# Is Gollum really the Hero of LotR?



## Khôr’nagan (Dec 24, 2005)

For a long time, I (and many others) believed that Gollum was the hero of LotR, because he destroyed the Ring. I've always been of the impression that some inner part of Smeagol that was still good and true fought over the evil for just a moment long enough to cast himself into the fire and end it all. However, I was just re-reading the LotR, and I came across a passage in which Frodo grabbed the Ring and told Gollum, by the Ring mind you, which Frodo at least seemed to believe bound Gollum to it inextricably (and I agree), something like "And if you ever lay your hands upon it again, let death find you quickly!" I can't seem to find the said passage (it was a few weeks ago that I read it), and when I do I'll post it, but for the mean time the point stands that it appears to me Gollum simply obeyed a direct command from the Ring itself, to which he was a slave and could not refuse.

I personally feel sorry for YayGollum, who has ever thought of Gollum as the Hero of the Lord of the Rings, and I don't think he'd take this news well.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 24, 2005)

Khôr’nagan said:


> For a long time, I (and many others) believed that Gollum was the hero of LotR, because he destroyed the Ring.



At the very beginning of the saga, Gandalf intimated that Gollum would perhaps have some pivotal part to play "for good or ill" — and he certainly did! I don't think he was the hero because he was the literal instrument of the ring's destruction (which is a complex question in itself: who/what was directly responsible for the destruction of the Ring), but he certainly was a _tragic figure,_ arguably of heroic proportion.

He began as a snerty little hobbitlike creature, mean-spirited and with a weak character to begin with. The Ring got its teeth into him psychologically and never let go until they both went toppling into the molten lava.

(BTW — who are the "many others" you speak of?)

Barley


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Dec 24, 2005)

By many others, I mean people like YayGollum (for one), and I can't recall all of the people with whom I held a debate about this a couple of years ago, but in the end of the discussion, we were in a consensus that Gollum was a hero. As to whether Gollum is a hero, I fail to see how he can be, as he did not accomplish any amazing feats or win out against unimaginable odds. Indeed, the only struggle he seemed to be having any success against was the corruption of the Ring, and for a hobbit (or hobbit-like creature), he actually fought it badly. I mean, both other hobbits who got the ring never did anything evil or foul like Gollum did, and they were able to live normal, happy lives despite its burden. Smeagol, on the other hand, got himself banished within the week. That's hardly fighting the Ring well at all. Every other situation he's ever been put into, such as being pitted against Sauron when going to Mordor, or against Aragorn, or even Frodo, he's always failed. And besides that, all those things are evil anyway, so he'd hardly be considered Heroic for winning out.

I cannot deny that Gollum is essential to the story, and is certainly beyond any doubt a tragic figure, but so is Sauron, and I wouldn't consider him a Hero. I mean, he was corrupted in what could be considered his youth and has done foul things since, and when he had a chance to renounce his evil ways, his pride held him back; and I don't think you can deny his importance. But despite all that, he is not a Hero. And neither, in my opinion, is Gollum.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Dec 24, 2005)

> For a long time, I (and many others) believed that Gollum was the hero of LotR, because he destroyed the Ring.


I think that Tolkien pointed to Sam being the LotR's hero:


Letter #131 said:


> I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (_the chief hero's_) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Dec 25, 2005)

I completely agree with Sam being the Hero of the story. I mean, without Sam, Frodo would never have gotten out of the Emyn Muil, let alone past Shelob, into Mordor, past the Orcs and all the way up Orodruin. It's simply that for me, Gollum was always the guy who finished it all. When everything was on the brink of ruin and the good guys were screwed, in comes the goodness within Smeagol to save the day. When all was said and done, Gollum had gotten them to where they needed to be, and when he got them there, he did the deed when no one else would. That for me was why Gollum was The Hero in my book. But then I realized that it wasn't true, and that was a real eye-opener when I saw that line in the book. I don't know, I guess fewer people thought Gollum was the Hero than I thought, and maybe a lot remember that same passage from the book and knew it all along.

Speaking of which, I just remembered where I saw it: It was right before the scene in question, when Gollum waylaid Frodo and Sam on the slopes of Orodruin. The passage goes thus:



> With a violent heave Sam rose up. At once he drew his sword; but he could do nothing. Gollum and Frodo were locked together. Gollum was tearing at his master, trying to get at the chain and the Ring. This was probably the only thing that could have roused the dying embers of Frodo's heart and will: an attack, an attempt to wrest his treasure from him by force. He fought back with a sudden fury that amazed Sam, and Gollum also. Even so things might have gone far otherwise, if Gollum himself had remained unchanged; but whatever dreadful paths, lonely and hungry and waterless, he had trodden, driven by a devouring desire and a terrible fear, they had left grievous marks on him. 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.'
> Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.
> 'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'



So there it is, even more literal than I thought. Gollum was simply obeying a command from Frodo by the Ring itself; a command which he could not refuse. Maybe it's just so significant to me because I hadn't remembered it before when debating about Gollum's heroism, but I thought it was something that would cause some "wow, really?" reactions. But then again, I always have been a little over-dramatic...

You know, I could almost start arguing that Smeagol knew he would be forced to obey the command and be forced to kill himself if he touched Frodo, and thought it worth the price of destroying the Ring, but that's too much of a stretch to be believed. Too bad YayGollum isn't here; he'd probably jump for an opportunity to defend his precious Smeagol.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 25, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> I think that Tolkien pointed to Sam being the LotR's hero:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Letter #131
> I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty.



There you have it! One can even say that the entire purpose of defeating Sauron was so the _Sams_ of Middle-earth could live and prosper.

Barley


----------



## YayGollum (Jan 15, 2006)

Oh, Ick! *gags for a while, but uses much strength of will as well as confidence in the purity and honesty to be found in the typical Gollum rant to fight the evil influence of those who preach the goodness of the evil sam character* Garn! Humans using Gollum subjects to bring me back! Poor Smeagol is obviously the real hero, as I have written many times. Hm? Quotes that show things about the evil sam character? I have seen them all before. You toss a quote that shows the author's opinion at me? I see no large deal. Authors can be wrong. As that Tolkien dude obviously seems to be, at least in this case. Also, some quote showing the One Ring thing telling poor Smeagol not to mess with him any more, else he get killed? No large deal to be found there, either. Poor Smeagol had no problem with disobeying that One Ring thing. Also, I see no evidence that the One Ring thing caused poor Smeagol to fall and end up proving itself correct. Also, also, that is one dumb One Ring, if that is what it was doing, which is a crazy idea. Poor Smeagol destroyed the One Ring and saved the world on his own. He is the hero.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Jan 15, 2006)

Wow, I wished for YayGollum, and here he is... Craziness...

Well, YayGollum, while I don't expect to convince you of the invalidity of your argument (and indeed, I half expect you defend him just to screw around with us), the fact is that Frodo, as the Ringbearer, exerted some control over the Ring. There is a quote previous to the one I provided in which Frodo threatens to command Gollum by the Ring, a command Gollum would be unable to refuse, and this threat assists in cowing your precious Smëagol. Why would he be afraid of a threat unless he knew it to have merit? It's just that simple: He wouldn't.

And as for whether the Ring would be stupid enough to command its own destruction, it's not that simple. All Frodo commanded was that if Gollum lay hands upon him again, he would be cast into the fires of Orodruin. That's not to say Gollum had to have the Ring in his possession; the fact is, assuming it was the Ring's will that commanded Gollum (and as I believe Frodo was controlling the Ring in this situation, the point is, in my opinion, moot anyway), all the Ring was trying to do was stay in the hands of Frodo, whom would yield the most likely chance of itself being discovered. If Gollum got it, he would run away and hide; the Ring wanted to be found, and if, in order to do that, it needed Frodo to claim it for itself, that's what it needed to happen, and Gollum could not be allowed to get in the way. Either way you look at it, I don't think there's any doubt that Gollum was compelled to fall against his will by a command from the Ring, to which he was ever a slave and against which he could not fight.

As it is, I anticipate a long and futile debate in which you will baselessly repudiate every argument I make, and in which I will comprehensively take every word you say apart and tell you why you're wrong. 

Unless, of course, you'll admit you were wrong? *waits expectantly* Oh well, I can't say I'm surprised.


----------



## Aglarband (Jan 16, 2006)

The LOTR is realistic in that there are many heros instead of one central one, which is hardly found in novels today (Harry Potter anyone?). I find Gollum to be a heroic character.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Jan 16, 2006)

No, I don't think that Gollum is a hero.
He is definitely a catalyst, and a character that makes things happen in both 'positive' and 'negative' ways, but to say that he is a hero implies that he took the Ring from Frodo and cast himself/it into the fire out of some kind of altruism, which is clearly not the case. If it had been possible for him to get out of Mordor alive and with the Ring, he would have done so. Yes, his death caused a great good to come about, and he took the Ring from Frodo when otherwise the hobbit might've kept it and allowed it to fall to Sauron, but he most certainly _didn't_ do it for those reasons. He wanted his Ring back, and that's all.


----------



## YayGollum (Jan 16, 2006)

I see no large deal, e.Blackstar person. Why not call him an accidental hero for saving the day? Doing what apparently nobody else could.  

Anyways, you crazy, Khôr’nagan person. What baseless repudiations do I ever come up with? I am the only one that I have the ability to see with the truth in paw! What does this boring Frodo character having any power through the One Ring thing to mess with poor Smeagol have to do with whether anyone is the hero or not? Beside the way, what the One Ring thing said (or the boring Frodo character through the One Ring thing, or whoever else) never really mattered, since poor Smeagol did whatever he wanted, in the end.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Jan 17, 2006)

By baseless arguments, I meant that you don't use any contextual evidence; you just say whatever you say as if it were indesputable fact and expect us to see sense in your argument.

And besides, I was sort of joking. A bit.

Anyway, I never expected you to take my argument and realize you're wrong, so don't expect me to do the same. I believe the passage speaks for itself, and whether or not you choose to see it is entirely up to you.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Jan 17, 2006)

> I see no large deal, e.Blackstar person. Why not call him an *accidental* hero for saving the day? Doing what apparently nobody else could.



Well of course. But to call him 'hero' with no explanatory adjectives is to my mind a mistake.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jan 19, 2006)

I'm afraid I don't believe that the ring is responsible for Gollum's death unless it was indirectly responsible in that Gollum's ringlust caused him to attack Frodo which resulted in the accident of Gollum's death and the ring's destruction.

I do not believe it was anything more than an accident. In the end it was beyond the power of any mortal to withstand the ring and cast it into the fire, and fate was beyond even the immense power of the ring.

In response to Khôr’nagan's hypothesis that Gollum was simply obeying a command from the ring's master when he died, I disagree.

The ring itself has an innate desire for self preservation, and would not have caused itself to be destroyed. It has always acted in its own best interest. Always it sought to return to Sauron. It would not have thrown itself into the fire when it was so close to its goal.

The ring does not always obey its mortal masters. It betrays them and twists their will to its own best interests. And Frodo's words were not a command to the ring to cause Gollum's destruction, but rather, a threat of bodily harm from one mortal to another. Frodo meant that if Gollum attempted to seize the ring again, Frodo would push Gollum over the edge.

