Nice Master :(

[Faramond]

Great post, Faramond! I really love this:

Free will is a partnership between a person and God, and here Sam, whether he knows it or not, is working in partnership with Eru.

Yes, Sam does eventually transcend his own character flaw, and shows Mercy to Gollum. As Tolkien points out (I'm not going to quote the letter yet again -- look it up if you want to ) it is too late to save Gollum; his moment of possible redemption has come and gone. But it is not too late to save the quest. If Sam had not let Gollum go at that moment on the slopes of Mt. Doom, then the quest would have failed at the end, because Gollum would not have been there to be the instrument of "fate" that allows the quest to succeed, despite Frodo's inevitable failure at the end.

But Sam isn't saving the quest! Yes, in hindsight, we see that he does, but he surely can't know that. The reasonable belief of Sam at the time must be that Gollum can only do harm from now on, and that killing him is the only safe thing.

I understand what you mean when you ( and Tolkien! ) say that Gollum is beyond redemption at this point. It's really impossible to put together a reasonable chain of events that leads to anything like his redemption. But ... I think we are asked to still act as if he is redeemable. This is very hard, of course. But Sam is asked to act as if he is redeemable in the sense that he is placed in a position to deliver judgement onto Gollum, and he does not deliver judgement.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, I agree.

[Jnyusa]

Wonderful thread! I can't contribute anything right now but hope to do so in a few days.

Jn

[Athrabeth]

Faramond, your posts in this thread are really helping me get something sorted out about my thoughts on Free Will that has needed sorting out for some time now. It's still just out of my reach at the moment, still somewhat elusive.......but I think I can feel the dawn approaching.

Thanks.

I think I'll read through everyone's contributions again before stepping into the discussion. There is much to consider.

And as always, Voronwë for taking the lead.

[Alatar]

I think we are asked to still act as if he is redeemable. This is very hard, of course. But Sam is asked to act as if he is redeemable in the sense that he is placed in a position to deliver judgement onto Gollum, and he does not deliver judgement.

I agree with most of what you said, but not this. To my mind, Sam lets Gollum go, not because he believes him redeemable but because he does not have the heart to kill him in cold blood. He says "I don't trust you, not as far as I could kick you" and means it. He still does not see Gollum as redeemable, but he is unable to "mete out death and judgement". It may be mercy after a fashion, but its born out of pity and disgust, not a belief in the possibility of redemption.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

If Tolkien saw this episode, of Sam misinterpreting Sméagol's compassion, as significant then given his profound insight then so should we.
I had for a while taken the hinge of the story to be Sam's song in the tower of Cirith Ungol. Perhaps Sam's rejection of Sméagol's repentance was the knife edge and his action in the Pass of Cirith Ungol and his rejection of blank despair in the Tower was his recompence for that mistake.

[Teremia]

Sam's obliviousness to the possibility of Gollum's redemption -- that very moment you've picked out, V -- has always been one of the most painful places in the book for me.

I find it a bit hard to discuss the scene in terms of "free will" because I can't forget that these are characters, and unlike our universe, where the presence of an Eru remains entirely mysterious to us, we do know that Middle Earth has its author. Tolkien couldn't really afford to save Gollum, for artistic reasons. That alone makes this tragedy different from the tragedies that surround us in real life. (I'm not usually forced out of the frame this way, but that scene does push me in that direction. Obviously, it wouldn't be any fun at all to keep leaping out to Narrative Necessity as the explanation for all the subtle and fascinating things in a story!)

Sam pays a high price for this moment of blindness: Frodo's despair and his leaving Middle Earth. Because Sam could not admit Gollum's possible redemption, Frodo cannot be redeemed (in M-E), and that's a terrible loss for Sam, as we know.

[Sassafras]

I think we are asked to still act as if he is redeemable. This is very hard, of course. But Sam is asked to act as if he is redeemable in the sense that he is placed in a position to deliver judgement onto Gollum, and he does not deliver judgement.

I agree with most of what you said, but not this. To my mind, Sam lets Gollum go, not because he believes him redeemable but because he does not have the heart to kill him in cold blood. He says "I don't trust you, not as far as I could kick you" and means it. He still does not see Gollum as redeemable, but he is unable to "mete out death and judgement". It may be mercy after a fashion, but its born out of pity and disgust, not a belief in the possibility of redemption.

Yes. I agree.

This interpretation of the motive(s) behind Sam letting Gollum go makes more sense, and is more reasonable, than any other put forward in this thread.

Just sayin'

[Impenitent]

Let us also not forget that Sam on Mt Doom has some insight into Gollum's complete enslavement to the Ring, an insight that he did not possess at the time when Tolkien showed us what Gollum could have been had redemption been possible.

In between those two incidents, Sam became a Ring-bearer.

He spared Gollum's life for many reasons, IMO: because he could not kill such a pitiable, broken, enslaved thing in cold blood; because Sam himself was exhausted and drained at the very end; and because he himself had stepped into Gollum's shoes for that brief time and felt the pull of the Ring.

I still believe, btw, that redemption for Gollum was not possible - not only because of the narrative necessity but because I believe that this is the case in life itself. It's a cold, bleak view perhaps, and antithetical to the christian view (the Jewish view too, I think) but that's my view.

Gollum, by the instrument of the Ring, had all ties to his humanity ripped from him. He could not go back, not in so sudden a leap of compassion as that scene implied. I do not discount the possibility if time had been available - much time, much care, much love, much selflessness on the part of others. And primarily, Gollum - Sméagol, would have been responsible for his own turning. Redemption requires ones own volition, which implies free will. Gollum's will had been swallowed by the Ring.

[truehobbit]

Oh dear. I think this post is going to be very confusing. I hope for your patience.

I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite; the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himslef together -- and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo

I'm afraid I think that's still suicide.
I read a bit of the letter in context, and I saw no evaluation given by Tolkien to either this ending, or where he suggests the idea of Frodo casting himself into the abyss. To my mind, this kind of ending would taint the liberation enormously! Even if done with the best intentions, to destroy the Ring, in Frodo's case, or the insight into the Ring and wish to do something good for the beloved master, as in Gollum's case - I think to just kill yourself to overcome some evil is to commit a grave sin (in Catholic thinking) to counteract another great sin - and two evils do not make one good.

As to the part where Tolkien talks about Frodo seeing himself as a failure: that's part of a very complex idea. Tolkien does not say that Frodo just realised he had failed after all, but that his seeing himself as a failure was the result of his being touched by an evil desire for greatness.

I also think that the alternative ending Tolkien plays out in this letter is a very rough sketch indeed!
If Gollum had been redeemed and the author does not want Frodo to cast himself into the abyss, he still has to have Gollum get the Ring somehow! In this letter, Tolkien comes up with a rough thought that due to the lasting influence of the Ring, he would somehow have stolen it - how and when and where remain unexplained.

To my mind, Tolkien is not really explaining a situation here, he's doing a brainstorming on alternative endings.

What (I think) I want to say is that: a) none of the alternative endings was really thought out enough to help us understand the real situation
b) even if you take the alternative with Gollum jumping into the abyss with the Ring as workable, you'd not be rid of Frodo getting touched by evil through his long contact with it. He'd have had the Ring stolen from him by Gollum! Isn't that failing just as badly?
In his desire to be "great", he would have felt he failed just as much as in the actual version of the story.

Tolkien presents us with a series of failures. He repeats over and over the very Christian message that we can succeed in spite of our inevitable failures. There are so many disappointments; Bilbo’s repeated inability to free himself of the Ring; Aragorn’s failure to protect Frodo; Gandalf’s failure to lead the Fellowship, a sign that all of Eru’s creations have limitations; the disbanding of the Fellowship; Boromir’s desire for the Ring.

