>>
you can't help but like him (a bit like Frodo did).
Frodo liked Sam, he did not like Gollum. Don't confuse affection for pitty. He always knew Gollum would betray him.
I don't know why so many people like Gollum. I thought he was a nasty little selfish twit. I feel the way Sam felt toward him. He was nothing more than a tool.
I was advised to come here to see a discussion about good and evil and Gollum, but I can't hang around here b/c you guys are talking about stuff I haven't read yet!
So, I'll just say this - I do like the way Gollum speaks, and I do have pitty for him - I had pitty for him in the Hobbit and FOTR, but I don't think he's a good character, nor is he like a misbehaving puppy. There's nothing positive about him - even if he does have redeeming moments later on, they aren't redeeming like when the bad puppy licks your cheek and wags his tail happily as you walk in the door, are they? I suspect not, so though I pity Gollum, I don't like him, and I wouldn't want him to be my puppy.
I do LUV the way he says pressssiousssssss in the movie and in the Hobbit cartoon. Excellent! It's like a hiss and a purr.
As someone said it before: We are all born free and unequal.
Yummy: there is sth positive about Gollum. Without him Frodo's quest would have failed.
My prrrreccccccioussssss indeed. Sounds great! And the way they pictured him, sitting there on his isle, all alone in the dark, like a pitiful and miserable duck, was just how I had imagined him to be. Great! Thumbs up for PJ!
Grondy, I think Rosie has a fair point here, and I must say I tend to agree with her.
i'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's wrong to kill people.
Okay, I will agree with Rosie that we are inundated by outside influences from the time we are born; however, once we hit a certain age we start making decisions based on our upbringing and have the ability to choose right or wrong from that time on. Assuming that we aren't abnormally anti-social.
I'm just going to speak up for the abnormally antisocial here. Okay, I'm done. And Jesi's right, or wrong, depending on your perspective
Jesi withdrew her comment and I deleted her blank post.
I think it is wrong to kill anything, with the exceptions of for food, housing, and in defence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, in the latter cases one would hope that diplomacy is tried, using the tenets of the Golden Rule before it comes to actual blows.
I was never really a fan of Gollum...even at the end, I didn't like him too much. It always seemed to me that if Gollum was truly good, he'd have been able to recover after the Ring was taken from him...he wouldn't have still been a slave to it. (Much the way Bilbo was able to live on happily without the Ring.)
but Gollum had it for much, much longer than Bilbo. 500 years or something, wasn't it?
Exactly Rosie. And I dunno about it being wrong to kill people, depends on which people....
Gollum was immediately corrupted by the ring. He killed his friend and went into hiding. While you may fault the ring for the influence, Bilbo, when influenced by the ring to take it once again, still resisted. If Gollum was so easily corrupted he wasn't "good" to begin with. Even Boromir took an entire half the movie/book to try and take the ring from Frodo (and he at least tried to talk him out of it several times).
I don't think that all intrinsically 'good' people are necessarily uncorruptable. A lot depends on one's self control and moral values. and remember that Frodo, our hero couldn't cast the ring into the fire, and Frodo didn't have an evil bone in his body.
though he couldn't throw the ring away, I don't think you can really say he was corrupted. And usually, people (or creatures) who are evil are generally portrayed as having weak wills. While good people aren't completely uncorruptable, they are much more difficult to turn to evil.
And thus more of a challenge and a sweeter victory for the enemy, be he man, demon, or devil.
Frodo wasn't corrupted completely, but he was still under the 'command' of the ring and that shows the Power the ring posessed. Who knows if Frodo might not have been corrupted had he posessed the ring just as long as Gollum had?
probably he wouldn't have been...Gollum was corrupt from the moment he first laid eyes on the ring (due to his innate evilness - is evilness actually a word? if it's not, sorry
...he only got worse from there. Frodo, I think, would have eventually been corrupted, but not to the extent that Gollum was.
Fordo may mot have been corrupted (turned evil) by the ring; however, he surely couldn't toss it into the firey pit when the time came (it controlled his will).
Uhuh. Gollum had it for so long, he couldn't think of anything else. Remember Bilbo saying sth like: "I feel restless when I don't have it in my pocket". It was growing on him, but because he was a good, nice, friendly hobbit, he survived for so long. And he didn't use it as much as Gollum did. Gollum must have been bad deep down all the time. He like to badger people, when he found out people couldn't see him with the Ring on, what did he do? Right. Y'all remember, anyway, right?
