# What is Gollum/Smeagol? Which is good, which is bad?



## Wood Elf

*Gollum/Smeagol*

Hello,
I know gollum has two sides to him, the side that is good, and wants to be rid of the ring, and the side that is bad, and wants to do anything to get the ring. Which is which? Is Gollum the bad side, and Smeagol the good, or vise-versa? He is also reffered to as Stinker and Slinker, which both seem bad names to me. Sam gives him the Stinker/ Slinker name, right? I guess I am just bringing this up, because I am rereading, and am at the part in TT where Gollum comes on the scene. Gollum seems scitzophrenic, because the bad side is the most often seen side, but ocassionally he lapses back, and changes his voice, and the good side comes out. Man, he really is tourtured, poor guy!  I'll be Yay Gollum can help me with this question.


----------



## YayGollum

Yes, I can! I love being recognized! Smeagol is good, Gollum is bad. Their both the greatest if you ask me! Gollum=Stinker, Smeagol=Slinker. The evil Sam says stuff like Stinker is coming out more and more. I'm sure the Smeagol side would have won out if Sam hadn't woken up at that point in the book where Gollum looks like an old, sad hobbit. He was thinking about not letting Shelob get them and then Sam wakes up and insults him! Evil Sam!


----------



## Wood Elf

Thank you Yay Gollum


----------



## ssgrif

I always thought that Smeagol Became Gollum after years of influence from the Ring of Power.

Surely Smeagol is no more? I know Gollum is a bit looney, but he never reverts to his Smeagol personality in any book....

Any concrete answers to this?


----------



## Maindogg

smeagol and gollum is the same person...but gollum is the side of him that wants to do "bad" things. He still has some of old smeagol inn him....thats why he didn't kill sam or frodo....but we all have that side gollum is of smeagol...but we surpress those feelings....what the ring does it let them loose... only the ring bearers can resist the urge the ring produces....so i hope that is some help aleast....


----------



## ssgrif

You missed my point, As far as the texts are concerned, Smeagol died long ago after he Killed his friend Deagol for the Ring. After 500 years or so, he became a twisted wretch called Gollum.

Gollum is not a scitzophrenic as some have suggested. There is no Smeagol, only Gollum now.

Gollum, may have been friendly at times to Same and Frodo, but to what end? at the end of the day, Gollum ate Frodo's finger in his quest to get back his preciousss.

Smeagol: 



> A Hobbit of Stoor-kind who lived on the banks of the Anduin in the later Third Age. He came upon the One Ring, and was eventually exiled by his people. Creeping into the roots of the Misty Mountains, he became a creature of the dark, and is better known as Gollum.


----------



## Naz

I don't think the good bits we see in Gollum have anything to do with the goodness of Smeagol. Remember, it was Smeagol who killed Deagol, not Gollum. And if I understand correctly it wasn't after years under the influence of the Ring. He killed Deagol to get the Ring. So Smeagol must have been a bad egg all along.


----------



## Maindogg

you must remember that the ring can affect people in many a way....the ring made smeagol kill deagol...i dont think smeagol wanted to kill deagol...they were friends...smeagol killed deagol because the ring made him take it from deagol...smeagol wasnt strong enough to resist the ring....so he killed deagol...thats what i think anyway...


----------



## ssgrif

ahh yes but Deagol had the ring when Smeagol decided to kill him. Surely the ring must be in your possession to be able to influence you into murder?

If thgats the case, then Naz is right, Smeagol was a bad egg in the first place.


----------



## Wood Elf

I also have another question, Frodo makes Gollum swear to the precious, but says to Gollum "No" that he cant swear ON the precious. What is Frodo reffering to, what is the difference? Also Frodo says "it will hold you to your promise," meaning the ring will hold Gollum to his promise, but how can the ring do that? Also, how is this 'swearing to the ring' proof enough for Frodo that he can trust Gollum? I suppose I am confused on the whole promise to the ring thing...Yay Gollum anywheres?


----------



## greypilgrim

Frodo wanted him to swear BY the ring and not swear on it because Gollum just wanted to see it and touch it again.
Also I think that when Gollum starts to refer to himself as "I", instead of "we", he really means it, and the promise he made "by" the ring he must keep, though it drives him mad.


----------



## Snaga

Its curious because in the Hobbit, Bilbo thinks that Gollum is talking to himself, but actually he is talking to his precious.

By in LotR it appears that he has a classic split personality at times: i.e. Slinker talks to Stinker

Its seems to me that it is swearing on the ring that forces this: because he is literally torn. The Stinker side is driven by the lust for the Ring, and the Slinker side is driven by the promise made to Frodo. But both sides want the ring back, and neither is 'good' as such. There is some good and some bad in Gollum as a whole, and more good is in evidence in the Slinker side, but ultimately Slinker goes along with the plan to kill Sam, and let Shelob get Frodo. Gollum finds a way of twisting things round so he can become the master of the precious, that satisfies Slinker and Stinker. After he has betrayed Frodo, we don't see so much of him but I don't think he is divided any more.

BTW: Tolkien's creation of Gollum is the single biggest thing that makes Lord of the Rings so brilliant IMO.


