# gollum



## nodnarb (Jul 20, 2008)

i got to thinking about something and i wanna ask you...ok so when he found the ring it made him live very long..but when he lost it and bilbo found it and took it why didnt he start aging again?? there was many years between when he lost it and what happened in LOTR yet he seems to of not aged since he had the ring...maybe because he had the ring so long that even without it it could keep him alive???


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 20, 2008)

That's a really good question!

Um...I don't know. *looks for older and/or wiser Tolkienologists*


----------



## Gilthoniel (Jul 20, 2008)

Well, maybe he did age.. Offhand, I don't think Tolkien mentions it whether or not he does. Or maybe he'd built up a 'reserve', he'd had the ring for so long he could go without it for a fair while, without aging.

I'm only speculating though.. *Cries for help*


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 20, 2008)

Well when Bilbo 'lost' the Ring, he did start to age, though it's not really mentioned until he gets to Rivendell, and how long did he take to get there? Did he go directly, or take is time sightseeing...?


----------



## Illuin (Jul 21, 2008)

I believe the impression given in the NLC movies might be somewhat to blame; but the book itself might reveal the answer. I think Gollum was at the very end of his life. Here is a passage from the book concerning Gollum on the verge of his end:

_"He was a lean, starved, haggard thing, all bones and tight-drawn sallow skin. A wild light flamed in his eyes, but his malice was no longer matched by his old griping strength. Frodo flung him off and rose up quivering. ‘Down, down!’ he gasped, clutching his hand to his breast, so that beneath the cover of his leather shirt he clasped the Ring. ‘Down, you creeping thing, and out of my path! Your time is at an end. You cannot betray me or slay me now."_

It would seem that his insatiable lust (or rather prodigious desire) for the Ring allotted “mind over matter” conditions, and his physical perpetuation was sustained solely by that very obsession.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 21, 2008)

I agree with Illuin's assessment.

Another small factor might be that Bilbo was in his Hobbit middle age (or at least full adulthood) already when he found the ring and from what I've read, I would say Gollum was younger, probably a tween. 

Even after the loss of the ring, though he aged more visibly, Bilbo managed to out live the previous record holder for oldest Hobbit, so I think it is fairly safe to say that the ring encourages long life even after its loss.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jul 21, 2008)

HLG, you are right. In the beginning of the hobbit it says that Bilbo didn't have any adventures until he was grown-up. I'm not sure if he was better-sustained after the ring, though, just based on his record for old age. If his aging was suspended for 50 years or whatever it was it may have resumed from where he began before the ring, so if he would have lived 111 he instead lives 161?


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 21, 2008)

The mind over matter thing is certainly something to consider - I think there is alot to say about it, even in "real life". (like grumpy old relatives living on just to make the family miserable! j/k ) 

Well if that be the case...good lord, Kudos to Gollum for that much will power. Though when I think about it, if he had enough will power to bear the Ring all those years (500+ years, correct?), he certainly had enough will power to hold death at bay.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 21, 2008)

Well, if we use his highness's logic and math he was actually somewhat younger than Bilbo. If you basically disregard the hundreds of years under the ring's influence, all that would count would be however old he was when he acquired the ring added to how long he lived on afterwards. I don't feel like doing the research required to get an exact number, but it would add up to under a hundred, I think, an acceptable age for a Hobbit.


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 22, 2008)

One hundred years might be fair for a healthy hobbit. But Gollum?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 22, 2008)

The ring doesn't detract from a person's health, though. If anything it adds resilience and strength to the bearer.


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 24, 2008)

I disagree. I think that at the very least PJ did a fair job showing how weak Frodo was the closer to Mount Doom he got. Gandalf says that the Ring is altogether evil, and I have a hard time believing that something that evil is remotely good for your health.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 24, 2008)

That is true, but it is also true that it toughened Gollum, I believe, and there is a reason for the different results with Frodo and Gollum. 

During his trip to Mordor Frodo was _resisting_ the will of the Ring. At this point the ring wanted to be found. Frodo wanted to stay hidden. The ring wanted to survive. Frodo wanted to destroy it. It was this battle of wills, which the ring ultimately won, not the ring's presence that was wearing on Frodo.

Gollum, on the other hand, would've been in the ring's best interest to keep alive, tough, and strong. It would be very bad for the ring for Gollum to kick the bucket in the depths of a Misty Mountain pool where it could possibly lie for centuries before its master managed to discover it . . . or before anyone stumbled on to it for that matter. 

Obviously something evil will always be detrimental, but that doesn't mean it won't help you stay alive or stay strong. There are plenty of examples where something evil or vile gives temporary strength in return for something else. A mild example would be the evil drought of the Orcs given to Merry and Pippin during their captivity.


Edit: Thought of an analogy: the ring is like steroids. It gives temporary strength or performance enhancement at a long term cost. Sure you ruin your kidneys and God knows what else, but heck, you can hit harder for awhile and that is all the matters, after all. Especially to Sauron who was all about corrupting existing creations to make them physically stronger and morally weaker.


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 24, 2008)

But even in the years Gollum had the Ring, Sauron was seeking it. I don't think that was what made the difference.

Perhaps the difference was not in the Ring being sought, but in the heart of the bearer. I don't think that Gollum was aware of the consequences should the Ring fall back into Sauron's hand. He was holding an hiding it for his own selfishness, evil, just as the Ring was. Evil and evil are compatible. Frodo, with his good heart, was not compatible to the Ring's evil - like a rejected organ transplant, you know? 