Frodo nearly never used it, yet the Ring was growing on him, gaining control. Suppose the stab he got from the Nazgul's sword must have sth to do with it as well. Anyway, Gollum had a role to play in the book, and he played it well. Great character!
but remember Gollum was ostracised from the community to begin with, and with the power that he had with the ring, i guess he kinda wanted to get revenge or something. Like Grinch. i'm a firm believer in the fact that everyone has intrinsic goodness- just a matter of degrees.
I agree with Swampfaye. Gollum killed his best friend immediately after having seen the Ring. Can you imagine yourself doing this - for anything in the world?
However, even Gandalfand other wise people seemed to believe that Gollum can still be redeemed... Wood Elves were gentle with him - much gentler than with Thorin
and his company m the Hobbit (I simply LOVED the remark of Gloin making allusion to that during the Council of Elrond!)
Hmm. Fair point, Eryan. Gandalf did seem to believe that Gollum could be "cured". But he had been in the hands of Sauron, so he was lost after that...
I can't imagine myself killing anyone for anything, but who knows? I'm not so cocky about my 'goodness' that I can ever rule out any possibility. War, famine, revenge, opression, or just simple self-preservation might do it. And besides, the Ring had an irresistable power than a weak creature like Gollum couldn't resist. And his fall from there was tragic - even Gandalf said, "It might have happened to some hobbits that he knew".
Yes it's true of course one never knows anything for sure... until he is tested!...
I liked to picture of Gollum's spirit in some place with gentle sun and many fish... but then, no, I'd rather put him in a working house (of the sort described in "Leaf by Niggle") and had him to have work therapy as a kind of de-tox from the power of the Ring. And then I'd have him meet all people to which he did harm so that he could tell tehm that he is sorry - and they could smile and tell him, "Oh well, never mind, we all had the dark roads, but your road was the darkest..." And last of all I'd make him meet his friend Deagol. And then he could join all others and be a hobbit again!... (or a hobbit's spirit of course...)
Well perhaps I am over gentle - Tolkien himself did NOT apoprove of such happy endings and called them "mercy untempered by justice" (in his essay "On fairy stories")
interesting idea, Eryan. sort of like AA except it would be RA (Ringbearers' Anonymous)- with 12 steps to a healthier lifestyle!
No, 13 steps...
Was still 12 last time I was there....
When was that? (silly question, when aren't you here?) :grin
I was just poking a bit!
I'm very often not here these days. And last time I was "there" was quite some time ago, as I'm a clean living kind of fella now, ish.
I had noticed your absence already. What are you doing these days, having a life?
I thought it might be kind of fun! Plus I've got a lot of work on at the minute, what with one thing and another (and constantly having to work with idiots all the time)
I could say sth really mean now, but I don't think I will cos that sounds pretty serious for a Skwerl like you...
Ahhh! Thanks Tommy. *is avoiding doing any work again*
I hadn't noticed that, really... :P
Today I posted a news article on the home page that has a link to a newly released movie still of Deagol and Smeagol a fishing in a corcle.
I think that Gollum killed Deagol because the ring was so shiny and beutiful that he couldn't stand not being the owner of it. I feel sorry for Gollum because he seems so pitiful. I feel sorry for what happened to him.
So I have a question about Gollum. What is it about this character that makes him so popular? I always liked him but, despite how important he is, I never thought much about him. He was interesting enough, but he was firmly in the middle ground between the characters I loved (Eowyn, Faramir, etc) and the ones I wouldn't miss if they were gone (Glorfindel comes to mind). But come to find out, Gollum is a hugely popular little guy! So I'm curious, Gollum fans... why him? What appeals to you about Gollum?
I think that his helplessness makes him very popular and loved.
MadWannabe posted on 9/4/2003 at 14:28
under Lord of the Rings
Well, I figured that I would just create a thread dedicated to discussions on Gollum, it would save time and space from creating more.
