david goldrock

The first thing I want to say is that not every writing decision is strictly better or worse. If Gollum had redeemed himself, I think that would have been fine too. Different themes, but fine. But back to what actually happens.

I think, for many people who are both viewing fiction, and thinking about real life, that the world is divided into Good People and Bad People. Good People are, well, inherently good and well-meaning. They make mistakes, and even do bad things, but it's because their heart is in the right place, and they can always come back to the light. Bad People, meanwhile, are rotten to the core. Any action they take that is Good is basically self-serving to advance their position, and they can never make up for any sin they commit no matter how hard they try. (Thank you, Calvin.) For many people, a "good" redemption arc is when a Good Person has a redemption arc. After all, they were always well-meaning, and just needed to see the error of their ways. A "bad" redemption arc is when a Bad Person tries to redeem themselves. Obviously, people can be forgiven, but there are some things you just never come back from, that are signs of an inherently rotten and malign soul. There's no way anyone who does stuff like (FILL IN THE BLANK) can really redeem themselves.

I say all this, because I want to make clear that by all possible definitions, Gollum is one of The Bad Ones. Yes, his situation is pitiable in some ways, but as Tolkien himself pointed out: "The Ring was too strong for Smeagol but he would never have had to endure it if he had not already been a mean sort of thief." Smeagol's first act upon finding the Ring was to kill his own cousin; compare that with how long it took for Bilbo or Frodo or Sam to start feeling the effects of the Ring. Gollum literally eats babies, for crying out loud. From a very cynical point of view (one that I don't necessarily uphold), one could (one-sidedly) argue that his budding friendship with Frodo was merely finding a point of connection with another living soul for the first time in hundreds of years rather than any sort of true remorse, and look how easily that relationship soured (Gollum and Frodo stay cordial for less than half a book).

But (finally getting to my point), that is exactly why it's important that Frodo spares Gollum, gives him mercy, attempts to befriend this wretched creature. Another facet of the Good Person/Bad Person dichotomy is that it transforms morality from an "internal rule" to an "external action" - murder is an act that is really neither good nor inherently bad, instead murder is Bad when it happens to Good People and Good when it happens to Bad People. Thus, morality becomes a subjective and self-absorbed game more than a code to live life by - since of course the self becomes the arbiter of all definitions, and no act can be unjustified. Frodo spares Gollum NOT because deep down, Smeagol is really a Good Person led astray by understandable mistakes. He spares Gollum because taking pity and having mercy is the right thing to do no matter who the action is being done to. Notably, the first and only time Frodo curses Gollum - "if you touch me ever again you shall be cast into the fire" - is the moment where it is implied the Ring finally takes full hold on Frodo's psyche.

yes!!!

this is all correct and here's one big reason why imo: i think it's important to remember that Gollum's story is ultimately not about him at all; it is about Frodo and Sam and their choices. (and in The Hobbit it was about Bilbo.) he exists to illustrate the behavior and ethics of the heroes. after all this is, classically, what antagonists do, and that is his job, and he's darn good at it

LOTR is about what the right thing is to do when you are a good person being confronted by evil, not about how to stop being evil if you're evil. (There are other stories about that.) LOTR is about how to fight evil without compromising yourself or being taken in by it. i would argue this is the reason why no major villain gets redeemed, because that would be a distraction from the theme. Doing the right thing is worthwhile even if you are not rewarded for doing it.

if gollum got a redemption arc he would cease to be the perfectly calculated antagonist of someone else's story and he'd have his own story, which is not his job. it would also muddy the meaning of Frodo's arc which is to do the right thing because it is the right thing and not for any other purpose.

Over fifty years of data show a peak in PFAS (also known as "forever chemicals") content in seabird eggs in the 90s, followed by a decrease as regulations went into effect. The most recent findings show a 70% decrease of most common PFAS.

We are making genuine progress! Producers are dramatically altering how much they use PFAS and how much gets released in effluent, but also there's a lot better understanding of how to remove PFAS from the environment!

Pronouns

An accent

like i saw her use a verb i've never heard of, looked up the definition, and it was actually a noun. not as in she verbified a noun on purpose (like "googling"), as in she just wanted to use a big, super specific word, and didn't even get the word type right.

I’ve personally found that adding the “would that be fucked or what?” part in myself really helps put the more disturbing thoughts we sometimes get into perspective. Helps me say “yeah thar sure would be fucked up” and move on with my day.