Gollum

User avatar
Νinerl
Posts: 307

Gollum

Post#1 » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:24 am

hi everyone!I really want to know what you think about Smeagol.was it an unlucky creature that was possed by evil and still had a spark of kindness in his soul,or a killer who was never kind in his life?What do you think?

erebwen
Posts: 54

Gollum

Post#2 » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:26 am

I think that Smeagol was ONCE a good hobbit, but became the slave of the ring, so all the kindness in him was serioulsy threatened. He became an evil being, although a ray of light from his past kept piercing the blackness in his heart. We can see this in LotR (the books, of course), when Smeagol/Gollum sees Frodo and Sam sleeping and he is moved by that image because it reminds him of what he used to be and what he could have been. I think Smeagol/Gollum is a dual being, that's why he has 2 names...

Morambar
Posts: 1022

Gollum

Post#3 » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:08 am

It's a tuff call, and a lot of it has to do with whether you think Deagol was throttled out of pure greed or because of the Rings influence. I'll say this though, Smeagol had friends, or at least one, and Gollum had none. There's clearly a change in his relationship with his, well, relations, after he steals the Ring, and if he already had all the nasty habits it brought out in him I don't think it would have been a change, just more of the same.

User avatar
Vee
Posts: 2711

Gollum

Post#4 » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:08 am

There is a thread in the Character forum about Gollum along much the same lines so some people may feel they have already done this subject to death.

However... I pity Gollum. What's not to pity? He has a life full of 'if only's. I recently found a comment from JRRT in Letters about Gollum:-

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' ... The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path... 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.


Pitiable but lost.

I think Smeagol/Gollum is a dual being, that's why he has 2 names...


Obvious but interesting. Tolkien shows quite clearly the distinction between Smeagol and Gollum and also the blurring of the two identities. I love the conversations between Gollum and Smeagol and I think PJ portrayed it very well in the films.


Morambar
Posts: 1022

Gollum

Post#5 » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:09 am

Hard to beat the masterful author for insight, and that comment blows my theory out of the water. In light of those words by he who knew Gollum best, the best we can say of Gollum is that he was once a petty thief who graduated to murder once he encountered the Ring. Tragic, but there's a limit to how much I can pity one such, particularly when, whatever other influences there might have been, there were (a few) positive ones, too, and he made his own choice in the end. What it says of Aragorn and Gandalf I'm not sure, though the latter did make SOME attempt to handle with care. But in the main only Frodo seems to have shown Gollum any kind of real kindness in a form he could appreciate, and while final accountability is his alone, he was certainly encouraged to grow into the role everyone assigned him.

User avatar
virumor
Posts: 3567

Gollum

Post#6 » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:49 pm

Pah, I don't pity that lil bugger one bit. Once a thief, then a liar and murderer. You might as well pity Ma Barker.

He surely deserved that beating at the hands of Faramir's henchmen; although that of course never happened in the books, it was nonetheless one of the few delightful changes.
Give up the Halfring, she-elf...

User avatar
grondmaster
Posts: 25451

Gollum

Post#7 » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:10 pm

Gollum also had a distant cousin called Grima Wormtongue who also could not turn from evil when given the chance: once in Rohan after Gandalf unmasked him; and again in the Shire when Frodo offered him protection. Evil is as evil does.

I could never pity Grima, but I did pity 'nice Smeagol' because he had to live alongside the 'evil Gollum' who was the stronger of the two.

'Share and enjoy'

User avatar
Loss
Posts: 3691

Gollum

Post#8 » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:18 am

yes i believe that he was a good water-hobbit, if it wasn't for the rings evil doing he would be nice, dead... but nice, as it gave him unnatural life he would have died, hmmm the mind boggles, but I definatly prefer nice Smeagol to evil Gollum, and i can always tell when Smeagol is talking or Gollum is talking in the book, there is a great difference in speech

User avatar
virumor
Posts: 3567

Gollum

Post#9 » Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:29 am

Sméagol wasn't nice. He was a mean thief and trickster. The Ring turned him into Gollum, a mean murderer.

He went from the frying pan into the fire (literally, even).
Give up the Halfring, she-elf...

Morambar
Posts: 1022

Gollum

Post#10 » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:46 pm

By the Professors statement (and he should know) he was always the mean sneak Sam named him (though one could argue, if not convincingly given the context, in what sense the Professor meant, "mean.") The Ring did make him a lot more vicious though.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests