Lore does have some expectations about post quality...so, please keep those in mind when considering your contributions to this thread.  Without further ado:  prepare for move to Ad Lore.

Bearamir 24/Jul/2006 at 05:09 PM
Emeritus Points: 16276 Posts: 16742 Joined: 21/Sep/2008

Ladies & Gentlemen:  This thread has been nominated for transfer to Ad Lore.  In order to see if we can develop some additional insight into the topic, I am going to do so.  Moving forward, however, I remind everyone that Ad Lore does have some expectations about post quality...so, please keep those in mind when considering your contributions to this thread.  Without further ado:  prepare for move to Ad Lore.

Lupul Alb 25/Jul/2006 at 01:43 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 466 Posts: 549 Joined: 10/Jul/2006
You made it to the advance Lore dude! Gollum will be proud of you, Darth.  I think Jackson made the final scene just to sustain my upper point. Just watch the final scene and tell me what do you think about that? And the scene when Frodo talks to Smeagol after they battle for the ring and Frodo wins. I think that Smeagol had the mission to destroy the ring and he was trying to hide it from the egoist that Gollum was. Smeagol doesn’t even imagine that Sauron will ever get the ring and somehow that sounds like he is on a mission. 
Lupul Alb 25/Jul/2006 at 01:43 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 466 Posts: 549 Joined: 10/Jul/2006
You made it to the advance Lore dude! Gollum will be proud of you, Darth.  I think Jackson made the final scene just to sustain my upper point. Just watch the final scene and tell me what do you think about that? And the scene when Frodo talks to Smeagol after they battle for the ring and Frodo wins. I think that Smeagol had the mission to destroy the ring and he was trying to hide it from the egoist that Gollum was. Smeagol doesn’t even imagine that Sauron will ever get the ring and somehow that sounds like he is on a mission. 
Lord_Vidύm 25/Jul/2006 at 02:07 AM
Banned Points: 1957 Posts: 2449 Joined: 26/Jun/2004

Well, as Phil (I think) told me once upon a time, it wasn’t Gollum that fell in the crack, but it was Eru that pushed the little creature in the cracks of Oroduin. It was noted in one of Tolkien’s letter what I said.

OK, now. Seeing it as LotR book gives it to us.
"- I arrived, he said. But now I can’t decide if I can bring an end to the mission i got. I will not do such a thing. The Ring is mine!
And suddenly, as he put it in his finger, he disappeared in Sams’ eyes. Sam felt for a while his breath to cut, but he could not shout, for a lot of things happened that time.
...
And very far away, when Frodo wore the Ring claiming it for himself, even at Samath Naur, at the heart of his kingdom, a Power that existed in baradDur shaked and the tower trembled from its base up to its proud and hard top. The Dark Lord suddenly caught it up and his Eyes, drilling all the other shadows, passing the fields reached at the door he himself had created; the size of his foolishness was revealed with a blinding lighting and all of his enemies tricks were revealed at last. That time his anger broke and reached its highs, but his fear spread like a huge black smoke to drawn him. For he was now realising the deadly danger he was facing and the line on which his fate was now hanging.
...
At his calling, changing direction with a screech, he Nazguls, the Ringwraiths, fluttering as a storm rushed south for the Mount Doom.
...
The flames of the depth were awaken furious and the red light glowed and all the cave was filled with flames and great heat. Suddenly,Sam saw Gollums long hands to raise up to its mouth; his white sharp teeth were glowing and then closed loudly as they bit. Frodo shouted, and...behold, he was down on the knees and athe edge of the crack. Golum was dancing in madness, holding high the Ring, with a finger still on it. Now it was lighting as it was indead crafted by real fire.
-Precious, precious, precious! Gollum was shouting. My Precious!
And saying that, as he had raised his eyes to enjoy his obtainment, he stepped back, lost his ballance, moved for a while at the edge, and then, with a scream he fell. From the depths was heard his last mourning cry Precious and was lost"

Pretty nice images, well indead. Here comes. It seems Frodo was up to destroy everything, for Sauron realised of his approach at last, and the Nazguls began to head for Oroduin after that. Frodo would not have done anything, and Sam was unable to do anything too. Only Gollum, whose experience of all those years with sneaking, could do something. And he did. He attacked Frodo, took by force the Ring, and finally fell into the cracks. But for Gollum the Ring would not have been destroyed. And he had done already enough-for still without him the two hobbits would not have entered Mordor so "well-hidden".

And it is pretty moving, that Gollum does not shout for his Life at the end, but for his Precious. So much bound he had been to it...

Oh ,yeah, and Lupul Alb, don’t pretty trust the Movie’s scenes-although in that they were pretty accurate.

Lord_Vidύm 25/Jul/2006 at 02:07 AM
Banned Points: 1957 Posts: 2449 Joined: 26/Jun/2004

Well, as Phil (I think) told me once upon a time, it wasn’t Gollum that fell in the crack, but it was Eru that pushed the little creature in the cracks of Oroduin. It was noted in one of Tolkien’s letter what I said.

OK, now. Seeing it as LotR book gives it to us.
"- I arrived, he said. But now I can’t decide if I can bring an end to the mission i got. I will not do such a thing. The Ring is mine!
And suddenly, as he put it in his finger, he disappeared in Sams’ eyes. Sam felt for a while his breath to cut, but he could not shout, for a lot of things happened that time.
...
And very far away, when Frodo wore the Ring claiming it for himself, even at Samath Naur, at the heart of his kingdom, a Power that existed in baradDur shaked and the tower trembled from its base up to its proud and hard top. The Dark Lord suddenly caught it up and his Eyes, drilling all the other shadows, passing the fields reached at the door he himself had created; the size of his foolishness was revealed with a blinding lighting and all of his enemies tricks were revealed at last. That time his anger broke and reached its highs, but his fear spread like a huge black smoke to drawn him. For he was now realising the deadly danger he was facing and the line on which his fate was now hanging.
...
At his calling, changing direction with a screech, he Nazguls, the Ringwraiths, fluttering as a storm rushed south for the Mount Doom.
...
The flames of the depth were awaken furious and the red light glowed and all the cave was filled with flames and great heat. Suddenly,Sam saw Gollums long hands to raise up to its mouth; his white sharp teeth were glowing and then closed loudly as they bit. Frodo shouted, and...behold, he was down on the knees and athe edge of the crack. Golum was dancing in madness, holding high the Ring, with a finger still on it. Now it was lighting as it was indead crafted by real fire.
-Precious, precious, precious! Gollum was shouting. My Precious!
And saying that, as he had raised his eyes to enjoy his obtainment, he stepped back, lost his ballance, moved for a while at the edge, and then, with a scream he fell. From the depths was heard his last mourning cry Precious and was lost"

Pretty nice images, well indead. Here comes. It seems Frodo was up to destroy everything, for Sauron realised of his approach at last, and the Nazguls began to head for Oroduin after that. Frodo would not have done anything, and Sam was unable to do anything too. Only Gollum, whose experience of all those years with sneaking, could do something. And he did. He attacked Frodo, took by force the Ring, and finally fell into the cracks. But for Gollum the Ring would not have been destroyed. And he had done already enough-for still without him the two hobbits would not have entered Mordor so "well-hidden".

And it is pretty moving, that Gollum does not shout for his Life at the end, but for his Precious. So much bound he had been to it...

Oh ,yeah, and Lupul Alb, don’t pretty trust the Movie’s scenes-although in that they were pretty accurate.

Arthur Weasley 25/Jul/2006 at 04:24 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Thank you Lupul Alb and All!    Actually I think you may have a point.  Smeagol was certainly all that was left of the "good" or "kind/nice" in Gollum but the Ring had them both enslaved for so long that the "evil" Gollum would always win over any "Good" left.  Phil_d_One was the GoTL member who first advanced the Smeagol/Gollum as Eru Iluvatar theory and he also split Smeagol and Gollum apart into opposing forces as you have (wih Smeagol as Eru and Good with Gollum truly evil).  Great minds do think alike!  One thing I did notice about the movies on these points was that they visibly portrayed the duality of Smeagol/Gollum extremely well.  However, even Smeagol would never let Sauron have the Ring back, let alone Gollum.  When Gollum was captured and tortured by Sauron in 3017, there is a passage in Unfinished Tales that deserves to be quoted in full.

"He did not trust Gollum, for he divined something indomitable in him, which could not be overcome, even by the Shadow of Fear, except by destroying him.  But Sauron perceived the depth of Gollums malice towards thosethat had "robbed" him, and guessing that he would go in search of  them to avenge himself, Sauron hoped that his spies would thus be led to the Ring.  Gollum, however, was before long captured by Aragorn, and taken to Northern Mirkwood; and though he was followed, he could not be rescued before he was in safe-keeping.  Now Sauron had never paid heed to the "Halflings," even if he had heard of the, and he did not yet know where their land lay.  From Gollum, even under pain, he could not get any clear account, both because Gollum indeed had no certain knowledge himself, and because what he knew he falsified.  Ultimately indomitable he was, except by death, as Sauron did not fully comprehend, being himself consumed by lust for the Ring.  Then he became filled with a hatred of Sauroneven greater than his terror, seeing in him truly, his greatest enemy and rival.  Thus it was that he dared to pretend thatt he believed that the land of the Halflings was near to the places where he had once dwelt besides the banks of the Gladden." UT - The Hunt for the Ring pg. 352-353.

      Here is where Gollum single-handedly defeats Sauron!  By misleading Sauron and the Nazgul sent out to find the Ring, The nine Nazgul ended up on a wild goosechase where otherwise they would have found the Shire and the Ring weeks sooner.  Strange also when you stop to think that the WitchKing of Angmar would have or should have known all the time where the Shire was.  The Shire was settled in 1601 Third Age while the WitchKing and Angmar were still battling Arthedain.  Angmar was not overthrown until 1975 and some Halfling archers even fought in the final battles against Angmar.  Could this be a Tolkien plothole?  One would think that the Witchking would have said "Hey Boss, I heard about Halflings settling in Arthedain way back in the day, should we not check there first?"  Still, there is no denying that Gollum had the will to resist, defy and even mislead Sauron even under the worst forms of torture imaginable!  Maybe Gollum was somehow reinforced by the spirit of Eru?  All of this happened even before Gollum leads Frodo and Sam from Emyn Muil, the Dead Marches, past the Black gate, down to Ithilien, past Minas Morgul and into Shelobs tunnel and by implication into Mordor.  Gollum definitely has several crucially important roles to play in the Ring’s destruction that are too coincidental to be simply random chance.  Maybe Smeagol/Gollum/Eru was the Unwitting or even Witting/deliberate savior of Middle Earth?

Arthur Weasley 25/Jul/2006 at 04:24 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Thank you Lupul Alb and All!    Actually I think you may have a point.  Smeagol was certainly all that was left of the "good" or "kind/nice" in Gollum but the Ring had them both enslaved for so long that the "evil" Gollum would always win over any "Good" left.  Phil_d_One was the GoTL member who first advanced the Smeagol/Gollum as Eru Iluvatar theory and he also split Smeagol and Gollum apart into opposing forces as you have (wih Smeagol as Eru and Good with Gollum truly evil).  Great minds do think alike!  One thing I did notice about the movies on these points was that they visibly portrayed the duality of Smeagol/Gollum extremely well.  However, even Smeagol would never let Sauron have the Ring back, let alone Gollum.  When Gollum was captured and tortured by Sauron in 3017, there is a passage in Unfinished Tales that deserves to be quoted in full.

"He did not trust Gollum, for he divined something indomitable in him, which could not be overcome, even by the Shadow of Fear, except by destroying him.  But Sauron perceived the depth of Gollums malice towards thosethat had "robbed" him, and guessing that he would go in search of  them to avenge himself, Sauron hoped that his spies would thus be led to the Ring.  Gollum, however, was before long captured by Aragorn, and taken to Northern Mirkwood; and though he was followed, he could not be rescued before he was in safe-keeping.  Now Sauron had never paid heed to the "Halflings," even if he had heard of the, and he did not yet know where their land lay.  From Gollum, even under pain, he could not get any clear account, both because Gollum indeed had no certain knowledge himself, and because what he knew he falsified.  Ultimately indomitable he was, except by death, as Sauron did not fully comprehend, being himself consumed by lust for the Ring.  Then he became filled with a hatred of Sauroneven greater than his terror, seeing in him truly, his greatest enemy and rival.  Thus it was that he dared to pretend thatt he believed that the land of the Halflings was near to the places where he had once dwelt besides the banks of the Gladden." UT - The Hunt for the Ring pg. 352-353.

      Here is where Gollum single-handedly defeats Sauron!  By misleading Sauron and the Nazgul sent out to find the Ring, The nine Nazgul ended up on a wild goosechase where otherwise they would have found the Shire and the Ring weeks sooner.  Strange also when you stop to think that the WitchKing of Angmar would have or should have known all the time where the Shire was.  The Shire was settled in 1601 Third Age while the WitchKing and Angmar were still battling Arthedain.  Angmar was not overthrown until 1975 and some Halfling archers even fought in the final battles against Angmar.  Could this be a Tolkien plothole?  One would think that the Witchking would have said "Hey Boss, I heard about Halflings settling in Arthedain way back in the day, should we not check there first?"  Still, there is no denying that Gollum had the will to resist, defy and even mislead Sauron even under the worst forms of torture imaginable!  Maybe Gollum was somehow reinforced by the spirit of Eru?  All of this happened even before Gollum leads Frodo and Sam from Emyn Muil, the Dead Marches, past the Black gate, down to Ithilien, past Minas Morgul and into Shelobs tunnel and by implication into Mordor.  Gollum definitely has several crucially important roles to play in the Ring’s destruction that are too coincidental to be simply random chance.  Maybe Smeagol/Gollum/Eru was the Unwitting or even Witting/deliberate savior of Middle Earth?

Lupul Alb 25/Jul/2006 at 04:32 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 466 Posts: 549 Joined: 10/Jul/2006
Hy Darth Enalan. Just figured it and must write about it. The unwitting saviour of Middle Earth was non other then the... LAVA of the Volcano. Preatty dumb no?   Can you check my " Addaptation of the LOTR books" in OoME and write to me what you think! Thanx.  Help from Eru or no help from Eru Smeagol is the true hero! It irritated me so when he died! He didn’t deserve such a faith. He was the strongest person beside Sauron who resisted the ring.
Lupul Alb 25/Jul/2006 at 04:32 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 466 Posts: 549 Joined: 10/Jul/2006
Hy Darth Enalan. Just figured it and must write about it. The unwitting saviour of Middle Earth was non other then the... LAVA of the Volcano. Preatty dumb no?   Can you check my " Addaptation of the LOTR books" in OoME and write to me what you think! Thanx.  Help from Eru or no help from Eru Smeagol is the true hero! It irritated me so when he died! He didn’t deserve such a faith. He was the strongest person beside Sauron who resisted the ring.
Lord_Vidύm 25/Jul/2006 at 04:35 AM
Banned Points: 1957 Posts: 2449 Joined: 26/Jun/2004
Gollum could not resist the Ring. That’s why he had to join Sam and Frodo. And he would probably die after the ring was destroyed. Don’t forget that he was already somekind of 500years old. And even if he wasn’t that old to die of age, he would die away of it- his life was bound to the Ring’s fate.
Lord_Vidύm 25/Jul/2006 at 04:35 AM
Banned Points: 1957 Posts: 2449 Joined: 26/Jun/2004
Gollum could not resist the Ring. That’s why he had to join Sam and Frodo. And he would probably die after the ring was destroyed. Don’t forget that he was already somekind of 500years old. And even if he wasn’t that old to die of age, he would die away of it- his life was bound to the Ring’s fate.
Arthur Weasley 25/Jul/2006 at 05:45 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Lupul Alb - Actually the idea of LAVA from the volcano saving Middle Earth is not so bad.  But I guess I would have to require sentient beings/"real" characters like Gollum to qualify for the discussion here.  I will check out your thread. 

Lord_Vidum - I agree with you that Gollum could never resist the Ring.  According to the Appendices, Deagol finds the One Ring in year 2463 Third Age and is immediately murdered by Smeagol who then hides in the mountains around 2470 TA.  Bilbo encounters Gollum during his adventure in 2941 - 478 years after Gollum stole it.  Bilbo had the Ring from 2941-3001TA (exactly 60 years).  Finally Gollum searched for his Precious from 2941-3019TA  (78 years).  The Ring was lost by Isildur in Year 2TA so the Ring was lost for 2461 years.  Numbers bore me but I hope all of these are helpful. 

Arthur Weasley 25/Jul/2006 at 05:45 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Lupul Alb - Actually the idea of LAVA from the volcano saving Middle Earth is not so bad.  But I guess I would have to require sentient beings/"real" characters like Gollum to qualify for the discussion here.  I will check out your thread. 

Lord_Vidum - I agree with you that Gollum could never resist the Ring.  According to the Appendices, Deagol finds the One Ring in year 2463 Third Age and is immediately murdered by Smeagol who then hides in the mountains around 2470 TA.  Bilbo encounters Gollum during his adventure in 2941 - 478 years after Gollum stole it.  Bilbo had the Ring from 2941-3001TA (exactly 60 years).  Finally Gollum searched for his Precious from 2941-3019TA  (78 years).  The Ring was lost by Isildur in Year 2TA so the Ring was lost for 2461 years.  Numbers bore me but I hope all of these are helpful. 

Arthur Weasley 27/Jul/2006 at 09:14 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Could Gollum have escaped witht the Ring from the Cracks of Doom?  This is something I have never considered before.  As soon as Frodo put the Ring on his finger within Sammath Naur, Sauron became aware of him and realized "Oh Crap.....I and my realm are at extremely lethal risk! Oh Nazgul!  You boys better fly yourselves down to Mount Doom and please kill everyone you find there.  You will also get the Ring."  Even if Gollum managed to get past both Frodo and Sam with his Precious, would he have gotten much further?  Surely with all Nine (opps, I meant eight) Nazgul bearing down on Mt. Doom I believe that it is highly unlikely that Gollum would have even reached the base of the Mountain, let alone escape cover.  Even If Gollum put the Ring on it would only make himself easier to find in Mordor.  I would imagine that the Nazgul would find him, slay him, recapture the Ring and then return it to Sauron along with Gandalf’s staff, Aragorn’s Sword Andruil/Narsil, and any other tokens/momentos that Sauron would wish.  Thank the powers of Arda that Gollum slipped and spilled over into himself and the Ring’s destruction.  Or did his subconcious connection with Eru caused him to momentarily hesitate and thus stumble?    
Arthur Weasley 27/Jul/2006 at 09:14 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Could Gollum have escaped witht the Ring from the Cracks of Doom?  This is something I have never considered before.  As soon as Frodo put the Ring on his finger within Sammath Naur, Sauron became aware of him and realized "Oh Crap.....I and my realm are at extremely lethal risk! Oh Nazgul!  You boys better fly yourselves down to Mount Doom and please kill everyone you find there.  You will also get the Ring."  Even if Gollum managed to get past both Frodo and Sam with his Precious, would he have gotten much further?  Surely with all Nine (opps, I meant eight) Nazgul bearing down on Mt. Doom I believe that it is highly unlikely that Gollum would have even reached the base of the Mountain, let alone escape cover.  Even If Gollum put the Ring on it would only make himself easier to find in Mordor.  I would imagine that the Nazgul would find him, slay him, recapture the Ring and then return it to Sauron along with Gandalf’s staff, Aragorn’s Sword Andruil/Narsil, and any other tokens/momentos that Sauron would wish.  Thank the powers of Arda that Gollum slipped and spilled over into himself and the Ring’s destruction.  Or did his subconcious connection with Eru caused him to momentarily hesitate and thus stumble?    
Ehtelë Vírië 01/Aug/2006 at 05:19 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 950 Posts: 912 Joined: 21/Oct/2004

I don’t beleive that he saved Middle-Earth from Sauron. Frodo and Sam were the ones that actually had the ring all the time, but maybe Gollum was an agent of Eru. He was their guide until he apparently lost his mind for lust of the Ring. But why would he try to kill Frodo if he was only there to ensure that he did his job and destroyed the ring? What would have he done with the ring if Frodo died and Sam went back to the Shire? Would he have destroyed the Ring? He still had some good in him, and that part would tell him to go and destroy the Ring, while the other would hide in the Misty Mountains with his precious.

In answer to your question DarthEnalan, I’d say that he would escape Mordor and then put the ring on and then hide into the Misty Mountains. Frodo, at that point would probably chase him and go insane, with lust for the Ring, and it would be his doom. So I think its coincedence that he fell off with the ring and that he maybe wasn’t a servant of Eru.

But I also have an alternative. He could have lured Sam to save Frodo, strengthening his distrust for him and lust for the ring, so that they could be more on their gaurd to destroy the Ring. They had to be more careful and had to get to Cirith Ungol to get orc armor for disguise, thus getting to the mountain without any suspicion. So Gollum had to have Frodo as bait so that the orcs, who he knew were on patrol in these parts would go to Cirith Ungol, where Sam would save him and get Orcish armor for disguise. Being as an agent of Eru, he wouldv’e known all of this, but the question remains: was he an agent of Eru or not? Were hobbits agents of Eru in their own rights?

Ehtelë Vírië 01/Aug/2006 at 05:19 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 950 Posts: 912 Joined: 21/Oct/2004

I don’t beleive that he saved Middle-Earth from Sauron. Frodo and Sam were the ones that actually had the ring all the time, but maybe Gollum was an agent of Eru. He was their guide until he apparently lost his mind for lust of the Ring. But why would he try to kill Frodo if he was only there to ensure that he did his job and destroyed the ring? What would have he done with the ring if Frodo died and Sam went back to the Shire? Would he have destroyed the Ring? He still had some good in him, and that part would tell him to go and destroy the Ring, while the other would hide in the Misty Mountains with his precious.

In answer to your question DarthEnalan, I’d say that he would escape Mordor and then put the ring on and then hide into the Misty Mountains. Frodo, at that point would probably chase him and go insane, with lust for the Ring, and it would be his doom. So I think its coincedence that he fell off with the ring and that he maybe wasn’t a servant of Eru.

But I also have an alternative. He could have lured Sam to save Frodo, strengthening his distrust for him and lust for the ring, so that they could be more on their gaurd to destroy the Ring. They had to be more careful and had to get to Cirith Ungol to get orc armor for disguise, thus getting to the mountain without any suspicion. So Gollum had to have Frodo as bait so that the orcs, who he knew were on patrol in these parts would go to Cirith Ungol, where Sam would save him and get Orcish armor for disguise. Being as an agent of Eru, he wouldv’e known all of this, but the question remains: was he an agent of Eru or not? Were hobbits agents of Eru in their own rights?

Arthur Weasley 01/Aug/2006 at 07:06 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Totally Awesome thoughts Ehtele Virie!  It is this kind of ruminating that makes threads like these so much fun.  Has anyone else noticed how much attention Gollum has been getting lately?  There is another thread here in Advanced Lore entitled "Smeagol/Gollum the Psychology.  Along with this I have found two more threads.  One in the Istari Plaza Kingdom entitled The Scholarly Sages of Erudition - Gollum and yet another in Middle Earth Peoples and Races called "Gollum’ helps schizo."  One point I have been stressing in this forum is INTENT vs. ACTION-RESULT.  Does it really matter what Gollum intended?  Or did his actions save Middle Earth from destruction?  Another point on human nature of Gollum I mentioned earlier...

As for Smeagol/Gollum and the Ring, I believe in a simple syllogism.  In the beginning, Smeagol was a good person with some hidden darker/evil elements in his character.  The Ring gradually intensifies the darker/evil qualities over time while also slowly degrading the concious will and desire to perform good in people.  Smeagol/Gollum’s personality is the result of possessing the Ring for 478 years.  So I think that GtheW is right that the old Ying Yang principle (ie there is both a little good and evil in us at once) and that Gollum is no exception.   Would Smeagol have killed Deagol without the Ring’s destructive influence? Excellent question loremisstressre!  Most probably not.  Still, Maybe Smeagol and Deagol might have fought over something else?

Anyway, I humbly disagree with you Ehtele Virie.  Maybe Gollum did save Middle Earth when his subconcious will motivated by Eru compelled him to gloat over his prize and fall to his doom? I wish that all of these threads could be combined into the Ultimate Gollum Archive. 

Arthur Weasley 01/Aug/2006 at 07:06 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Totally Awesome thoughts Ehtele Virie!  It is this kind of ruminating that makes threads like these so much fun.  Has anyone else noticed how much attention Gollum has been getting lately?  There is another thread here in Advanced Lore entitled "Smeagol/Gollum the Psychology.  Along with this I have found two more threads.  One in the Istari Plaza Kingdom entitled The Scholarly Sages of Erudition - Gollum and yet another in Middle Earth Peoples and Races called "Gollum’ helps schizo."  One point I have been stressing in this forum is INTENT vs. ACTION-RESULT.  Does it really matter what Gollum intended?  Or did his actions save Middle Earth from destruction?  Another point on human nature of Gollum I mentioned earlier...

As for Smeagol/Gollum and the Ring, I believe in a simple syllogism.  In the beginning, Smeagol was a good person with some hidden darker/evil elements in his character.  The Ring gradually intensifies the darker/evil qualities over time while also slowly degrading the concious will and desire to perform good in people.  Smeagol/Gollum’s personality is the result of possessing the Ring for 478 years.  So I think that GtheW is right that the old Ying Yang principle (ie there is both a little good and evil in us at once) and that Gollum is no exception.   Would Smeagol have killed Deagol without the Ring’s destructive influence? Excellent question loremisstressre!  Most probably not.  Still, Maybe Smeagol and Deagol might have fought over something else?

Anyway, I humbly disagree with you Ehtele Virie.  Maybe Gollum did save Middle Earth when his subconcious will motivated by Eru compelled him to gloat over his prize and fall to his doom? I wish that all of these threads could be combined into the Ultimate Gollum Archive. 

Ecthelion Anor 02/Aug/2006 at 06:56 PM
Labourer of Minas Tirith Points: 132 Posts: 73 Joined: 31/Jul/2006
I do believe Gollum/Smeagol was the savior of Middle- Earth because if he had just ran out with the Ring the Nazgul would have caught him and taken the Ring back to Sauron. sauron would have taken his physical form went and destroyed all the kingdoms of the Free Peoples and the world is dark. By dancing around with the Ring and then finally falling he ultimately did what Frodo at the end could not and destroyed evil forever.
Ecthelion Anor 02/Aug/2006 at 06:56 PM
Labourer of Minas Tirith Points: 132 Posts: 73 Joined: 31/Jul/2006
I do believe Gollum/Smeagol was the savior of Middle- Earth because if he had just ran out with the Ring the Nazgul would have caught him and taken the Ring back to Sauron. sauron would have taken his physical form went and destroyed all the kingdoms of the Free Peoples and the world is dark. By dancing around with the Ring and then finally falling he ultimately did what Frodo at the end could not and destroyed evil forever.
Arthur Weasley 03/Aug/2006 at 06:02 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ecthelion - Well Said!  Well said indeed!  I could not agree with you more.  You said in just a few sentences what I have been trying to say for at least ten posts.  Also Welcome to the LOTRPlaza O worthy man of Gondor!  Whatever Gollum’s intent was, his actions saved Middle Earth from Sauron’s darkness.  When Frodo forgives Gollum afterwards, I believe that it was a fitting tribute.   
Arthur Weasley 03/Aug/2006 at 06:02 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ecthelion - Well Said!  Well said indeed!  I could not agree with you more.  You said in just a few sentences what I have been trying to say for at least ten posts.  Also Welcome to the LOTRPlaza O worthy man of Gondor!  Whatever Gollum’s intent was, his actions saved Middle Earth from Sauron’s darkness.  When Frodo forgives Gollum afterwards, I believe that it was a fitting tribute.   
turgon1990 03/Aug/2006 at 10:28 AM
New Soul Points: 205 Posts: 37 Joined: 14/Jan/2006
willing or not the fact is gollum destroyed the ring, mabye he didn’t want to but he did.if he hadn’t attacked sam and frodo he would not have became there guide or be there to slip and fall with the ring into the lava of mt doom. however gandalf knew gollum would help bring the destuction of the ring it is the reason gandalf did not let him be killed.
turgon1990 03/Aug/2006 at 10:28 AM
New Soul Points: 205 Posts: 37 Joined: 14/Jan/2006
willing or not the fact is gollum destroyed the ring, mabye he didn’t want to but he did.if he hadn’t attacked sam and frodo he would not have became there guide or be there to slip and fall with the ring into the lava of mt doom. however gandalf knew gollum would help bring the destuction of the ring it is the reason gandalf did not let him be killed.
Ehtelë Vírië 03/Aug/2006 at 11:38 AM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 950 Posts: 912 Joined: 21/Oct/2004
Just think that if Bilbo had killed Gollum then the world would have been doomed. So in a way, if we say that Gollum accidentaly destroyed the ring, though he still did, then we must also say that Bilbo could have killed him but didn’t, thus being the savior too. He had the chance but didn’t kill the nasty bugger. So in a way Bilbo actually saved Middle Earth from Sauron, in my opinion at least.
Ehtelë Vírië 03/Aug/2006 at 11:38 AM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 950 Posts: 912 Joined: 21/Oct/2004
Just think that if Bilbo had killed Gollum then the world would have been doomed. So in a way, if we say that Gollum accidentaly destroyed the ring, though he still did, then we must also say that Bilbo could have killed him but didn’t, thus being the savior too. He had the chance but didn’t kill the nasty bugger. So in a way Bilbo actually saved Middle Earth from Sauron, in my opinion at least.
Arthur Weasley 03/Aug/2006 at 12:31 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ehtele Virie - WOW!  Excellent thought!   Bilbo’s pity by not killing Gollum back in the Hobbit when he had the chance most definitely decided the fate of Sauron, Mordor and Middle Earth at least indirectly.  Certainly Frodo and Sam never would have gotten anywhere near Mt. Doom without Gollum and if Bilbo killed him in the Hobbit, we would have had Sauron most likely triumph.  Another "small oversight," mentioned in the Unfinished Tales is when Sauron captures Thrain II (Thorin Oakenshield’s father), takes the last of the Seven Rings, and just throws him into the dungeons of Dol Guildor without bothering to search him completely.  Had Sauron done so, he would have found the Map of Erebor and the Key.  Then Gandalf would never have received them from Thrain in Dol Guildur before Thrain died.  Gandalf would not have given them to Thorin and Thorin may never have set out for the Lonely Mountain (or would have been reduced to ash by Smaug). "A small oversight.  But it proved fatal.  Small oversights often do."
Arthur Weasley 03/Aug/2006 at 12:31 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ehtele Virie - WOW!  Excellent thought!   Bilbo’s pity by not killing Gollum back in the Hobbit when he had the chance most definitely decided the fate of Sauron, Mordor and Middle Earth at least indirectly.  Certainly Frodo and Sam never would have gotten anywhere near Mt. Doom without Gollum and if Bilbo killed him in the Hobbit, we would have had Sauron most likely triumph.  Another "small oversight," mentioned in the Unfinished Tales is when Sauron captures Thrain II (Thorin Oakenshield’s father), takes the last of the Seven Rings, and just throws him into the dungeons of Dol Guildor without bothering to search him completely.  Had Sauron done so, he would have found the Map of Erebor and the Key.  Then Gandalf would never have received them from Thrain in Dol Guildur before Thrain died.  Gandalf would not have given them to Thorin and Thorin may never have set out for the Lonely Mountain (or would have been reduced to ash by Smaug). "A small oversight.  But it proved fatal.  Small oversights often do."
Ehtelë Vírië 03/Aug/2006 at 03:29 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 950 Posts: 912 Joined: 21/Oct/2004

DarthEnalan-I just recently read the UF and did not notice that. Good insight!  I also have another idea to mention. BIlbo also could have delayed the destruction of the Ring by vanishing from Gandalf when he asked for the Ring. Without Gandalfs warm advice, he probably would have been corrupted just as Gollum was. Who knows what he would have done with it? He might have even lived for many miserable years in the Old Forest or other not so popular places. Then how would they find the Ring without some searching and sheer luck? Then the assault on Minas Tirith would come, and Minas Tirith would have been, (however slowly) destroyed, since Frodo did not have the Ring, Bilbo did, and Pippin and Gandalf did not send the call for help, because what would be the benifet of going there without the Ring. Gandalf would have probably assisted Minas Tirith, but then again because of his pity and fondess of Bilbo he might have searched for him. But Gandalf had to stay in Minas Tirith and give orders, because Denethor wasn’t doing his job, and there’d be questions as to why he was lighting the beacon. Would he have to get authorization from the Steward? By that time it’d been too late... But how would he even get to MInas Tirith if no-one was there except him to choose whether he should go into Moria or by Orthanc. He’s the one that wanted to go by Orthanc, if memory serves. What if he didn’t ’die’ because the Balrog and go to Minas Tirith? Would he be as wise in the coming battle? Just some more questions to ponder.

Ehtelë Vírië 03/Aug/2006 at 03:29 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 950 Posts: 912 Joined: 21/Oct/2004

DarthEnalan-I just recently read the UF and did not notice that. Good insight!  I also have another idea to mention. BIlbo also could have delayed the destruction of the Ring by vanishing from Gandalf when he asked for the Ring. Without Gandalfs warm advice, he probably would have been corrupted just as Gollum was. Who knows what he would have done with it? He might have even lived for many miserable years in the Old Forest or other not so popular places. Then how would they find the Ring without some searching and sheer luck? Then the assault on Minas Tirith would come, and Minas Tirith would have been, (however slowly) destroyed, since Frodo did not have the Ring, Bilbo did, and Pippin and Gandalf did not send the call for help, because what would be the benifet of going there without the Ring. Gandalf would have probably assisted Minas Tirith, but then again because of his pity and fondess of Bilbo he might have searched for him. But Gandalf had to stay in Minas Tirith and give orders, because Denethor wasn’t doing his job, and there’d be questions as to why he was lighting the beacon. Would he have to get authorization from the Steward? By that time it’d been too late... But how would he even get to MInas Tirith if no-one was there except him to choose whether he should go into Moria or by Orthanc. He’s the one that wanted to go by Orthanc, if memory serves. What if he didn’t ’die’ because the Balrog and go to Minas Tirith? Would he be as wise in the coming battle? Just some more questions to ponder.

Arthur Weasley 03/Aug/2006 at 08:36 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ehtele Virie - Wonderful "what if" questions!  What if Bilbo refused to give the Ring to Frodo and took off?  I think that Gandalf and Frodo would have pursued him but where would he go?  The whole bit about Pippin lighting the beacons against Denethor’s will though was a movie subplot.  In the books the beacons are lit by presumably Denethor’s orders and Gandalf with Pippin see them lit as they ride from Rohan to Gondor.  Iwonder what might have happened if some of the Lothlorien Elves captured Gollum while the Fellowship was still in Lorien?  Would Galadriel have killed him?  Probably not.  She surely would have kept Gollum for safe keeping while the Fellowship continued on but Gollum would have probably escaped just as he had done from Thrandruil’s realm.
Arthur Weasley 03/Aug/2006 at 08:36 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ehtele Virie - Wonderful "what if" questions!  What if Bilbo refused to give the Ring to Frodo and took off?  I think that Gandalf and Frodo would have pursued him but where would he go?  The whole bit about Pippin lighting the beacons against Denethor’s will though was a movie subplot.  In the books the beacons are lit by presumably Denethor’s orders and Gandalf with Pippin see them lit as they ride from Rohan to Gondor.  Iwonder what might have happened if some of the Lothlorien Elves captured Gollum while the Fellowship was still in Lorien?  Would Galadriel have killed him?  Probably not.  She surely would have kept Gollum for safe keeping while the Fellowship continued on but Gollum would have probably escaped just as he had done from Thrandruil’s realm.
Gildor2 04/Aug/2006 at 04:19 AM
Apprentice of Erebor Points: 22 Posts: 9 Joined: 03/Aug/2006

I don’t believe Gollum is the unwitten savior of middle earth, at least not until the very end of the story in the cracks of doom,  for he was all along just a servant of his Master Frodo (Frodo spared his live in Emyn Muil) and promised to take him to mordor. Certainly, if Gollum had somehow got to the One Ring before Mordor his part as ’savior’ would have been over and he would take the Ring for his own and head back for his dark hiding places. In short: I think Gollum was a savior in the cracks of doom at the end of the story because Frodo was finally overcome by the power of the Ring and dear old Sam wouldnt have dared to touch his own master and he (and the Ring) wouldve walked straight into the arms of the Ringwraiths..

As Gandalf said: Even Gollum might have a part to play when it comes to the end..                                                   

Gildor2 04/Aug/2006 at 04:19 AM
Apprentice of Erebor Points: 22 Posts: 9 Joined: 03/Aug/2006

I don’t believe Gollum is the unwitten savior of middle earth, at least not until the very end of the story in the cracks of doom,  for he was all along just a servant of his Master Frodo (Frodo spared his live in Emyn Muil) and promised to take him to mordor. Certainly, if Gollum had somehow got to the One Ring before Mordor his part as ’savior’ would have been over and he would take the Ring for his own and head back for his dark hiding places. In short: I think Gollum was a savior in the cracks of doom at the end of the story because Frodo was finally overcome by the power of the Ring and dear old Sam wouldnt have dared to touch his own master and he (and the Ring) wouldve walked straight into the arms of the Ringwraiths..

As Gandalf said: Even Gollum might have a part to play when it comes to the end..                                                   

Arthur Weasley 04/Aug/2006 at 05:49 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Gildor2 - Well said, and I do respect your viewpoint.  However, I politely disagree.  I keep mentioning the dichotomy between intent vs. action.  Whatever Gollum’s intent was (his intent was to get the Ring back at any cost so he could keep it again) his subsequent actions causing the Ring’s destruction, though unintended, had wonderfully positive effects.  Gollum should be universally praised for doing what Isildur, Boromir, and even Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel and Frodo could not do, he destroyed the One Ring.
Arthur Weasley 04/Aug/2006 at 05:49 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Gildor2 - Well said, and I do respect your viewpoint.  However, I politely disagree.  I keep mentioning the dichotomy between intent vs. action.  Whatever Gollum’s intent was (his intent was to get the Ring back at any cost so he could keep it again) his subsequent actions causing the Ring’s destruction, though unintended, had wonderfully positive effects.  Gollum should be universally praised for doing what Isildur, Boromir, and even Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel and Frodo could not do, he destroyed the One Ring.
Gildor2 05/Aug/2006 at 12:33 AM
Apprentice of Erebor Points: 22 Posts: 9 Joined: 03/Aug/2006

That’s a wonderful tought, ofcourse, and i agree with you, but how should you distinguish the intents and the actions with a creature like Gollum? His actions, in this case are kind of accidentally happened.. and his intentions were even worse now with the ring for his own and Stinker taking over in his mind.

Still, i think u are right on saying he should be praised, and i believe there could be no better ending for this wretched creature then falling together with his precious in the very cracks of where this precious was forged..

Gildor2 05/Aug/2006 at 12:33 AM
Apprentice of Erebor Points: 22 Posts: 9 Joined: 03/Aug/2006

That’s a wonderful tought, ofcourse, and i agree with you, but how should you distinguish the intents and the actions with a creature like Gollum? His actions, in this case are kind of accidentally happened.. and his intentions were even worse now with the ring for his own and Stinker taking over in his mind.

Still, i think u are right on saying he should be praised, and i believe there could be no better ending for this wretched creature then falling together with his precious in the very cracks of where this precious was forged..

Arthur Weasley 05/Aug/2006 at 09:59 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Gildor2 - Actually ,members of the Guild of Twisted Lore Plaza House have advanced the idea that Gollum’s fall was not as "accidental," as supposed.  Maybe he really was Eru Illuvatar in  disguise who wanted to ensure the Rings destruction!  Or maybe Eru influenced Gollums subconcious mind into slipping and falling?  Seriously though, my point about intent vs action was how Gollum would not have deliberately wanted or intended to destroy the Ring, but his accidental actions resulted in the Ring’s destruction, Mordor and Sauron defeated and the Happy Ending for the Red Book.  I believe I mentioned some legal examples above.  You are right that with Stinker overriding Slinker, Gollum would have gleefully murdered both Frodo and Sam if given the opportunity.  There are several great threads on Gollum right now and in a post today I linked all of them together.  Here is a link to the three links.   LINK to the LINK to the LINK! I am getting silly!  But Gollum really is an excellent focal point for almost endless discussion.
Arthur Weasley 05/Aug/2006 at 09:59 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Gildor2 - Actually ,members of the Guild of Twisted Lore Plaza House have advanced the idea that Gollum’s fall was not as "accidental," as supposed.  Maybe he really was Eru Illuvatar in  disguise who wanted to ensure the Rings destruction!  Or maybe Eru influenced Gollums subconcious mind into slipping and falling?  Seriously though, my point about intent vs action was how Gollum would not have deliberately wanted or intended to destroy the Ring, but his accidental actions resulted in the Ring’s destruction, Mordor and Sauron defeated and the Happy Ending for the Red Book.  I believe I mentioned some legal examples above.  You are right that with Stinker overriding Slinker, Gollum would have gleefully murdered both Frodo and Sam if given the opportunity.  There are several great threads on Gollum right now and in a post today I linked all of them together.  Here is a link to the three links.   LINK to the LINK to the LINK! I am getting silly!  But Gollum really is an excellent focal point for almost endless discussion.
Dwarf5 06/Aug/2006 at 11:32 AM
Delver of Erebor Points: 225 Posts: 6 Joined: 23/Jul/2006

i dont think it could have happend any other way than it did. all thos events had to take place in that order for the ring to be destroyed. and besides it wasnt just gollum that got frodo to ther crack of doom  u have to think if it wernt for aragorn and the people at the black gate it would have been impossible for frodo to get across mordor. and ofcourse we cant forget sam, im not even going to get into all he did. and then u have to think if gollum was the hero who made him the hero, who alowed gollum to survive when he could have killed him. bilbo. so if gollum is the hero then biblo should get most of the credit for even alowing gollum to be alive untill then.

Dwarf5 06/Aug/2006 at 11:32 AM
Delver of Erebor Points: 225 Posts: 6 Joined: 23/Jul/2006

i dont think it could have happend any other way than it did. all thos events had to take place in that order for the ring to be destroyed. and besides it wasnt just gollum that got frodo to ther crack of doom  u have to think if it wernt for aragorn and the people at the black gate it would have been impossible for frodo to get across mordor. and ofcourse we cant forget sam, im not even going to get into all he did. and then u have to think if gollum was the hero who made him the hero, who alowed gollum to survive when he could have killed him. bilbo. so if gollum is the hero then biblo should get most of the credit for even alowing gollum to be alive untill then.

Arthur Weasley 06/Aug/2006 at 06:05 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Dwarf5 - Goods points!  We discussed Bilbo sparing Gollum and its significance above and you are right as well.  There is just so much fun discussing Gollum.  And Yes, I agree also that sometimes Sam is the real hero.  Towards the end and certainly after the Ring is destroyed, Frodo becomes more of a dreamy pacifist.  Ihave often wondered that IF Frodo or Sam had destroyed the Ring  without Gollum falling, what would have happened to Gollum?  Would he have begun to superage like bilbo did?  Would he have "crackled, withered and went out," like the Eight Nazgul?   Any ideas?  
Arthur Weasley 06/Aug/2006 at 06:05 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Dwarf5 - Goods points!  We discussed Bilbo sparing Gollum and its significance above and you are right as well.  There is just so much fun discussing Gollum.  And Yes, I agree also that sometimes Sam is the real hero.  Towards the end and certainly after the Ring is destroyed, Frodo becomes more of a dreamy pacifist.  Ihave often wondered that IF Frodo or Sam had destroyed the Ring  without Gollum falling, what would have happened to Gollum?  Would he have begun to superage like bilbo did?  Would he have "crackled, withered and went out," like the Eight Nazgul?   Any ideas?  
círdan ar-fenil 11/Aug/2006 at 05:07 AM
Apprentice of Minas Tirith Points: 223 Posts: 64 Joined: 07/Aug/2006
I think in a way gollem is the savior of middle earth cause if gollem hadn’t been there something terribly wrong could happen because if he hadn’t tried to take the ring from frodo, frodo would have hold the ring to himself and becauese sam didn’t anything as we see it would be a huge problem so i think gollem was there at the right moment
círdan ar-fenil 11/Aug/2006 at 05:07 AM
Apprentice of Minas Tirith Points: 223 Posts: 64 Joined: 07/Aug/2006
I think in a way gollem is the savior of middle earth cause if gollem hadn’t been there something terribly wrong could happen because if he hadn’t tried to take the ring from frodo, frodo would have hold the ring to himself and becauese sam didn’t anything as we see it would be a huge problem so i think gollem was there at the right moment
Arthur Weasley 11/Aug/2006 at 10:50 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Cirdan ar-fenil - Greetings and Welcome to the Plaza!  Yes, I agree with you.  In my opinion, Frodo and Sam would not have gotten anywhere near Sammath Naur (Mt. Doom) without Gollum and Gollum is the one who actually destroys the Ring (certainly unintentionally).  Take a look at the rest of the posts here in this forum and please add any thoughts you wish here.  Have a great weekend and see you about the Plaza!  
Arthur Weasley 11/Aug/2006 at 10:50 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Cirdan ar-fenil - Greetings and Welcome to the Plaza!  Yes, I agree with you.  In my opinion, Frodo and Sam would not have gotten anywhere near Sammath Naur (Mt. Doom) without Gollum and Gollum is the one who actually destroys the Ring (certainly unintentionally).  Take a look at the rest of the posts here in this forum and please add any thoughts you wish here.  Have a great weekend and see you about the Plaza!  
shadowoflegolas 11/Aug/2006 at 04:30 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006

Quote: Originally posted by Eglaernil on Friday, June 30, 2006


I’m a big believer in the Eru effect as a parallel to God in this Earth. But I don’t think that Gollum is a secret agent, I just think he was another player in the game. He commited an awful crime, lots of awful crimes actually, so he required redemption, and Eru the just game him that. It’s like the question in our world, why doesn’t God just fix the problems in the world? But all of the darkness in our world, and middle earth is needed to make people better. I mean obviously everyone on the journey came out scarred with sacrifices, but it made them better people. I mean just for example, Bilbo and Frodo now get to go over the seas.

There is a verse in the Bible that says: "And all things work together for good for those who love God and those who are called according to His purpose." 

There is another verse in the Bible that states that God appoints and denounces kings at will and as he pleases.

If Eru is omniscient, knowing past, present and future, everyone is a servant or agent of Eru. Just as God chooses people on earth, whether good men, evil men, or whoever to accomplish His purposes, it was the same with Eru and Gollum.  Eru, the ultimate creator and the one who understands all, brought the right people together around Frodo to make sure that all things worked together for good for middle earth and to the good creatures living on the Earth. Eru appointed Gollum to do the things that he would do. EVERYTHING fell in to place the way Eru willed it.  (Or in the true case, the way TOLKIEN wanted, it, he, actually is ERU hahaha)  

shadowoflegolas 11/Aug/2006 at 04:30 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006

Quote: Originally posted by Eglaernil on Friday, June 30, 2006


I’m a big believer in the Eru effect as a parallel to God in this Earth. But I don’t think that Gollum is a secret agent, I just think he was another player in the game. He commited an awful crime, lots of awful crimes actually, so he required redemption, and Eru the just game him that. It’s like the question in our world, why doesn’t God just fix the problems in the world? But all of the darkness in our world, and middle earth is needed to make people better. I mean obviously everyone on the journey came out scarred with sacrifices, but it made them better people. I mean just for example, Bilbo and Frodo now get to go over the seas.