As it happens, Frodo didn't need to carry out his threat in the end. Gollum, I believe, simply fell.


> And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat over his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell.



It took him by surprise he wasn't expecting it and certainly didn't intend for it to happen. And if, as you say, the ring "needed to be found" which I don't doubt it and its master desired, then, even if we accept (which I don't) that Gollum had to be eliminated in order for Sauron to find the ring, why would the ring kill Gollum and thereby itself in order to _save itself_?

If the ring was really doing what was needed in order for Sauron to find it then it would have caused Gollum to pull himself back from the brink he inadvertently danced too near. It would have been just as easy for Sauron to take the ring from Gollum once Gollum had claimed it for his own as it would have been for him to take it from Frodo under the same circumstances, for once _either_ of them claimed it and put it on Sauron would have been immediately alerted to its prsence.

It seems to me that it's not only unlikely that the ring caused Gollum to fall over the brink, but a bit silly. And as for Frodo's threat being a command I don't believe it was anything more than a threat. He did not say, as in the past, that the ring would make sure that his wishes were carried out. He simply said, in effect, "Cut that out or I'll kick your @$$!" I don't think there's anything more to it than that. What's more, the ring cannot talk, and it was never the ring that said those words. Sam saw "with other vision", the same way that Frodo, in the haze of his fading at the Ford of Bruinen saw Glorfindel in his shinging white raiment, he "saw him for a moment as he is on the other side..." and perhaps, under the power of Orodruin and the ring that is how Sam saw Frodo. Frodo's enormous strength of will, his purity in his motives at that time shone out in this "other vision". Frodo was weak in body but strong in spirit. It was Frodo's power that was shining through, and the wheel of flame that shone on his breast was the power of the ring. I think perhaps the stumbling block in understanding that these words belonged to Frodo, a threat backed by the power of his determination and strength to destroy the ring, is the sentence "Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice." But it is much the same as when a character in a book, hiding in the shadows, speaks. It is often described as "Out of the darkness there came a voice." or some variation thereof. But it is not the darkness speaking, rather it is a figure hidden in the dark, just as here it is neither the wheel of fire nor the ring speaking, but the figure who is himself cloaked in that fire. The figure is Frodo. Frodo speaks those words out of his desire and determination to see his quest through to the end. Up until the very last his desire to destroy the ring was paramount. Not until the end did he give in to the ring's power and claim it for his own. And as Tolkien himself said in letter 246:


> "At the last moment the pressure of the ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely..."


I believe that Frodo's last effort to do good, part of what sapped his strength, was his final confrontation with Gollum before Frodo claimed the ring for his own. That show of strength of will in which he vowed to destroy Gollum if Gollum interfered with his quest again, was the last stand of said strength, and after that his will to resist the ring severly weakened. For immediately after he gave Gollum that threat Sam saw him weak, winded, and vacant-eyed, but still determined. Sam saw him march up the hill, still standing tall, but the next time Sam saw him Frodo had given in.

Please feel free to tell me if you disagree.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jan 19, 2006)

> I believe that Frodo's last effort to do good, part of what sapped his strength, was his final confrontation with Gollum before Frodo claimed the ring for his own. That show of strength of will in which he vowed to destroy Gollum if Gollum interfered with his quest again, was the last stand of said strength, and after that his will to resist the ring severly weakened. For immediately after he gave Gollum that threat Sam saw him weak, winded, and vacant-eyed, but still determined. Sam saw him march up the hill, still standing tall, but the next time Sam saw him Frodo had given in.


In threatening Gollum, Frodo has a commanding voice, he is "stern, untouchable by pitty" and he inspires _terror_ in Gollum. I doubt that Frodo had the energy and the character to do such things for a good cause (esspecially since Sam envisions him as weilding a wheel of fire). His attitude is very similar to the one he has when he is inside the mountain: clear voice, erect atttitude. I say in both cases he acts under the power of the ring, which tries to preserve itself.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Jan 19, 2006)

It all depends on whose point of view you look at it from. Say, Sauron, Gollum is the worst thing that could have been around. For Frodo, or anyone on the 'good' side, certainly. Yet Sam would most likely see it as an accident or that he deserved it.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jan 19, 2006)

Thorondor_ said:


> In threatening Gollum, Frodo has a commanding voice, he is "stern, untouchable by pitty" and he inspires _terror_ in Gollum. I doubt that Frodo had the energy and the character to do such things for a good cause (esspecially since Sam envisions him as weilding a wheel of fire). His attitude is very similar to the one he has when he is inside the mountain: clear voice, erect atttitude. I say in both cases he acts under the power of the ring, which tries to preserve itself.



I disagree to a certain extent.
I don't doubt that the ring is taking its toll on Frodo. That is not to be disputed. It is causing him to act in ways he wouldn't normally act, especially when he is inside the mountain and claims the ring as his own.

However, I would disagree that he did not have the strength left, the "energy and the character" to do such things. He was, up until that point, completely consumed by the ring. He was under its sway, he could neither walk nor crawl, but he said to Sam that he would go on


> "I can manage it," said Frodo. "I must."


 He showed enormous strength of will in carrying the ring so far and in remaining focused on his goal until the very end.
I believe he does summon up the strength in the end to threaten Gollum and walk up the mountain with the intent of disposing of the ring.

That is not to say the ring does not play its part. The rings power was no doubt bolstering his strength, but at that point in the story his will, his desire to destroy the ring had not yet been turned by the rings power to a desire to possess the ring.

And to Noldor_returned, there is a great difference between somebody not paying attention to what they are doing and dancing too close to the edge of a precipice and somebody willfully throwing themselves off a precipice. If Gollum had attempted to throw himself off and the ring was trying to prevent it or the ring had thrown Gollum off and Gollum was trying to prevent it the description of events would be very different. There would have been evidence, even to Sam's dozy gaze of a struggle of one trying, as if against an invisble force to either throw himself off a cliff while appearing to be held back or trying to avoid falling off a cliff while being pushed or pulled forward. The description does not account for this, and no doubt Tolkien would have included it had that been the case.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jan 20, 2006)

> "I can manage it," said Frodo. "I must."


Yet afterwards, at the night fall, the following scene occurs:


> - I can't manage it, Sam, he said. It is such a weight to carry, such a weight.
> 
> Sam knew before he spoke, that it was vain, and that such words might do more harm than good, but in his pity he could not keep silent.
> 
> ...


It seems to me, again, that Frodo's character and energy are bent by the ring's influence. His desire of possessing the ring is strong enough to threaten, for a brief moment, even his best friend.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jan 20, 2006)

> It seems to me, again, that Frodo's character and energy are bent by the ring's influence. His desire of possessing the ring is strong enough to threaten, for a brief moment, even his best friend.



True, it is. I don't deny that he is torn at that point in the tale between the desire to possess the ring and the desire to destroy it. He is determined to destroy the ring at this point, but when the ring comes under threat his desire to possess the ring overcomes him.

I conceded that Frodo's threat to Gollum was driven by the ring's power, but I don't believe that at this point it was driven SOLELY by a desire to possess the ring.

When Sam offers to carry the ring for Frodo Frodo can only think of Sam trying to take the ring.
When Gollum attempts to take the ring by force on the slopes of Orodruin I believe that Frodo draws power in his feeling of superiority to Gollum, that he still believes he will be able to do what Gollum could not and give the ring up to the fire. What he doesn't realise is that this power to resist is given power by the ring's growing strength, he, I believe, at this point is still determined to give the ring up and destroy it, and that is where his words come from.
But the ring is growing stronger and it gives him strength to say what he wants to say only to use that strength to cause Frodo to be unable to give the ring up once inside the fire mountain.

I do believe that this threat Frodo makes to Gollum are Frodo's own words, and that his strength, though derived in part from, does not come only from the power of the ring, but more that the ring boosts his strength. His resolve is strong for a moment, but it is shortlived. It is impossible to resist the ring once he has made it to the cracks of doom.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jan 20, 2006)

> When Gollum attempts to take the ring by force on the slopes of Orodruin I believe that Frodo draws power in his feeling of superiority to Gollum, that he still believes he will be able to do what Gollum could not and give the ring up to the fire


I doubt Frodo believes he has such a superiority; he is aware that it is the power of the ring that drives him (in continuation of the previous quote):


> - No, no, Sam, he said sadly. But you must understand. It is my burden, and no one else can bear it. _It is too late now_, Sam dear. You can't help me in that way again. _I am almost in its power now_. _I could not give it up_, and if you tried to take it I should go mad.


Imo, perhaps the only way he sees a way out is throwing himself together with the ring - as sad (and heroic!) as it may sound, though this is mere speculation in my part.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jan 23, 2006)

Perhaps you're right, I won't deny that.

But I also think that even if you're right it doesn't negate my hypothesis in its entirety.


----------



## Pantalaimon (Feb 2, 2006)

Before I answer the question, let us define the word \"HERO\" From Dictionary.comhe·ro (hîr-o)n. pl. he·roes 

1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods. 
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war. 
3. A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See Synonyms at celebrity. 
4. The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation. 
So, basing it on that, Gollum does not belong to any: he certainly was not endowed with great courage and strength seeing as he is a murderer to begin with, he has not done any feats noteworthy or is noble in purpose as most of his driving force spring from selfishness, he did not risk his life for anyone or anything, he does not have any special achievements in any field, and is not the principle character in the story.So the answer is --- no.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 3, 2006)

I have seen these points before. For the first point, this is close enough to mythology or legend. Poor Smeagol was certainly some sort of humanish type of thing. His ancestry wasn't expanded on, besides the fact that he was directly related to one of the leaders of the group. Leader types oftimes have deityish reasons for being in charge.  He was endowed with great courage and strength. Most would not disagree with the strength bit, but for the courage bit ---> He made plenty of brave decisions, especially for such a young guy. But then, no, I wouldn't say that he was especially favored by any god type things. oh well.

For the second point ---> I already mentioned the courage. And is not self-preservation a noble instinct to cultivate? I see nothing especially evil about it. Anyways, he obviously sacrificed his life. 

Why would most not agree that poor Smeagol could fall into this third category, though? Yikes! So achingly easy for the character! He is noted very many times for his personality traits, as well as his actions.  

Also, at least for myself, he was the principal male character in the story. I loved his part of that The Hobbit book, was thrilled to see that he made a heroic comeback, was pretty bored in the parts without him, was pretty annoyed that he got no praise for saving the day in the aftermath, and didn't really care about the rest of the story.  

Also, also, I have never seen any proof that poor Smeagol was a murderer. In the story, was that not just a bit of hearsay that the evil torturer Gandalf character invented? Or, even if that guy was reporting what he actually heard, why does anyone trust the word of Gollum about his own past?


