In which the attempt is made to respond to three, no, four! posts.
Help.
Post One: Jnyusa.
Sass wrote:
And while I will agree with the indisputable fact that the author best knows his own work, given what can (occasionally) be perceived as the torturous effort to make all of the ducks line up in neat little rows (Orcs refuse to get in line! ) I have to wonder if he is still best qualified to comment upon it? To critique the morality of it . Once a literary work of art is completed and published and goes out into the wide, wide world, does it cease to wholly belong to the author or does it now enter the domain of its recipients, its readers?
Jn. wrote:
I don't know that it's a matter of ownership. In the cases of very good authors (and I believe Tolkien is one), it is more a matter of dialogue between writer and reader. With these books Tolkien opened a conversation with all of us, and I don't think he would himself discount the importance of readers telling back to him what he has said.
<snip>
Tolkien seems to have felt it necessary to give orthodox answers to questions about morality and redemption and so on. Whether his written answers are what his heart felt at the time of writing, we can't really know.
Okay. One last attempt. I deleted the last one because it was a total mess.
I was not clear. I did not mean ownership at all. What I did mean is more abstract. Goes something like this: Once the author has completed the work of writing the story and it is published, a different dynamic ensues. The meaning contained within the book has left the writer and is now the responsibility of the audience (reader).
The impressions are no longer guided by the author, they have been transferred to us, the receiver, as readers. What we think, how we receive the words, our interpretation of the book is now the only thing that is important. Responsibility of impression, of interpretation, of conceptualization has passed from the author to the audience, that is, to us.
The question I asked was me wondering if , firstly, that supposition is valid and secondly, assuming it is, does Tolkien continue with the moral authority to assign meaning now that “The End' has been written and his book has gone out into the world?
I suppose, on reflection, my question belongs in another realm entirely .... I just wanted to know if anyone thought it philosophically possible that the book now belongs to us and Tolkien is no longer responsible for interpretation. I was specifically considering the redemption of Gollum ..... but the question is a theoretical one, maybe a little silly and not terribly relevant. Consider it retracted.
It's just me amusing myself with a somewhat tenuous philosophical theory.
Post Two: Voronwë.
Voronwë wrote:
It is, of course, difficult to know how much credence to give Tolkien's after-the-fact comments about his work. He stated "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision.
I've wondered about this myself a fair bit. I'm curious what revisions there were (other than the remark T. made in Letters (?) that he went through the manuscript and assiduously removed all noticeable references to religion. I wonder if you dig through HoMe, CT ever notes which bits were later revised?
Post Three: Faramond.
Faramond wrote:
But-- Sass, I do not hope to convince you of anything, only to make you think.
Sass wrote:
See, the final deciding factor, I believe, is the plain fact that the Ring is too powerful for Gollum to resist in any way. Bilbo and Frodo are remarkable hobbits, their resistance a testament to integrity. What integrity has Gollum? Why, he has none.
Faramond answered:
Does Gollum really have no integrity? If we are talking of the virtue of integrity, then it is hard to argue that he does have any. But what if we look to a different meaning of integrity? The sense of being whole, integral, a person with will unfettered by compulsion. This meaning of integrity too speaks to Gollum's ability to resist the ring. Of course, he is bound tight by his compulsion to possess the ring, and he is nothing like whole, but I do not think his disintegration is total.
Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed--as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past.
Unless he could be cured. Alas! there is little hope of that for him. Yet not no hope. No, not though he possessed the Ring so long, almost as far back as he can remember
No fair introducing e-mail material! (I'm teasing)
Ah, okay, integrity. I disagree. No surprise there. I take it as applicable to the hobbits, that there is a certain degree of incorruptibility. Now, 'tis my opinion (as indeed all of this is) Gollum
is corrupted from the very second he laid eyes on the Ring.
“he used it to to find out secrets and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. He became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful.”
He did not casually fall into evil precipitated by discovering the advantage invisibility conferred upon him: he deliberately and methodically sought out ways in which to inflict hurt! It was intentional.
Is Gollum is the bad seed?
Faramond wrote:
Yet not no hope. Not no hope of what? A cure! Is a "cure" redemption? I think it is. Of course, Gandalf may be wrong. He is, I should think, wise concerning the characters in the story, but he may be safely disagreed with. Still, in arguing a matter such as this, I would rather have him on my side than not
Sass said:
Gollum has never even thought of the possibility of fighting the Ring's influence. Never considered it. From the moment he saw its seductive shine he fell into a black embrace; if anything he has welcomed its claim upon him. Encouraged it, even.