At the end, on Mount Doom, when Frodo falters and tries to take the Ring for his own, my first thought was "what the heck, the guy is exhausted!", but it's recently occurred to me that, when Frodo's heart took the turn toward evil and he acted in selfishness, he became able to continue to bear it, because he and the Ring were now compatible. 



Another question though - why did not seek the Ring the 60 years between _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_? He knew all along that Bilbo Baggins of the Shire had it.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 24, 2008)

Gollum was scarcely aware of the ring at all. Until the end it remained simply his precious, a shiny trinket that somehow demanded all his love. He accepted that Sauron wanted it because, of course, everyone wanted it.

Also, it was in Sauron/the ring's interest for Frodo to claim the ring as it made the task of finding it a lot easier. 

Sauron, during the years Gollum bore the ring, was in hiding, diminished. Still a force, but not as he would be during Frodo's time. 



> Another question though - why did not seek the Ring the 60 years between _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_? He knew all along that Bilbo Baggins of the Shire had it.



Here do you mean Sauron or Gollum? Sauron I think was seeking the ring because he managed to capture and interrogate Gollum. I'd need to look up the time line, however, of when exactly this happened. 

OK, according to the appendix Sauron WAS searching the river (the wrong place) where he knew the ring had been lost prior to being cast out of Dol Guldur. I imagine this set him back a few years, having to start all over again, find a new fortress. 
K, Bilbo finds ring in 2941

Sauron declares himself in Mordor (meaning he has some strength) in 2951
but doesn't capture Gollum until around 3009. Gollum is released in 3017, captured by Aragorn shortly after, and shortly after this Frodo took off with the ring. By this point the Nazgul were already on their way.

So assuming Gollum didn't give out his information right away, we are looking at under ten years that Sauron was possibly aware of the ring's vague location. It is possible he didn't immediately know what Hobbits were or where the Shire was so that could explain the delay.



or . . .


If you meant Gollum, he obviously simply didn't know where to look as he headed to Mordor which is completely in the wrong direction, in order to search out the ring.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jul 24, 2008)

I think Firawyn meant gollum, and she brings up a really interesting point. Now, gollum isn't the kind of person that can just walk up to any stranger and ask for directions to the Shire. I've also never been sure as to how known the Shire itself is outside its immediate boundaries. The Trolls from the mountains in the Hobbit had never heard of nor seen hobbits, and not every hobbit lived west of Bree. When he calls himself a "burrahobbit" they don't recognize the ending. So if Gollum were to ask for where the Shire is he might not have any help, especially since he likely escaped from the wrong direction from the Shire, towards the Misty mountains


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 25, 2008)

I was talking about Gollum (that is the topic of this thread ), though you made some interesting points about Sauron, Elgee. 

Back to Gollum though - _Lord of the Rings_ describes Gollum as sneaky. He knew how to listen without being seen. Even if he'd had a vague impression of what Hobbits were, and where they might be found, he could have listened and watched for more information. Bree is a crossing place, men who passed through Bree would have made it to all regions of Middle Earth, where Hobbits may have come up. I just can't see how, with as obsessed as Gollum was, and with nothing better to do - why he did not, in 60 years, locate the Shire and Bilbo. It only took Frodo a year to get from the Shire to Morder (and back if I remember)... I just don't know...60 years is a long time.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 25, 2008)

We can only guess at the path he took and the methods he used. 

According to the time line it took him three years to muster up the courage to leave the mountains at all. He spent about ten years of that a captive, but that still leaves a lot of time unaccounted for. We may just have to fall back on the fact that Hobbits weren't well known. In looking for Bilbo he also may have started towards the Lonely Mountain. Possibly if he made it as far as Mirkwood, where it is suggested he spent some time, he was able to hear of Bilbo from the Elves (who he disliked and would probably not approach willingly) as the hero who brought them the Arkenstone. This would lead him, again, in the wrong direction.

Also, there is some suggestion that he was drawn to Mordor by forces other than himself. Gollum was far from becoming a wraith, but the Ring and its lord are one and so he would've been somewhat under the influence of Sauron at this point. Sauron was searching for the ring and instead drew in a former bearer. 

There is also a third, more speculative option: Gollum was trying to go home.

Think about it, he was a Hobbit like creature, and perhaps he recognized something of himself in Bilbo. It might, therefore, have come to mind that Bilbo was from the area. Not knowing the phrase "Shire" he may have started back in search of the Anduin basin where he originally found the ring all those centuries before. Time had probably changed the geography of the world enough that he could never be completely certain he had found the right place, however. The Anduin would also place him between the Misty Mountains (where he began) and Mirkwood where we know he went.

Wait, think I found the answer: The Shadow of the Past

"He found his way into Mirkwood, as one would expect.'
'Is that where you found him?' asked Frodo.
'I saw him there," answered Gandalf, 'but before that he had wandered far, following Bilbo's trail. It was difficult to learn anything from him for certain . . . (skip a bit, brother) . .. But from hints dropped among the snarls I gathered that his padding feet had taken him at last to Esgaroth and even to the streets of Dale, listening secretly and peering. Well, the news of the great events went far and wide in Wilderland, and many had heard Bilbo's name and knew where he came from. We made no secret of our return journey to his home in the West. Gollum's sharp ears would soon learn what he wanted."
"Then why didn't he track Bilbo further?" asked Frodo. "Why didn't he come to the Shire?'
'Ah,' said Gandalf, 'now we come to it. I think Gollum tried to. He set out and came back westward as far as the Great River (Elgee note, Anduin again). But then he turned aside. He was not daunted by the distance, I am sure. No, something else drew him away . . .

