# LOTR Would Have Been Better Without The evil sam!  Obviously!  Agree?



## YayGollum (Mar 11, 2003)

What is up, dudes? Having all kinds of fun? Oh, I hope so! Why not? 

Anyways, I was talking about this in some little debating bar we have in the Green Dragon section and since I did so well, I thought I'd share my crazy theory with everybody. 

Well, you saw the title. If the evil sam wasn't around, Gollum would have tossed the Ring into that Mount Doom Crack thing voluntarily and everyone would have to believe that he was the hero. Even though it should be obvious already. There's some little letter thing that Tolkien wrote, saying that if the evil sam wasn't so evil, Gollum would have been nicer and everyone would love him and he'd have enough strength to toss the thing in. 

Know what I mean? Wouldn't that make the book so much better? The crazy lady that was debating with me kept saying that if the evil sam wasn't in the book, Frodo would have died at the end. I say, who cares? At least everyone would have to agree with me when I say that Gollum is the hero! Besides, I'm sure that Tolkien could have said that the evil torturer Gandalf showed up with his eagles just in time to save Frodo.


----------



## Celebithil (Mar 11, 2003)

Yes Gollum is the hero without him all would have been lost. There you happy?


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 11, 2003)

Yes, very happy. Very surprised that anyone around here agrees with me. Most of the people around here are just crazy for some reason, I guess.  Anyways, I mostly made this because someone encourged me to. Expected lots of rants being tossed at me. Always fun.


----------



## Confusticated (Mar 11, 2003)

Well I don't have the letters anymore, but luckily I had posted this quote earlier on in another thread so I have hunted it down and taken in from there.


> _from letter 246_
> This is due of course to the 'logic of the story'. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last (III 221-222)4 but for the good of Gollum too late.) If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some ***** twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.




I disagree with YayGollum though. We can not know that Gollum would have destroyed himself and the Ring in the fire of Mount Doom had there been no Sam in the Story.

First of all, I imagine that Gollum would have taken the Ring from Frodo earlier on, without Sam's protection.

I see no reason that Gollum would not have taken the Ring soon as Frodo parted from the rest of the Fellowship, he might have taken the Ring while Frodo slept, or have fought him to Frodo's death for it. Anyhow, having taken the Ring so early on he will not have developed a love for Frodo.

"Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some ***** twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both."

Without his friendship with Frodo there may be no repentance and there would be no "both" to satisfy... there would be no love of Frodo.

Sam needed to be there to protect frodo from Gollum long enough for friendship to develope.


----------



## FoolOfATook (Mar 11, 2003)

> We can not know that Gollum would have destroyed himself and the Ring in the fire of Mount Doom had there been no Sam in the Story.



I'll take that a step further, and say that the odds of Gollum destorying the ring voluntarily are about the same that a snowball would have in the Cracks of Doom.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 11, 2003)

Yay! Yes, I thought of the whole ---> Oh, Gollum would have killed Frodo superly early withouth the evil sam's help. 

The only thing I can say about that is ---> Yay for Frodo having the evil sting and some rope?  You know. We know for definite surely that IF Frodo could have caught the guy by himself, Gollum would have more obviously saved the day. 

Of course, since I'm a huge Gollum Fan, I'd love to think that Gollum would be able to kill Frodo all by himself superly easily, but I gots to hope that Frodo would win in that case. sorry about that. oh well. How's about I say ---> IF Frodo caught him, everyone would love him as much as me.  And that would be a way better version of LOTR.

Anyways, Woah! What's this craziness I'm seeing that this Fool is writing? The Tolkien guy said that Gollum would have saved the day voluntarily. That's not enough for you? Yikes!


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 11, 2003)

Yay Gollum - the term 'off your rocker' comes to mind. 
I agree with FoolOfATook.

(But in reality, if we had to delete one of the three from the Threesome, logically, Frodo was the most useless one.)


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 11, 2003)

Yay for me being off my rocker! I don't mind people thinking that. I would mind people thinking that there's a better Gollum Fan than me, though.   Sure, both Frodo and the evil sam are useless. Gollum saved the day in the end. I'm just attacking the evil sam because he's just so achingly evil.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 12, 2003)

Nah, - just because he is your natural nemesis. We are not surprised.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 12, 2003)

Shhh!  

What one word post? Well, I thought that this thing should have been kept in that debating bar.


----------



## kohaku (Mar 12, 2003)

> (But in reality, if we had to delete one of the three from the Threesome, logically, Frodo was the most useless one.)



wow... just Sam and Gollum? That wouldn't have lasted very long!

I think it is possible that Frodo and Gollum by themselves could have formed a friendship. Gollum wouldn't go near Frodo if he so much as threatened him with his elvish Sting, and he wouldn't run away for long because Frodo has his preciousss. And although Sam and Frodo often took turns watching and sleeping, they often were asleep at the same time, even toward the beginning of their time with Gollum. Personally, I like Sam and I prefer the story to include him, but I think there is a possibility (however unlikely) that the quest could have succeeded without him.


----------



## Elendil3119 (Mar 12, 2003)

OK, I have just one question for you YayGollum: Are you for real? I mean, do you REALLY think Gollum is the true hero and all, or are you just faking it to make yourself sound funny? (which BTW, you do )


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 13, 2003)

Yay for this kohaku person! That's what I'm talking about! It's all in that one letter thing! sorry I don't have the thing. I guess I could always hunt it down in that debating bar sometime. Anyways, yes, crazy Elendil3119 person, I am for real. How can you not think that Gollum was the hero? Have you even read the bookses? The goal was to destroy the Ring. Who did that? Come on. Say it with me. Gollum the Hero!


----------



## Idril (Mar 13, 2003)

Gollum would not have destroyed the ring voluntarily. The Gollum side of his personality was too strong and unstable. He would have killed Frodo without a second thought - even as Smeagol killed Deagol.

The nature of the ring - a degree of self preservation would have also been at play stopping it's destruction. 

If anything I think Frodo's (perceived) betrayal of Gollum to Faramir's men did more damage than Sam's distrust. Gollum knew Sam's behaviour was as a result of his desire to protect Frodo and the ring from him and despised Sam for it - a mad mind trying to justify his thoughts and behaviour.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 13, 2003)

I'm pretty sure Gollum would have killed Frodo before they got out of the marshes, or sooner, if Sam hadn't been there. 
Or Frodo would have killed Gollum in a crazed mania if G tried to take his ring. Their struggle inside Orodruin would just have happened much sooner. 

Sam wins this 'Survivor' show.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 13, 2003)

Here's that quote from one of Tolkien's letters ---> 

For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes in II 323 ff. when the evil sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing', said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!'. His repentance is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense ) wasted. Shelob's lair became inevitable.
This is due of course to the 'logic of the story'. the evil sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last (III 221-222)4 but for the good of Gollum too late.) If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some ***** twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.

See there? Gollum wins. It says that if the evil sam hadn't been so evil, Gollum would have voluntarily saved the day. Yay for the evil sam not being needed at all!


----------



## Burb (Mar 13, 2003)

fair enough, but frodo would NEVER have made it to mount doom without sam. shelob would have eaten him, and gollum would have taken the ring back out of shelob's lair away from mordor, if in fact gollum would have led frodo that far.

futhermore, sam pract6ically had to carry frodo to the mountain. do you think the weaskened, skinny gollum would have carried the hobbit as sam did?


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 13, 2003)

Ack! Gollum would never have let Shelob get him if the evil sam wasn't so evil! Sure, Frodo betrayed him and was superly evil to him, but the quote says that the evil sam was the guy that got him to let Shelob get the nasssty hobbitses. Yes, I think that the weakened, skinny Gollum could have carried Frodo all over the place. There's another quote that says Gollum had more courage and strength than the evil sam and Frodo. Should I go find that now?


