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.
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.
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.
He went from the frying pan into the fire (literally, even).
And it was not as if the Ring had that much time to pull him under, get into his mind and weaken his will. He was selfish, self serving, disrespectful and cold hearted I think from pretty much the beginning.
could he have changed after being kicked out of the family clan by his maternal grandmother?
I think anything is possible. He did seem to respond a little, and I say a little, nothing more, to Frodo's sweet kindness and pity and compassion toward him.
But does it not mention somewhere that at some point he snuck into windows and killed and consumed babies from their cradles? That is unforgiveable.No, I am with Vir on this .
But does it not mention somewhere that at some point he snuck into windows and killed and consumed babies from their cradles?
That is low, even for Gollum. Sounds like a story to scare hobbit children with. Gollum lived under ground feeding on slimy fish and the occational orc/goblin child he found in the caves. The goblins didn't know he was there and that's the way Gollum wanted it. Kids getting lost in the caves didn't cause much suspicion. Infants disappearing from their cradles in the heart of "Goblinville" would be a whole other thing.
"The wood-elves tracked him first, an easy task for them, for his trail was still fresh then. Through Mirkwood and back again it led them, though the ynever caught him. The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birdds. The woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, aghost that drank blood. It climbed trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find craddles"
Salmonella eh Grondy, yuck. Although his grandmother seemed stern and tough, I believe she would have allowed him to stay and be part of the family if he had even tried a little, just a little, but he did not wish to.
And also, Sauron obviously, well to me, believed that Gollum was completely corrupted or he would have just had him tortured and killed or languish in mordor. I say that because by letting him go Sauron was positive that the lust for the Ring had so consumed the creature that he would absolutely not stop until he had found that "tricksie Baggenses" and stolen back h is precious and killed him for it if need be. So it was not even a gamble letting him go. He would just lead whomever, the ringwraiths and the lot right to Frodo thru Smeagol.
Yet gullum is not and must not be held completely guilty. It is true he killed his best and friend and done great evil, but what else could he do? Compare sauron, a mair, with gollum, just a hoobit and you will see the difference between the two in terms of power and stature. If someone as powerful as sauron had put his powers in an artifact how can you expect a lesser creature to resist its corruption?
From the sil
"And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into the one ring, for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern the mmust be a thing of suppasing potency.."
i think this can answer for itself why gollum was so easily corrupted and i doubt that even aragorn or gandalf could long had resisted the ring had it been openly in their sight for a couple of days or even one day.
It is true he killed his best and friend and done great evil, but what else could he do? Compare sauron, a mair, with gollum, just a hoobit and you will see the difference between the two in terms of power and stature. If someone as powerful as sauron had put his powers in an artifact how can you expect a lesser creature to resist its corruption?
There was not much difference in power and stature between the River people and the Hobbits. They were very much related.
Sm’agol was so easily swayed because there had been mischief in his heart from the very beginning and because he gave in to the temptation from the very beginning.
If he hadn't been already wicked when his brother D’agol had found it, the Ring would have just stayed with D’agol and just have lain around in his pouch for decades... possibly then the Ring would've decided to buzz off again and return to the river by duly leaving D’agol's pocket during a fishing trip and waiting to be found by a more suitable person.
If he hadn't been already wicked when his brother D’agol had found it
Vir ..I never knew that D’agol was his brother , I thought he was his friend or cousin ..Am I mistaken ?
There was not much difference in power and stature between the River people and the Hobbits. They were very much related
I agree with you here here i think you're refering to Bilbo but if you re-read the first chapter of FOTR you will see that the ring was starting to get a grip on him. But as i said gollum had done evil and this corrupted him more quickly that bilbo. Yet Gollum have had the ring for about 500 years while Bilbo had it for only 111-51=60 years.
he only had it about two minutes when he throttled Deagel. So evil and mischief was already in that shrunken little heart of his.
true enough but i don't know if you've noticed but it had a similar effect on Bilbo though to a lesser degree. The only effect it had on him was to make hm lie to his friends.
As for your previous post Gollum got the ring after murdering deagol, else why should he murder him. Yet the evil he shows may either be due to a weak will or simply to , as you say, evil in himself.
"we are wicked precious, wicked" I think should have been on a tshirt he wore.If he only would have worn one.
Frodo saw it and also saw his future-self in Gollum; thus he wanted to reverse Gollum's ways, so he himself wouldn't be also bound in wickedness. That he eventually failed in this only added to his disappointment in not directly destroying the Ring.
Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee -- but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.