It is helpful to contrast the types and severity of weakness. Frodo’s failure is absolute. Boromir’s is of noble intent. There are several between these 2 ends of the spectrum. For Aragorn’s failure to lead, when was the correct moment for him to take his rightful place, if ever? Success depends on these failures, like Éowyn’s failure to follow her father’s wish leading to the downfall of the Wiki. For all, there is redemption, but to be redeemed you must first fail, and in the Christian view we are crippled from the beginning with original sin, which gives us all a chance to be redeemed.

I think that's an excellent insight, Idylle!
Just quoting it because I'm so thrilled with it!

As to the scene itself, which I've now re-read:

Yes, it's very sad, but I don't see a chance for redemption here.
I remember we discussed this in Frodo's kitchen once, and people there also thought Sam ruined Gollum's chance, so I guess I'm pretty much alone with my take on that, but all I see here is a sudden revelation of Gollum's "humanity".
I think this is very necessary at this point in the story, because we are going to see the results of his betrayal in a few moments from that point! So, for the moral (for lack of a less abused word) of the story, I think it's necessary that we are reminded that Gollum is not some mindless monster but someone who still engages our pity!

Here's a point where I might be missing a plot detail again - an embarrassing habit. I'm not sure whether it's the movie that's confused me or whether it's in the book:
He does decide that Shelob should help him to get the Ring back, and he leads them to her lair.
He disappears for a while, just before the scene we are talking about.
Now, I get the impression that he's been away to alert Shelob to his plan - but is this confirmed in the book somehow? Or did he just lead them into the tunnel, knowing she would just find them there?

Because, if it's the former, then at this point he's just returned from his betrayal! Yes, for a fraction of time is sorry for it, but that wouldn't make the betrayal undone.
Or maybe (if the latter), his ominous "interior debate" was only about leading them into the tunnel and knowing what would in all likelihood happen there, and almost going back on his intention - in which case at least there's no previous betrayal, so maybe more chance for redemption.

Ok, if Sam had responded kindly, he might have changed his mind completely and tried to avert the Shelob episode.
But even though I agree that Sam's response is cruel, I don't see how it could have been otherwise under the circumstances - I don't see a "failure" on Sam's part in it, really.

[Impenitent]

...I think to just kill yourself to overcome some evil is to commit a grave sin (in Catholic thinking) to counteract another great sin - and two evils do not make one good.

This is not quite true; in Catholicism and many other faiths, to willingly die for some greater good - usually for one's faith, but sometimes also so that others may live - is called martyrdom and is honoured. Some martyrs become saints, after all. It is not as simple as equating the willingness to die with suicide. In fact, this is the opposite - suicide is not committed for the greater good but due to a skewed perspective (the usual exemptions here - those who are terminally ill or in perpetual pain...)

However, I do agree that the Sam/Gollum scene is not about potential redemption gone wrong but about demonstrating Gollum's humanity.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Hobby, I didn't find that post confusing at all. I thought it was very lucid and well put.

To answer your question, the text DOES make it clear that Gollum has been off plotting with Shelob. There are several statements in Shelob's Lair , the most explicit of which is: "So he thought in an inner chamber of his cunning, which he still hoped to hide from her, even when he had come to her again and had bowed low before her while his companions slept.

Still, it can't be doubted that to Tolkien himself, Gollum still had the possibility of being cured, and that had Sam not been so rough with him at that particular moment he would likely have done so. There are several references to this in Tolkien's letters, not just the one that I quoted. The earliest is in a letter to Christopher in January 1945 (letter 96, p. 110:

For myself, I was prob. most moved by Sam's disquisition on the seamless web of story, and by the scene when Frodo goes to sleep on his breast, and the tragedy of Gollum who at that moment came within a hair of repentance -- but for one rough word from Sam.

Over ten years later, he wrote in a letter to Houghton Mifflin (letter 165, p. 221):

I am most stirred by the sound of the horses of the Rohirrim at cockcrow; and most grieved by Gollum's failure (just) to repent when interrupted by Sam: this seems to me really like the real world in which the instruments of just retribution are seldom themselves just or holy; and the good are often stumbling blocks ... .

