# Would Gollum have turned to dust...



## Firawyn (May 3, 2006)

Would Gollum have turned to dust if the ring had been distroyed and he had not died at the same time? In RotK, there's a passage where Sam and Frodo are almost there, and Gollum knows what they are up to, and he pleeds with them saying that he will turn to dust if the ring was destoryed. 

I was curious is ths really would have happened, if he would have physically turned to dust, or if he was merely implyig that his life would be wretched and worthless (not that it was worth much in the first place) and he was just being a whine bucket. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Maeglin (May 4, 2006)

He was mostly just whining, though the ring had given him unnaturally long life so that he was already ancient, and the only thing keeping him alive was the will to have the ring back. So if the ring was destroyed separate from him then, yes, I believe he would have died extremely soon after if not immediately, though not turned to dust in the literal sense...but yes, certainly in the metaphorical sense. 


And don't know if you know this but you posted your thread 3 times....mods if you could be so kind as to make amends to that.


----------



## YayGollum (May 4, 2006)

My thoughts ---> The Firawyn person is a large meanie. *sniff*  Poor Smeagol. Everyone always trying to defame the hero! *bawls*  Anyways, sure, it would not be especially hard for me to believe that. He was superly as well as unnaturally old. Also, are not characters usually correct about such creepily magical type things that make no sense? But then again, poor Smeagol did have some amazing pity powers going for him. Even though it didn't work very well on those guys, it was his specialty, so he had to attempt. That is a pretty pitiful thing to say. *sniff* Poor Smeagol.


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 4, 2006)

Well I've thought about this before, and long ago decided that seeing as how Gollum was so old, he would have died. I believe that only his soul or, as you say Maeglin, his will was captured in the Ring, which was what was keeping him alive. This gives enough reason that if the Ring was destroyed, Gollum would be as well.

But then, I started thinking about Bilbo and Frodo, and I decided that neither of them had the Ring long enough for it to take full effect. Although Frodo was affected by Sauron's malice more than Bilbo, Frodo only posessed the Ring for several years and Bilbo had the Ring for over 20 years but Sauron wasn't strong enough to do serious damage other than extend Bilbo's life.


----------



## GuardianRanger (May 4, 2006)

Bilbo gave up the ring for about a year before going to the Undying Lands. He ages pretty rapidly once he gives up the ring.

Gollum has lost the ring for many years, yet he is still able to wrestle with Frodo at Mount Doom. Sure, Frodo was pretty weak.

Why isn't Gollum "more frail"? Or "older"?
Just a thought.


----------



## Maeglin (May 4, 2006)

Bilbo had given up the ring for much more than a year by the time he left middle-earth. I believe it was somewhere between 20 and 30 years before Frodo went on his journey.


----------



## Arvedui (May 5, 2006)

GuardianRanger said:


> Bilbo gave up the ring for about a year before going to the Undying Lands. He ages pretty rapidly once he gives up the ring.
> 
> Gollum has lost the ring for many years, yet he is still able to wrestle with Frodo at Mount Doom. Sure, Frodo was pretty weak.
> 
> ...


Just a speculation: but might this be so because Bilbo gave up the Ring voluntarily? He was probably more at peace with himself, and the only remaining thing for Bilbo seem to have been to become older than the Old Took. Gollum lingered on, striving to get the Ring back.


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 5, 2006)

Once again, it comes back to Gollum's mind being ensnared by the Ring. Neither Bilbo or Frodo's mind had been consumed and so they were not tied in with it.

And Arvedui: you make a good point.


----------



## Arvegil (May 5, 2006)

I suspect that Gollum would have died very soon afterwards, since his life was by that point bound up within the Ring's existence. However, I suspect that Tolkien would have done it in a manner other than "immediately turn to dust," because that would be awfully close to the theatrical wizardry he did not like.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 5, 2006)

Firawyn said:


> Would Gollum have turned to dust if the ring had been distroyed and he had not died at the same time?



Yes. There is also a remote possibility that he might have become roquefort cheese — or possibly Brie.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (May 6, 2006)

GuardianRanger said:


> Bilbo gave up the ring for about a year before going to the Undying Lands. He ages pretty rapidly once he gives up the ring.




Refresh my memory, Ranger. Was the according to Tolkien for a speculation of Peter Jackson and crew? I'm thinking you're probobly right, but I just wanted to clairify.

And Arvedui, I agree with Noldor, you make a very good point there. I'd never considered that. Do you think that Tolkien may have been thinking along those lines as well, or perhaps it is just a mere coinsidence>

Barley dearest, do I sence a touch of sarcasm in that post?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 6, 2006)

Firawyn said:


> Barley dearest, do I sence [sp: SENSE] a touch of sarcasm in that post?



