Oh dear. I think this post is going to be very confusing. I hope for your patience.
Voronwë, quoting Tolkien wrote: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.
Idylle wrote: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.