Long bit here about how he lurked in Mirkwood and the rumors they heard about him. Gandalf explains how he stopped tracking him at this point. Aragorn takes up the chase later and found him returning from Mordor. 

Getting tired of typing so I will sum it up in my own way. Gandalf claims
A. All evil is drawn to Mordor
B. Gollum thought he would find a force that would help him avenge himself because it hated the West and Bilbo had come from the West.
C. The ring left him "open for summons."

So yeah, he started to go, got lost, found his way again, only to get sidetracked then captured.


----------



## Illuin (Jul 25, 2008)

> by HLGStrider
> _"Gollum was far from becoming a wraith, but the Ring and its lord are one and so he would've been somewhat under the influence of Sauron at this point."_


 
That was a really good post HLG, and so many great points were addressed. But I’m puzzled by your quote; and this seemingly overall consensus which assumes that the possession of the “Ruling Ring” unavoidably makes one a wraith if kept long enough. For example; the Nazgul did not become wraiths because they had the One Ring; in fact, they never had the Ring. They were simply consumed by the power of the One Ring (when Sauron was wearing it); channeled through the lesser rings Sauron had given them. Frodo grew stronger (like you mentioned; you know...about the steroids) and more acute in sense and thought when wearing the Ring (albeit more and more disconnected and isolated). He was in essence becoming more like Sauron himself (though as a Hobbit could never actually reach anywhere near that level). But the Nazgul had been robbed of their very being and dispossessed; enslaved to endless labor day and night in perpetual service to their Dark Lord; because the “_Ruling Ring did its thing_" long ago (when the Ruler was bearing his Ruling Ring) . 

Those that possessed the One Ring were not in danger of becoming wraiths because the “_Ruling Ring_” was under “_*their*_” control. 
Those enslaved by the ruling Ring (not actually bearing it) were the ones at risk of becoming wraiths. The evil within the Ring could corrupt and consume someone to madness (and to do evil), but they would not be at risk of becoming a wraith, regardless of how long they had it. Only when Sauron was wearing the One Ring, thus able to control others wearing a lesser ring (and maybe when a Morgul-knife in the heart was involved) would someone be at risk of becoming a wraith.

Do I actually know what I’m talking about? No. But it seems logical.

Anyway, I did not wish to divert attention from your post HLG, just something that has puzzled me over the years .


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 25, 2008)

Yeah, and it has come up before. I think the only place where it suggests, directly, that the one also will wraithize you is in the same chapter, "The Shadow of the Past." Before he reveals that this is the One ring, Gandalf goes into a description of how the "rings of power" were perilous. At this point Gandalf obviously suspects that the ring is the One but is not certain, so you could argue that he is speaking more generally. 

You kind of get the idea that the Ring had given up on Gollum.

Frodo was an easier target mainly because of the Morgul wound received on Weathertop.
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=15223
Here is a thread where we discussed this at one time.


----------



## Illuin (Jul 25, 2008)

Ah yes; after skimming around a bit, I believe I have found what you were referring to HLG.

Gandalf to Frodo;

_*‘A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until every last minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the Dark Power that rules the rings. Yes, sooner or later - later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last - sooner or later the Dark Power will devour him.’*_

That does indeed seem to infer becoming a wraith. Hmmm….getting a little rusty in my old age. Too much HoME, not enough LOTR .


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 25, 2008)

*waves a hand distractedly* Yes, yes. Yay Gollum. How did poor Smeagol stay alive and relatively well for so long without the One Ring? I had never thought about the idea that the creepy thing just froze normal growth, and that when he lost it, his remaining years were whatever he would have normally gotten. He'd probably get a few more, too, from having some magic rubbing off on him. That makes sense. 

Also, it mutated him and gave him unnatural strength and such. Why did that stuff remain? Shouldn't he have gone back to a regular hobbitish thing? Well, unless the hobbit type things that he came from were all like that. Seems doubtful. 

So! ---> The One Ring thing doesn't turn you into a Ringwraith, or at least, not like the others. Poor Smeagol had the thing for a while and never turned invisible, no capitalized Darkness ever devoured him. Sure, hobbit type things are resilient, but I write that the One Ring thing just messed with him in a different way. Permanently mutated him. Permanently grafted an especially One Ring thing-centric personality onto the poor guy. 

Sauron, with his awesome contingency planning brain, inserted this power into the One Ring thing. It forced everyone to want it. Once somebody had it, they considered it especially precious. This worked with everyone that came in contact with the thing. Poor Smeagol is the only one that we know of who had an extra personality grafted. There's no way to know if that happened to anyone else, but it could have. The One Ring thing, being the most important, gets a nice little security system. If it turned someone into a Ringwraith, some people might notice. If, on the other paw, it grafts an extra personality onto somebody, they argue with it in private.