There is a verse in the Bible that says: "And all things work together for good for those who love God and those who are called according to His purpose." 

There is another verse in the Bible that states that God appoints and denounces kings at will and as he pleases.

If Eru is omniscient, knowing past, present and future, everyone is a servant or agent of Eru. Just as God chooses people on earth, whether good men, evil men, or whoever to accomplish His purposes, it was the same with Eru and Gollum.  Eru, the ultimate creator and the one who understands all, brought the right people together around Frodo to make sure that all things worked together for good for middle earth and to the good creatures living on the Earth. Eru appointed Gollum to do the things that he would do. EVERYTHING fell in to place the way Eru willed it.  (Or in the true case, the way TOLKIEN wanted, it, he, actually is ERU hahaha)  

BaneOfHuan 11/Aug/2006 at 10:49 PM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 161 Posts: 8 Joined: 11/Aug/2006

gollum was if not an unwitting saviour of middle earth, at least a major factor involved in the safekeeping and destruction of the ring of power. he kept it safely hidden from saurons gaze for centuries and as frodo seemed to be willing to betray his friends gollum stole the ring and fell with it into the fires of mount doom, thereby ending frodos dilemma of what to do with the ring

BaneOfHuan 11/Aug/2006 at 10:49 PM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 161 Posts: 8 Joined: 11/Aug/2006

gollum was if not an unwitting saviour of middle earth, at least a major factor involved in the safekeeping and destruction of the ring of power. he kept it safely hidden from saurons gaze for centuries and as frodo seemed to be willing to betray his friends gollum stole the ring and fell with it into the fires of mount doom, thereby ending frodos dilemma of what to do with the ring

Arthur Weasley 12/Aug/2006 at 06:02 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

ShadowofLegolas - Excellent views!  Tolkien is ERU!  Your biblical quotation is extremely relevent and thought provoking (it brings me back to one of my graduate schools).  If everything in Middloe Earth is determined by Eru Illuvatar. then how do we account for free will?  Does free will actually exist?  Gollum destroyed the Ring without intending to (Oh no!  I am mentioning intent again!  What am I doing?) and this could be simply God/Eru/Tolkien/Universe Creator’s will. 

BaneOfHuan - Welcome to the Plaza!  I agree with you and I know that you will enjoy this forum!  You gave me aninteresting thought.  Would Sam have been able to destroy the Ring?  Certainly Frodo would not or could not.  Gollum would never willingly harm his Precious (though in the event he did).  What about Sam?  Would he have been able to cast the Ring into the Fire/Lava?  My answer would be YES because Sam was imbued with a lot of  "common Hobbit sense," that allowed him to resist the Ring even when it tempted him in the books (anyone can look up the quote and I will do so later).  I have always viewed Samwise Gamgee as the quintissential true hero of the LOTR books and he seems to earn exactly what he wanted.  Rosie Cotton and a large family would be more tempting and persuasive than the Ring on Sam.  What can we all do with this?

Arthur Weasley 12/Aug/2006 at 06:02 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

ShadowofLegolas - Excellent views!  Tolkien is ERU!  Your biblical quotation is extremely relevent and thought provoking (it brings me back to one of my graduate schools).  If everything in Middloe Earth is determined by Eru Illuvatar. then how do we account for free will?  Does free will actually exist?  Gollum destroyed the Ring without intending to (Oh no!  I am mentioning intent again!  What am I doing?) and this could be simply God/Eru/Tolkien/Universe Creator’s will. 

BaneOfHuan - Welcome to the Plaza!  I agree with you and I know that you will enjoy this forum!  You gave me aninteresting thought.  Would Sam have been able to destroy the Ring?  Certainly Frodo would not or could not.  Gollum would never willingly harm his Precious (though in the event he did).  What about Sam?  Would he have been able to cast the Ring into the Fire/Lava?  My answer would be YES because Sam was imbued with a lot of  "common Hobbit sense," that allowed him to resist the Ring even when it tempted him in the books (anyone can look up the quote and I will do so later).  I have always viewed Samwise Gamgee as the quintissential true hero of the LOTR books and he seems to earn exactly what he wanted.  Rosie Cotton and a large family would be more tempting and persuasive than the Ring on Sam.  What can we all do with this?

shadowoflegolas 12/Aug/2006 at 08:52 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006

Radagast: People do have free will, but as all being creatures made by an omnicient, past, present and future knowing God, he knew what choices we were going to make before the beginning of time. So in that sense, I guess free will doesn’t exist in a way, everything that is done eventually contributes to the ultimate Will and Glory of God. I guess it’s the same with Eru/Tolkien. In order to write a good, enjoyable story with the good guys winning out over evil, this all was necessary. So Gollum’s will had to line up with Eru’s/Tolkien’s and this is what caused him to do what he did, because in the end evil was destroyed and Eru was glorified. 

However I must disagree with you about Sam being able to throw it in to the fire, Sauron made a little "failsafe" in the making of his ring. He made it so that the Ring’s will was STRONGEST in that place (the fires of Mt. Doom) and that anyone who managed to make it that far could NEVER throw it in willingly. Sam couldn’t have done it, Isildur couldn’t have done it, NO ONE could have done it. Which is why it never entered into Sauron’s darkest dreams that they were trying to destroy it, because he had made it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to willingly throw it into the fire, which is why Eru kind of HAD to interviene and make Gollum stumble and fall in.

shadowoflegolas 12/Aug/2006 at 08:52 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006

Radagast: People do have free will, but as all being creatures made by an omnicient, past, present and future knowing God, he knew what choices we were going to make before the beginning of time. So in that sense, I guess free will doesn’t exist in a way, everything that is done eventually contributes to the ultimate Will and Glory of God. I guess it’s the same with Eru/Tolkien. In order to write a good, enjoyable story with the good guys winning out over evil, this all was necessary. So Gollum’s will had to line up with Eru’s/Tolkien’s and this is what caused him to do what he did, because in the end evil was destroyed and Eru was glorified. 

However I must disagree with you about Sam being able to throw it in to the fire, Sauron made a little "failsafe" in the making of his ring. He made it so that the Ring’s will was STRONGEST in that place (the fires of Mt. Doom) and that anyone who managed to make it that far could NEVER throw it in willingly. Sam couldn’t have done it, Isildur couldn’t have done it, NO ONE could have done it. Which is why it never entered into Sauron’s darkest dreams that they were trying to destroy it, because he had made it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to willingly throw it into the fire, which is why Eru kind of HAD to interviene and make Gollum stumble and fall in.

Arthur Weasley 13/Aug/2006 at 03:52 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Shadowoflegolas - Very interesting points!   Yes, I do believe in anomnipotent and omnicient God who would know what all of our individual destinies would be at the moment of creation.  But I cannot help wondering if He would concern himself with which candy bar I will get today at the WalMart.  Sometimes I like to believe thatwe have the free choice to follow the path that God wants us too or not.  When we stray from that path, that is when we get into trouble.  Perhaps Gollum one act of redemption would be his accidently destroying the Ring.  Can one accidently find redemption or salvation?  I hope Gollum did.

Interesting also about the growing power of the Ring near Mount Doom.  Both in the books and Movies, Elrond seems to have been willing to destroy the Ring after the Last Alliance but posession is 9/10th’s of the law and Isildur refused at that point.  Could Aragorn or Gandalf have destroyed the Ring?  Gandalf was unwilling even to touch it but I think he could have or would have if there were no other choice.  How about Gimli, Legolas or even Pippin or Merry?  Your idea of Sauron’s "failsafe," built into the Ring is ingenious and maybe you are right that no one at all could have destroyed it.  Thank Goodness for Gollum’s little Whoops perhaps with Eru’s intervention!   Frodo’s little statement about forgiving Gollum for all of his evil acts just after the Ring’s destruction was a revealing point here.  Maybe Sauron’s "failsafe" was why Gandalf and others thought the quest to destroy it would be so ’nextto impossible?" 

Arthur Weasley 13/Aug/2006 at 03:52 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Shadowoflegolas - Very interesting points!   Yes, I do believe in anomnipotent and omnicient God who would know what all of our individual destinies would be at the moment of creation.  But I cannot help wondering if He would concern himself with which candy bar I will get today at the WalMart.  Sometimes I like to believe thatwe have the free choice to follow the path that God wants us too or not.  When we stray from that path, that is when we get into trouble.  Perhaps Gollum one act of redemption would be his accidently destroying the Ring.  Can one accidently find redemption or salvation?  I hope Gollum did.

Interesting also about the growing power of the Ring near Mount Doom.  Both in the books and Movies, Elrond seems to have been willing to destroy the Ring after the Last Alliance but posession is 9/10th’s of the law and Isildur refused at that point.  Could Aragorn or Gandalf have destroyed the Ring?  Gandalf was unwilling even to touch it but I think he could have or would have if there were no other choice.  How about Gimli, Legolas or even Pippin or Merry?  Your idea of Sauron’s "failsafe," built into the Ring is ingenious and maybe you are right that no one at all could have destroyed it.  Thank Goodness for Gollum’s little Whoops perhaps with Eru’s intervention!   Frodo’s little statement about forgiving Gollum for all of his evil acts just after the Ring’s destruction was a revealing point here.  Maybe Sauron’s "failsafe" was why Gandalf and others thought the quest to destroy it would be so ’nextto impossible?" 

shadowoflegolas 13/Aug/2006 at 10:12 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006

DarthEnalan: You never cease to make me chuckle!    It may seem funny, but God is interested in everything we do.  I don’t think he will really concern himself with your candy bar, but He does know that you picked out a Snickers instead of a Milky Way. (Or whatever one you picked out)  Hahahaha It says in the Bible that the hairs on our head are numbered. God apparently thinks enough of human beings to number the hairs on our head!  And just think about it, every time we wash our hair or comb through it, we lose many, and he knows exactly how many hairs remain!! So that definitely shows that he has a huge interest in the lives of humans down to the very hairs on our head!  But getting back to Gollum, Tolkien’s first idea was to redeem Gollum and to have him throw himself into the fire willingly with the ring to save Frodo.  But he dismissed that idea, thinking that that just wouldn’t make sense, since the Will of the Ring is so powerful there (agreeing with the "failsafe" idea), he decided to just have the ring overtake Frodo and Gollum and to just have Gollum end up with it and fall in, saving Frodo. Gollum was consumed with the fire and sadly, had no redemption in the end; there was nothing noble about what he did, Eru used him to destroy that ultimate evil.

Don’t use the movies as an example about Elrond and Isildur... despite what Peter Jackson was trying to convey, Elrond and Isildur NEVER WERE IN THE CRACKS OF MOUNT DOOM!  They never went there together. But even if they had, neither Isildur or Elrond would have been able to do it. I doubt Aragorn or even Gandalf could have done this, either.  Gandalf especially.  He was afraid to even touch it, knowing what it would do to him.  However, Gandalf thought it was almost impossible because he didn’t think Frodo and Sam could get to Mt. Doom because it was so heavily guarded and such a long, perilous journey. He and the others, thankfully didn’t know about Sauron’s failsafe, I think if they did, they never would have sent Frodo there; and thankfully Eru interviened and decided to "push" Gollum in, thus destroying it.  Gimli and maybe some of the others could have gotten it to Mt. Doom, but I doubt it, Tolkien said that few, if any could have gone as far as Frodo (and Sam) went.  Everything fell into place the way it ws supposed to be.

shadowoflegolas 13/Aug/2006 at 10:12 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006

DarthEnalan: You never cease to make me chuckle!    It may seem funny, but God is interested in everything we do.  I don’t think he will really concern himself with your candy bar, but He does know that you picked out a Snickers instead of a Milky Way. (Or whatever one you picked out)  Hahahaha It says in the Bible that the hairs on our head are numbered. God apparently thinks enough of human beings to number the hairs on our head!  And just think about it, every time we wash our hair or comb through it, we lose many, and he knows exactly how many hairs remain!! So that definitely shows that he has a huge interest in the lives of humans down to the very hairs on our head!  But getting back to Gollum, Tolkien’s first idea was to redeem Gollum and to have him throw himself into the fire willingly with the ring to save Frodo.  But he dismissed that idea, thinking that that just wouldn’t make sense, since the Will of the Ring is so powerful there (agreeing with the "failsafe" idea), he decided to just have the ring overtake Frodo and Gollum and to just have Gollum end up with it and fall in, saving Frodo. Gollum was consumed with the fire and sadly, had no redemption in the end; there was nothing noble about what he did, Eru used him to destroy that ultimate evil.

Don’t use the movies as an example about Elrond and Isildur... despite what Peter Jackson was trying to convey, Elrond and Isildur NEVER WERE IN THE CRACKS OF MOUNT DOOM!  They never went there together. But even if they had, neither Isildur or Elrond would have been able to do it. I doubt Aragorn or even Gandalf could have done this, either.  Gandalf especially.  He was afraid to even touch it, knowing what it would do to him.  However, Gandalf thought it was almost impossible because he didn’t think Frodo and Sam could get to Mt. Doom because it was so heavily guarded and such a long, perilous journey. He and the others, thankfully didn’t know about Sauron’s failsafe, I think if they did, they never would have sent Frodo there; and thankfully Eru interviened and decided to "push" Gollum in, thus destroying it.  Gimli and maybe some of the others could have gotten it to Mt. Doom, but I doubt it, Tolkien said that few, if any could have gone as far as Frodo (and Sam) went.  Everything fell into place the way it ws supposed to be.

babygrlbanister 13/Aug/2006 at 10:32 PM
Farmer of the Shire Points: 488 Posts: 1 Joined: 13/Aug/2006
> Without Gollum’s guidance and protection, Frodo would never have been able to reach the Cracks of Doom. Regardless of his "change of heart" - he was an irreplaceable part of the Quest.
> Gollum had no intention of allowing the Ring to fall into Sauron’s hands. He also had no intention of using it for himself -- How long did he skulk about under the Misty Mountains, using it only to get food? Gollum was innately weak power-wise, and therefore the Ring had little to work with (since the Ring magnifies a creature’s natural power). Gollum’s determination was simply to possess the Ring.
> Someone brought up an interesting point early in the topic -- could Gollum have gotten out of the Cracks of Doom -- I think he could have. He was stubborn and not easily controlled from outside -- I think he was capable of walking out of the Cracks with the Ring. Now, whether he could have evaded the volcanic eruption and the Nazgul is a different story.

End of story -- Gollum was a BIG part of the salvation of Middle Earth. You cannot say that anyone did anything alone in this story -- and you can say that, excepting maybe Sam, Gollum did the most aid to the completion of the task. Furthermore, had Gollum succeeded in getting the Ring from Frodo and NOT died -- I believe that (again excepting Sam) he would have been the most adept at keeping the Ring from Sauron (and at not using the Ring’s power).
babygrlbanister 13/Aug/2006 at 10:32 PM
Farmer of the Shire Points: 488 Posts: 1 Joined: 13/Aug/2006
> Without Gollum’s guidance and protection, Frodo would never have been able to reach the Cracks of Doom. Regardless of his "change of heart" - he was an irreplaceable part of the Quest.
> Gollum had no intention of allowing the Ring to fall into Sauron’s hands. He also had no intention of using it for himself -- How long did he skulk about under the Misty Mountains, using it only to get food? Gollum was innately weak power-wise, and therefore the Ring had little to work with (since the Ring magnifies a creature’s natural power). Gollum’s determination was simply to possess the Ring.
> Someone brought up an interesting point early in the topic -- could Gollum have gotten out of the Cracks of Doom -- I think he could have. He was stubborn and not easily controlled from outside -- I think he was capable of walking out of the Cracks with the Ring. Now, whether he could have evaded the volcanic eruption and the Nazgul is a different story.

End of story -- Gollum was a BIG part of the salvation of Middle Earth. You cannot say that anyone did anything alone in this story -- and you can say that, excepting maybe Sam, Gollum did the most aid to the completion of the task. Furthermore, had Gollum succeeded in getting the Ring from Frodo and NOT died -- I believe that (again excepting Sam) he would have been the most adept at keeping the Ring from Sauron (and at not using the Ring’s power).
shadowoflegolas 13/Aug/2006 at 11:37 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006

babygrlbanister, remember that Gollum did not lead them to Cracks of Doom. He led them a good part of the way, but remember Gollum tried to trap them in Cirith Ungol and didn’t catch up with them again until Sam and Frodo were already there. They had gone the rest of the journey by themselves. 

And I personally think that Gollum would use it in a second in dangerous situation. Gollum had no other purpose to use it when he lived under the Misty Mountains, however he probably wore it ANYTIME he felt that he might be in danger and needed to hide himself. Of course he wore it when he was killing goblins for food, he knew without it that he would not stand a chance without his element of surprise. If the Nazgul or thousands of Orcs were after him, of course he would use it, and invisible target is always harder to catch than a visible one.

shadowoflegolas 13/Aug/2006 at 11:37 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006

babygrlbanister, remember that Gollum did not lead them to Cracks of Doom. He led them a good part of the way, but remember Gollum tried to trap them in Cirith Ungol and didn’t catch up with them again until Sam and Frodo were already there. They had gone the rest of the journey by themselves. 

And I personally think that Gollum would use it in a second in dangerous situation. Gollum had no other purpose to use it when he lived under the Misty Mountains, however he probably wore it ANYTIME he felt that he might be in danger and needed to hide himself. Of course he wore it when he was killing goblins for food, he knew without it that he would not stand a chance without his element of surprise. If the Nazgul or thousands of Orcs were after him, of course he would use it, and invisible target is always harder to catch than a visible one.

Arthur Weasley 14/Aug/2006 at 06:34 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Babygrlbanister! Excellent Points and Welcome to the LOTR Plaza!  I am honored that your very first post was in this forum!  I agree with you that in some ways, Gollum would be one of the best ways to hide the Ring from Sauron.  Certainly he previously and would again lurk in the lowest depths of the Misty Mountains.  However if he did put the Ring on at Mount Doom (presuming he did not fall), then would not the Nazgul be drawn to him like a magnet?  I am glad that you are here and hope to see you more here and about the Plaza.

Shadowoflegolas - You are right!  Gollum did not lead Frodo and Sam beyond Shelobs lair and vitually disappeared until the climax at Mount Doom.  Still, I do not believe that Frodo and Sam would have gotten out of Emyn Muil, through the Dead Marshes and up to Cirith Ungol without Gollum’s help.  Surely they would have been caught by Orcs, Southrons, etc.  Do you think that Gollumcould have hidden the Ring forever from Sauron?  If Sauron destroyed Aragorn’s army, annexed Gondor and continued hiswestern conquests, I think sooner or later Gollum would have been hunted down, cornered and killed by all of Sauron’s forces.  What do you think? 

Arthur Weasley 14/Aug/2006 at 06:34 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Babygrlbanister! Excellent Points and Welcome to the LOTR Plaza!  I am honored that your very first post was in this forum!  I agree with you that in some ways, Gollum would be one of the best ways to hide the Ring from Sauron.  Certainly he previously and would again lurk in the lowest depths of the Misty Mountains.  However if he did put the Ring on at Mount Doom (presuming he did not fall), then would not the Nazgul be drawn to him like a magnet?  I am glad that you are here and hope to see you more here and about the Plaza.

Shadowoflegolas - You are right!  Gollum did not lead Frodo and Sam beyond Shelobs lair and vitually disappeared until the climax at Mount Doom.  Still, I do not believe that Frodo and Sam would have gotten out of Emyn Muil, through the Dead Marshes and up to Cirith Ungol without Gollum’s help.  Surely they would have been caught by Orcs, Southrons, etc.  Do you think that Gollumcould have hidden the Ring forever from Sauron?  If Sauron destroyed Aragorn’s army, annexed Gondor and continued hiswestern conquests, I think sooner or later Gollum would have been hunted down, cornered and killed by all of Sauron’s forces.  What do you think? 

shadowoflegolas 14/Aug/2006 at 11:21 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006
Hahahaha. It wouldn’t take all of Sauron’s forces just to kill him, it would only take one, perhaps a few! Considering how Faramir’s men treated poor Gollum... Sauron’s folks wouldn’t even show that much mercy! However if Gollum hadn’t lost the ring to Bilbo, I don’t think Sauron ever would have discovered it; Deep in the chasms of the misty mountains would be the last place he would think of looking!
shadowoflegolas 14/Aug/2006 at 11:21 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006
Hahahaha. It wouldn’t take all of Sauron’s forces just to kill him, it would only take one, perhaps a few! Considering how Faramir’s men treated poor Gollum... Sauron’s folks wouldn’t even show that much mercy! However if Gollum hadn’t lost the ring to Bilbo, I don’t think Sauron ever would have discovered it; Deep in the chasms of the misty mountains would be the last place he would think of looking!
Arthur Weasley 15/Aug/2006 at 01:04 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Shadowoflegolas - Maybe so.  But if Bilbo never found the Ring, would not the Ring have found its way into the hands of an Orc?  Even if Gollum kept the Ring somehow, then Sauron would have been able to smash Gondor, complete his conquests, and then have whole armies scour Mirkwood, the Misty Mountains and all of Wilderland.  It is true that it would not take many men to finish off poor Gollum but sooner or later Sauron would have searched the Mountains with an army.  Once Gollum was flushed out, Sauron would have recaptured the Ring.

Arthur Weasley 15/Aug/2006 at 01:04 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Shadowoflegolas - Maybe so.  But if Bilbo never found the Ring, would not the Ring have found its way into the hands of an Orc?  Even if Gollum kept the Ring somehow, then Sauron would have been able to smash Gondor, complete his conquests, and then have whole armies scour Mirkwood, the Misty Mountains and all of Wilderland.  It is true that it would not take many men to finish off poor Gollum but sooner or later Sauron would have searched the Mountains with an army.  Once Gollum was flushed out, Sauron would have recaptured the Ring.

shadowoflegolas 15/Aug/2006 at 03:32 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006

Who eventually found it depended on the Will of the Ring, and more importantly, Eru’s will manipulating the Will of the Ring! Remember that Gollum had it for 500 years and he hadn’t lost it.  The Ring chose to abandon Gollum on the exact day that Bilbo was there.  If the Ring didn’t want to end up in the hands of an orc, it wouldn’t have.  I’m sure neither the Ring OR Eru wanted that!

shadowoflegolas 15/Aug/2006 at 03:32 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006

Who eventually found it depended on the Will of the Ring, and more importantly, Eru’s will manipulating the Will of the Ring! Remember that Gollum had it for 500 years and he hadn’t lost it.  The Ring chose to abandon Gollum on the exact day that Bilbo was there.  If the Ring didn’t want to end up in the hands of an orc, it wouldn’t have.  I’m sure neither the Ring OR Eru wanted that!

Arthur Weasley 15/Aug/2006 at 07:16 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Interesting Question! In the chapter "Shadow of the Past" in the FotR book, Frodo asks this very question.  "Would not an Orc have suited it better?" and Gandalf replied "It is no laughing matter."  Probably the Ring chose to leave Gollum at that moment when Bilbo entered Gollum’s cave because no one else had been by in Goodness knows how long.  We can also suppose that the Ring "heard it’s masters call" the very same year though now I am supposing from the Movies.  Here is another idea.  Maybe the One Ring was a servant of Eru and wanted to be destroyed!  When Isildur resolved to keep it, the Ring left him and was lost.  When Deagol found it and resolved to keep it, the Ring urged Smeagol Gollum to kill Deagol because it knew that Gollum would one day lose it to Bilbo.  Bilbo was only able to give up the Ring because the Ring knew that if it went to Frodo that it would be destroyed.  When Frodo resolved finally to keep the Ring, the Ring summoned Gollum to fight Frodo and bite his finger off!  Then the Ring subconciously manipulated Gollum into falling because the Ring ITSELF WANTED  TO BE DESTROYED because it was the true servant of Eru!  My friends and I at the Guild of Twisted Lore might be able to go on for a long time with this one!
Arthur Weasley 15/Aug/2006 at 07:16 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Interesting Question! In the chapter "Shadow of the Past" in the FotR book, Frodo asks this very question.  "Would not an Orc have suited it better?" and Gandalf replied "It is no laughing matter."  Probably the Ring chose to leave Gollum at that moment when Bilbo entered Gollum’s cave because no one else had been by in Goodness knows how long.  We can also suppose that the Ring "heard it’s masters call" the very same year though now I am supposing from the Movies.  Here is another idea.  Maybe the One Ring was a servant of Eru and wanted to be destroyed!  When Isildur resolved to keep it, the Ring left him and was lost.  When Deagol found it and resolved to keep it, the Ring urged Smeagol Gollum to kill Deagol because it knew that Gollum would one day lose it to Bilbo.  Bilbo was only able to give up the Ring because the Ring knew that if it went to Frodo that it would be destroyed.  When Frodo resolved finally to keep the Ring, the Ring summoned Gollum to fight Frodo and bite his finger off!  Then the Ring subconciously manipulated Gollum into falling because the Ring ITSELF WANTED  TO BE DESTROYED because it was the true servant of Eru!  My friends and I at the Guild of Twisted Lore might be able to go on for a long time with this one!
shadowoflegolas 15/Aug/2006 at 10:02 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006
That is a very interesting concept, I never thought of it that way, Darth. 
Arthur Weasley 17/Aug/2006 at 01:55 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Maybe so!  However, there is so much to Gollum and there have been several interesting threads of late about him.  Gollum’s psychology was discussed at length and I have always enjoyed how JRR Tolkien portrayed the "split" in Gollum between "slinker," and "stinker."  Did Tolkien ever have any academic training in psychology?  Or was Gollum simply a unique invention?  I will search through Tolkien’s letters tonight to see what he observed about Gollum after publication of LOTR.  Would Sam have been able to stop Gollum if Gollum did not fall with the Ring?  I think most probably not. 
Arthur Weasley 17/Aug/2006 at 01:55 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Maybe so!  However, there is so much to Gollum and there have been several interesting threads of late about him.  Gollum’s psychology was discussed at length and I have always enjoyed how JRR Tolkien portrayed the "split" in Gollum between "slinker," and "stinker."  Did Tolkien ever have any academic training in psychology?  Or was Gollum simply a unique invention?  I will search through Tolkien’s letters tonight to see what he observed about Gollum after publication of LOTR.  Would Sam have been able to stop Gollum if Gollum did not fall with the Ring?  I think most probably not. 
shadowoflegolas 18/Aug/2006 at 01:25 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006
But what about Frodo?  I know PJ portrayed that Frodo and Gollum were fighting in the movies... even though I don’t remember them fighting at that time in the book (someone correct me if I’m wrong) but I would think, since the ring at that point had completely overtaken Frodo that he would have fought him to the death to get it back (Smeagol and Deagol coming to mind), even though at that time Frodo had little strength left! So in that case, without Sam’s intervention, Frodo quite probably would have been killed. So it would have been up to Sam again, but even he, as good of a person as he was, wouldn’t have been able to destroy it, and by that time the Nazgul would have gotten there and there lies the end of everything!
shadowoflegolas 18/Aug/2006 at 01:25 PM
Herald of Imladris Points: 199 Posts: 176 Joined: 20/Mar/2006
But what about Frodo?  I know PJ portrayed that Frodo and Gollum were fighting in the movies... even though I don’t remember them fighting at that time in the book (someone correct me if I’m wrong) but I would think, since the ring at that point had completely overtaken Frodo that he would have fought him to the death to get it back (Smeagol and Deagol coming to mind), even though at that time Frodo had little strength left! So in that case, without Sam’s intervention, Frodo quite probably would have been killed. So it would have been up to Sam again, but even he, as good of a person as he was, wouldn’t have been able to destroy it, and by that time the Nazgul would have gotten there and there lies the end of everything!
Arthur Weasley 18/Aug/2006 at 02:24 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Actually from what I remember, Frodo puts on the Ring and Gollum attacks him while he is invisible.  Sam comes up and sees Gollum wrestling with someone unseen and then Gollum bites Frodo’s finger off.  Gollum then looks up at the Ring "to gloat at his prize," and topples into the fire.  Once I get home from work in RL, I will find the ending and quote it if needed.  It also depends on just how fast the Ringwraiths could have reached Mt. Doom if Frodo died instead allowing Gollum and Sam a final fight.
Arthur Weasley 18/Aug/2006 at 02:24 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Actually from what I remember, Frodo puts on the Ring and Gollum attacks him while he is invisible.  Sam comes up and sees Gollum wrestling with someone unseen and then Gollum bites Frodo’s finger off.  Gollum then looks up at the Ring "to gloat at his prize," and topples into the fire.  Once I get home from work in RL, I will find the ending and quote it if needed.  It also depends on just how fast the Ringwraiths could have reached Mt. Doom if Frodo died instead allowing Gollum and Sam a final fight.
celembrimor 27/Aug/2006 at 08:01 AM
Banned Points: 249 Posts: 14 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
gollum does save the day because at the end of the day after all the trouble shelob poisoning and everthing frodo held his own will against the ring but then he takes at the end for his own and the dark lord sauron would of gotten back if not for gollum and also isnt that just slightly to dramatic or is it just me.
Arthur Weasley 27/Aug/2006 at 02:09 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Mygirlisbuff - Actually I agree with you.  The final ending is dramatic but this is why I believe that Gollum really was Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth.  Frodo claimed the Ring at the end and everything would have ended in disaster if it were not for Gollum.  My friends and I are cooking up a new theory about the Ring at the Guild of Twisted Lore Plaza House Palace (located in the Lothlorien Kingdom) and I hope to aqdd new dimensions to both Gollum and the Ring here.
Arthur Weasley 27/Aug/2006 at 02:09 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Mygirlisbuff - Actually I agree with you.  The final ending is dramatic but this is why I believe that Gollum really was Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth.  Frodo claimed the Ring at the end and everything would have ended in disaster if it were not for Gollum.  My friends and I are cooking up a new theory about the Ring at the Guild of Twisted Lore Plaza House Palace (located in the Lothlorien Kingdom) and I hope to aqdd new dimensions to both Gollum and the Ring here.
Aranel the Grey 01/Sep/2006 at 11:40 AM
New Soul Points: 13 Posts: 11 Joined: 01/Sep/2006

Almost everyone in Middle Earth could be thought of as saviors.  Radagast saved gandalf from orthanc when he alerted the eagles.  Ted Sandyman could have inspired Sam to go with Frodo, to prove Ted he was wrong.  /the uruks of Isengard were saviors when they did not kill Merry who then slew the witch king.

There are all little influences that makes it impossible to determine the effect of every single entity in Middle Earth.

Aranel the Grey 01/Sep/2006 at 11:40 AM
New Soul Points: 13 Posts: 11 Joined: 01/Sep/2006

Almost everyone in Middle Earth could be thought of as saviors.  Radagast saved gandalf from orthanc when he alerted the eagles.  Ted Sandyman could have inspired Sam to go with Frodo, to prove Ted he was wrong.  /the uruks of Isengard were saviors when they did not kill Merry who then slew the witch king.

There are all little influences that makes it impossible to determine the effect of every single entity in Middle Earth.

valars_ending 01/Sep/2006 at 01:55 PM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 246 Posts: 34 Joined: 25/Aug/2006

actually Aranel radagast did not alert the eagles to sarumans trechury gandalf told him to send messages to orthanc of the workings of the nine. also the uruks were under sarumans command not to slay merry and merry did not slay the witch king he merely wounded him allowing eowyn to deal the final blow.

"But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry’s sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing though the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had peirced the sinew behind his mighty knee."
RotK page 824 "the battle of the pelennor fields".

i myself believe eru was their all along, because fate was always going to see the ring bearer get there. a list of some of these events are...
.  farimir allowing frodo and sam continue their journey
.  boromir giving in to his lust for the ring and in turn scaring frodo into going alone
.  gandalf saving the lord of the eagles from an arrow in his leg. long ago

valars_ending 01/Sep/2006 at 01:55 PM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 246 Posts: 34 Joined: 25/Aug/2006

actually Aranel radagast did not alert the eagles to sarumans trechury gandalf told him to send messages to orthanc of the workings of the nine. also the uruks were under sarumans command not to slay merry and merry did not slay the witch king he merely wounded him allowing eowyn to deal the final blow.

"But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry’s sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing though the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had peirced the sinew behind his mighty knee."
RotK page 824 "the battle of the pelennor fields".

i myself believe eru was their all along, because fate was always going to see the ring bearer get there. a list of some of these events are...
.  farimir allowing frodo and sam continue their journey
.  boromir giving in to his lust for the ring and in turn scaring frodo into going alone
.  gandalf saving the lord of the eagles from an arrow in his leg. long ago

Aranel the Grey 01/Sep/2006 at 07:11 PM
New Soul Points: 13 Posts: 11 Joined: 01/Sep/2006

but if not for merry the witch king would not have been slain there.

yes, I did not say radagast was aware of Sarumans treachery, I said that he alerted the eagles Gandalf was at orthanc.

Arthur Weasley 02/Sep/2006 at 05:03 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Interesting thoughts Aranel the Grey and Welcome to the LOTR Plaza!  Have you ever thought yet of becoming a Wizard?  You should check out the Newbies and Introductions forum and the White Council/Isengard Plaza Kingdom.  Technically though, I agree with Valars_Ending that fate or providence is seen throughout Tolkien’s work though many in the Advanced Forum would disagree with me.  Gollum however for reasons stated throughout this thread, mademore of an impact than almost any other character on the Ring’s fate, even Frodo or Sam.  Any thoughts?
Arthur Weasley 02/Sep/2006 at 05:03 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Interesting thoughts Aranel the Grey and Welcome to the LOTR Plaza!  Have you ever thought yet of becoming a Wizard?  You should check out the Newbies and Introductions forum and the White Council/Isengard Plaza Kingdom.  Technically though, I agree with Valars_Ending that fate or providence is seen throughout Tolkien’s work though many in the Advanced Forum would disagree with me.  Gollum however for reasons stated throughout this thread, mademore of an impact than almost any other character on the Ring’s fate, even Frodo or Sam.  Any thoughts?
valars_ending 03/Sep/2006 at 11:44 AM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 246 Posts: 34 Joined: 25/Aug/2006

it was never gollums fate to die before he got to mount doom, so i think it was fate that stayed the hand of anyone who encounterd him, it was fate that made the elves of mirkwood lax their guard, fate saw the whole quest from beggining to end. but gollum was so big a part in the very plans of fate, that not one person could kill him, much like the prophecy of the witch king, but i wont go into that now

valars_ending 03/Sep/2006 at 11:44 AM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 246 Posts: 34 Joined: 25/Aug/2006

it was never gollums fate to die before he got to mount doom, so i think it was fate that stayed the hand of anyone who encounterd him, it was fate that made the elves of mirkwood lax their guard, fate saw the whole quest from beggining to end. but gollum was so big a part in the very plans of fate, that not one person could kill him, much like the prophecy of the witch king, but i wont go into that now

Kaos the Gold 05/Sep/2006 at 05:24 AM
Blacksmith of Erebor Points: 1279 Posts: 833 Joined: 21/Jun/2006

   Frodo was the true hero, since it was his strong will, strength and determination that enabled him to carry on.  However, Gollum played a very important role in the destruction of Sauron as well, he guarded the ring for five hundred years and he guided the ringbearer through the hills of emyn muil, the mires of the dead marshes and the high passes into mordor.  And it was Gollum who wrenched the ring from Frodo’s hand when the will of the ring had overcome Frodo, and in his celebration, sent Sauron to his doom. 

        Yet, Gollum played as much a role for good in the war of the ring as did Sam, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin or Gandalf, who each helped to destroy Sauron in their own way as much as Gollum did.

Kaos the Gold 05/Sep/2006 at 05:24 AM
Blacksmith of Erebor Points: 1279 Posts: 833 Joined: 21/Jun/2006

   Frodo was the true hero, since it was his strong will, strength and determination that enabled him to carry on.  However, Gollum played a very important role in the destruction of Sauron as well, he guarded the ring for five hundred years and he guided the ringbearer through the hills of emyn muil, the mires of the dead marshes and the high passes into mordor.  And it was Gollum who wrenched the ring from Frodo’s hand when the will of the ring had overcome Frodo, and in his celebration, sent Sauron to his doom. 

        Yet, Gollum played as much a role for good in the war of the ring as did Sam, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin or Gandalf, who each helped to destroy Sauron in their own way as much as Gollum did.

elerelf 05/Sep/2006 at 08:09 AM
Banned Points: 77 Posts: 2 Joined: 05/Sep/2006

As for Smeagol/Gollum and the Ring, I believe in a simple syllogism.  In the beginning, Smeagol was a good person with some hidden darker/evil elements in his character.  The Ring gradually intensifies the darker/evil qualities over time while also slowly degrading the concious will and desire to perform good in people.  Smeagol/Gollum’s personality is the result of possessing the Ring for 478 years.  So I think that GtheW is right that the old Ying Yang principle (ie there is both a little good and evil in us at once) and that Gollum is no exception.   Would Smeagol have killed Deagol without the Ring’s destructive influence? Excellent question loremisstressre!  Most probably not.  Still, Maybe Smeagol and Deagol might have fought over something else?

Anyway, I humbly disagree with you Ehtele Virie.  Maybe Gollum did save Middle Earth when his subconcious will motivated by Eru compelled him to gloat over his prize and fall to his doom? I wish that all of these threads could be combined into the Ultimate Gollum Archive

elerelf 05/Sep/2006 at 08:09 AM
Banned Points: 77 Posts: 2 Joined: 05/Sep/2006

As for Smeagol/Gollum and the Ring, I believe in a simple syllogism.  In the beginning, Smeagol was a good person with some hidden darker/evil elements in his character.  The Ring gradually intensifies the darker/evil qualities over time while also slowly degrading the concious will and desire to perform good in people.  Smeagol/Gollum’s personality is the result of possessing the Ring for 478 years.  So I think that GtheW is right that the old Ying Yang principle (ie there is both a little good and evil in us at once) and that Gollum is no exception.   Would Smeagol have killed Deagol without the Ring’s destructive influence? Excellent question loremisstressre!  Most probably not.  Still, Maybe Smeagol and Deagol might have fought over something else?

Anyway, I humbly disagree with you Ehtele Virie.  Maybe Gollum did save Middle Earth when his subconcious will motivated by Eru compelled him to gloat over his prize and fall to his doom? I wish that all of these threads could be combined into the Ultimate Gollum Archive

Arthur Weasley 09/Sep/2006 at 12:01 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Binding all of the recent Gollum threads would be a great idea elerelf!  I know of at least four including this one and there is a wonderful Plaza House called The Guild of Twisted Lore, that has been debating this very point. Here is what I have found.

HERE is a link to the "Scholarly Sages of Erudition: Gollum" thread in the Istari Plaza Kingdom!

HERE is a link to the "Gollum’s Help -Schizo" thread in Middle Earth Peoples and Races!

HERE is a link to "Smeagol/Gollum: The Psychology" thread also in Advanced Lore!

HERE is the link to the "Gollum is the servant of Eru," thread in the Guild of Twisted Lore!

      As a personal testimonial, I am eternally grateful for the fantastic response and endurance of this thread here for several reasons! 

First, this thread caught the attention of the Guild of Twisted Lore which eventually got me my very first Plaza House Invitation! Until then, I had negative thoughts about Plaza Houses and did not appreciate them. 

Next, this was my first thread that was "promoted" to Advanced Lore which I am very grateful to all the Powers of Arda (Nessa especially)! 

Next,, if this thread did not receive such positive attention,  I most likely would never have become curious about Plaza Houses nor would I have ever started writing for the Heren Istarion Elen (It’s What Wizzies Read! HERE is a link to the latest issue!). 

Finally, if this thread never developed, (or continued as it has), I might never have decided to create my very own Gamemasters University Plaza House which is dedicated to providing a Free resource of FREE games as well as a just-born Fantasy Book lisiting for anyone interested.    Great fun awaits and anyone can earn several Imperial Gamemasters University Ficticious Degrees if desired!  HERE is the link to the Gamemasters University Campus!  Please come and check us out!

This thread here is very special to me and I wanted to express my appreciation to everyone who has posted or read the materials here.  Thank you all so very much for enriching my LOTRPlaza experience beyond what I could ever have expected.    !!!

Now let’s get back to Gollum!  We certainly have four links about the debate over Gollum listed and if anyone knows of additional Gollum-related recent threads, please post them here!

Arthur Weasley 09/Sep/2006 at 12:01 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Binding all of the recent Gollum threads would be a great idea elerelf!  I know of at least four including this one and there is a wonderful Plaza House called The Guild of Twisted Lore, that has been debating this very point. Here is what I have found.

HERE is a link to the "Scholarly Sages of Erudition: Gollum" thread in the Istari Plaza Kingdom!

HERE is a link to the "Gollum’s Help -Schizo" thread in Middle Earth Peoples and Races!

HERE is a link to "Smeagol/Gollum: The Psychology" thread also in Advanced Lore!

HERE is the link to the "Gollum is the servant of Eru," thread in the Guild of Twisted Lore!

      As a personal testimonial, I am eternally grateful for the fantastic response and endurance of this thread here for several reasons! 

First, this thread caught the attention of the Guild of Twisted Lore which eventually got me my very first Plaza House Invitation! Until then, I had negative thoughts about Plaza Houses and did not appreciate them. 

Next, this was my first thread that was "promoted" to Advanced Lore which I am very grateful to all the Powers of Arda (Nessa especially)! 

Next,, if this thread did not receive such positive attention,  I most likely would never have become curious about Plaza Houses nor would I have ever started writing for the Heren Istarion Elen (It’s What Wizzies Read! HERE is a link to the latest issue!). 

Finally, if this thread never developed, (or continued as it has), I might never have decided to create my very own Gamemasters University Plaza House which is dedicated to providing a Free resource of FREE games as well as a just-born Fantasy Book lisiting for anyone interested.    Great fun awaits and anyone can earn several Imperial Gamemasters University Ficticious Degrees if desired!  HERE is the link to the Gamemasters University Campus!  Please come and check us out!

This thread here is very special to me and I wanted to express my appreciation to everyone who has posted or read the materials here.  Thank you all so very much for enriching my LOTRPlaza experience beyond what I could ever have expected.    !!!

Now let’s get back to Gollum!  We certainly have four links about the debate over Gollum listed and if anyone knows of additional Gollum-related recent threads, please post them here!

cister 09/Sep/2006 at 08:59 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 363 Posts: 64 Joined: 06/Sep/2006
al i want to say is gollum: the unwitting ore the unwilling savior of middle-earth, or maybe both, but if gollem hed captured the ring, and the orcs captured him, then what? or what if gollem didn’t fall into the lava, then sauron would have killed aragorn, gandalf and the rest, so then it was just a matter of time before there wouldn’t be a plce to hide the ring (even for gollem) and sauron would have got his ring back
cister 09/Sep/2006 at 08:59 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 363 Posts: 64 Joined: 06/Sep/2006
al i want to say is gollum: the unwitting ore the unwilling savior of middle-earth, or maybe both, but if gollem hed captured the ring, and the orcs captured him, then what? or what if gollem didn’t fall into the lava, then sauron would have killed aragorn, gandalf and the rest, so then it was just a matter of time before there wouldn’t be a plce to hide the ring (even for gollem) and sauron would have got his ring back
Arthur Weasley 09/Sep/2006 at 04:06 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Greetings Cister and welcome to www.LOTRPlaza.com!  I believe we both agree thathad not Gollum fallen into the lava, Sauron would have hunted him down throughout Middle Earth with his invincible armies and recaptured the Ring sooner or later.  A new thought (I think) but I wondewr why Sauron did not leave some Orc guards, trolls, men, or something to guard Sammath Naur just in case intruders arrived.  With all of the resources Sauron had with Hosts aplenty, surely he could have spared 10 fellas, or even 1,000 guys to patrol and protect the Mountain.  Never leave a place totally unguarded.  This may be simply Monday morning Quarterbacking but I have often wondered this.  Any thoughts?

Arthur Weasley 09/Sep/2006 at 04:06 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Greetings Cister and welcome to www.LOTRPlaza.com!  I believe we both agree thathad not Gollum fallen into the lava, Sauron would have hunted him down throughout Middle Earth with his invincible armies and recaptured the Ring sooner or later.  A new thought (I think) but I wondewr why Sauron did not leave some Orc guards, trolls, men, or something to guard Sammath Naur just in case intruders arrived.  With all of the resources Sauron had with Hosts aplenty, surely he could have spared 10 fellas, or even 1,000 guys to patrol and protect the Mountain.  Never leave a place totally unguarded.  This may be simply Monday morning Quarterbacking but I have often wondered this.  Any thoughts?

nEUroTIc 14/Sep/2006 at 06:54 AM
Defender of Imladris Points: 815 Posts: 157 Joined: 23/Aug/2006

well my friend darthenalan..that was because sauron never had imagined that someone would creep into mordor right under his nose without him knowing...he had all the entrances into mordor guarded you see(thats why frodo got captured..though shelob played a major role but anyways orcs were patrolling the area).also the fact that he imagined that the rings power would be so overpowering that either gandalf or aragorn may use it against him..so he thought it wise to mobilise the nazgul against either of them..and keep strong his defences..

now coming to the answer to the topic...gollum can be equated to a cat..he had more then nine lives i think..so many opportumities he stared death in the face and each time he came out unscathed(well not so much)..but still the thought that he was an agent of eru is thought provoking!

nEUroTIc 14/Sep/2006 at 06:54 AM
Defender of Imladris Points: 815 Posts: 157 Joined: 23/Aug/2006

well my friend darthenalan..that was because sauron never had imagined that someone would creep into mordor right under his nose without him knowing...he had all the entrances into mordor guarded you see(thats why frodo got captured..though shelob played a major role but anyways orcs were patrolling the area).also the fact that he imagined that the rings power would be so overpowering that either gandalf or aragorn may use it against him..so he thought it wise to mobilise the nazgul against either of them..and keep strong his defences..

now coming to the answer to the topic...gollum can be equated to a cat..he had more then nine lives i think..so many opportumities he stared death in the face and each time he came out unscathed(well not so much)..but still the thought that he was an agent of eru is thought provoking!