Okay...so this is my questions:
1) In the taming of Smeagol, when Frodo wanted Gollum to swear that he would be good and stuff like that, well I think this have an implication in the ending. For Smeagol wanted to swear on the precious and Frodo instead made Smeagol swear on the words "One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them" And Frodo said that these words will hold him and is more treacherous than Gollum himself and twist his words. Well, after Gollum betrayed Frodo in Shelob's Lair, in the end after he obtained the ring by taking it from Frodo, he pulmmeted to his death, would it be that his oath is taking effect?
2) Well, still in the same chapter why has Gollum changed so quickly into Smeagol? Is it that he has really changed or was he just faking it to catch Frodo at unawares and at that time snatch the ring away? Well, for me I am more on the side of Gollum has really changed as all evidence seem to show that Gollum had really changed. Which leads to the next question, what led to the sudden change of behavior in Gollum? In my opinion I think that it is because Frodo understood him and does not condemn him. They are both in common grounds and I think that was what awakened Smeagol and caused him to resurface being Smeagol the more dominant character in Gollum.
Well MadWannabe I loved your questions.
Well, after Gollum betrayed Frodo in Shelob's Lair, in the end after he obtained the ring by taking it from Frodo, he pulmmeted to his death, would it be that his oath is taking effect?
Yes i think that is so.
Is it that he has really changed or was he just faking it to catch Frodo at unawares and at that time snatch the ring away?
No, I don't think he was faking it. I believe Gollum was really trying to change and had succeeded quite nicely for a while.
Well, for me I am more on the side of Gollum has really changed as all evidence seem to show that Gollum had really changed.
Which leads to the next question, what led to the sudden change of behavior in Gollum? In my opinion I think that it is because Frodo understood him and does not condemn him. They are both in common grounds and I think that was what awakened Smeagol and caused him to resurface being Smeagol the more dominant character in Gollum.
I think that is an excellent answer. And I have thought about that quite a bit while reading the books as well. I loved the compassion that Frodo showed Gollum, and believe that had a lot to do with the change in him.
Anyways, I find it really strange that Smeagol got so obessed over the ring suddenly. Why? Why! It seems like Smeagol killed Deagol(I think) just over the sight of the ring and his birthday was on that day. Is it because the ring have an effect on the minds of those who sees it? As in manipulating it's victims memories and use their desire to decieve everyone even themselves? Was Smeagol so consumed with desire by the sight of the ring that he is willing to kill his best friend for it? If that is so, can we really now say that Smeagol is actually morally upright before the influence of the ring? I think not.
Consider how Bilbo acted upon finding the ring in him. Bilbo actually STOLE the ring from Gollum and even considered killing him! Is it really the power of the ring or the amount of evil each mortal can achieve is manifested by the ring? And strangely after thinking about it for a while, I think that pity may not be the only thing that stayed Bilblo's hand, I think it is his guilt too that is playing a part. (Apologies to all Bilblo's fans for this unkind comment on him)
The ring is also capable of making the owner of lying to everyone for it. For Gollum, he said it was a gift from his grandmother(I think) and Bilblo(he found it), and Gollum himself also could not believe that he killed Deagol...are they all lying to themselves?
Bilbo actually STOLE the ring from Gollum and even considered killing him!
Bilbo didn't actually steal the ring, he found it laying on the ground under his hand in a very dark tunnel. Bilbo picked it up and it took him quite a while to determine that the ring was that which Gollum had lost. By the time he did, Gollum was out for blood and it was too late, as well as dangerous, to just nicely hand it back.
Gollum never said, "I've lost my ring, the least of rings, a mere trifle, but if you happen upon it, please return it to me." Had he done so outright Bilbo may have given it back, but probably not as the ring had finally found a new bearer towards returning to its master.
Of course the ring did not mean for Bilbo to find it, that was Eru's contribution, the ring just knew Gollum would never leave the mountain caves so it lost Gollum in hopes of finding a new more malleable bearer.
Yeah, well, let me put it this way, If someone puts a diamond in your pocket and you discovered it, but because that you might be blame for stealing if you return it to the security guard and that may spell a death sentence or a long jail term and because the shop which owns it did not say "it is mine and I lose it so will you please return it" so you decide to pocket it and use it as your own. Sure sounds like stealing to me...
So I still believe that Bilbo steal the ring, no matter how nice you say it.