----------



## Illuin (Jul 26, 2008)

Well, that was my take on the whole thing (posts #5 and #19). But there is the formal documentation (as HLG has advised me to seek) that may (or must) prove us wrong. However, I personally can’t see the rationality of this. If you have the Ruling Ring, how could you possibly become a wraith? It would seem obvious that the Ruler would have to be bearing the Ruling Ring to actually control anyone. Think about it using common sense; if you possessed the One Ring; you would be sharing in at least half (maybe more) of Sauron’s power. The "_One Ring To Rule Them All_” is obligatory when it comes to ruling anyone; and it would seem reasonable to me that for the gig to work, "_The Ruler_" has to be wearing it. 

But, as HLG pointed out; the documentation given in _"The Shadow of the Past_" seems to say otherwise (perhaps; though unlikely, still open to interpretation). Well, as they say; where do we go from here?  Where's Spock?


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 26, 2008)

I read the quote that you found. It doesn't mention the One Ring. "...keeps one of the Great Rings," I figured meant all of them besides the One, since that is usually kept separate. "...uses the Ring..." I figured meant, "Uses whichever one of the Great Rings he's pocketed." If not, then ---> Wow! How strong and slash or well-meaning must poor Smeagol have been? Sure, I guess that almost five hundred years isn't much to Sauron, but he'd know the average life span of beings besides himself. I would think that the thing would have been effective at some point. Within a fact, I believe that it was, as I mentioned in my other post.


----------



## Persephone (Jul 26, 2008)

Illuin said:


> If you have the Ruling Ring, how could you possibly become a wraith?



I don't think Gollum was a Wraith or was turned into anything close to Wraiths. He was corrupted by the One Ring that's true, extending his life span, which explains the gnarly, disfigured appearance, but the extra personality he developed I think is partially caused by his guilt at killing Deagol. I think that those who take the One ring into possession other than Sauron _know _they shouldn't have it, which is why they develop this kind of alter-ego. Like Bilbo and Isildur who seemed to have developed weird characters and this is dependent on their state of mind when they got the ring. Isildur's change was almost abrupt because he coveted the One Ring of Power, whereas Bilbo's change was gradual and not to obvious unless provoked, because he came by it by accident and kept it without knowing what it really was. But he coveted it too in the end and I think that invoked the strange change in him. But I don't think it was supposed to turn them into Wraiths.

The nine, however, had different rings, and their rings had the specific function being slave rings to the One ring, so it's logical that it turned them into something that Sauron can more or less control. 

The ones given to the Dwarves and the Elves would actually contradict my theory since they also had slave rings but didn't have much effect on them as it did to the humans. But then again, Humans were supposedly weaker.


----------



## Illuin (Jul 26, 2008)

> _by YayGollum_
> _"I read the quote that you found. It doesn't mention the One Ring. "...keeps one of the Great Rings," I figured meant all of them besides the One, since that is usually kept separate. "..."_


 
Indeed…..so did I. However, here is where “context” comes into play:

Frodo begins:

_‘Last night you began to tell me strange things about my ring, Gandalf,’ he said. ‘And then you stopped, because you said that such matters were best left until daylight. Don’t you think you had better finish now? You say the ring is dangerous, far more dangerous than I guess. In what way?’ ‘In many ways,’ answered the wizard. ‘It is far more powerful than I ever dared to think at first, so powerful that in the end it would utterly overcome anyone of mortal race who possessed it. It would possess him. _
_‘In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles - yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous._

This is precisely where my last quote began; i.e. ‘ _A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die_; etc..



So, there it tis’


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 26, 2008)

Argh. Okay, I dug out my copy of that The Fellowship Of The Ring book. And still. The One Ring thing isn't mentioned yet. The evil torturer Gandalf still merely suspects, and he only speaks of Great Rings. The superly boring Frodo mentions his ring in particular. The evil torturer Gandalf tells him about the danger particular to the Great Rings. They perform a test. They find out that it is, quite unfortunately, the One Ring. Something just a bit worse than the run of the mill Great Ring, the dangers of which are propounded on during the rest of the trilogy. No? It still makes sense, to myself.


----------



## Illuin (Jul 26, 2008)

I agree, but theoretical technicalities are never pertinent in a court of law; and HLG is the DA . We got nothin'


----------



## Persephone (Jul 26, 2008)

Illuin said:


> I agree, but theoretical technicalities are never pertinent in a court of law; and HLG is the DA . We got nothin'




lol!  Good point.

So, are you lead Defense?


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 26, 2008)

Argh! *shakes fist* It makes sense, to myself. Of course, I can understand why one might assume otherwise, but why limit yourself to the most obvious? *grumbles*


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 26, 2008)

Illuin said:


> I agree, but theoretical technicalities are never pertinent in a court of law; and HLG is the DA . We got nothin'



Now I have to figure out if this is a promotion or simply a lateral move from court jester . . . Where is Fred Thompson when you need him? (he was a DA, wasn't he? I only watched like two episodes of Law and Order. . .)



> If you have the Ruling Ring, how could you possibly become a wraith? It would seem obvious that the Ruler would have to be bearing the Ruling Ring to actually control anyone.



I think the corrupting factor of the ring was Sauron's presence/essence/nature within the ring. He inserted a good deal of his power and will into the ring which is what gives the ring its apparent sentience. You can't very well corrupt yourself with yourself, can you? So while all other wielders of the ring would be drawn into Sauron, Sauron possessing the ring would be rather reinforced. He would become more, rather than less, of himself.