Arthur Weasley 15/Sep/2006 at 08:00 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
nEYroTIc - Love your name and really interesting points!  I never get tired of discussing Gollum.  He certainly could always escape even when hotly pursued by the Elves of Thrandruil in Mirkwood or the Orcs of Mordor!  Gollum a cat?  Maybe he does have Nine Lives!   
Arthur Weasley 15/Sep/2006 at 08:00 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
nEYroTIc - Love your name and really interesting points!  I never get tired of discussing Gollum.  He certainly could always escape even when hotly pursued by the Elves of Thrandruil in Mirkwood or the Orcs of Mordor!  Gollum a cat?  Maybe he does have Nine Lives!   
king_dain 16/Sep/2006 at 09:30 PM
Trader of Erebor Points: 165 Posts: 36 Joined: 13/Sep/2006
i  actually think it wasnt unwitting he was obseeseed if he didnt have it he might as well die and he died trying to get the ring which  was bound to happen aventually right so no i think he said what the heck i am about to eat a finger fall ina pit of magma try to kill a hobbit so i can wear this ring one last ime before we all or he dies. but i dont think he met to take the ring with him i think he would rather let the thing he was obseessed with lived while he died for it
king_dain 16/Sep/2006 at 09:30 PM
Trader of Erebor Points: 165 Posts: 36 Joined: 13/Sep/2006
i  actually think it wasnt unwitting he was obseeseed if he didnt have it he might as well die and he died trying to get the ring which  was bound to happen aventually right so no i think he said what the heck i am about to eat a finger fall ina pit of magma try to kill a hobbit so i can wear this ring one last ime before we all or he dies. but i dont think he met to take the ring with him i think he would rather let the thing he was obseessed with lived while he died for it
Atarinya 16/Sep/2006 at 10:06 PM
Master of Isengard Points: 172 Posts: 6 Joined: 15/Sep/2006
I think the Valar and/or Illuvatar were always the saviors of middle earth.  Even is Sauron was to have regained the One Ring, I am sure a remnant of men and elves would have been saved as Eru cleaves a hole through Mordor to the center of the earth.  There is no way that Sauron would have been given rule of Middle Earth by the Valar or Illuvatar.
Atarinya 16/Sep/2006 at 10:06 PM
Master of Isengard Points: 172 Posts: 6 Joined: 15/Sep/2006
I think the Valar and/or Illuvatar were always the saviors of middle earth.  Even is Sauron was to have regained the One Ring, I am sure a remnant of men and elves would have been saved as Eru cleaves a hole through Mordor to the center of the earth.  There is no way that Sauron would have been given rule of Middle Earth by the Valar or Illuvatar.
Arthur Weasley 17/Sep/2006 at 06:26 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Atarinya - I wish I could be as optimistic as you.  However, you have raised an interesting point!  It has always been my impression that the powers of Valinor prefer mortals to solve their own problems themselves (otherwise they might be our immortal rulers and we would all serve them).   Perhaps Illuvatar was doing as you say, preventing Sauron from ruling Middle Earth through Gollum.  It would be really cool to see Eru Illuvatar and the other Powers of Valinor go after Sauron if he regained his Ring, but with all of the Elves leaving Middle Earth (which could be construed as abandoning it as a lost cause) but the Valar did that once at the End of the First Age and it would be hard to imagine things happening that way again.  This is why I find the idea of Eru Illuvatar working though mortal agents like Gollum so entertaining and philosophically debatable.  Even if Gollum’s conscious thoughts would NEVER harm his Precious, his subconscious will could have been directed by Illuvatar to prevent Sauron from ever actually ruling Middle Earth.  Anyone else have thoughts on this?  
Arthur Weasley 17/Sep/2006 at 06:26 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Atarinya - I wish I could be as optimistic as you.  However, you have raised an interesting point!  It has always been my impression that the powers of Valinor prefer mortals to solve their own problems themselves (otherwise they might be our immortal rulers and we would all serve them).   Perhaps Illuvatar was doing as you say, preventing Sauron from ruling Middle Earth through Gollum.  It would be really cool to see Eru Illuvatar and the other Powers of Valinor go after Sauron if he regained his Ring, but with all of the Elves leaving Middle Earth (which could be construed as abandoning it as a lost cause) but the Valar did that once at the End of the First Age and it would be hard to imagine things happening that way again.  This is why I find the idea of Eru Illuvatar working though mortal agents like Gollum so entertaining and philosophically debatable.  Even if Gollum’s conscious thoughts would NEVER harm his Precious, his subconscious will could have been directed by Illuvatar to prevent Sauron from ever actually ruling Middle Earth.  Anyone else have thoughts on this?  
Raen_Nem 17/Sep/2006 at 09:15 PM
Gardener of the Shire Points: 181 Posts: 48 Joined: 04/Sep/2006
I don’t think Golum was the unwitting "savior" of middle earth, I think he was more of a unwitting "helper" in the destruction of the ring.
When I say helper, I mean a big, very big helper. Without Gollum, the ring definetly did not have a big of a chance of being destroyed, or maybe even no chance at all. We can’t forget that Gollum was the one who lead them to mordor. Now I know this is a really basic thought, but it is valid . . .
Raen_Nem 17/Sep/2006 at 09:15 PM
Gardener of the Shire Points: 181 Posts: 48 Joined: 04/Sep/2006
I don’t think Golum was the unwitting "savior" of middle earth, I think he was more of a unwitting "helper" in the destruction of the ring.
When I say helper, I mean a big, very big helper. Without Gollum, the ring definetly did not have a big of a chance of being destroyed, or maybe even no chance at all. We can’t forget that Gollum was the one who lead them to mordor. Now I know this is a really basic thought, but it is valid . . .
Arthur Weasley 18/Sep/2006 at 06:18 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Raen_Nem - Yes you are right and that point has been discussed before!  Whatever Gollum’s intent however was, it is his actions here that I have based my arguments on.  If it were not for Gollum, the Ring never would have gotten anywhere near Mount Doom (I believe one of my earlier posts describes a whole chain of events where Gollum is crucial in the Ring’s movement).  Gollum’s actions saved all of Middle Earth, destroyed Sauron and even got Aragorn crowned King.  Take a look at the rest of the thread and maybe you will see something I have missed!   Thanks again!
Arthur Weasley 18/Sep/2006 at 06:18 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Raen_Nem - Yes you are right and that point has been discussed before!  Whatever Gollum’s intent however was, it is his actions here that I have based my arguments on.  If it were not for Gollum, the Ring never would have gotten anywhere near Mount Doom (I believe one of my earlier posts describes a whole chain of events where Gollum is crucial in the Ring’s movement).  Gollum’s actions saved all of Middle Earth, destroyed Sauron and even got Aragorn crowned King.  Take a look at the rest of the thread and maybe you will see something I have missed!   Thanks again!
lalla 19/Sep/2006 at 08:20 AM
Garment-crafter of Lothlorien Points: 627 Posts: 109 Joined: 05/Sep/2006
I think Gollum was an unwitty helper in the destruction of the Ring. After all, when in Moria Frodo asks why Bilbo didn’t kill him, Gandalf explains Gollum plays perhaps an important role in the story of the Ring. As usual, Gandalf knows. In fact, Gollum is the one who leads Frodo and Sam to Mordor. Gollum protected the Ring for years. And, ultimately, it’s Gollum who destroys the Ring, something that Frodo was not ready to do. 
lalla 19/Sep/2006 at 08:20 AM
Garment-crafter of Lothlorien Points: 627 Posts: 109 Joined: 05/Sep/2006
I think Gollum was an unwitty helper in the destruction of the Ring. After all, when in Moria Frodo asks why Bilbo didn’t kill him, Gandalf explains Gollum plays perhaps an important role in the story of the Ring. As usual, Gandalf knows. In fact, Gollum is the one who leads Frodo and Sam to Mordor. Gollum protected the Ring for years. And, ultimately, it’s Gollum who destroys the Ring, something that Frodo was not ready to do. 
Arthur Weasley 20/Sep/2006 at 03:02 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ialla -  Exactly!!  Great minds do think alike!  This is why I find Gollum so fascinating a character.  There are so many dimensions to him.  We can admire the strategies and planning of Gandalf, the daring and heroism of Frodo and Sam, the nobility, dignity and Ghost-facing of Aragorn, the archery and clear thinging of Legolas, and other Fellowship members, but it is essentially Gollum who destroys the Ring and we should all honor his memory as the "Unwitting Savior," of Middle Earth!!
Arthur Weasley 20/Sep/2006 at 03:02 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ialla -  Exactly!!  Great minds do think alike!  This is why I find Gollum so fascinating a character.  There are so many dimensions to him.  We can admire the strategies and planning of Gandalf, the daring and heroism of Frodo and Sam, the nobility, dignity and Ghost-facing of Aragorn, the archery and clear thinging of Legolas, and other Fellowship members, but it is essentially Gollum who destroys the Ring and we should all honor his memory as the "Unwitting Savior," of Middle Earth!!
Earendin 24/Sep/2006 at 05:10 AM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 953 Posts: 540 Joined: 11/Sep/2006
I think that Gollum should not be honored a savior because he didn’t destroy it in purpose allthough his mind was freed when the Ring was destroyed(he was dead by then).But if it was more carefull it wouldn’t have fallen in the fire so the Kingdom of Gondor would’t have a King,the Dark Lord would propably have cought the Gollum and killed it before it managed to go out,take form again and they would need again an Isilidur to cut his fingers which is practically impossible except if it is done by a very lucky warrior. 
Earendin 24/Sep/2006 at 05:10 AM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 953 Posts: 540 Joined: 11/Sep/2006
I think that Gollum should not be honored a savior because he didn’t destroy it in purpose allthough his mind was freed when the Ring was destroyed(he was dead by then).But if it was more carefull it wouldn’t have fallen in the fire so the Kingdom of Gondor would’t have a King,the Dark Lord would propably have cought the Gollum and killed it before it managed to go out,take form again and they would need again an Isilidur to cut his fingers which is practically impossible except if it is done by a very lucky warrior. 
Arthur Weasley 24/Sep/2006 at 06:23 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Earendin - Very good point but I respectfully disagree.  Intentions really do not matter in a court of law.  It is only actions that become relevent.  You are correct that Gollum would never intentionally harm his Precious and spent his entire existence from 2941-3019 trying to recover it.  However, Frodo at the Cracks of Doom refused to destroy the Ring and had Gollum ran off with it, I doubt Sam would have been able to stop him.  If Gollum put the Ring on, Sam would not have even seen him.  This is all surmise but if Gollum escaped with the Ring, then all of Sauron’s victorious armies and the Nazgul would have pursued him from Mount Doom (as Sauron would be aware of the Ring if Gollum and put it on).  Sooner or later, Gollum would have been hunted down, cornered and killed even if all of Sauron’s armies had to scour all of Northwestern Middle Earth.  Finally, because Gollum destroyed the Ring,  all that you say was averted and we now have a happy ending to the story.  Even Frodo urged Sam to "forgive" Gollum because of his deed.  Whether Gollum meant to or not, he ended up as the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth by destroying Sauron, his power and even the Kingdom of Mordor thus allowing Aragorn to ascend the Throne of Gondor in peace.     
Arthur Weasley 24/Sep/2006 at 06:23 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Earendin - Very good point but I respectfully disagree.  Intentions really do not matter in a court of law.  It is only actions that become relevent.  You are correct that Gollum would never intentionally harm his Precious and spent his entire existence from 2941-3019 trying to recover it.  However, Frodo at the Cracks of Doom refused to destroy the Ring and had Gollum ran off with it, I doubt Sam would have been able to stop him.  If Gollum put the Ring on, Sam would not have even seen him.  This is all surmise but if Gollum escaped with the Ring, then all of Sauron’s victorious armies and the Nazgul would have pursued him from Mount Doom (as Sauron would be aware of the Ring if Gollum and put it on).  Sooner or later, Gollum would have been hunted down, cornered and killed even if all of Sauron’s armies had to scour all of Northwestern Middle Earth.  Finally, because Gollum destroyed the Ring,  all that you say was averted and we now have a happy ending to the story.  Even Frodo urged Sam to "forgive" Gollum because of his deed.  Whether Gollum meant to or not, he ended up as the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth by destroying Sauron, his power and even the Kingdom of Mordor thus allowing Aragorn to ascend the Throne of Gondor in peace.     
Forodluin 24/Sep/2006 at 08:33 AM
Adept of Isengard Points: 288 Posts: 5 Joined: 22/Sep/2006

Atarinya - that’s an interesting idea (that the Valar might mount a second War of Wrath against Sauron had he taken the Ring) but my interpretation of the end of the Second Age was always that the Valar had been separated from Middle Earth by the bending of Arda and that they were unofficially bound to act through emissaries (the Istari) only.

Mind you, I’ve no evidence for that at all, other than a hunch. Maybe the fact that the Valar attacked Morgoth and then sent Maiar (the Istari) to combat other Maiar (Sauron (& the Balrog if known of)) suggests the requirement for some kind of parity in combat between Ainur?

Forodluin 24/Sep/2006 at 08:33 AM
Adept of Isengard Points: 288 Posts: 5 Joined: 22/Sep/2006

Atarinya - that’s an interesting idea (that the Valar might mount a second War of Wrath against Sauron had he taken the Ring) but my interpretation of the end of the Second Age was always that the Valar had been separated from Middle Earth by the bending of Arda and that they were unofficially bound to act through emissaries (the Istari) only.

Mind you, I’ve no evidence for that at all, other than a hunch. Maybe the fact that the Valar attacked Morgoth and then sent Maiar (the Istari) to combat other Maiar (Sauron (& the Balrog if known of)) suggests the requirement for some kind of parity in combat between Ainur?

Arthur Weasley 26/Sep/2006 at 09:06 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Atarinya and Forodluin - I had never thought of that "parity" theory before but it is an interesting idea.  Morgoth/Melkor of course had no real peer but Manwe so the Valar at the end of the First Age had to act directly against him.  With Sauron as the big nasty in the Second and Third Ages, maybe you are right that the Istari were sent as peers of Sauron in "parity" with Sauron’s intelligence.  Vast idea!  
Arthur Weasley 26/Sep/2006 at 09:06 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Atarinya and Forodluin - I had never thought of that "parity" theory before but it is an interesting idea.  Morgoth/Melkor of course had no real peer but Manwe so the Valar at the end of the First Age had to act directly against him.  With Sauron as the big nasty in the Second and Third Ages, maybe you are right that the Istari were sent as peers of Sauron in "parity" with Sauron’s intelligence.  Vast idea!  
Lenwë Vardamir 05/Oct/2006 at 04:38 PM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 539 Posts: 561 Joined: 17/Jul/2004

i completely agree with that b/c if it hadn’t been for Gollum the ring wouldn’t have ever of been able to be destroyed which is why i like how tolkien had gollum somewhere in the story the whole book because you kind of had to know that he would play an important role and accident or not he was the one that destroyed the ring in the end ..........................although it was at the cost of a finger

 

Lenwë Vardamir 05/Oct/2006 at 04:38 PM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 539 Posts: 561 Joined: 17/Jul/2004

i completely agree with that b/c if it hadn’t been for Gollum the ring wouldn’t have ever of been able to be destroyed which is why i like how tolkien had gollum somewhere in the story the whole book because you kind of had to know that he would play an important role and accident or not he was the one that destroyed the ring in the end ..........................although it was at the cost of a finger

 

Arthur Weasley 05/Oct/2006 at 08:21 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Yes Lenwe Vardamir I agree with you!  I guess the cost was one of Frodo’s fingers and Gollum’s very life.  Here is an undiscussed thought!  What would have happened to Gollum if the Ring was destroyed and Gollum survived?  Would he simply crackle and wink out like the Nazgul?  Would he superage into dust (as Bilbo suddenly went from 50s to 90s age wise for Hobbits)?  Would Gollum have remained unchanged but began to age slowly until his lifespan would be normally spent? 

Related point - Did Bilbo look still in his 50s in Rivendell when Frodo arrived in the books?  In the Fellowship of the Ring, Bilbo actually goes all the way to Erebor again before he comes back to settle in Rivendell and is only referred to as "ancient in years now" by Arwen after the Ring is destroyed.  Of course in the movies Bilbo ages rapidly to an old Hobbit by the time Frodo arrives in Rivendell but this might have been a PJ edit.  Anyone know for certain? 

Arthur Weasley 05/Oct/2006 at 08:21 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Yes Lenwe Vardamir I agree with you!  I guess the cost was one of Frodo’s fingers and Gollum’s very life.  Here is an undiscussed thought!  What would have happened to Gollum if the Ring was destroyed and Gollum survived?  Would he simply crackle and wink out like the Nazgul?  Would he superage into dust (as Bilbo suddenly went from 50s to 90s age wise for Hobbits)?  Would Gollum have remained unchanged but began to age slowly until his lifespan would be normally spent? 

Related point - Did Bilbo look still in his 50s in Rivendell when Frodo arrived in the books?  In the Fellowship of the Ring, Bilbo actually goes all the way to Erebor again before he comes back to settle in Rivendell and is only referred to as "ancient in years now" by Arwen after the Ring is destroyed.  Of course in the movies Bilbo ages rapidly to an old Hobbit by the time Frodo arrives in Rivendell but this might have been a PJ edit.  Anyone know for certain? 

Arthur Weasley 17/Oct/2006 at 09:32 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Good Thoughts Kalidor the Elf!  Welcome to the Plaza!  Why your post was deleted I do not know but it was my fault for mentioning the movies above in my last post indirectly.  We should talk about Bilbo’s aging in the movies in the Movie forum. 

Meanwhile: Did Bilbo look still in his 50s in Rivendell when Frodo arrived in the books?  In the Fellowship of the Ring, Bilbo actually goes all the way to Erebor again before he comes back to settle in Rivendell and is only referred to as "ancient in years now" by Arwen after the Ring is destroyed.  So when exactly does Bilbo begin to age again in the books?  Only after the Ring is destroyed or as soon as he leaves the Ring to Frodo?

Arthur Weasley 17/Oct/2006 at 09:32 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Good Thoughts Kalidor the Elf!  Welcome to the Plaza!  Why your post was deleted I do not know but it was my fault for mentioning the movies above in my last post indirectly.  We should talk about Bilbo’s aging in the movies in the Movie forum. 

Meanwhile: Did Bilbo look still in his 50s in Rivendell when Frodo arrived in the books?  In the Fellowship of the Ring, Bilbo actually goes all the way to Erebor again before he comes back to settle in Rivendell and is only referred to as "ancient in years now" by Arwen after the Ring is destroyed.  So when exactly does Bilbo begin to age again in the books?  Only after the Ring is destroyed or as soon as he leaves the Ring to Frodo?

Celethil 24/Oct/2006 at 03:51 PM
Archer of Imladris Points: 518 Posts: 39 Joined: 23/Sep/2006
Throughout this thread is the echo of Eru’s involvement in the death of Gollum and the subsequent defeat of Sauron.   I’ve read the letter whereby Tolkien refers to the other power that takes over, which is not him the author of the book, but rather he intimates it is Eru.   

The only problem I have with that is that it is being taken as Eru’s direct involvement in the world.

It can be seen in Ainulindale, from Eru’s discourse with Melkor, the nature of fate in Arda...

’And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’ - Sil

It is here that Eru states that nothing can be done to change his desired plan, and that any attempt will only be subverted to his will in ways that are unseen. Even if Gollum had not been involved or if Sauron had regained his ring, still it would not change the ultimate plan of Eru. If it was his will that Sauron be defeated then he would be defeated, but I digress.


The significance of Gollum’s death from Tolkien’s perspective, as can be gleaned from his letters is not that it is serendipity, instead it is by our own acts of mercy that we are saved.

So the short answer is not that Gollum is the unwitting saviour, nor is Eru directly involved, but rather it is the act of mercy upon the wretched creature which allows for his serendipitous fall when all appears lost, that is the actual saviour.    
Celethil 24/Oct/2006 at 03:51 PM
Archer of Imladris Points: 518 Posts: 39 Joined: 23/Sep/2006
Throughout this thread is the echo of Eru’s involvement in the death of Gollum and the subsequent defeat of Sauron.   I’ve read the letter whereby Tolkien refers to the other power that takes over, which is not him the author of the book, but rather he intimates it is Eru.   

The only problem I have with that is that it is being taken as Eru’s direct involvement in the world.

It can be seen in Ainulindale, from Eru’s discourse with Melkor, the nature of fate in Arda...

’And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’ - Sil

It is here that Eru states that nothing can be done to change his desired plan, and that any attempt will only be subverted to his will in ways that are unseen. Even if Gollum had not been involved or if Sauron had regained his ring, still it would not change the ultimate plan of Eru. If it was his will that Sauron be defeated then he would be defeated, but I digress.


The significance of Gollum’s death from Tolkien’s perspective, as can be gleaned from his letters is not that it is serendipity, instead it is by our own acts of mercy that we are saved.

So the short answer is not that Gollum is the unwitting saviour, nor is Eru directly involved, but rather it is the act of mercy upon the wretched creature which allows for his serendipitous fall when all appears lost, that is the actual saviour.    
Arthur Weasley 26/Oct/2006 at 04:44 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Celethil - Yes, I can see how Bilbo’s (and later Frodo and Sam’s) mercy in not killing and even befriending Gollum could be viewed as one of the crucial factors.  However, while Eru Illuvatars will may not be changed, I believe that the divine spark in us all sometimes guides us even against our conscious wishes.  With Gollum as a servant of Eru (or maybe even Eru in disguise as the Guild of Twisted Lore believe) Eru would have a more direct hand in ensuring his will being fulfilled as planned.  While random facotrs may happen in the Universe, the important things such as the Ring’s destruction would always have safeguards and insurance with divine intervention.  Again it is not intent but ACTIONS that I believe are decisive here.  Whatever Gollum’s intent (which would NEVER EVER harm the Ring) his actions assured the Ring’s destruction.  Gollums actions did save Middle Earth from Sauron’s domination!  Hence, Gollum is the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth (perhaps with Eru’s divine essence).
Arthur Weasley 26/Oct/2006 at 04:44 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Celethil - Yes, I can see how Bilbo’s (and later Frodo and Sam’s) mercy in not killing and even befriending Gollum could be viewed as one of the crucial factors.  However, while Eru Illuvatars will may not be changed, I believe that the divine spark in us all sometimes guides us even against our conscious wishes.  With Gollum as a servant of Eru (or maybe even Eru in disguise as the Guild of Twisted Lore believe) Eru would have a more direct hand in ensuring his will being fulfilled as planned.  While random facotrs may happen in the Universe, the important things such as the Ring’s destruction would always have safeguards and insurance with divine intervention.  Again it is not intent but ACTIONS that I believe are decisive here.  Whatever Gollum’s intent (which would NEVER EVER harm the Ring) his actions assured the Ring’s destruction.  Gollums actions did save Middle Earth from Sauron’s domination!  Hence, Gollum is the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth (perhaps with Eru’s divine essence).
Celethil 27/Oct/2006 at 06:34 PM
Archer of Imladris Points: 518 Posts: 39 Joined: 23/Sep/2006
Both the belief that some other power took over and by that it is not meant to be the author; and the fact that it was mercy upon Gollum that enabled the destruction of the ring are Tolkien’s thoughts on the matter.

And I do wholeheartedly believe that both are valid.

As to your question about Bilbo’s aging, I have no clue.   If someone has a reputable answer, I would enjoy reading it.   
Celethil 27/Oct/2006 at 06:34 PM
Archer of Imladris Points: 518 Posts: 39 Joined: 23/Sep/2006
Both the belief that some other power took over and by that it is not meant to be the author; and the fact that it was mercy upon Gollum that enabled the destruction of the ring are Tolkien’s thoughts on the matter.

And I do wholeheartedly believe that both are valid.

As to your question about Bilbo’s aging, I have no clue.   If someone has a reputable answer, I would enjoy reading it.   
Panethor 28/Oct/2006 at 06:04 AM
Mercenary of Minas Tirith Points: 416 Posts: 60 Joined: 23/Sep/2006
I think that Gollum was one of the Saviors of Middle Earth Because if he wasn’t the ring could be in the Hands of The Dark Lord Sauron because only Gollum new all the Secrets paths like Kirith Oungol, the paths in the Dead Marses. If he was not there or Frodo would be lost, or dead from the Nazguls.
Arthur Weasley 28/Oct/2006 at 08:26 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Absolutely right Panethor!  Frodo and Sam would not have gotten anywhere near Mount Doom were it not for Gollum leading them through as you say, he Dead Marshes and Cirith Ungol!  Even though Gollum was intending to lead them into a trap, I believe the intent does not matter.  It is our actions, not our thoughts, intentions or memories that shape our world!   Good point Panethor!
Arthur Weasley 28/Oct/2006 at 08:26 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Absolutely right Panethor!  Frodo and Sam would not have gotten anywhere near Mount Doom were it not for Gollum leading them through as you say, he Dead Marshes and Cirith Ungol!  Even though Gollum was intending to lead them into a trap, I believe the intent does not matter.  It is our actions, not our thoughts, intentions or memories that shape our world!   Good point Panethor!
Drachn’yel 29/Oct/2006 at 06:01 AM
Miner of Mordor Points: 936 Posts: 552 Joined: 08/Oct/2004

Of course, Gollum while did in the end prove to be the saviour of Middle Earth (However unwittingly) let’s not forget that on a couple of occasions his actions could have led to disaster for all the free peoples.  Leading Frodo and Sam into Cirith Ungol being the main one I’m thinking of.  Had Sam not succeeded in driving away Shelob then it’s entirely possible that the Orcs would have found either the ring, or Gollum afterwards looking for the ring.

Let’s face it an overwhelming amount of coincidences had to occur to thwart Sauron - lucky they did!

Drachn’yel 29/Oct/2006 at 06:01 AM
Miner of Mordor Points: 936 Posts: 552 Joined: 08/Oct/2004

Of course, Gollum while did in the end prove to be the saviour of Middle Earth (However unwittingly) let’s not forget that on a couple of occasions his actions could have led to disaster for all the free peoples.  Leading Frodo and Sam into Cirith Ungol being the main one I’m thinking of.  Had Sam not succeeded in driving away Shelob then it’s entirely possible that the Orcs would have found either the ring, or Gollum afterwards looking for the ring.

Let’s face it an overwhelming amount of coincidences had to occur to thwart Sauron - lucky they did!

Arthur Weasley 30/Oct/2006 at 04:09 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
I agree with you completely Drachn’yel!  The Guild of Twisted Lore has suggested that Gollum was an incarnation of Eru Illuvatar.  There are just too many coincidences in the chain of events to have ever been random chance.  Other threads have decried the notion of Faith in the LOTR books but I believe what happened with the Ring, Frodo, Sam and Gollum (guided by Gandalf of course) is the greatest argument for Faith in the LOTR books.  If you look above you will finds a post with several Gollum thread links and while I hate to end this thread, "All Good things must come to an end."  Maybe not yet.  Perhaps there are more directions we can go with this.  Any ideas anyone?
Arthur Weasley 30/Oct/2006 at 04:09 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
I agree with you completely Drachn’yel!  The Guild of Twisted Lore has suggested that Gollum was an incarnation of Eru Illuvatar.  There are just too many coincidences in the chain of events to have ever been random chance.  Other threads have decried the notion of Faith in the LOTR books but I believe what happened with the Ring, Frodo, Sam and Gollum (guided by Gandalf of course) is the greatest argument for Faith in the LOTR books.  If you look above you will finds a post with several Gollum thread links and while I hate to end this thread, "All Good things must come to an end."  Maybe not yet.  Perhaps there are more directions we can go with this.  Any ideas anyone?
iLOTR 30/Oct/2006 at 05:02 PM
Forester of Lothlorien Points: 92 Posts: 21 Joined: 30/Oct/2006
This is a really interesting forum, I’m glad I found it. I actually took a Mystery, Magic, and Heroes class when I was in 8th grade and we studied Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Beowulf, and some the King Arthur stories. The final exam for the class was to pick a hero and write about how you can tell that they’re a hero and so on. Out of the whole class I was the only one to choose Gollum to write my paper on. I mean, most heroes go on a journey, which was definitely true for Gollum and he did lead to the ultimate destruction of the ring. He also saved the Ring from Frodo who tried to claim it as his own. Well gotta go, I’ll continue this later.
iLOTR 30/Oct/2006 at 05:02 PM
Forester of Lothlorien Points: 92 Posts: 21 Joined: 30/Oct/2006
This is a really interesting forum, I’m glad I found it. I actually took a Mystery, Magic, and Heroes class when I was in 8th grade and we studied Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Beowulf, and some the King Arthur stories. The final exam for the class was to pick a hero and write about how you can tell that they’re a hero and so on. Out of the whole class I was the only one to choose Gollum to write my paper on. I mean, most heroes go on a journey, which was definitely true for Gollum and he did lead to the ultimate destruction of the ring. He also saved the Ring from Frodo who tried to claim it as his own. Well gotta go, I’ll continue this later.
KingODuckingham 30/Oct/2006 at 05:16 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
If Gollum was an incarnation of Eru Illuvatar, we would have Eru inhabiting a form that committed evil, which I find unacceptable. For Eru, does the end justify the means? I.E., if I want to save ME, I shall incarnate myself in the form of a petty, treacherous, nasty creature. I find this notion rather silly. I wouldn’t say it was random chance. Eru causes Gollum’s intervention at the last second, when all else has fails, so there is divine intervention, but Eru is not using Gollum as a puppet, simply a tool to accomplish his ends. Was Gollum the unwitting savior of ME? Perhaps. But should we cheer for him as a hero? No. While actions may be all that matters as far as the actual ’get-er-done’ shaping of the world, intent matters as well, particularly in our analysis and interpretation of history. We do not laud Gollum for being the unwitting savior that he is, but we do appreciate him. The one we laud is Frodo, for he spent every last bit of effort he had, completely selflessly, saving ME and the Shire, not for himself, but for others.
KingODuckingham 30/Oct/2006 at 05:16 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
If Gollum was an incarnation of Eru Illuvatar, we would have Eru inhabiting a form that committed evil, which I find unacceptable. For Eru, does the end justify the means? I.E., if I want to save ME, I shall incarnate myself in the form of a petty, treacherous, nasty creature. I find this notion rather silly. I wouldn’t say it was random chance. Eru causes Gollum’s intervention at the last second, when all else has fails, so there is divine intervention, but Eru is not using Gollum as a puppet, simply a tool to accomplish his ends. Was Gollum the unwitting savior of ME? Perhaps. But should we cheer for him as a hero? No. While actions may be all that matters as far as the actual ’get-er-done’ shaping of the world, intent matters as well, particularly in our analysis and interpretation of history. We do not laud Gollum for being the unwitting savior that he is, but we do appreciate him. The one we laud is Frodo, for he spent every last bit of effort he had, completely selflessly, saving ME and the Shire, not for himself, but for others.
Arthur Weasley 30/Oct/2006 at 09:22 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

iLOTR - WELCOME to LOTRPlaza.com!!  You definitely belong here with your ideas and I am glad you are here!  I hope that when you are ready, you consider becoming a Wizard by joining the White Council/Istari Plaza Kingdom!  Kingoduckingham and I have a great deal of fun there and maybe all three of us will have more fun!

Kingoduckingham - Forgive me but I really do not believe that intent matters much.  If a four year old finds a loaded pistol in a drawer and shoots someone, the victim is just as dead and murder is murder.  Gollum’s intentions absolutely were evil, but his actions resulted in so much positive good.  Perhaps I misquoted the Guild of Twisted Lore and maybe Eru Illuvatar’s essence was only present in Gollum’s subconcious mind but Gollum’s undisputed actions slew Sauron, destroyed his empire, allowed Aragorn to become King of both Gondor and Arnor, and rid the world of a black evil.  Even Frodo forgives Gollum at the end for what Gollum achieved.  Frodo would have failed.  He could not have destroyed the Ring.  Yah Gollum!  I guess there is still plenty of life left in this thread after all!

Arthur Weasley 30/Oct/2006 at 09:22 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

iLOTR - WELCOME to LOTRPlaza.com!!  You definitely belong here with your ideas and I am glad you are here!  I hope that when you are ready, you consider becoming a Wizard by joining the White Council/Istari Plaza Kingdom!  Kingoduckingham and I have a great deal of fun there and maybe all three of us will have more fun!

Kingoduckingham - Forgive me but I really do not believe that intent matters much.  If a four year old finds a loaded pistol in a drawer and shoots someone, the victim is just as dead and murder is murder.  Gollum’s intentions absolutely were evil, but his actions resulted in so much positive good.  Perhaps I misquoted the Guild of Twisted Lore and maybe Eru Illuvatar’s essence was only present in Gollum’s subconcious mind but Gollum’s undisputed actions slew Sauron, destroyed his empire, allowed Aragorn to become King of both Gondor and Arnor, and rid the world of a black evil.  Even Frodo forgives Gollum at the end for what Gollum achieved.  Frodo would have failed.  He could not have destroyed the Ring.  Yah Gollum!  I guess there is still plenty of life left in this thread after all!

KingODuckingham 31/Oct/2006 at 06:08 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth Enelan: Actually, I believe that in Tolkien’s Letters he says somewhere (I have only seen this quoted on the plaza, I don’t own the Letters myself) that if Gollum hadn’t been there to help destroy the ring, Frodo would indeed have found another way, or another way would have been opened up. In this sense then, I think of Gollum as not just the unwitting savior of ME, but the accidental savior. By that I mean, it is just chance that it happened to have been him; it might as well have been anyone else.

If actions matter so much, why honor Gollum? If it hadn’t been for others’ actions, the ring would have stayed with him in the pits of the Misty Mountains till Sauron grew strong enough to destroy ME without the ring anyway. It isn’t Gollum that gets honoured on the Field of Cormallen, but Frodo and Sam. If it hadn’t been for the Fellowship, particularly Sam, Frodo, Aragorn and Gandalf, Gollum wouldn’t have been in any sort of position to act as savior of ME. I see no reason to cheer for him, but rather to Frodo and Bilbo for pitying Gollum and allowing him to become the tool of Eru that he was.

Thank goodness I don’t have you for my judge if I was a four-year old who accidentally shot someone. Would you give the death penalty for an accidental murder as well as a serial killer’s latest victim, or does intent matter?
KingODuckingham 31/Oct/2006 at 06:08 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth Enelan: Actually, I believe that in Tolkien’s Letters he says somewhere (I have only seen this quoted on the plaza, I don’t own the Letters myself) that if Gollum hadn’t been there to help destroy the ring, Frodo would indeed have found another way, or another way would have been opened up. In this sense then, I think of Gollum as not just the unwitting savior of ME, but the accidental savior. By that I mean, it is just chance that it happened to have been him; it might as well have been anyone else.

If actions matter so much, why honor Gollum? If it hadn’t been for others’ actions, the ring would have stayed with him in the pits of the Misty Mountains till Sauron grew strong enough to destroy ME without the ring anyway. It isn’t Gollum that gets honoured on the Field of Cormallen, but Frodo and Sam. If it hadn’t been for the Fellowship, particularly Sam, Frodo, Aragorn and Gandalf, Gollum wouldn’t have been in any sort of position to act as savior of ME. I see no reason to cheer for him, but rather to Frodo and Bilbo for pitying Gollum and allowing him to become the tool of Eru that he was.

Thank goodness I don’t have you for my judge if I was a four-year old who accidentally shot someone. Would you give the death penalty for an accidental murder as well as a serial killer’s latest victim, or does intent matter?
Arthur Weasley 31/Oct/2006 at 07:55 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Good points Kingoduckingham!  But Yes, I would be a harsh judge.  Gollum however was victimized when Bilbo stole his Precious from him and Frpdo could not have destroyed the Ring at Mount Doom.  Frodo said "I will not do this deed!  The Ring is Mine!"  Let me check my Letters of Tolkien and I will see if I can find the reference you mentioned. 
Arthur Weasley 31/Oct/2006 at 07:55 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Good points Kingoduckingham!  But Yes, I would be a harsh judge.  Gollum however was victimized when Bilbo stole his Precious from him and Frpdo could not have destroyed the Ring at Mount Doom.  Frodo said "I will not do this deed!  The Ring is Mine!"  Let me check my Letters of Tolkien and I will see if I can find the reference you mentioned. 
Fisil Voignar 31/Oct/2006 at 03:57 PM
Trader of Erebor Points: 171 Posts: 33 Joined: 02/Oct/2006
Gollum is... a fascinating character. Kingoduckingham, i think your right, i have also heard about the words Tolkiens spoke in a letter about gollum. Darth get back to me about that though, i am interested. But in short i do think Gollum assited in the journey to Mt. Doom while he was also trouble at times, i think Frodo would not have gotten to doom without his aid.
Fisil Voignar 31/Oct/2006 at 03:57 PM
Trader of Erebor Points: 171 Posts: 33 Joined: 02/Oct/2006
Gollum is... a fascinating character. Kingoduckingham, i think your right, i have also heard about the words Tolkiens spoke in a letter about gollum. Darth get back to me about that though, i am interested. But in short i do think Gollum assited in the journey to Mt. Doom while he was also trouble at times, i think Frodo would not have gotten to doom without his aid.
KingODuckingham 31/Oct/2006 at 08:48 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Fisil: Welcome to the plaza, I’m glad you’ve joined the discussion!   You are right that the journey to Mt. Doom was greatly assisted by Gollum. One would be tempted to say indispensable...but I wouldn’t, just as I argue he is not indispensable in Sammath Naur (the chamber inside Mt. Doom). It is impossible to predict what would have been, particularly in such a butterfly effect situation such as the journey from Amon Hen to Orodruin, but the fact that Eru directly intervenes to get rid of the ring tells me that its destruction was, to some extent, fated (if you will) and was going to happen regardless. In other words, Eru wanted it done, and it was going to happen, whether in one way or another. This does not eliminate free will, by any means--I see Eru as using sort of guiding nudges rather than rigid control in the events of ME--otherwise we would not be told that Eru’s direct intervention in causing the events in Mt. Doom to happen was special at all.
KingODuckingham 31/Oct/2006 at 08:48 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Fisil: Welcome to the plaza, I’m glad you’ve joined the discussion!   You are right that the journey to Mt. Doom was greatly assisted by Gollum. One would be tempted to say indispensable...but I wouldn’t, just as I argue he is not indispensable in Sammath Naur (the chamber inside Mt. Doom). It is impossible to predict what would have been, particularly in such a butterfly effect situation such as the journey from Amon Hen to Orodruin, but the fact that Eru directly intervenes to get rid of the ring tells me that its destruction was, to some extent, fated (if you will) and was going to happen regardless. In other words, Eru wanted it done, and it was going to happen, whether in one way or another. This does not eliminate free will, by any means--I see Eru as using sort of guiding nudges rather than rigid control in the events of ME--otherwise we would not be told that Eru’s direct intervention in causing the events in Mt. Doom to happen was special at all.
iLOTR 01/Nov/2006 at 02:34 PM
Forester of Lothlorien Points: 92 Posts: 21 Joined: 30/Oct/2006
I think Gollum played a large part in leading to the decstruction of the ring out of his own free will. He led Frodo and Sam to the Black Gate and at that point he didn’t have any evil plans to dispose of them. Also, kingoduckingham the Ring probably would not have stayed with Gollum in the Misty Mountains, because by that point it ahd abandoned Gollum and the Ring would have found a new owner, and if it hadn’t been Bilbo the Ring could have easily come into Sauron’s posession.
iLOTR 01/Nov/2006 at 02:34 PM
Forester of Lothlorien Points: 92 Posts: 21 Joined: 30/Oct/2006
I think Gollum played a large part in leading to the decstruction of the ring out of his own free will. He led Frodo and Sam to the Black Gate and at that point he didn’t have any evil plans to dispose of them. Also, kingoduckingham the Ring probably would not have stayed with Gollum in the Misty Mountains, because by that point it ahd abandoned Gollum and the Ring would have found a new owner, and if it hadn’t been Bilbo the Ring could have easily come into Sauron’s posession.
Arthur Weasley 01/Nov/2006 at 02:35 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Fisil - From me also Welcome to the Plaza!! 

Kingoduckingham - Actually it is the notion of fate, destiny, Karma or divine intervention that makes me speculate that Gollum was a incarnation of Eru Illuvatar!  This is ann entertaining and metaphysical idea.  Yes, whatever Eru wants, Eru gets.  But if I were a deity (scary thought) I would probably search for some irony or some way to disguise my intervention so no one would suspect me.  Gandalf would be too obvious.  So why not Gollum?

Arthur Weasley 01/Nov/2006 at 02:35 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Fisil - From me also Welcome to the Plaza!! 

Kingoduckingham - Actually it is the notion of fate, destiny, Karma or divine intervention that makes me speculate that Gollum was a incarnation of Eru Illuvatar!  This is ann entertaining and metaphysical idea.  Yes, whatever Eru wants, Eru gets.  But if I were a deity (scary thought) I would probably search for some irony or some way to disguise my intervention so no one would suspect me.  Gandalf would be too obvious.  So why not Gollum?

KingODuckingham 01/Nov/2006 at 07:57 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
iLOTR: I would contend that Gollum did very very little out of free will in LOTR. He led them to the Black Gate because one part of his mind was being influenced by lust for the ring, and he wanted to stay near it, looking for the chance to get it back. Another part of his mind was being influenced by a separate aspect of the ring’s power--his oath sworn by it, holding him to his word. His free will is caught somewhere in between, and we catch but mere glimpses of it, and it rarely gains control over his actions.

Darth Enalan: Just because Eru is going to have his way doesn’t mean that he has to involve himself in any physical way with Arda. He didn’t even do anything physical in the creation of Arda--just singing, and not even his singing, but that of the Ainur. So I don’t see the logical progression from "Eru was involved" to "Eru got his hands dirty" if you see what I mean. Also I find the notion distasteful because Eru does not have evil in him, and while he uses evil actions (as he told Melkor) he does not perform them, or how could we consider him to be good?
KingODuckingham 01/Nov/2006 at 07:57 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
iLOTR: I would contend that Gollum did very very little out of free will in LOTR. He led them to the Black Gate because one part of his mind was being influenced by lust for the ring, and he wanted to stay near it, looking for the chance to get it back. Another part of his mind was being influenced by a separate aspect of the ring’s power--his oath sworn by it, holding him to his word. His free will is caught somewhere in between, and we catch but mere glimpses of it, and it rarely gains control over his actions.

Darth Enalan: Just because Eru is going to have his way doesn’t mean that he has to involve himself in any physical way with Arda. He didn’t even do anything physical in the creation of Arda--just singing, and not even his singing, but that of the Ainur. So I don’t see the logical progression from "Eru was involved" to "Eru got his hands dirty" if you see what I mean. Also I find the notion distasteful because Eru does not have evil in him, and while he uses evil actions (as he told Melkor) he does not perform them, or how could we consider him to be good?
Thefourfingers 01/Nov/2006 at 08:32 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  I completely agree with your point about Gollum doing few things that could be ruled as being done out of free will.  

However, I disagree with your point on Eru. "He didn’t even do anything physical in the creation of Arda--just singing, and not even his singing, but that of the Ainur."  What about the destruction of Numenor?  That would certainly seem to be something physical. 

Also could you explain what you mean by  "Eru does not have evil in him, and while he uses evil actions (as he told Melkor) he does not perform them"  because I don’t understant what you are trying to say.

Thefourfingers 01/Nov/2006 at 08:32 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  I completely agree with your point about Gollum doing few things that could be ruled as being done out of free will.  

However, I disagree with your point on Eru. "He didn’t even do anything physical in the creation of Arda--just singing, and not even his singing, but that of the Ainur."  What about the destruction of Numenor?  That would certainly seem to be something physical. 

Also could you explain what you mean by  "Eru does not have evil in him, and while he uses evil actions (as he told Melkor) he does not perform them"  because I don’t understant what you are trying to say.

KingODuckingham 01/Nov/2006 at 10:27 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: Looking back I do realize my post got contracted somewhere between my head and the paper. I shall attempt to clarify.

What about the destruction of Numenor? In the downfall of Numenor in Unfinished Tales, there is a description of Numenor’s destruction, and it does not involve Eru reaching down with a massive hand and pushing Numenor under the waves. Rather he uses an amplified natural disaster in the form of an earthquake/hurricane to annihilate the isle. Does he incarnate himself as a wave or a tectonic plate? I don’t think so.

What I meant in that second quote you posted is that Eru is Absolute Good (for otherwise how could he create something that did not understand evil like Manwe) and therefore does not commit evil deeds. He can use others’ evil deeds to further his own ends, as he tells Melkor in the Ainulindale, but he himself will not commit an evil act.
KingODuckingham 01/Nov/2006 at 10:27 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: Looking back I do realize my post got contracted somewhere between my head and the paper. I shall attempt to clarify.

What about the destruction of Numenor? In the downfall of Numenor in Unfinished Tales, there is a description of Numenor’s destruction, and it does not involve Eru reaching down with a massive hand and pushing Numenor under the waves. Rather he uses an amplified natural disaster in the form of an earthquake/hurricane to annihilate the isle. Does he incarnate himself as a wave or a tectonic plate? I don’t think so.

What I meant in that second quote you posted is that Eru is Absolute Good (for otherwise how could he create something that did not understand evil like Manwe) and therefore does not commit evil deeds. He can use others’ evil deeds to further his own ends, as he tells Melkor in the Ainulindale, but he himself will not commit an evil act.
Thefourfingers 01/Nov/2006 at 11:12 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

"Eru is Absolute Good (for otherwise how could he create something that did not understand evil like Manwe) and therefore does not commit evil deeds. He can use others’ evil deeds to further his own ends, as he tells Melkor in the Ainulindale, but he himself will not commit an evil act."

kingoduckingham- I think the logic of this statement is a little strange.  The first part concerning Manwe doesn’t prove your point.  If we are judging Eru’s goodness by the nature of the Ainur he created then we must also take Melkor into account.  Eru created the Ainur in his image, thus any of the traits Melkor has must come from some part of the mind of Eru.  If Eru is absolute good then how could he create a Melkor based on some part of himself that contained any evil?

As to Eru using "others’ evil deeds to further his own ends":  Since Eru created all existence, both good and evil, isn’t he then as responsible for the evil acts of others as he would be if he had commited them himself?

Thefourfingers 01/Nov/2006 at 11:12 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

"Eru is Absolute Good (for otherwise how could he create something that did not understand evil like Manwe) and therefore does not commit evil deeds. He can use others’ evil deeds to further his own ends, as he tells Melkor in the Ainulindale, but he himself will not commit an evil act."

kingoduckingham- I think the logic of this statement is a little strange.  The first part concerning Manwe doesn’t prove your point.  If we are judging Eru’s goodness by the nature of the Ainur he created then we must also take Melkor into account.  Eru created the Ainur in his image, thus any of the traits Melkor has must come from some part of the mind of Eru.  If Eru is absolute good then how could he create a Melkor based on some part of himself that contained any evil?

As to Eru using "others’ evil deeds to further his own ends":  Since Eru created all existence, both good and evil, isn’t he then as responsible for the evil acts of others as he would be if he had commited them himself?

KingODuckingham 02/Nov/2006 at 07:46 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: Eru created the Ainur in his image, thus any of the traits Melkor has must come from some part of the mind of Eru. Not so. You are forgetting the free will he imbued in his Ainur, and Gandalf tells us that nothing was evil in the beginning. It was not Eru’s mind, but his own, that led to Melkor’s evil. And my point about Manwe was that if Eru contained some portion of evil within him, how could he create something that did not understand evil if he is creating in his image?

Eru created all existence, but he didn’t corrupt any of it. So no, he is not responsible for the evil acts of others, or else there is no free will and no personal responsibility: it is all up to Eru. And that talk is ridiculous and to be avoided.
KingODuckingham 02/Nov/2006 at 07:46 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: Eru created the Ainur in his image, thus any of the traits Melkor has must come from some part of the mind of Eru. Not so. You are forgetting the free will he imbued in his Ainur, and Gandalf tells us that nothing was evil in the beginning. It was not Eru’s mind, but his own, that led to Melkor’s evil. And my point about Manwe was that if Eru contained some portion of evil within him, how could he create something that did not understand evil if he is creating in his image?

Eru created all existence, but he didn’t corrupt any of it. So no, he is not responsible for the evil acts of others, or else there is no free will and no personal responsibility: it is all up to Eru. And that talk is ridiculous and to be avoided.
Arthur Weasley 02/Nov/2006 at 07:48 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ohh!  I love existential debates!  Did Eru create Evil?  Yes to give all sentient beings in Arda free will.  While Gollum commited many evil acts willfully and maliciously with absolutely no (or very few) regrets, Eru still may have entered his subconcious mind and subtlely motivated Gollum to destroy the Ring.  While Gollum’s concious intelligence would never destroy his Precious, his indomitable will could have been influenced by Eru to perform actions contrary to his interests.  Having "friends" again with Frodo and Sam would stir up old and buried memories from Gollums earlier happy life without his Precious.  Eru works in mysterious ways.  I spent many years studying Christology (i.e. How Human or Divine was Jesus) in graduate and theology school and the same model could be used to describe Gollum.  How much was Gollum Slinker, Stinker and himself inside himself?  Thoughts?
Arthur Weasley 02/Nov/2006 at 07:48 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ohh!  I love existential debates!  Did Eru create Evil?  Yes to give all sentient beings in Arda free will.  While Gollum commited many evil acts willfully and maliciously with absolutely no (or very few) regrets, Eru still may have entered his subconcious mind and subtlely motivated Gollum to destroy the Ring.  While Gollum’s concious intelligence would never destroy his Precious, his indomitable will could have been influenced by Eru to perform actions contrary to his interests.  Having "friends" again with Frodo and Sam would stir up old and buried memories from Gollums earlier happy life without his Precious.  Eru works in mysterious ways.  I spent many years studying Christology (i.e. How Human or Divine was Jesus) in graduate and theology school and the same model could be used to describe Gollum.  How much was Gollum Slinker, Stinker and himself inside himself?  Thoughts?
KingODuckingham 02/Nov/2006 at 08:38 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth Enalan: Gollum’s conscious intelligence and will had nothing to do with the destruction of the ring; he stepped off the ledge by accident in his exultations.