----------



## Pantalaimon (Feb 3, 2006)

We think that Gollum can be categorized as a victim of circumstance (some may say it\'s fate, but we don\'t believe in fate). But Hero? He was not, no matter what angle you use Gollum or Smeagol did not do anything that wasn\'t 100 percent selfish. However, we believe that real hero of the war of the ring was Samwise Gamgee, who did not really need to be there but was there out of love for Frodo. Without Sam Frodo would not have made it that far.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 3, 2006)

I could probably come up with some action that the character took that wasn't entirely selfish, but why should I care about that? Explain to me what is so achingly evil about being selfish? In my brain, selfishness is merely a bit of common sense that everyone should have. Besides, what is selflessness? Sounds pretty evil to me. The absence of self? Ick. So, then, you recommend nothingness? Anyways, none of your heroic definitions mention that being selfish equals unheroic. They don't even mention selflessness, which is pure evil, just as the evil sam character is.


----------



## Pantalaimon (Feb 3, 2006)

lol! You are very funny! We love your humour, we do!Selflessness means putting others before yourself. It is very heroic, not to think of yourself first. It may be common sense to cover your ground, and we agree that common sense is better than death, but that is why there are heroes. Gollum is not evil, at least we don\'t think he is. He is a product of Smeagol\'s weakness. Smeagol we think is the evil one. He killed his brother to get the ring. Much like Cain did to Abel. And he did not regret his act, in fact he even tried to justify why he killed Deagol. And that gnawed him like rust.Sam is the real hero.


----------



## baragund (Feb 3, 2006)

Pantalaimon, you need to know that debating with Yay over this topic is like wrestling a pig in the mud. The more you do it, the more the pig likes it.

Enjoy, and welcome to the forum!


----------



## Pantalaimon (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh Thank you! We like wrestling with pigs! Although we don\'t think Yay is pig at alll --- no! can\'t be pig.He/she/it seems to be very fond of Gollum/smeagol, and is blinded by love for that character. We can understand that, we also love Thorin Oakenshield lots and feel that Bilbo\'s betrayal of the dwarf king was unjust and punishable by death.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 4, 2006)

I see nothing wrong with being compared to a pig, if that means that I enjoy a good debate. What, is it proper to never enjoy debating? I would be happy to be improper, if that were the case. 

Anyways, why call me blinded by love for the poor Smeagol character? It seems to me to be that I see more clearly than most. What was the goal of that The Lord Of The Rings story? To destroy the One Ring thing, yes? Who destroyed the One Ring thing? Poor Smeagol, in an especially perfect ending to the quest. It should be obvious that he is the hero. 

Also, Yay for Thorin Oakenshield, too! Poor guy. Everyone hating him merely because he is a proud Dwarf. oh well. 

As to the definition of selflessness, yes, I understand that it means placing other people's interests before you pretend to have thought of your own first, but the word still creeps me out. Selflessness = no self = nothing. It has no other part to the word that mentions others, which wouldn't really make it any better, but oh well. Creepy. Why wish for a blank slate to save you? A faceless, brainless, and passionless hero? Crazy, man.

Also, also, how do you know that poor Smeagol killed any relatives of his? As I wrote before (am used to having points ignored), we only have the evil torturer Gandalf's word on that. And even if we should mindlessly trust that guy, why would anyone trust poor Smeagol? Most seem to think that he has no virtues. Or does selective honesty not count?


----------



## Ingwë (Feb 6, 2006)

Hello, Pantalaimon. Welcome to The Tolkien Forum. 

Yay, don't you think that Gollum didn't want to destroy the One Ring? He wanted it for himself. The poor Gollum character wanter to kill the evil nasty hobbits and to take the One Ring. Eh, who cares about the Ring... If the Ring wasn't destroyed Sauron's forces would kill Aragorn and Gandalf and all Gondorians and all free peoples of the Middle earth. Even the Dwarf-dudes


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 8, 2006)

Sure, I doubt that the Gollum character wouldn't have wanted to melt the One Ring thing. That would be a pretty achingly uncharacteristic action for the dude. But then, is such a large demonstration of intelligence required to think that poor Smeagol isn't much of a fan of the item? Also, what is so achingly difficult to accept about the idea of an accidental hero?


----------



## Ingwë (Feb 9, 2006)

YayGollum said:


> Also, what is so achingly difficult to accept about the idea of an accidental hero?


Accidental hero? Good point. But I don't think he's a real hero. And though Gollum travelled with Frodo and Sam and he didn't eat much food, I don't think he's the hero of THe Lord of the Rings. I don't think the book has a real hero. It has great team - The Fellowship of the Ring, but only one hero for LotR? I don't think it is possible.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 9, 2006)

You write that the character is not a real hero even though you admit that he is an accidental one? Why disagree with yourself? Any sort of hero is a real one. But then, maybe you just meant that he isn't the central hero of the story, which is wrong. I already explained it, but oh well. Why is it obvious to nobody but myself? The goal of the story was to destroy the One Ring thing. It certainly seemed as if no character was capable of pulling it off, but Yay for Gollum!


----------



## Ingwë (Feb 10, 2006)

I do mean the accidental hero doesn't mean the real hero of the story  
The goal was to destroy the one Ring and to save the Middle earth but he wouldn't save Me alone.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Feb 11, 2006)

Who says that heroes aren't allowed to eat, Ingwe?!


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 11, 2006)

Gollum's death was not a pure accident. Middle-earth is a world where the blessings and curses laid have real effect, and Gollum fell as the fulfilment of two conditional curses spoken against his treachery. One was laid on him by Faramir, the other by Frodo on the slopes of Orodruin. A hero is an overcomer, so Gollum is no hero though it could be argued that he was a victim and, paradoxically, every treachery he committed served to fulfil the purposes of good.


----------



## Withywindle (Feb 11, 2006)

Pantalaimon said:


> ......he certainly was not endowed with great courage and strength ...... he does not have any special achievements in any field, and is not the principle character in the story.So the answer is --- no.


 
I disagree entirely. Gollum bears all the hallmarks of an archvillain of any superhero comic:
Special abilities include


Great endurance travelling 100,s of miles with little food or water, surviving extremes of temperature with no clothes or other shelter.
Superb hunter and fisher (always with his bare hands).
Greater tracker and pathfinder even than Aragorn - the passage of the Marshes (twice); finding his way through Moria.
Swimmer (he swam the Anduin and kept pace with the Elven boats) and climber of sheer walls and trees.
Extraordinary strength for his size; a great fighter as well.
His courage is also very great, although in evey act we don´t know to what extent he driven only by the Ring and to what extent his own charcter is intrepid.

In endowing Gollum with these characteristics, I think Tolkien held a certain affection for him: the character was pitiful, as a victim of the Ring, but not pathetic.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 11, 2006)

Fair enough. But he can't be, as Sauron already applied for the job and was hired.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Feb 11, 2006)

Dang, I leave for a while and all hell breaks loose....



Wonko The Sane said:


> It would not have thrown itself into the fire when it was so close to its goal



You misunderstand me (not that I believe that having properly understood me would make you think differently). The Ring, when this was said, did not want Gollum to take the Ring because it knew that, once Frodo entered the Sammath Naur, Frodo would be completely swayed by its will, put on the Ring, and be captured. It would not want Gollum to take the Ring. I believe you may be misunderstanding what I meant in that the Ring would not have expected to be cast in the Fire as well; it would have expected Frodo to win any competition (with the Ring's power to aid him) and Gollum be gotten rid of. The fact that it was wrong is of no consequence. Of course, that's assuming the Ring even considered it; all the Ring would probably have been considering is staying with Frodo, at all costs, until captured by Sauron. It's not its fault it has not the gift of foresight. And then there's the fact that I made both of those up on the spot; Frankly, I have no idea what the Ring was thinking, but I do know what I read, and in my opinion, I read Frodo, through the power of the Ring, commanding Gollum to cast himself into the fires of Doom if he lays hand upon Frodo again. That seems pretty solid to me (though of course everyone has their own interpretation), so it really doesn't matter to me what the Ring was thinking, only what the Ring was doing.

And as for YayGollum.... Have you all ever heard of the saying "Be careful what you wish for"? Well, I apparently wasn't too careful when I wished for him (no offense intended, Yay). Oh well.

Since there's no point in trying to bend YayGollum's neck, I'll just try anyway. I do not believe Gollum can be classified as any form of hero except for an accidental hero, but even that does not mean he is the genuine, 100% pure thing. In my opinion, being a hero means you are heroic, and there's nothing heroic about accidentally falling off of a cliff, or (according to my interpretation) being commanded by something you cannot resist to throw yourself off a cliff. That being my position, I do not think Gollum can be said to be one of the many heroes in the Lord of the Rings, and least of all a main hero. And Yay, you can say all you want that Gollum is the principle character in your opinion, but saying the sky is hot pink (that is, when the sky _isn't_ hot pink) doesn't make it true (not that I'm saying he isn't). A principle character can only be defined as such by the author, so you have to either find a reference to Gollum's statis as a character in the novels or else _objectively_ (note emphasis) analyze the author's views on the character to determine its significance in comparison to other characters. But despite all that, I don't believe that a character can be a hero simply for being important; I certainly don't consider Sauron a hero (misunderstood as he is, it just isn't true), nor do I consider the Ring Wraiths or Saruman or Denathor (the list goes on) heroes. Therefore, even if you consider Gollum a prinicple character, I do not agree that the definition stated above can be taken in this context, as the hero described there is likely given different connotations than actual heroes.

And there isn't really a central hero to the story, unless maybe Sam, but even then, all the characters do so much... In the end, I think it comes down to no fewer than Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, and Sam. The others are all heroes too (i.e. Legolas, Gimli, Merry, Pippin, etc.), but their deeds do not amount to those mentioned above. However, I do not think you can narrow it down any further, thus leaving the possibility of a single central hero negated (in my opinion, of course).


----------



## warswics (Feb 12, 2006)

Let's see if I can add anything to this discussion...

To call Gollum an "accidental hero" a "kind of sort of almost a hero" is silly. Either you are a hero or not. In my mind being a hero means you act heroic, whether or not you wish to do so. Gollum never ever acts heroic (at least not that I can remember). He is simply following along with Frodo (leading him) so he can get the ring back. It is what he covets. That is his only motivation. 

In the end, it is his desire, his lust for this object which is his doom, and, ironically, which saves the world. The funny thing is, Gollum doesn't destroy the ring to save the world. His actions allow him to obtain the ring once more, at which point he "stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell." Without Gollum the ring wouldn't have been destroyed. Yes, he had a part to play, but I don't see how he can be called a hero by any stretch. Had he actually thrown the ring into the fire, then he would have been a hero.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Feb 12, 2006)

I agree with your definition of a Hero and that Gollum was not a hero, but there can be someone who is an accidental hero; Gollum being one. You can easily accidentally trip on a root or spill a drink, so why can't you accidentally be a hero? It doesn't mean you were heroic, just that you did something heroic accidentally. Depending on one's motivations, an accidental hero can be a real one; for example, if a man runs into a burning building to save someone on the 3rd floor and in order to get through the hallway he throws aside a piece of debris laying against a door which just so happens to have beeen trapping more people inside, then he's a true hero, despite not meaning to save those people. But if one's motivations are selfish or evil and then he/she accidentally does something good, that's different; if you do something heroic accidentally and, looking back, wish you hadn't, then I don't consider that person a hero, and I very much doubt that Gollum would, in hindsight, have wished himself to be cast into the Fires of Orodruin and destroyed along with his precious Ring; or rather, again, that he would have preferred not to have tried to take the Ring from Frodo in the Sammath Naur in the first place and, in so doing, incur the wrath of the curse upon him. And from another angle, you can't deny that someone who saves a woman (or a man) from a burning building is a hero and that someone who, at severe risk to himself far greater than the man running into the burning building, single handedly stops a terrorist attack (for lack of a better example) that would have killed millions is also a hero. You also cannot deny that the latter example is more of a hero than the former. If so, then you cannot deny that there are varying degrees of heroism. Since there can be varying degrees of heroism, why can't someone be considered to be almost a hero if they do something that is not heroic enough to really deserve being called a hero but is really close to being enough? Is someone who saves a cat from a tree on the same level with someone who saves the lives of millions? You are right that someone is either a hero or not, but you can not be a hero and still be close to being one.