Not at all beloved, just being silly. 

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (May 7, 2006)

Le...*cough* er....Barley, 

You really aught to have clairified that in your original post. It was very misleading. 

Anyway, do you not have anymore insight on this subject?





PS....Shut up about my spelling!


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 7, 2006)

I doubt very much that Gollum would have turned to dust, but that he would slowly disappear, as I think was happening to someone. Ah yes, the Ringwraiths. Except he would disappear forever, and be dead, instead of wearing a huge black cloak and going around whispering 2 words.

Or his limbs could have just fallen off, and he became a head and torso, similar to the Black Knight in Holy Grail.


----------



## Arvedui (May 8, 2006)

Firawyn said:


> And Arvedui, ... Do you think that Tolkien may have been thinking along those lines as well, or perhaps it is just a mere coinsidence>


I am not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. After all, Tolkien was incredibly nitpicking and spent an unreasonable amount of time working out details so that they shoud fit in and make sense.

I can't remember any comments in _HoME_ or _Letters_ that directly support this, but there are a lot that touches on Gollum's ties to the Ring.


----------



## Ithrynluin (May 8, 2006)

Arvedui said:


> Tolkien was incredibly nitpicking and spent an unreasonable amount of time working out details so that they shoud fit in and make sense.



And we're thankful for that!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 8, 2006)

Firawyn said:


> ...do you not have anymore insight on this subject?



None whatsoever, except to say in response to Arvedui's unfortunate critique ("Tolkien was incredibly nitpicking and spent an unreasonable amount of time working out details so that they shoud fit in and make sense"), that this is as abjectly silly and preposterous a judgment as rendering the same remark about a Kurosawa movie or a Brahms symphony or a Hawkings physics equation.  

Barley


----------



## baragund (May 9, 2006)

I don't think Gollum would have literally turned to dust. I think he would have rapidly aged the almost 600 years that he was under the influence of the Ring and very quickly died of old age.

Let's review the chronology so everybody understands how long each of the players were in possession of the Ring. All of these dates are from Appendix B:

2463 - Smeagol / Gollum gets the Ring by murdering Deagol.
2941 - Bilbo finds the Ring in the Misty Mountains.
3001 - Bilbo passes the Ring to Frodo and goes to live in Rivendelll.
3019 - The Ring is destroyed. 

Bilbo was in possession of the Ring for 60 years. He appeared exceedingly well preserved up to the time he passed it to Frodo but seemed to age more rapidly after that. Frodo was also well preserved although he possessed the Ring for "only" 18 years. It seems to me the aging process would catch up to anybody who possessed the Ring.

I think the same would apply to the Nazgul. When the One was destroyed, their own rings lost their power, they quickly aged however many hundreds of years and soon died.


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 9, 2006)

Actually, now that you mention it, how did the Nazgul die? Does it actually say, or do they just die of some means which we know not of?

But as for Gollum turning to dust, I doubt Tolkien would have allowed that. It just doesn't seem right. However, perhaps Tolkien could not think of the perfect way for Gollum to die, so that is why Gollum fell in, and since he was falling in, why not let him take his precious in and do one final act of goodness.

What I am saying is, Gollum was going to die, and he fell into Orodruin. The Ring had to go in as well, so Tolkien decided, seeing as how Gollum would have died to have the Ring forever, why not kill 2 birds with one stone? Or at least, 2 evils with one fall?


----------



## Arvedui (May 10, 2006)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> None whatsoever, except to say in response to Arvedui's unfortunate critique ("Tolkien was incredibly nitpicking and spent an unreasonable amount of time working out details so that they shoud fit in and make sense"), that this is as abjectly silly and preposterous a judgment as rendering the same remark about a Kurosawa movie or a Brahms symphony or a Hawkings physics equation.
> 
> Barley


Unfortunate? Critique?

Hmm... I was probably using the wrong words while trying to make a point. But it is a fact that Tolkien's detail-nitpicking was a major reason for the delay in for instance the publishing of _The Return of the King_, and also a major reason for _The Silmarillion_ not being published in his lifetime, thus leaving us with a book that was edited by someone else.

I don't see myself as a "lesser" fan of Tolkien than most members of TTF, but that don't keep me from realizing that he did have some flaws.


ithy said:


> And we're thankful for that!


I couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 10, 2006)

Arvedui said:


> Unfortunate? Critique?
> 
> Hmm... I was probably using the wrong words while trying to make a point. But it is a fact that Tolkien's detail-nitpicking was a major reason for the delay in for instance the publishing of _The Return of the King_, and also a major reason for _The Silmarillion_ not being published in his lifetime, thus leaving us with a book that was edited by someone else.
> 
> ...



And I was probably over-harsh, for which I apologize. Yes, Tolkien did have the unfortunate habit of starting over with every mistake, which ate up a lot of time, and did prevent him from finishing Sil (some say he didn't _want_ to finish it). And he used the hunt-and-peck typing approach. And he had a lot of other things to attend to. But that was him! He wasn't going to change. 

I think it was the use of the word "unreasonable" that raised my hackles. He had a _system_ and he worked it, creaky as it was, and that system gave us The Book of the 20th Century, according to a great many people, of which only the bible sold more copies, and not by much, I heard somewhere...

Barley


----------



## Arvedui (May 11, 2006)

To get this back on track, I will try to rephrase: 
Tolkien had such an eye for details, that I find it likely that he did indeed think along the lines as I suggested earlier.

(If only I could have written it like that from the beginning... 
That's what you get when trying to discuss with someone whose mastery of writing English is imperfect. )


----------



## Firawyn (May 11, 2006)

Barley one of the advantages to typing responses as apposed to acctaully talking to somone in person is so that you can snap and then take it back _before_ you post it. Don't be an a.s.s. 


@ Noldor, I like your thinking, go Monty Python! lol

@ Arvedui, I have the letters, and havn't found any insight on this in there, as of yet, either. I havn't read HoME yet though. And on another note, you'll have to just humor us English nuts, though I liked the way you stated it in the first place. It was perfectly true, and don't think you intended it to be an insult. Just a very true, albeit somtimes obnoxious part of Tolkien.


----------



## Arvedui (May 12, 2006)

Well, I don't know. Using the word "*un*reasonable" wasn't particularily clever, considering how the total image of tolkien's work makes very much sense.
And of course it wasn't an insult. It is probably just that the few remaining hairs of some old-timers are particularily sore when they are touched.    
And considering the quality of Barley's beer, I wouldn't dare taking the risk of being thrown out of the Prancing Pony. proper fourteen-twenty's all around.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 12, 2006)

Firawyn said:


> Barley one of the advantages to typing responses as apposed [opposed] to acctaully [actually] talking to somone in person is so that you can snap and then take it back _before_ you post it. Don't be an a.s.s.



You tellin' me howta post, woman? 

And believe me, I've said _plenty_ of things "in person" I had to take back!  (But more often than not it was worth it, and the older I get the more worth it it is...  )

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (May 17, 2006)

Darn right I'm telling you how to post! (I for one, don't drink your bloody ale, so I'm not worried about crossing you!) And who are you calling 'woman'? Lol, I must be getting old. On the other hand, I will be 18 in August! Yay me!! 


Fir-


PS...Geeze Barley, this is not an English class, stop correcting my spelling! It is not uncomprehensible. (and yes, I'm sure that was spelled wrong).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 18, 2006)

Firawyn said:


> ...I will be 18 in August! Yay me!!



Happy Birthday early — I'll be 70 in October — yay me too! 

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (May 18, 2006)

You crack me up Barley.  

Happy birthday in advance to you as well, dear. Seventy? Are you feeling time? *wicked grin* It's funny, really, you probobly have grandkids my age, and yet, when I talk to you, we're just people, not 'you're the elder and I am the submissive child' (when have I even been submissive?) That's what I love about the net!! lol

Okay people, back on topic now...


----------



## GuardianRanger (Jun 2, 2006)

Firawyn said:


> Refresh my memory, Ranger. Was the according to Tolkien for a speculation of Peter Jackson and crew? I'm thinking you're probobly right, but I just wanted to clairify.



No, just confusion between the movies and books.
I totally forgot that in the books it is multiple years between the time Bilbo gives up the ring and when Frodo leaves the Shire.


----------



## Varokhâr (Jun 2, 2006)

In all honesty, I think Gollum would've just turned to dust. No more Ring + no more life-prolonging power = *poof*

The same applies to the Nine. No more Ring to sustain them = no more Nazgul. They simply could not survive without the Ring, though Tolkien's passage that the Witch-king was never seen again _in that age of the world_, or something to that effect, seems to suggest otherwise.

Perhaps in their case, the Ring merely sustained the Nine in _this_ world - they went on to survive as ghosts or poltergeists of some sort? Perhaps Gollum met a similar fate, bound to this world by the amount of spiritual poisoning the Ring imparted on his soul but forever parted from the physical plane of existence upon his physical death?

[/stopramble]


----------