Faramond wrote:
He welcomed its claim upon him at the beginning, that is sure, and with murder, as you demonstrated elsewhere in your post. He welcomed its claim on him while he possessed it for so long as well. But that is not the whole story. I agree that Gollum never considered the possibility of fighting the Ring's influence, and yet he clearly did fight its influence! He did not always carry it. He went to a place where he would rarely need it. I do not believe that is "the reason" he went under the mountain, but I think it was mixed into the reasons why he left the world of light. He could never be rid of the ring, but he could have moments when he was apart from it. Finally, if Gollum had never resisted he would already have been a wraith, completely faded.
Certainly he had never "faded". He is thin and tough still. But the thing was eating up his mind, of course, and the torment had become almost unbearable.
He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.
Hoom. Well now, no sane person would risk an argument against Gandalf, would they? He certainly is amongst the wise, maybe the wisest in all in M-e save Elrond, but if you are using Gandalf's wisdom against me then I must return the favour,
“even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
You ask it yourself ….. could Gandalf be mistaken about Gollum? He could, you know. Not probable although it is possible.
Anyway: leaving aside the inequality of a debate between a mortal woman (moi) and a demi-angel maia (Gandalf): I want to address your contention of reasons for Gollum leaving the surface world of light and normalcy and delving deep for the safety under the mountain. I'm afraid the speculation that he chose to go underground being tantamount to fighting the Ring's influence because he would not need to always keep the Ring by him and could/would therefore be physically separated from it ......is just...... well...... not plausible.
Faramond said:
I have become fascinated with Gollum's choice to go under the mountain while holding the ring. I have come to think of it as Gollum's way of escaping some of the evil of the ring. He clearly did not consciously think of it in that way, but that was the effect it had. He rarely wore it, and did nothing worse than eat goblins ( which is, I suppose wrong ) until he met Bilbo, and intended in his heart to kill him. But if the mountain kept the ring at bay ( even as Gollum could never be rid of it ) the mountain also numbed him, removed him from light and sound and companionship and any hope of redemption. The ring made Gollum evil, but the mountain made him wretched. Of course, the ring did not make Gollum evil, it invited him to be evil, and he accepted.
Exactly so!
The seeds were already planted. All the Ring did was nurture those seeds into fullness. But it doesn't really matter how Gollum became evil, does it? I mean however the method by which he lost his humanity is, ultimately, of no consequence. The Ring does not make anybody do anything. Its genius lies in the ability to amplify the shards of blackness which live, to greater or lesser degree, in every soul. Gollum's soul was fertile ground for the Ring of Sauron; a veritable feast of malice. In direct contrast to the barren soil of Bilbo, Frodo and Sam; the Ring found no such welcome there and it proved a mighty struggle as we know.
First of all, even before the Ring gave its first gift ,
“ he was interested in roots <snip>
he ceased to look up <snip>
his head and his eyes were downward.” His focus was directed toward dark things under the ground. Now, he had the Ring, had killed to possess it; used it to wreck havoc and malice upon his society and his kin ...... and he delighted in the act of harming, hurting. Now he is ready to receive the second gift that the Ring has to give: he is ostracized, cast out, cast off, banished. Poor misbegotten Gollum, weeping for the hardness of a world which has shunned him, misunderstood, choked on tears of self-pity he worms his way down under the mountain so he may escape the light of the sun and revel in self-inflicted misery. I find no evidence of resistance. What I do find is a wretched, hateful, cruel little monster who has embraced evil and applied his wrinkled little brain into devising new harms and apparently (
weeping a little for the hardness of the world) does not really understand the reason he is shunned. Add delusional thinking to (innate?)paranoia you end up with Gollum personalizing the Sun, he shakes his fist at her as though she deliberately shines upon HIM, and thinks to rectify his loneliness in the roots of the mountain. What Gollum really does is this: he goes to earth like an animal going in to hiding to escape an enemy.
An integral aspect of the Ring, I believe, is its facility for what we call addiction. I don't know who here has any awareness of it but it is, finally, so compelling to mind, body and soul, that there is no space for anything else. Addiction is circular, (the worm ourboros) consuming everything that is not itself. Eventually it will consume even itself and the result is death. Of spirit and then of body. It is more powerful than love. Admittedly, this is not the appropriate setting for true confessions and I confess solely to give substance to my assertions but I must tell you that I understand addiction. I should. I lived it for over twenty years. If it's true that the compulsion the Ring exerts is addictive in any way then Gollum is never able to put it aside for any measurable time, not even for convenience of safe-keeping. Not physically, not psychically. The mountain can not excuse him the burden of the Ring, nor permit escape, nor substitute one lesser power for the stronger other. The Ring does not let go and besides,
"He had no will left in the matter." Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide .................