----------



## warswics (Feb 12, 2006)

Khôr’nagan,

I think we are spliting hairs here. Perhaps the difference between my generation and yours is part of it, I'm not sure. I just can not call Gollum a hero, accidental or not. 

Intent is very important in life. Gollum intended to do Frodo and everyone he came into contact with harm. He intended to take the ring for himself. His actions and his intended actions are deplorable. IN the end, although he did destroy BOTH the ring and himself, Gollum is truly deplorable. He dies the greedy, selfish, murderous little creature he had been throughout. Unrepentant to the end. 

Looking back on Tolkien, I don't think he'd say Gollum was a hero, much less the true Hero of the LOTR. I believe it was the entire company, each playing his small part, which is the hero. 

Anyway, looking back at your post, I'm not sure i see the point of the fireman terrorist thing. The person who saves someone from a burning building, risking life and limb to do so, is just as much a hero as the one who stops a terrorist attack. They are both heroes. I do not agree that the latter is more of a hero than the former. And saving a cat from a tree isn't heroic. It's simply doing the right thing. Being friendly, neighborly. This is why language has different words with different meanings, meanings which are highly important. 

Just a thought.


----------



## Ingwë (Feb 13, 2006)

Wonko The Sane said:


> Who says that heroes aren't allowed to eat, Ingwe?!


Yes, who says... I said that he didn't eat much food because he followed Frodo and Sam and wanted to kill them. He starved because he wanted to.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 13, 2006)

Heroes should never eat. It distracts them from their purpose. (Just kidding)


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 13, 2006)

I was interested in the comment that Tolkien had a soft spot for Gollum. The story did provide at least one moment when Gollum might have been redeemed - after betraying the Hobbits to Shelob, then returning to find them asleep and longing for the companionship they obviously shared. Maybe also when Sam asked Gollum to catch meat for the stew. Both moments, however, were spoiled by subsequent events.

Gollum was murderous and treacherous. He survived because each time any Hobbit stood before him with the opportunity and good reason to kill him, that Hobbit, like Gollum, had experienced the wearing of the Ring; and that fellowship of experience (empathy) produced pity, which produced mercy, which allowed Gollum to live - right up until the last moments when Frodo failed - to cause the Ring's destruction. Not as an 'accidental hero', but because of the Hobbits' courage in allowing him to live, as Gandalf predicted.


----------



## Ingwë (Feb 13, 2006)

I think I understand you, Eledhwen  
You mean that Gollum destroyed the One Ring because Frodo and Sam allowed him to destroy it by not killing him. So he's not accidental hero. But Gollum didn't want to destroy the Ring; Frodo and Sam didn't want Gollum to destroy the One Ring, too. They didn't want to allow him to see his precious... 
According to me, the chief argument of the 'accidental hero' theory is based on the idea that Gollum didn't want to destroy the Ring, he didn't want to die. His falling was an accident. No one could foresee it though it was said that Gollum will play part in the story. His coming to Orodruin was caused by hobbit's stagnation but the destruction of the Ring was caused by Gollum himself and... *maybe *Frodo.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 13, 2006)

Speaking of which, how did Gandalf know that Gollum would be a vital part of the success? Or was it just instinct?


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 14, 2006)

Gandalf always had great foresight. This is shown in the meeting with Thorin & Co in Unfinished Tales. We don't know how much guidance he was receiving from 'above', but he was important enought to be 'sent back' to finish the job.

I think Frodo intended to destroy the ring right up until he reached the fissure itself and found himself incapable. Sam was still intent on its destruction; but then again, he had not stood on the brink trying to will himself to complete the task.

It was for Gollum's own good that Frodo denied the creature sight of The Ring during the quest; but if the good and noble Frodo had fallen at the last hurdle, how much more would Gollum? What little chinks of the light of salvation that had fallen on Gollum during the journey were quickly quenched, and as they approached and passed into Mordor, the mean-spirited, Ring-marinaded Gollum was conquered by evil, and Middle-earth was only saved by his reckless celebration on the brink of destruction (and the curses he brought down on himself that willed him to fall).

To me, an accidental hero would be someone who makes heroic _choices_ in spite of either: 
* doing all they can to avoid the situation, or 
* finding themselves in a zugwang and seeing it through without cowering helpless in a corner.

Gollum was serving himself only. If a terrorist got hold of an atom bomb and threatens to destroy mankind; and a treacherous sneak thief tries to steal the bomb but instead accidentally blows the terrorist and his lair to smithereens instead; though he saves the world, he actually intended to rule it himself. He is not a hero, just a failed villain.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 14, 2006)

That got me thinking. If Frodo had retained his strength of will, but not been able to destroy the Ring, and given it to Sam, would Sam have thrown it in? Probably. What do y'all think?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Feb 15, 2006)

I wonder if this was ever brought up:


Letter #181 said:


> 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.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 15, 2006)

I don't know. It's possible, but maybe not.


----------



## warswics (Feb 15, 2006)

Noldor,
I think Sam would have been able to throw it in. He seemed to stay strong to himself and his task throughout the journey, whereas Frodo was worn down by the ring. Who knows? 

Thorondor,
good posting. I was looking for the Letters book, which I seem to have misplaced. Nothing like going to Tolkien himself to get the answer.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 16, 2006)

AHHH. I need a letters book.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Feb 16, 2006)

Wonko The Sane said:


> I do not believe it was anything more than an accident. In the end it was beyond the power of any mortal to withstand the ring and cast it into the fire, and fate was beyond even the immense power of the ring.
> 
> And as for Frodo's threat being a command I don't believe it was anything more than a threat. He did not say, as in the past, that the ring would make sure that his wishes were carried out. He simply said, in effect, "Cut that out or I'll kick your @$$!" I don't think there's anything more to it than that.




I believe that we have the answer here. It was not Frodo's will, Gollum's will, the Ring's will, or anyone else's that destroyed the Ring. It was *FATE* (or Illuvatar's will). After all, we must remember that Arda (including Middle-Earth) was Illuvatar's creation. Everything that was going to happen was already on a roll. Remember that Illuvatar showed the Valar a vision of the world of its entirety before it was made real. I believe that this entirety also included entire time. Of course, even the Valar or Maiar wouldn't have known what would happen. They just relied on thier foresight, or their educated guesses based on what they DID know was happening or was going to happen. This is how Gandalf knew Gollum would play some part before the end.

Also, it was not the result of Frodo's curse on Gollum w/use of the Ring. Take this passage from the Fellowship:



The Fellowship of the Ring said:


> 'I would ask one thing before we go,' said Frodo, 'a thing which I often meant to ask Gandalf in Rivendell. I am permitted to wear the One Ring: why cannot I see all the others and know the thoughts of those that wear them?'
> 'You have not tried,' she said. 'Only thrice have you set the Ring upon your finger since you knew what what you possessed. Do not try! It would destroy you. Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possesser?"



I believe that if Frodo had tried to use the powers of the Ring actively (as oppossed to passively, like becoming invisible) to place a curse, it would have "destroyed him". He did not possess the power to use the Ring in such a way.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Feb 16, 2006)

Forggoten Path said:


> Everything that was going to happen was already on a roll.



You forget that Iluvatar gave men freedom from this predetermined fate; it was the gift of men, unless I am mistaken. That's why Iluvatar was so pissed when Ar-Pharazon tried to invade Aman and, in response to the Valar's plea, he cast the island of Numenor beneath the sea, and did who knows what to the Golden fool. Of course, that leaves to question the ancestry of Hobbits, which, I believe, is closely related to that of men. Therefore, who's to say even Iluvatar knew what would happen? But then, that's all if I'm not misconstruing the gift of men.... It's kind of oddly stated.... Now that I think, I'm probably wrong about this one point....

But besides all that, Mandos, the keeper of the halls of the dead, is fully cognizant of the Music of the Ainur and the doom of all, and is therefore said to have no pity in his judgements. However, despite this, Lúthien managed to convince him to change his mind. In other words, Lúthien managed to make him decide differently that he should have according to the music. And before the world began, Iluvatar showed the Ainur the vision and told them (roughly, not exactly) to "Go now and do all within your power to achieve the vision that I have set before you." In other words, try your best to make what I just showed you come to pass. The fact that he said try implies that it could go differently, which means that everything is not necessarily quite so predetermined as that. And although I can't quite remember why, I remember having the impression while reading the fall of Numenor that Iluvatar was surprised and really pissed off at Ar-Pharazon. I don't know, it was a while ago, but that's what I remember.

As far as your second point, I agree that Frodo trying to force the Ring against it's will would have indeed destroyed Frodo; but one of my points was that the Ring wanted the same thing, and since their wills coincided, the Ring would have had no compunctions about Frodo using it in cursing Gollum. Therefore, in my belief, the Ring _let_ Frodo use it in this instance, which is why Frodo would not have been destroyed. Admittedly, the connection between my point of Frodo using the Ring and the Ring wanting the same thing was somewhat understated, but there it is.



warswics said:


> Khôr’nagan,
> 
> I think we are spliting hairs here. Perhaps the difference between my generation and yours is part of it, I'm not sure. I just can not call Gollum a hero, accidental or not.



Listen, one thing you have to understand about me is that I take splitting hairs to an unprecidented level.  That said, I believe part of our difference in opinion is simply in our definition of a hero; mine includes someone who was accidentally a hero (to a lesser extent than an intentional hero), and yours doesn't. Additionally, I believe that, while people doing various degrees of heroic things are both heroes, I believe that, the more heroic a hero is, the more of a hero he is; the fireman may have the heroism to run into burning buildings, but, in my example, he would freak out if you tried to get him to do something even more dangerous than that (not to be mistaken as my impression of firemen). The end point being, our major difference is that I believe there can be varying degrees of heroism and thus varying extents of hero; you, apparently, do not (as you stated). Therefore, as this is not likely to be reconciled, we should just agree to disagree.



warswics said:


> I'm not sure i see the point of the fireman terrorist thing



Admittedly, I'm not well noted for the best analogies.  Still, my point stands.