That last point is one that I really wanted to focus on when I first started this thread, but never really got to. This idea of the good being stumbling blocks, of good people doing bad things, not because they are bad, but because they are people, is very real, as Tolkien says. And I think the reason that scene is painful for some of us to read (and Teremia so wisely pointed out) is because many of see in Sam's failure to recognize Gollum's completely different tone and aspect (as Tolkien puts it in the 1963 letter 246 that quoted originally) a reflection of our own weaknesses and failures.

But the last quote that I have, from a 1956 letter to the editor of New Republic (letter 181, pp. 234-235) sheds the most light on Gollum himself. I quote it at length so that I don't have to go back and quote it again :

But at this point the 'salvation of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his precious pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly* (*Not quite 'certainly'. The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum over the brink, when about to repent.) betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end -- but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours -- since it is clear that he & Sam never concealed the precise course of events. Into the ultimate judgment upon Gollum I would not care to enuire. 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. 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 sort of thief before it crossed his path. Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths? A kind of answer cd. be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different! By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Sméagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost.

So, in Tolkien's mind, while Sam's jealousy (or 'clumsiness of fidelity') was certainly kept Gollum from repenting at that critical fulcrum moment, it was Gollum himself that was most to blame for not using his own free will to strengthen his own receptiveness to redemption.

I know that the author's own views on the meaning of his own work is not the only view on the subject that matters, and that people can have their own perfectly reasonable interpretations that don't agree with the author's own statements of his own intentions. However, speaking only for myself, I can not disregard such deep and clear statements by the author of what he meant the story to say. Of course, that is easy for me to say, because Tolkien's views really are reflective of my own (or my own views really are reflective of his). Imp and Hobby, I think your interpretations are perfectly reasonable and valid, but I also think that you have to agree that they contradict Tolkien's own explicit statements of what he intended.

[truehobbit]

...I think to just kill yourself to overcome some evil is to commit a grave sin (in Catholic thinking) to counteract another great sin - and two evils do not make one good.

This is not quite true; in Catholicism and many other faiths, to willingly die for some greater good - usually for one's faith, but sometimes also so that others may live - is called martyrdom and is honoured. Some martyrs become saints, after all. It is not as simple as equating the willingness to die with suicide. In fact, this is the opposite - suicide is not committed for the greater good but due to a skewed perspective (the usual exemptions here - those who are terminally ill or in perpetual pain...)

I couldn't tell for sure what the official Catholic position on such a case as Gollum or Frodo casting themselves into the abyss would be, but I think there's a big difference between being killed by others for your faith and killing yourself out of the desire to protect your faith!
Of course, martyrs don't resist their death, so I guess you could say they die willingly - but they don't seek it either, and I think that's very important! I think it's a great difference.
(I'm Catholic myself, but not so well versed in official teachings, I'm afraid - I guess Mith could help us out here, or QueenB.)

However, I do agree that the Sam/Gollum scene is not about potential redemption gone wrong but about demonstrating Gollum's humanity.

Thanks, good to hear someone agree!

Edited to add: ooh, thanks for the reply, Voronwë - hadn't seen it before I started this one! I already briefly stole this one from my bedtime, so I can't do justice to yours right now, but will ASAP!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As you can see, we crossed-posted.

[truehobbit]

At the exact same minute! Cool!

(I'm afraid I'm already getting a bit cross-eyed with tiredness - LOL - must.tear.myself.away! )



GRrr, what's the code for our newest smiley? I'll fix it tomorrow!

[MithLuin]

<bows> Seemingly, I come when called .

Hobby, the Kitchen Ladies did not condemn Sam fully. IIRC, they took the tail end of the last quote of Voronwë to heart:

By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Sméagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost.