----------



## Burb (Mar 13, 2003)

please do


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 13, 2003)

Got it. Here ya go ---> His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and the evil sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable.

Okay, fine. It's endurance, not strenth. Good enough. When poor Smeagol got to be stronger than Gollum, the courage and endurance would be devoted to good. Yay!


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 13, 2003)

> I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.



Thank goodness Tolkien did not decide to write it this way. I cannot believe that even HE could have believed this. A parent might sacrifice him/her self for a child, but anything else, I would find incredible. If he had loved Frodo that much, he'd just give the ring back. I don't care how much Gollum repented and changed and loved Frodo. To commit suicide when you finally got what you want, would be unbelievable and make the story seem phoney. The self-interest in the two acts is contradictory.


----------



## Goldberry (Mar 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nóm _
> *Well I don't have the letters anymore, but luckily I had posted this quote earlier on in another thread so I have hunted it down and taken in from there.
> 
> 
> ...



I agree completely, Nom. 

and YayGollum, if there had not been a Sam, we would have missed out on all the rich, intricate, fascinating, and sometimes funny, scenes of Gollum with Sam. I wouldn't want to miss that for all the elves in ME!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 13, 2003)

Ack! Crazy Mindy lady! What's wrong with that other possible ending? It's pretty much the same. The only difference is that Gollum saves the day on purpose. oh well.

Anyways, what rich, intricate, fascinating, and sometimes funny scenes? Oh, maybe most people like the scenes where the evil sam says all kinds of superly evil things to poor Smeagol. I can't help hating the evil sam. Whoops!


----------



## Burb (Mar 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Mindy_O_Lluin _
> *Thank goodness Tolkien did not decide to write it this way. I cannot believe that even HE could have believed this. A parent might sacrifice him/her self for a child, but anything else, I would find incredible. If he had loved Frodo that much, he'd just give the ring back. I don't care how much Gollum repented and changed and loved Frodo. To commit suicide when you finally got what you want, would be unbelievable and make the story seem phoney. The self-interest in the two acts is contradictory. *



i dont think gollum would have sacrificed himself for ANYTHING unless it was for the ring itself, and i dont think he would destroy his precioussss for anybody, not even frodo.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 13, 2003)

YayGollum, I think you are out-numbered!  

Please try to imagine SAM out of the picture altogether, and then explain to us what glimmer of inherent goodness Gollum would have maintained for more than two minutes straight. Especially with the ring tempting him constantly.

[This is pretty bizarre arguing hypothetical might-have-beens about a not only fictional, but fantasy character! - But a fun mind game, anyway.]


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 14, 2003)

Yay obviously..........you are extremely misinformed.........not really i just like sounding smart............but sam definently was a valiant, well written character as opossed to the evil slimy snake gollum.............he just wanted the precious for himself so he could eat raw fish and be the master of the precious........and if he had his way and sam hadn't of kept him in line a little.........sauron just would of killed him got the ring and every1 in the book would be dead or a slave.........

so obviously sam is a great addition to this epic.......gollum's purpose was to die......which he served very well to the happiness of every1.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 14, 2003)

Ack! Crazy Burb person! If you read the quote, you'll see what Gollum would have done. I didn't make it up. oh well.

Yes, I know that I'm outnumbered. That's the way I like it.  Always defending the Little Guy. Even though everyone else could care less. Even though everyone else is so conditioned to admire the uh, admirable people.  

I love imagining the evil sam out of the picture. Always a much better story. 

Explain what glimmer of inherent goodness Gollum would have maintained for more than two minutes straight? Especially with the ring tempting him constantly? Well, if you read the quotes, you'll see that if the evil sam wasn't so evil, he would have become good and with his superior courage and endurance, would have saved the day on purpose. And everyone would have to admit that he was the hero.  

Anyways, Yay for arguing hypothetical might-have-beens! Very fun! Tolkien was the guy that came up with the crazy hypothetical might-have-been in the first place.

Woah! Yikes, scary person who's name I don't feel like capitalizing because it's just so evil! You think that the evil sam's character was better written that poor Smeagol's? That makes no sense. I always thought that it was the same guy that wrote about both characters. Go figure. oh well. 

Anyways, no, Gollum was much more interesting than some selfless, brainless, popular hobbit. Yay for multiple personalities! And the hypothetical might-have-beens! Yes, you're right that he just wanted the Ring for himself. Well, at least Gollum did. So what? Read the quote, dude. Also, who says Gollum died to the happiness of everyone?


----------



## Idril (Mar 14, 2003)

Sam is only perceived as evil at that point, because Frodo is being so trusting of Gollum. Remember Frodo had wished Biblo had killed Gollum. If Frodo hadn't changed his thinking of Gollum, Sam's behaviour would not seem 'evil'.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 14, 2003)

Oh? Wouldn't I then think that both of them were equally evil? Or are you just talking about people who read the bookses in general? Probably. Huh. Well, thank you. I had no idea that normal people ever thought that the evil sam was being evil. Anyways, I usually think that the evil sam is being evil. just like the evil torturer Gandalf and the superly smart Aragorn without pity for poor Smeagol. Argh! *collapses from thinking about too much evil*


----------



## Idril (Mar 14, 2003)

I don't really think Sam's behaviour would be considered 'evil' - more like 'harsh' and 'unforgiving'.


----------



## Goldberry (Mar 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *
> Anyways, what rich, intricate, fascinating, and sometimes funny scenes? Oh, maybe most people like the scenes where the evil sam says all kinds of superly evil things to poor Smeagol. I can't help hating the evil sam. Whoops! *



Gollum and Sam and cooking the rabbits - very funny!
Gollum and Sam and "sneaking" - very funny!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 14, 2003)

I think that the scene with the rabbits is sad. Poor Smeagol. He's so used to eating things raw that he's confused with why someone would spoil the taste he's used to. How can that be funny? It shows how we gots to feel sorry for what the Ring did to him.

Sure, I can see why someone might think that that scene is funny, but not the sneaking thing you're talking about! Yikes! That was the same part where the evil sam got mad at him when he was looking like a poor old sad hobbit! The saddest scene in the book! Ack!


----------



## BlackCaptain (Mar 14, 2003)

Same does treat Smeagol...er... Gollum very meanly, although he has good reason. 

All Gollum wants is the Ring
The entire fate of ME rests in the destroying of the Ring
Gollum is chosen to help fufil this quest

Something doesnt quite work out...


----------



## ElvishHellion (Mar 20, 2003)

I know sam is like the best chacter!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 20, 2003)

Ick. Why do so many people like that character? He's so boring! oh well. You people need to toss me some instances for me to show how they weren't needed.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 20, 2003)

If Sam weren't there, Frodo would have had to carry that heavy pack all by himself. And he'd have had to do all his own cooking.


----------



## ElvishHellion (Mar 20, 2003)

Sam saves Frodo's butt on may occations. If sam weren't there Frodo woudl be dead . YayGollum , the reason so many people like sam is because he is like the perfect best friend , he's always there for you and he cooks!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 20, 2003)

Ack! With Gollum being superly friendly, he would have helped with the bagses. He was superly strong. Who cares about having to make your own food? elvishHellion person, what occassions are you talking about where Gollum couldn't have filled in? The evil sam was the perfect best friend? How? He was achingly unintelligent! Ick. *hides*


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 20, 2003)

Yay, If gollum was nice then he would of never bit of frodos finger and fallen in the cracks of doom and never destroyed the ring.......frodo would of run off with it and every1 would cry because sauron would win and they would have to be slaves. so you see my old friend gollum had to be evil and sam had to be not evil. gollum evil or every1s slavery and death.


and i didn't say gollum wasn't well written.......in fact gollum is a well written evil evil evil sneak..... and sam is a well written nice loyal and faithful hobbit...........they are both well written all the same.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 20, 2003)

Do what? You didn't read the quotes, did you? Anyways, while Gollum was evil, Smeagol was superly pitifully childlike. oh well. Go read the quotes. Ick.