Finally, as to whether or not Sam could have destroyed the Ring, you have to consider how much power the Ring has over him. It is said that, in the Sammath Naur, no one could resist the will of the Ring. Therefore, if you believe that the Ring has any power over Sam (or rather that it has more power over him than he over it, which I do believe), then, however noble, pure and courageous Sam is, neither he nor anyone less powerful than the Ring could hope to resist it or destroy it while in the Sammath Naur, where its power is greatest.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 16, 2006)

Uh, huh. The evil sam would have had zero chances versus the One Ring thing. Only poor Smeagol, with the innocence of a really innocent dude, had the purity of joy at reclaiming his security blanket that was needed to blot out any other will but his own. Yay for much arguing about the definition of hero, though. It looks as if not many wish to change opinions on their crazy as well as personal definitions. No large deal. Also, crazy people talking about that Tolkien author guy's opinions, why? The main character can only be defined by the author and what that guy said about poor Smeagol ends all aguing how? I have no problem with disagreeing with authors about their own stories and am sure that I am not the only one.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Feb 17, 2006)

Khôr’nagan said:


> You forget that Iluvatar gave men freedom from this predetermined fate; it was the gift of men, unless I am mistaken. .... Now that I think, I'm probably wrong about this one point....
> 
> But besides all that, Mandos, the keeper of the halls of the dead, is fully cognizant of the Music of the Ainur and the doom of all, and is therefore said to have no pity in his judgements. However, despite this, Lúthien managed to convince him to change his mind. In other words, Lúthien managed to make him decide differently that he should have according to the music. And before the world began, Iluvatar showed the Ainur the vision and told them (roughly, not exactly) to "Go now and do all within your power to achieve the vision that I have set before you." In other words, try your best to make what I just showed you come to pass. The fact that he said try implies that it could go differently, which means that everything is not necessarily quite so predetermined as that.
> 
> As far as your second point, I agree that Frodo trying to force the Ring against it's will would have indeed destroyed Frodo; but one of my points was that the Ring wanted the same thing, and since their wills coincided, the Ring would have had no compunctions about Frodo using it in cursing Gollum.




As for your first point, I believe you are wrong. Illuvatar's Gift to Men wasn't release from entire fate, but only a small part of it: that Elves must live eternal lives, either in ME or the Halls of Mandos. Men were released from this. They were allowed to pass out of the World, instead of hanging around forever. Thus, the Gift of Men is Mortality.

However, I think you have me on this next point. Everything you say, is, I believe true. Excellent point. All I have to do though, is change one little thing: it was not Fate that destroyed the Ring, but CHANCE.  

Last point: In ME at that time, the Ring had only one Master: Sauron. (As is pointed out by Gandalf many times, I beleive) Therefore the only individual the Ring would've obeyed at that time was Sauron. (Until Frodo had trained his will, if he even had a chance) Also, I think we're giving the Ring a little too much credit. I don't think that the Ring was capable of concious thought. The Ring did not _want_* anything. The reason it would only obey Sauron is because only he had the Power to command it.


*In the sense we normally define the word.


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 19, 2006)

Forggoten Path said:


> I believe that if Frodo had tried to use the powers of the Ring actively (as oppossed to passively, like becoming invisible) to place a curse, it would have "destroyed him". He did not possess the power to use the Ring in such a way.


I did not suggest that the Ring was needed to place a curse. Faramir placed a blessing on Frodo "You shall go now with my blessing upon you, and upon all your people." which effectively cancelled Boromir's curse "Curse you and all halflings to death and darkness!". He also laid a conditional curse on Gollum, "May death find you quickly, within Gondor or without, if you do not well serve him (Frodo)." 

Frodo placed another conditional curse on Gollum, "Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."

Gollum failed to meet the conditions on both counts, and death found him quickly - in the Fire of Doom.

A curse, like a blessing, is invoked simply by speaking the words. Nowhere does Tolkien give the impression that the One Ring can give power to a spoken word. Whether you believe that a curse has any effect is a moot point, but in Tolkien's world I believe that the intention was that both blessings and curses (especially deserved ones) had power.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 19, 2006)

Now that's interesting.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Feb 19, 2006)

That much is true, such as when Isildur cursed the Men of the Mountain. That curse packed one hell of a punch; it kept who knows how many people from passing away after dying for a good 3,000 years and more. That's one hell of a curse, and who's to say Isildur can make a curse any stronger than Frodo, or anyone else? So I would agree completely with you, Eledhwen, except for the line where it said that out of the fire there spoke a voice.... I just can't accept that this isn't saying something more than just Frodo is talking. It seems to much of a stretch for me, because I can't imagine any reason Tolkien would word it that way if he weren't meaning to convey something more. Either way, though, the curse did the trick.

And as for the Ring not being able to want anything, I know that in the movies Gandalf says that the Ring wants to be found and other stuff, but I'm not sure if there is any similar passage in the books. I don't think there is an exact line like that, but there may have been something that said essentially the same thing. I don't know, I just spent 15 minutes looking and couldn't find it, so I'll have to look into it in more depth.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 20, 2006)

As to the original question, I think we have decided that Gollum is _not _really the Hero of LOTR.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 20, 2006)

Who's we? You crazy, dude. Why do my points make no sense? Are the posts too long? *hides*  The Lord Of The Rings <--- Title of the thing we be writing about. Rings and some lord of them are important to the story. The Fellowship Of The Ring <--- Title of one third of the story. Some group invented just to deal with one particularly important ring. The Two Towers? How many threads wonder about which towers are even thought of? Obviously not such an important subject. The Return Of The King. I've wondered about this title the most. It is a very unimportant event to the story. The main character is poor Smeagol. The book is pretty much over when he saves the day, except for a bit of wrapping upwards with the minor characters. The scenes without poor Smeagol in them are just a bit of filler. Or maybe this Tolkien guy had some passing fondness for a few other bit characters in the story and expanded on their parts a little. No large deal. Anyways, much has been written about poor Smeagol and his heroic struggle versus his magically created counterpart or how he finally overcame the thing and saved the world. Little praise is given, though. It makes no sense to me. There was one minor character that miraculously obtained a large base of fans that seems to have tragically turned the readers against the hero. This character was the epitome of many qualities that most would find evil, but the picture that he paints of the hero, mostly due to his ignorance, has fooled them into believing that his epic delusions outweigh his sickening offenses. oh well. I guess that I can't do much against the terrifying wall of hate that crazily built itself in most people's brains. I am always attempting to help people out of their misunderstandings, but oh well. The facts do not faze those that are so taken with some minor character.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Feb 20, 2006)

Am I the only one that detects a note of hypocracy in YayGollum's post? 

Anyway, I was decided from the start of this thread that he wasn't the hero, so no arguments here about that, Noldor_returned.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Feb 20, 2006)

Well, I think that MOST of us agree on these points:

1) Frodo did not use the Ring to curse Gollum.
2) The Ring itself did not curse Gollum and carry out its own destruction.
3) The cause of the Ring's destruction was not FATE.

Now, some questions:

1) Did Frodo's and Faramir's curses result in Gollum's death and the destruction of the Ring? If so, we can effectively say that Frodo and Faramir are the heros.
2) Did the Ring's destruction come about because of pure CHANCE? If so, there are no heros when it comes to directly causing the Ring's destruction.
3) Did Gollum summon some last bit of his good character and cast himself into the Fire with the Ring? If so, Gollum is the hero.
4) Or, did the Ring's destruction result in the interactions of the characters throughout the entire story, mixed with a little CHANCE? If so, we can say there is no one hero, but everyone who supported the quest, with a little bit luck, caused the Ring's destruction.

I think the fourth seems most likely to me.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 20, 2006)

The answers to your questions, Forggoten Path person --->

1. No. As well as, that's just craziness, even if offhandedly spewed curses caused events to happen. Gollum saved the day, in the end, obviously.

2. What's wrong with thinking of poor Smeagol as a chanciful hero? It's more unique than the boring kinds that I usually read about. But then, maybe you people just don't have a very high opinion of this Tolkien writer guy.  

3. It is achingly possible. Some think that the Smeagol personality was never seen again, after the Shelob bit. Those people are crazy. Poor Smeagol is obviously there at the Mount Doom place, pleading with the superly boring Frodo character to spare himself some pain, but I guess that that One Ring thing was a bit too strong, at the moment. He then, after quite an unbearable while, finally resorts to violence to stop anyone from being stupid and ends up saving the day. The innocent Smeagol half has his security blanket again and is understandably elated. The resourceful Gollum half knows that he should slip the thing back to its rightful finger and run away, but, even in the place where that Sauron dude is supposed to have an especially strong influence, purity easily wins. With much sadness having come into being thanks to his alter ego, he is not very sad that he never took dancing lessons.  

4. Well, yes, but I do not see why you should come to the conclusion that you came to just because more than one character had any even minor part to play in reaching the goal of the story. Poor Smeagol was the one to get things finished.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Feb 21, 2006)

YayGollum said:


> Gollum saved the day, in the end, obviously.



How? Apparently it isn't too obvious.



YayGollum said:


> What's wrong with thinking of poor Smeagol as a chanciful hero?



I didn't define Gollum as a "chanceful hero". I defined CHANCE itself as the hero. Meaning Gollum had absolutly nothing to do with the destruction of the Ring. (He just happened to be holding it, and went with it.) It was PURELY an accident.



YayGollum said:


> ...he is not very sad that he never took dancing lessons.



Here I think you have refuted your own argument. "He is not very sad that he never took dancing lessons." So he DID slip unitentionally. What happened to the intentional sacrifice? Besides:



The Return of the King said:


> Frodo gave a cry, and there he was, fallen upon his knees at the chasm's edge. But Gollum, dancing like a mad thing, held aloft the ring, a finger still thrust within its circle. It shown now as if verily it was wrought of living fire.
> 'Precious, precious, precious!' Gollum cried. 'My Precious! O my Precious!' And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped to far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail precious, and he was gone.



That does not at all seem intentional to me.



YayGollum said:


> Poor Smeagol was the one to get things finished.



Did Gollum carry the Ring to Mount Doom? And provide the Ringbearers with food and shelter? And provide a plan and guidance? And do every other thing that other Free Peoples in ME done? I think not. In the end it was everyone and a little luck that got things finished.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 21, 2006)

A little luck, or was it a bit of a helping hand from the guys who never lend a helping hand, the Valar?


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 21, 2006)

Why do people even come up with that crazy idea? Those Ainur things are hardly brought up in this story. What, is it just because of that bit that tells readers that only the Sauron character has evil powers in that Mount Doom place, and since the Valar types are stronger than him, we should assume that that particular idea is untrue? oh well. Craziness. 

Anyways, Forggoten Path person, Gollum saved the day by destroying the One Ring thing, which is something that no other person seems to have been able to do. It seems very obvious, to me.

Yes, I understand that, in your second point, you were calling chance a hero. I was merely writing that poor Smeagol was the physical form of that particular bit of good luck. He was the chance-filled hero. Yay for poor Smeagol! 

I didn't write where any intentions were. I just wrote that he wasn't especially sad that he never took dancing lessons. As I already wrote, poor Smeagol was obviously in control. The poor guy was never a good dancer, which is also obvious. Not a great sense of balance. He has no buddies, but he finally got his security blanket back. He understands that, even though every other time that he has attempted to mimic the popular dances of the time, he has injured himself severely, he is tired of always being hounded by magically created beings or nasssty hobbitses.  Did I ever write that he intentionally sacrificed himself? Ick. You don't have to care about others to be a hero.