Again, this is remembering a conversation I haven't read in over a year, but I am fairly certain they decided that Gollum was unlikely to truly repent at that point. It was his last chance, he'd already betrayed them, and Sam's sharp word was merely the harsh truth (the orcs Sam overhears call Gollum Shelob's "sneak"). Yes, if Gollum had acted differently from the Morannon, he would have had a chance here. But he didn't. He plotted all along the way...and never forgave Frodo for betraying him to Faramir's men.

This scene is a repentance-that-might-have-been. But, the "what-if" depends on different actions by all three of them. Gollum to nurture the goodness that Frodo is trying to teach him (and stop feeding his companions to nasty giant spiders), Sam to not speak sharply and treat Gollum with suspicion...and Frodo to have retained Gollum's trust through the whole Forbidden Pool fiasco. [In a sense, Faramir is just as much to blame as Sam, as far as creating misunderstandings go].

Sam was a stumbling block, yes...but it isn't all his fault. As Tolkien explains in numerous places, yes, this was a mistake on Sam's part - his jealousy makes him do the wrong thing. But, that doesn't make him solely to blame for Gollum's failure to repent.

As for the other issue.... suicide is gravely wrong (no exceptions). Martyrdom is highly exalted. The difference? In suicide, you take your own life in despair, not trusting in God or his plans. Suicide tends to have the blasphemous philosophy "better hell than this." Martyrdom is the exact opposite. It says, "better death and torture than hell." You are only a martyr if someone asks you to choose between death and faith. In other words, you have to be killed for your faith, or specifically, for refusing to renounce your faith. (I realize the term is used more loosely to refer to anyone who dies for a cause). The willingness to give up your life to save someone else's is also highly esteemed. It isn't a Star Trek balance issue ("The good of the many outweighs the good of the few...or of the one"). It is an matter of valuing someone else enough to give everything out of love. The first example that comes to my mind is St. Maximillian Kolbe. He was a prisoner at Aushwitz (eek! can't spell), and when one prisoner escaped, the Nazi guards selected ten men to be starved to death. One of the men who was selected started crying about his wife and kids. Maximillian Kolbe (a Franciscan priest) stepped forward and volunteered to take his place. The Nazis took him up on this. The man who was spared survived the war (in fact, I think he may still be alive...he was at least alive in my life time). Max Kolbe (and the other 9 men) died; Fr. Kolbe was later canonized a saint. Biblically, "greater love has no man than this: to lay down his life for a friend."

If I read Tolkien's 'alternative ending' correctly, Gollum would have realized 1) the Ring must be destroyed, and 2) I can't be parted from the Ring. This would be different from Maedhros flinging himself in the fiery chasm in despair...but I'm not sure how different. I think it could be viewed as self-sacrifice, which is generally commendable. Taking a deadly risk to save the day is a form of heroism. In this case, there is no chance of survival, but the motivation still seems to be to save the day. Even so, I think Gollum's actions would remain morally ambiguous - I would hesitate to judge.

The really interesting part is that everything happens exactly the same in the alternative - except that Gollum has good motives rather than evil ones.


And now I too must go to sleep!

[Athrabeth]

I've only been able to put together a response to one small fragment of this discussion.......soooo much to think about.

Gollum, by the instrument of the Ring, had all ties to his humanity ripped from him. He could not go back, not in so sudden a leap of compassion as that scene implied. I do not discount the possibility if time had been available - much time, much care, much love, much selflessness on the part of others. And primarily, Gollum - Sméagol, would have been responsible for his own turning. Redemption requires ones own volition, which implies free will. Gollum's will had been swallowed by the Ring.