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 20, 2003)

what????? no........if it was nice smeagol and not mean gollum he would of never destroyed the ring and who would of stopped frodo................??? thats my piont he had to be mean gollum and not nice smeagol.......and yes gollum bites off frodo's finger with the ring on it and falls in the lava...."his white fangs gleamed and then he snapped as they bit,........................gollum dancing around like a mad thing held aloft the ring, a finger still thrust within its circle" p.925

so sam was meant to be the ncie companion and gollum/smeagol was meant to be the evil companion..............it could of been no other way..... sam was not evil, gollum HAD to be evil in order for the ring to be destroyed.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 20, 2003)

Crazy person, have you looked at the quotes in this thread yet? The ones that Tolkien wrote in some crazy little letters about what might have happened if the evil sam wasn't so evil? You should go read them. They say that if the evil sam wasn't so evil, Smeagol would have become a superly great and strong and nice guy that would end up destroying the Ring on purpose. That's what I'm talking about. The evil sam was not needed, according to the quotes. Ack!


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 21, 2003)

yes i have read them.........i didn't see that part about gollum taking it by force i thought he wouldn't of been able to get the ring from frodo.............NONE THE LESS.... the quotes are talking about a part far into the so called "meaness", which is actaully discipline, so if sam would of never been there in the first place how do you know gollum would be at the point of repentance..... he would not of favored frodos niceness so much if there was no1 there to be "mean". he would of thought as frodo being normal he would of never loved frodo as he did.....and wouldn't of even cared about frodo unless same played his part up to the near repentance. so there still needed to be sam no matter what up to that point.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 21, 2003)

oh well. I guess there's too much speculation type stuffs involved over here for you crazy people that like to assume the worst even after reading the quotes. sorry about that. I didn't know.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 21, 2003)

What an excellent observation Sam_Gamgee. Gollum only felt for Frodo at first because Frodo defended him against Sam! So Sam is a must. 
Maybe Evil only has fear of other evil. If Sam was being a little bit evil towards Gollum, that is what kept Gollum from murdering them both early on.

Also, at that point of potential redemption below Shelob's Lair, Gollum only felt that twinge of 'hobbityness' BECAUSE he saw Sam and Frodo affectionate with each other. Had he NOT seen Sam there, we can assume Gollum would never have had that thought at all - and Shelob would STILL have had Frodo for Lunch.


P.S. We read the quotes Yay, but I can only assume Tolkien was being a little bit fey and 'Frodoish' at the time he said it. OR, maybe he had a streak of 'YayGollum' in him. Nobody has to be totally serious every minute of their lives.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 21, 2003)

You people think that just because Frodo defended poor Smeagol from the evil sam that without the evil sam, Frodo would never have been especially nice to poor Smeagol?  That's just craziness! I don't see why not. oh well. 

The evil sting kept Gollum from murdering Frodo at first. Ack! 

Anyways, poor Smeagol wouldn't have taken Frodo to Shelob because the evil sam wouldn't have been along to make him want to just get rid of them. He knew that Frodo felt sorry for him. He'd keep hoping that Frodo would just hand the Ring back since he was never told what the guy was even planning to do with it.

Also, got it. Not everybody has to be serious all the time. Why don't you people just give it up and agree with me, then?  Does it really matter what mood this Tolkien guy was in when he wrote that quote stuffs? I wouldn't think so. I'm just pouncing on the superly cool idea he made me have.

Ack! Why do you people not think that the story would have been way better if Gollum was even more obviously the hero? oh well.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 21, 2003)

He'd have to be WAY more obviously the hero. 

How about a Thelma and Louise ending. Or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ending. 

If it were just Gollum and Frodo trekking to the cracks of doom (no idea why they would), and they liked each other in what ever disfunctional way that might be, If they fought at the end over the ring, and Gollum decides to sacrifice himself, it's more likely the two of them would cry over the ring, hug, and jump off together.


----------



## Melko Belcha (Mar 21, 2003)

Letters #131


> I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the CHIEF HERO'S) character...



Letters #184


> I can only say, for your comfort I hope, that the 'Sam Gamgee' of my story is a most HEROIC character.....



Letter #181


> The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the MEAN SOUL of Smeagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a MEAN sort of THIEF before it crossed his path.



Mean souled thieving Smeagol, MURDERER, Sam hangs Gollum by Elven rope over fire and lets red tounges lick his feet. No pity, no mercy, evil Gollum, pure EVIL!!!!!!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 21, 2003)

Ack! Gollum should already obviously be the hero. The goal of LOTR was to destroy the Ring. Gollum did that. He's obviously the hero. I'm just saying that based on what these quotes say about a might have been type scenario, if Tolkien never had an evil sam type of character, Gollum would have done the might have been type scenario and everyone would have to admit that he was the hero. 

Anyways, yes, sure, Melko Belcha person, thanks for your opinion.


----------



## S & R Gamgee (Mar 21, 2003)

Where did you get those Tolkien things from mthat said Gollum would have destroyed the ring? I wanna know I'm gonna show my friend them and she dosn't have the internet.


----------



## Melko Belcha (Mar 22, 2003)

The Letters of JRR Tolkien.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618056998/ref=ase_oneringthecomple/102-5404314-7791355

YayGollum, if I sounded harsh I didn't mean to, Sam's just my favorite character in LOTR. But hey, Gollum's cool to, I love the way the two argue.


----------



## S & R Gamgee (Mar 22, 2003)

Is there a book that its in cause that don't help much because its still on the internet. But I agree Gollum is like my second fav character. I like acting out Sam and Gollum fighting my friends think its funny. Gollum is a really cool character.


----------



## Melko Belcha (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by S & R Gamgee _
> *Is there a book that its in cause that don't help much because its still on the internet. But I agree Gollum is like my second fav character. I like acting out Sam and Gollum fighting my friends think its funny. Gollum is a really cool character. *


That is a link to where you can order the book. I found mine at Barnes & Nobles under the Biography section, not with the rest of Tolkien's books.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 22, 2003)

Ick. Everyone here would have read LOTR if it didn't have the evil sam in it. They'd all love Gollum a lot more, too, since there was some achingly perfect guy that didn't like him. oh well. See why I think LOTR would have been better without the evil sam? I gots to stick up for the little guy!


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 22, 2003)

No, no one woukld like gollum at all, well maybe a couple, but they would like smeagol, and i never said i didn't like smeagol, hes quite funny, i dont like gollum..........HES "THE DEVIL" IN MUTATED FROG FORM. but he served his purpose well....and not evil sam was needed in the story so was gollum and so was smeagol they all were


----------



## Melko Belcha (Mar 22, 2003)

I just can't see Gollum jumping in the fire. No matter how he felt for Frodo the Ring had to strong of a hold on him. Gollum had the Ring so much longer then Frodo and Frodo failed to throw the Ring in himself, the Ring was to strong while it was in the place of it's making for anyone to resist. If Frodo would have given Gollum the Ring, the Ring would have taken complete control over Gollum, and no matter how he felt, the Ring would not allow him to destroy it just as Frodo was not able to.

So you can say that Gollum is the hero by accident, but that dosen't mean it was good or bad, as Gandalf said there were more forces at work. But truely Bilbo is the hero for not killing Gollum when he had the chance, because if Gollum would have been killed then the Ring might never have been destroyed.

Plus, Sam may have started to trust Gollum if he wasn't always _sneaking_ around. And if Gollum wasn't so mad at Frodo for tricking him at the Forbidden Pool.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 22, 2003)

Sure, Smeagol is good and Gollum is bad. You know what I mean. The body that Gollum is in would be the hero. Ack! I just like to type Gollum because it's faster. oh well. 