Think of it as (bad analogy) Dr. Octopus's legs. Or the symbiont that causes Venom. Or the Borg. Or the Dark Side of the Force, any corrupting force that gives you more strength/power but in return destroys the goodness of you.

Sauron is, ultimately, evil. I don't think any good remains in him, so the ring really can't harm him further. Rather he IS the corrupting factor. He is the one turning the dials. 




> The evil torturer Gandalf still merely suspects, and he only speaks of Great Rings.



I would say that we have a little bit of ambiguity in the writing but assuming that he later realizes that he was wrong, this ring can't do all that after all, it was a rather large omission. You would think he would've said, "Oh whoops, sorry, this won't make you a wraith. It'll just destroy the world as we know it. My mistake." Assuming that this is true, I think it would be great ambiguity and I think Tolkien would've caught it in one of the many edits he went through. I know he must've left some mistakes in there, but the guy proof read himself ad nasuem (sp?).

A lot of Gollum's adaptations had more to do with his environment than the ring. Perhaps, given centuries in a particular environment, all of us would conform to it. He set himself to a tough life for which his body was not originally created.


----------



## Illuin (Jul 26, 2008)

> by D.A. Strider
> _"Think of it as (bad analogy) Dr. Octopus's legs. Or the symbiont that causes Venom. Or the Borg. Or the Dark Side of the Force, any corrupting force that gives you more strength/power but in return destroys the goodness of you."_


 

Well, that is certainly a great analogy(s) if we are talking about becoming corrupted, but it is hardly relevant to becoming a wraith. What if Galadriel had taken the Ring? Would she have eventually become a wraith? She knew very well that it would make her a ruling Queen, not a wraith. Elves are strong-willed, and simply wise enough to resist the temptation; however; if they weren’t, I don’t think the consequences would be any different (though the process may take longer); and she knew that she would be corrupted; yet powerful; but certainly not a wraith. But, the Doc himself did indeed provide the answer; though I believe we may have inadvertently stumbled upon a small inconsistency here. I think I’m going to rebel and join the picket lines with YayGollum on this one .


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 28, 2008)

Good lord, looks like I have some catching up to do. And has no one stood in the defense yet? And more to the point - what would they defend. In my eyes, this is a very fluid discussion, but I hardly think there's much of a debate going...well perhaps, we shall see.



> A. All evil is drawn to Mordor
> B. Gollum thought he would find a force that would help him avenge himself because it hated the West and Bilbo had come from the West.
> C. The ring left him "open for summons."



A. Isn't "evil" a matter of opinion. I don't think that even Gandalf saw Gollum as evil -_ “Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least.”_

B. When do the books ever indicate that Gollum was after revenge? Gollum was like some 3 year old whose toy has been taken and he wants it back. There's no revenge plotted, just a desire to have it back; a desire so intense that it can lead to violence.

C. Open for summons? I would say that Gollum was no more open for summons than Frodo was. Frodo chose to fight - that it to take the Ring to Mordor. Gollum was still a creature of free will. I'd just say he favored the idea of hiding over fighting. 



> The One Ring thing doesn't turn you into a Ringwraith, or at least, not like the others. Poor Smeagol had the thing for a while and never turned invisible, no capitalized Darkness ever devoured him. Sure, hobbit type things are resilient, but I write that the One Ring thing just messed with him in a different way. Permanently mutated him. Permanently grafted an especially One Ring thing-centric personality onto the poor guy.



Yay, this was well said. I often think of Ringwraiths as just another race: Just as there are Men, and Elves, and Dwarves, etc. And like any race, there are differences among them. Men of Gondor, Men of Rohan, Elves of Mirkwood, Elves of Rivendell, Dwarves of Moria, Dwarves of the Lonley Mountains, etc. Within Ringwraths, I think there were differences as well. Of course you have the Black Riders, Nazgul, but then I think that Frodo and Gollum were Ringwraths of another sort. 


Last note, in reference to Elgee's comments here:


> "Think of it as (bad analogy) Dr. Octopus's legs. Or the symbiont that causes Venom. Or the Borg. Or the Dark Side of the Force, any corrupting force that gives you more strength/power but in return destroys the goodness of you."



Using that particular argument you could say that Sauron could have, with the right leverage, turned against evil in the end - as Darth Vader did. Magic is so fluid, neither good nor evil completely, it's all in how you use it. Sauron did evil things, but he was not evil himself. Frodo did good things, but he was not good himself. All creatures are unremarkable in that way - it's not who you are on the inside, but what you do that defines you.


Hopefully that catches me up here. This is a great discussion.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 28, 2008)

I don't know if Gandalf thought Gollum himself was evil, but he directly states within this section 

"Yes, to Mordor," said Gandalf. "Alas! Mordor draws all wicked things. . ."

so it suggests that Gollum is wicked at least in part in Gandalf's mind. Just because you aren't willing to kill someone off doesn't mean you don't necessarily think they aren't evil. 

As for Vengeance, I'm again quoting that section:

"And all folks were whispering then of the new Shadow in the South, and its hatred of the West. There were his fine new friends who would help him in his revenge!"

Again, this is merely Gandalf speculating, but it's what Gandalf says. 


And as for Summons "The Ring of the Enemy would leave its mark, too, leave him open to the summons. . ."

so again, directly quoting here.