"And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped to far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell."

While we are told this is not a coincidence, as far as Gollum is concerned it was; he hardly meant to step off the ledge, he was simply celebrating. Why Eru must possess him somehow to cause this accident I don’t quite understand.
KingODuckingham 02/Nov/2006 at 08:38 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth Enalan: Gollum’s conscious intelligence and will had nothing to do with the destruction of the ring; he stepped off the ledge by accident in his exultations.

"And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped to far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell."

While we are told this is not a coincidence, as far as Gollum is concerned it was; he hardly meant to step off the ledge, he was simply celebrating. Why Eru must possess him somehow to cause this accident I don’t quite understand.
Thefourfingers 02/Nov/2006 at 10:15 AM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham- I am not forgetting free will at all.  Since, as you pointed out, Manwe does not even have the ability to comprehend evil, would it not also make sense that Manwe would be unable to make an evil decision.  So if Eru had the ability to create beings completely bereft of evil then I think he is responsible for his creation of beings that are capable of evil.

Let me use an analogy.  Let’s say that I am Eru and Manwe and Melkor are pots of chili.  For this analogy I’m going to represent evil with the chili spoiling.  Now, if I have the ability to make chili that will not spoil (representative of Manwe being bereft of evil) and then I make chili that has the potential to spoil (representative of Melkor having the ability to make evil decisions), whose fault is it if the chili spoils?  I would say that it is my fault because I made the chili.

Thefourfingers 02/Nov/2006 at 10:15 AM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham- I am not forgetting free will at all.  Since, as you pointed out, Manwe does not even have the ability to comprehend evil, would it not also make sense that Manwe would be unable to make an evil decision.  So if Eru had the ability to create beings completely bereft of evil then I think he is responsible for his creation of beings that are capable of evil.

Let me use an analogy.  Let’s say that I am Eru and Manwe and Melkor are pots of chili.  For this analogy I’m going to represent evil with the chili spoiling.  Now, if I have the ability to make chili that will not spoil (representative of Manwe being bereft of evil) and then I make chili that has the potential to spoil (representative of Melkor having the ability to make evil decisions), whose fault is it if the chili spoils?  I would say that it is my fault because I made the chili.

KingODuckingham 02/Nov/2006 at 11:44 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: I did not say that Manwe does not have the ability to comprehend evil, I simply said that he did not comprehend it. All the Ainur were created with free will, and therefore, to work within the metaphor, all the Ainur have the potential to spoil. But only the potential. Perhaps a quote?

For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Illuvatar, Melkor had been even as he;

A few things we can see from this quote. Obviously all the Ainur have free will, because in the thought of Illuvatar, Melkor and Manwe are akin, and without evil. The choices they have made since then have led them down opposite paths. Eru had created them all without evil, but they are no more than animated puppets as the dwarves were to Aule until they have free will, and what good is a creation such as that? So he gave them choices, and Manwe has chosen to remain true, loyal, and good, not comprehending evil, not because it was impossible, but because he remains free of it. Melkor, on the other hand, has immersed himself in evil, not because Eru willed it, but because he conceived thoughts of his own. And from that former quote we are told that this was not in the mind of Eru when Melkor was first created--Melkor had thoughts of his own that led to the evil, separate from Eru. To blame Eru for Melkor’s evil would be to blame my mother for birthing me if I commit theft and murder.
KingODuckingham 02/Nov/2006 at 11:44 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: I did not say that Manwe does not have the ability to comprehend evil, I simply said that he did not comprehend it. All the Ainur were created with free will, and therefore, to work within the metaphor, all the Ainur have the potential to spoil. But only the potential. Perhaps a quote?

For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Illuvatar, Melkor had been even as he;

A few things we can see from this quote. Obviously all the Ainur have free will, because in the thought of Illuvatar, Melkor and Manwe are akin, and without evil. The choices they have made since then have led them down opposite paths. Eru had created them all without evil, but they are no more than animated puppets as the dwarves were to Aule until they have free will, and what good is a creation such as that? So he gave them choices, and Manwe has chosen to remain true, loyal, and good, not comprehending evil, not because it was impossible, but because he remains free of it. Melkor, on the other hand, has immersed himself in evil, not because Eru willed it, but because he conceived thoughts of his own. And from that former quote we are told that this was not in the mind of Eru when Melkor was first created--Melkor had thoughts of his own that led to the evil, separate from Eru. To blame Eru for Melkor’s evil would be to blame my mother for birthing me if I commit theft and murder.
elven ross 02/Nov/2006 at 12:02 PM
Youth of Imladris Points: 44 Posts: 6 Joined: 29/Oct/2006
I belive that Golem is braver and smarter than frodo bcause, gllum made frodo get rid of sam and led frodo into a trap then he caught them up on mount doom plus, in the fellowship he followed the fellowship to amo hen therefore gollem rocks¬¬
elven ross 02/Nov/2006 at 12:02 PM
Youth of Imladris Points: 44 Posts: 6 Joined: 29/Oct/2006
I belive that Golem is braver and smarter than frodo bcause, gllum made frodo get rid of sam and led frodo into a trap then he caught them up on mount doom plus, in the fellowship he followed the fellowship to amo hen therefore gollem rocks¬¬
Thefourfingers 02/Nov/2006 at 12:17 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  “I did not say that Manwe does not have the ability to comprehend evil, I simply said that he did not comprehend it.”  You say that all the Ainur have to potential to be evil.  So how can Manwe have the potential of doing something that he does not understand?

“To blame Eru for Melkor’s evil would be to blame my mother for birthing me if I commit theft and murder.”  Not at all; your mother did not have the ability to determine what kind of person you would be.  Eru has far more control over the nature of what he creates.

Thefourfingers 02/Nov/2006 at 12:17 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  “I did not say that Manwe does not have the ability to comprehend evil, I simply said that he did not comprehend it.”  You say that all the Ainur have to potential to be evil.  So how can Manwe have the potential of doing something that he does not understand?

“To blame Eru for Melkor’s evil would be to blame my mother for birthing me if I commit theft and murder.”  Not at all; your mother did not have the ability to determine what kind of person you would be.  Eru has far more control over the nature of what he creates.

KingODuckingham 02/Nov/2006 at 12:25 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: So how can Manwe have the potential of doing something that he does not understand? In the same way I may have the potential to learn to speak Russian or do advanced Calculus, which are things that currently I do not understand.

your mother did not have the ability to determine what kind of person you would be. Eru has far more control over the nature of what he creates. He has the ability to control the nature of what he creates, yes. But what he created was good. He does not then have subsequent control over their actions, because he created them with free will, and it was this that caused the spoiling of Melkor’s chili, not Eru.
KingODuckingham 02/Nov/2006 at 12:25 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: So how can Manwe have the potential of doing something that he does not understand? In the same way I may have the potential to learn to speak Russian or do advanced Calculus, which are things that currently I do not understand.

your mother did not have the ability to determine what kind of person you would be. Eru has far more control over the nature of what he creates. He has the ability to control the nature of what he creates, yes. But what he created was good. He does not then have subsequent control over their actions, because he created them with free will, and it was this that caused the spoiling of Melkor’s chili, not Eru.
Arthur Weasley 02/Nov/2006 at 12:35 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

OOOO Look what I started!  Cool!

Kingoduckingham - Excellent points!!  But..Eru says in the Annuidale (sp?) that eventhough Melkor believed he was thinking his own independent thoughts, he really was just fulfilling the destiny that Eru created for him.  So Free will may just be an illusion after all.  Perhaps Eru used mindcontrol to cause Gollum to stumble over the edge of the cliff at Sammath Naur. 

The Fourfingers - I agree with you!

ElvenRoss - Welcome to the Plaza!  Good points!

Arthur Weasley 02/Nov/2006 at 12:35 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

OOOO Look what I started!  Cool!

Kingoduckingham - Excellent points!!  But..Eru says in the Annuidale (sp?) that eventhough Melkor believed he was thinking his own independent thoughts, he really was just fulfilling the destiny that Eru created for him.  So Free will may just be an illusion after all.  Perhaps Eru used mindcontrol to cause Gollum to stumble over the edge of the cliff at Sammath Naur. 

The Fourfingers - I agree with you!

ElvenRoss - Welcome to the Plaza!  Good points!

Thefourfingers 02/Nov/2006 at 12:45 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  “In the same way I may have the potential to learn to speak Russian or do advanced Calculus, which are things that currently I do not understand.”  Yes but someone would have to teach you Russian or calculus.

“He does not then have subsequent control over their actions, because he created them with free will, and it was this that caused the spoiling of Melkor’s chili, not Eru.”  First off, the chili is not Melkor’s, it is Eru’s.  Melkor is the chili.  Secondly, if Melkor was originally the same as Manwe then who taught Melkor to understand evil?

Thefourfingers 02/Nov/2006 at 12:45 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  “In the same way I may have the potential to learn to speak Russian or do advanced Calculus, which are things that currently I do not understand.”  Yes but someone would have to teach you Russian or calculus.

“He does not then have subsequent control over their actions, because he created them with free will, and it was this that caused the spoiling of Melkor’s chili, not Eru.”  First off, the chili is not Melkor’s, it is Eru’s.  Melkor is the chili.  Secondly, if Melkor was originally the same as Manwe then who taught Melkor to understand evil?

iLOTR 02/Nov/2006 at 03:38 PM
Forester of Lothlorien Points: 92 Posts: 21 Joined: 30/Oct/2006
I think that Eru can’t be absolute good becuase if he were absolute good then there would be no way for Melkor to learn about evil because evil could not exist if Eru didn’t make evil, and I doubt that someone who was absolutely good would create evil. I mean, even if there were no evil there would still be free will, people just wouldn’t know anything about evil because it wouldn’t exist.
iLOTR 02/Nov/2006 at 03:38 PM
Forester of Lothlorien Points: 92 Posts: 21 Joined: 30/Oct/2006
I think that Eru can’t be absolute good becuase if he were absolute good then there would be no way for Melkor to learn about evil because evil could not exist if Eru didn’t make evil, and I doubt that someone who was absolutely good would create evil. I mean, even if there were no evil there would still be free will, people just wouldn’t know anything about evil because it wouldn’t exist.
Thefourfingers 02/Nov/2006 at 04:04 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

iLOTR- I agree with you completely.

Eru can be the only source of evil in Arda because he is the creator of everything.  I am not saying that Eru made Melkor chose to do evil or good action.  But I do think that it is Eru’s fault that the option of being evil even exists.

Thefourfingers 02/Nov/2006 at 04:04 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

iLOTR- I agree with you completely.

Eru can be the only source of evil in Arda because he is the creator of everything.  I am not saying that Eru made Melkor chose to do evil or good action.  But I do think that it is Eru’s fault that the option of being evil even exists.

Arthur Weasley 02/Nov/2006 at 07:37 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
This is all true guys!  So if Eru Illuvatar created Evil in Arda, why could not Gollum be an agent of Eru or even Eru himself?  Maybe Eru was playing a joke on old Frodo and Sam thinnking "Hmmm.  What if I acted totally evil and how would these Hobbits deal with it?"  Then when the time was right, the essence of Eru through fate encouraged Gollum to become careless at the edge of Sammath Naur and "take a little tumble off the cliff!" 
Arthur Weasley 02/Nov/2006 at 07:37 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
This is all true guys!  So if Eru Illuvatar created Evil in Arda, why could not Gollum be an agent of Eru or even Eru himself?  Maybe Eru was playing a joke on old Frodo and Sam thinnking "Hmmm.  What if I acted totally evil and how would these Hobbits deal with it?"  Then when the time was right, the essence of Eru through fate encouraged Gollum to become careless at the edge of Sammath Naur and "take a little tumble off the cliff!" 
KingODuckingham 02/Nov/2006 at 08:56 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Why is it so hard to believe that if Eru was absolute good that evil could not exist? Eru did not create everything; for instance, the Silmarils, or even better, the dwarves. Yet exist they do nonetheless.
Consider it thus:
Eru is absolute good.
Therefore, evil would be defined as doing anything contrary to Eru’s will.
Free will exists, therefore it must be possible to go contrary to Eru’s will.
Therefore, it is possible to do evil, and also that Eru is not the source.

Again, I still think the analogy works with the mother-offspring analogy. By your argument, there should be no further births on the planet, because of the potential evil actions those babies may commit someday down the road. But because we don’t blame the parents when the child sins, this argument holds no water whatsoever.
KingODuckingham 02/Nov/2006 at 08:56 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Why is it so hard to believe that if Eru was absolute good that evil could not exist? Eru did not create everything; for instance, the Silmarils, or even better, the dwarves. Yet exist they do nonetheless.
Consider it thus:
Eru is absolute good.
Therefore, evil would be defined as doing anything contrary to Eru’s will.
Free will exists, therefore it must be possible to go contrary to Eru’s will.
Therefore, it is possible to do evil, and also that Eru is not the source.

Again, I still think the analogy works with the mother-offspring analogy. By your argument, there should be no further births on the planet, because of the potential evil actions those babies may commit someday down the road. But because we don’t blame the parents when the child sins, this argument holds no water whatsoever.
Thefourfingers 02/Nov/2006 at 09:53 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham- "Why is it so hard to believe that if Eru was absolute good that evil could not exist?"  I don’t find that hard to believe; in fact I completely agree with this idea.

"Eru did not create everything; for instance, the Silmarils, or even better, the dwarves."  Feanor would not have been able to make the silmarils if he had not been taught by Aule.  The Dwarves owe their existence to Aule.  And Aule would not have been able to do these things if Eru had not made him the way he is.

"Eru is absolute good."  How can you state this as a fact?  Absolute good is as impossible as absolute evil.

"Again, I still think the analogy works with the mother-offspring analogy. By your argument, there should be no further births on the planet, because of the potential evil actions those babies may commit someday down the road."  Your analogy does not work for what I am trying to say at all and my arguement in no way says that mothers are responsible for the actions of their children.

My arguement is that if Eru had the ability to create something completely bereft of any understanding of evil then he should have made all the Ainur in that fashion.  Since he did not do this I would say that Eru is responsible for the small seeds of evil in Arda.  The reason your mother-child analogy breaks down is because a mother cannot pre-determine the nature of her children in the same way that Eru can.  Therefore the mother cannot be held responsible but Eru can.

Thefourfingers 02/Nov/2006 at 09:53 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham- "Why is it so hard to believe that if Eru was absolute good that evil could not exist?"  I don’t find that hard to believe; in fact I completely agree with this idea.

"Eru did not create everything; for instance, the Silmarils, or even better, the dwarves."  Feanor would not have been able to make the silmarils if he had not been taught by Aule.  The Dwarves owe their existence to Aule.  And Aule would not have been able to do these things if Eru had not made him the way he is.

"Eru is absolute good."  How can you state this as a fact?  Absolute good is as impossible as absolute evil.

"Again, I still think the analogy works with the mother-offspring analogy. By your argument, there should be no further births on the planet, because of the potential evil actions those babies may commit someday down the road."  Your analogy does not work for what I am trying to say at all and my arguement in no way says that mothers are responsible for the actions of their children.

My arguement is that if Eru had the ability to create something completely bereft of any understanding of evil then he should have made all the Ainur in that fashion.  Since he did not do this I would say that Eru is responsible for the small seeds of evil in Arda.  The reason your mother-child analogy breaks down is because a mother cannot pre-determine the nature of her children in the same way that Eru can.  Therefore the mother cannot be held responsible but Eru can.

KingODuckingham 03/Nov/2006 at 06:01 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Absolute good is as impossible as absolute evil. Any proof?

my arguement in no way says that mothers are responsible for the actions of their children. But if creators are responsible for their creation, and if parents create their children, then they would be responsible for the actions of their children.


My arguement is that if Eru had the ability to create something completely bereft of any understanding of evil then he should have made all the Ainur in that fashion. He did. But here’s a quote showing what happened with Melkor.

But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.

These are in no way put into his mind by Eru--they are thoughts of his own. These thoughts are clearly the result of free will; the ability to choose right or wrong. But right or wrong MUST be defined by Eru, don’t you see? Either one must be in accordance with Illuvatar and be good, or go against him (as Melkor did) and be evil. What other standard can be held up for right and wrong? What other way can it be defined? But for Eru to be used as a standard, he must be absolute good or absolute evil, otherwise the standard is worthless. Since Tolkien has told us there is no absolute evil, he must be absolute good.

You still say he should not have created the Ainur with the ability to do evil. But that would perforce involve getting rid of free will (or the imperishable flame, as it is referred to by Tolkien) and making them puppets of Eru rather than servants, like the dwarves to Aule.
KingODuckingham 03/Nov/2006 at 06:01 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Absolute good is as impossible as absolute evil. Any proof?

my arguement in no way says that mothers are responsible for the actions of their children. But if creators are responsible for their creation, and if parents create their children, then they would be responsible for the actions of their children.


My arguement is that if Eru had the ability to create something completely bereft of any understanding of evil then he should have made all the Ainur in that fashion. He did. But here’s a quote showing what happened with Melkor.

But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.

These are in no way put into his mind by Eru--they are thoughts of his own. These thoughts are clearly the result of free will; the ability to choose right or wrong. But right or wrong MUST be defined by Eru, don’t you see? Either one must be in accordance with Illuvatar and be good, or go against him (as Melkor did) and be evil. What other standard can be held up for right and wrong? What other way can it be defined? But for Eru to be used as a standard, he must be absolute good or absolute evil, otherwise the standard is worthless. Since Tolkien has told us there is no absolute evil, he must be absolute good.

You still say he should not have created the Ainur with the ability to do evil. But that would perforce involve getting rid of free will (or the imperishable flame, as it is referred to by Tolkien) and making them puppets of Eru rather than servants, like the dwarves to Aule.
Arthur Weasley 03/Nov/2006 at 04:42 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Fabulous points everyone!  But getting back to Gollum, why is it so difficult to imaginne Gollum as possessing a shred of the essence of Eru Illuvatar?  Mothers and Fathers create children that will think independently but do not have the specific control of their creationssuch as a diety.  If I build a machine to wash my laundry, it might break down after numerous uses.  So like anyone who takes pride in their machines, they maintain them and tinker with them occasionally.  So perhaps Eru used/manipulated poor Gollum into destroying his Precious and this is what divinity can do.  Just aswe all have that divine spark, so sometimes we do things unexpectedly that have short term losses but lonng term gains.  When Prime Minister Churchill allowed the Germans to bomb Coventry during WWII, he did that to ensure that the Germans did not realize that their ENIGMA codes were compromised and/or cracked.  This allowed the Brits and Yanks (yah!) to defeat the Nazi’s!  So why is it so difficult to imagine Gollum’s actions in this light as the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth?
Arthur Weasley 03/Nov/2006 at 04:42 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Fabulous points everyone!  But getting back to Gollum, why is it so difficult to imaginne Gollum as possessing a shred of the essence of Eru Illuvatar?  Mothers and Fathers create children that will think independently but do not have the specific control of their creationssuch as a diety.  If I build a machine to wash my laundry, it might break down after numerous uses.  So like anyone who takes pride in their machines, they maintain them and tinker with them occasionally.  So perhaps Eru used/manipulated poor Gollum into destroying his Precious and this is what divinity can do.  Just aswe all have that divine spark, so sometimes we do things unexpectedly that have short term losses but lonng term gains.  When Prime Minister Churchill allowed the Germans to bomb Coventry during WWII, he did that to ensure that the Germans did not realize that their ENIGMA codes were compromised and/or cracked.  This allowed the Brits and Yanks (yah!) to defeat the Nazi’s!  So why is it so difficult to imagine Gollum’s actions in this light as the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth?
Thefourfingers 03/Nov/2006 at 06:44 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

Darth Enalan- I realize that this series of posts has drifted off topic.   I would be happy to start a new thread if you would prefer.

kingoduckingham-  Once again you fail to see my point.  I did  not say that all creators are responsible for their creations.  I said that creators that have total control over the nature  of their creations are responsible for the actions  of their creations.  Since a mother has no control over the nature of her children she cannot be held responsible for her children’s actions.

So if Eru created Melkor in such a fashion that he was originally completely free of evil then what happened?  Why was Melkor different from the other Vala?  There must have been a very small seed of potential  evil located somewhere in Melkor otherwise how would he have even considered anything evil. 

"But right or wrong MUST be defined by Eru, don’t you see?"  No I don’t see.  I disagree with the concept that a deity gets to determine the concept of good and evil simply because they are all powerful.  This is why I do not think that Eru is absolute good.  I think that absolute good is unobtainable even for the divine.  But since that particular issue is treading dangerously close to the line on the no discussion of religion rule I will drop this part of my argument.

Thefourfingers 03/Nov/2006 at 06:44 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

Darth Enalan- I realize that this series of posts has drifted off topic.   I would be happy to start a new thread if you would prefer.

kingoduckingham-  Once again you fail to see my point.  I did  not say that all creators are responsible for their creations.  I said that creators that have total control over the nature  of their creations are responsible for the actions  of their creations.  Since a mother has no control over the nature of her children she cannot be held responsible for her children’s actions.

So if Eru created Melkor in such a fashion that he was originally completely free of evil then what happened?  Why was Melkor different from the other Vala?  There must have been a very small seed of potential  evil located somewhere in Melkor otherwise how would he have even considered anything evil. 

"But right or wrong MUST be defined by Eru, don’t you see?"  No I don’t see.  I disagree with the concept that a deity gets to determine the concept of good and evil simply because they are all powerful.  This is why I do not think that Eru is absolute good.  I think that absolute good is unobtainable even for the divine.  But since that particular issue is treading dangerously close to the line on the no discussion of religion rule I will drop this part of my argument.

KingODuckingham 03/Nov/2006 at 09:24 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth Enalan: Why is it so hard? Because your analogy of the machine once again breaks down the barrier of free will. Eru did not create robots, but fellow beings. Subservient beings, but independent nonetheless, and thus their actions actually matter. If they were robots, what point in living, if you can call it that?

TFF: Why was Melkor different from the other Vala? I told you in the quote above; being alone is the given reason, and the reason he is alone is because he is searching for the flame imperishable, and the reason he is searching for that is because he wanted to create beings of his own because he was impatient and thought Eru was ignoring creation.

I disagree with the concept that a deity gets to determine the concept of good and evil simply because they are all powerful. It’s not that they are making up a standard because they have the power; it’s that their actions are the standard by default, because they are the only absolute. Thus absolute good is not some creation of Eru’s, but an attribute of his character, just like his omnipotence and omniscience.
KingODuckingham 03/Nov/2006 at 09:24 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth Enalan: Why is it so hard? Because your analogy of the machine once again breaks down the barrier of free will. Eru did not create robots, but fellow beings. Subservient beings, but independent nonetheless, and thus their actions actually matter. If they were robots, what point in living, if you can call it that?

TFF: Why was Melkor different from the other Vala? I told you in the quote above; being alone is the given reason, and the reason he is alone is because he is searching for the flame imperishable, and the reason he is searching for that is because he wanted to create beings of his own because he was impatient and thought Eru was ignoring creation.

I disagree with the concept that a deity gets to determine the concept of good and evil simply because they are all powerful. It’s not that they are making up a standard because they have the power; it’s that their actions are the standard by default, because they are the only absolute. Thus absolute good is not some creation of Eru’s, but an attribute of his character, just like his omnipotence and omniscience.
Thefourfingers 03/Nov/2006 at 11:26 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  "...[Melkor] is searching for the flame imperishable, and the reason he is searching for that is because he wanted to create beings of his own because he was impatient and thought Eru was ignoring creation."  What is so evil about that?  Aule did it and we don’t see his actions as evil.  Also, since Melkor has created in Eru’s image, isn’t Melkor’s desire to create beings of his own perfectly natural.  This is no different than a child wanting to emulate his parents.

"...their actions are the standard by default, because they are the only absolute. Thus absolute good is not some creation of Eru’s, but an attribute of his character, just like his omnipotence and omniscience."  This is exactly what I disagree with.  Just because you are all powerful and all knowing doesn’t mean than you are infallible.  I mean sure, nobody can argue with an omnipotent being but might does not make right.

Thefourfingers 03/Nov/2006 at 11:26 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  "...[Melkor] is searching for the flame imperishable, and the reason he is searching for that is because he wanted to create beings of his own because he was impatient and thought Eru was ignoring creation."  What is so evil about that?  Aule did it and we don’t see his actions as evil.  Also, since Melkor has created in Eru’s image, isn’t Melkor’s desire to create beings of his own perfectly natural.  This is no different than a child wanting to emulate his parents.

"...their actions are the standard by default, because they are the only absolute. Thus absolute good is not some creation of Eru’s, but an attribute of his character, just like his omnipotence and omniscience."  This is exactly what I disagree with.  Just because you are all powerful and all knowing doesn’t mean than you are infallible.  I mean sure, nobody can argue with an omnipotent being but might does not make right.

Arthur Weasley 04/Nov/2006 at 06:04 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
This may sound strange - but I agree with Kingoduckingham about ACTIONS being more important than intent (which is noted above in previous posts) but politely disagree with his other points in his last post.  Eru Illuvatar created Evil so we all would know what Good was!  We have free will in most things but on the really important stuff such as Gollum destroying the Ring for us, Eru Illuvatar would of course intervene.  Even Melkor was not evil in his beginning, but he chose evil and performed evil actions because of his impatience and his desire to findn the Flame Imperishable.  Eru Illuvatar does not "micromanage" all the Hobbits with what they will order for dinner at the Prancing Pony but he will tinker a bit with his Universe through using Gollum.  Whatever Gollum intended, his ACTIONS saved Middle Earth from Sauron!!  Gollum is the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth!  Eru Illuvatar maybe compelled him to slip but that is just divine intervention to ensure that all things that should be shall be.  Next Thoughts?
Arthur Weasley 04/Nov/2006 at 06:04 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
This may sound strange - but I agree with Kingoduckingham about ACTIONS being more important than intent (which is noted above in previous posts) but politely disagree with his other points in his last post.  Eru Illuvatar created Evil so we all would know what Good was!  We have free will in most things but on the really important stuff such as Gollum destroying the Ring for us, Eru Illuvatar would of course intervene.  Even Melkor was not evil in his beginning, but he chose evil and performed evil actions because of his impatience and his desire to findn the Flame Imperishable.  Eru Illuvatar does not "micromanage" all the Hobbits with what they will order for dinner at the Prancing Pony but he will tinker a bit with his Universe through using Gollum.  Whatever Gollum intended, his ACTIONS saved Middle Earth from Sauron!!  Gollum is the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth!  Eru Illuvatar maybe compelled him to slip but that is just divine intervention to ensure that all things that should be shall be.  Next Thoughts?
KingODuckingham 04/Nov/2006 at 10:34 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: Aule did it and we don’t see his actions as evil. Actually, his actions were evil enough to warrant the destruction of the dwarves, but because of his repentance and the motives behind his actions (unlike Melkor, he did not desire to have power over and manipulate his creations) the dwarves were given the flame imperishable by Eru, and he accepted Aule’s creation as a humble offering rather than a disobedient act. Melkor was trying to increase his own glory, Aule was creating the dwarves for the glory of all of Arda.

might does not make right. No indeed. And I am not trying to say that his omnipotence is what gives him his infallibility, but rather his absoluteness, if that makes any sense. If there is no absolute standard (which there is not without Eru), then there is no way at all to judge whether any given action is good or evil.

Darth Enalan: I agree with your post other than this statement: Eru Illuvatar created Evil so we all would know what Good was! Contrariwise, good does not need evil to give it context, and Eru did not create evil--if evil was not present in creation, if Melkor was not evil, there is no way for this to be so. Melkor, one might say, created evil, except that evil is not something to be created, but something to be done.
KingODuckingham 04/Nov/2006 at 10:34 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: Aule did it and we don’t see his actions as evil. Actually, his actions were evil enough to warrant the destruction of the dwarves, but because of his repentance and the motives behind his actions (unlike Melkor, he did not desire to have power over and manipulate his creations) the dwarves were given the flame imperishable by Eru, and he accepted Aule’s creation as a humble offering rather than a disobedient act. Melkor was trying to increase his own glory, Aule was creating the dwarves for the glory of all of Arda.

might does not make right. No indeed. And I am not trying to say that his omnipotence is what gives him his infallibility, but rather his absoluteness, if that makes any sense. If there is no absolute standard (which there is not without Eru), then there is no way at all to judge whether any given action is good or evil.

Darth Enalan: I agree with your post other than this statement: Eru Illuvatar created Evil so we all would know what Good was! Contrariwise, good does not need evil to give it context, and Eru did not create evil--if evil was not present in creation, if Melkor was not evil, there is no way for this to be so. Melkor, one might say, created evil, except that evil is not something to be created, but something to be done.
Thefourfingers 04/Nov/2006 at 12:54 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

Darth Enalan-  I think that Gollum falling was less of a divine intervention and more of an occurance predetermined by fate.

kingoduckingham-  I know that Melkor’s actions are evil and I will not deny that.  I guess the thing I’m trying to get at is that the roots of Melkor’s evil had to come from somewhere.  There has to be a reason that Melkor made the switch from good to bad.

"And I am not trying to say that his omnipotence is what gives him his infallibility, but rather his absoluteness, if that makes any sense."  That makes perfect sense, but I just don’t think that absoluteness makes Eru infallible.  I don’t think it is possible for anything to be infallible.

"If there is no absolute standard (which there is not without Eru), then there is no way at all to judge whether any given action is good or evil."  I could not disagree with this more.  We do not need to have an absolute standard in order to judge the morality of an action.  An action that one person may view as evil or immoral may be seen as perfectly acceptable to another person.  We each judge the morality of an action according to our own personal standard.  No absolute standard is necessary.

Thefourfingers 04/Nov/2006 at 12:54 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

Darth Enalan-  I think that Gollum falling was less of a divine intervention and more of an occurance predetermined by fate.

kingoduckingham-  I know that Melkor’s actions are evil and I will not deny that.  I guess the thing I’m trying to get at is that the roots of Melkor’s evil had to come from somewhere.  There has to be a reason that Melkor made the switch from good to bad.

"And I am not trying to say that his omnipotence is what gives him his infallibility, but rather his absoluteness, if that makes any sense."  That makes perfect sense, but I just don’t think that absoluteness makes Eru infallible.  I don’t think it is possible for anything to be infallible.

"If there is no absolute standard (which there is not without Eru), then there is no way at all to judge whether any given action is good or evil."  I could not disagree with this more.  We do not need to have an absolute standard in order to judge the morality of an action.  An action that one person may view as evil or immoral may be seen as perfectly acceptable to another person.  We each judge the morality of an action according to our own personal standard.  No absolute standard is necessary.

KingODuckingham 04/Nov/2006 at 08:09 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
An action that one person may view as evil or immoral may be seen as perfectly acceptable to another person. Well then, slaughtering villages may seem evil to you, but if an orc doesn’t see it that way, how dare you try to impose your view upon him! How can you call Melkor evil if he doesn’t see it that way, and neither do any of his creatures do? Well, you can say they are evil to you, but it is completely arbitrary. To someone who liked Melkor’s actions, what would you say? How would you prove those actions are evil?

I think that Gollum falling was less of a divine intervention and more of an occurance predetermined by fate. What is fate? There is no fate in Tolkien. Fate is just another word for intervention by Eru. Or if fate is separate, what use is their for Eru? Is fate more powerful than Eru?
KingODuckingham 04/Nov/2006 at 08:09 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
An action that one person may view as evil or immoral may be seen as perfectly acceptable to another person. Well then, slaughtering villages may seem evil to you, but if an orc doesn’t see it that way, how dare you try to impose your view upon him! How can you call Melkor evil if he doesn’t see it that way, and neither do any of his creatures do? Well, you can say they are evil to you, but it is completely arbitrary. To someone who liked Melkor’s actions, what would you say? How would you prove those actions are evil?

I think that Gollum falling was less of a divine intervention and more of an occurance predetermined by fate. What is fate? There is no fate in Tolkien. Fate is just another word for intervention by Eru. Or if fate is separate, what use is their for Eru? Is fate more powerful than Eru?
Thefourfingers 04/Nov/2006 at 08:17 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kIngoduckingham-  "How would you prove those actions are evil?"  You cannot prove it to anyone.  You can try to convince someone that your point of view is correct but you cannot prove it.

"What is fate?"  What I meant is that I think that Gollum falling and destroying the ring was predetermined by Eru.  I did not mean that fate was in any way seperate from Eru.

Thefourfingers 04/Nov/2006 at 08:17 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kIngoduckingham-  "How would you prove those actions are evil?"  You cannot prove it to anyone.  You can try to convince someone that your point of view is correct but you cannot prove it.

"What is fate?"  What I meant is that I think that Gollum falling and destroying the ring was predetermined by Eru.  I did not mean that fate was in any way seperate from Eru.

KingODuckingham 04/Nov/2006 at 09:05 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
You can try to convince someone that your point of view is correct but you cannot prove it. Why bother? If there is no real good and evil, there is no longer any real right or wrong, so what is the point of trying to change someone’s mind?

What I meant is that I think that Gollum falling and destroying the ring was predetermined by Eru. I understand. But then how much more would be predetermined to predestine that particular action? Was the entire journey of the Fellowship predestined? Was Gollum’s entire life predestined? Was the entire history of Arda predestined? Where then (again) is free will?

The question that arises from both of your statements here is: how then can blame be laid on anyone or anything? If they don’t have free will because it was predestined, and also if good and evil are relative, how can anyone judge any action to be good or evil?
KingODuckingham 04/Nov/2006 at 09:05 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
You can try to convince someone that your point of view is correct but you cannot prove it. Why bother? If there is no real good and evil, there is no longer any real right or wrong, so what is the point of trying to change someone’s mind?

What I meant is that I think that Gollum falling and destroying the ring was predetermined by Eru. I understand. But then how much more would be predetermined to predestine that particular action? Was the entire journey of the Fellowship predestined? Was Gollum’s entire life predestined? Was the entire history of Arda predestined? Where then (again) is free will?

The question that arises from both of your statements here is: how then can blame be laid on anyone or anything? If they don’t have free will because it was predestined, and also if good and evil are relative, how can anyone judge any action to be good or evil?
Thefourfingers 04/Nov/2006 at 11:02 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  "Why bother?"  Oh come on!  The whole point of these threads is to debate opinions.  Why do you bother trying to present your point of view?

"If there is no real good and evil, there is no longer any real right or wrong..."  There is still real good and evil, its just that everyone defines it differently.  As you said in debate over the nature of love with MEM: "It really does come down to a difference in definition."

"Was the entire history of Arda predestined?"  Yup.  I seem to remember a bunch of Ainur singing the world into existence. Well not really...  but Arda was created and based off of the music of the Ainur so I guess this kinda predetermined the overall theme of the events in Arda while free will decided the details.  But I’m not quite sure how the balance of fate and free will works.

Thefourfingers 04/Nov/2006 at 11:02 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  "Why bother?"  Oh come on!  The whole point of these threads is to debate opinions.  Why do you bother trying to present your point of view?

"If there is no real good and evil, there is no longer any real right or wrong..."  There is still real good and evil, its just that everyone defines it differently.  As you said in debate over the nature of love with MEM: "It really does come down to a difference in definition."

"Was the entire history of Arda predestined?"  Yup.  I seem to remember a bunch of Ainur singing the world into existence. Well not really...  but Arda was created and based off of the music of the Ainur so I guess this kinda predetermined the overall theme of the events in Arda while free will decided the details.  But I’m not quite sure how the balance of fate and free will works.

Arthur Weasley 05/Nov/2006 at 12:11 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Forgive me for not quoting guys, but Eru Illuvatar had to have created Evil to provide us Free Will.  If Eru Illuvatar did not create evil, then there must be something or someone who can create evil despite, against or opposed to Illuvatar’s wishes.  It is very difficult, if not impossible to reconcile Eru Illuvatar’s omnipotence with a outside force creating evil against his Divine Will.

I also agree with The Fourfingers - Fate and divine intervention are the same.  Maybe it is my faith but Eru Illuvatar intervened by encouraging Gollum to do what he did.   In some ways, evil is like treason: i.e what losers in wars/political contests/revolutions are guilty of.  Someone once asked me what is the difference between Osama Bin Laden the terrorist and George Washington the General?  Who wins?  To understand Gollum and his motivations better, perhaps we all need to clarify annd define what good and evil are.  i believe in Good versus evil.  Evil to me is the absence of empathy. Evil is the simple lack of ability to emphathize, sympathize or feel compassion for others.  How else can we separate Gollum’s two halves of Slinker and Stinker?  Thoughts?   

Arthur Weasley 05/Nov/2006 at 12:11 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Forgive me for not quoting guys, but Eru Illuvatar had to have created Evil to provide us Free Will.  If Eru Illuvatar did not create evil, then there must be something or someone who can create evil despite, against or opposed to Illuvatar’s wishes.  It is very difficult, if not impossible to reconcile Eru Illuvatar’s omnipotence with a outside force creating evil against his Divine Will.

I also agree with The Fourfingers - Fate and divine intervention are the same.  Maybe it is my faith but Eru Illuvatar intervened by encouraging Gollum to do what he did.   In some ways, evil is like treason: i.e what losers in wars/political contests/revolutions are guilty of.  Someone once asked me what is the difference between Osama Bin Laden the terrorist and George Washington the General?  Who wins?  To understand Gollum and his motivations better, perhaps we all need to clarify annd define what good and evil are.  i believe in Good versus evil.  Evil to me is the absence of empathy. Evil is the simple lack of ability to emphathize, sympathize or feel compassion for others.  How else can we separate Gollum’s two halves of Slinker and Stinker?  Thoughts?   

KingODuckingham 05/Nov/2006 at 10:30 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: Oh come on! The whole point of these threads is to debate opinions. Why do you bother trying to present your point of view? Because I believe in the absolute nature of truth versus false, real versus unreal, logical versus illogical, right versus wrong, and I am not just trying to discover people’s opinions and present my own, but discover the correct way of looking at Tolkien’s world and how it works. Debate is a method to arriving at the truth, not just pleasure in argumentation. If I am convinced of another’s view, it is not simply because it sounds better, but because I believe it to be right: not just for me, but objectively so. In my debate about love, the reason it came down to opinion there was in the way we were defining love, both of which were acceptable ways to define the word, but which led to different conclusions. But here, there are no two ways to define right and wrong...if people had two different opinions on the subject, one must be right and one must be wrong, or else which one really is right? If someone says "A square has four sides" and another says "To me the square has three sides", which one is right? Certainly not both.

I’m not quite sure how the balance of fate and free will works. That’s entirely cool; neither am I.

Darth Enalan: As I said in an earlier post, evil is not a thing that is created: evil is found in actions performed. Thus, free will as an attribute gives the opportunity for evil, for it gives the opportunity to walk out of Eru’s will and oppose him. This in no way requires Eru himself to do or be evil in any way.
KingODuckingham 05/Nov/2006 at 10:30 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: Oh come on! The whole point of these threads is to debate opinions. Why do you bother trying to present your point of view? Because I believe in the absolute nature of truth versus false, real versus unreal, logical versus illogical, right versus wrong, and I am not just trying to discover people’s opinions and present my own, but discover the correct way of looking at Tolkien’s world and how it works. Debate is a method to arriving at the truth, not just pleasure in argumentation. If I am convinced of another’s view, it is not simply because it sounds better, but because I believe it to be right: not just for me, but objectively so. In my debate about love, the reason it came down to opinion there was in the way we were defining love, both of which were acceptable ways to define the word, but which led to different conclusions. But here, there are no two ways to define right and wrong...if people had two different opinions on the subject, one must be right and one must be wrong, or else which one really is right? If someone says "A square has four sides" and another says "To me the square has three sides", which one is right? Certainly not both.

I’m not quite sure how the balance of fate and free will works. That’s entirely cool; neither am I.

Darth Enalan: As I said in an earlier post, evil is not a thing that is created: evil is found in actions performed. Thus, free will as an attribute gives the opportunity for evil, for it gives the opportunity to walk out of Eru’s will and oppose him. This in no way requires Eru himself to do or be evil in any way.
Arthur Weasley 05/Nov/2006 at 12:37 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

On second thought Kingoduckingham maybe you are right.  Evil may not exist as a seperate entity and may simply only be bad, harmful, thoughtless or careless choices and actions.  As far as Gollum is concerned, he may not be entirely to blame for his evil, harmful actions because of the Ring’s tremendous power and control over him.  While Smeagol chose to kill Deagol to possess the Ring, the Ring certainly was exerting its evil power that perhaps very few mortals could resist.  Still, it would be wrong to exonerate Gollum completely since he still succumbed to the Ring perhaps too quickly and willingly let the ring make choices for him.  what do you guys think?  Just how responsible was Gollum for his actions?

Arthur Weasley 05/Nov/2006 at 12:37 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

On second thought Kingoduckingham maybe you are right.  Evil may not exist as a seperate entity and may simply only be bad, harmful, thoughtless or careless choices and actions.  As far as Gollum is concerned, he may not be entirely to blame for his evil, harmful actions because of the Ring’s tremendous power and control over him.  While Smeagol chose to kill Deagol to possess the Ring, the Ring certainly was exerting its evil power that perhaps very few mortals could resist.  Still, it would be wrong to exonerate Gollum completely since he still succumbed to the Ring perhaps too quickly and willingly let the ring make choices for him.  what do you guys think?  Just how responsible was Gollum for his actions?

KingODuckingham 05/Nov/2006 at 01:04 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Gollum is perhaps the most interesting case in Tolkien’s world on whether or not he is to blame for his evil actions, because of the control of the ring, particularly so since some of Sauron’s essence is poured into the ring and thus he will dominate those who use it, twisting them to evil. Is it then them or Sauron acting? I will give my gut instinct response.

Gollum (or Smeagol) was already a rather petty creature before the ring found him, and though the ring was exerting its influence, remember that it does not have conscious control over the bearer (at least not at first) Bilbo lies to his friends on how he got the ring, but he does not kill Gollum as part of his gaining the ring. This, I think, is because of his strong moral fiber, which Gollum does not possess. He had it in him to commit murder before the ring came along; the ring just gave him a motive.

However, I think at some point the ring must have taken over. Remember the internal debate between Smeagol and Gollum. Gollum wins--but by force of will, I think, not because Smeagol changed his mind and decided he hated the hobbits. Is he responsible for the treachery with Shelob? I’m not sure.
KingODuckingham 05/Nov/2006 at 01:04 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Gollum is perhaps the most interesting case in Tolkien’s world on whether or not he is to blame for his evil actions, because of the control of the ring, particularly so since some of Sauron’s essence is poured into the ring and thus he will dominate those who use it, twisting them to evil. Is it then them or Sauron acting? I will give my gut instinct response.

Gollum (or Smeagol) was already a rather petty creature before the ring found him, and though the ring was exerting its influence, remember that it does not have conscious control over the bearer (at least not at first) Bilbo lies to his friends on how he got the ring, but he does not kill Gollum as part of his gaining the ring. This, I think, is because of his strong moral fiber, which Gollum does not possess. He had it in him to commit murder before the ring came along; the ring just gave him a motive.

However, I think at some point the ring must have taken over. Remember the internal debate between Smeagol and Gollum. Gollum wins--but by force of will, I think, not because Smeagol changed his mind and decided he hated the hobbits. Is he responsible for the treachery with Shelob? I’m not sure.
Arthur Weasley 06/Nov/2006 at 05:26 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
This is why I so love discussing Gollum! Did Tolkien have any sort of professional background in psychology?  He hust have had some experience with it to develop Gollum so well.  Gollum certainly possessed the sense of right and wrong yet his motivations were in the end selfish!  As for Shelob, Gollum did lead the Hobbits into a trap because he wanted the Ring back.  It is possible though that he did not care if Frodo or Sam survived or not as long as he got the Ring back.  Thoughts?
Arthur Weasley 06/Nov/2006 at 05:26 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
This is why I so love discussing Gollum! Did Tolkien have any sort of professional background in psychology?  He hust have had some experience with it to develop Gollum so well.  Gollum certainly possessed the sense of right and wrong yet his motivations were in the end selfish!  As for Shelob, Gollum did lead the Hobbits into a trap because he wanted the Ring back.  It is possible though that he did not care if Frodo or Sam survived or not as long as he got the Ring back.  Thoughts?
KingODuckingham 06/Nov/2006 at 03:23 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Well, he does say in his plotting that when Shelob is done with her meal that he will paw through the clothes she leaves behind to find the ring. I hardly think he expects the hobbits to escape, although somehow I don’t think he would care once he had gotten the ring. If he could somehow get the ring without leading them to Shelob, he would have done so. He disliked Sam and perhaps would have liked to kill him, but in the end the fate of the hobbits is irrelevant to his main motive: recovering his Precious. We can see this in his final scene when once he has the ring, he completely ignores the hobbits and simply jumps around in glee, until his fatal slip into the lava. So no, I don’t think he cared whether or not Frodo and Sam survived without wishing on them any more special malice than on any other creature who stopped him from having the ring. Probably less on Frodo then on many others, since Frodo had treated him kindly.

Gollum certainly possessed the sense of right and wrong yet his motivations were in the end selfish! So you then have no qualms about calling Gollum evil, since it takes both knowledge of good and evil and the actual choosing of the wrong to make an evil action.
KingODuckingham 06/Nov/2006 at 03:23 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Well, he does say in his plotting that when Shelob is done with her meal that he will paw through the clothes she leaves behind to find the ring. I hardly think he expects the hobbits to escape, although somehow I don’t think he would care once he had gotten the ring. If he could somehow get the ring without leading them to Shelob, he would have done so. He disliked Sam and perhaps would have liked to kill him, but in the end the fate of the hobbits is irrelevant to his main motive: recovering his Precious. We can see this in his final scene when once he has the ring, he completely ignores the hobbits and simply jumps around in glee, until his fatal slip into the lava. So no, I don’t think he cared whether or not Frodo and Sam survived without wishing on them any more special malice than on any other creature who stopped him from having the ring. Probably less on Frodo then on many others, since Frodo had treated him kindly.

Gollum certainly possessed the sense of right and wrong yet his motivations were in the end selfish! So you then have no qualms about calling Gollum evil, since it takes both knowledge of good and evil and the actual choosing of the wrong to make an evil action.
Thefourfingers 06/Nov/2006 at 05:54 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  "...I believe in the absolute nature of truth versus false, real versus unreal, logical versus illogical, right versus wrong, and I am not just trying to discover people’s opinions and present my own, but discover the correct way of looking at Tolkien’s world and how it works. ... If I am convinced of another’s view, it is not simply because it sounds better, but because I believe it to be right: not just for me, but objectively so."  You said it yourself; truth is what you believe to be correct.  Different people can have different beliefs as to what is and is not correct.  You may believe that the nature of right versus wrong is absolute, but this is only your opinion.  There is no absolute standard of morality that everyone follows.  What is good and right to one person may not be viewed in the same manner by another.  So when you say that you are trying to discover the correct way of looking at Tolkien’s world you must realize that there are many correct views and not just yours.