Can somebody prove to me that the evil sam was needed? Ack! 

sorry if you can't see Gollum jumping into the fire, Melko Belcha person. I only came up with the idea because Tolkien did. No matter how much of a hold you think the Ring had over poor Smeagol doesn't matter. This Tolkien guy is saying that Smeagol would have the strength to do what I'm talking about. oh well. I'm saying that if he never had an evil sam character, Gollum would more probably have done what was talked about in the letters. 

Anyways, why are we suddenly talking about the way Gollum became the hero in the real version of LOTR? oh well. Ick. Why do people always go back in time to find a hero? If you want to go back in time, I should say that Eru was the hero. oh well. No, Gollum was the guy that finally ended the whole thing. Yay Gollum! Even though we're not talking about what actually happened in LOTR in here. oh well.


----------



## Melko Belcha (Mar 22, 2003)

Dosen't matter cause without Sam's support, Frodo would have never made it to Mount Doom. Do you think Gollum would carry Frodo on his back? No. From the time Frodo left the Shire Sam was his main support and strength troughout the entire journey. Without Sam the Ring would never had made it to the fire for the scenario you are fighting for. Tolkien was writing just a strange scenario, but if he took the time to really think about it, like we are, he would see that there was really no way it could have happened. He was not taking in all the details of the story, only showing a different scenario for that one scene. And Tolkien has said Sam is the hero of the story and one of his top favorite characters.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 22, 2003)

Yes, I think that Gollum could have carried the superly boring Frodo. He always had all kinds of super strength. Anyways, how do you know that this crazy scenario Tolkien thought up wasn't superly thought out?


----------



## Burb (Mar 22, 2003)

the thing that bugs me about the story is that smeagle never redeemed himself. he fell to his death still bound to the ring. i wish that by the ending he would have broken his need for "the preciouss". that also shows how much more will sam had than gollum... sam had the ring for awhile, and he had no trouble handing it back to frodo. smeagle KILLED someone for it.

IMO sam > gollum


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 22, 2003)

Woah! Crazy person! You have no idea what Smeagol (or Gollum) was thinking when he fell into that crack of doom thingy. Two personalities. I wouldn't doubt that at least one said ---> "Finally! Ack! Yay for never taking dancing lessons!"

Also, Yikes! It shows how much more will the evil sam had than poor Smeagol? Do you know how much longer he had the Ring with him than the evil sam did? A lot longer, actually. oh well. Thanks for tossing me into a tangent. I'm trying to keep this thread talking about how LOTR would have been better without the evil sam. Noone has convinced me that he was needed.

Also, also, why do you think that Smeagol killed anybody for the Ring? Oh, because of the little story Gollum told the evil torturer Gandalf while being evilly tortured? How many other times do you think Gollum was honest? oh well.


----------



## Vixen Evenstar (Mar 22, 2003)

Aaahhh yes...still holding high your torch for Gollum of course....but without Sam? Come on now....Gollum would have the ring and be off in a jiffy! end of story!


----------



## Melko Belcha (Mar 22, 2003)

Because of reasons that me and others have already pointed out.
Here just alittle bit more of Tolkien's thoughts.
Letters #181


> At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forebear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one could have done for Frodo!





> 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. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'.


Reread Letters #246, it is Tolkien's response about Frodo's failure, so he gives different accounts in the letter. And it seems to me that he was thinking with his pen, something he did alot. And Gollum was just evil, he had nothing but evil intent towards Frodo before he was captured, it was only after he was forced to guide them and had been around Frodo for awhile did he begin to feel for him. Without Sam Gollum would not have been captured and would have killed Frodo in the Emyn Muil. And I am done on this topic!


----------



## Burb (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *How many other times do you think Gollum was honest? oh well. *



its really hard to say how often gollum was honest, perhaps the only "person" he was honest to was shelob for bringing her some supper. such an honerable person as he was.


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 23, 2003)

yay i think we've proved sam was needed a couple times... you just wont believe it like how i was saying gollum wouldn't of liked frodo so much if there was no sam to be protected from.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 23, 2003)

Yikes, Melko Belcha person! Yes, thank you oh, so much for adding some more quotes of Tolkien's opinions on things. What I am trying to talk about in here is how LOTR would have been better without the evil sam. The quotes I tossed around over here show you people what Tolkien would have written if there was no evil sam character. Sounds like a much better book to me, but oh well. It looks like noone agrees with me. I'm just a fan of stories where the most unlikely character is the hero. sorry about that. 

Thank you, Burb person, for helping me out with the arguement that Gollum is not the most honest character in LOTR.  

Ack! Scary person who's name I can't capitalize! I missed the times you people tried to prove that the evil sam was needed. sorry about that. Maybe I'm just evil and stubborn. Yeah, I think that's it. oh well. Didn't I already say something about the idea you already tossed at me?


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 24, 2003)

i think so. but i couldn't tell if you understood my point


----------



## elf boy (Mar 24, 2003)

I don't think gollum would of tossed it in by himself. But neither could Frodo, so that doesn't say much.


----------



## HW_rapace (Mar 24, 2003)

well Sam had the chance to kill Gollum, but he didn't. he let him loose on the slopes of mount Doom, but that was after Sam had put on the ring in Cirith Ungol, so he understands Gollum better, and pitties him instead of just hating him. 

anyway, you can't judge Gollum unless you once were a ring bearer .. *looks around*


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 24, 2003)

I have no idea what this elf boy person's opinion is from what he just said. oh well. I don't think that Gollum would toss the Ring in, either, though. I just like to say that. The quote says that he'd jump in with it. But still, that's a lot like tossing it.  

Anyways, okay, sorry HW_rapace person. sorry for judging Gollum. At least I'm judging him nicely. Unlike most of these people.


----------



## Burb (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sam_Gamgee _
> *yay i think we've proved sam was needed a couple times... you just wont believe it like how i was saying gollum wouldn't of liked frodo so much if there was no sam to be protected from. *



exactly!
gollum was scared of sam. it was frodo who stood up for him at times, if there was no sam, gollum wouldnt have trusted frodo


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 25, 2003)

Gollum never trusted anybody. Smeagol, on the other hand, isn't stupid enough not to notice niceness. I would think that he'd jump on it. The evil sting could still keep Gollum from jumping on Frodo.


----------



## Burb (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *Gollum never trusted anybody. Smeagol, on the other hand, isn't stupid enough not to notice niceness. I would think that he'd jump on it. The evil sting could still keep Gollum from jumping on Frodo. *



but without sam, would smeagol even have gotten the chance to show himself?


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 25, 2003)

Yes, because the evil elf rope and some of the evil lembas helped Smeagol's personality out. At least that's what was suggested in one of those books I read.


----------



## Burb (Mar 25, 2003)

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ROPE IF SAM WASNT THERE.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 25, 2003)

No need for all caps, dude. Yikes! oh well. You don't know that. Without the evil sam always whining about rope to Frodo, he might just have thought of grabbing some himself. Anyways, there's still the lembas. Yay Gollum!


----------



## Burb (Mar 25, 2003)

hehe sorry bout the caps, i clicked "submitt" before i realized the caps lock was on.  

did gollum actually eat the lembas in the book? i ferget.


----------



## Kelonus (Mar 25, 2003)

Sam wasn't evil, he just didnt trust Gollum enough to give him a chance. Gollum is a cool character though.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 25, 2003)

Well, I don't forget. I'm the biggest Gollum Fan you'll ever run into. *looks around for his support* Yep, I'm definitely the biggest one here. Gollum ate some lembas. He said that it was like ashes and dust. Ick. Poor Smeagol. 

Anyways, yes, Kelonus person, the evil sam was very evil. At least to Gollum. Which is the only thing I care about. oh well. Looks like you don't agree with my crazy theory that LOTR would have been better without the evil sam. *sniff* He's just way too good! Yay for the more interesting weaselly characters!