It's a pretty explicit chapter. Lots of talking.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 28, 2008)

What are you writing about, crazy Firawyn person? I defended a little. Am I out of practice? Ah, but this subject isn't as mind-boggling, to myself. When it comes to people not believing that poor Smeagol was the main hero of the story, though, I can't help attempting to show how obviously crazy they are.

Towards what the HLGStrider person wrote about what the Tolkien person should have caught while editing ad nauseam (the right way), I still don't see a problem. Why would the evil torturer Gandalf even worry about correcting himself? First of all, he wasn't the Ring Of Power expert, so he wouldn't be entirely sure about most of what he was talking about. He was more of an intuitive and, "From a certain point of view..." kind of guy. Besides, taking the time to point out one of his mistakes to Frodo so that he has more of a reason to doubt him would have been unhelpful and a waste of time. They found out that it was the One Ring! Ack! As I wrote ---> More of a problem than the average Great Ring! Quick! Panic!

My takes on the letters that the Firawyn person brought up:

A. All evil is drawn to Mordor. Nobody is pure good or pure evil, so everybody's thoughts, at least, went to Mordor at some point. Gollum is mostly evil, since he is a personality borne from the One Ring thing. Poor Smeagol, on the other paw, is an innocent but natural personality, so he has evil and good in him. Plenty to draw him to Mordor.

B. I would agree that poor Smeagol would enjoy some revenge. Many heroes that people admire dream of righting wrongs. "Those Orcs killed my family! I shall avenge them!" "That Dwarf inconvenienced my son! I shall ignore extenuating circumstances and gut the hapless fellow!" "That dragon has flown off with a few cows! Death is the only solution!"  Poor Smeagol. So misunderstood. Evil thief Bagginses.

C. Ah. I agree with this one and already touched on it in A.


----------



## Illuin (Jul 28, 2008)

> _Why would the evil torturer Gandalf even worry about correcting himself? First of all, he wasn't the Ring Of Power expert, so he wouldn't be entirely sure about most of what he was talking about. He was more of an intuitive and, "From a certain point of view..." kind of guy. _


 
Well said indeed _number one_. This happens to be the basis and origin of my “small inconsistency theory”. The fictional character himself _within the story_ leaves the matter open for interpretation. Keen insight indeed my friend, if I may say so.


----------



## Firawyn (Jul 31, 2008)

So Elgee, are you basing your argument on the assumption that Gandalf was correct in his speculations?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 31, 2008)

Basically I am saying that the only voice Tolkien gave to this argument is Gandalf and I am willing to take his word on it unless I see elsewhere in the texts/letters/appendix that Tolkien stated otherwise.

Yay has pointed out, there is a little bit of wiggle room in that Gandalf was talking about the rings generally up to a certain point in the conversation. I think, however, that the text suggests Gandalf suspects it was the one ring from the start of the conversation. That he thought to cast the ring into the fire made it clear that he was looking for the inscription. 

I have a metallurgical question that might make this point clearer. Gandalf states that the fire would not be enough even to melt normal gold, but would it be enough to cause a normal ring to conduct heat? I'm not familiar enough with the properties of gold to know this. But in the book Gandalf takes the ring directly out of the fire and drops it onto Frodo's palm without looking for the inscription first. Wouldn't be very nice if it turned out to be a normal ring and Frodo came away with a circular brand on his hand. 

It's like he's telling Frodo he may have ingested a poison so he better take this antidote and then later failing to mention that he's found out it is a different sort of poison with a different sort of antidote. 

I would say that Gandalf simply being wrong is possible but unlikely. 

Further proof that Gandalf at least thought the one ring causing "fading" was possible is after he finds out the one ring he points out that, "Certainly he (Gollum) had never "faded." He is thin and tough still." 

So I would say that this phrase suggests that Gandalf thought this was surprising or of note. 


Still, as a writer, I don't think you allow a character to be wrong on a point without giving some clarification later that he was wrong. Especially not a character, such as Gandalf, who is there partially as a figure representing wisdom and council.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 31, 2008)

Hm? You're not supposed to assume that something is right just because you've only been given one point of view! That is to write, you don't actually believe all of those horrible lies that the evil torturer Gandalf said about poor Smeagol? Everyone assumes he killed some guy named Deagol. Sure, it does seem unlikely that the evil torturer Gandalf made up everything about poor Smeagol and his story, but why would anyone believe the sorts of things that Gollum would have to say for himself? He seems like the untrustworthy sort, but, oh, everyone believes him when he has something bad to say about himself? Craziness. Poor Smeagol was made submissive via Gollum coming up with all kinds of lies about him. Yep. 

Anyways, yes, I would agree that the evil torturer Gandalf is thinking that this might be the One Ring thing. Of course. I wasn't writing that he was wrong about anything, even though I am not overly annoyed about the idea. He was getting ready for all eventualities, as always. He doesn't say much about the One Ring and any troubles it might cause in particular until he knows what it is. And I don't remember much being written about the not being hot after being in a fire thing to know if it was supposed to be a One Ring thing or if any of the Great Rings would do that. He'd done a bit of research on such things. Mayhaps he knew that none of the Great Rings would burn you, so he dropped the thing in the guy's hand with little thought but the one that was hoping it wouldn't be the One Ring?