Darth Enalan-  I think that Gollum would care whether or not Shelob killed the hobbits.  Firstly, the likelihood of Frodo losing the ring (without dying) inside Shelob’s lair is as small as him losing it out in the wild.  Second, if Frodo lived and lost the ring he would pursue it until death.  So I think Gollum wanted not only the ring back in his possession but for both hobbits to be killed as well.

Thefourfingers 06/Nov/2006 at 05:54 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  "...I believe in the absolute nature of truth versus false, real versus unreal, logical versus illogical, right versus wrong, and I am not just trying to discover people’s opinions and present my own, but discover the correct way of looking at Tolkien’s world and how it works. ... If I am convinced of another’s view, it is not simply because it sounds better, but because I believe it to be right: not just for me, but objectively so."  You said it yourself; truth is what you believe to be correct.  Different people can have different beliefs as to what is and is not correct.  You may believe that the nature of right versus wrong is absolute, but this is only your opinion.  There is no absolute standard of morality that everyone follows.  What is good and right to one person may not be viewed in the same manner by another.  So when you say that you are trying to discover the correct way of looking at Tolkien’s world you must realize that there are many correct views and not just yours.

Darth Enalan-  I think that Gollum would care whether or not Shelob killed the hobbits.  Firstly, the likelihood of Frodo losing the ring (without dying) inside Shelob’s lair is as small as him losing it out in the wild.  Second, if Frodo lived and lost the ring he would pursue it until death.  So I think Gollum wanted not only the ring back in his possession but for both hobbits to be killed as well.

KingODuckingham 06/Nov/2006 at 07:04 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: You said it yourself; truth is what you believe to be correct. Well of course. Nobody believes truth to be what they think is incorrect. Just because people have different beliefs as to what is correct does not mean they are every one of them right. For instance, in the "Wargs vs. Wolves" thread I asked the difference between the two. Herbert provided a very convincing argument for there being no difference between the two, and I agreed. If I had persisted in my belief despite his clear-cut evidence, I would not then simply be forming my own view on what is correct (though this is true), but I would be forming a wrong view about what is correct. I can’t just say, well, that evidence may be true for you, but I’m going to look at it differently. I would then be incorrect, no matter how much I proclaimed my opinion that wargs were demons in the form of wolves. Just because someone has a different view doesn’t make it right. That’s altruism and no good way to look at the world or to conduct a discussion.

There is no absolute standard of morality that everyone follows But there is one that some people follow. Again, just because everyone does not follow it does not mean it does not exist.
Then again, are there not things everyone thinks about morality? Does anyone venerate cowardice? Treachery? Injustice? Perhaps this absolute standard of morality is becoming clearer...
KingODuckingham 06/Nov/2006 at 07:04 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: You said it yourself; truth is what you believe to be correct. Well of course. Nobody believes truth to be what they think is incorrect. Just because people have different beliefs as to what is correct does not mean they are every one of them right. For instance, in the "Wargs vs. Wolves" thread I asked the difference between the two. Herbert provided a very convincing argument for there being no difference between the two, and I agreed. If I had persisted in my belief despite his clear-cut evidence, I would not then simply be forming my own view on what is correct (though this is true), but I would be forming a wrong view about what is correct. I can’t just say, well, that evidence may be true for you, but I’m going to look at it differently. I would then be incorrect, no matter how much I proclaimed my opinion that wargs were demons in the form of wolves. Just because someone has a different view doesn’t make it right. That’s altruism and no good way to look at the world or to conduct a discussion.

There is no absolute standard of morality that everyone follows But there is one that some people follow. Again, just because everyone does not follow it does not mean it does not exist.
Then again, are there not things everyone thinks about morality? Does anyone venerate cowardice? Treachery? Injustice? Perhaps this absolute standard of morality is becoming clearer...
Thefourfingers 06/Nov/2006 at 07:53 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  Your wargs vs. wolves thread is a different kind of argument than that of the deffinition of right and wrong.  Herbert’s argument can be backed up with textual evidence but this debate cannot.  In the debate over morality one can only bring forth opinions not facts.

"Again, just because everyone does not follow it does not mean it does not exist."  Yes it does.  How can a standard be considered absolute if everyone does not follow it?

"Does anyone venerate cowardice? Treachery? Injustice?"  But you are using words with negative connotations.  An action that is seen as cowardly, treacherous or unjust to one person could be viewed differently by someone else. 

Thefourfingers 06/Nov/2006 at 07:53 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  Your wargs vs. wolves thread is a different kind of argument than that of the deffinition of right and wrong.  Herbert’s argument can be backed up with textual evidence but this debate cannot.  In the debate over morality one can only bring forth opinions not facts.

"Again, just because everyone does not follow it does not mean it does not exist."  Yes it does.  How can a standard be considered absolute if everyone does not follow it?

"Does anyone venerate cowardice? Treachery? Injustice?"  But you are using words with negative connotations.  An action that is seen as cowardly, treacherous or unjust to one person could be viewed differently by someone else. 

KingODuckingham 07/Nov/2006 at 06:12 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: Yes it does. How can a standard be considered absolute if everyone does not follow it? So if I say two plus two is equal to five, have I made math become relative? If truth was so easily banished, one might as well not discuss and debate in the first place.

An action that is seen as cowardly, treacherous or unjust to one person could be viewed differently by someone else. But my point is exactly that no matter how somebody views an action, nobody takes pride in viewing it in a negative light. At some point, there is an absolute standard by which people dictate their actions. People may differ on what makes truth, but nobody tries to argue that trying to discover falsehoods and live by them is a good idea. Nobody tries to say we should commit evil and calls it good. Nobody says to be wrong is to be right.
KingODuckingham 07/Nov/2006 at 06:12 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
TFF: Yes it does. How can a standard be considered absolute if everyone does not follow it? So if I say two plus two is equal to five, have I made math become relative? If truth was so easily banished, one might as well not discuss and debate in the first place.

An action that is seen as cowardly, treacherous or unjust to one person could be viewed differently by someone else. But my point is exactly that no matter how somebody views an action, nobody takes pride in viewing it in a negative light. At some point, there is an absolute standard by which people dictate their actions. People may differ on what makes truth, but nobody tries to argue that trying to discover falsehoods and live by them is a good idea. Nobody tries to say we should commit evil and calls it good. Nobody says to be wrong is to be right.
Arthur Weasley 07/Nov/2006 at 08:41 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Here is a joke that is relevent.  What is the difference between a psychotic and a neurotic?  The Psychotic KNOWS that 2+2 = 5.  The Neurotic knows 2+2 = 4 but feels horribly guilty about it.  This is why I believe intend really does not matter in relation to Gollum and that only his final actions are relevent.  However you slice it, Gollum destroyed the Ring.  This supreme action resulted in Good, Justice and the Good guys winning.  Whatever the intent, Gollum should be hailed as the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth!  And I cannot think of a more unlikely candidate.

Kingoduckingham and TheFourFingers - This may be a chore, but please review again the entire thread here to see what we have covered already.  You may understand better WHY I do not concern myself with Gollum’s intentions.  Fate, Eru, God, Tolkien, whatever, made his actions change the Middle Earth World. Should Gollum not be thanked and forgiven as Frodo did immediately after the Ring was destroyed?  When I get home from work (lunchbreak now) I will quote the exact passage about Frodo’s forgiveness and even Praise for Gollum.

Arthur Weasley 07/Nov/2006 at 08:41 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Here is a joke that is relevent.  What is the difference between a psychotic and a neurotic?  The Psychotic KNOWS that 2+2 = 5.  The Neurotic knows 2+2 = 4 but feels horribly guilty about it.  This is why I believe intend really does not matter in relation to Gollum and that only his final actions are relevent.  However you slice it, Gollum destroyed the Ring.  This supreme action resulted in Good, Justice and the Good guys winning.  Whatever the intent, Gollum should be hailed as the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth!  And I cannot think of a more unlikely candidate.

Kingoduckingham and TheFourFingers - This may be a chore, but please review again the entire thread here to see what we have covered already.  You may understand better WHY I do not concern myself with Gollum’s intentions.  Fate, Eru, God, Tolkien, whatever, made his actions change the Middle Earth World. Should Gollum not be thanked and forgiven as Frodo did immediately after the Ring was destroyed?  When I get home from work (lunchbreak now) I will quote the exact passage about Frodo’s forgiveness and even Praise for Gollum.

KingODuckingham 07/Nov/2006 at 11:33 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Again, I recoil at the idea of judging only based on actions. Yes, they are certainly more important than intent--we don’t prosecute those that consider the idea of murder, but those that actually commit it. However, consider a case like that of Oedipus.

The man killed his father and slept with his mother. Horrible crimes. But he did not do so intentionally or even knowingly because he had been brought up in another household not knowing he was adopted. Would you sentence him in the same way you would if he had commited those deeds on purpose?

Sorry for slipping so far off-topic, I was rereading this thread and I realized just how far we had gone...I was sure our discussion was somehow related to the thread originally, but it really isn’t any longer. Beg your pardon.

I would be interested in seeing Frodo’s praise for Gollum. Like I said before, I hardly think Gollum deserves to be praised, though we are glad he was there at the right time. It is the hobbits who are praised with great praise at the Field of Cormallen, not Gollum.
KingODuckingham 07/Nov/2006 at 11:33 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Again, I recoil at the idea of judging only based on actions. Yes, they are certainly more important than intent--we don’t prosecute those that consider the idea of murder, but those that actually commit it. However, consider a case like that of Oedipus.

The man killed his father and slept with his mother. Horrible crimes. But he did not do so intentionally or even knowingly because he had been brought up in another household not knowing he was adopted. Would you sentence him in the same way you would if he had commited those deeds on purpose?

Sorry for slipping so far off-topic, I was rereading this thread and I realized just how far we had gone...I was sure our discussion was somehow related to the thread originally, but it really isn’t any longer. Beg your pardon.

I would be interested in seeing Frodo’s praise for Gollum. Like I said before, I hardly think Gollum deserves to be praised, though we are glad he was there at the right time. It is the hobbits who are praised with great praise at the Field of Cormallen, not Gollum.
Arthur Weasley 07/Nov/2006 at 04:38 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Kingoduckingham - No problem and no worries!  All of the discussion included here is relevent as log as we continue to return to Gollum as we define good,  evil, treachery, loyalty, friendship and intent/actions considerations.   Actually I would have thrown the book at Oedipus mainly because the lame excuse "I did not know it was loaded," has been overused to justify too may accidental shootings and deaths.  The law is the law.  While Oedipus may deserve a milder sentence for his criminal and immoral actions, he should not simply get off Scot Free.  Anyway, here is the Gollum Absolution that Frodo pronounces just after the Ring is destroyed.  It is the last paragraph of the Mount Doom Chapter in the RotK book.   Ahem....

’Yes,’ said Frodo.  ’But do you recall Gandalf’s words: Even Gollum may have something yet to do? (Tolkien’s emphasis) But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring.  The Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end.  So let us forgive him!  For the Quest is achieved, and now all is over.  I am glad that you are here with me.  Here at the end of all things, Sam.’

I am certainly not a priest, but it seems here that Frodo is absolving Gollum for all of his evil deeds and praising him of all people for the actual destruction of the Ring which as Frodo said was beyond even his abilities.  Because of thoughts like this, I believe Gollum was the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth.  Thoughts?

Kingoduckingham - Love your History  in isengard!

Arthur Weasley 07/Nov/2006 at 04:38 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Kingoduckingham - No problem and no worries!  All of the discussion included here is relevent as log as we continue to return to Gollum as we define good,  evil, treachery, loyalty, friendship and intent/actions considerations.   Actually I would have thrown the book at Oedipus mainly because the lame excuse "I did not know it was loaded," has been overused to justify too may accidental shootings and deaths.  The law is the law.  While Oedipus may deserve a milder sentence for his criminal and immoral actions, he should not simply get off Scot Free.  Anyway, here is the Gollum Absolution that Frodo pronounces just after the Ring is destroyed.  It is the last paragraph of the Mount Doom Chapter in the RotK book.   Ahem....

’Yes,’ said Frodo.  ’But do you recall Gandalf’s words: Even Gollum may have something yet to do? (Tolkien’s emphasis) But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring.  The Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end.  So let us forgive him!  For the Quest is achieved, and now all is over.  I am glad that you are here with me.  Here at the end of all things, Sam.’

I am certainly not a priest, but it seems here that Frodo is absolving Gollum for all of his evil deeds and praising him of all people for the actual destruction of the Ring which as Frodo said was beyond even his abilities.  Because of thoughts like this, I believe Gollum was the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth.  Thoughts?

Kingoduckingham - Love your History  in isengard!

KingODuckingham 07/Nov/2006 at 04:55 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: But the accidental shooting is quite a different scenario. If someone (rather unlikely) says "I didn’t know it was a gun." then it might be similar. Marriage is an innocent and good practice. It was just because of the particular (unknown) identity of the person he was marrying that the act becomes reprehensible. On the other hand, murdering somebody because they try to shove you off the road is pretty bad in any circumstances. So no, he should certainly not just get off. My point in using that example is to show how intentions can mitigate and change how we judge actions, and to apply this to Gollum’s case. His evil intent can and should change how we view his actions. Like Frodo says, forgive him, certainly. Venerate him? Nah.
KingODuckingham 07/Nov/2006 at 04:55 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: But the accidental shooting is quite a different scenario. If someone (rather unlikely) says "I didn’t know it was a gun." then it might be similar. Marriage is an innocent and good practice. It was just because of the particular (unknown) identity of the person he was marrying that the act becomes reprehensible. On the other hand, murdering somebody because they try to shove you off the road is pretty bad in any circumstances. So no, he should certainly not just get off. My point in using that example is to show how intentions can mitigate and change how we judge actions, and to apply this to Gollum’s case. His evil intent can and should change how we view his actions. Like Frodo says, forgive him, certainly. Venerate him? Nah.
Arthur Weasley 08/Nov/2006 at 05:32 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
WOW!  Hey guys!  Take a look at the SmeagolGollum the Psychology thread!  I used to have a link from this thread to that one and this is terrific that it has been promoted to the Advanced forum!  We can really have some awesome discussions and comparisons about Gollum.  Maybe we should start a colloquium?
Thefourfingers 08/Nov/2006 at 04:57 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

Darth Enalan-  Wow, we really did drift off topic!  My apologies.  Now back to the topic at hand.

"...but it seems here that Frodo is absolving Gollum for all of his evil deeds and praising him of all people for the actual destruction of the Ring which as Frodo said was beyond even his abilities.  Because of thoughts like this, I believe Gollum was the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth."  I agree that Gollum is the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth, as you put it, but I do not think this absolves Gollum of his past evils in any way.  If Charles Manson accidentally walked in front of Gandhi’s assassin just as the shot was fired (I realize this is totally impossible) this would not absolve him of his crimes.


kingoduckingham-  "His evil intent can and should change how we view his actions."  I agree with you 100% on this one.

Thefourfingers 08/Nov/2006 at 04:57 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

Darth Enalan-  Wow, we really did drift off topic!  My apologies.  Now back to the topic at hand.

"...but it seems here that Frodo is absolving Gollum for all of his evil deeds and praising him of all people for the actual destruction of the Ring which as Frodo said was beyond even his abilities.  Because of thoughts like this, I believe Gollum was the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth."  I agree that Gollum is the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth, as you put it, but I do not think this absolves Gollum of his past evils in any way.  If Charles Manson accidentally walked in front of Gandhi’s assassin just as the shot was fired (I realize this is totally impossible) this would not absolve him of his crimes.


kingoduckingham-  "His evil intent can and should change how we view his actions."  I agree with you 100% on this one.

Elros Tar-Minya 08/Nov/2006 at 05:04 PM
New Soul Points: 232 Posts: 134 Joined: 04/Sep/2008
I haven’t spent the time to read all of the portions of this thread but I believe that it can all be summed up by saying that YES Gollum was the unwitting saviour of ME but it wasn’t intentional and that Gollum in and of himself was not totally evil but debased and devoured by his own twisted mind.

Foregivness is of itself a personal thing and whilst some can forgive and forget, others can only forgive whilst others still can do neither. It is up to each of us in our own hearts to determine whether or not anyone deserves forgiveness, we cannot force others into our own particular point on this.
Thefourfingers 08/Nov/2006 at 05:25 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006
Elros Tar-Minya-  Welcome to the plaza!  You should read the whole thread when you get the chance as it is very interesting.  Also, I agree completely with your statement about forgiveness.  I goes hand in hand with what I was saying earlier in this thread about defining good and evil.
Arthur Weasley 08/Nov/2006 at 08:18 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Elros Tar-Minya - Welcome to the Plaza!!  I hope that when you are ready you will consider becoming a Wizard and join the Istari/White Council Plaza Kingdom!  At Last!  Someone who appreciates Forgiveness and Faith!!  Actually I agree now with The Fourfingers also that Gollum should pay for his crimes.  But was not his miserable existence payment enough?  If Charles Manson accidently died saving Ghandi’s life, I would say that might justify something in the afterlife since intentions are very different from actions.  While "conspiracy to commit murder," is not a crime in modern day Japan, it is here in the US.  Does Gollum deserve salvation, praise and or forgiveness for everything he did all things considered? Let’s tackle this one!
KingODuckingham 09/Nov/2006 at 03:00 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Consider it tackled.   I don’t want to get drawn back into debate, but since neither Elros nor TFF provided any support for their statements about forgiveness, suffice it to say I disagree with them and do not think that forgiveness is relative either.

I think we need to understand more clearly "salvation". Gollum is a derivative of hobbit, who are related to men and die, therefore going beyond the circle of Arda. Whether they share the exact fate as men is uncertain, but we can presume so. We aren’t told whether there is a difference between the fate of evil men and good men, and therefore not between good hobbits and evil hobbits. Therefore salvation becomes a vague and uncertain term, and I don’t know precisely what you envision by it. Does Gollum deserve praise and/or forgiveness? Judging from Frodo, Gandalf, etc...I would say forgiveness, yes. Praise...not so much. Especially if he is the "unwitting" savior, why praise him? Praise Eru, I should say, since it was apparently he who caused Gollum’s fall. And of course, praise those that orchestrated the situation so that it could come to pass as it did, i.e. Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, the Fellowship in general, etc.
KingODuckingham 09/Nov/2006 at 03:00 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Consider it tackled.   I don’t want to get drawn back into debate, but since neither Elros nor TFF provided any support for their statements about forgiveness, suffice it to say I disagree with them and do not think that forgiveness is relative either.

I think we need to understand more clearly "salvation". Gollum is a derivative of hobbit, who are related to men and die, therefore going beyond the circle of Arda. Whether they share the exact fate as men is uncertain, but we can presume so. We aren’t told whether there is a difference between the fate of evil men and good men, and therefore not between good hobbits and evil hobbits. Therefore salvation becomes a vague and uncertain term, and I don’t know precisely what you envision by it. Does Gollum deserve praise and/or forgiveness? Judging from Frodo, Gandalf, etc...I would say forgiveness, yes. Praise...not so much. Especially if he is the "unwitting" savior, why praise him? Praise Eru, I should say, since it was apparently he who caused Gollum’s fall. And of course, praise those that orchestrated the situation so that it could come to pass as it did, i.e. Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, the Fellowship in general, etc.
Arthur Weasley 09/Nov/2006 at 04:19 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Kingoduckingham! - I certaily am not saying that Gollum deserves the most praise, only some praise.  If it were not for Gollum the QUest would have failed, Sauron would have recaptured the Ring, Gondor, Lorien, Rivendell and the Shire would have been crushed by Sauron’s legions, and Aragorn would have been at best living like Turin as an outlaw until he was captured and/or killed.  Gollum did what Frodo opely said he could not.  As far as salvation?  Hmmm.... Where do nasties like Judas Iscariot, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and other notables go where they die?  Is there reward, payment or punishment after death?  Does intent matter?  These questions have been plaguing humanity since the beginning of time.  Whatever happened, Ido not lump Gollum with the fellas above.  Gollum still had the tiniest drop or piece of the good Hobbit within him and it was this part that may have caused him to slip on the edge.  Thoughts?

Professor Kingoduckingham - Welcome to the GMU faculty!!  I have sent you a Plaza House Invitation and hope that you will accept!  Please also get involved in what we do! Congratulations!!

Arthur Weasley 09/Nov/2006 at 04:19 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Kingoduckingham! - I certaily am not saying that Gollum deserves the most praise, only some praise.  If it were not for Gollum the QUest would have failed, Sauron would have recaptured the Ring, Gondor, Lorien, Rivendell and the Shire would have been crushed by Sauron’s legions, and Aragorn would have been at best living like Turin as an outlaw until he was captured and/or killed.  Gollum did what Frodo opely said he could not.  As far as salvation?  Hmmm.... Where do nasties like Judas Iscariot, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and other notables go where they die?  Is there reward, payment or punishment after death?  Does intent matter?  These questions have been plaguing humanity since the beginning of time.  Whatever happened, Ido not lump Gollum with the fellas above.  Gollum still had the tiniest drop or piece of the good Hobbit within him and it was this part that may have caused him to slip on the edge.  Thoughts?

Professor Kingoduckingham - Welcome to the GMU faculty!!  I have sent you a Plaza House Invitation and hope that you will accept!  Please also get involved in what we do! Congratulations!!

KingODuckingham 09/Nov/2006 at 07:02 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: The problem with the salvation question is that Tolkien does not define any sort of heaven or hell for men/hobbits in the afterlife, and thus we have no way of saying "Good guys go here, and bad guys there." No distinction is made between their respective fates.

As to comparing Gollum to those nasties, you seem extremely harsh--are you sure they had not the tiniest drop or piece of good in them? I would not dare judge, no matter the evidence, their fate in the afterlife. We cannot know such a thing. I also doubt it was any good in Gollum that made him slip; this would imply he did so on purpose, which I find absurd. Eru’s intervention would then no longer be necessary, and we are told it played an integral part. We are also told by Tolkien (no matter what Frodo tells Sam) that Gollum is NOT necessary for the ring to be destroyed, because Eru would have accomplished its destruction in some other fashion--Gollum just happened to be the most convenient tool. This does not change the fact that Gollum is the unwitting savior of ME, which I do not dispute, but it does change how we would view Gollum’s merits in the case, which I see as very few.

I will accept the invite, thank you very much .
KingODuckingham 09/Nov/2006 at 07:02 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: The problem with the salvation question is that Tolkien does not define any sort of heaven or hell for men/hobbits in the afterlife, and thus we have no way of saying "Good guys go here, and bad guys there." No distinction is made between their respective fates.

As to comparing Gollum to those nasties, you seem extremely harsh--are you sure they had not the tiniest drop or piece of good in them? I would not dare judge, no matter the evidence, their fate in the afterlife. We cannot know such a thing. I also doubt it was any good in Gollum that made him slip; this would imply he did so on purpose, which I find absurd. Eru’s intervention would then no longer be necessary, and we are told it played an integral part. We are also told by Tolkien (no matter what Frodo tells Sam) that Gollum is NOT necessary for the ring to be destroyed, because Eru would have accomplished its destruction in some other fashion--Gollum just happened to be the most convenient tool. This does not change the fact that Gollum is the unwitting savior of ME, which I do not dispute, but it does change how we would view Gollum’s merits in the case, which I see as very few.

I will accept the invite, thank you very much .
Thefourfingers 09/Nov/2006 at 11:08 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  "I don’t want to get drawn back into debate, but since neither Elros nor TFF provided any support for their statements about forgiveness, suffice it to say I disagree with them and do not think that forgiveness is relative either."  Nowhere was it said that forgiveness is relative.  I’m not even sure what relative forgiveness means.  All that was said was that each individual gets to decide whether or not they can forgive someone for their evil actions.  I fail to see how anyone could argue with that.

I do agree with you on the issue of Gollum’s fate.  We have no way of knowing what awaits Gollum in the afterlife.

Thefourfingers 09/Nov/2006 at 11:08 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

kingoduckingham-  "I don’t want to get drawn back into debate, but since neither Elros nor TFF provided any support for their statements about forgiveness, suffice it to say I disagree with them and do not think that forgiveness is relative either."  Nowhere was it said that forgiveness is relative.  I’m not even sure what relative forgiveness means.  All that was said was that each individual gets to decide whether or not they can forgive someone for their evil actions.  I fail to see how anyone could argue with that.

I do agree with you on the issue of Gollum’s fate.  We have no way of knowing what awaits Gollum in the afterlife.

Arthur Weasley 10/Nov/2006 at 07:54 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

TheFourFingers - Good points always!  I suppose that you are right that we really have no idea what awaits any of us in the afterlife, let alone literary characters like Gollum.  Still, I hope real nasties pay for their cruel and evil acts.  Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin I hope receive no mercy.

Kingoduckingham - "We are also told by Tolkien (no matter what Frodo tells Sam) that Gollum is NOT necessary for the ring to be destroyed,"  OOOH!  Where? Can you tell me and I will try to find it?  This would have buig ramifications for us here. 

Arthur Weasley 10/Nov/2006 at 07:54 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

TheFourFingers - Good points always!  I suppose that you are right that we really have no idea what awaits any of us in the afterlife, let alone literary characters like Gollum.  Still, I hope real nasties pay for their cruel and evil acts.  Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin I hope receive no mercy.

Kingoduckingham - "We are also told by Tolkien (no matter what Frodo tells Sam) that Gollum is NOT necessary for the ring to be destroyed,"  OOOH!  Where? Can you tell me and I will try to find it?  This would have buig ramifications for us here. 

KingODuckingham 10/Nov/2006 at 09:50 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Yes, its somewhere in the Letters and I just got them out of the library. The moment I have the leisure to search them I will do so for just that quote and post it.

TFF: Dear me, I was rather unclear, wasn’t I? You are correct that each person has to/gets to decide whether he will forgive, but what I meant was that the question of whether or not they were RIGHT in forgiving that person is not relative. Actually I can’t think of a single action that should not be forgiven--that doesn’t mean don’t execute justice, but one should not carry hatred or a grudge. But perhaps there are, so to speak, unforgivable sins. Hmm. Well I just discovered my position I didn’t know I had . Thank you for making me clarify.
KingODuckingham 10/Nov/2006 at 09:50 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Yes, its somewhere in the Letters and I just got them out of the library. The moment I have the leisure to search them I will do so for just that quote and post it.

TFF: Dear me, I was rather unclear, wasn’t I? You are correct that each person has to/gets to decide whether he will forgive, but what I meant was that the question of whether or not they were RIGHT in forgiving that person is not relative. Actually I can’t think of a single action that should not be forgiven--that doesn’t mean don’t execute justice, but one should not carry hatred or a grudge. But perhaps there are, so to speak, unforgivable sins. Hmm. Well I just discovered my position I didn’t know I had . Thank you for making me clarify.
Arthur Weasley 11/Nov/2006 at 10:52 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Kingoduckingham - Always Glad to help clarify issues for someone.  WHat I have been wondering about lately is what might have happened to Deagol if he found the One Ring unobserved.  Would Deagol have simply just become another Gollum or would have have been able to resist the Ring better and longer than Smeagol?  There is no easy answer to these "what if" questions but they always get me wondering!!
Arthur Weasley 11/Nov/2006 at 10:52 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Kingoduckingham - Always Glad to help clarify issues for someone.  WHat I have been wondering about lately is what might have happened to Deagol if he found the One Ring unobserved.  Would Deagol have simply just become another Gollum or would have have been able to resist the Ring better and longer than Smeagol?  There is no easy answer to these "what if" questions but they always get me wondering!!
balrog4321 12/Nov/2006 at 12:09 AM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 70 Posts: 7 Joined: 11/Nov/2006
When gollum fell off the cliff of mount doom he unwittingly saved all of middle earth although we all know that his motives were not to save but to get back his "prescious"
Arthur Weasley 12/Nov/2006 at 06:12 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Balrog4321 - Welcome to LOTRPlaza.com!!  I am delighted to meet you and hope you have great fun on the Plaza!  Congratulations also on joining the Istari / White Council Plaza Kingdom!!  It is always great to chat with another Wizzard!  Your point above is exactly why I have bee supporting the idea that intent does not matter sometimes, only actions and results.  Gollum certainly only wanted his Precious back but he did destory the Ring when no one else could have.  I think not even Aragorn would have been able to destroy the Ring had he bore it from Rivendell (or for years) as Frodo had done.  Do you think Gollum should be forgiven as Frodo wished?  Sometimes I think Gollum should even be praised for his actions though many here have disagreed.  What do you think?   
KingODuckingham 12/Nov/2006 at 08:03 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I’ve been pondering this praising Gollum point, and here is my conclusion. I was trying to think of an analogy, and here’s how it goes. I would praise Gollum for his destruction of the Ring in the same way that I would praise someone who was trying to smack me across the face but accidentally squashed the wasp about to sting me instead. That is to say, perhaps sarcastic thanks, but not very much. Gollum was really trying to do the exact opposite: save the ring. So while I can understand pitying him and appreciating the part he played, I still think little praise of him is deserved.
KingODuckingham 12/Nov/2006 at 08:03 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I’ve been pondering this praising Gollum point, and here is my conclusion. I was trying to think of an analogy, and here’s how it goes. I would praise Gollum for his destruction of the Ring in the same way that I would praise someone who was trying to smack me across the face but accidentally squashed the wasp about to sting me instead. That is to say, perhaps sarcastic thanks, but not very much. Gollum was really trying to do the exact opposite: save the ring. So while I can understand pitying him and appreciating the part he played, I still think little praise of him is deserved.
Arthur Weasley 13/Nov/2006 at 03:59 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Hmmm.  I still believe that a persons actions are always more important then their intentions.  Gollum deserves praise mainly because the Ring would not have gotten anywhere near Mt. Doom/Sammath naur without him.  If I remember correctly, Frodo and Sam were going in circles in the Emyn Muil and would have taken far longer if they had not tamed Smeagol.  Anyway I hope Gollum did receive Salvation after death because if he can then anyone can!
Arthur Weasley 13/Nov/2006 at 03:59 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Hmmm.  I still believe that a persons actions are always more important then their intentions.  Gollum deserves praise mainly because the Ring would not have gotten anywhere near Mt. Doom/Sammath naur without him.  If I remember correctly, Frodo and Sam were going in circles in the Emyn Muil and would have taken far longer if they had not tamed Smeagol.  Anyway I hope Gollum did receive Salvation after death because if he can then anyone can!
KingODuckingham 13/Nov/2006 at 08:11 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I still believe that a persons actions are always more important then their intentions. Oh, so do I. See my debate about the nature of love in the ME P&R forum about Wormtongue and Eowyn. But as I also say there, intentions are not negligible. I understand the refined point, about praising Gollum not for destroying the Ring but because of his help as a guide. But then we are not praising him for being the unwitting savior of ME. Or if we are, him no more than anyone else like Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, etc. They all did just as much or more to destroy the Ring.

I too hope Gollum can be saved, if possible.
KingODuckingham 13/Nov/2006 at 08:11 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I still believe that a persons actions are always more important then their intentions. Oh, so do I. See my debate about the nature of love in the ME P&R forum about Wormtongue and Eowyn. But as I also say there, intentions are not negligible. I understand the refined point, about praising Gollum not for destroying the Ring but because of his help as a guide. But then we are not praising him for being the unwitting savior of ME. Or if we are, him no more than anyone else like Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, etc. They all did just as much or more to destroy the Ring.

I too hope Gollum can be saved, if possible.
Arthur Weasley 14/Nov/2006 at 03:31 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
In the end, I think of Gollum as a sacrificial wolf!  From the first moment I read about him, I knew that he was one of the bad guys who was going to die.  However, Gollum did what no one else could do, he destroyed the Ring.  This act of redemption was an accident...or was it?  Again perhaps Gollum’s subconcious mind was motivated by Eru, Tolkien or some bizarre power.  Yes, everyone played their parts but only Gollum could have destroyed the Ring, even if in the biggest WHOOPS!  In literature!
Arthur Weasley 14/Nov/2006 at 03:31 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
In the end, I think of Gollum as a sacrificial wolf!  From the first moment I read about him, I knew that he was one of the bad guys who was going to die.  However, Gollum did what no one else could do, he destroyed the Ring.  This act of redemption was an accident...or was it?  Again perhaps Gollum’s subconcious mind was motivated by Eru, Tolkien or some bizarre power.  Yes, everyone played their parts but only Gollum could have destroyed the Ring, even if in the biggest WHOOPS!  In literature!
Falvlun 14/Nov/2006 at 11:55 AM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

Should Gollum be praised for destroying the Ring? No. As has been debated endlessly in this thread, his intentions/ motivation was not to destroy the Ring. So he fails on that mark. Now, there are those who argue that his ultimate action should be the deciding factor. But, consider this. Even the action itself was not intentional; Gollum did not even create an idea for an action in his mind and then perform this action. In other words, there was no will behind the action that destroyed the Ring. Basically, he slipped and fell; an accident in action, and with the wrong motives in mind. So he fails at the action mark as well.

Gollum, however, did perform certain actions faithfully and willfully, such as leading Sam and Frodo into Mordor. These were done with the wrong motives, but at least the actions can be attributed to Gollum himself. Now, are there any actions that Gollum did both willfully and with the right intentions? I believe there are. For example, he catches two rabbits for Frodo. This was about as purely motivated as anything Gollum could conceive. I’m sure there are some other examples too, within the small space where Smeagol is in control. Additonally, think of how hard it would be for Gollum to find that Smeagol (good) part of him, and to make the conscious effort to be Smeagol. This is certainly a gigantic effort, and one I deem commendable.

So my conclusion? I do not think Gollum should be praised for the destruction of the Ring since there was no will or pure intention behind it. However, I do think Gollum can be praised somewhat for his guidance. But what I would most like to see Gollum praised for are his attempts at finding the good within himself. This effort is largely ignored; yet I think it at the heart of Gollum’s near-redemption.

Falvlun 14/Nov/2006 at 11:55 AM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

Should Gollum be praised for destroying the Ring? No. As has been debated endlessly in this thread, his intentions/ motivation was not to destroy the Ring. So he fails on that mark. Now, there are those who argue that his ultimate action should be the deciding factor. But, consider this. Even the action itself was not intentional; Gollum did not even create an idea for an action in his mind and then perform this action. In other words, there was no will behind the action that destroyed the Ring. Basically, he slipped and fell; an accident in action, and with the wrong motives in mind. So he fails at the action mark as well.

Gollum, however, did perform certain actions faithfully and willfully, such as leading Sam and Frodo into Mordor. These were done with the wrong motives, but at least the actions can be attributed to Gollum himself. Now, are there any actions that Gollum did both willfully and with the right intentions? I believe there are. For example, he catches two rabbits for Frodo. This was about as purely motivated as anything Gollum could conceive. I’m sure there are some other examples too, within the small space where Smeagol is in control. Additonally, think of how hard it would be for Gollum to find that Smeagol (good) part of him, and to make the conscious effort to be Smeagol. This is certainly a gigantic effort, and one I deem commendable.

So my conclusion? I do not think Gollum should be praised for the destruction of the Ring since there was no will or pure intention behind it. However, I do think Gollum can be praised somewhat for his guidance. But what I would most like to see Gollum praised for are his attempts at finding the good within himself. This effort is largely ignored; yet I think it at the heart of Gollum’s near-redemption.

KingODuckingham 14/Nov/2006 at 04:32 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Falvlun: I agree with you, but I feel bound to point out that if you accept Darth Enalan’s statement perhaps Gollum’s subconcious mind was motivated by Eru, then we cannot say with you Even the action itself was not intentional; because there is a will and therefore an intent behind the action. I do not believe this, nor do I think you do, but I have not yet come up with anything (so far as I can see) that conclusively disproves this, supposing that to even be possible.
KingODuckingham 14/Nov/2006 at 04:32 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Falvlun: I agree with you, but I feel bound to point out that if you accept Darth Enalan’s statement perhaps Gollum’s subconcious mind was motivated by Eru, then we cannot say with you Even the action itself was not intentional; because there is a will and therefore an intent behind the action. I do not believe this, nor do I think you do, but I have not yet come up with anything (so far as I can see) that conclusively disproves this, supposing that to even be possible.
Falvlun 14/Nov/2006 at 05:56 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

kingo (which abbreviation do you like, by the way? I do feel rather fond of kingo myself...), I address it to you since you told me, but really it’s in response to Darth’s statement: If Gollum was subconsciously motivated by Eru, then the action still can not be attributed to him since the will would come from someone else. Gollum still is not creating the action-- either subconsciously or consciously. The whole reason for this debate is to determine whether Gollum deserves praise. Assuming the subconscious motivation theory is correct we have this: Action potential created by Eru---> action performed by Gollum with absolutely no intent or willful knowledge of it---> accidental slip. Nowhere in this chain of events does Gollum have any role but as the vessel. Should the bucket be praised because it carried water? No, the guy who makes the bucket, pulls the bucket out of the well, and takes it home should get the honor.

One other thing to add: You used the intended-slap-that-killed-the-wasp analogy to explain a bad intention making a good result. I would like to take it a step further to fully compare it to the Gollum situation: The guy who slaps the wasp hadn’t even decided on an action yet--- he was merely bumped.

Now, I don’t have my books with me, but so you’ll have to check these things out yourself. But wording can be helpful. What does the book say exactly happened when Gollum fell over the edge? If the word is "slip", or "fell" etc then we conclusively see no willful part in this action.

Another interesting point is that earlier on Mt Doom, Frodo makes a sort of prophecy. He tells Gollum that if he touches him again, he will be thrown into Mt. Doom, or something to that extent. If this is so, then the Eru theory has a little merit--- though not in the way Darth intended it. In this way, the slip is  foretold-- or to take it a step further-- ordained. Again, the will for the action would not reside within Gollum, but rather in Eru.

Maybe it would be more correct to say Eru was the Savior of Middle Earth.

Falvlun 14/Nov/2006 at 05:56 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

kingo (which abbreviation do you like, by the way? I do feel rather fond of kingo myself...), I address it to you since you told me, but really it’s in response to Darth’s statement: If Gollum was subconsciously motivated by Eru, then the action still can not be attributed to him since the will would come from someone else. Gollum still is not creating the action-- either subconsciously or consciously. The whole reason for this debate is to determine whether Gollum deserves praise. Assuming the subconscious motivation theory is correct we have this: Action potential created by Eru---> action performed by Gollum with absolutely no intent or willful knowledge of it---> accidental slip. Nowhere in this chain of events does Gollum have any role but as the vessel. Should the bucket be praised because it carried water? No, the guy who makes the bucket, pulls the bucket out of the well, and takes it home should get the honor.

One other thing to add: You used the intended-slap-that-killed-the-wasp analogy to explain a bad intention making a good result. I would like to take it a step further to fully compare it to the Gollum situation: The guy who slaps the wasp hadn’t even decided on an action yet--- he was merely bumped.

Now, I don’t have my books with me, but so you’ll have to check these things out yourself. But wording can be helpful. What does the book say exactly happened when Gollum fell over the edge? If the word is "slip", or "fell" etc then we conclusively see no willful part in this action.

Another interesting point is that earlier on Mt Doom, Frodo makes a sort of prophecy. He tells Gollum that if he touches him again, he will be thrown into Mt. Doom, or something to that extent. If this is so, then the Eru theory has a little merit--- though not in the way Darth intended it. In this way, the slip is  foretold-- or to take it a step further-- ordained. Again, the will for the action would not reside within Gollum, but rather in Eru.

Maybe it would be more correct to say Eru was the Savior of Middle Earth.

Arthur Weasley 15/Nov/2006 at 03:29 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Falvlun - Glad to have your thoughts and imput!!!  You said if the word in the book "is slip", or "fell" etc then we conclusively see no willful part in this action. "  While the words are wavered and toppled we are actually saying the same thing.  This is why Gollum should be praised as the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth.  Of course Gollum would never EVER have willfully destroyed the Ring, but he did and the Happy Endings that followed weredue mostly to his actions.  If a five year old toddler accidently shoots his/her Mom or Dad with a pistol they find under the bed, the child should still be sent to JuVeeDee (Juvenile Detention) and pay for his/her actions.  So perhaps Gollum should be praised for his actions in destroying the Ring because of all the Happy Endings that followed?  I love Logic!  
Arthur Weasley 15/Nov/2006 at 03:29 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Falvlun - Glad to have your thoughts and imput!!!  You said if the word in the book "is slip", or "fell" etc then we conclusively see no willful part in this action. "  While the words are wavered and toppled we are actually saying the same thing.  This is why Gollum should be praised as the Unwitting Savior of Middle Earth.  Of course Gollum would never EVER have willfully destroyed the Ring, but he did and the Happy Endings that followed weredue mostly to his actions.  If a five year old toddler accidently shoots his/her Mom or Dad with a pistol they find under the bed, the child should still be sent to JuVeeDee (Juvenile Detention) and pay for his/her actions.  So perhaps Gollum should be praised for his actions in destroying the Ring because of all the Happy Endings that followed?  I love Logic!  
Faldras 15/Nov/2006 at 05:01 AM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
So this is why you guys left the philosophy thread.

If we’re going to praise Gollum based on his actions and ignore his intention, perhaps we should also praise Sauron. After all, he IS responsible for creating the Ring in the first place, and in fires of Mount Doom no less, where Gollum just happened to fall and unmake the Ring. Losing his physical form and leaving the mountain unguarded was a big help as well.

Frodo’s thanks speech: "There are just so many people I want to thank for this honor, I just hope I remember them all... um... First of all, and most especially Sam, who never left my side the entire journey except when he thought I was dead, hehe, but we love him anyway. God, that is to say Eru, whose will is behind all things, for creating the evil that I was able to face off against and become hero, y’know, like, a really GOOD good person. My uncle Bilbo, who passed the Ring onto me just as things started to get dangerous, oh, and also his sword and armour which I wore to this ceremony. Um, I’d like to thank Gandalf for his words of inspiration and moral support and all of the Fellowship really (I love you guys!). I’d like to thank Faramir for the lovely tea party. I hope we can get together again sometime. Um, gosh, who else... the Eagles, for always showing up at just the right moment. I’d like to thank Gollum for accidentally falling in the fire and unwittingly saving Middle Earth--a moment of silence for him--he died doing what he loved most. I’d also like to thank Sauron, for without him, none of this would be possible. I mean, there wouldn’t have been a Ring to destroy."
Faldras 15/Nov/2006 at 05:01 AM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
So this is why you guys left the philosophy thread.

If we’re going to praise Gollum based on his actions and ignore his intention, perhaps we should also praise Sauron. After all, he IS responsible for creating the Ring in the first place, and in fires of Mount Doom no less, where Gollum just happened to fall and unmake the Ring. Losing his physical form and leaving the mountain unguarded was a big help as well.

Frodo’s thanks speech: "There are just so many people I want to thank for this honor, I just hope I remember them all... um... First of all, and most especially Sam, who never left my side the entire journey except when he thought I was dead, hehe, but we love him anyway. God, that is to say Eru, whose will is behind all things, for creating the evil that I was able to face off against and become hero, y’know, like, a really GOOD good person. My uncle Bilbo, who passed the Ring onto me just as things started to get dangerous, oh, and also his sword and armour which I wore to this ceremony. Um, I’d like to thank Gandalf for his words of inspiration and moral support and all of the Fellowship really (I love you guys!). I’d like to thank Faramir for the lovely tea party. I hope we can get together again sometime. Um, gosh, who else... the Eagles, for always showing up at just the right moment. I’d like to thank Gollum for accidentally falling in the fire and unwittingly saving Middle Earth--a moment of silence for him--he died doing what he loved most. I’d also like to thank Sauron, for without him, none of this would be possible. I mean, there wouldn’t have been a Ring to destroy."
Arthur Weasley 15/Nov/2006 at 07:58 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Faldras - Welcome to this thread!!  I suppose if Sauron did destroy his own Ring it would be important to praise his actions.  Evil is after all self-destructive and self-defeating...or is it?  How might this apply to the discussion at hand with Gollum?  Is it possible that the tiny piece of Good in Gollum wanted the Ring to be destroyed and influenced him accordingly?  If it were not for Gollum, the Ring would not have been found at all and Bilbo would have never stolen it.  Let’s run with causality!  
Arthur Weasley 15/Nov/2006 at 07:58 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Faldras - Welcome to this thread!!  I suppose if Sauron did destroy his own Ring it would be important to praise his actions.  Evil is after all self-destructive and self-defeating...or is it?  How might this apply to the discussion at hand with Gollum?  Is it possible that the tiny piece of Good in Gollum wanted the Ring to be destroyed and influenced him accordingly?  If it were not for Gollum, the Ring would not have been found at all and Bilbo would have never stolen it.  Let’s run with causality!  
The Mormegil 15/Nov/2006 at 08:24 AM
Stablemaster of the Mark Points: 672 Posts: 74 Joined: 25/Jan/2004
Unwitting being the operative term! Of course Gollum can be credited (literally) with saving Middle Earth (by way of destroying Sauron), but he deserves no moral credit for doing this. He acted not out of any desire to do good but rather he was motivated by selfish ends.
The Mormegil 15/Nov/2006 at 08:24 AM
Stablemaster of the Mark Points: 672 Posts: 74 Joined: 25/Jan/2004
Unwitting being the operative term! Of course Gollum can be credited (literally) with saving Middle Earth (by way of destroying Sauron), but he deserves no moral credit for doing this. He acted not out of any desire to do good but rather he was motivated by selfish ends.
KingODuckingham 15/Nov/2006 at 10:01 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
So this is why you guys left the philosophy thread. You caught us.

Darth: Evil is after all self-destructive and self-defeating...or is it? Yes it is, at least in the Tolkien universe. If, as it says in the Letters that Absolute Evil does not exist because it is Absolute Zero, we can reason that relative evil is progressing towards that Zero, which is self-destructive. Morgoth was well on his way with his nihilism, Sauron less so, because he wanted to dominate ME, not destroy it. But eventually...

Is it possible that the tiny piece of Good in Gollum wanted the Ring to be destroyed and influenced him accordingly? It is not possible to reason this way from the text of LOTR, at least.
KingODuckingham 15/Nov/2006 at 10:01 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
So this is why you guys left the philosophy thread. You caught us.

Darth: Evil is after all self-destructive and self-defeating...or is it? Yes it is, at least in the Tolkien universe. If, as it says in the Letters that Absolute Evil does not exist because it is Absolute Zero, we can reason that relative evil is progressing towards that Zero, which is self-destructive. Morgoth was well on his way with his nihilism, Sauron less so, because he wanted to dominate ME, not destroy it. But eventually...

Is it possible that the tiny piece of Good in Gollum wanted the Ring to be destroyed and influenced him accordingly? It is not possible to reason this way from the text of LOTR, at least.
Teptoes 15/Nov/2006 at 05:21 PM
Farmer of the Shire Points: 509 Posts: 106 Joined: 07/Nov/2004

Falvlan- We may have had this discussion before...

Indulge me...

What if the ring didnt just forsee gollum’s end but Frodo through the ring actually created it by magical command, order etc...We know Gandalf’s ring had the power of humanoid influence-to kindle the hearts and spirit to resist the evil- so its not out of the question the one ring has a similar power to command or influence.

It doesn’t change the thesis that Gollum was anything more than the bucket that carried the water.  Frodo would then have been the commanding or driving force.  One could always say Eru made Frodo do this, but one could always say that Gollum going into the fire was written in the song that created everything.  Then ddin’t Gollum do what he was supposed to do?