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *Without the evil sam always whining about rope to Frodo, he might just have thought of grabbing some himself. *




No because the rope was given to sam when they left lorien, because sam talked about how he remebered rope, and they talked about rope making because some of sam's family were rope makers so they gave him some of thier fine rope.

And gollum didn't like lembas liek orcs wouldn't or the hobbits didn't like orc food...gollum was evil and hobbits (Sam) were not evil


----------



## ElvishHellion (Mar 25, 2003)

Gollum is not evil! He may talk to himself but hey doesn't everybody . And he did destroty the ring!


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 25, 2003)

Gollum is evil........and we all know it.....he had the potential to become the good smeagol but he did not, and not because of sam, he remained evil gollum.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 25, 2003)

Crazy person who's name I can't capitalize, didn't I already say that there's no way you could know that Frodo wouldn't remember rope. Ack! Doesn't really matter anyways. There's still the lembas. Anyways, yes, Gollum didn't like lembas. I thought that was obvious. He didn't like it because he was evil. It helped Smeagol get stronger. If the evil sam wasn't around, less negative energy would have been tossed at him and Gollum wouldn't have had the opportunity to show up as much. 

Thank you, elvishHellion person! 

Also, I think you got the sequence wrong, uncapitalized name person. He had the potential to be good Smeagol and he would get to be if the evil sam wasn't around because ---> of the quote. Read it. And in the book, no, he never was 'evil Gollum.' He was always 'tortured Smeagol.' Two personalities. Argh! oh well.


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 25, 2003)

GOLLUM WAS EVIL EVIL EVIL MUAHAHAHA and sam was not SO HA


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 26, 2003)

I have proof that Gollum is eviler than Sam.

Up until the last couple of decades, it was an unwritten law of Novel writing, to create an evil character to take the fall in the end, or to die (you know, the 'fall-guy'). Hence - Gollum. He managed to do both in one swoop. 

If Sam had been eviler, it would have been required for HIM to be the one who goes over the edge. But he didn't. Hence, Gollum must have been eviler.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 26, 2003)

Further proof that people just don't take me seriously for some reason.


----------



## Ghan-buri-ghan (Mar 26, 2003)

I think it's superly clear that Gollum has been slighted and ignored by off their rocker Sam fans. Sam's not so hot -- he's off his rocker, IMHO. He deserted his honey to go adventuring with his boss! Gotta wonder about that. 
Gollum was true to his own nature throughout. Super!


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *Further proof that people just don't take me seriously for some reason.   *



no i take you seriously yay and i know tolkien thinks gollum could of repented with no sam........but that doesn't mean LOTR would be better. to you it does because you are the ultimate fan of gollum. but to me it doesn't because i am the ultimate fan of sam. so we will forever be in competition, like batman and the joker. and so it begins............ MUAHAHA


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 26, 2003)

Thank you, Ghan-buri-ghan person! Very cool! Anyways, evil uncapitalized name person, Yay for the Joker! Boo Batman! How can anybody like him? He's so achingly boring! I mean, yes, you're right, we will never agree, but at least you proved me right. LOTR would have been better for me, so it would have been better for anyone, so it would have been better at all. I win.


----------



## ElvishHellion (Mar 26, 2003)

Sam is a little bit mean to Gollum just because Gollum is a little different. It's not Gollum's fault he's the way he is but Sam shoudl understand i mean Frdod does!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 26, 2003)

Yay! It has never made very much sense to me that someone could actually like a character like the evil sam. He's not very smart. Sure, he has all kinds of qualities that are supposed to be admirable, but I just think they're boring. There are plenty of more interesting characters in LOTR to be fans of. *hides*


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 27, 2003)

frodo was just sorry for gollum because he understood the were both obsessed..................and no it would be better for you........but for me no sam would be worse so its a case sensitive subject.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 27, 2003)

You crazy. If LOTR would have been better for even one person without the evil sam, then it would have been better at all. If there was a thread saying that LOTR would have been worse without the evil sam, you'd win. Ick. oh well. Anyways, it looks like I have a little support over here. That's what I was looking for. Had to make sure that I wasn't crazy. Also, had to have all kinds of fun with ranting about this.


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 27, 2003)

*LOTR is great with the very not evil sam in fact hes quite nice. obviously! agree?*

LOTR is great the way it is with sam and yay is just bitter because no1 is on the little guys side when in fact hobbits are the little guys too, literally....so whether your on Gollum's (the joker's) side or Sam's (batman's) side..........your rooting for the little guy.


Discuss.

P.S. long live Batman


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 27, 2003)

So be it joker...... and elvish hellion you are obviously evil thus wanting to support the true one who is evil. and not the very unevil sam.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 27, 2003)

Yikes! What's with the insults? It looks like me and this elvishHellion person have both been insulted. I don't think that either of us meant to insult anyone. I don't see how us not being huge fans of the evil sam can be offensive. oh well. Anyways, yes, sure, thanks for tossing opinions around.


----------



## LadyDernhelm (Mar 27, 2003)

Yay, do you speak of SAM?

_My_ Sam?

The best character of the entire LOTR trilogy - no, the best character in all of anywhere?

The _real_ hero of LOTR?

The one I read the books for time and time again?

The one for whom I have instructed my 2 year old sister to say "I luffa my Sam"???

This, is, to put it simply ---

[size=huge]_*BLASPHEMY!!!!!!*_[/size]


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 27, 2003)

How can anyone like the evil sam so much? Makes no sense at all. You just bleep over the parts where he's evil to poor Smeagol? You admire his stupidity and typical good guy qualities? Ick. Gollum is a much more interesting and original and funr to read about character. LOTR would have made Gollum look much better without the evil sam.


----------



## Gil-Galad (Mar 27, 2003)

So,what shall we discuss??


----------



## Elendil3119 (Mar 27, 2003)

Yay for the *evil* Sam!  GO SAM!!! He was IMO the most faithful character in the books.


----------



## Hobbit Child (Mar 28, 2003)

Sam is the real hero of the Lord of the Rings. How far would Frodo have gotten without Sam? Even though the battle at Helm's deep and all those other characters are very important, only Frodo and Sam could have taken the Ring to the fires of Mt. Doom. If the ring hadn't been destroyed, all the others might just as well have laid down and died. Yea for the good guys and for Sam Gamgee, the unlikely champion!


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 28, 2003)

I'd hate to be caught alone in the wilderness with Gollum. I'd be on pins and needles and never be able to close my eyes. And Sam and Frodo knew to take turns sleeping and watching too! Yes, I know they got away with a slip up here and there. But, it would still just be a matter of time.


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 28, 2003)

Yes, yeah for Sam. and as much as i despise gollum...he was needed... thsi is why i can't say LOTR would of been better without gollum... because gollum served his very important purpose of being an evil sneak and being so obsessed with the ring he bite off frodo's finger and stumbled into the fire..so he was a sneak and was meant to be a sneak. and sam was meant to be very un evil and nice and cool and better then gollum


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> * What's with the insults? *


 elvish HELLION. HELLION means evil.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 28, 2003)

Mindy lady, what does that have to do with the question I'm asking? Sure, you already answered it, but oh well. I must be crazy for not getting why you posted that you would feel uncomfortable around Gollum. Especially after reading the quote and seeing how nice the guy would be if the evil sam wasn't around.  

Anyways, scary uncapitalized name person, got it. I hope you can see why I thought (and still think) that you might have (and probably were) been insulting us. Excuuuse me!


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 28, 2003)

Well, let's see:

1. No Sam to keep watch.
2. Frodo sleeps without a lookout.
3. Smealgol unable to repress Gollum at every minute for extended length of time.
4. Gollum eventually gets ticked off cause Frodo won't share the ring.
5. Early throttling of Frodo before he gets out of the marshes.
6. Gollum finds cave to hide in.
7. Quest does not get completed.
8. All heros get killed at the Black Gate.
6. Therefore - Story not quite so interesting.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 28, 2003)

1. The superly boring Frodo can keep watch himself. He's not stupid even though he may get tired. Besides, Smeagol got stronger and slept most nights superly early anyways.