As to your last bit, I wasn't writing that poor Smeagol performed the majority of the actions that led to him saving the day. Does who did the most even matter? I don't believe so. I was only writing that he saved the day, in the end. His actions saved the day. Nobody else could have saved the day. Obvious. *sigh*


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 21, 2006)

I was only joking. I would never say anything like that.

I think (not sure) we overlooked something. Gollum destroyed the Ring, but only because he had it at the time. If he hadn't bitten Frodo's finger off, he wouldnt've had the Ring in the first place. That doesn't sound like a Hero. He had no noble intentions, just inspired by greed.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Feb 21, 2006)

> Gollum saved the day by destroying the One Ring thing, which is something that no other person seems to have been able to do.


What do you mean? No one else would be able to fall off the age? What particular merit do you give to him? Certainly not intention


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 22, 2006)

I'm sure someone with the right qualifications could have fallen. But he was motivated by greed, not inspired.
Yay, I think you're a little biased.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 22, 2006)

Woah! That was cool! I thank you, Noldor_returned person, for making me laugh out loud. It has been a while. Yes, I am at least a little biased.  Wahoo!  Craziness. Anyways, from what I have written and the books that you can check to see that my crazy opinions could have come about by way of reading the same stuff, how is it not obvious that poor Smeagol was the only one who could have destroyed that One Ring thing? I explained his situation. Was something unreasonable about my interpretation? Explain to me how someone else could have saved the day at the time. The superly boring Frodo character was messed upwards inside of his brain and doesn't seem to have been capable of performing any actions that didn't involve waiting for some Nazgul types. Nobody else was around. Smeagol's purity saved the day. *sniff* Poor little dude.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Feb 22, 2006)

> Smeagol's purity saved the day


Well, this sentence alone makes me think this thread should belong in Bag End . There are countless refferences in LotR to the perverted nature of Gollum, plus the letter I quoted previosly, which clearly disqualify any merit on his behalf.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 22, 2006)

Clearly, but only to crazy people who don't wish to employ thinking on their own. Do not many disagree with many views of many authors on many points in many bookses? Can't authors have crazy biases of their own? Was that Tolkien guy perfect? No. Poor Smeagol seems to have been underanalyzed.  Sure, I would agree that the magically created Gollum personality isn't the greatest guy, but I see no good reasons for people to suspect poor Smeagol of being especially evil.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Feb 22, 2006)

> I see no good reasons for people to suspect poor Smeagol of being especially evil.


I won't even go further than his canibalistic tendencies to refute your point.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 22, 2006)

YayGollum said:


> ...Poor Smeagol destroyed the One Ring and saved the world on his own. He is the hero.



O yea o yea, _O Newly-Minted and All-Powerful Mod,_ whatever you say! **obsequiously bobbing on the mat** 



Baragund said:


> Pantalaimon, you need to know that debating with Yay over this topic is like wrestling a pig in the mud. The more you do it, the more the pig likes it.



I see you've been reading my sig!

Barley


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 22, 2006)

Attempt to excuse me, but when did poor Smeagol eat another pre-hobbit thing?  Or were you counting cannibalism as eating another sentient type of thing? oh well. It is not evil to do such things to guarantee survival. Did he ever do that just to be mean? Anyways, why, Barliman Butterbur person, do you feel the need to leap away from the subject of this particular thread thing? Is it not now a duty of mine to keep such distractions away, so that the original author of this thing gets whatever answers he looks for? I think so. oh well. I toss a stern warning at you? Yes, because I write that it is stern, it must be, and is good enough.  *sniff* Why must everyone mess with me in such hurtful ways? Tossing evil titles at me and implying piggishness on my part. *bawls*


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 22, 2006)

_Gollum _is not the hero of _LOTR. _He may be the hero of the War of the Ring, as he destroyed it, but not of the book. That would be going too far.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Feb 23, 2006)

> Or were you counting cannibalism as eating another sentient type of thing?


Yes; if I remember correctly, he ate children, orcs, and attempted to eat even Bilbo; looks like a food habbit, not as much survival to me. Then again, it is your choice to look up to him .


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 23, 2006)

I don't remember him eating children. When was that?


----------



## Valandil (Feb 23, 2006)

Noldor_returned said:


> I don't remember him eating children. When was that?



I believe it's recounted in "Fellowship" - children disappearing from their cradles or whatever. I forget if it's Gandalf talking to Frodo in "Shadow of the Past" or if it comes up at "Council of Elrond".

How odd that this thread seems to be the most active here at The Tolkien Forum.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 24, 2006)

Is not that War Of The Ring thing the main conflict in the book? I was attempting to make that point by pointing out the title of the story and the title of the first book of the story. Rings of Power have a large part to play. Are obviously meant to be seen as important in a large way. oh well. Is there some other point to the story that is larger than the War Of The Ring thing?  

As to the cannabilism thing, what is the difference between food habits and survival? The poor guy had to eat to survive. I don't remember much in the way of books informing me that the Gollum character was merely snacking or eating with malicious intentions.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 24, 2006)

Well, if Gollum really did eat children, is it possible he would have eaten the Hobbits if he had not sworn by the Precious?


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 24, 2006)

Why toss an insult at the character? If he had wished to eat them after swearing anything while sitting on top of any item, he would have.  No second thoughts. He was hungry and they were easy pickings. He sees nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 24, 2006)

I wasn't insulting him. Unfortunately for Gollum though, Sam wasn't trusting enough to sleep at the same time as Frodo. And he was proved right wasn't he?


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 24, 2006)

Oh. Whoops. It looked like that qualifying thing that you wrote about the Gollum dude not eating nasssty hobbitses just because he swore on something was an insult. I guess that it wasn't. The Gollum character seems like the type who wouldn't care about promises, no matter what qualifiers are doled outwards with them. Anyways, what was the evil sam character proved right about, and what does that have to do with who the hero was? Ick. Writing about that sickening character in a thread about poor Smeagol, the hero? Craziness!


----------



## Ingwë (Mar 1, 2006)

*



Gandalf always had great foresight. This is shown in the meeting with Thorin & Co in Unfinished Tales. We don't know how much guidance he was receiving from 'above', but he was important enought to be 'sent back' to finish the job.

Click to expand...

*I want to add something J He was sent back because he was the last hope for Middle-earth. If Manwe cares of Middle-earth, he will help its peoples. So he used Gandalf to help them, because Saruman has fallen. 

*



The Return Of The King. I've wondered about this title the most. It is a very unimportant event to the story. The main character is poor Smeagol.

Click to expand...

*What is that? Unimportant event? I think the the return of the King is not just giving the crown to Aragorn but something greater. The return of the king of Gondor began when Aragorn son of Arathorn was born. That is the beginning. It continues in the house of Elrond, later with Thorongil… And the final is the battle of The Field of Cormallen. Then Aragorn was ready to rule Gondor and was able to wear the crown. 
Why do you think Smeagol is the main character? I don’t find a main character anywhere in that book. There are many main characters. If I say that it is Frodo then you can say it is Gandalf, because he found the Ring. If I say it is Gandalf, I may say it is Frodo because he passed many tests in the road to Mount Doom. You understand me, don’t you?

*



The superly boring Frodo character was messed upwards inside of his brain and doesn't seem to have been capable of performing any actions that didn't involve waiting for some Nazgul types. Nobody else was around. Smeagol's purity saved the day. *sniff* Poor little dude.

Click to expand...

*I think that Samwise would help Frodo to destroy the Ring, even if Frodo doesn’t agree. I think Sam is clever enough to realize that the Middle-earth is more important that his master. 

*



It looked like that qualifying thing that you wrote about the Gollum dude not eating nasssty hobbitses just because he swore on something was an insult. I guess that it wasn't. The Gollum character seems like the type who wouldn't care about promises, no matter what qualifiers are doled outwards with them

Click to expand...

*I agree with you, Yay. Gollum doesn’t care about what he said. But maybe Smeagol cares… Gollum is a crazy guy. He needed a doctor but the best one was Elrond. Gandalf is not bad idea but I think he would try dissection (I hope that is the word in English… MS word doesn’t detect mistakes  ) I think that Smeagol really loved Frodo. Smeagol is the good half, Gollum is the evil. But the Evil half is related to The One Ring, that is very powerful artifact (Am I playing DOTA all-stars???). So Gollum is more powerful that Smeagol and the love goes to Hell… Gollum didn’t need to broke the oath (or the promise – as you wish). But Gollum played his role very good, don’t you think so. He made the hobbits go to Shelob’s lair – great idea, I can’t say it is not so. Despite of all Gollum was very clever.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Mar 1, 2006)

It's possible Smeagol knew what would happen if Gollum broke the vow, and to rid himself of the evil half let Gollum run the show so he would die. However, Smeagol probably didn't think they would both die.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 2, 2006)

Greetings, crazy Ingwe person. Bringing up that The Return Of The King title again and calling it important? You write that the return of some king dude is more than just crowning some random character, then you summarize the life of the guy. Okay. How does that prove any of it to be important? Or maybe I am just focusing too much on the main goal of the story. I understand that some crazy fans have some crazily blown out of proportion feelings on their favorite characters.  

Also, I would never truthfully write that my opinion is that the main character is the evil torturer Gandalf. Ick. But sure, I understand that anyone can twist things to make it look like the main character is their favorite. Why not? The real main character is still poor Smeagol, though. Well, it seems obvious enough to myself. I wonder why that Tolkien dude spent so much time with the unimportant characters, though. Hm. oh well.  

As to some other point that you came up with, no, the evil sam character couldn't have helped. Was already too groggy by way of the hero knocking him out of the way. Also, no, using clever to describe the evil sam is insanity. Stear clear of that stuff. Besides, we can already see that the evil sam is capable of being messed with in the brain by the One Ring thing. Standing about in an area where it is much stronger would have certainly kept the evil sam from messing with it. Only poor Smeagol's purity saved the day.

Also, also, where is evidence that the Smeagol character was fond of anyone? DOTA all-stars?  And, sure, Gollum was very clever. Why not? Why would any of that convince anyone that poor Smeagol wasn't the hero, though?


----------



## Noldor_returned (Mar 2, 2006)

YayGollum said:


> Greetings, crazy Ingwe person. Bringing up that The Return Of The King title again and calling it important? You write that the return of some king dude is more than just crowning some random character, then you summarize the life of the guy. Okay. How does that prove any of it to be important? Or maybe I am just focusing too much on the main goal of the story. I understand that some crazy fans have some crazily blown out of proportion feelings on their favorite characters.
> 
> Also, I would never truthfully write that my opinion is that the main character is the evil torturer Gandalf. Ick. But sure, I understand that anyone can twist things to make it look like the main character is their favorite. Why not? The real main character is still poor Smeagol, though. Well, it seems obvious enough to myself. I wonder why that Tolkien dude spent so much time with the unimportant characters, though. Hm. oh well.
> 
> ...


 
Wow, I don't know anyone who twists events to suit their favourite character and make them look good. That's fairly strange.