The text only supports the conclusion that Gollum slipped by accident or earthquake or Frodo or the ring commanded or put a spell on Gollum that if he touched was it Frodo or the ring [no clear answer] again he would be cast into the fire.  Since Gollum touched both Frodo and the ring and was then cast into the fire we still can’t tell who Gollum had to touch to set off this chain, the ring or frodo as it is not clear who spoke out of the wheel of fire.  The ring certaiunly had the power to cause Gollum to cower  before Frodo, more humanoid influence.

I know about the letters saying the author of the story made him fall but "Its not in the books."  This again raises the authorial intent question and I for one don’t believe an author’s intent can change the words written.  Since every word was considered, Tolkien could have put something about Eru in the story if he really wanted that conclusion.  He didn’t.  I know about the footnote in the appendix and the something meant for Bilbo to find the ring quotes but thats a far cry from Eru shoving Gollum into the pit as being written into the books.

I don’t see the books as having any textual support for any conclusion othe rthan the Frodo commanded Gollum to fall and to serve him in his quest.  This means to serve him even when Frodo can no longer serve himself.  Again, I don’t for a second believe Gollum did this with any volition, I believe Frodo did this, however unknowing.

But then, that would mean Frodo didn’t fail.  He set up the means to succeed however unconsciously, through the ring and its power to command, influence or plant a suggestion into Gollum.

I think this theory flies against even Tolkien’s letters and thoughts on the subject but is more supported by the text than his own feelings of Eru and Frodo’s failure.

"Its all in the books."-Geordie [I believe.]

Teptoes 15/Nov/2006 at 05:21 PM
Farmer of the Shire Points: 509 Posts: 106 Joined: 07/Nov/2004

Falvlan- We may have had this discussion before...

Indulge me...

What if the ring didnt just forsee gollum’s end but Frodo through the ring actually created it by magical command, order etc...We know Gandalf’s ring had the power of humanoid influence-to kindle the hearts and spirit to resist the evil- so its not out of the question the one ring has a similar power to command or influence.

It doesn’t change the thesis that Gollum was anything more than the bucket that carried the water.  Frodo would then have been the commanding or driving force.  One could always say Eru made Frodo do this, but one could always say that Gollum going into the fire was written in the song that created everything.  Then ddin’t Gollum do what he was supposed to do?

The text only supports the conclusion that Gollum slipped by accident or earthquake or Frodo or the ring commanded or put a spell on Gollum that if he touched was it Frodo or the ring [no clear answer] again he would be cast into the fire.  Since Gollum touched both Frodo and the ring and was then cast into the fire we still can’t tell who Gollum had to touch to set off this chain, the ring or frodo as it is not clear who spoke out of the wheel of fire.  The ring certaiunly had the power to cause Gollum to cower  before Frodo, more humanoid influence.

I know about the letters saying the author of the story made him fall but "Its not in the books."  This again raises the authorial intent question and I for one don’t believe an author’s intent can change the words written.  Since every word was considered, Tolkien could have put something about Eru in the story if he really wanted that conclusion.  He didn’t.  I know about the footnote in the appendix and the something meant for Bilbo to find the ring quotes but thats a far cry from Eru shoving Gollum into the pit as being written into the books.

I don’t see the books as having any textual support for any conclusion othe rthan the Frodo commanded Gollum to fall and to serve him in his quest.  This means to serve him even when Frodo can no longer serve himself.  Again, I don’t for a second believe Gollum did this with any volition, I believe Frodo did this, however unknowing.

But then, that would mean Frodo didn’t fail.  He set up the means to succeed however unconsciously, through the ring and its power to command, influence or plant a suggestion into Gollum.

I think this theory flies against even Tolkien’s letters and thoughts on the subject but is more supported by the text than his own feelings of Eru and Frodo’s failure.

"Its all in the books."-Geordie [I believe.]

KingODuckingham 15/Nov/2006 at 08:18 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I know about the letters saying the author of the story made him fall but "Its not in the books." Yes, and I know textbooks SAY the earth revolves around the sun, but all I see is the sun traveling across the sky, so I still think the sun revolves around the earth. Ridiculous, no? Authorial intent does matter, very much. If Tolkien said it himself, I don’t see any sort of defense against it.

I think this theory flies against even Tolkien’s letters and thoughts on the subject but is more supported by the text than his own feelings of Eru and Frodo’s failure. It’s not supported by the text at all, just your inferences. And I don’t find your inferences to be any more likely than Tolkien’s, and certainly not more authoritative.

And like you said, it still doesn’t make Gollum any more worthy of praise.
KingODuckingham 15/Nov/2006 at 08:18 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I know about the letters saying the author of the story made him fall but "Its not in the books." Yes, and I know textbooks SAY the earth revolves around the sun, but all I see is the sun traveling across the sky, so I still think the sun revolves around the earth. Ridiculous, no? Authorial intent does matter, very much. If Tolkien said it himself, I don’t see any sort of defense against it.

I think this theory flies against even Tolkien’s letters and thoughts on the subject but is more supported by the text than his own feelings of Eru and Frodo’s failure. It’s not supported by the text at all, just your inferences. And I don’t find your inferences to be any more likely than Tolkien’s, and certainly not more authoritative.

And like you said, it still doesn’t make Gollum any more worthy of praise.
Arthur Weasley 16/Nov/2006 at 11:31 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Maybe I am still an Idealist here.  But Gandalf himself even said that Gollum was not "wholely wicked," or 100% Grade A Jerk Evil.  Since I believe in fate, luck, destiny and coincidence, I believe that some force beyond our knowledge (maybe Eru Illuvatar) motuivated events so that the Ring could be destroyed.  Gollum was definitely more than a bucket for water and if it were not for him, Bilbo never would have found the Ring, Frodo would never have inherited it, the Quest would never have been launched and the Ring would have never gotten anywhere near Sammath Naur without Gollum’s conscious assistance.  I am at work now but let’s talk about the long chain of events that had to have been guided by a benevolent will.

Arthur Weasley 16/Nov/2006 at 11:31 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Maybe I am still an Idealist here.  But Gandalf himself even said that Gollum was not "wholely wicked," or 100% Grade A Jerk Evil.  Since I believe in fate, luck, destiny and coincidence, I believe that some force beyond our knowledge (maybe Eru Illuvatar) motuivated events so that the Ring could be destroyed.  Gollum was definitely more than a bucket for water and if it were not for him, Bilbo never would have found the Ring, Frodo would never have inherited it, the Quest would never have been launched and the Ring would have never gotten anywhere near Sammath Naur without Gollum’s conscious assistance.  I am at work now but let’s talk about the long chain of events that had to have been guided by a benevolent will.

The Mormegil 16/Nov/2006 at 01:51 PM
Stablemaster of the Mark Points: 672 Posts: 74 Joined: 25/Jan/2004

Alright, Gollum wasn’t 100% Grade-A Jerk Evil ... but even as Smeagol he was quite a nasty piece of work! I think that, to find anything to praise about Gollum, we’ve got to find something he did that wasn’t in any way selfishly motivated. Is there such a thing (or -- gulp! -- things)? It seems a pretty dificult thing to do: find nice things to say about Gollum. There’s been a lot of very useful contributions to this thread, and they all seem to say that Gollum wasn’t ever a "witting" abettor to the destruction of the One Ring. If that’s the case, Gollum really was Stinker.

The Mormegil 16/Nov/2006 at 01:51 PM
Stablemaster of the Mark Points: 672 Posts: 74 Joined: 25/Jan/2004

Alright, Gollum wasn’t 100% Grade-A Jerk Evil ... but even as Smeagol he was quite a nasty piece of work! I think that, to find anything to praise about Gollum, we’ve got to find something he did that wasn’t in any way selfishly motivated. Is there such a thing (or -- gulp! -- things)? It seems a pretty dificult thing to do: find nice things to say about Gollum. There’s been a lot of very useful contributions to this thread, and they all seem to say that Gollum wasn’t ever a "witting" abettor to the destruction of the One Ring. If that’s the case, Gollum really was Stinker.

Faldras 16/Nov/2006 at 04:55 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
If Gollum has a saving grace, it’s that he was able to be pitied by both Bilbo and Frodo, who spared him long enough for him to be able to stumble in Mt. Doom.

It’s fine to believe in those things, Darth Enalan, but remember the context. Ultimately it wasn’t Eru that pushed Gollum in, it was Tolkien! *g*
Faldras 16/Nov/2006 at 04:55 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
If Gollum has a saving grace, it’s that he was able to be pitied by both Bilbo and Frodo, who spared him long enough for him to be able to stumble in Mt. Doom.

It’s fine to believe in those things, Darth Enalan, but remember the context. Ultimately it wasn’t Eru that pushed Gollum in, it was Tolkien! *g*
Falvlun 16/Nov/2006 at 06:23 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

Darth Enalan, It has nothing to do with being an idealist. Nothing in Tolkien’s mythology is 100% evil, since Tolkien did not believe absolute evil to be possible; even Morgoth had something good within him. Thus the mere presence of good-- or the possibility of good-- within an individual is not praiseworthy in itself. It would be like praising Gollum for not sprouting wings. Being pure evil is just as impossible.

Furthermore, you keep hanging onto the point that Fate/ Eru ordained Gollum to destroy the Ring, without realizing how it completely destroys your argument. If the only reason Gollum fell over the edge was because something/someone else made him do it, it implies that Gollum had absolutely no control over his actions, and was indeed just the bucket. If you let go of the Eru/divine fate theory, you retain the possibility of Gollum acting autonomously, and therefore, being responsible for the sequence of events.

In a previous post I agreed that Gollum’s guidance into Mt. Doom is a somewhat praiseworthy action, since it was willfully done by him and done faithfully. I also mentioned that his actions as Smeagol were completely praiseworthy since he even performed things with the right intentions.

The fact that Bilbo found the Ring was not the result of Gollum, but rather the wilfull action of the Ring itself-- it left Gollum since it felt stagnation; it did not intend to be found by a hobbit.

And now for some nice juicy quotes:

"Into the ultimate judgement of Gollum, I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate ’Goddes privitee’, as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him." (Letter 181, my emphasis)

Tolkien here quite clearly states that Gollum doesn’t deserve praise for the destruction of the Ring; he even goes a step further and states that Gollum’s final actions were wicked-- they were not even good. To continue the quote (skipping a line or two):

"I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be ’damnable’. Their ’damnability’ is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good)." (not my emphasis)

This concept is interesting. Tolkien is defining salvation and damnability in regards to the individual. He continues in this letter with the sequence that made Gollum what he was, but in the end, it was Gollum who sealed his own fate. Note also that the overall good does not determine whether a specific action was good.

Teptoes, I’ll reply in a bit, but this post is already too long!

Falvlun 16/Nov/2006 at 06:23 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

Darth Enalan, It has nothing to do with being an idealist. Nothing in Tolkien’s mythology is 100% evil, since Tolkien did not believe absolute evil to be possible; even Morgoth had something good within him. Thus the mere presence of good-- or the possibility of good-- within an individual is not praiseworthy in itself. It would be like praising Gollum for not sprouting wings. Being pure evil is just as impossible.

Furthermore, you keep hanging onto the point that Fate/ Eru ordained Gollum to destroy the Ring, without realizing how it completely destroys your argument. If the only reason Gollum fell over the edge was because something/someone else made him do it, it implies that Gollum had absolutely no control over his actions, and was indeed just the bucket. If you let go of the Eru/divine fate theory, you retain the possibility of Gollum acting autonomously, and therefore, being responsible for the sequence of events.

In a previous post I agreed that Gollum’s guidance into Mt. Doom is a somewhat praiseworthy action, since it was willfully done by him and done faithfully. I also mentioned that his actions as Smeagol were completely praiseworthy since he even performed things with the right intentions.

The fact that Bilbo found the Ring was not the result of Gollum, but rather the wilfull action of the Ring itself-- it left Gollum since it felt stagnation; it did not intend to be found by a hobbit.

And now for some nice juicy quotes:

"Into the ultimate judgement of Gollum, I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate ’Goddes privitee’, as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him." (Letter 181, my emphasis)

Tolkien here quite clearly states that Gollum doesn’t deserve praise for the destruction of the Ring; he even goes a step further and states that Gollum’s final actions were wicked-- they were not even good. To continue the quote (skipping a line or two):

"I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be ’damnable’. Their ’damnability’ is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good)." (not my emphasis)

This concept is interesting. Tolkien is defining salvation and damnability in regards to the individual. He continues in this letter with the sequence that made Gollum what he was, but in the end, it was Gollum who sealed his own fate. Note also that the overall good does not determine whether a specific action was good.

Teptoes, I’ll reply in a bit, but this post is already too long!

Falvlun 16/Nov/2006 at 08:17 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004
PS to Faldras: I just responded in the Philosophy thread. ::grin::
The Mormegil 17/Nov/2006 at 04:55 AM
Stablemaster of the Mark Points: 672 Posts: 74 Joined: 25/Jan/2004

Falvlun, I find it odd that you’d characterize behaviour as "somewhat praiseworthy" since it was done "willfully" and "faithfully." I can think of any number of utterly abhorrent actions which were undertaken willfully and faithfully (think ethnic cleansing) that cannot be considered even somewhat praiseworthy just for being willful and faithful. Intent is central to any characterization of actions as either praiseworthy or blameworthy, so I’d think that only those actions undertaken by Smeagol which were benificent towards Frodo would be worthy of any praise at all.

Gollum certainly did NOT do "more than anyone to destroy [sic] the One Ring and Sauron."

 

The Mormegil 17/Nov/2006 at 04:55 AM
Stablemaster of the Mark Points: 672 Posts: 74 Joined: 25/Jan/2004

Falvlun, I find it odd that you’d characterize behaviour as "somewhat praiseworthy" since it was done "willfully" and "faithfully." I can think of any number of utterly abhorrent actions which were undertaken willfully and faithfully (think ethnic cleansing) that cannot be considered even somewhat praiseworthy just for being willful and faithful. Intent is central to any characterization of actions as either praiseworthy or blameworthy, so I’d think that only those actions undertaken by Smeagol which were benificent towards Frodo would be worthy of any praise at all.

Gollum certainly did NOT do "more than anyone to destroy [sic] the One Ring and Sauron."

 

KingODuckingham 17/Nov/2006 at 09:42 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
The Mormegil: Falvlun was not saying that the willfulness of the action was what made it praiseworthy. Falv meant to say that of all the actions of Gollum that resulted in good, those that were done willfully (leading Frodo out of the Emyn Muil, etc) are the only ones that can deserve praise because those done without him wanting them to happen are no credit to him.
KingODuckingham 17/Nov/2006 at 09:42 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
The Mormegil: Falvlun was not saying that the willfulness of the action was what made it praiseworthy. Falv meant to say that of all the actions of Gollum that resulted in good, those that were done willfully (leading Frodo out of the Emyn Muil, etc) are the only ones that can deserve praise because those done without him wanting them to happen are no credit to him.
Arthur Weasley 17/Nov/2006 at 04:14 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
This is terrific Everyone!! I love discussions like this.  So OK.  Imagine that I am in a 7-11 store.  Now if someone is robbing the place runs past me, trips over my bags and falls, am I not a hero if I pick up his gun and claim to have captured him?  Certainly I would be praised as a great hero by the media.  Durig the last half of the book,  RotK, Frodo becomes this dreamy pacifist even before the Ring is destroyed.  Sam, who is by far the most underrated member of the titanic trio here, saves the Quest from disaster many times and in some ways is more of a hero then Frodo towards the end.  Gollum, whatever his intentions, completed what even Frodo admitted was beyond his power.  While it may seem like I am simply repeating myself, I see Slinker/Smeagol still within Stinker/Gollum.  Gollum was no fool and he must have realized that Frodo and Sam were going to destroy the Ring though when he would have discovered this I amnot sure.  It should have been obvious to Gollum that Frodo and Sam were not going to Mordor to return Sauron’s Ring to him!  Why else would they hide and avoid Sauron’s servants repeatedly?  Gollum never once tried to talk them out of destroying the Ring either.  Why else would Frodo ad Sam have been travelling to Mordor if not to either destroy the Ring or give it to Sauron for a reward.  Would not both outcomes be intolerable to Gollum?  Why would Gollum then help Frodo and Sam for so long?  Awaiting his chance to take the Ring?  Not likely but possible.  Thoughts?
Arthur Weasley 17/Nov/2006 at 04:14 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
This is terrific Everyone!! I love discussions like this.  So OK.  Imagine that I am in a 7-11 store.  Now if someone is robbing the place runs past me, trips over my bags and falls, am I not a hero if I pick up his gun and claim to have captured him?  Certainly I would be praised as a great hero by the media.  Durig the last half of the book,  RotK, Frodo becomes this dreamy pacifist even before the Ring is destroyed.  Sam, who is by far the most underrated member of the titanic trio here, saves the Quest from disaster many times and in some ways is more of a hero then Frodo towards the end.  Gollum, whatever his intentions, completed what even Frodo admitted was beyond his power.  While it may seem like I am simply repeating myself, I see Slinker/Smeagol still within Stinker/Gollum.  Gollum was no fool and he must have realized that Frodo and Sam were going to destroy the Ring though when he would have discovered this I amnot sure.  It should have been obvious to Gollum that Frodo and Sam were not going to Mordor to return Sauron’s Ring to him!  Why else would they hide and avoid Sauron’s servants repeatedly?  Gollum never once tried to talk them out of destroying the Ring either.  Why else would Frodo ad Sam have been travelling to Mordor if not to either destroy the Ring or give it to Sauron for a reward.  Would not both outcomes be intolerable to Gollum?  Why would Gollum then help Frodo and Sam for so long?  Awaiting his chance to take the Ring?  Not likely but possible.  Thoughts?
KingODuckingham 17/Nov/2006 at 10:00 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Awaiting his chance to take the Ring? Not likely but possible. Thoughts? Why not likely? I see that as the obvious course to take. He isn’t strong enough to take the Ring outright, but he is hardly going to go off and leave the Precious out of his sight. The Ring draws him. The best compromise for him as he (and I) see it is to help Frodo and Sam (since it’s better that than to let Sauron get it). Thus he helps keep the Ring out of Sauron’s hands and keeps himself in close proximity in case there should ever be a chance to take the Ring back from Frodo.
KingODuckingham 17/Nov/2006 at 10:00 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Awaiting his chance to take the Ring? Not likely but possible. Thoughts? Why not likely? I see that as the obvious course to take. He isn’t strong enough to take the Ring outright, but he is hardly going to go off and leave the Precious out of his sight. The Ring draws him. The best compromise for him as he (and I) see it is to help Frodo and Sam (since it’s better that than to let Sauron get it). Thus he helps keep the Ring out of Sauron’s hands and keeps himself in close proximity in case there should ever be a chance to take the Ring back from Frodo.
Arthur Weasley 18/Nov/2006 at 05:39 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Kingoduckingham - Yes, I see you point!  Now Gollum certainly was not stupid so I amwondering when did he exactly realize that Frodo and Sam were trying to destroy the Ring in the books?  This matter is handled rather dramatically in the Movies but I am rechecking The TT and RofK books to guess where Gollum would have guessed their mission. 

Arthur Weasley 18/Nov/2006 at 05:39 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Kingoduckingham - Yes, I see you point!  Now Gollum certainly was not stupid so I amwondering when did he exactly realize that Frodo and Sam were trying to destroy the Ring in the books?  This matter is handled rather dramatically in the Movies but I am rechecking The TT and RofK books to guess where Gollum would have guessed their mission. 

Faldras 18/Nov/2006 at 03:32 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
I believe a crucial difference between the movies and the books is that Sam overhears Gollum’s plan to lead them to "her," before they came to the Black Gate:

`But Sméagol said he would be very very good. Nice hobbit! He took cruel rope off Sméagol’s leg. He speaks nicely to me.’
’Very very good, eh, my precious? Let’s be good, good as fish, sweet one, but to ourselfs. Not hurt the nice hobbit, of course, no, no.’
...
’But there’s two of them. They’ll wake too quick and kill us,’ whined Sméagol in a last effort. `Not now. Not yet.’
’We wants it! But’ – and here there was a long pause, as if a new thought had wakened. `Not yet, eh? Perhaps not. She might help. She might, yes.’
`No, no! Not that way! ’ wailed Sméagol.
`Yes! We wants it! We wants it! ’
Each time that the second thought spoke, Gollum’s long hand crept out slowly, pawing towards Frodo, and then was drawn back with a jerk as Sméagol spoke again. Finally both arms, with long fingers flexed and twitching, clawed towards his neck.
(The Two Towers, The Passage of the Marshes)


From this we can assume that from the point where Frodo released him from the rope to this quote, Sméagol meant to help Frodo, but then Gollum changed his mind.

And from this:

Frodo looked straight into Gollum’s eyes which flinched and twisted away. `You know that, or you guess well enough, Sméagol,’ he said, quietly and sternly. `We are going to Mordor, of course. And you know the way there, I believe.’
`Ach! sss! ’ said Gollum, covering his ears with his hands, as if such frankness, and the open speaking of the names, hurt him. `We guessed, yes we guessed,’ he whispered; `and we didn’t want them to go, did we? No, precious, not the nice hobbits. Ashes, ashes, and dust, and thirst there is; and pits, pits, pits, and Orcs, thousands of Orcses. Nice hobbits mustn’t go to – sss – those places.’
(The Two Towers, The Taming of Sméagol)


...we see that he had at least guessed before encountering them. Since he’s pleading for his life here, I think it’s fair to say he’s lying about his resaons for following them.
Faldras 18/Nov/2006 at 03:32 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
I believe a crucial difference between the movies and the books is that Sam overhears Gollum’s plan to lead them to "her," before they came to the Black Gate:

`But Sméagol said he would be very very good. Nice hobbit! He took cruel rope off Sméagol’s leg. He speaks nicely to me.’
’Very very good, eh, my precious? Let’s be good, good as fish, sweet one, but to ourselfs. Not hurt the nice hobbit, of course, no, no.’
...
’But there’s two of them. They’ll wake too quick and kill us,’ whined Sméagol in a last effort. `Not now. Not yet.’
’We wants it! But’ – and here there was a long pause, as if a new thought had wakened. `Not yet, eh? Perhaps not. She might help. She might, yes.’
`No, no! Not that way! ’ wailed Sméagol.
`Yes! We wants it! We wants it! ’
Each time that the second thought spoke, Gollum’s long hand crept out slowly, pawing towards Frodo, and then was drawn back with a jerk as Sméagol spoke again. Finally both arms, with long fingers flexed and twitching, clawed towards his neck.
(The Two Towers, The Passage of the Marshes)


From this we can assume that from the point where Frodo released him from the rope to this quote, Sméagol meant to help Frodo, but then Gollum changed his mind.

And from this:

Frodo looked straight into Gollum’s eyes which flinched and twisted away. `You know that, or you guess well enough, Sméagol,’ he said, quietly and sternly. `We are going to Mordor, of course. And you know the way there, I believe.’
`Ach! sss! ’ said Gollum, covering his ears with his hands, as if such frankness, and the open speaking of the names, hurt him. `We guessed, yes we guessed,’ he whispered; `and we didn’t want them to go, did we? No, precious, not the nice hobbits. Ashes, ashes, and dust, and thirst there is; and pits, pits, pits, and Orcs, thousands of Orcses. Nice hobbits mustn’t go to – sss – those places.’
(The Two Towers, The Taming of Sméagol)


...we see that he had at least guessed before encountering them. Since he’s pleading for his life here, I think it’s fair to say he’s lying about his resaons for following them.
Teptoes 19/Nov/2006 at 06:30 PM
Farmer of the Shire Points: 509 Posts: 106 Joined: 07/Nov/2004

King-Authorial intent does matter
Worth consideration-Yes;
Important-I don’t know;
Deternminative-No.

Falv-Teptoes, I’ll reply in a bit, but this post is already too long!
Have we not been down this road before?  Wasn’t it you who brought these passages to the fore?  It was a while ago and may have been someone else.  My memory isn’t whta it used to be.

Teptoes 19/Nov/2006 at 06:30 PM
Farmer of the Shire Points: 509 Posts: 106 Joined: 07/Nov/2004

King-Authorial intent does matter
Worth consideration-Yes;
Important-I don’t know;
Deternminative-No.

Falv-Teptoes, I’ll reply in a bit, but this post is already too long!
Have we not been down this road before?  Wasn’t it you who brought these passages to the fore?  It was a while ago and may have been someone else.  My memory isn’t whta it used to be.

Falvlun 19/Nov/2006 at 07:09 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

Mormegil, I was merely saying that there are two things necessary for a person to be praised for an action: 1) the action must be intentional and 2) the action must have resulted from good intentions. In the destruction of the Ring, neither of these are met. So, what kingoduckingham explained was right-- Gollum leading Frodo to Mordor is more praiseworthy than him destroying the Ring since at least the leading was done on purpose.

Darth Enalen, Frodo as a dreamy pacifist? I’m not quite sure I see that one. I see him as long-suffering and steadfast, bent down by a burden more horrible and terrible than anything you can dream of. Frodo is like Sisyphus-- destined to endlessly roll a humongous boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down on him. Tolkein described it as one of those positions which "demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal... demand a strength of body and mind which he does not possess." Frodo, despite his ultimate failing, was so constituted that he was the only person who could have performed this task. "A person of greater native power could probably never have resisted the Ring’s lure to power so long; a person of less power could not hope to resist it in the final decision." (both quotes from Letter 181)

As for Gollum’s rationalization for leading Frodo and Sam into Mordor, kingo is right on.  

Faldras, I’m not so sure that Gollum knew the precise purpose for the hobbits going to Mordor. He knew that it was their destination, but he did not know why. I don’t think he could even conceive of the thought of someone wanting to destroy the Ring, much like Sauron could not conceive of such a mode of action.

Darth Enalen, smile. You’re getting close. The 7-Eleven analogy doesn’t quite fit, since you make the conscious action to pick up the gun, which is the determining factor in catching the criminal. I do have an analogy which would fit quite nicely and be hard to dispute, but I shall wait to see if you come up with something.

Falvlun 19/Nov/2006 at 07:09 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

Mormegil, I was merely saying that there are two things necessary for a person to be praised for an action: 1) the action must be intentional and 2) the action must have resulted from good intentions. In the destruction of the Ring, neither of these are met. So, what kingoduckingham explained was right-- Gollum leading Frodo to Mordor is more praiseworthy than him destroying the Ring since at least the leading was done on purpose.

Darth Enalen, Frodo as a dreamy pacifist? I’m not quite sure I see that one. I see him as long-suffering and steadfast, bent down by a burden more horrible and terrible than anything you can dream of. Frodo is like Sisyphus-- destined to endlessly roll a humongous boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down on him. Tolkein described it as one of those positions which "demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal... demand a strength of body and mind which he does not possess." Frodo, despite his ultimate failing, was so constituted that he was the only person who could have performed this task. "A person of greater native power could probably never have resisted the Ring’s lure to power so long; a person of less power could not hope to resist it in the final decision." (both quotes from Letter 181)

As for Gollum’s rationalization for leading Frodo and Sam into Mordor, kingo is right on.  

Faldras, I’m not so sure that Gollum knew the precise purpose for the hobbits going to Mordor. He knew that it was their destination, but he did not know why. I don’t think he could even conceive of the thought of someone wanting to destroy the Ring, much like Sauron could not conceive of such a mode of action.

Darth Enalen, smile. You’re getting close. The 7-Eleven analogy doesn’t quite fit, since you make the conscious action to pick up the gun, which is the determining factor in catching the criminal. I do have an analogy which would fit quite nicely and be hard to dispute, but I shall wait to see if you come up with something.

Faldras 19/Nov/2006 at 09:03 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
Falvlun - That matters little. Gollum knows what’s in Mordor: Sauron. If HE got ahold of the Ring--a likely possibility given the nature of Mordor--Gollum knew he wouldn’t see it again. His only chance was to stay with Frodo and help him.
Faldras 19/Nov/2006 at 09:03 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
Falvlun - That matters little. Gollum knows what’s in Mordor: Sauron. If HE got ahold of the Ring--a likely possibility given the nature of Mordor--Gollum knew he wouldn’t see it again. His only chance was to stay with Frodo and help him.
Falvlun 19/Nov/2006 at 09:09 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004
Faldras, my apologies. I thought your post was meant to prove that Gollum knew Frodo’s purpose. I completely agree with your statement.
Falvlun 19/Nov/2006 at 09:09 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004
Faldras, my apologies. I thought your post was meant to prove that Gollum knew Frodo’s purpose. I completely agree with your statement.
KingODuckingham 19/Nov/2006 at 09:30 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Teptoes: Worth consideration-Yes;
Important-I don’t know;
Deternminative-No


I see a rather amusing image in my mind of you trying to argue with Tolkien that you knew better than him on a point in his own books. Rather pretentious, don’t you think?
KingODuckingham 19/Nov/2006 at 09:30 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Teptoes: Worth consideration-Yes;
Important-I don’t know;
Deternminative-No


I see a rather amusing image in my mind of you trying to argue with Tolkien that you knew better than him on a point in his own books. Rather pretentious, don’t you think?
Cigfa 20/Nov/2006 at 06:52 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 488 Posts: 112 Joined: 24/Sep/2006

Just to put my opinion, it’s likely that Tolkien intended for Gollum to become the saviour of Middle-Earth. A common theme of his was to have a character with neutral intentions, but is usually perceived as evil by good characters (i.e. Sam) He also embodies one or more archetypes:

anti-hero – cynical or tragic hero

dark mentor – lures the hero into danger

helpful mentor – aids the hero on his/her journey

fallen mentor – helping the hero takes the mentor on their own journey

From reading these archetypes, I’d say these are the best traits to believe Gollum was the Unwitting Saviour of Middle Earth. Basically, he went through a descendance from grace into corruption, but finally freed from his painful existence when he fell into Mt. Orodruin *and* destroyed the Ring which caused him both misery and joy.

Cigfa 20/Nov/2006 at 06:52 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 488 Posts: 112 Joined: 24/Sep/2006

Just to put my opinion, it’s likely that Tolkien intended for Gollum to become the saviour of Middle-Earth. A common theme of his was to have a character with neutral intentions, but is usually perceived as evil by good characters (i.e. Sam) He also embodies one or more archetypes:

anti-hero – cynical or tragic hero

dark mentor – lures the hero into danger

helpful mentor – aids the hero on his/her journey

fallen mentor – helping the hero takes the mentor on their own journey

From reading these archetypes, I’d say these are the best traits to believe Gollum was the Unwitting Saviour of Middle Earth. Basically, he went through a descendance from grace into corruption, but finally freed from his painful existence when he fell into Mt. Orodruin *and* destroyed the Ring which caused him both misery and joy.

Arthur Weasley 20/Nov/2006 at 09:59 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Falvlun - I have used other analogies such as a six year old accidently shooting a parent with a gun before but I am eager to hear your thoughts.  Everyone here has excellent points though I still see the Hand of God/Fate/ Tolkien/Eru behind the destruction of the Ring.  Yes, Gollum wanted to keep the Ring away from Sauron at all costs but when did he realize that Frodo and Sam were actually trying to destroy the Ring? 

Faldras - Thank you for those quotes above!  I guess you answered my question! 

Teptoes - I guess I disagree with you about intent.  To me it is the actions that matter.  Intentions can be deceptions even to oneself.

Kingoduckingham - Very well said!  Tolkien rules!!

Cigfa - I am so glad that you agree with me about Tolkien intending Gollum to be the Savior of Middle Earth, Unwitting or Witting(?)   The best Anti-Hero i can think of is Elric of Melibone from Michael Moorecock’s Eternal Champion Series!

For all - I also have some unanswered questions above with Bilbo’s aging when he surrendered the Ring and what might have happened to Gollum when he lost the Ring - Did he age at all or was it not an issue?

Arthur Weasley 20/Nov/2006 at 09:59 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Falvlun - I have used other analogies such as a six year old accidently shooting a parent with a gun before but I am eager to hear your thoughts.  Everyone here has excellent points though I still see the Hand of God/Fate/ Tolkien/Eru behind the destruction of the Ring.  Yes, Gollum wanted to keep the Ring away from Sauron at all costs but when did he realize that Frodo and Sam were actually trying to destroy the Ring? 

Faldras - Thank you for those quotes above!  I guess you answered my question! 

Teptoes - I guess I disagree with you about intent.  To me it is the actions that matter.  Intentions can be deceptions even to oneself.

Kingoduckingham - Very well said!  Tolkien rules!!

Cigfa - I am so glad that you agree with me about Tolkien intending Gollum to be the Savior of Middle Earth, Unwitting or Witting(?)   The best Anti-Hero i can think of is Elric of Melibone from Michael Moorecock’s Eternal Champion Series!

For all - I also have some unanswered questions above with Bilbo’s aging when he surrendered the Ring and what might have happened to Gollum when he lost the Ring - Did he age at all or was it not an issue?

dragusa 25/Nov/2006 at 11:42 AM
Sapling of Fangorn Points: 83 Posts: 14 Joined: 20/Jun/2006
I believe that gollum was only the unwitting saviour of middle earth because i think the pain of lossing his finger made Frodo break out of the trap that Isildur had fallen into years before.  Besides, he was still holding the ring when he fell and desire would have lent him aid against Sam and Frodo trying to get the ring back. The nazgul were coming anyway so if Gollum had not bitten off Frodo’s finger the Nazgul would have taken the ring and Middle earth would fall one more under the dark reign of Sauron... 
dragusa 25/Nov/2006 at 11:42 AM
Sapling of Fangorn Points: 83 Posts: 14 Joined: 20/Jun/2006
I believe that gollum was only the unwitting saviour of middle earth because i think the pain of lossing his finger made Frodo break out of the trap that Isildur had fallen into years before.  Besides, he was still holding the ring when he fell and desire would have lent him aid against Sam and Frodo trying to get the ring back. The nazgul were coming anyway so if Gollum had not bitten off Frodo’s finger the Nazgul would have taken the ring and Middle earth would fall one more under the dark reign of Sauron... 
Arthur Weasley 25/Nov/2006 at 06:48 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Welcome Dragusa!  Actually I agree with you.  We had a discussion above about what might have been if Gollum had not fallen and tried to escape with the Ring but we really have not talked much about the Nazgul!  What might have happened if the Nazgul could fly faster?  What might have happened if one or more of the Nazgul were sent to guard Mount Doom / Sammath Naur and have been patiently waiting for Frodo, Sam and Gollum? If the Ring were destroyed with Gollum NOTfalling in, would Gollum have "crackled, withered and gone out," like the other eight Nazgul or would he have remained in the same shape?  Thoughts anyone?
Arthur Weasley 25/Nov/2006 at 06:48 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Welcome Dragusa!  Actually I agree with you.  We had a discussion above about what might have been if Gollum had not fallen and tried to escape with the Ring but we really have not talked much about the Nazgul!  What might have happened if the Nazgul could fly faster?  What might have happened if one or more of the Nazgul were sent to guard Mount Doom / Sammath Naur and have been patiently waiting for Frodo, Sam and Gollum? If the Ring were destroyed with Gollum NOTfalling in, would Gollum have "crackled, withered and gone out," like the other eight Nazgul or would he have remained in the same shape?  Thoughts anyone?
KingODuckingham 25/Nov/2006 at 07:39 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Gollum tells us what will happen to him, as Sam stands over him ready to kill him, while Frodo continues on up the mountain. I am away from my books for the break, so I cannot give the quote, but Gollum basically asks Sam to let him live because ’soon he will return to ashes and dust’ because the Ring that is keeping him alive will be gone.

As to the earlier question of why Gollum did not age, I’m not sure the question is valid. I think he did age, for he is certainly no spry young hobbit. Yes, still vital and very much alive, but he lost all semblance of youth and even of normal hobbithood apparently even before the Ring left him. Even Rings only can stretch so far, or so it seems.
KingODuckingham 25/Nov/2006 at 07:39 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Gollum tells us what will happen to him, as Sam stands over him ready to kill him, while Frodo continues on up the mountain. I am away from my books for the break, so I cannot give the quote, but Gollum basically asks Sam to let him live because ’soon he will return to ashes and dust’ because the Ring that is keeping him alive will be gone.

As to the earlier question of why Gollum did not age, I’m not sure the question is valid. I think he did age, for he is certainly no spry young hobbit. Yes, still vital and very much alive, but he lost all semblance of youth and even of normal hobbithood apparently even before the Ring left him. Even Rings only can stretch so far, or so it seems.
spazzman 26/Nov/2006 at 02:06 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 576 Posts: 331 Joined: 31/Mar/2003
As for wether or not gollum was an "unwitting" savior, I would have to say that he was not so by any stretch of logic.  Not only was he guiding Sam and Frodo only through fear of reprisal, but he took every available opportunity to betray them and thus reclaim the ring.  A savior is a term to someone who saves, but usually also only to a saving out of selflessness and pureness of heart, and I believe that no one here will disagree if  I state that gollum clearly displayed neither of these traits.  As to what would have happened to him when the ring was destroyed, the answer is simple.  Just as the Nazgul and Barad-Dur, all that was done with the power of the ring passed away with its destruction, so obviously the now normally 500 yearold plus gollum would have perished.
spazzman 26/Nov/2006 at 02:06 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 576 Posts: 331 Joined: 31/Mar/2003
As for wether or not gollum was an "unwitting" savior, I would have to say that he was not so by any stretch of logic.  Not only was he guiding Sam and Frodo only through fear of reprisal, but he took every available opportunity to betray them and thus reclaim the ring.  A savior is a term to someone who saves, but usually also only to a saving out of selflessness and pureness of heart, and I believe that no one here will disagree if  I state that gollum clearly displayed neither of these traits.  As to what would have happened to him when the ring was destroyed, the answer is simple.  Just as the Nazgul and Barad-Dur, all that was done with the power of the ring passed away with its destruction, so obviously the now normally 500 yearold plus gollum would have perished.
spazzman 26/Nov/2006 at 02:06 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 576 Posts: 331 Joined: 31/Mar/2003
As for wether or not gollum was an "unwitting" savior, I would have to say that he was not so by any stretch of logic.  Not only was he guiding Sam and Frodo only through fear of reprisal, but he took every available opportunity to betray them and thus reclaim the ring.  A savior is a term to someone who saves, but usually also only to a saving out of selflessness and pureness of heart, and I believe that no one here will disagree if  I state that gollum clearly displayed neither of these traits.  As to what would have happened to him when the ring was destroyed, the answer is simple.  Just as the Nazgul and Barad-Dur, all that was done with the power of the ring passed away with its destruction, so obviously the now normally 500 yearold plus gollum would have perished.
spazzman 26/Nov/2006 at 02:06 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 576 Posts: 331 Joined: 31/Mar/2003
As for wether or not gollum was an "unwitting" savior, I would have to say that he was not so by any stretch of logic.  Not only was he guiding Sam and Frodo only through fear of reprisal, but he took every available opportunity to betray them and thus reclaim the ring.  A savior is a term to someone who saves, but usually also only to a saving out of selflessness and pureness of heart, and I believe that no one here will disagree if  I state that gollum clearly displayed neither of these traits.  As to what would have happened to him when the ring was destroyed, the answer is simple.  Just as the Nazgul and Barad-Dur, all that was done with the power of the ring passed away with its destruction, so obviously the now normally 500 yearold plus gollum would have perished.
Arthur Weasley 26/Nov/2006 at 06:16 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

KingODuckingham and Spazzman - Excellent Points!! 

KingODuckingham - You might find this hard to believe but I never really made that connection before with Gollum talking to Sam about "dust.....dust."  I remember the quote now and am reading it in a totally new light!  WOW!  Thank you so very much always for your thoughts and you have made me aware (or more aware) of something here that I hardly ever considered before!  You get a seal of approval!! 

<Nessa Edit:  Image removed during archiving>

Spazzman - Love your name!  Perhaps this is simplistic but if I accidently shoot someone with a loaded gun and they are killed because of it, am I not a murderer?  Conversely, Gollum, whatever his intentions, accidently saved Middle Earth and his actions gave us all the happy endings we love. 

Arthur Weasley 26/Nov/2006 at 06:16 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

KingODuckingham and Spazzman - Excellent Points!! 

KingODuckingham - You might find this hard to believe but I never really made that connection before with Gollum talking to Sam about "dust.....dust."  I remember the quote now and am reading it in a totally new light!  WOW!  Thank you so very much always for your thoughts and you have made me aware (or more aware) of something here that I hardly ever considered before!  You get a seal of approval!! 

Spazzman - Love your name!  Perhaps this is simplistic but if I accidently shoot someone with a loaded gun and they are killed because of it, am I not a murderer?  Conversely, Gollum, whatever his intentions, accidently saved Middle Earth and his actions gave us all the happy endings we love. 

spazzman 26/Nov/2006 at 07:27 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 576 Posts: 331 Joined: 31/Mar/2003

Darth Enalan, while your point may be valid, a murderer is a murderer regardless of his intentions, whereas a savior with evil intentions can hardly be called a savior.  In society, certain titles are usually acompanied by certain expected attributes, such as a hero usually being defined as someone who acts unselfishly to help others.  Thus, a savior with evil intent can hardly be called a savior.  Besides, if anyone were to be called the "savior" of Middle-Earth, it would be Gandalf, for everything that transpired in the War of the Ring was planned out and achieved through him.

<Ulmo edit: Please do not copy/paste members’ names, it adds much extraneous coding to the post.>

spazzman 26/Nov/2006 at 07:27 AM
Scavenger of Mordor Points: 576 Posts: 331 Joined: 31/Mar/2003

Darth Enalan, while your point may be valid, a murderer is a murderer regardless of his intentions, whereas a savior with evil intentions can hardly be called a savior.  In society, certain titles are usually acompanied by certain expected attributes, such as a hero usually being defined as someone who acts unselfishly to help others.  Thus, a savior with evil intent can hardly be called a savior.  Besides, if anyone were to be called the "savior" of Middle-Earth, it would be Gandalf, for everything that transpired in the War of the Ring was planned out and achieved through him.

<Ulmo edit: Please do not copy/paste members’ names, it adds much extraneous coding to the post.>

Arthur Weasley 26/Nov/2006 at 08:45 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Spazzman - Hmmm.  Yes, the Heroism is Frodo’s and Sam’s, the strategy planning was Gandalf’s, the suddenly revealed public hero figure was Aragorn, but Gollum actually destroyed the Ring.  This is why I honor Gollum as the "Unwitting Savior," of Middle Earth.  Gollum was uniquely placed to do a deed that Isildur, Frodo and even Sam could never do though his intentions were evil.  Could Gollum be described as an Anti-Hero?  When Frodo pronounces his forgiveness for Gollum  that was quoted above, could not this be considered as "giving the Devil his due?"  OK, it is true that there was no need to praise Gollum even postumously on the Field of Cormallen but I believe Gollum was definitely a tragic Anti-Hero/villian in the spirit of Elric of Melnibone from Michael Moorcock!  All should hail the Great Gollum!!   Thoughts?

Ulmo Vala - Thank you very much for not editing my Seal of Approval that I awarded KingoDuckingham!  This entire thread has been only Text messaging so far and I thought that it was time for something cute! 

Arthur Weasley 26/Nov/2006 at 08:45 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Spazzman - Hmmm.  Yes, the Heroism is Frodo’s and Sam’s, the strategy planning was Gandalf’s, the suddenly revealed public hero figure was Aragorn, but Gollum actually destroyed the Ring.  This is why I honor Gollum as the "Unwitting Savior," of Middle Earth.  Gollum was uniquely placed to do a deed that Isildur, Frodo and even Sam could never do though his intentions were evil.  Could Gollum be described as an Anti-Hero?  When Frodo pronounces his forgiveness for Gollum  that was quoted above, could not this be considered as "giving the Devil his due?"  OK, it is true that there was no need to praise Gollum even postumously on the Field of Cormallen but I believe Gollum was definitely a tragic Anti-Hero/villian in the spirit of Elric of Melnibone from Michael Moorcock!  All should hail the Great Gollum!!   Thoughts?

Ulmo Vala - Thank you very much for not editing my Seal of Approval that I awarded KingoDuckingham!  This entire thread has been only Text messaging so far and I thought that it was time for something cute! 

KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 05:42 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Spazzman: The key word in the phrase is "unwitting". This is agreeing with you already that Gollum had no intention of being a savior or helping ME. Everyone understands this point. If it is the word savior itself that bothers you, what word would you prefer to use to describe Gollum’s actions?

Darth:    Thanks.
KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 05:42 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Spazzman: The key word in the phrase is "unwitting". This is agreeing with you already that Gollum had no intention of being a savior or helping ME. Everyone understands this point. If it is the word savior itself that bothers you, what word would you prefer to use to describe Gollum’s actions?

Darth:    Thanks.
Arthur Weasley 26/Nov/2006 at 06:52 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

KingODuckingham - Your welcome!  Any other thoughts?  Email me any time and hope all is well!  I miss you already at GMU....

Spazzman - Yes, I realize that Savior is a controversial description of Gollum.  But deeds/ actions are always valued and judged over intentions and belief’s.  Gollum’s actions resulted in Middle Earth’s salvation from the evil Sauron and his minions.  Thoughts? 

Arthur Weasley 26/Nov/2006 at 06:52 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

KingODuckingham - Your welcome!  Any other thoughts?  Email me any time and hope all is well!  I miss you already at GMU....

Spazzman - Yes, I realize that Savior is a controversial description of Gollum.  But deeds/ actions are always valued and judged over intentions and belief’s.  Gollum’s actions resulted in Middle Earth’s salvation from the evil Sauron and his minions.  Thoughts? 

Falvlun 26/Nov/2006 at 06:57 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004
I had a killer post. And then the server died. I will avenge myself!
Falvlun 26/Nov/2006 at 07:39 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

Darth Enalen, I love the seal! That made me coming in here all worth it; as if the excellent debate wasn’t enough!

Now, I was rather cocky in my last (long) post, and for that I apologize. At base here we have a debate about whether intentions matter or not. I believe that intentions define actions. Thus, the six-year-old accidentally shooting and killing his parent would not be considered murder, since it was not intentional. In fact, the definition of murder agrees with this synopsis:

murder: Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). (from Random House dictionary)

Note the words aforethought, deliberation, premeditation, and intent. All of these are thought-words, which imply intention. In other words, a killing must be intentional to be murder. Let’s apply this to the Gollum-as-savior theory. We see that an action can be described as two different things based upon the intention behind it.

Now, all we need to do is discover whether heros also have this same dichotomy based upon intention.  If Gollum does not perform a heroic action then he can not be a hero, since a hero is someone who performs heroic actions.

Hero: 1) a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. 2) a person who in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded and is regarded as a model or ideal.

The qualities most often cited for a hero include: courage, noble-ness, and altruism. We can scratch off the last two. Gollum is never altruistic, or noble. His bravery, however, can be debated. Afterall, he goes through great lengths to regaining the Ring, even going back into Mordor, which he is obviously terrified of. However, we have this quote in Tolkien:

"His [gollum’s] marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam’s or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honorable." (Letter 181)

Even if Gollum can be considered to be courageous, which I believe he can be, this courage was not something that was good. It is not a noble virtue, in the way that Gollum made use of it. I smell a whiff of Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean at work here. Thus, Gollum has none of the three characteristics of a hero.

The second definition of a hero states that it could also be a person who performs a heroic deed. Yet this definition can not be used for our purposes since it would introduce a circularity: We are debating the fact whether the destruction of the deed was a heroic deed or not.

If Gollum intentionally destroyed the Ring, it would be considered a heroic action. If Gollum does not intentionally destroy the Ring (as we see), it would not be considered a heroic action. Note also that in the second definition the hero is regarded as model or ideal. Gollum also does not fit the bill here.