----------



## Persephone (Jul 31, 2008)

There is no other explanation for Smeagol's self-exile other than the Deagol story, Yay. Why on Middle-Earth would he go into the mountains where there are real evil things lurking inside that could possibly eat him if he didn't feel the need to disappear from the world entirely? He knew the power of the ring before he went into the mountains, hence there was no real reason to go hide further--he was practically already hidden. But he couldn't stand the guilt which is why he ran away and he could have gone to other places where there were people like himself, but no, he chose the darkness of the heart of the mountains. That tells me that he felt wicked inside because of what he had done to Deagol, so Gandalf's story is true, or has some truth it in. 

He was suffering from multiple personality disorder as a result of the trauma of murdering Deagol. He was wicked and he felt wicked, I think. But evil is too strong a word to use on him, for me.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 31, 2008)

Nah. The Gollum personality popped up due to the One Ring thing's evil brain melting powers. And there are plenty of reasons for why he'd head for the Misty Mountains. First of all, he might not have known that Orcs lived there. The Beornings lived close to the Misty Mountains, too, and they were always ready for trouble. Those hobbit things seemed like idiots. Or, more likely, there just weren't any Orcs in that area. Also, poor Smeagol was all about curiosity. He loved digging things up and knew plenty of old stories. With his newfound power and boredom at having to teach his idiotic grandmother how to suck eggses, he thought that he'd make a great explorer. Makes sense to myself. *sniff* Poor Smeagol. 

Alternate stories can be made up, if you didn't like that one.  All are plausible, why not?


----------



## Persephone (Jul 31, 2008)

True that the One Ring had a hand in the emergence of Gollum, but it is not entirely because of the One Ring that he's like that. Gollum could have taken over entirely, but Smeagol stayed behind. Gollum is the wicked one brought about by the power of the One Ring as a result of Smeagol's denial of his murdering Deagol.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 31, 2008)

Sure, I would admit that that is one story to tell. Who knows what really happened? Sure, the evil torturer Gandalf told a particular story, one which Tolkien leads us to believe. It's even a story that Tolkien himself seems to believe. Woah. That Sauron guy's corrupting influence through his jewelry sure does make good liars, eh? I am mostly writing that things need not be so black or white. The evil torturer Gandalf, while supposedly well-meaning, would not be above spinning a story in the most advantageous way.


----------



## Persephone (Jul 31, 2008)

YayGollum said:


> Sure, I would admit that that is one story to tell. Who knows what really happened? Sure, the evil torturer Gandalf told a particular story, one which Tolkien leads us to believe. It's even a story that Tolkien himself seems to believe. Woah. That Sauron guy's corrupting influence through his jewelry sure does make good liars, eh? I am mostly writing that things need not be so black or white. The evil torturer Gandalf, while supposedly well-meaning, would not be above spinning a story in the most advantageous way.




Now that is a good twist! But then to what advantage will it do Gandalf or his cause if he lied about Gollum?


----------



## YayGollum (Aug 1, 2008)

Ack! It is a twist that all should have imagined while reading it for themselves! The evil torturer Gandalf is tricksy. Most wizards are, and it doesn't make all of them bad, just careful. He was setting the superly boring and impressionable Frodo up, just in case, to make him feel sorry for poor Smeagol but not to underestimate him. But, as with the evil sam, most readers don't go for that sort of feeling. If the evil torturer Gandalf had been talking to the evil sam, he would have used a different tactic.


----------



## Persephone (Aug 1, 2008)

YayGollum said:


> Ack! It is a twist that all should have imagined while reading it for themselves! The evil torturer Gandalf is tricksy. Most wizards are, and it doesn't make all of them bad, just careful. He was setting the superly boring and impressionable Frodo up, just in case, to make him feel sorry for poor Smeagol but not to underestimate him. But, as with the evil sam, most readers don't go for that sort of feeling. If the evil torturer Gandalf had been talking to the evil sam, he would have used a different tactic.



So you're saying Frodo would have killed Gollum if Gandalf had not told him to show compassion? Then Gandalf wasn't entirely evil, at least for Gollums sake, he was allowed to live longer than he deserved. Gandalf did not see his part in the destruction of the ring--he couldn't have, as he was not that powerful. He just had an inkling that perhaps he was allowed to continue existing for some purpose, _or _he felt pity for Gollum and wanted to have him rehabiliated. At least, I think he could see some hope of rehabilitation for Smeagol.


----------



## YayGollum (Aug 1, 2008)

Ah, I didn't mean to write that the superly boring Frodo would have killed poor Smeagol if not for the evil torturer Gandalf. But yes, it does seem more likely. The reputation that the evil thief Bilbo Baggins allowed to be made for poor Smeagol had the superly boring Frodo without pity for the guy. The evil torturer Gandalf got him to think of poor Smeagol in a different light. Unfortunate, that the evil sam never saw him that way, or there would have been more hobbitses for the good guys to praise. *sniff* 

Towards the character of the evil torturer Gandalf, I prefer to downplay his niceness. He's too popular for me to say good things about. But I have ideas. Hm. Mayhaps a rant for another place.


----------



## Persephone (Aug 1, 2008)

YayGollum said:


> Ah, I didn't mean to write that the superly boring Frodo would have killed poor Smeagol if not for the evil torturer Gandalf. But yes, it does seem more likely. The reputation that the evil thief Bilbo Baggins allowed to be made for poor Smeagol had the superly boring Frodo without pity for the guy. The evil torturer Gandalf got him to think of poor Smeagol in a different light. Unfortunate, that the evil sam never saw him that way, or there would have been more hobbitses for the good guys to praise. *sniff*
> 
> Towards the character of the evil torturer Gandalf, I prefer to downplay his niceness. He's too popular for me to say good things about. But I have ideas. Hm. Mayhaps a rant for another place.