----------



## Richard (Mar 3, 2006)

I always wondered why Sauron did not see Gollum was a potential threat to him.


----------



## Sagan369 (Mar 3, 2006)

I think Gollum was of no concern to Sauron, even if that vile nasssty creature recovered his Precious. He was just too much of a weakling, even with that awsome Ring in his possesion. Sauron let him loose in the hopes of finding the location of the Shire and Baggins.
Gollum's purity saved the day? *rolls eyes at Yay*
What do you say of that weaklings' plan to get Shelob to ambush Frodo and Sam? Hardly 'heroic' I say!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 3, 2006)

I would mostly ask what you mean by calling poor Smeagol a weakling. Weak in what way, because I would probably have all kinds of fun with figuring out ways to argue that the character was especially strong in most ways. oh well. To superly slick plan of manipulating something that even that Sauron dude couldn't into offing a couple of annoying obstacles for him, I would say something at least halfway similar to ---> Yay Gollum! He knew that those two had no chance versus Sauron. Who did the best job that has been recorded at keeping the thing away from the guy? Poor Smeagol, easily.


----------



## Sagan369 (Mar 4, 2006)

He was weak in character in this way: with the Ring of Rings in his possession for what 580yrs give or take, what did he do with all that power? Did he try to command an army under his leadership to overthrow Sauron to become Gollum The Great, self styled ruler of Middle Earth? Not to mention the strength of will required to destroy IT, as was demonstrated even Gandalf Frodo and Galadriel weren't up to that task.
So with the most powerful item in Middle Earth in his possesion he HID under the Misty Mountains and used it only to help him catch dinner.
When the Ring was in Sams possesion for that short time he envisioned himself as Gardener of Gardeners, not ambitious by all means, at least he would have attempted to do SOMETHING with It.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 4, 2006)

Ah. So the main weakness that you see is the fact that he had little or no ambition. Got it. But then, the fact that he had no ambition meant that he was keeping the world very safe. Hm. Is that not the crazily magical strength that everyone makes a large deal about when they speak of nasssty hobbitses? Pretty much anyone else, as you write, would have attempted to use it in a way that would ultimately help the Sauron dude. Sure, a weakness, but also a strength, in some crazy way. Yay Gollum?


----------



## Sagan369 (Mar 5, 2006)

Ok, Ive had a few but im gonna try this anyway.
But he wasnt keepin the world safe by hidin w the Ring, Sauron was growing in strenght, gathering all armies to Him. 
Lets say if Bilbo never came along on that fateful day and 'stole' his Precious: Gondor and the Free Peoples woulld eventually Fall. Sooner or later w Orcs and Trolls free reign over ALL of M.E., Gollum, would be found, Sauron takes the Ring, able to once again take physical form, eternal Darkness for all. Unless or untill the Valar decide to step in again and kick ass.
I still have to say 'Nay Gollum!'


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 5, 2006)

Oo! A fight? Someone with the willpower to attempt to argue still exists? I thank you, Sagan369 person. Or maybe you are only trying because you had a few unspecified somethings.  

Why would you think that he wasn't keeping the world safe while he was hiding out on his little island? Or do you think that the Sauron dude was keeping a blind eye pointed at his One Ring detection system up until he sniffed the wind of a Baggins holding onto it for him? No, I would think that there is no One Ring detection system, that the thing was linked to the Sauron dude in some mental way. He and slash or his minions could tell if the thing was being worn. Why did he not try to catch poor Smeagol during any of the many years that he held it? Sure, the guy was gathering strength and being careful, I guess, but how hard would it be to send a couple of creepy Nazgul things into the Misty Mountains to help him out? Doesn't sound very dangerous to me. Plus, he would be much safer with his One Ring thing with him while he's gathering strength. It seems to me to be that poor Smeagol, his enigmatic One Ring mental power dampening system, and zero ambition was very helpful for a very long time, until some nasssty hobbit had to mess everything upwards. 

Also, I see no evidence that the Sauron dude would have definitely been able to conquer all of Middle Earth as easily as you seem to be thinking. Also, also, there is even less evidence that poor Smeagol could get caught after the dude took over. He was very weaselly.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Mar 5, 2006)

Sauron was too cautious, so he wouldn't risk sending out his Nazgul until he was ready to confront the Free People's openly. And remember, they were using horses at this point, which wouldn't be able to be used easily. Also, if they were chasing the Ring, if they had to enter the dark of Moria, that would make it harder for them. One final point: Sauron had no idea whether the Ring was still in there with Gollum. At any point in time, Gollum may have left, leaving Sauron clueless.


----------



## Ingwë (Mar 8, 2006)

Do you play DoTA, Yay? It is great game, don’t you think so?
The main goal of the story is saving Middle-earth. But what would happen if Aragorn was killed somewhere in the story. Who would dare to enter the Kingdom of the Dead Men? Gandalf? Ok, but we have only one Gandalf, he doesn’t have Boots of Travel (DOTA artifact, teleports to friendly non-hero unit) so he cannot be everywhere. 




> The real main character is still poor Smeagol, though.


I tried to understand you why I don’t think that there is main character. Ok, you say that Gollum is the most important. Great. He destroyed the One Ring. Did he decide to destroy it? No, it is a decision of the Council of Elrond. Who saved Rohan? Gollum – no, of course not. Etc… 

About Sam and the One Ring. I just supposed that he could save the day but I am not sure. We can only speculate. *Maybe* you’re right. 




> And, sure, Gollum was very clever. Why not? Why would any of that convince anyone that poor Smeagol wasn't the hero, though?


Hm….Mm…. Gollum was clever? Do you mean Smeagol or Gollum, the evil nasty creature? I think that Gollum is not clever, nor is Smeagol, but Smeagol + Gollum. WoW, that is good combination. Smeagol decided to help the Hobbits to go to Mordor and the Cracks of Doom and Gollum used it to try to kill Frodo and Sam. Smeagol himself would help the Hobbits to destroy the Ring and he would lose everything. Gollum decided to take the Ring by force. If Smeagol didn’t decide to help Frodo, Gollum would be slain by Sam (probably). It seems that Smeagol and Gollum are in mutualism; it may be protocooperation(populations can live separated) but I guess I must call it symbiosis, because if Smeagol and Gollum aren’t together, they will be killed. 
Gollum and Smeagol live in one body, but they are different characters. Once we have Smeagol, later Gollum. That creature is a schizophrenic.  
That is not Ingwe style...




> With the Ring of Rings in his possession for what 580yrs give or take, what did he do with all that power? Did he try to command an army under his leadership to overthrow Sauron to become Gollum The Great, self styled ruler of Middle Earth?


The One Ring was forged by The Dark Lord Sauron and he, no one else, Sauron, is its master. No one can possess the One Ring. No one can control the One Ring. If he tried to control an army he would fall under the shadow of The Ring. Sauron will exist till The Ring exists. I don’t think that Gollum could overthrow Sauron, even with the One Ring. That means Sauron to overthrow Sauron. 



> But he wasnt keepin the world safe by hidin w the Ring, Sauron was growing in strenght, gathering all armies to Him.


I think he was keeping the world in safe because if he left The Misty Mountains before he had met Bilbo, Sauron would got The Ring and enslave the people of Middle earth. Gandalf would realize that Sauron possesses The Ring too late.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 8, 2006)

Noldor_returned person, my main point was that it would have been easy and very advantageous for the Sauron dude to send a couple of creepy Nazgul things into the Misty Mountains to hunt the One Ring thing down during any of the many years that poor Smeagol was hiding out with it in there. Yay for long sentences. The Nazgul types, from what I have read, would not be in very much danger while hanging out in Orc tunnels, then, all they would have to deal with would be an invisible hobbitish thing. The fact that the Sauron dude was being careful wouldn't have stopped him from trying that, if he could have sensed poor Smeagol, it would have actually driven him to seeking the dude out. Yay for poor Smeagol's purity! 

Ingwe person, I have no idea what D. O. T. A. is supposed to stand for. Maybe I should have asked more directly. Whoops.  

What would happen if the evil Aragorn was killed somewhere in the story ---> The evil torturer Gandalf and slash or other Ainur type things would have figured things out without him. The good guys had to win, yes?  Anyways, I saw no need to use those creepy ghosty dudes. Even if anyone else had thought to use them, wasn't the evil Aragon character the only one who could get them to help out? oh well.

Sure, poor Smeagol didn't actually sit down and decide to destroy the One Ring thing. But do you believe that he wasn't having fun while he died and would have been grateful?  oh well. He did save the Rohan place, along with every other Middle Earth type place from the Sauron dude, though.

Also, I would think that Gollum is the clever one. He was a creepily as well as magically created personality by way of the One Ring thing, which had plenty of Sauron in it. It was all about self-preservation. Not that poor Smeagol was especially unintelligent. Yes that he was just a young as well as achingly inexperienced kid when he got messed with in the brain. Which is why he equals purity, which usually equals stupidity, but oh well.


----------



## Ingwë (Mar 20, 2006)

Well, I think that if the evil Aragorn was killed somewhere in the story the things won’t go this way. Aragorn was The King of Gondor and Arnor. He united the nation. He doesn’t have a brother or a sister. And who would dare to enter the Halls of the Dead? Nobody. The story needs somebody like Aragorn. The Stewards aren’t as clever as Aragorn. You know what the evil Denethor person did. He would ruin everything if he has a chance. 
Maybe Gollum was having fun because he knew that he is the last one who touches the One Ring


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 20, 2006)

Back to basics: Is Gollum the hero of LOTR? Nope, it's Sam, according to Tolkien himself:

"I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty." —Letter #125 (I believe)

Barley


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 20, 2006)

Ingwe person stuff ---> Sure, I would agree that events would not have proceeded in pretty much the exact same way as they did in the bookses if the Aragorn character was killed at some point. "Aragorn was The King of Gondor and Arnor. He united the nation. He doesn’t have a brother or a sister. And who would dare to enter the Halls of the Dead? Nobody. The story needs somebody like Aragorn. The Stewards aren’t as clever as Aragorn." <--- To most of that, so what? And ---> Why does the story need that boring character? None of those points show an actual need. Anyways, *sniff* poor Denethor. Yet another poor Smeagol sort of character who pretty much everyone hates. Why call the guy evil? Sure, maybe a bit too impressionable, but that's about it. I see no evidence that the Denethor character would have ruined all of existence. 

Barliman Butterbur stuff ---> Garn! How many times must I point out that the author is incorrect? What, does that seem impossible? Hm? You believe that whatever that dude writes, proceeds, just because it happens to be his story? That's not a good reason for obvious mistakes to become facts. The dude must have been very sleepy and in a contemplating his evil sam character sort of mood when he wrote that particular letter. For some reason, he forgot all about the evidence that poor Smeagol is the real hero.  Sure, I understand why the dude might have made the mistake if he was in such a mood. No large deal.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Mar 21, 2006)

YayGollum said:


> Barliman Butterbur stuff ---> Garn! How many times must I point out that the author is incorrect? What, does that seem impossible? Hm? You believe that whatever that dude writes, proceeds, just because it happens to be his story? That's not a good reason for obvious mistakes to become facts. The dude must have been very sleepy and in a contemplating his evil sam character sort of mood when he wrote that particular letter. For some reason, he forgot all about the evidence that poor Smeagol is the real hero.  Sure, I understand why the dude might have made the mistake if he was in such a mood. No large deal.