All of these criteria involve not only the heroic deed, but some sort of positive characteristic of the performer. The positive characteristics influence intention, and so we do see intention involved. Even if you deny this analysis, we see that something inside the person and not just the action, determines whether the person is a hero or not.

Gollum is not a hero by definition or by deed. QED.

Falvlun 26/Nov/2006 at 07:39 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

Darth Enalen, I love the seal! That made me coming in here all worth it; as if the excellent debate wasn’t enough!

Now, I was rather cocky in my last (long) post, and for that I apologize. At base here we have a debate about whether intentions matter or not. I believe that intentions define actions. Thus, the six-year-old accidentally shooting and killing his parent would not be considered murder, since it was not intentional. In fact, the definition of murder agrees with this synopsis:

murder: Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). (from Random House dictionary)

Note the words aforethought, deliberation, premeditation, and intent. All of these are thought-words, which imply intention. In other words, a killing must be intentional to be murder. Let’s apply this to the Gollum-as-savior theory. We see that an action can be described as two different things based upon the intention behind it.

Now, all we need to do is discover whether heros also have this same dichotomy based upon intention.  If Gollum does not perform a heroic action then he can not be a hero, since a hero is someone who performs heroic actions.

Hero: 1) a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. 2) a person who in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded and is regarded as a model or ideal.

The qualities most often cited for a hero include: courage, noble-ness, and altruism. We can scratch off the last two. Gollum is never altruistic, or noble. His bravery, however, can be debated. Afterall, he goes through great lengths to regaining the Ring, even going back into Mordor, which he is obviously terrified of. However, we have this quote in Tolkien:

"His [gollum’s] marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam’s or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honorable." (Letter 181)

Even if Gollum can be considered to be courageous, which I believe he can be, this courage was not something that was good. It is not a noble virtue, in the way that Gollum made use of it. I smell a whiff of Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean at work here. Thus, Gollum has none of the three characteristics of a hero.

The second definition of a hero states that it could also be a person who performs a heroic deed. Yet this definition can not be used for our purposes since it would introduce a circularity: We are debating the fact whether the destruction of the deed was a heroic deed or not.

If Gollum intentionally destroyed the Ring, it would be considered a heroic action. If Gollum does not intentionally destroy the Ring (as we see), it would not be considered a heroic action. Note also that in the second definition the hero is regarded as model or ideal. Gollum also does not fit the bill here.

All of these criteria involve not only the heroic deed, but some sort of positive characteristic of the performer. The positive characteristics influence intention, and so we do see intention involved. Even if you deny this analysis, we see that something inside the person and not just the action, determines whether the person is a hero or not.

Gollum is not a hero by definition or by deed. QED.

KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 07:59 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Sorry to skip out, but Jr. Drill threatened me.

Falvlun: A good post, but the one problem that jumps out at me on first reading is the switch from savior to hero. Since when does the savior necessitate being a hero? Unless your point was still rebutting the idea that Gollum should be praised, in which case he ought to be a hero, in which case your post makes sense. But it does not refute the idea that Gollum is a savior, however unwitting. Whether or not he intended to, he actually did the deed, and therefore is the pratical savior. Because of intentions, we do not and should not praise him, but we don’t deny the deed.
KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 07:59 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Sorry to skip out, but Jr. Drill threatened me.

Falvlun: A good post, but the one problem that jumps out at me on first reading is the switch from savior to hero. Since when does the savior necessitate being a hero? Unless your point was still rebutting the idea that Gollum should be praised, in which case he ought to be a hero, in which case your post makes sense. But it does not refute the idea that Gollum is a savior, however unwitting. Whether or not he intended to, he actually did the deed, and therefore is the pratical savior. Because of intentions, we do not and should not praise him, but we don’t deny the deed.
Falvlun 26/Nov/2006 at 08:22 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

KingODuckingham, I see your point! Dang computer glitches! My previous post I lost was much more watertight, and I was forced to go at a different angle since I couldn’t remember my first.

I realize I was using hero and savior interchangeably in my mind. As specific words, no, this can not be done. But as concept it can be.

It was also an alternate for savior, which I introduced in response to your post to spazzman.

Think of it like this: If Gollum is to be considered the savior of middle-earth, then he would also be a hero. (Superman saves Earth from destruction. He’s the savior of Earth. He is also considered a Hero).  A savior performs an altruistic, heroic deed in order to save somebody or something. A hero would not necessarily be a savior, but a savior is necessarily a hero. This is why: The semantic difference is that the savior is "saving" something. A hero just has to perform a heroic deed. Saving someone falls under "heroic deed" but a heroic deed does not necessarily mean saving someone.

1. If he is a savior, he is a hero
2. He is not a hero
Therefore, He is not a savior.

Proof by modus tollens: If p then q / not q // therefore, not p.

Also, the idea that Gollum is the anti-hero is no help to the Gollum-as-savior theory:

anti-hero: A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage.

If Gollum’s the anti-hero, then he can not be the hero, which brings us right back to the proof.

Falvlun 26/Nov/2006 at 08:22 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

KingODuckingham, I see your point! Dang computer glitches! My previous post I lost was much more watertight, and I was forced to go at a different angle since I couldn’t remember my first.

I realize I was using hero and savior interchangeably in my mind. As specific words, no, this can not be done. But as concept it can be.

It was also an alternate for savior, which I introduced in response to your post to spazzman.

Think of it like this: If Gollum is to be considered the savior of middle-earth, then he would also be a hero. (Superman saves Earth from destruction. He’s the savior of Earth. He is also considered a Hero).  A savior performs an altruistic, heroic deed in order to save somebody or something. A hero would not necessarily be a savior, but a savior is necessarily a hero. This is why: The semantic difference is that the savior is "saving" something. A hero just has to perform a heroic deed. Saving someone falls under "heroic deed" but a heroic deed does not necessarily mean saving someone.

1. If he is a savior, he is a hero
2. He is not a hero
Therefore, He is not a savior.

Proof by modus tollens: If p then q / not q // therefore, not p.

Also, the idea that Gollum is the anti-hero is no help to the Gollum-as-savior theory:

anti-hero: A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage.

If Gollum’s the anti-hero, then he can not be the hero, which brings us right back to the proof.

KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 08:35 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Falvlun: Semantic difference understood, as is your interchanging of terms. However, I don’t agree with this statement:

If Gollum is to be considered the savior of middle-earth, then he would also be a hero.

Why so? I can think of many similar instances in real life situations where someone would accidentally save a group of people, and yet not be considered a hero. To say he is not the savior is to deny his actions in destroying the ring. He did do it. As I said before, this is no reason to think of him as a hero and/or praise him. But the fact remains that he was the immediate and direct cause of the salvation of ME from the threat of Sauron and the Ring. Thus the unwitting savior. The qualifier is key. And no, I would not really categorize him as anti-hero, because he is not a "main" character per se--an important one, but not a main character.
KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 08:35 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Falvlun: Semantic difference understood, as is your interchanging of terms. However, I don’t agree with this statement:

If Gollum is to be considered the savior of middle-earth, then he would also be a hero.

Why so? I can think of many similar instances in real life situations where someone would accidentally save a group of people, and yet not be considered a hero. To say he is not the savior is to deny his actions in destroying the ring. He did do it. As I said before, this is no reason to think of him as a hero and/or praise him. But the fact remains that he was the immediate and direct cause of the salvation of ME from the threat of Sauron and the Ring. Thus the unwitting savior. The qualifier is key. And no, I would not really categorize him as anti-hero, because he is not a "main" character per se--an important one, but not a main character.
Falvlun 26/Nov/2006 at 08:58 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

I can think of many similar instances in real life situations where someone would accidentally save a group of people, and yet not be considered a hero. (KingoDuckingham, my emphasis)

The bolded word is key. It does not matter what people consider, but what is. I have shown how savior and hero are connected. I shall do so again:

Savior: A person who saves someone or something.

Hero: Someone who performs a heroic deed.

If you save someone or something you perform a heroic deed. So a savior is also a hero. If you are a savior, you are also a hero.

Adding the qualifier, "unwitting" before savior rather negates and degrades the meaning of the word, but that would be just my opinion.

Falvlun 26/Nov/2006 at 08:58 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

I can think of many similar instances in real life situations where someone would accidentally save a group of people, and yet not be considered a hero. (KingoDuckingham, my emphasis)

The bolded word is key. It does not matter what people consider, but what is. I have shown how savior and hero are connected. I shall do so again:

Savior: A person who saves someone or something.

Hero: Someone who performs a heroic deed.

If you save someone or something you perform a heroic deed. So a savior is also a hero. If you are a savior, you are also a hero.

Adding the qualifier, "unwitting" before savior rather negates and degrades the meaning of the word, but that would be just my opinion.

KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 09:05 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Adding the qualifier, "unwitting" before savior rather negates and degrades the meaning of the word Perhaps, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the word. And of course consideration is key. Nobody is a hero or a savior to a vacuum; it is only in relation and in the eyes of other people. The word hardly affects the argument. It works the same either way.

Perhaps I ought to ask what you consider Gollum to be.
KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 09:05 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Adding the qualifier, "unwitting" before savior rather negates and degrades the meaning of the word Perhaps, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the word. And of course consideration is key. Nobody is a hero or a savior to a vacuum; it is only in relation and in the eyes of other people. The word hardly affects the argument. It works the same either way.

Perhaps I ought to ask what you consider Gollum to be.
Falvlun 26/Nov/2006 at 09:11 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

And of course consideration is key. Nobody is a hero or a savior to a vacuum; it is only in relation and in the eyes of other people.

Of course not. What I am thinking of is a Subjective vs Objective view-point. We see this here: I subjectively do not believe gollum to be a savior; you do. However, one of the opinions is correct. This correct opinion is the Objective viewpoint. This is what I meant between consider and is.

As to what I believe Gollum to be? I will have to get back to you on that. Let me solidify my ideas.

Falvlun 26/Nov/2006 at 09:11 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

And of course consideration is key. Nobody is a hero or a savior to a vacuum; it is only in relation and in the eyes of other people.

Of course not. What I am thinking of is a Subjective vs Objective view-point. We see this here: I subjectively do not believe gollum to be a savior; you do. However, one of the opinions is correct. This correct opinion is the Objective viewpoint. This is what I meant between consider and is.

As to what I believe Gollum to be? I will have to get back to you on that. Let me solidify my ideas.

KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 09:19 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Of course not. What I am thinking of is a Subjective vs Objective view-point. We see this here: I subjectively do not believe gollum to be a savior; you do. However, one of the opinions is correct. Perhaps so, but the fact remains that if neither of us subjectively believed at all, the point would be moot and there would be neither hero nor savior. It requires others to pass judgement before either title is bestowed, which is the point I was trying to make. Whether or not we are right is of no importance; the point is that the judgement must first be made.
KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 09:19 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Of course not. What I am thinking of is a Subjective vs Objective view-point. We see this here: I subjectively do not believe gollum to be a savior; you do. However, one of the opinions is correct. Perhaps so, but the fact remains that if neither of us subjectively believed at all, the point would be moot and there would be neither hero nor savior. It requires others to pass judgement before either title is bestowed, which is the point I was trying to make. Whether or not we are right is of no importance; the point is that the judgement must first be made.
Faldras 26/Nov/2006 at 09:37 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
But Falvlun, by your defintion of savior: "A person who saves someone or something," I would certainly think Gollum qualifies. He saved Middle-earth from Sauron, unwittingly; therefore, he is an unwitting savior. I don’t see how opinion has anything at all to do with that aspect. Perhaps you need a new defintion in order to continue with this argument. After all, I could save a burglar from capture or even a cent from spending under this defintion. (It would also help to define "heroic")

The issue as I’ve seen it, is whether or not he deserves praise, and if you say something like "all saviours deserve praise," you’ll get into trouble.

And KingO, I thought you disliked relativism.
Faldras 26/Nov/2006 at 09:37 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
But Falvlun, by your defintion of savior: "A person who saves someone or something," I would certainly think Gollum qualifies. He saved Middle-earth from Sauron, unwittingly; therefore, he is an unwitting savior. I don’t see how opinion has anything at all to do with that aspect. Perhaps you need a new defintion in order to continue with this argument. After all, I could save a burglar from capture or even a cent from spending under this defintion. (It would also help to define "heroic")

The issue as I’ve seen it, is whether or not he deserves praise, and if you say something like "all saviours deserve praise," you’ll get into trouble.

And KingO, I thought you disliked relativism.
KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 09:43 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Faldras:
I wasn’t arguing for relativism. I didn’t deny Falvlun’s point that one person’s interpretation is right and one’s is wrong on whether a third person is a hero or savior--I simply said that without anyone’s judgement, there is no hero or savior at all. I.E. heroism is an ascribed attribute. And you are quite right in your response, I think.
KingODuckingham 26/Nov/2006 at 09:43 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Faldras:
I wasn’t arguing for relativism. I didn’t deny Falvlun’s point that one person’s interpretation is right and one’s is wrong on whether a third person is a hero or savior--I simply said that without anyone’s judgement, there is no hero or savior at all. I.E. heroism is an ascribed attribute. And you are quite right in your response, I think.
Faldras 26/Nov/2006 at 10:13 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
I would agree with that. There’s no such thing as an objective opinion. Who shall opine? Then again, how can you call an opinion wrong?

Here’s what I think:

Savior - fact - yes he is
Hero/Praiseworthy - opinion - up to you/no absolute right or wrong, but perhaps more valuable opinions

My opinion, since he seemed rather nasty and pretty much destroyed the Ring on accident, is that he’s not a Hero.
Faldras 26/Nov/2006 at 10:13 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
I would agree with that. There’s no such thing as an objective opinion. Who shall opine? Then again, how can you call an opinion wrong?

Here’s what I think:

Savior - fact - yes he is
Hero/Praiseworthy - opinion - up to you/no absolute right or wrong, but perhaps more valuable opinions

My opinion, since he seemed rather nasty and pretty much destroyed the Ring on accident, is that he’s not a Hero.
Arthur Weasley 27/Nov/2006 at 04:01 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Falvlun, Faldras and KingOduckingham - This discussion over terminology is absolutely FANTASTIC and FASCINATING!!  I am almost afraid to say anything here.  I do believe that objectivity is noble myth and rmember reading a book about this in one of my Graduate programs.  Of course, first person thinking - our opinion, rebellion, logic and kindness, - is always right and good while third person thinking - their opinion, rebellion, logic and bribery - is always wrong and evil.  These are FACTS all!    Gollum - I admire Gollum because of his actions and if a six year old can still be charged with murder, manslaughter or assault for accidently shooting Mom,  then Gollum should be acknowledged as the "Unwitting" Savior of Middle Earth.  If I am hanging on a cliff and one of you pull me up, Iam not too concerned what your motivations might be because i would be just glad to be pulled up......and

Opps!  Real Life fell on me.... be back in a day or two!  Please keep going Everyone!

Arthur Weasley 27/Nov/2006 at 04:01 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Falvlun, Faldras and KingOduckingham - This discussion over terminology is absolutely FANTASTIC and FASCINATING!!  I am almost afraid to say anything here.  I do believe that objectivity is noble myth and rmember reading a book about this in one of my Graduate programs.  Of course, first person thinking - our opinion, rebellion, logic and kindness, - is always right and good while third person thinking - their opinion, rebellion, logic and bribery - is always wrong and evil.  These are FACTS all!    Gollum - I admire Gollum because of his actions and if a six year old can still be charged with murder, manslaughter or assault for accidently shooting Mom,  then Gollum should be acknowledged as the "Unwitting" Savior of Middle Earth.  If I am hanging on a cliff and one of you pull me up, Iam not too concerned what your motivations might be because i would be just glad to be pulled up......and

Opps!  Real Life fell on me.... be back in a day or two!  Please keep going Everyone!

Faldras 27/Nov/2006 at 07:04 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
Darth Enalan - I pulled you up to take your wallet. Wasn’t that nice of me?

I still don’t think it’s "praiseworthy" or "heroic," but perhaps it is as Frodo says, "forgivable." "I’m safe! I wish he wouldn’t have taken my wallet, but I guess I’ll let him go this time. What do a few dollars matter in comparison with my life."
Faldras 27/Nov/2006 at 07:04 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
Darth Enalan - I pulled you up to take your wallet. Wasn’t that nice of me?

I still don’t think it’s "praiseworthy" or "heroic," but perhaps it is as Frodo says, "forgivable." "I’m safe! I wish he wouldn’t have taken my wallet, but I guess I’ll let him go this time. What do a few dollars matter in comparison with my life."
Mirkwoodworker 27/Nov/2006 at 10:21 PM
Savant of Isengard Points: 576 Posts: 102 Joined: 05/Jul/2006
Gollum’s actions and intentions were evil. His possession of the Ring began with murder. He used it for evil. And he never intended to save anything except for himself and with the ultimate goal of getting back the ring. He helped Frodo only because he hoped to keep the ring from Sauron and keep it for himself. His evil actions didn’t lead to the destruction of the ring--Frodo’s pity and mercy for Gollum did.
Mirkwoodworker 27/Nov/2006 at 10:21 PM
Savant of Isengard Points: 576 Posts: 102 Joined: 05/Jul/2006
Gollum’s actions and intentions were evil. His possession of the Ring began with murder. He used it for evil. And he never intended to save anything except for himself and with the ultimate goal of getting back the ring. He helped Frodo only because he hoped to keep the ring from Sauron and keep it for himself. His evil actions didn’t lead to the destruction of the ring--Frodo’s pity and mercy for Gollum did.
KingODuckingham 28/Nov/2006 at 09:53 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Faldras:    Good point, and well put...made me laugh.

Mirkwoodworker: Good observations, and you are quite correct, although I’m not sure I agree with your statement that his actions didn’t lead to the destruction of the Ring, in a narrow sense. Yes, Frodo’s pity and mercy (and even, by extension, those same qualities in Bilbo) put Gollum in position to destroy the Ring, but the fact remains that Gollum was the one that managed, however accidentally, to put an end to the Ring. When making sure we understand that Gollum is not to be praised or commended for the action, we must nonetheless remember to appreciate his part in the Ring’s destruction, the part Gandalf dimly foresaw he had to play.
KingODuckingham 28/Nov/2006 at 09:53 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Faldras:    Good point, and well put...made me laugh.

Mirkwoodworker: Good observations, and you are quite correct, although I’m not sure I agree with your statement that his actions didn’t lead to the destruction of the Ring, in a narrow sense. Yes, Frodo’s pity and mercy (and even, by extension, those same qualities in Bilbo) put Gollum in position to destroy the Ring, but the fact remains that Gollum was the one that managed, however accidentally, to put an end to the Ring. When making sure we understand that Gollum is not to be praised or commended for the action, we must nonetheless remember to appreciate his part in the Ring’s destruction, the part Gandalf dimly foresaw he had to play.
Mirkwoodworker 28/Nov/2006 at 10:26 PM
Savant of Isengard Points: 576 Posts: 102 Joined: 05/Jul/2006
King: You’re right about Gollum’s actions contributing to the destruction of the Ring, even though he never intended it. Gandalf did foresee Gollum playing an important part in the tale--crucial one. And Gollum is a tragic figure, as Gandalf and Frodo acknowledge. Frodo asks Sam to forgive him because, in the end, he did help to destroy the Ring.

Calling Gollum a "savior" is too strong, even if we qualify it with "unwitting." How about "the unwitting 10th member of the Fellowship?"

I’ll stop now. I’m just repeating what others have already written here.
Mirkwoodworker 28/Nov/2006 at 10:26 PM
Savant of Isengard Points: 576 Posts: 102 Joined: 05/Jul/2006
King: You’re right about Gollum’s actions contributing to the destruction of the Ring, even though he never intended it. Gandalf did foresee Gollum playing an important part in the tale--crucial one. And Gollum is a tragic figure, as Gandalf and Frodo acknowledge. Frodo asks Sam to forgive him because, in the end, he did help to destroy the Ring.

Calling Gollum a "savior" is too strong, even if we qualify it with "unwitting." How about "the unwitting 10th member of the Fellowship?"

I’ll stop now. I’m just repeating what others have already written here.
Arthur Weasley 29/Nov/2006 at 08:05 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

I am back and these points are awesome! 

Mirkwoodworker - Glad you are here but I have trouble raising Gollum to equlaity with the other Nine Members of the Fellowship of the Ring.  Anyone can be a savior but the 10th member of the Fellowship?  Nah!

KingOduckingham - What is so terrible about praising Gollum for destroying the Ring.  Acknowledging and Forgiving him are almost the same as praising him.  It is like giving the Devil his due! 

Faldras - Yes, I would give you what money I had in my wallet and I would thank and praise you for pulling me up from the side of the cliff! 

Arthur Weasley 29/Nov/2006 at 08:05 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

I am back and these points are awesome! 

Mirkwoodworker - Glad you are here but I have trouble raising Gollum to equlaity with the other Nine Members of the Fellowship of the Ring.  Anyone can be a savior but the 10th member of the Fellowship?  Nah!

KingOduckingham - What is so terrible about praising Gollum for destroying the Ring.  Acknowledging and Forgiving him are almost the same as praising him.  It is like giving the Devil his due! 

Faldras - Yes, I would give you what money I had in my wallet and I would thank and praise you for pulling me up from the side of the cliff! 

KingODuckingham 29/Nov/2006 at 10:41 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth Enalan: You surprise me, sir. Acknowledgment and forgiving are not at all the same as praise. If I had a son and he broke the kitchen window with a baseball (cliched example, but still worthwhile) I will obviously acknowledge the deed and hopefully forgive him, but hardly praise him for it, even if the ball did hit the oven timer, preventing a fire from burning the house down. I might be glad, but I still wouldn’t praise him for his foolish and wrong actions.

If somebody pulled me up a cliff and took my wallet, I would perhaps be thankful, but I still wouldn’t praise the thief. Intention does matter at some point.
KingODuckingham 29/Nov/2006 at 10:41 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth Enalan: You surprise me, sir. Acknowledgment and forgiving are not at all the same as praise. If I had a son and he broke the kitchen window with a baseball (cliched example, but still worthwhile) I will obviously acknowledge the deed and hopefully forgive him, but hardly praise him for it, even if the ball did hit the oven timer, preventing a fire from burning the house down. I might be glad, but I still wouldn’t praise him for his foolish and wrong actions.

If somebody pulled me up a cliff and took my wallet, I would perhaps be thankful, but I still wouldn’t praise the thief. Intention does matter at some point.
Arthur Weasley 30/Nov/2006 at 06:26 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
KingOduckingham - I guess it would depend on how hard my son hit the baseball, how far it travelled, and what the context was.  I had never done such a thing but if I ever did break a window, my Grandfather would have said right away, "nice shot."   Then of course I would have to pay for the window with extra chores, etc.  Gollum’s actions did a lot more than save a house from burning down.  He also did what greater heroes (Isildur) and fujrry footed Hobbits (Frodo or Bilbo) could not do.  To me intentions rarely outweigh actions.  Actions (or perhaps choices) make up who we are, not memories or intentions.  Three Cheers for Gollum!  
Arthur Weasley 30/Nov/2006 at 06:26 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
KingOduckingham - I guess it would depend on how hard my son hit the baseball, how far it travelled, and what the context was.  I had never done such a thing but if I ever did break a window, my Grandfather would have said right away, "nice shot."   Then of course I would have to pay for the window with extra chores, etc.  Gollum’s actions did a lot more than save a house from burning down.  He also did what greater heroes (Isildur) and fujrry footed Hobbits (Frodo or Bilbo) could not do.  To me intentions rarely outweigh actions.  Actions (or perhaps choices) make up who we are, not memories or intentions.  Three Cheers for Gollum!  
KingODuckingham 30/Nov/2006 at 06:49 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth Enalan: If it is choices you’re after (at all) then you can hardly praise Gollum as he had just made the choice before he fell of the cliff to attack one he had sworn an oath to serve and bit off his finger. The funny thing is I agree with you that intentions rarely outweigh actions, but in this case it wasn’t even an action of Gollum oer se, it was just an accident, and one that if he had the choice he wouldn’t have made.

If you had a doctor who was supposed to get rid of a cancerous tumor for you, but he planned to use his scalpel to murder you instead. Unfortunately for him, he is inept with his scalpel at a crucial moment, and ended up slicing the tumor off anyway, and didn’t get another chance at you before you woke back up. Is he still praiseworthy? You’re glad he did get rid of the tumor (by accident) but you’re hardly going to praise his memory. After all, he was meditating murder! It was sheer luck that you weren’t killed! I just don’t see how such a person (like Gollum) is praiseworthy.
KingODuckingham 30/Nov/2006 at 06:49 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth Enalan: If it is choices you’re after (at all) then you can hardly praise Gollum as he had just made the choice before he fell of the cliff to attack one he had sworn an oath to serve and bit off his finger. The funny thing is I agree with you that intentions rarely outweigh actions, but in this case it wasn’t even an action of Gollum oer se, it was just an accident, and one that if he had the choice he wouldn’t have made.

If you had a doctor who was supposed to get rid of a cancerous tumor for you, but he planned to use his scalpel to murder you instead. Unfortunately for him, he is inept with his scalpel at a crucial moment, and ended up slicing the tumor off anyway, and didn’t get another chance at you before you woke back up. Is he still praiseworthy? You’re glad he did get rid of the tumor (by accident) but you’re hardly going to praise his memory. After all, he was meditating murder! It was sheer luck that you weren’t killed! I just don’t see how such a person (like Gollum) is praiseworthy.
Arthur Weasley 02/Dec/2006 at 06:10 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
KingODuckingham - Congratulations again on your SCR!! Good point and logically Captain I suppose I do agree with you!  Sometimes reasons fail us.  Sometimes you have to go with a positive mental attitude with everyone.  One time I knew this very nice woman in church named Cecilia who always said positive things about someone.  Even when asked about what she thought about the Devil, she would say "Well he is a persisitant fellow isn’t he?"  As for Gollum, yes his character and personalities are both despicable.  But this is why I entitled this thread as "Unwitting Savior," of Middle Earth because that was what Gollum end up becoming by accident.  By destroying the Ring, Gollum in effect killed Sauron.  If Sauron is threatening to invade my home, defile my woman, kill my family and friends and even destroy my nation, I would praise even Josef Stalin if he somehow managed to kill Sauron even by  accidently firing a shotgun at him.  Gollum killed Sauron (or at least rendered him impotent which for me is the same thing).  Thoughts?   
KingODuckingham 02/Dec/2006 at 07:48 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
My thought is we lost a few posts from Faldras and Falvlun. Maybe an admin could recover those for us?
Faldras 02/Dec/2006 at 09:55 AM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
I think when the thread was pulled from the archive it replaced the thread fragment. Since the most recent posts weren’t archived, they don’t appear here.
KingODuckingham 02/Dec/2006 at 03:31 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Ki: Welcome to the plaza! Do you mean that Gollum was very important in destroying the Ring? I certainly agree with you. Glad to see you’ve joined the discussion and I hope you will join others and enjoy your kingdom of Lothlorien. You should tell us more on why you think what you do, and you can hear what we think as well!

Darth Enalan: Thanks for your congrats.   I’m afraid I don’t share your forgiving attitude towards those that do evil. If Tolkien considered Gollum evil and even damnable (I’m looking for the quote in the Letters, I know it’s there, gaah!) then that is good enough for me, and even without it I look at his life and condemn him as evil (even though he did do some good deeds, I won’t deny that). Have you seen the BL thread on The Nature of Evil? They are having a similar discussion, and I make similar arguments. That said, I do still agree with you that he was "The Unwitting Savior".
Arthur Weasley 02/Dec/2006 at 04:08 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Welcome Ki!!!  Congratulations on joining the Plaza and the Kingdom of Lothlorien!  We may have lost some responses here from some of us but please take a look at what we have coveredand tell us your thoughts!  Also click on my signature link and see what fun you can find at the Gamemasters University Plaza House!

KingODuckingham - Maybe you are right that I am too forgiving to Gollum.  However, I am glad that you agree with me about Gollum as the "Unwitting Savior," of Middle Earth!

Falvlun and Faldras - I am sad that some of your posts have been deleted.  I will ask about this in Administrative Messages at the "Speaketh unto Valinor," thread to see what can be done.  Whatever happens, let us continue!  Did not Gollum kill Sauron?

Faldras 02/Dec/2006 at 06:14 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
I had this quote posted before, but I can’t remember the rest of what I said. Pretend it was mind-shattering and irrefutable.

Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam’s or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be ’damnable’. Their ’damnability’ is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all ’in the same boat’ must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean son of thief before it crossed his path.
(Letter 181)
KingODuckingham 02/Dec/2006 at 09:02 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Ha, thank you Faldras. That was exactly the quote I was looking for. This is perfect too, I need to use it in another thread. I’ll give you due props for finding it for me.

Darth Enalan: Gollum didn’t kill Sauron if you consider that it was Eru that caused the action. In that sense, Eru killed Sauron.
Arthur Weasley 03/Dec/2006 at 10:37 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Yes - Thank you Faldras!!  I have been looking for this quote for some time!  However, our lives today are filled with "macrocosm" s with terrorism, fast food, liberalism, and MTV.  If one should not judge then one cannot condemn Gollum.  Would not all that be left is praise?  Since we cannot condemn Gollum, and his actions caused or created great good, Gollum was responsible for great good and should be praised.This is a good old fasioned syllogism!

KingOduckingham - OK!  Eru kiled Sauron through his factor/servant Gollum!

Faldras 03/Dec/2006 at 04:43 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
Praise is judging as well.
Chris the swift 03/Dec/2006 at 04:56 PM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 43 Posts: 27 Joined: 03/Dec/2006
if gollum was the unwitting savior it woud’nt have been long because the enemie found him after he lost the ring to bilbo so Mr. reid I don’t think that he  would have lasted. as long none the less you bring up a good point. But as i said the enemie would have him and kill him for haveing the ring don’t you think?   
Arthur Weasley 03/Dec/2006 at 06:57 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Chris the Swift - WELCOME TO LOTRPLAZA.COM!!!  Congratulations on also joining the sacred Order of the Istari!!  Always glad to have fun with another Wizard, especially from North Bullitt High School!   EEP!  FYI remember that my name here is Darth Enalan.  

I agree with you Chris the Swift that Gollum certainly would have been quickly killed had he been captured by Sauron while possessing the Ring.  Or perhaps Gollum might have been thrown into a dungeon where Sauron would occasionally wear the Ring in front of him to taunt him as Gandalf once hinted (something about no greater torment then seeing the Ring on Sauron’s finger for anyone who desired it also).  WHne I  salute Gollum as the "Unwitting Savior," it is because he essentially destroyed the Ring (accidently by slipping off the cliff) which resulted in many happy endings!

Faldras - Yes, I suppose praising is judging.  However we all automatically judge everyone and everything around us so I am always fascinated as to exactly HOW people judge other people, actions and characters.   Thoughts?

Faldras 04/Dec/2006 at 03:33 AM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
If we automatically judge something, as in a prejudice, it comes from our preconceived notions. It’s as if we have a formula (perhaps an outdated one) in our minds that sorts things for us without having to looking at the issue in depth.

In the instance of praise I think you ought to choose carefully. What’s the consequence, the moral? "Go through life being as nasty as you can, lie, cheat, steal, dabble in the most dangerous and destructive object of your time because in the end things will work for good and you’ll be praised for having a part."
Arthur Weasley 04/Dec/2006 at 02:07 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Faldras - Actually great good has resulted from Whoops ’s and "Oh my God how could we let this happen!" events.   The Protestant Reformation was an unintended accident along with the discovery of penicillin (sp?).  Yet millions of people now worship in protestant churches and are cured with medicine based on penicillin.  We all have our unavoidable prejudices and we all make judgement calls on almost everything.  If someone asked me to describe what I thought was sexy, I would have Jessica Alba at the positive end of the scale and either Gollum or Jabba the Hutt at the other negative end of the scale.  Yet I am willing to give the Devil his due about Gollum destroying the Ring!   
KingODuckingham 04/Dec/2006 at 02:21 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I am willing to give the Devil his due about Gollum destroying the Ring! You have said this before, but the implied analogy does not work because Gollum is not doing anything but slipping and therefore deserves no due. Here is a quote from the Si, talking of Feanor’s evil actions and the good results that came from it:

"But at the last word of Feanor: that at least the Noldor should do deeds to live in song forever, he [Manwe] raised his head, as one that hears a voice far off, and he said: ’So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Ea, and evil yet be good to have been.’ But Mandos said: ’And yet remain evil. To me shall Feanor come soon.’~The Silmarillion, Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor

This is one of my favorite quotes from the Sil, because it is so pertinent to this question of good and evil in discussions like this. From this quote we see that Feanor committed evil, but that good came of it. Indeed Manwe says that there was no other way than this for the good to come (much like there was no other way to destroy the Ring). But Mandos tells us that it does not change the evil of the action, and therefore no credit is given to Feanor. Nor should we give any to Gollum for the accidental good that sprang from his evil.
Faldras 04/Dec/2006 at 03:47 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
I agree that the Ring’s destruction was a great good, and had it been Frodo dropping it in the pits (as I think everyone else believed), he would have been worthy of all praise.

He was very justly accorded the highest honours – since it is clear that he & Sam never concealed the precise course of events.
Letter 181

It could be assumed that anyone ignorant of the true course of events would yell the seemingly appropriate judgement, "all praise to the unmaker of the Ring!" But we are not ignorant. Tolkien showed us what transpired in Mt. Doom: the one-in-a-billion chance, the accident, the unwitting act.

The examples you give might be accidents, but they come with good intentions. The discovery of penicillin, for instance, isn’t praiseworthy because it was discovered, but because it was recognised as a bacterial inhibitor and experimented with further in order to discover the possible benefit to humanity. Gollum, on the other hand, was thinking only of himself.

You might have an unavoidable prejudice but now that you’ve read the arguments of KingO, Falvlun, and I as well as the quotes from Tolkien, you can make a post-judgement.
Arthur Weasley 04/Dec/2006 at 04:50 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Faldras - Maybe you are right because if I do finally agree with you guys, the discussion about Gollum ends and perhaps so does this thread.  Actually I am truly amazed that thisthread has lasted for almost six solid months and there seems to be no limit to what we can discuss about Gollum, the Ring, and related topics.  However, Gollum was never wholly wicked.  Even Gandalf saw some value and "good" buried deep within Gollum and this should always be considered when examining Gollums character.  Let’s say though that you guys havew convinced me...now what?  Is our discussion about Gollum dead?  I hope not.  Thoughts? 

KingODuckingham 04/Dec/2006 at 09:35 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: I agree that this has been an amazing thread and I am reluctant to let it go. I think the fact that two similar threads can be running at the same time in Advanced Lore and one in Basic Lore about Gollum is proof of what a fascinating character he is, and so worthy of study.

You are right that Gollum is never wholly wicked, but he is past redemption after a point (when Sam snaps at him), which has already been quoted in a letter above.

If nobody else has a thought, here’s one: I think Gollum is a most interesting character because he is the only one we see that has succumbed to the Ring. We see hints of it in Boromir, and another version of it with the Nazgul. What I want to know is, how does this affect his free will? How does Tolkien justify calling him evil if it is the Ring’s corruption? I already have my own thoughts on this, but I would like to hear others’.
Arthur Weasley 05/Dec/2006 at 03:07 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
AAHHH!! Does the Ring absolve Gollum somewhat from his evil choices?  If the Ring corrupts and destroys anyone who possesses it, then was Gollum merely under the hypnotic control of the Ring until his own psyche was conquered almost completely by it?  We can also have fun with Free Will debate.  Thoughts?
Laielinwen 06/Dec/2006 at 03:25 AM
New Soul Points: 31115 Posts: 27324 Joined: 16/Mar/2002

Gollum is one of the most complex and well written characters ever. The sheer scope of emotions I feel when I read of him from start to finish... Hobbit - ROTK is astounding. I am not a pushover when it comes to empathy with characters, but Tolkien is able to flip me around like a rag doll with this character. I love him and hate him and pity him and praise him and laugh at him and love him again... Bless his heart! And he does have one!

I see him as one that is addicted to some strong drug. He suffers withdrawals and cannot get ’truly clean’ of its hold. He does have free will, but the overwhelming urge makes him almost useless in regards to it. I don’t believe he ever really loses his free will though he does in the end seem broken and consumed.

Initially he chose of his own free will to kill over the ring. That was evil... he coveted it and he worshiped it. Yet he did have glimpses of good that peeked through at times like the sun’s rays through an overcast sky.

Can a slave still have free will? I believe so... even when it is beyond their ability to act on it. Hmmm... much to ponder and an awesome discussion y’all!

KingODuckingham 06/Dec/2006 at 12:24 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Laie: You said much of what my own thoughts were. I just have one question for you. How is is that both you and halfir have the same rank?
Laielinwen 06/Dec/2006 at 01:37 PM
New Soul Points: 31115 Posts: 27324 Joined: 16/Mar/2002
halfir and I both agree that dragons have free will so that gives us the same rank!
 Really! Or not.
Arthur Weasley 06/Dec/2006 at 06:36 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Laielinwen - You have reinspired me to think then that Gollum deserves some praise for actually being the one who destroys the Ring.  I have been rereading the trilogy again with my 27 year old nephew (who is finally getting into it himself!) and could I ask all to collect examples of Gollum’s "goodness."  The first one I can think of just off the top of my head is when he "nearly repents," leading Frodo and Sam to Shelob somewhere in the RotK Appendices.  Thoughts?

KingODuckingham 06/Dec/2006 at 10:19 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
You have reinspired me to think then that Gollum deserves some praise for actually being the one who destroys the Ring. Oh really? You’ve come up with answers to our arguments? That very first example that pops into your head has been quoted in the letters as the point where the straw breaks the camels back and Gollum plunges into the depths of irredeemability. Furthermore, it has also been quoted (I’m pretty sure, I’m too lazy to flip back and check ) that even had Gollum found some sort of repentance at that point that it could never overpower the hold the Ring had on him, and that he would still try to take the Ring and attack Frodo. The difference, Tolkien says, is that he thinks at that point Gollum would voluntarily throw himself into the fires. Now then I would say Gollum would deserve praise for destroying the Ring. However, that is not the way it happened, and I still see no reason to praise Gollum in any way for the Ring’s destruction.
Arthur Weasley 07/Dec/2006 at 02:52 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

KingODuckingham - One thing you have encouraged me to do is to always check the sources so I will as soon as I get home from work tonight.  The Letters of Tolkien are not usually considered the final word in the LOTR debates because they were never intended for publication and not completed as such.  For me, the books are the intended works that were published after painstaking review so we should not make hasty judgements on Gollum.  So please go back and check as I will.

If at first you do not succeed, you should try again to learn something you do not know!

KingODuckingham 07/Dec/2006 at 06:07 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
The Letters of Tolkien are not usually considered the final word in the LOTR debates because they were never intended for publication and not completed as such. I suppose if you could find something that directly contradicted in the Letters versus the LOTR books this would be valid. But all we have here is Tolkien’s commentary on his own books. What you are trying to do by finding so-called counter-examples is thwart the master’s opinion with your own, a futile exercise. And even if the Letters weren’t intended for publication, they were obviously intended for others to see and read, for it is not a journal he is writing in, but a letter. We are not making ’hasty judgements’. We are researching Tolkien’s own opinion on what he wrote after he wrote it, and using it as our standard.
Laielinwen 08/Dec/2006 at 02:01 AM
New Soul Points: 31115 Posts: 27324 Joined: 16/Mar/2002
The Letters is actually one of my favorite books. I love reading Tolkien’s own words regarding the topics of discussion and his thought processes as he writes. I think it does give us an excellent insight into what he wrote and influences that affected his writings. I also love how his personality shows through so often! To me the fact that they were NOT intended for publication and are more of a personal nature gives us a fuller view into his thoughts regarding the writings. I also love that there are letters written ’on the record’ to publishers and fans, etc. Then there are letters written to his family where he comments on the other letters! We really see so much in that book. I think it is the single best book to have it you want to get a real feel for the man and some real insight into his works.
Arthur Weasley 08/Dec/2006 at 02:36 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

KingODuckingham and Laielinwen - I have only read the Letters twice!  I love when Tolkien compares Germans to orcs near the end of WWII.  Anyway, of course I respect the Letters over anything short of the books but one must be careful quoting them.  Some really weird religions have been created out of just two or three Biblical quotes taken out of context.  While Tolkien may have written his letters to friends, publishers, etc. they en mass were certainly never intended for publication.  However I do agree with you both that the Letters are the best primary source material short of the actual LOTR books (or should I say scriptures).  It might be controversial of me but I do humbly disagree with Tolkien’s negative assessment about Gollum.   OOOH I so love a good discussion!  Let’s get out the Letters Quotes!  Maybewe shall all be inspired with divine revalation!

KingODuckingham 08/Dec/2006 at 02:47 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I do humbly disagree with Tolkien’s negative assessment about Gollum. I groaaaann! How many times have I heard people say that about every imaginable character! Except for Sauron and Morgoth. Oh yes. Can’t argue with them being evil. No, they get compared to Hitler (which Tolkien also said was ridiculous in his Letters) or Stalin, the only people they imagine are evil in this real world. Somehow everyone must be good until it is so inescapably plain that they can find no way to weasel out or avoid it, and then they go all out and say there is absolutely no good in him at all. It makes me want to fume and rant. Your whole previous argument for Gollum being praiseworthy rested on the Letters, because you were trying to say that Eru subconsciously moved Gollum to trip and fall (which is faulty regardless of the Letters), but Eru does not exist in LOTR! He is found in the Sil, yes, but that was never intended for publication either (at least in its actual published form). My dad sees this evidence and rejects everything except the Hobbit and LOTR as canonical and doesn’t believe Tolkien meant to have an Eru. Will you take the same stance?
Arthur Weasley 08/Dec/2006 at 03:09 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
KingoDuckingham - My sincere apologies for frustrating you and your points are always well made.  It is true that my opinion disagrees with Tolkien’s assessment about Gollum’s character, but that is all. No more and no less.  I will also admit that I enjoy a good debate and am always willing to view any subject from all angles!  Actually I am being quite consistant with the "Divine justice," theme of Gollum accidently destroying the Ring and I believe that Tolkien, Eru, Divinity, intended this.  With his Unwitting or Accidental actions, Gollum achieved what many great heroes such as Isildur, Frodo and others could not...destroy the Ring.  Whatever Gollums intentions, (which are always minimized in a law court), his actions killed Sauron, resulted in Aragorn becoming King of Gondor which could heal and expand, and gave us all the happy ending we crave and love.  I guess I also agree with your Dad somewhat though I would also add the Silmarillion and maybe Unfinished Tales to the sacred Tolkien scriptures!  As for Gollum, (another analogy time) if I win the lottery, then why does everyone praise me for doing so?  Thoughts?   Ohh! I Tackleglomped you in the Isengard Community Forum thread!
KingODuckingham 08/Dec/2006 at 03:17 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
*glomps back*

Begging your pardon for letting my temper run away with me (literally...I was going to make a one-liner post that turned into that rant), I was acting a bit too much like my rank there.

I don’t like comparisons to a law court because I don’t like the American’s justice system, particularly that of its punishment. However, on your other analogy note, I don’t think people are praising you for winning the lottery (Are they?). They congratulate you, yes. But they don’t praise you. So I don’t think that analogy works either.
Arthur Weasley 08/Dec/2006 at 05:56 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
KingODuckingham - Apology unnecessary!  Yes!  I agree that the American legal/justice system is way too lenient and I wish it was more severe for those guilty!  If it were up to me I would say "three felonies and you are dead," but the liberals would complain about giving hardened criminals every chance at redemption....like Gollum!  Hmmm....  Maybe I should think this through more.  Actually I wish I could win the lottery but I really should buy a ticket more often.  
Faldras 08/Dec/2006 at 10:13 PM
Melkor Points: 11073 Posts: 6600 Joined: 28/Mar/2004
Take care discussing politics.

The only reason I can see to think that the Letters would not be valid due to the nature of its publishing, would be because Tolkien did not have the proper chance to tell the "whole" story on everything, to give it the full clarity that LotR had. He might have thought something positive about Gollum as well but didn’t think to write it in any of his letters because it didn’t fit, so to speak. He was always writing to one person and not his entire readership, so he would not have to pour out his entire mind on each subject.

Still, I think that the piece in Letter 181 leaves little left unsaid about Gollum’s character. If you agree with the above paragraph, you must also ask why wouldn’t he comment on something. Was it because he didn’t have the opportunity, or was it because that he simply did not believe it?
Arthur Weasley 09/Dec/2006 at 05:07 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Faldras - Yes I agree with you!  Because Tolkien’s letters were never intended for general publication, he could jot down thoughts quickly and not as completely as he most certainly would have if he knew that they would be someday.  Tolkien probably never would have guessed that every single scrap of paper he’d ever written on about his creations would be typed over and memorized by fanatics like us!  Many people also do the same thing with religious works as well.  The Letters are certainly the best primary source materials except for the published books.  As for Gollum, perhaps I am too lenient with him.  He did commit murder, steal, lie, and attempt almost anything to possess and/or recover the Ring.  However, Frodo forgave him in his benediction before he and Sam were rescued from Mt. Doom. 
mygirlisbuff 09/Dec/2006 at 05:27 AM
Banned Points: 190 Posts: 16 Joined: 09/Dec/2006
i think maybe he was the saviour of middle-earth because frodo took it and therefore the nazgul would of ame and taken it and him to sauron but also it is strange that then frodo dosnt give gollum any credit come to think of it he doesnt even really mention the ring does he
Arthur Weasley 09/Dec/2006 at 05:47 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
mygirlisbuff - My sympathies!  Welcome to www.lotrplaza.com!!  I do agree with you that Frodo could not have destroyed the Ring himself.  Had Gollum not fallen into the lava, the Nazgul would have certainly taken it from him as well as most likely killed Frodo, Gollum and Sam.    Frodo does forgive and absolve Gollum but does not offer hkm any credit other than the simple fact that Gollum destroyed the Ring.  What was your last point?
Naduil 09/Dec/2006 at 06:30 AM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 182 Posts: 753 Joined: 02/Dec/2006

Yeah gollum probably did kind of protect middle-earth for 500 years. I’m sorry but I don’t have much time so I couldn’t be bothered to read the whole thread, so if someone has already said what I’m about to say then I’m sorry for wastign everyones time.

Does anyone think that Gollum was always good? I know it sounds weird but think about it for a minute. He took the ring by killing his best friend, sounds evil right? But consider that if he hadn’t killed Deagol and taken the ring then Sauron probably would have come killed all of the hobbits in the area and taken the ring. So maybe gollum saved all the nearby hobbits. Then he kept the ring hidden from Sauron for 500 years until he ’accidentally’ dropped it. If it was so precious to him he would have been checking on it all the time and noticed it had fallen off. When he got back to his island he would have put it back in its hiding place surely? However he would have noticed that it had fallen off his finger or out of his pouch when he went to put it back in its hiding place, yes? So did he mean to give it to Bilbo? I think that he did. He feigns loss admitedly and when Bilbo goes to escape I think he is hugging the floor and allows Bilbo to jump over him before he reacts. Go on go and read that part of The Hobbit again (I think it’s at the end of Riddles in the Dark) and you’ll see that what I say could be true. Onto the next clue.

He tries to escape the agents of Sauron hunting him and they have to torture the whereabouts of the ring out of him. Seeing as he hates Bilbo surely he’d just tell them about him? So you’d think but he’s trying to protect Bilbo. More evidence see? Sure tolkien says he’s trying to protect the ring, but do you really believe that? Time for the next clue.