2. Isn't that the same thing? oh well.

3. Where do you come up with that? Sounds much worse than it was in the bookses!

4. Yay! I mean, uh, no! Gollum = negative emotion. Smeagol = good emotion. Without the evil sam to bring up the negativity, more Smeagol. Yay!

5. Yay! Wait, no. He ran into the rope and the lembas way before the dead marshes.

6. Yay Gollum! Good deal! I like your version!

7. Ummm...so?  

8. The best part!

9. I love your version! Please write it! Wait, I think I already found the flaws in it in the earlier numbers. oh well.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 28, 2003)

1. Frodo can't keep watch if he's asleep.

3. I get that from human nature - and from split personality syndrome, and because Tolkien does not keep him static.
Also, because it is impossible to live a life without ever ticking somebody off, so Frodo would have to walk on eggs to keep Gollum from 'backsliding'. Not possible. 

4. But without Sam's "evil" ways, as stated before, Gollum would never have had reason to feel Frodo was his friend. Gollum would not have anything to 'compare' Frodo to.


----------



## LadyDernhelm (Mar 28, 2003)

Yay, tell me in all seriousness ~

Do you really favor Gollum over Sam??

Sam is a CRUCIAL part of the book. If Sam hadn't been in FROM THE START, a lot of things would have gone wrong. 

Gollum is just the evil sideshow ;-)


----------



## Beleg (Mar 28, 2003)

Definately Sam! but the world wouldn't have been the same if not for Gollum. no and i don't agree that the world wouldn't have been better without the Evil Sam...


----------



## Idril (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elendil3119 _
> *Yay for the *evil* Sam!  GO SAM!!! He was IMO the most faithful character in the books. *



Should that have been 'nay' instead of 'yay'?

Sam's my hero - Frodo would have floundered much earlier without Sam's friendship, patience and understanding. Maybe, if Frodo hadn't been so trustful and friendly towards 
Gollum/Smeagol, Sam may not have been so antagonistic. It was a perfect combination (F & S).


----------



## Elendil3119 (Mar 28, 2003)

> Should that have been 'nay' instead of 'yay'?


Nah, what I meant is "Yay for Sam!". I put *evil* in asterisks to bug a certain fan of Gollum.   I do not think in any way that Sam was evil.


----------



## legolasismine (Mar 28, 2003)

Yehooooo For Sam!!!!!

One of my favourite hobbits,and one of the most trustworthy lads out of the bunch,the story would be nothing without the very not evil sam!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 28, 2003)

1. I know that Frodo can't keep watch if he's asleep, crazy lady, but I already said that he'd try harder to stay awake if he was the only one around. Do you really think he's that stupid? oh well. I don't like him either, but I don't think he's stupid!

3. But aren't we talking about hobbit nature? oh well. Seems to me to be that you're just jumping on the worst case scenario. Poor Smeagol! No openmindedness is ever tossed at him!

4. You crazy. Do you really think that Frodo would have only been nice if the evil sam was around to be evil? I don't. I think that his stupidity (= niceness) was part of his personality. Maybe I'm just crazy. oh well. Also, Gollum isn't stupid enough to not notice niceness just because there's no evil around.

LadyDernhelm person ---> Of course I like Gollum more than the evil sam! Why wouldn't I? Gollum is a much more interesting and thought-provoking character! Tolkien's greatest creation! The evil sam is so achingly boring with his stupidity and his admirable personality traits! Way too normal for a character in a book like this! You gots to admit that Gollum is a much more creative idea. Anyways, I still haven't seen how the evil sam was necessary.

oh well. Looks like this Beleg_strongbow person is trying to stay neutral. Ick. Yay for stirring things up! I mean, for expanding the opinions of others beyond the norm. That's all I'm doing!


----------



## Gothmog (Mar 28, 2003)

*Thread Merge*

I have merged the thread "LOTR is great with the very not evil sam in fact hes quite nice. obviously! agree?" with this one as they are the two sides of this one idea.

Gothmog.


----------



## Kelonus (Mar 28, 2003)

First of all Sam Gamgee was NOT evil! In fact I'm glad he was in the movie and book. He's a VERY good person to have around. He stood by Frodo even when Frodo was becoming weary and bad. Gollum should have opened his eyes that Frodo didnt betray him. He became bad when he turned good because he assumed he was betrayed by Frodo. Didn't u pay attention to the movie or you're blind to see like Smeagol/Gollum who didn't see.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 28, 2003)

Thank you, scary Gothmog person. I thought that the other thread was a little crazy. oh well. I'm glad we got to keep my title or I wouldn't be able to post here anymore.  oh well. 

Crazy Kelonus person ---> Thanks for the insults. Always fun.  Anyways, I see nothing that the evil sam did that poor Smeagol couldn't have done.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 28, 2003)

1. I don't think falling asleep is a matter of stupid or smart. Unless they were able to get to Mount doom and dump the ring within 36 hours, sleep will happen. (Unless, in middle-earth, circadian cycles just did not yet exist for the Hobbit race.)

4. If Frodo's 'nice' nature is so ingrained, then I say so was Gollum/Smeagol's 'evil' nature. Or for another cliche, Leapords don't change their spots.

As for Sam, he did nothing evil in my book. 

Alright, conceding. I looked up 'evil' in a cheap dictionary and it said, 'doing what is bad or harmful.' So with that definition, Sam may have done some slightly evil things by being harmful to Gollum's psyche. But nothing mortally wrong, if Gollum would have had any kind of coping skills to resist it's affects on him - but he didn't.


----------



## Kelonus (Mar 28, 2003)

YayGollum I didn't mean to insult, though I was just saying it like it is.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 28, 2003)

1. Okay, maybe I should check LOTR out again, lady. I have no idea if Gollum started sleeping all the time in first three days or not. oh well. 

4. Ack! Craziness again, lady! Of course Gollum is evil! He is only around because of the superly evil Ring! Smeagol isn't that bad, though. Yay for ingraned not that badness! Especially when it's stronger than the evilness.  

Anyways, got it, crazy Kelonus person. Understandable. You've been conditioned like most of these other people to admire the admirable character. I, on the other hand, like to read the more interesting and original type of characters like Gollum. You should read the quote and find out how much of a good guy poor Smeagol could have been!


----------



## ElvishHellion (Mar 29, 2003)

> elvish HELLION. HELLION means evil


Uh no duh but anyway . Yes i am part evil but enough about me. Yes sam was there from the begining but with out gollum where would the fun be? sam and frodo would be lost! Gollum added the long needed sense of FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(if this word is not in your vocab watch sponge bob!  )


----------



## Sam_Gamgee (Mar 29, 2003)

yes gollum is fun but not as fun as sam. sam was way more fun than gollum.




one of the mods deleted my thread


----------



## legolasismine (Mar 29, 2003)

They didn't delete it sam they just moved it over here,and I agree sam is way more fun than gollum!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 29, 2003)

You people are crazy. How can you think that the evil sam is more fun than Gollum? Gollum has plenty of times in the bookses where he makes people laugh. More than the evil sam. The evil sam is just your average joe superly boring classical dumb little loyal dog of a sidekick. Gollum is much more interesting. Obviously. He brings up discussions like this.


----------



## legolasismine (Mar 29, 2003)

Yay your hilarius,but really sam is much better than crazy old Gollum,obviously right?


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 29, 2003)

I tossed evidence around that Gollum was funnier than the evil sam. You have yet to convince me that the evil sam was anywhere near Gollum's level of funny. Gollum was the coolest character Tolkien ever thought up. There's no way a boring hobbit like the evil sam could be anywhere close. Thanks for the compliment, though.