 
Oh yeah, blame the author. He made the mistake. His figment is incorrect, and his imagination is mistaken. You need to redo English in high school.
Tolkien knew what he meant, and I'm sure he didn't really care who was the hero *hides* Yes, he had one, but the characters are so involved with one another and the events of the story, you can't have just one. So I reckon it would be Frodo, Sam, Gollum, Aragorn and Gandalf that are the heros. Frodo made it to Mount Doom with constant pressure from the Ring to leave the path. Sam because of the quote from the letter Barley found. Gollum because he destroyed the Ring, even if it was accidentally. Aragorn because of his unifying act and great deeds, and Gandalf for his good deeds and actions.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 21, 2006)

I need to redo English in high school for what purpose, Noldor_returned person? Would such classes sufficiently stunt my capacity for detecting truth? If so, then no, I don't think that I shall check on any free high school courses. I muchly prefer to think outside of the box that most people are having fun in, at the moment. ---> The Box Of Faith In The Author, Not In The Sense Of One's Own Observations.  

Anyways, I could always use the Barliman_Butterbur person's quote to help myself out. ---> "I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty."

The Tolkien dude seems to be prescribing the use of some sort of simple and rustic love of the type that the evil sam and Rosie Cotton characters employ, if you wished to study the evil sam character in the nonsensical light of that one being the chief hero. He is telling you a good way for you to twist your brain into a suitable position for considering that guy to be the chief hero. Also, if you felt like choosing the hero by way of deciding that the theme is suddenly about the relation between ordinary life and the more adventurous type of situations, use the same sort of emotion, I am guessing.

Yay for the Tolkien dude's instructions on how to justify such obviously incorrect views! Many believe that the examples that I use to show that poor Smeagol is the hero make no sense. oh well. Maybe I should just tell you how to approach the idea, instead of just showing you the evidence that I have seen?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 21, 2006)

YayGollum said:


> How many times must I point out that the author is incorrect?



I can understand your saying that in your persona as YayGollum, a role which you seem to unable or unwilling to drop. If you are actually serious about this as your _real self,_ then — I think you have a problem. 

It is very rare for a creator to be "wrong" about his own creation (and defining "wrong" and "right" in that context could occupy a whole separate thread), and that certainly did _not_ happen with Tolkien. I cannot recall another author so deeply involved in the understanding and explication of his own work. If you say he's "wrong" simply because he doesn't meet _your_ criteria of what it is to be "right," then what we have here is simply your opinion, which I think — in this instance at least — is a very silly one.

Barley


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 21, 2006)

Does silliness always equal wrong? Does a hint of silliness on an opinion require people to dismiss it before seriously considering it? And yes, I do agree that it would be silly to call someone wrong only because my opinion differs. Yay for me having evidence to back up my opinions, though. 

Anyways, what is the problem with disagreeing with an author? Sure, you write that it is rare for one to be wrong about his own writings and that this Tolkien person was especially correct about any opinions that he might have had about his. But then, no, I did not write that the guy is wrong only because I have disagreed. I wrote that the quote that you provided only gives us a method on how to twist our brains around the idea that the evil sam could be the hero. If you look at the story the way that the dude describes in that quote, sure, it could be possible to think of the evil sam as the hero. I could come up with plenty of other guides for you, if you wished to study other points of view.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 21, 2006)

YayGollum said:


> Yay for me having evidence to back up my opinions, though.



I'm sure you have what is _for you_ evidence. However, if you're the only one who _accepts_ it as evidence... 



> ...what is the problem with disagreeing with an author?



Nothing at all.



> ...I wrote that the quote that you provided only gives us a method on how to twist our brains around the idea that the evil sam could be the hero.



That's _my_ evidence. 

Barley


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 22, 2006)

Ah, so this equals at least the same amount of evidence for my viewpoint, yes? ---> 

I think the simple self-preservatory love of poor Smeagol and his security blanket (only elaborated by myself  ) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and whatever else that makes sense.

Based on the Tolkien person's own guide to assist with wrapping your brain around a way to justify that a certain character gets to be the chief hero, since you people understand it so well.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 22, 2006)

YayGollum said:


> Ah, so this equals at least the same amount of evidence for my viewpoint, yes? ...



YG, I'm not going to take this any farther with you. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion about Gollum's place in LOTR as hero, and I defend your right to have it. I don't share that opinion, and I don't think anyone else does. As far as I can tell, you are a lone voice in the wind. If you care to have the last word on it here, by all means please do. 

Barley


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 22, 2006)

Sure, I don't mind having the last word, but if someone else's can beat mine, and I have nothing further to add, I'll give it to them. No large deal. To obtain the last word was not my goal. If that last comment wasn't a, ---> "Ugh. You are presumably insane, YayGollum person. Arguing a point with you is useless I see. I won't be back." here is a question. ---> You assumed that I asked the question in my last post for no reason? You assumed that it was merely rhetorical? Well, maybe you just designated it as beneath your notice.  oh well. No, I was still looking for information. Was my guide an inefficient path to wrapping your brain around the idea that poor Smeagol is the chief hero?


----------



## Persephone (Jun 28, 2006)

Interesting topic. There was a time when I sincerely believed that Smeagol/Gollum was fated to do that task. When Gandalf told Frodo that even Gollum may play a part in the end, I got a suspicion he was going to do it. He was the one to destroy the ring. 

Technically though, he didn't. He fell, by mistake, into the lake of fire. That's what destroyed the ring. So essentially, no one destroyed the ring. It just got --- destroyed --- perhaps by fate. However, if not for Gollum's greed and addiction to the ring, the quest would have failed since Frodo was corrupted in the end.

There are many factors that affect the question of who the true hero was in the story. I think they are all heroes in some way. This is I believe the only book I've read that doesn't focus on one particular character. There are many characters and all of them essential --- and heroic.

Is Gollum the real hero of LOTR? I think the answer is he wasn't the only hero of LOTR, but he could be counted as one of them.

(yeah, I know, too safe.)


----------



## Ermundo (Jun 29, 2006)

I personally agree that Golly Gumpkins was the heroe, along with Frodo. It doesn't matter whether one person thinks the evidence is silly and the other vice versa, as long the evidence itself makes logistical sense, than it's real evidence.

Think about what Gollum did in LOTR. Had it not been for him as their guide, Frodo and Sam would have problably landed up in Timbuktu or something. That proves atleast that Gollum was important to the destruction of the ring.

Also, although he didn't want to, GOLLUM destroyed his precious. Frodo, at that point in the Battle for Middle Earth, had given up his will to destroy the ring, making him no better than Gollum for the task (Even IF it was all the ring's fault). So technically, if Frodo had cast the ring into that Fire, it would have been against his will, just like Gollum. So for Gollum to destroy the ring, he would just be what you could call an unwilling hero.

Also, Gollum had the ring for half a millenia, so he had the ring longer than Frodo.


Y'all get what I'm saying.


----------



## Persephone (Jun 29, 2006)

morgoththe1 said:


> Think about what Gollum did in LOTR. Had it not been for him as their guide, Frodo and Sam would have problably landed up in Timbuktu or something.



Yes, but then again, he never set out to help them really. He actually planned to strangle them in their sleep. "Baggins stole it from usssssss" and all that. So, his helping them out, as guide, though it served its purpose, wasn't really part of his plan. He was forced into doing it, so to me, I mean, that's hardly heroic.



morgoththe1 said:


> Also, although he didn't want to, GOLLUM destroyed his precious. Frodo, at that point in the Battle for Middle Earth, had given up his will to destroy the ring, making him no better than Gollum for the task (Even IF it was all the ring's fault). So technically, if Frodo had cast the ring into that Fire, it would have been against his will, just like Gollum. So for Gollum to destroy the ring, he would just be what you could call an unwilling hero.



But he did not cast the ring now, did he? He sort of fell. As far as Gollum's concerned, his one true plan, the guiding force that pushed him to that point, is his insatiable hunger to have the ring back -- not to destroy it --- but to have it back again. For himself. "Lord Smeagol!" or "The Gollum" and all that jazz. 

Unwilling hero? I don't know. Hero is too profound a word to use on what happened to him, or what fate had made of him. Fall guy is closer.



morgoththe1 said:


> Also, Gollum had the ring for half a millenia, so he had the ring longer than Frodo.



Which is why he is distorted. Frodo would have turned into something like him too, if he were able to keep the ring. 

But I do not completely disregard Gollum's part in the ring's destruction. I just can't see him as the hero. Willing or Unwilling.


----------



## Varokhâr (Jun 29, 2006)

Narya said:


> But I do not completely disregard Gollum's part in the ring's destruction. I just can't see him as the hero. Willing or Unwilling.



I agree; there is absolutely nothing heroic or noble about Gollum. It was more luck than anything else which helped see to the Ring's demise. As said, Gollum just tripped like an idiot and fell, taking the Ring with him. If Gollum had been able to implement his will, he'd have taken the Ring back and run away with it.

Gollum's motives were wholly selfish, even when he appeared to try to be helping. He only had the Ring and his own desires in mind. Nope, nothing even slightly redeemable in that.


----------



## YayGollum (Jun 29, 2006)

Plenty redeemable in that, I write! Gollum is purity. You always knew where you stood with him. Poor Smeagol confuses many, though. His contributions are frequently overlooked, for some reason. Do you wish to write on heroic endurance? Let us write on poor Smeagol and his superly long battle versus the purity of Gollum. Many believe that poor Smeagol's personality vanished after the Shelob scene. Those people employ selective reading, I guess. What about the time where poor Smeagol begged the superly boring Frodo character to hand over the One Ring thing, before they entered that Mount Doom place? Not a Gollumish request. The superly boring Frodo ignored the warning and lost a finger for it. The hero got his security blanket back and started to understandably dance for joy. Unluckily for him and crazily luckily for Middle Earth, though, poor Smeagol had always refused to join any available dance classes.


----------



## Persephone (Jun 29, 2006)

YayGollum said:


> Plenty redeemable in that, I write! Gollum is purity. You always knew where you stood with him. Poor Smeagol confuses many, though. His contributions are frequently overlooked, for some reason. Do you wish to write on heroic endurance? Let us write on poor Smeagol and his superly long battle versus the purity of Gollum. Many believe that poor Smeagol's personality vanished after the Shelob scene. Those people employ selective reading, I guess. What about the time where poor Smeagol begged the superly boring Frodo character to hand over the One Ring thing, before they entered that Mount Doom place? Not a Gollumish request. The superly boring Frodo ignored the warning and lost a finger for it. The hero got his security blanket back and started to understandably dance for joy. Unluckily for him and crazily luckily for Middle Earth, though, poor Smeagol had always refused to join any available dance classes.


lol!!! I really missed your humor, YAY! And if Gollum/Smeagol was even half as smart as you, he could have been, undeniably, the hero of LOTR. Unfortunately, he's not. And yes, he needed dance lessons very. very badly.


----------