When Frodo and Sam capture him (yes I am going largely by the movies but I am including things from the books, honest) he could probably have killed them in their sleep of escaped at any point when they had control of him. But he doesn’t. He sticks with them and does as Frodo wishes. When he’s meant to have commited treachery to them by letting Frodo get stung by Shelob and captured by Orcs it was most likely the only plausible way into Mordor. So once again  he helped them. Final evidence coming up.

At the end when he fights Frodo over the ring eventually biting off his finger to get the ring, then putting it on and jumping in. Yes, jumping in. Frodo doesn’t shove him hard but he falls over the edge anyway. He also saves Frodos’ life by letting go of him so he can grab onto the wall and get pulled back up by Sam. Also surely if Frodo was close enough to grab the wall and stop his fall so was gollum. But gollum didn’t he allowed himself to fall and destroy the ring saving middle-earth. Did gollum know that his destiny was to die saving middle-earth? Maybe on a sub-concious level he did which is why he helped the fellowship more often than not and eventually died himself to fufill their mission.

So next time you count the fellowship as nine you should think about it for a minute, include gollum the saviour of middle-earth and count it as ten.

KingODuckingham 09/Dec/2006 at 11:05 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Naduil: You made a good post and that certainly is a well-thought out theory. But you’ll pardon me if I now try to rip it to shreds. (However, if you ever do have more time, read the first page or two, which has the Guild of Twisted Lore’s "gollum-is-good" theory. However:

But consider that if he hadn’t killed Deagol and taken the ring then Sauron probably would have come killed all of the hobbits in the area and taken the ring. Not necessarily. If he didn’t find Smeagol, why would he find Deagol? And even if he did, murder is not a justifiable way to solve the problem, and he certainly didn’t know it was the One Ring, and therefore didn’t know about Sauron, and therefore was simply committing simple murder.

If it was so precious to him he would have been checking on it all the time and noticed it had fallen off. Gandalf says he hated and loved the Ring. I forget where it is (if it is in the Hobbit, I don’t have that on me, so I couldn’t quote it anyway) but Gollum grew sick and weary of the Ring, and didn’t always use it when he was hunting. He had a special hiding place for it, so obviously it wasn’t under his constant care. He simply forgot what he had done with it, he didn’t drop it on purpose anymore than Isildur dropped it on purpose so he could die in Gladden Fields. Bilbo told Gandalf (who then told Frodo in FOTR) how the Ring would change sizes and weights, sometimes suddenly slipping off a finger. I see no reason to believe the Ring leaving Gollum was not accidental, other than that Gandalf says that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and his saying that the Ring wanted to leave Gollum. Also, it says that Bilbo was the only one to give the Ring up willingly. Gollum could not have dropped the Ring on purpose even if he wanted to. So no, he did not mean to give it to Bilbo.

Seeing as he hates Bilbo surely he’d just tell them about him? NO! That is the last thing he would want to do willingly, because of all the people to get the Ring, the Dark Lord is the one he would want to have it the least. He has a better chance of getting the Ring back from a hobbit than from Sauron, so he wants to keep the Ring’s location secret for himself, so he can take it back without interference from the powerful Dark Lord.

he could probably have killed them in their sleep of escaped at any point when they had control of him. No, he can’t. He swore an oath on the Precious, and it does indeed bind him. And he wouldn’t act before his treacherous plan was set, anyway. And what would be the point of escape? They unloosed the rope from him, and he wants to be close to the Ring. What better way than to keep company with the Ringbearer?

Yes, jumping in. Actually, no. He slipped. You are no doubt thinking of the movies, as is obvious from the rest of your paragraph. That is not the way it happened in the books, and not admissable as evidence. We have already firmly established that there was no conscious action on Gollum’s part in the destruction of the Ring, and that he therefore deserves no praise.

However, like I said, excellent post and thanks for joining the discussion.
elvenboy20 09/Dec/2006 at 11:50 AM
Vagrant of Minas Tirith Points: 41 Posts: 32 Joined: 07/Oct/2006
What do you mean i mean because although gollum did protect the ring for a very long time bilbo got the ring then frodo inherited it and went on the big quest to save middle earth so i dont think we should title him the savior of middle earth but he did help a lot so he shoul be a big character but not the one who saved middle earth also because he tried to bite of frodos finger for the ring so he was actually an evil part of the story so he didnt even try to save middle earth if you think of it he just wanted the ring for his selfish little self just like bilbo exept bilbo wasnt as obsessed with the ring as gollum was exept for the part where he saw the ring around frodos neck on the chain he tried to take it and he made the weird face
Naduil 09/Dec/2006 at 10:40 PM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 182 Posts: 753 Joined: 02/Dec/2006
KOD - I seem to be seeing your posts a lot lately. I’m fairly sure that their was some buisness we had to deal with in Isengard with a large bonfire and a pair of pink frilly knickers, but that’s a different story...... It’s true that I had largely based my comments on the films as I know them better than the books. So within the next couple of weeks I’ll read through them again and re-prove (is that even a word) my therum (that word too).
Arthur Weasley 10/Dec/2006 at 06:42 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Elvenboy - Yes I remember what you are referring to in the movies.  However, here we try to focus on the books for more specific discussions.  Still, many people disagree with me naming Gollum the "Unwitting Savior," of Middle Earth.  Perhaps "Unwilling or Accidental Savior," would have been better?  

Naduil - Welcome to the Plaza!! I always encourage everyone to reread the sacred scriptures (ie the books) because many times we actually quote items here to dissect, interpret, and discuss them.  I am glad that you agree with me so we both should look into strengthening our viewpoints/theories.

KingODuckingham 10/Dec/2006 at 11:15 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Chris: Next time you have a message like that, a good place to go would be the Isengard Community Center, which is one of the threads in Isengard made for little messages like that.

Naduil:    Looking forward to more discussion. I love it!

Darth Enalan: Perhaps "Unwilling or Accidental Savior," would have been better? I would agree with that too. Although I never disagreed with you about the title unwitting. The disagreement arrives when we get to the matter of praising him, which seems to me to be ruled out by the very title of unwitting, and even more so by unwilling or accidental. Wouldn’t you say?
Falvlun 10/Dec/2006 at 11:51 AM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

Can there be more than one savior of the same thing?

I am wondering, since you say that Gollum is the unwitting savior of middle-earth, does this disclude anyone else from also being that savior?

(Sorry for my long absence. Last week was the week before finals, and this coming week is the week of finals. My brain hurts. Plus, I was slightly depressed at the loss of so many of my posts.  )

mygirlisbuff 10/Dec/2006 at 01:10 PM
Banned Points: 190 Posts: 16 Joined: 09/Dec/2006
sorry for my delyed reply i have been busy at the present  muy last point is does frodo ever really mention the ring after its destroyed?
Arthur Weasley 10/Dec/2006 at 02:39 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

KingODuckingham - Hmm. Nope.  I am still willing to give the devil his due!  I at least will praise Gollum for destroying the Ring. 

Mygirlisbuff - Yes Frodo does at least twice.  Once when Arwen addresses him as Ringbearer and he responds.  And again when Sam finds him ill at home at Bag End when Frodo says "It is gone and all is dark and empty."  Still, Frodo does not really mention the Ring much after it is destroyed. 

Chris the Swift - Did you post here?  Did I miss something?  Congratulations on your new Plaza House membership!  Just click on Plaza Houses, scroll down to the bottom and click Check invitations!

Chris the swift 10/Dec/2006 at 04:38 PM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 43 Posts: 27 Joined: 03/Dec/2006
hey mr. reid hows it going
Chris the swift 11/Dec/2006 at 11:52 AM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 43 Posts: 27 Joined: 03/Dec/2006
I think gollum was still a little good becuase he still had doubts about his plan to kill frodo in the thrid movie and then when frodo threw him off the ledge his dark and light side must have collided and that was what made gollum the he was in the end of the thrid movie
Arthur Weasley 12/Dec/2006 at 05:19 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Chris the Swift - Congratulations on the new Hat!!  Good point about Gollum!  The conflicts within Gollum are also clearly presented in the books as well.  Please remind me and I will share with you some Letters that Tolkien wrote where he mentions Gollum in detail - some of this material is quoted above also.
Chris the swift 12/Dec/2006 at 01:42 PM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 43 Posts: 27 Joined: 03/Dec/2006
alright but as you said in one of your post on your forum gollum sliped off when he destroyed the one ring that is not interly ture frodo wrestled with him until they both fell off but frodo saved his butt by grabing the ledge so sam could pull him up
KingODuckingham 12/Dec/2006 at 03:56 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
You are thinking of the movies again....   That didn’t happen in the books, Gollum simply slips by dancing too close to the edge with his precious.

Darth: Give the devil his due? What due? He didn’t do anything, you don’t owe him anything! I’m sure Gollum wouldn’t mind you praising him, but nobody in Middle Earth would understand. If Gollum was to be praised, I think at least someone in the books would have mentioned his name at some point...but all we get is "Look, Gandalf, Gollum bit me." Not a very convincing case.
Falvlun 12/Dec/2006 at 07:34 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004
:sniffle:: No one loves me. (points to ignored question)
KingODuckingham 12/Dec/2006 at 07:54 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I thought it was a rhetorical question, to which the answer was obvious...of course there can be more than one savior of the same thing. In this case Gollum is simply the most immediate and direct one. If he were the only one, Frodo and Sam would not be honored as they were on the Field of Cormallen, not to mention the entire Fellowship, etc.
Arthur Weasley 13/Dec/2006 at 11:41 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Falvlun - My apologies!  I thought that it was a rhetorical question as well!  Yes, I belieev Gollum is the only "Unwitting Savior," of Middle Earth because HE destroyed the One Ring of Power!  No one, not Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, not even Gandalf could have destroyed the Ring.  Gandalf would not even take it and Aragorn never really was tempted by it in the books (though he clearly says that he COULD have taken the Ring while they were at the Prancing Pony).  Gollum destroyed the Ring and I cannot imagine any of the other characters doing so.  While Gollum would be the least likely to wish the Rings destruction, his screw up singlehandedly killed Sauron, freed Middle Earth, and Crowned Aragorn King of of both Arnor and Gondor!  All Hail Gollum!
Turabar 13/Dec/2006 at 02:20 PM
Archer of Imladris Points: 434 Posts: 72 Joined: 23/Aug/2006

Gollum was put by fate to save th Middle Earth. Let’s begin from the time it founded the Ring, killed Deagol and was still known as Smeagol. It keeped the Ring safe for all those years. Just imagine what would have happen if one of the kings of Gondor or Arnor found the Ring. He would surely not know what it was since the story was forgotten and the results would be disastrous. When the Ring was found Sauron had returned and the story of the Ring was forced back in the memory of the people. So anybody would be suspicious with a ring that had supernatural powers. In case Mithrandir saw the Ring in another period, he wouldn’t even imagine what it was.

In addition , Gollum helped Frodo, the Ringbearer, reach Orodruin without being caught by the orcs and was the one to drop the Ring in the flames of Orodruin. So he was Sauron’s killer!

P.S. He didn’t actually drop the Ring, he dorpped himself instead!

KingODuckingham 13/Dec/2006 at 02:22 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
One thing we can say for you, Darth, you are persistent.
I don’t see why if Gollum could screw up, nobody else could. It might as well be him as anyone else, but that is no more reason to praise him than anyone else. Why can you not imagine anyone else slipping? Though I no longer have the Letters (the library wanted them back), I remember the quote talking of what would have happened had Gollum not been there, and Frodo throwing himself into the lava.

Yes, Gollum is the only unwitting savior, but he is not the only savior (without the qualifier). And the least praise goes to him of all the saviors, because of the very fact that he was unwilling and unwitting.
Arthur Weasley 13/Dec/2006 at 04:39 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Turabar - Thank you very much for your agreement!  Gollum guarded and protected the Ring for 478 years (accoridng to the appendices and I think I quoted it somewhere above) and if it were not for Gollum (according to Unfinished Tales) The Nine Nazgul would have found the Shire Weeks sooner and probably ambushed Frodo at his home in Bag End.  Had not Gollum been brave enough (or dared to pretend) to deceive Sauron the master deceiver into telling him that the Shire lay along the Anduin River somewhere perhaps near Lorien?  Here is another moment when Gollum managed to really wreck Sauron’s hopes "but for it the Nine would have discovered the Shire weeks sooner."  All Hail Gollum!

KingODuckingham - We are both very consistant!  This is why I think we have sooo much fun here!! 

Arthur Weasley 15/Dec/2006 at 11:09 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Chris the Swift - It says that you posted last but I cannot find your post! Please try again and remember to stay focused on the books.  I know that you are rereading the Hobbit and Gollum has a big part in it!  Did you know that Gollum last used the Ring to strangle/throttle a small Orc (sweaker) so he could eat it for lunch??  I remember reading that in the Hobbit and Bilbo then finds the Ring when Gollum leaves it on the shore after killing the Orc/Goblin.  When you get ot this point in the Hobbit book, let me know and would you please quote it here?
Chris the swift 16/Dec/2006 at 10:15 AM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 43 Posts: 27 Joined: 03/Dec/2006

well darth my cousin is no longer on lotrplaza because he is stupid and wrote that lotr wasn’t real and the people who created lotrplaza wished that it would happen to them so you don’t have to aknowledge him to game masters and darth how can i  stick to the books when i have even finished the hobbit.

but what i was trying to say before is that none the less gollum would have been found with the ring if he didn’t loss it to biblo and suron would be all powerful agein so none the less the nine would have tryed to kill the one who had the ring after they found him becuase they could sence the ring

Arthur Weasley 16/Dec/2006 at 10:40 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Excellent point Chris the Swift!!  Gollum certainly would have been caught and killed by the Nazgul if he did try to bolt with the Ring!  Please let me know when you reach the "Riddles in the dark" chapter of the Hobbit and we can really dissect the introduction of Gollum!  I am sad that your cousin lacks the imagination to have great fun here but not everyone is as enlightened and as creative as we are!  Treasure your membership with GMU since only those select few even get the opportunity to join.
Chris the swift 16/Dec/2006 at 01:28 PM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 43 Posts: 27 Joined: 03/Dec/2006

so any new games in game masters or what but how do you thinkthat gollum whould have died at the nazgul’s hands would he have just killed him with the sword or would he have trotured him in the same troture room they did when they got the info about frodo when gollum siad the two words that set the nine out Shire , baggins tell me what you think

Arthur Weasley 16/Dec/2006 at 07:13 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Hmmm... I love "what if" questions!!  Since Sauron already had the "pleasure,"of torturing Gollum already, he would either have ordered the Eight Nazgul (The Witch King was killed already) to slay whoever (whomever) still had the Ring and retrieve it or have them captured so they could see the Ring back on Sauron’s finger. I wish we had a little more history about the Nazgul and who they were before they received the Nine Rings from Sauron.  We know that they were all men, kings, sorcerors and warriors of old, and that three were of high Numenorean race (i.e. Black Numenorean). 
Chris the swift 17/Dec/2006 at 04:43 PM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 43 Posts: 27 Joined: 03/Dec/2006
I was talking about before the witch king was nkilled by e’owen and merry
Arthur Weasley 17/Dec/2006 at 07:45 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Ahh!  Hmm.. Well, Sauron had no real knowledge of where the Ring actually was exactly until Frodo put it on his finger in the tunnel of Sammath Naur.  The Nazgul came close twice to getting the Ring in the books (Once in the Shire and once at Amon Sul/Weathertop).   However, if it were not for Gollum, I do not believe the Ring would have been destroyed.  It is hard for me to imagine Sam trying to struggle with Frodo to take the Ring from him so he could throw it into the fire.  So it had to be Frodo and Gollum fighting it out. 
Thefourfingers 18/Dec/2006 at 08:33 AM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

Darth-  This argument seems to be going in circles.  Let me as you a question then.  What are we discusing here?  Is it whether or not Gollum is the unwitting saviour of ME is it whether or not he should be praised for destroying the ring?

I think that we can all agree that Gollum is the unwitting saviour of ME in that he unwittingly saved it.  Don’t think there is much to discuss there.  But I do not think Gollum deserves any praise at all for his evil actions just because some good acidently came out from it.

Arthur Weasley 18/Dec/2006 at 01:22 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Thefourfingers - Glad to hear from you again!  Actually I guess I am trying to expand this topic a little by arguing that Gollum does deserve some sort of praise for his actions since he did what no one else could.  Just exactly what sort of praise, if any is debatable.  Since Actionsare more definitive than intentions, I hope to make more of a case for all of the Underdogs of the world through Gollum.  Any other suggestions?

Thefourfingers 18/Dec/2006 at 05:42 PM
Messenger of Minas Tirith Points: 825 Posts: 93 Joined: 10/Oct/2006

Darth-  "Actionsare more definitive than intentions"   But Gollum was not making a consious action when he fell over the edge.  Had the rock extended further, Gollum may not have plunged into the crack of doom.  So, if we are basing our praise on the circumstances that led to the destruction of the ring, then Gollum is no more worthy of praise than the rocks.

We cannot praise Gollum for his actions because he did not act.  We are left only with Gollum’s intentions, and they were certainly not to destroy the ring.  So I say:  No praise for Gollum!  All hail the fellowship!

Arthur Weasley 18/Dec/2006 at 06:50 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Thefourfingers - But no one denys that Gollums unintended actions saved Middle Earth.  I do not wish to repeat what I have said above but I would like to take this discussion in new directions.  If a six year old accidently finds a pistol and shoots his Mom, is it murder?  Who cares about Gollums intentions?  He destroyed the Ring in the biggest WHOOPS in literary history!

KingODuckingham 19/Dec/2006 at 09:50 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
If a six year old accidently finds a pistol and shoots his Mom, is it murder Only if he knew it was a weapon and was pointing it at his mother and intending to harm her. Otherwise, it is viewed merely as an accident, and not a homicide.

TFF:    All hail the Fellowship indeed. After all, that’s what those of Middle Earth did.
Arthur Weasley 20/Dec/2006 at 02:52 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Would someone please explain to me the reason WHY it is so hard for some people to even consider the possibility of praising Gollum?  Yes, he is ugly.  Yes, he is mostly evil.  Yes, he has a lousy wardrobe.  Yes, he does not have a wife or anyone who loves him.  But yet even Gandalf would never give up on him because of ths tiny bit of goodness inside him.  I amtrying to come up with other Whoops’s in history or literature and will figure something out soon. 
KingODuckingham 20/Dec/2006 at 08:29 AM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Would someone please explain to me the reason WHY it is so hard for some people to even consider the possibility of praising Gollum On the contrary, the fact that we have participated in this thread and actually read your posts shows that we have considered the possibility of praising Gollum. If I am biased it is because people are all too willing to show lenience to evil in LOTR and I am constantly trying to see that justice is shown. I don’t praise Gollum because I have seen the arguments for and against (and given a few myself) and I am convinced that he deserves no praise. I have not shut my mind, but rather looked at both sides of the issue, and made an intellectual decision.
Arthur Weasley 20/Dec/2006 at 01:51 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

KingOduckingham - Well said!  I meant nothing negative (especially for anyone participating in this thread) and you are very right.  However, justice is such a relative term.  Laws change with the people who make them.  Any warrior, nation or leader who wins is never guilty of treason.  Because of my academic background, I instantly suspect anyone who claims an intellectual decision which is usual wording for concealing hidden agendas.  Whenever someone is fired at work, they often hear, "it’s nothing personal, it is strickly business."  Justice is usually what those in power wish it to be.  This is a philosophical issue we have not explored and now I wish to connect it to Gollum.  Would Gollum have received more praise if his inner struggles were more apparent and appreciated by members of the fellowship?

KingODuckingham 20/Dec/2006 at 09:00 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
justice is such a relative term Justice is only a relative term when it is used in a relative way (as it often is in the business world, which you pointed out). But in the classic sense of the word, it is one of the four cardinal virtues, and is definitely NOT relative. This is the sense in which I use the word, that according to an objective standard, Gollum is rewarded according to his deeds AND intentions (because neither is unimportant), and when I say intellectual decision, I simply mean that I have thought about it and come to a rational decision, not a calculated agenda.

Considering that Gollum’s struggles ended up in evil winning out (Stinker over Slinker), I doubt Gollum would have received anymore praise. Perhaps more outright pity and sympathy, but not praise.
Arthur Weasley 21/Dec/2006 at 05:51 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
KingODuckingham - Maybe you are right.  Perhaps I am a cynic though.  It seems to me that everyone has an agenda and that objectivity is a noble myth.  Many years ago in one of my Graduate programs, I read a book about this issue.  As for Gollum, actions are far more important than intentions in the US legal system.  Many murders happen when the killer was "only trying to scare soandso) when the gun went off or they slipped with the knife.  So if someone is jailed for an accidental murder, then Gollum should be praised for accidently saving Middle Earth.  Always continue a good discussion!
Falvlun 22/Dec/2006 at 09:39 AM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

Darth Enalen, One of my posts which were lost illuminated the fallacy of your murder analogies. Intentions in the US legal system occupy an extremely important position.

Your six-year old killing his mother bears no weight what-so-ever. It would not be considered murder, nor would it be charged as such. The six-year-old who accidentally shoots his mom a) had no intention of doing so, b) did not know that this would happen, c) is not of the age of criminal responsibility. In the US not one state has this age lower then 7 years of age. The youngest person to actually be charged with murder in the US was 12.

Murder: Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

This is the definition of murder. Note all the words in red. All of these words indicate thought behind the action. It is not considered murder unless there was intention behind it.

Manslaughter is the term used for un-intentional killing of another human being, through reckless actions that you choose to partake in.  Even in this, there is the element of an action that you intended; it just happened that this action had unintended results.

Now, you claim that  "actions are far more important than intentions in the US legal system". This is false. If you would like to substantiate that claim, with specific laws and examples, by all means, go for it. But merely saying it does not make it true.

The differing degrees of murder are proof in itself how intentions influence the severity of the action. In robbery, if you are armed (ie, have the intention of using the arms for actually shooting people or just scaring them), it is more severe than if you had robbed bare handed.

Furthermore, crime itself is divided into four sections: crimes of little gravity, crimes of average gravity, grave crimes, and especially grave crimes.

1. Intentional and careless acts, for the commission of which the maximum penalty stipulated by this Code does not exceed two years deprivation of liberty, shall be recognized as crimes of little gravity.

2. Qualified as the medium-gravity crimes shall be deliberate offences for whose commitment the maximum punishment stipulated by the present Code does not exceed five years of the deprivation of freedom, and careless crimes for whose commitment the maximum punishment stipulated by the present Code exceeds two years of the deprivation of freedom.

3.  Intentional acts, for the commission of which the maximum penalty stipulated by this Code does not exceed 10 years deprivation of liberty, shall be recognized as grave crimes.

4. Intentional acts, for the commission of which this Code provides a penalty in the form of deprivation of liberty for a term exceeding 10 years, or a more severe punishment, shall be recognized as especially grave crimes. (This is the Russian Code of Crime)

Note that all of these have ’intentional acts’ at the forefront, except those crimes of little gravity, which ’careless’ acts can fall under. I realize that is for Russia, but the US is not so dissimilar (mainly differences in punishment). Furthermore, why do you think so much time is spent in court determining whether a crime was done intentionally or not?

Now, regardless of whether you accept the real importance of intentions or not in the legal system, I would like to know what you specifically believe.  Do you believe that the guy who accidentally kills his buddy on a hunting trip should be tried and jailed for murder? (Which, note, he would not be, since it would be manslaughter at the worst) Do you believe that this guy is a threat to society and should be punished as such?

If you do not, then you should also not feel the desire to praise Gollum.

Another example, to drive the concept home. You are a teacher. Your student answered a question correctly on a multiple choice test. You give him the points, because that’s what is done, but later when you ask him about what he learned, he obviously can not tell you a single thing. Now. He answered that question correctly only because of chance in choosing the correct answer. Should he be praised for picking the correct one, even though no real knowledge was backing it?

What has he done to earn that praise?

Falvlun 22/Dec/2006 at 11:05 AM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

If you will recall, a while back I asked whether there can be more than one savior of the same thing.

Both of you thought the answer to the question obvious, and yet you both gave me widely different answers; this tells me that the answer is not so obvious as believed.

KingODuckingham, you claimed that there could be multiple saviors, since as you rightly note, Frodo, Sam, et al were also saviors.

Darth Enalen, you claimed that there was only one, and that was Gollum.

The problem with your multiple savior theory, KingO, is that if Frodo and Sam saved Middle-Earth, then why would it need to be saved again? A child is drowning, and two people throw him a life-buoy. Perched upon the buoy, the kid is no longer drowning. A third person swims out to pull him in to land.

Are all three people saviors? Did they all save the kid from drowning? While certainly, an argument can be made for the heroism of the third person, he was not truly a savior. Why? Because the other two people had already saved the kid from drowning. You can not save something that has already been saved.

Darth Enalen, the problem with your theory that only Gollum is the savior, is that Frodo and Sam should rightly, according to the books and Tolkien, should be given this honor.

I use Frodo and Sam together since they worked as a unit; this is how the two of them can be considered joint-saviors.

Now, what is my position?

I believe that Frodo and Sam are the true saviors of Middle-Earth. Gollum is not a savior-- unwitting or otherwise-- since the saving was channeled through the dynamic duo and not Gollum.

KingODuckingham 22/Dec/2006 at 08:21 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Falv: There are multiple saviors, but not multiple savings going on. All participate in the single saving of Middle Earth. To address your drowning analogy, the third person is also a savior, because alot of good it does the boy to be pulled up onto a liferaft if he still cannot get to land. He is as good as dead till the third person swims out and pulls him to shore. The fact that he may die of starvation or dehydration (if the water is not drinkable) is little comfort to the kid. It is a co-operative effort, which in the case of Middle Earth, Gollum took part in. The intentions were wholly in the Fellowship/Sam and Frodo, but the actions included Gollum, for he guided them besides actually taking the Ring and falling off. The fact that your position says: I believe that Frodo and Sam are the true saviors of Middle-Earth. really is saying that I am right, for thus we have multiple saviors. Thus, yes, the answer to the question is indeed obvious, or so it appears to me.
Arthur Weasley 22/Dec/2006 at 08:58 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Falvlun - WOW!  So much to respond too.  Generally I believe the American legal system is up for sale.  If you can pay enough you can commit murder and get away with it.  I disagree with you about Intentions mattering much but they can make the difference between sentences.  As for what I believe I used to jokingly say that I am the last Monarchist in America and that we should just get it over with and crown Bill Gates, Donald Trump or some other Rich Bonehead King and follow their orders!  As for Gollum, I love tosupport underdogs and find faith, redemption and "goodness" in everyone and Gollum achieved somethng that was beyond even Isildur and Frodo’s powers.  He destroyed the Ring.  I will respond in more detail tomorrow!  

KingODuckingham - I agree with you about multiple saviors!  Gollum was the Unwitting one.

KingODuckingham 22/Dec/2006 at 09:05 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I am the last Monarchist in America Not quite.   And yes, Gollum was the unwitting one. But that means that this statement:
Gollum achieved somethng that was beyond even Isildur and Frodo’s powers. is rather misleading. It was beyond Gollum’s powers too, which is why it took an accident to destroy the Ring--him slipping off the cliff. However this means, as I’ve mentioned before, that it might just as well have been anyone, not just Gollum. Thus deserving no praise.
Oin 22/Dec/2006 at 10:07 PM
Architect of Erebor Points: 11372 Posts: 8807 Joined: 14/Feb/2004

Darth: From what I gather of the thread, you’re trying to say that Gollum - intentionally or otherwise - was in any event the destroyer of the Ring. Is that correct?

Assuming it is, I’d like to pose before you a scenario: The entire scene with the three Ringbearers plays out as it does in RotK, up to the point where Frodo’s finger is bitten off, with the Ring on it. At this point, Eru intervenes and causes Gollum to slip - it was not an accident, as KingODuckingham contends - but God (as he is presented in the story) directly intervenes and causes Gollum to slip, and therefore falling with the Ring into the Fire. No "Ten Commandments" style intervention, just subtly causing Gollum to lose his footing and fall. Is Gollum still the savior?

Now take another similar scenario. The entire scene plays out as above, with one exception: the Ring slips off Frodo’s now-detached finger and falls into a jar that just happens to be sitting on the edge of the Crack of Doom. (Don’t ask how it got there, lets just assume for the sake of argument that there was a jar exactly there at exactly that time).  The Ring’s weight and force from falling upsets the delicate balance of the jar and it falls over - Ring included - into the Fire. The Ring is destroyed, and Middle-Earth is safe. Yay. Is the jar now the savior of Middle-earth?

The scenarios are basically the same - Gollum did nothing but fall into the Fire with the Ring - the same purpose the jar served. But what’s worse, Gollum wouldn’t even have fallen into the Fire in all likelihood had not Eru intervened directly to do so.

So I present to you a third scenario - lets say everything happens in the book up to the point where Gollum bites off Frodo’s hand. Then Sam comes and punches him in the face, and Gollum falls off and the Ring is destroyed. Who is the savior - the one who carried the Ring and was destroyed unwillingly, or the guy who actually pushed Gollum into the fire, Ring included? The role played by Sam here is essentially the role played by Eru. While not so direct, God’s influence amounts to the same thing as Sam’s action in the above scenario.

And here are the quotes to back up that it was in fact divine intervention:

"Frodo deserved all honor because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), ’that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named’* (as one critic has stated)." (Letter #192)

The "Other Power", as seen by the asterisked note at the end of the letter, and by the index of Letters, is Eru.

"But the One retains all ultimate authority, and (or so it seems as viewed in serial time) reserves the right to intrude the finger of God into the story: that is to produce realities which could not be deduced even from a complete knowledge of the previous past, for all subsequent time (a possible definition of a ’miracle’)." (Letter #181)

Note within the context of the Letter, Tolkien is talking about Frodo, Sam, and Gollum and the destruction of the Ring and their roles in it.

So basically, if you absolutely had to have a direct and ultimate savior of Middle-Earth in this scenario, it’s God. Now who would have thought of that?

Arthur Weasley 23/Dec/2006 at 06:24 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Oin - Thank you!  You summed  up my position neatly.  Several pages ago I nearly got a riot when I suggested that Gollum was motivated subconciously by Eru to fall.  When I was part of the Guild of Twisted Lore Plaza House, we also suggested that Gollum was actually an agent of Eru planted to ensure Saruon’s destruction.  I agree with you that fate, God, Karma, Eru, Tolkien mayhave intervened.  If you have the chance, please review some more of the thread pages (it can be daunting) and I would LOVE your comments about our discussion of divine intervention above.  We never did conclude it by the way.  Meanwhile Happy Holidays and keep posting here!!
Chris the swift 23/Dec/2006 at 12:43 PM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 43 Posts: 27 Joined: 03/Dec/2006
hey darth
Arthur Weasley 23/Dec/2006 at 02:49 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Greetings to you Chris the Swift!  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!  How is your rereading of the Hobbit going?  Have you reached the "Riddles in the Dark," chapter yet?  I would like you to help me confirm that Gollum used the Ring last while throttling a small "squeaker" Orc just before he left it for Bilbo to find.  Hope that you are having fun! 
Oin 23/Dec/2006 at 07:20 PM
Architect of Erebor Points: 11372 Posts: 8807 Joined: 14/Feb/2004

Darth: After reading the last 300 odd posts, I find that we are not in fact in agreement as you say. For one thing, I see that you say Gollum’s entire presence in the Story was Eru’s doing as direct intervention. I do not see it in such a way. Nor do I agree with the Guild that Eru put Gollum there either. The presence and attitude of Gollum in the Cracks of Doom is solely due to the course of the Story as it unfolded:

"From the point of view of the storyteller the events on Mt. Doom proceed simply from the logic of the tale up to that time... But, for one thing, it became at last quite clear that Frodo after all that had happened would be incapable of voluntarily destroying the Ring. Reflecting on the solution after it was arrived at (as a mere event) I feel that it is central to the whole ’theory’ of true nobility and heroism that is presented."

"This is due of course to the ’logic of the story’. Sam could hardly have acted differently... If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But ’possession’ satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo’s sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss."
(Both quotes from Letter #246)

The reason I quote the first part of that Letter is because it is evident from Tolkien’s writings that in the natural course of the story, it is clear that Frodo could not destroy the Ring himself. That much is clear without any "miracles" occuring. The reason I quote the second part is that had Sam acted differently and not alienated Gollum as he was about to repent, the "logic of the story" for the new course of the Tale would still involve Gollum seizing the Ring from Frodo. In both the actual Tale and the hypothetical scenario of Gollum repenting for real, Gollum seizes the Ring by violence. What does this tell us? That the seizing of the Ring by Gollum was totally due to the course of the story and the way it should have logically played out. Ergo, it is not Eru’s intervention that caused Gollum to act in such a way. Gollum falling, however, is illogical. All the prior events in the Tale could not have predicted that he would slip and fall. So I will repeat a quote i presented above, with different emphasis:

"But the One retains all ultimate authority, and (or so it seems as viewed in serial time) reserves the right to intrude the finger of God into the story: that is to produce realities which could not be deduced even from a complete knowledge of the previous past, for all subsequent time (a possible definition of a ’miracle’)." (Letter #181)

Tolkien is telling us that it is Eru’s intervention - his "miracle" if you will - to cause Gollum to fall. No subconcious motivation, no Gollum fulfilling his secret role as a representative of Eru - quite simply, Eru decided that Gollum would lose his footing, and "took over", causing this to happen. Gollum’s role, therefore, is simply to take the Ring from Frodo. The actual destruction of the Ring, and the circumstances in which it occurs, is solely Eru. Therefore, it is impossible to say that Gollum is even the unwitting savior of the world, for the only entity who took any direct action in the destruction of the Ring is Eru. Therefore, Eru is the destroyer of the Ring and savior of Middle-Earth: Gollum is not even someone specially designed by Eru to destroy the Ring, just someone who due to the logic of the Story is to take the Ring from Frodo. It is only Eru who does any destroying and saving.

Arthur Weasley 23/Dec/2006 at 08:02 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Oin - Actually I still think we agree more than disagree.  However I am grateful to you and KingODuckingham for the Letters quotes since I have only read them once.  So as you say, if Eru is the only one "who does any destroying and saving," then would not Gollum had to have been an agent of Eru placed to fulfill cosmic destiny?  Gollum did destroy the Ring, Eru is the only one who does destroying and saving, Gollum is Eru or a part of Eru!  I love discussions like this and do you have any other insights on what we have discussed so far?

FYI All - I will be travelling for the next three days for the Holidays (12/24-12/26).  Maybe I will be able to get some internet access during those days but i doubt it.  Please continue and i will come back late in the evening of 12/26 or morning of 12/27.  Merry Christmas to all and Happy New Year!!  God Bless us All!  Everyone!

Chris the swift 26/Dec/2006 at 08:27 AM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 43 Posts: 27 Joined: 03/Dec/2006
no i haven’t read the book for a while
Arthur Weasley 26/Dec/2006 at 12:53 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Greetings All!  I am back from my very short Christmas Vacation and I am soo excited!  One of my Christmas Gifts was the History of the Lord of the Rings boxed set which I believe has four of the fabled 12 History of Middle Earth Books!  I tried ordering them last year and had a very tough time of it.  These books are so hard to get a hold of in the USA.  Now I will read them over the next few days and find out more about Gollum!  The books I now have are "The Return of the Shadow," "The treason Of Isengard,"  "The War of the Ring," and "The End of the Third Age."  This is actually a Boxed set here in the USA.  Does anyone know how I can get the other eight books?
dragusa 27/Dec/2006 at 01:13 AM
Sapling of Fangorn Points: 83 Posts: 14 Joined: 20/Jun/2006
Did gandalf actually forsee that Gollum would at least have a part to do with the ring? In the mines of Moria, Frodo sees Gollum and runs to Gandalf, but Mithrandir says... what was that quote? That he sensed "he would have a part to play in all this" or something like that. Who thinks Gandalf knew?  
Arthur Weasley 27/Dec/2006 at 11:23 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Dragusa - You are correct that Gandalf forsaw (had forseen) Gollum and Frodo meeting and perhaps travelling together but we are not really sure exactly how much Gandalf knew about Gollum actually destroying the Ring.  This would be an interesting question to dissect and I will look the quote up when I get home from work.  Perhaps gandalf did forsee Gollum’s crucial role that would unfold!  Thoughts?
KingODuckingham 28/Dec/2006 at 08:45 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
I don’t think Gandalf knew specifically at all the part Gollum had to play...to continue the quote, Gandalf says, "a part to play, for good or evil". He was taking a risk, letting Gollum live. For all he knew, Gollum would be the doom of the Quest (and he very nearly feared it was too, when he heard that Gollum had taken Frodo and Sam to Cirith Ungol.) However, I’m sure he meant Gollum had a part to do with the Ring, as there is nothing else he could be talking about.
darkwing wind 29/Dec/2006 at 03:11 AM
New Soul Points: 2 Posts: 1 Joined: 06/Dec/2006
As Gandalf once said, Gollum would still have his own role to play in determining the fate of the Ring before all ended.Gollum did play his role - that of destroying the Ring and, yes, unwittingly saving Middle-Earth when he slipped into the Cracks of Doom.Had that not happened, he could never have escaped Sauron’s snare.
Arthur Weasley 29/Dec/2006 at 04:57 AM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Darkwing WInd - Welcome to LOTRPlaza.com!!!  You will find that we all have fun here and anything you want to know or discuss about Gollum you can find or say here.  After you have taken the Knowledge Hall Quiz, I hope that you will decide to become a Wizard by joining the Istari/White Council Kingdom.  As to your point, I agree with you!  I also believe that Gollum deserves some positive praise for his accidental deed though this idea has created some interesting discussion.  Again welcome to the Plaza!!

KingODuckingham -  I am reading some of the ’History of Middle Earth,’ right now and would you believe Tolkien originally wanted to have Gollum eager to get rid of the Ring and actually give it to Bilbo?    Once I finish reading I will have many comments to post here!   

Falvlun 29/Dec/2006 at 02:46 PM
Horse-lord of the Mark Points: 2512 Posts: 3814 Joined: 21/Sep/2004

To clarify, that long post about murder was meant to specifically address the idea that Gollum should be praised the post after was meant to address the idea that Gollum should be considered a savior at all.

Darth Enalen, I would still very much like to read your response regarding the questions in the last part of my (murder) post; you never answered my questions. What are your beliefs?

I would also like to know specifically what else you base the opinion that Gollum should be praised upon, besides the murder analogy.

KingODuckingham, As to my drowning analogy, I specifically narrowed it to "saving the kid from drowning". Besides, the other two guys were about to pull the kid in; the third guy just ran in before they could do so.

You wrote: There are multiple saviors, but not multiple savings going on. All participate in the single saving of Middle Earth

According to this definition, every single person who exists in Middle-Earth is the savior of Middle-Earth. This goes way beyond the 9 of the Fellowship. If an accidental occurance warrents the title of Savior, then so would the loosening of a stone by a Rohirric boy as he is leading his horse to water, that eventually causes an orc to slip, which causes him to be killed by his superior, which means this particular orc would not be at the Battle of Pelennor Fields where he would have shot Eowyn. If a butterfly flaps its wings in Camaroon, does it cause a tornado in Oklahoma? Perhaps. But if you apply this philosophy in one case, then you have to apply it in all.

And if you have to apply it in all, then the designation of savior is no more meaningful then claiming I am human. For every single person is then a savior.

 

I have seen it claimed here that without Gollum the Ring wouldn’t have been destroyed-- and therefore Middle-earth would not have been saved. But in Letter 246, after it says all that about how it would be if Gollum truly repented and how he would have voluntarily cast himself into the fire, it also says that Frodo would have done the same exact thing. He would have received a clear vision of his folly, and voluntarily have cast himself into Mt. Doom.

 

Arthur Weasley 29/Dec/2006 at 03:05 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

Falvlun - Always love your thoughts!!  You have asked for my belief’s.  Can you please specify?  Religious, Political, social, etc. I will be happy to give you a definitive list about my beliefs that you may quote if I ever run for public office.

      I did answer your questions about murder as in winners and rich people do not commit murder.  Rich people like OJ Simpson can commit murder and not be jailed or killed.  WInners also do not commit murder.  They defend themselves and save the day!   "I disagree with you about Intentions mattering much but they can make the difference between sentences.  As for what I believe I used to jokingly say that I am the last Monarchist in America and that we should just get it over with and crown Bill Gates, Donald Trump or some other Rich Bonehead King and follow their orders!"  In short, since our society follows the Golden rule: i.e. whoever has the Gold makes the rules, we might as well admit that and glorify it.

As for Gollum, I am reading the four HoME volumes on LOTR now and I find it fascinating.  Gollum originally was portrayed as eager to get rid of the Ring and wanted to give it to Bilbo!  When I am finished, I will post a detailed thesis here. 

KingODuckingham 29/Dec/2006 at 05:23 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Falv: You misunderstand me. I do not attribute the slipping as a saving act on Gollum’s part (otherwise one would want to give him praise)--it was the helping of the Fellowship that contributed to his status as savior. As Darth has pointed out before, Gollum was indispensable to the Fellowship at points (Emyn Muil, Dead Marshes, Minas Morgul), and as Gandalf said, he did have a part to play. I do not ascribe to the theory of the butterfly effect (not to such an extent), I am simply showing you that there can be multiple saviors.

Darth Enalan: whoever has the Gold makes the rules, we might as well admit that and glorify it. Can you be serious? Change our beliefs and morals just because there are people in power over us who have different views?
Arthur Weasley 29/Dec/2006 at 06:35 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

KingODuckingham - Yes!  People in power over us insist we do things their way and if we do not we find ourselves in big twaublle!  The people above us also pass and enforce the laws and decide how we are to be punished. 

Falvlun - Yes, I am glad that KingODuckingham remembers my list of Gollum’s achievements.  Gollum even lied to Sauron as much as possible in UT where he pretends that the Shire is located near Lothlorien.  "But for it,  the Black Riders would have located the Shire weeks sooner."  Without Gollum’s help, Frodo and Sam would never have gotten anywhere NEAR Mt. Doom.

KingODuckingham 29/Dec/2006 at 06:39 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Should everyone that came under Hitler’s rule have become a Nazi simply because he was in power over them? (I hate to use such an outworn example, but it really does get the point across well ) Should the trouble we get into have the power to change our convictions?
Nav 29/Dec/2006 at 06:50 PM
Weathered Ent of Fangorn Points: 5671 Posts: 6218 Joined: 10/Dec/2005
Ducky: I hate to interject myself into a wonderful debate on Page 7, but I am trying to get to Rank 8 and I think your example is a bit extreme. Hitler and his actions were morally wrong. A better example might be that we should all become Republicans because George Bush is President, or alternatively, we should all become Democrats because the Democrats just took over the Congress. Being a Nazi is morally wrong, being a Republican or a Democrat is not. That said, carry on.
KingODuckingham 29/Dec/2006 at 06:53 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
The Nav:Shameless.   And believe it or not, I did consider that analogy. But the fact is, people don’t change their views like that either...if they did, one party would have won the first time and there would be no more switches back and forth. The reason is because people do not change their moral convictions (For yes, Democrats and Republicans DO differ on many points, morally) despite what their leaders may think.
Arthur Weasley 29/Dec/2006 at 07:01 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002

These geopolitical debates are interesting.  However, on the local level are impractical.  

KingODuckingham - Actually that is what many people did in  Germany from 1933-45.  Many became Nazi’s, and the majority of the population at least supported the Nazi Party during the war for their own safety.  Anyone found conspiring against the Nazi’s risked their lives, their families lives and their friends lives.  The July 20 Plot to Kill Hitler by Colonel Stauffenberg was ruthlessly supressed with over 5,000 people executed (and maybe only 2,000 actually involved in the plot).

Unfortunately, local areas have their own local rich people who make most of the laws, customs and traditions.  Gollum was expelled from his Hobbit Hole probably for being too nosy and obnoxious with the knowledge he gained from using the Ring.  If he were the rich one he would have been called "eccentric," and accepted.  I have seen what power, wealth and local clout can do. 

KingODuckingham 29/Dec/2006 at 07:06 PM
Grey Counsellor of Isengard Points: 15053 Posts: 15390 Joined: 27/Aug/2006
Darth: Actually that is what many people did in Germany from 1933-45. Many became Nazi’s, and the majority of the population at least supported the Nazi Party during the war for their own safety. Anyone found conspiring against the Nazi’s risked their lives, their families lives and their friends lives And my question is, whose example ought we to follow? Those who risked their lives to stand for what they believed in, or those who allowed their will to be bent to Hitler’s because they feared his power? Because you had said:

hoever has the Gold makes the rules, we might as well admit that and glorify it.

That seems to place you in the latter camp, and I am attempting to find out if you really believe that.
Oin 29/Dec/2006 at 08:16 PM
Architect of Erebor Points: 11372 Posts: 8807 Joined: 14/Feb/2004

Darth: Your conclusion that our views are similar is wrong in one aspect: you base your thesis on the fact that Gollum is the destroyer of the Ring, and I do not believe that that is the case.

So as you say, if Eru is the only one "who does any destroying and saving," then would not Gollum had to have been an agent of Eru placed to fulfill cosmic destiny? 

No, this isn’t the case - the reason being that Eru did not dictate Gollum’s actions in Mt. Doom until he decided to push Gollum over the edge, so to speak. Gollum is a Man, and he had free will - therefore, all of his actions up to and including when he took the Ring were due to his free will and the Logic of the Story. In other words, Gollum’s actions were wholly as a result of what he himself wanted, not what Eru had designed. They may have gotten the same end result Eru wanted, but it was his own choices that got him to this end, not some grand plan from Eru. Did Gollum destroy the Ring? No - he just happened to be carrying it at the time Eru destroyed it. The destruction of the Ring was, according to Tolkien, a "miracle" - or Middle-Earth’s rough equivalent of it - a direct intervention of Eru. Gollum did not destroy the Ring, rather he was the bearer of the Ring at the time that Eru took a direct hand and destroyed it. That’s where we differ.

Arthur Weasley 29/Dec/2006 at 08:19 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
KingODuckingham - Each situation is different and perhaps my mood is more apprehensive than usual.  However, I often wonder how my life might have been changed had I conformed more to what bosses wanted me to be rather than fighting the good fight for whatI believed to be right.  This "greyness," as opposed to Black or white comes with time, experience and regrets as well as triumphs.  For the right job at the right salary with a chance to fulfil personal goals of spouse and family, I might take more chances or "delay" my principles.  Let us pray that I do not have too.  We really should get back to Gollum now.   
Arthur Weasley 31/Dec/2006 at 12:37 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
As we approach the birth of the New Plaza (NP).  It is my sincerest hope that this thread will continue in Advanced Lore and that we can all debate and discuss points about Gollum being the "Unwitting Savior" of Middle Earth.  Whatever happens, I wish to thank everyone for participating here and the Powers of Valinor who ennobled this thread to Advanced Lore.  After the birth of the NP, I have some detailed comments from the Materials on Gollum presented in the HoME book "Return of the Shadow."  Happy New Year and NP to all!!  
Chris the swift 01/Jan/2007 at 06:10 PM
Apprentice of Isengard Points: 43 Posts: 27 Joined: 03/Dec/2006
hey congrats on the new rank I still have trouble with that 
Arthur Weasley 01/Jan/2007 at 07:13 PM
Banned Points: 4289 Posts: 3987 Joined: 29/Nov/2002
Thank you Chris the Swift!!  Happy New Year!!  I have every intention of continuing with this thread after the New Plaza Changeover tomorrow.  Lately I have been reading the History of Middle Earth Volume "The Return of the Shadow."  Would you believe Tolkien originally intended that Gollum sincerely WANT to give the One Ring to Bilbo since he would have been so sick to death of it?  This alternative to Gollum really gets me wondering why Tolkien later villified him?