----------



## legolasismine (Mar 29, 2003)

Your welcome,and I guess I have no evideence of sam being funny but he is just good to have around as a pal,unlike Gollum!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 29, 2003)

Sure, Gollum wouldn't be much of a friend even though he was pretty useful to Smeagol. Smeagol would be a great friend, though. You should read the quote. It says that without the evil sam being so evil, Smeagol would have been strong and nice enough to have destroyed the One Ring on purpose. Now that sounds like a pretty useful guy!


----------



## legolasismine (Mar 29, 2003)

Yes of course Smeagol would have been but he wasn't,and tolkien obviously wanted Gollum/Smeagol to be the way he was,but the truth of it all is that Sam is the hero and Gollum wasn't its as simple as that!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 29, 2003)

Crazy person. I know what the facts are. This thread is about what could have happened according to Tolkien and I'm wondering what people's views are on that. My view is that LOTR would have been a much better book. Mostly because I hate boring characters like the evil sam and I love characters as cool as Gollum. 

Anyways, no, in the real version of LOTR, Gollum is still the hero. The goal was to destroy the One Ring. Gollum did that. Not the evil sam. I have no idea why you would think that the evil sam was the hero when he didn't save Middle Earth and kill Sauron like Gollum did.


----------



## legolasismine (Mar 29, 2003)

Whatever,at least Sam survived,Gollum sadly didn't,and yes Gollum did destroy the ring but that doesn't make him special at all!

P.S.I like to be called carzy lady,thank you!


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 29, 2003)

Got it. I tell you what the topic of this thread is supposed to be. You ignore it and continue to insult the greatest character Tolkien ever thought up. Good job. I'm sure that many people would agree with you. Too bad this is the wrong place for it. Want to create a poor Smeagol-bashing thread? Go ahead. But if you want to post in this thread, I'd suggest keeping to the topic. Maybe I'm just crazy and talking about entirely different things is a nice thing to do in other threads. oh well. Silly me.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 29, 2003)

My view is that Tolkien was having an Alzheimer's moment when he wrote that. 

YayGollum, isn't this a purely frustrating thread you created for yourself?


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 29, 2003)

Well, it's only frustrating when people decide to be evil and jump off topic. I love defending my crazy views. Anyways, Yay for Alzheimer's disease!   <--- Kidding, as I'm sure the scary Mindy lady was.


----------



## MrsElijahWood (Mar 29, 2003)

*Ur nutz*

OMG Sam is not evil! He is Frodo's best friend and was nothing but wonderful to him! Gollum is the evil one its his fault Frodo was attacked by Shelob! How could u think Sam is evil and Gollum is a hero?  i just don't get ur point


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 29, 2003)

I would think that my views would be obvious to anyone that has ever read LOTR. Sure, while the evil sam was nice to Frodo, he was just as evil to poor Smeagol. Poor Smeagol is my favorite character so you can see why I might not be a big fan of the evil sam. 

Also, sure, while Gollum did come up with the idea to let Shelob help him out with getting his security blanket back, he wouldn't have if the evil sam wasn't around. The quote of Tolkien's that I tossed in here before says that. 

Anyways, even though it has nothing to do with this thread, I know that Gollum was the hero because he destroyed the One Ring in the end. That was the main goal of LOTR. Noone else destroyed the One Ring.


----------



## aDaHe (Apr 6, 2003)

you are a hard out for gollum aren't you!!!!

btw think of it this way, if it was not sam it might have been someone worse(ie aragorn or gimli)


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 6, 2003)

Of course. I'm the Ultimate Defender of Gollum! Yay me! *reminisces about the now extinct Gollum Fan Club* 

Anyways, I always thought that this thread was talking about how LOTR would have been better if the story had gone on without the evil sam. oh well. Sure, maybe there would have been someone worse tagging along with Frodo, but they would have been bigger and scarier than the evil sam and Gollum would have been a little more cautious. oh well.


----------



## aDaHe (Apr 7, 2003)

but think about it, if anyone else had been in sams place they might not have been as loyal and gollum might have been taken out a lot eariler...


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 7, 2003)

I'm just talking about how LOTR would have been better if the evil sam wasn't around. Not how it could have been better if someone replaced him. Anyways, no, if there was someone else with Frodo, Gollum wouldn't have gotten as close. The evil sam is just a stupid fat hobbit.


----------



## aDaHe (Apr 7, 2003)

i agree that he is a stupid fat hobbit, but i think that if there was no sam in the fellowship then gollum would not have even meet up with them in moria...
the entire story would have ended up rather messy around weathertop...


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Apr 7, 2003)

I'm pretty sure that Sam is useless.
He could very easily have been written out of the story.
 he's nasty, fat, and stupid.

 He really needs to go home and garden.


----------



## aDaHe (Apr 7, 2003)

but he help frodo get going...


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 7, 2003)

What makes you think that Gollum couldn't have found those people in Moria without the evil sam? He knew nothing about the guy then. He was just after the Ring. Also, how did the evil sam help at all at Weathertop? Also, also, how did the evil sam help Frodo get going in any way that the other hobbitses couldn't have? Yay for support!


----------



## howdie (Apr 8, 2003)

> *from letter 666
> This is due of course to the 'logic of the story'. At one time, there was a debate as to whether it would make sense, but the history of Frodo's past could be revealed. At Mount Doom, we are to witness Gollum to finally reveal that he was indeed the biological Father of Frodo, and in fact it was Smeagol's Evil twin that attacked him for the ring. Smeagol then had to make Bilbo promise to the upbringing of Frodo..... *



this is a newly found letter from Tolkien and it was to be added in HOMM


----------



## LadyDernhelm (Apr 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by howdie _
> *this is a newly found letter from Tolkien and it was to be added in HOMM   *



Somehow I doubt that was a letter from Tolkien. It sounds more like a cheesey Star-Wars ripoff.

"Frodo...I am your father..."


----------



## howdie (Apr 8, 2003)

"search your feelings Frodo, you know it to be true "


----------



## aDaHe (Apr 9, 2003)

and then frodo gets his hand cut off and jumps in the moutain to be rescuded by sam and have the sixth episode - Return of the Hobbit!!!

-personally i think that you are full of it...

but gollum - think of it, if not for sam frodo would not have made it out of the shire...


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 9, 2003)

Hi, aDaHe person. My name is YayGollum, but sure, thanks for comparing me to the coolest character Tolkien ever thought up. Anyways, why do you think that only the evil sam could get the superly boring Frodo out of the Shire? I don't see where he's really necessary over there.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Apr 17, 2003)

Howdie's full of garbage.
That's why he was banned.
*doesn't like Howdie or his offensive comments in other threads*

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that they could've gotten along just fine without Sam.
It was Gollum and Frodo that made the end scene.
Sam's just dumb.


----------



## Gabster2003! (Apr 21, 2003)

Maybe it was because that Sam was mean to Gollum, so maybe in the book thats why it said "evil Sam". And besides, if sam was not there for Frodo, Frodo would not make it to destroy the ring.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Apr 25, 2003)

The book doesn't call Sam evil.

Yay and I do.
And so does Snaga and his legion of orc. 

Sam is evil because he's boring and stupid. Not just because he's mean to Gollum.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Apr 25, 2003)

How can anyone call Sam boring and stupid! He was the main lighthearted character in the books. He was the anti-thesis to Frodo's dark melancholy, and Gollum's psyco-drama. Gimli and Pippin are the ones who verged on stupid, at least in the books. 
PJ switched them over to the comedians and darkened Sam's character a little, unfortunately. People love Sam the same way they would love their children. If I had a child like Gollum, I would hope that abortion could be made retroactive.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Apr 25, 2003)

No. I don't love Sam the way I'd love my children.

