Gollum/Smeagol (will contain spoilers for TTT & ROTK)

Discussion in 'J R R Tolkien' started by Shaun, Jul 10, 2002.

  1.  
    Shaun

    Shaun R.I.P. Ashes

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    1,772
    What does everyone think of the lovable and slimy Hobbit thing Gollum? Was he inherently evil or was it just because of the ring?

    I liked the character of Gollum, I thought he contrasted well with Sam and gave Frodo someone to show compassion for and keep the rings affects at bay, partially anyway. The way he was still involved with the rings fate gave it a good ending.

    But I do think he was at least partly evil to begin with. When Deagol first found the ring all it took was for Smeagol to see it to get him to kill Deagol and take the ring. While the evil effect it had on Frodo and Bilbo was limited at first.
  2.  
    ray gower

    ray gower New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,586
    I don't think Smeagol was bad as such. Just as not all Hobbits are nauseatingly good. There are always people like the miller Sandyman, who want just a little more than they are allowed.

    I think Smeagol was like that. Jealous of his friend's (lover's?) fortune. The ring used that against him.

    Remember nobody knew anything about the ring at that time. Bilbo did not actually see Gollum with the ring. He picked it up and made damned sure he kept it.
    By the time Frodo finally came into its possesion a lot of the rings history had been found and he was suitably on guard.

    No Smeagol was not evil- just very human
  3.  
    Legolas

    Legolas something more magical

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,895
    oh I reckon Smeagol was good at first, but he was one of those silly people...things...that got easily corrupted. Like Boromir - just a look at the ring makes him go all woobly and not-right in the head.

    So he killed Deagol for it, and it consumed him bit by bit, because after all it's got the soul of the most evil thing ever inside it :p Until he was a whimpering wreck caught between what he knew (Smeagol) and what he now is (gollum)

    You know that arguement slinker and stinker had? Gollum won only because he had the ring on his side. Take the ring away and I'm sure smeagol would have won.

    My thoughts.
    :flash:
  4.  
    Shaun

    Shaun R.I.P. Ashes

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    1,772
    Smeagol must have been rather willing to murder his best friend for the ring to do get him to do it straight away. As we can see from Bilbo and Frodo the ring's effects don't start out very strong. It caused Bilbo to lie and steal but got Smeagol to murder, with no regrets aswell.
    Yes Boromir was easy to corrupt but it still took a lot to get him. And he was even doing it for the well being of Gondor, whereas Smeagol murdered for a little gold ring
  5.  
    Legolas

    Legolas something more magical

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,895
    Let me take you back to that phrase - 'Power can be held in the smallest of things and used for the greatest of evils'
    :flash:
  6.  
    ray gower

    ray gower New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,586
    ROTK brings us a new impression on Smeagol, the village idiot.
    Whilst the book left me with the opportunity to feel a little sorry for the wretched creature, I can no longer find any for Smeagol.

    Anybodyelse have their opinions modified for Gollum?

Share This Page