I think if Gollum had had all ties to his humanity ripped from him BEFORE he found Frodo and Sam asleep on the stairs it would have been quite impossible for him to reach towards Frodo with such tenderness, such longing. It's a moment of profound recognition, really. I don't think Sméagol has recognized himself as "human" for untold years. He can't even refer to himself in the first person. The only "others" in his life have been himself - Gollum - and the Ring, alone and separate from all other thought and touch and feeling. But in this fleeting moment, he sees himself as part of something other than his own wicked, isolated ego. He recognizes the "otherness" in Frodo as something that's not separate from himself, but rather as something that is himself. It's why I think Tolkien describes him at this moment of clarity as "an old, weary hobbit". Seeing himself in Frodo, seeing Frodo in himself, Gollum, for an instant, recognizes his own tenuous and fragile humanity reflected in his worn and weary master. And I'll take that thought even further.........for a blink of time, I believe he is profoundly touched by the love between the two hobbits, reflected in their sleeping pose, and that this recognition of love shared and love given from one to another awakens a flash of deep, long-denied yearning to somehow touch, to FEEL, this most blessed and "precious" of gifts.

I guess I also don't believe that all this happens in isolation on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol. I think that it's very much tied to Frodo's offer of mercy in the Emyn Muil. To my mind, it seems.......well......almost cruel to consider Frodo's mercy solely as his ticket to being "saved" and Gollum's ticket to being an instrument of doom. Surely there is more room in the design of Eru than is found on that narrow path. I absolutely agree with Voronwë that Gandalf's words about the possibility of Gollum's "cure" are weighted with meaning. This is the possibility that Frodo's mercy provides. This recognition by Frodo, of Gollum as "the other in himself", which I believe lies at the centre of such compassion and empathy, comes full circle in the scene on the stairs. It is a deeply mysterious and wondrous possibility that for one brief moment is realized before it is lost forever. When it has passed, and Gollum has made his choice to shut his heart, he betrays not only Frodo, but himself as well. And it is then, I think, that the Ring finally and wholly "swallows" him.

I don't think any character that Tolkien created truly "falls" finally and absolutely, until they lose, without hope of retrieval, their sense of connection to "the other", their ability to see themselves as part of a greater whole. Melkor, Sauron, Fëanor, Saruman......all these mighty wills and minds become, in their own way, as wretchedly isolated and "dehumanized" (for lack of a better word) as this little creature, Gollum - incapable of offering mercy, incapable of accepting it, and incapable of understanding any who do. "The illusion of separateness is the foundation of all human suffering" is a quote from a Buddhist monk that I read recently. I very much believe that the core of that idea runs through all of Tolkien's works, but it is on the stairs of Cirith Ungol that it touches us most deeply.

[Cerin]

And I think the reason that scene is painful for some of us to read (and Teremia so wisely pointed out) is because many of see in Sam's failure to recognize Gollum's completely different tone and aspect (as Tolkien puts it in the 1963 letter 246 that quoted originally) a reflection of our own weaknesses and failures.

Yes, I think this is very true. Sam's failing is the kind of failing all of us demonstrate day in and day out in a thoughtless or harsh word or failure to notice someone else's frame of mind because we are so absorbed in our own reality.

So, in Tolkien's mind, while Sam's jealousy (or 'clumsiness of fidelity') was certainly kept Gollum from repenting at that critical fulcrum moment, it was Gollum himself that was most to blame for not using his own free will to strengthen his own receptiveness to redemption.

That was very helpful.

Wonderful insights, everyone!

[MithLuin]

Poking around the Frodo's Kitchen threads, I found:

So to come back to Gollum: Frodo does not like Gollum and he does not love him either. He only starts “seeing” him through a different prism, the moment he realises he is a tormented twisted soul under the influence of the Ring. His experience with the Ring has a lot to do with his understanding of Gollum. Suddenly the words Gandalf had told him and that he wanted to understand ( but could only do that in an” intellectual” way, not with his heart) started taking their full meaning. So this is the “pity” Gandalf was talking about. This strange feeling he was now having in his heart, now that Gollum was not just a legend of his childhood but a disfigured creature whimpering in front of his eyes. All that he knows in his mind becomes a reality in his heart, at this single moment when he realises that he can’t hate, condemn or kill Gollum.