Ah, but there is a difference isn't there? In a shop that sells jewelry, one might expect a newly discovered diamond ring in one's pocket probably belongs to the shop. While in a cave or tunnel, even one inhabited by Orcs or a small flesh-eating, hobbit sized being, one might not suspect that a found ring actually belongs to someone. It is usually called treasure and is fair pickings to the finder.
Same as if one found a ring laying in the street. Okay, one might want to advertise asking for a description of an object of jewelry lost in the area of such and such streets, but in the end, if no one can satisfactorily describe it, keeping it is legitimate. And Bilbo did ask Gollum twice, "What have you lost?" to which there was no description other than 'My precious'.
Still, Bilbo initially lied about where he got the ring, so he was feeling some guilt about how he came by it, so your main argument is valid and I'm just picking nits.
I feel sorry for Sméagol; not for Gollum. It was like a multiple personality syndrome going on. Poor Sméagol was instantly corrupted. And he held the Ring for 478 years, while Bilbo had it for 60. I instantly was annoyed at Sam when he stops Sméagol (not Gollum) from repenting. If Sam hadnt woken up in The Stairs of Cirith Ungol, Gollum probably would have resisted his Gollum side and not taken them to Torech Ungol.
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...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.
I was just wondering , how old did Gollum /Smeagol become ?
Around 579 years.
Cf the timetable of the Third Age in the Appendicitis of LOTR.
Gollum is a really good character, no matter what ppl say. He was kind and sunny! I hate how he ended up being corrupted, tormented, tortured, beaten, judged and all together hated. He was one of the most important characters. If not for him, the ring would have never been destroyed!
He did middle earth a big favour. And everyone continues to say, " oh frodo saved middle earth"
No flipping way! It was gollum all along!
He fell in with the ring in his hand ,so that Makes him the saver of middle earth, and one of the most important character! I don't care if ppl are all like
....well he is ugly and pitiful and blah blah blah , and frodo got big blue eyes.....
Boo freakin hoo! Gollum got big green eyes (mainly in book) and a kind soul (deep deep down)
Seriously, I think that if someone were to come across him and they were sick, he'd be all like "can we help you precious" don't say no to that cute face! I'd say yes and be his fwend
Another thing, the only thing that could have saved gollum was to be loved, friendship is amazing and I think it could have helped him more than that stupid ring
You know, i think Sam could disagree with you. I know you say he was kind, but if you dig deep into his past you'll see he was a liar and a thief even before he got the Ring. Still, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Smeagol you can't say it was Gollum alone who saved middle earth. I agree that with out him they wouldn't have done it. But with out Sam or Frodo they wouldn't have done it either. But Gollum isn't kind or sunny at all. That is Smeagol. They may be in the same body, but they sure as hell aren't the same one. So I'd like to disagree that Gollum is kind and good.
Oh no, I wasn't saying that at all. I was implying my precious that gollum is the one that destroyed the ring, while frodo carried it but took all the credit for destroying it. Yes frodo carried it but he gave in and was going to keep it. If gollum had not bit his finger off and fell in, the world would have ended. So, gollum didn't intentionally save middle earth but he did.....indirectly. And as for Sam, if he wasn't there frodo would have gave in much sooner. And I know that gollum isn't good and sunshine, neither is smeagol. Before the ring, smeagol was a spoilt brat...an arse you might say, that was used to getting everything he wanted. So neither are good while both are evil, but niether are evil while both are good. Gollum was just a meaner version of smeagol. Gollum was jack arse that needed to be slapped, while smeagol was a greedy butthole that needed to be spanked ( sexually if you are a pervert like me :3) and I think that gollum was a very interesting hero, whilst a villain at the same time. Smeagol was a hero and villain at the same time, but they switched on and off.....so niether was evil and niether were good, if you catch my meaning. And what is good, what is evil? Was frodo evil for giving in? Was boromir evil for chasing frodo!? Was gandalf evil for whacking denethor in the head with his staff? No! So how does that mean we can label someone good or evil?
  >>
I agree with you on everything except the good and evil part. Yes you can distinguish good from evil. Yes, Frodo WAS turning evil because of the ring he was never completely evil he was just starting to be and so was Boromir. No Vandalf wasn't evil for hitting Denethor. 1st hitting someone doesn't make you evil. Second he had the right to hit him. Gondor needed Denethor but he just stood there stupidly. So yes evil can be differentiated from good.