Not using the Ring while underground is hardly a convincing argument, Faramond. It is dark. There are no human enemies and most likely few of any species. What factual knowledge does Gollum have of the Ring? Invisibility, yes, very useful for sneaking up on unsuspecting hobbits and taking them unawares. It belongs to him, it is his precious, this he knows. That he belongs to the Ring is beyond his intellectual abilities. What I wonder is if the Ring needs a place to hide while Sauron re-invigorates and gathers new strength to himself? (But that's a matter for a different post)
The third gift is a black heart and the fourth is eternal servitude.
All the long aeons that Gollum spends crawling beneath the mountains of Middle-earth give him years to fester and to cement blackness into his heart. What integrity? How resist? He lays it to one side in a safe hiding place and perhaps one of the reasons is because with centuries passing he no longer has clothes with stable pockets! He has no chain on which to thread the Ring, no little bag to put it in, perhaps the most secure place of all is a niche in the rock or a ledge in the wall. I don't know but there are a myriad causes for not carrying the Ring with him constantly ….. an unspoken, unthoughtful resistance need not be one of them. Although I do not think he is ever parted from his precious for very long.
Actually, your final point is compelling: Had he not resisted he would have been a wraith, completely faded.
I don't know. Hobbits are habitually long-lived. One hundred years is quite common. Gollum had the Ring for five centuries. We know that it gave a stretched life
“spread too thin” Bilbo said. You attribute his not-wraithness to lack of physical proximity to the Ring. I don't. Mostly because I honestly doubt, as I said, that he and the Ring were apart for more than small amounts of time.
“He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.” said Gandalf.
Faramond wrote:
I do not think Gollum's association with Frodo could ever have freed him of the ring. But I do think it was by degrees freeing him of the mountain, freeing him of his wretchedness, freeing him of the lightless eons of loneliness he spent in the dark. For a moment, on the stairs of Cirith Ungol, the montain was gone, completely gone. That is why that moment is so beautiful. All that weight, gone. Yes, the ring is still there. It would always be there. And he would have to find a way to live with it. And yet he could not live with it. This is a riddle that is hard to answer. Where do you find redemption there?
You know my answer: I find no redemption there. Nor can I make myself believe that the mountain ( symbolic of Gollum's past, his legacy) ever really disappeared from his psyche. No, not even on the stairs of Cirith Ungol in spite of the almost unbearable poignancy of that transitory glimmer which oh so briefly washed into and over and out of Gollum's heart. It was not enough. And oddly, it makes me sad to know that he really was doomed.
Faramond wrote:
I think the answer is that you tell the truth. About everything. Including the ring. And this is my answer to the question of redemption --- that it is a kind of truth. The hardest kind of all to speak, the truth about yourself. And I think that if Gollum truly understood the truth about the ring and what he had allowed it to do to him he would have thrown himself in with it. And I think such a thing was possible ( not likely ) if he was free of the mountain. I think Tolkien's answer is exactly right.
Perhaps. One would like to think so. But I do not think Gollum was capable of truth. Especially not truth which requires rigorous self examination. Think on it, if he deluded himself about the murder of Déagol, how less likely is it that he would delude himself about what he truly was? How could he live with the stealing babies from cradles? I will admit I find it next to impossible to separate the sin from sinner.
Post Four: axordil.
Ax wrote:
I'm starting to think of his reclaiming of the Ring in the Sammath Naur as a semi-deliberate OD. The naked desire to get the Ring back overwhelms him there, as it must, but at some level, must he not still know he's dooming himself by having it, that he cannot possibly leave the Cracks alive?
Is there enough 'hobbit' left of him to know anything besides the Ring in his hand?
Ax continued:
Thus the dance on the precipice, of pure self-destructive glee, and the wail of "Precious" as the issue is resolved. I'm pretty sure he's incapable of considering his situation consciously at that point, but if there is a shred of the self-loathing Sméagol left, it doesn't take much subconscious effort to cavort just a little more than would normally be advisable in an active volcano...
No. Sadly, I don't think so. It would be poetic, in a way, if self-loathing was still a factor in his plunge into the fire. 'Though All my eyes can see, is Gollum (not Sméagol), transmogrified by the Ring. Nothing else.
Yes to both! Or I don't understand what you're getting at.
But Tolkien clearly intends with his description of Gollum's behavior to show him taking these very small positive steps of being able to relate to the hobbits on a more human level ( relative comparisons are important here, because it is on nothing like a healthy human level ) than what he was capable previously. And when Gollum's behavior becomes more outwardly servile but also more self-serving and deceitful Tolkien clearly describes that too. The first few small steps of a cure begin, and then there are setbacks. To me Tolkien's descriptions of Gollum's behavior don't make sense if his ONLY motive all along was just to stay near the ring. If that was the case then he would have been insincerely servile the whole time. Yes, the desire to have the ring again is ALWAYS there. Always. Again, I will say that this makes the path to redemption harder, but not impossible.