From then on Frodo keeps his eyes open as far as Gollum is concerned. His decision to take Gollum as guide or to follow him in the alternative road he proposes does not come at the spur of the moment ( contrary to what is shown in the movie due to lack of time) or because he suddenly thinks Gollum is nice or trustworthy. Frodo comes to that decision after deep thought where all the data he has in his hands are scrutinised, again and again. He uses Gollum, his knowledge and motivations to serve his goal which is always the central point of his thoughts.

At the same time Frodo is not naïve as far as Gollum’s motivations go. He knows that Gollum is under the influence of the Ring, he knows that Gollum might even kill them. On the other hand, he does not believe that Gollum is bad to the core. He does believe there is always time for redemption but I don’t think that this interferes with his judgement. Frodo does not trust Gollum more that Sam does. He just refuses to accept that Gollum is a priori evil. I suspect that his close encounter with evil through the Ring, tells him that there is nothing a priori evil but there is certainly corruption that can turn anything into evil. I also think Frodo is reluctant to judge Gollum or his past actions. He knows that Gollum did evil things but at the same time he somehow does not think it is his right to judge or condemn him. His duty is just to see Gollum as a potentially redeemable creature.

‘Sméagol,(…), I will trust you once more. Indeed it seems that I must do so, and that it is my fate to receive help from you, where I least looked for it, and your fate to help me whom you long pursued with evil purpose. So far you have deserved well of me and have kept your promise truly. (…) May the third time prove the best! But I warn you, Sméagol, you are in danger.’…and then he goes on warning him of his lethal danger if he will ever try taking the Ring.

So in my opinion, all of Frodo’s choices, as far as Gollum is concerned, are the product of complex thoughts. He tries to reconcile different ( and often contradicting ) things, like his deeper feelings( he would love to never see Gollum ever again ), his knowledge of what Gollum was and might be again( a murderer not to be trusted ), his knew understanding of the complexity of human nature and his feelings of true pity that derive from that, and above all his absolute need to go on with his quest the best possible way , in which need taking Gollum with him was the best possible alternative. Hmmm…I can’t see much fatalism in this.

September 20, 2003

I dunno, Jewel, if BookSam does display jealousy of Gollum (as distinct from well founded distrust and dislike), I think it is very minor. But in the movie, as with everything else, PJ has cranked up the animosity and the jealousy. We saw it in TTT during the stewed coney scene. MovieSam seems jealous of and disgusted with Gollum for catching the coneys for Frodo. But BookSam was the one who got him to do it, who got Gollum involved in the cooking of the stew, and who even wanted to share the leftovers with him. As far as I can recall there isn’t a single moment in the movie when Sam displays a shred of compassion or friendliness to Gollum. Magpie commented a while ago on how taken aback she was that MovieSam yanked Gollum off his feet by the rope when Gollum was trying to climb up on the rock. I was, too – that’s not Sam to me. Even if he didn’t like Gollum, still BookSam talked to him a lot – talked, not growled – for example, about the oliphaunts (even reciting the poem to him). And he even wanted to bring Gollum into his wonderful conversation with Frodo about “tales” on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol – wondering if he thought himself a villain or a hero. MovieSam looks daggers at Gollum whenever he is in range.

Sept. 30, 2003

Yeah, I was wrong last week when I implied that Frodo thought Gollum redeemable, but at the very least I think Frodo wanted Sam and Gollum to at least tolerate each other. I'm thinking of the scene on the steps of Cirith Ungol, when Frodo tells Gollum not to take hard names to himself whether they are given or not because it is unwise, but he's looking at Sam when he says it. A bit parental I always think; 'you two try to get along for five minutes, please.' ...
I think Sam did make an effort, though maybe with more than a bit of suspiscion intermingled, to interact positively with Gollum. In "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit" for example, he attempts to engage Gollum in a transaction regarding food, and what but be more hobbity . But Gollum can't even meet Sam on this most basic level, sputtering the whole time about ruining the nice rabbits with cooking and nasty herbs, and so on.