I'd love my kids like I love Gollum. I'd love them even if they did bad things. Even if they turned evil. I'd love them unconditionally, despite their flaws, and I wouldn't turn my back on them. I'd feel sorry for them, and wish there was something I could give or do that would make them whole again.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Apr 25, 2003)

Not me. Even his own Grandmother disowned him.


----------



## LadyDernhelm (Apr 25, 2003)

You are all crazy, every person who says they love Gollum unconditionally. (*cough*WONKS*cough*)

Sam IS the hero. He is good, sweet, kind, funny, wise, anything you could want. Sure, he has his flaws, but that just makes him more real. And he has no way of identifying with Gollum (unlike Frodo, Ringbearer), therefore he obviously must hate him because he doesn't understand him. We all understand Gollum, which is why there are few who come away HATING him. Strongly disliking, maybe, but....yeah. But Sam knows nothing about Gollum - remember, he didn't get any of that History of the Ring talk Frodo did - and so of course he hates him.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Apr 25, 2003)

I don't unconditionally love Gollum...I don't feel THAT strongly about him.
But I do love him in a way.
I would, however, unconditionally love my children.
And it's the same kind of thing with Gollum, though different in lots of ways.
He's evil but I still like him.  He's bad but I feel bad for him and forgive hm and love him in a way...

So yes. Maybe I'm too sympathetic...
But I don't feel bad for Sam, not only has he never had it bad in his life, he's also stupid.
Too stupid for his own good.

*Hates Sam*

Too bad we disagree.


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 25, 2003)

Woah! I've missed stuff. oh well. Let me see here. Crazy LadyDernhelm person, you say that the evil sam was the hero, then you toss all kinds of crazy compliments at him. I see no evidence that says he's the hero. Gollum was obviously the hero, crazy person. Need me to explain it again? It's all kinds of fun. Anyways, if you don't feel like saying why the evil sam is the hero, why don't you try telling me how the guy was ever needed?


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Apr 25, 2003)

It's ok, Yay.

Sam's NOT the hero.  We know it and that's what matters. Let "Crazy LadyDernhelm" have her delusions.


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 25, 2003)

Oh. I thought that I knew that Gollum was the hero. Maybe you meant to stick the evil sam's name in there.


----------



## S & R Gamgee (Apr 28, 2003)

Gollum is THE hero. Sam may have been a secondary hero but Gollum was really the hero. He wasn't just an ordinary hero though he was a special hero.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (May 23, 2003)

Ooops...Sorry preciousss....

Yes...I meant to put Evil Sam's name there. 

Sorry...I was thinking "Gollum is the Hero. NOT Sam." And I wrote Gollum by mistake. 

Stupid Sam. *goes to change post*


----------



## LadyDernhelm (May 23, 2003)

Wonks, you better run away, I'm going for my knife...

As my friend says:

"What would Frodo do without Sam? Besides die, I mean, or go and become the new Dark Lord. --A Dark Lord two feet tall. Why not."


----------



## Wonko The Sane (May 23, 2003)

I'm far more viscious than you are.

I could've killed that Nazgul too. I'm just evil and wanted him to live. 

And so no...I hate Sam. Yuck yuck yuck.


----------



## LadyDernhelm (May 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane _
> *And so no...I hate Sam. Yuck yuck yuck.  *



*glares at you*

You're evil, Wonks.

You too, Yay.


----------



## Beleg (May 24, 2003)

Hehe, but isn't Sam a much cooler character then Gollum who with his sole ringses mantra and ardent whining bores out most?


----------



## BlackCaptain (May 24, 2003)

Dude... Gollum is so much more fun to read cuz he's so multi-dimensional. The story wouldbt be better without sam, but I like Gollum more...


----------



## Gil-Galad (May 24, 2003)

I would say LOTR would have been better without the evil Gollum!


----------



## YayGollum (May 25, 2003)

Too bad we're not talking about if it would be better. All kinds of people have all kinds of opinions. So what? I'm talking about factses. The evil sam was not necessary. The good guys would still have won if he wasn't in on the book. The good guys would have died if Gollum wasn't there.


----------



## S & R Gamgee (May 27, 2003)

Exactly. I'm sure the book woulda still been cool with out Sam (whose is sometimes evil). It's still cool how it is. Sam isn't really any cooler than Gollum. They are both the coolest. Well, I think they are.


----------



## YayGollum (May 27, 2003)

Got it. Thank you. I win. Anyways, how can they both be the coolest? Gollum is way more fun to read about. The evil sam is the type of character that you see in all kinds of stories. The stupid and loyal type. Ick. Way too boringly unoriginal. How many characters are like Gollum?


----------



## S & R Gamgee (May 28, 2003)

That's true Gollum certainly is one of a kind and the "Sam" character is in a lot of books. Not to mention Sam can be annoying at times. But not all the time. I still think him and Gollum are both awesome.


----------



## Hobbit Child (Jun 8, 2003)

Why don't all you "Yay Gollum" people sit down and re-write the book without Sam and then we can all decide if it is better? Of course this might take the fun out of the argument for all those I-love-to-make-people-mad-at-me people but if your serious, give it a shot. I'd like to see the results!


----------



## Sador (Jun 9, 2003)

But without Sam who would do all the cooking? Frodo doesn't seem like a sushi type bloke. Gollum could never stew up a few rabbits, with or without herbs. They'd all be dead of starvation before they reached the volcano.
The idea that Gollum would somehow spontaneously destroy the ring for frodo's sake makes no sense to me. After 500 years of possesion the ring would let him destroy it?
Gollum was a weak character unable to resist temptation whose only motivation is self interest(to avoid pain or gain power). He did destroy the ring, but that was an accident.
Let that be a lesson to all would-be fissure dancers!


----------



## YayGollum (Jun 9, 2003)

Crazy hobbit Child person! It should be achingly obvious to you that LOTR would have been better without the evil sam! oh well. I guess not. Anyways, no, I wouldn't want to rewrite the book. That would take a while. 

Sador person, I posted a quote where Tolkien said why Gollum might decide to destroy the One Ring on purpose. It wouldn't want him to do that, but it couldn't stop him. Gollum wasn't weak, either. There's another quote around here that says that he had more courage than all kinds of people. Or at least the same amount. He's cool. oh well. Hm. The food thing. I forgot about that. Whoops! I'll just have to say that Frodo would have to get his priorities straight and cook anyways or get used to sushi.


----------



## ely (Jun 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Gil-Galad _
> I would say LOTR would have been better without the evil Gollum!



No way! Gollum was one of the most interesting characters. I'm not so big fan of him as YayGollum, but I really liked him and I'm sure the without him LOTR had been quite boring. 

And besides, if there hadn't been Gollum, the Ring hadn't been destroyed. Do you think that Sam would have had the strength to kill Frodo or to fight with him for the Ring? I don't think so.

And I think that it would have been much bigger chance that the Ring had been destroyed without Sam than without Gollum.

And do you know what Gollum was thinking when he finally got the Ring? Maybe a very little part of him, the part that was still good, made him slip and fall on purpose... I would like to think that there was still some goodness inside him.


----------



## elvenprincess13 (Jul 21, 2003)

What _do_ all you people have against Sam? Poor ol' Sam . Okay, yeah, Gollum does have the most interesting personality, mostly because of the constant inner struggle for good over evil. But he screwed up before he'd seen the ring for two minutes. He killed his best friend for it, for Pete's sake . You really think he would have let Frodo just walk of out Mount Doom alive? He probably would've got the Ring and shoved Frodo and Sam in.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 21, 2003)

I'm guessing that you haven't read this entire thread. Or at least not the good quotes I have. oh well. What I have against the evil sam ---> He's evil to poor Smeagol for no good reason. Also, that he's obviously an unnecessary and evil contribution to the plot. Anyways, no, he never killed Deagol. That's just some crazy rumor. Yes, I think that he really would have let the superly boring Frodo walk out of that Mount Doom place. He'd probably be walking with him after destroying the One Ring.


----------