Standing up for Sam, he was partially right about Gollum. He did plan to bring them to Shelob and yes, there was that thing in the Cirith Ungol tower that was a turning point in Gollum's character, and yes Sam was (unfortunately) unkind to him then, but that doesn't mean that Gollum was gonna turn a new leaf if he showed a bit more niceness to him at the time. Gollum's lust for the ring was getting stronger that time and he could still have attacked them or send them to their deaths to Shelob anyway.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that Gollum would have done what he had done whether or not Sam was nice to him. He was wicked enough to kill Deagol.


----------



## YayGollum (Aug 1, 2008)

Yes, Gollum was wicked enough to kill some guy called Deagol, if he even existed. But I don't know about Smeagol. From the data I have, it seems like quite an extraordinary thing to happen without most of the act being performed via the One Ring thing's influence. Poor Smeagol was a geek, definitely a wuss, young, probably weaselly. None of the One Ring thing's opponents were as malleable. Check out how deformed the poor guy became. 

But I would agree with you about new leaves being turned. I would alternatively write, though ---> No new leaves turned! An especially old leaf, from a tree no longer seen, reinvigorated! Yes, it's a bit soggy from having that large and stinking leaf of evil being smashed on top of it, but it was coming back! All of the progress made, even with the evil sam belittling it! He had gone back to, even if part of him was thinking about a giant spider, his most hobbitish in a while. Gollum's personality was a shield from the evil sam, which, at that time, just got a strong reminder not to be so vulnerable. *bawls*


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 1, 2008)

I would say that when the ring senses a need or opportunity for a new owner to better its position it puts out extra strength and effort to achieve it . . . Slipping from Gollum at an opportune moment when it could get no more good from him. Jumping onto Frodo's finger at the Prancing Pony which drew the attention of some ill meaning folks and happened when the Nazgul were relatively near. 

Isildur knew better than most the evil of Sauron and was surrounded by advisers I think he would've respected under normal circumstances, and yet he endangered everything, including his friendship with the Elves, in order to keep the ring. 

Perhaps the ring wanted Smeagol rather than Deagol for some reason. Perhaps it simply was putting off an attraction that no one could resist and Deagol would've done the same to Smeagol had roles been reversed. We can't really know. Still, after ages in the mud the ring's desire to be on the move again would've been strong and it would've been pulling out all stops to ensnare a new bearer.


----------



## Persephone (Aug 1, 2008)

HLGStrider said:


> ...Isildur knew better than most the evil of Sauron and was surrounded by advisers I think he would've respected under normal circumstances, and yet he endangered everything, including his friendship with the Elves, in order to keep the ring.




I believe that this is one of the most tragic events in Middle Earth History because Isildur had the chance to end it right then and there, but instead he chose vanity. I think it's part of human nature to want supremacy when it's offered. It takes a great deal of courage and humility to refuse something as tempting as the power of the One Ring.




HLGStrider said:


> ...Perhaps the ring wanted Smeagol rather than Deagol for some reason. Perhaps it simply was putting off an attraction that no one could resist and Deagol would've done the same to Smeagol had roles been reversed. We can't really know. Still, after ages in the mud the ring's desire to be on the move again would've been strong and it would've been pulling out all stops to ensnare a new bearer.



Good theory especially since the One Ring did _decide_ to leave Gollum and go with Bilbo. Is it possible that the One Ring can sense an individual's corruptibility or is it just attracted to wickedness? It's possible that the One Ring _felt_ Smeagol's wickedness and attached itself to him because of that. Or vice versa. Maybe beings that are wicked inside feel magnetized by the One Ring so much that they _covet it _to the point of murder. But this wouldn't explain Bilbo's attachment to it. He wasn't wicked. Nor Frodo or Sam; they were unwilling Bearer's of the One Ring. Sam especially detested it because of what it did to poor Mr. Frodo.

Another idea: What if the One Ring detected Smeagol's corruptibility and decided to attach itself to Smeagol in order to play around with him? You know, torture him until he becomes this gnarled being? It is evil enough to enjoy that kind of evil deed, especially since Smeagol must have been eaten by guilt at killing Deagol and being suspected by every one he knew. The One Ring must have been ecstatic when Smeagol developed another personality. The Gollum person is so twisted it must have been quite a torture for Smeagol to live with him--loving him and hating him at the same time.

But this is a very good theory.


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 2, 2008)

If you believe Gandalf than Bilbo wasn't in the ring's plan. An Orc would've been a much more likely finder. They were scrambling all over those corridors. Bilbo just happened by at the right moment.


----------



## Persephone (Aug 2, 2008)

HLGStrider said:


> If you believe Gandalf than Bilbo wasn't in the ring's plan. An Orc would've been a much more likely finder. They were scrambling all over those corridors. Bilbo just happened by at the right moment.




Good point. It makes sense, too, in a way because if the Ring wanted to go back to Sauron it would choose a being that is drawn to Mordor and Hobbits are the last people who would go near Sauron. I also think the Ring tried to corrupt Bilbo, and Frodo, too.


----------