I'm not meaning to imply that anyone has said otherwise, but Sam was no idiot. As supsiscious as he was of Gollum, he would also have realized that if he could find some way to relate to Sméagol at least, he could sort of have him in his and Frodo's camp. I think that is exactly what he was attempting in the "rabbit" sequence; trying to find a way, most basic of all to him, to understand and be understood by the creature. I suppose we get a bit of that in the movie with the food discussion.

Oct. 7, 2003

As for me, I have always had a grudge against Gollum for people even imagining that he and Frodo were that much alike. Good grief! Sméagol was a murderer in the beginning, and his time with the Ring aggravated his evil tendencies and imprisoned his better ones. Frodo did not seek the Ring, did not want it, did not murder to get it and only keeps it to get rid of it. The Ring is absolutely incapable of driving Frodo to evil until he is incapacitated by captivity and brutality. Then he gives in momentarily, is much horrified by it, and spends the rest of his time fighting mostly successfully to contain the evil within himself.
Frodo's dealings with Gollum's avarice and hatred are partly what drive Frodo into weakness where the Ring is concerned. Yes, Gollum is eventually used to help rid Frodo of the Ring, and by then, it has its claws so deep into Frodo that it maims him for life (inwardly and outwardly), but Gollum is evil. Evil!
Gollum leads them to Shelob and hides in a corner while she makes sport of them! Man, that makes me boil!
Frodo pities Gollum, and we should as well...I suppose. But I do it only with both hands tied behind my back and screaming bloody murder all the way. Even had Sméagol been a different sort of person, it would have driven him to evil in the end. But that doesn't mean that Frodo would ever be truly like Gollum. Not as long as Frodo had the capacity of choosing and of rational thought.

Sept. 11, 2003

It is important to realize that Sam did not pity Gollum at ALL until he himself had borne the Ring and become aware of its full power.

I don’t think that’s entirely true, Jewel. Sure, Sam didn’t trust Gollum, and he let him know it, too. But I think deep down its goes against Sam’s grain to dislike folk, and unless he’s pushed by dire need, his words are going to be much harsher than his actions – and his feelings.

For example, when Frodo and Sam first capture Gollum and Sam puts the rope around his leg he says “You nasty treacherous creature. It’s round your neck this rope ought to go, and a tight noose too.” But when Frodo checks the rope after Gollum’s complaints he finds that it was not too tight, indeed hardly tight enough. Sam was gentler than his words. I think that’s a demonstration of some pity by Sam.

The first time Sam falls asleep when he had said he would guard Frodo from Gollum (in The Passage of the Marshes) and awakes to find them both ”alive and unthrottled” this is how he thinks: ”Poor wretch!” he said half remorsefully. And again, when Gollum comes back :

His fingers and face were soiled with black mud. He was still chewing and slavering. What he was chewing they did not like to ask or think.

‘Worms or beetles or something slimy out of holes, thought Sam. ‘Brr! The nasty creature; the poor wretch.”

In the book Sam does not simply despise Gollum as he does in the movie. In the book Sam recites the oliphaunt poem to Gollum and explains to Gollum why he asked him about them, he engages Gollum as nicely as he can to get food (ie: the coneys) for Frodo’s breakfast, and he is the one who thinks to share with Gollum when there is some left over. When Frodo and Sam have their “tales” chat on the stairs of Cirith Ungol it is Sam who thinks to call to Gollum and ask him ”would you like to be the hero”. Finally, when he yells at Gollum for “pawing at his Master”, he does apologize and feel remorse.

So I think Sam does pity Gollum, but it takes his own brief possession of the Ring for Sam to truly understand how tortured Gollum had been, and to stop himself from killing him for trying to murder his master (and himself).

Sept. 11, 2003


Return to Frodo's Kitchen: Now serving Second Breakfast

I cannot wade through everything (and certainly not the 2000 posts of the original thread!), but I think that the pertinent parts of the discussion occured on the first 7 pages of this thread. But of course, much of the discussion revolved around anticipation of the third movie.

[Impenitent]

I remember that conversation! Frodo's kitchen cooked up some gems.