----------



## YayGollum

Don't worry Wood Elf! The Gollum expert is here! 
Ssgrif, the book obviously states that Sam sees Gollum arguing with himself. Probably one of the reasons he gives him the two names. He knows that Gollum has two personalities and the Gollum side won out. It seems like Smeagol was gone for good after the arguement that Sam saw, but Smeagol's strongest time was when he was having doubts about taking Frodo (only Frodo, forget Sam!) to Shelob. But of course Sam wakes up and insults him, which gets rid of Smeagol for good. 
Also, the ring was not in Bilbo's possession when he went a little crazy in Rivendell when Frodo showed him the ring. 
Frodo knew that if Gollum swore "on" the Ring he would steal it, but if he just swore "by" it he would think that it was the biggest oath. 
VoK, yes. Yay Tolkien! Of course.


----------



## Harad

Smeagol started out as a so-so character, perhaps like Lotho in the Shire. Not exactly evil but not the best next door neighbor. The Ring called out to the negative side of his personality and egged him on to the murder of his cousin. Smeagol did not have the "resistance" to the Ring that other "hobbits" like Bilbo and Frodo did.

The Ring warped his personality over 500 years creating Gollum and almost burying the Smeagol qualities. Frodo's kind treatment of Gollum in Mordor revived the dormant Smeagol side but it could only war with the dominant Gollum side which eventually won out.


----------



## Naz

> 'Then up he came spluttering, with weeds in his hair and a handful of mud; and he swam to the bank. And behold! when he washed the mud away, there in his hand lay a beautiful golden ring; and it shone and glittered in the sun, so that his heart was glad.But Sméagol had been watching him from behind a tree, and as Deal gloated over the ring, Sméagol came softly up behind.
> 
> '"Give us that, Deal, my love," said Sméagol, over his friend's shoulder.
> 
> '"Why?" said Deal.
> 
> '"Because it's my birthday, my love, and I wants it," said Sméagol.
> 
> '"I don't care," said Deal. "I have given you a present already, more than I could afford. I found this, and I'm going to keep it."
> 
> '"Oh, are you indeed, my love," said Sméagol; and he caught Deal by the throat and strangled him, because the gold looked so bright and beautiful.



Smeagol already speaks in a fashion very similar to Gollum. So maybe Smeagol and Gollum weren't too different to begin with.

As for the Ring egging Smeagol on, it probably did. However, Deagol was his friend (not cousin) and to my way of thinking it would take more than a minute to persuade me into killing a friend. If Smeagol was only so-so I couldn't see him killing for the Ring so quickly.


----------



## Snaga

Gandalf says the ring would be 'slow to evil'. 5 minutes is fast work, so you can only assume Smeagol was not very nice to start with. Once he has the ring he uses it for spying and stealing, whereas Bilbo uses it to avoid unwelcome visitors (e.g. the S-Bs).

But I'd guess that the Ring 'called' to Smeagol, thinking him a more suitable bearer than Deagol.

BTW Naz, are you reading a non-English version: you call Smeagol's friend Deal. In my copy it definitely has him as Deagol.


----------



## Harad

> However, Deagol was his friend (not cousin) and to my way of thinking it would take more than a minute to persuade me into killing a friend.



Glad I'm not your cousin.


----------



## Bill the Pony

Here's what Tolkien thinks of "Smeagol before the Ring" (from letter #214)


> [Déagol] being a mean little soul he grudged it. Sméagol, being meaner and greedier, tried to use the 'birthday' as an excuse for an act of tyranny.


So Smeagol was mean and greedy to start with.


----------



## Naz

*Variag of Khand* 

Yes, it does say Deagol in my copy. Don't know why I put Deal??

*Harad* 

Don't be so quick to judge me. I didn't mean any offence by pointing out your error.


----------



## Harad

Likewise.
I just thought it was interesting that you wouldnt kill a friend but would kill a cousin.


----------



## Naz

*Harad*

Ahh... Where did I say I would kill my cousin?

Anyway, so there can be no misunderstanding, I wouldn't kill my cousin.


----------



## YayGollum

Everybody needs to check out Gollum's Diary in the S&B section. It has the definitive answer to the subject you are discussing. I don't know how to work this computer good enough to give you a link.


----------



## Quercus

Again, I find myself agreeing with Harad. 

I suspect that Smeagol was rather proned to evil just like Lotho. All either of them needed was an opportunity to show their bad side.

Gandalf said that the ring had given Smeagol power according to his stature. Which I believe meant that it played on Smeagol's evil tendencies. 

I imagine that if Lotho would have inherited the ring instead of Frodo, we may have had another Gollum on our hands!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

ssgrif said:


> I always thought that Smeagol Became Gollum after years of influence from the Ring of Power.
> 
> Surely Smeagol is no more? I know Gollum is a bit looney, but he never reverts to his Smeagol personality in any book....
> 
> Any concrete answers to this?



Well, I think it should be noted that PJ, not T, took the idea of multiple personality and developed it more fully (but inaccurately). 

In the movie, the Smeagol side was the aspect of Gollum that was not wholly destroyed, as Tolkien specified. But the notion that the Gollum side actually subverted the Smeagol side to go along with the general treachery is PJ's idea. If you look carefully at them both in the movie, notice the eyes. When Gollum is in control, not only is the face much more evil, but the pupils of the eyes are contracted down to pindots. When Smeagol is out, the face is much more open and childlike, and the pupils of the eyes are more enlarged. Someone was damned clever here.

Unfortunately however, the psychological mechanism of MPD (multiple personality disorder) doesn't quite work like that. In the real thing, a person is unbearably traumatized, usually in childhood by caretakers involved in intense cruelty: humiliation, torture, violence and the like. The core personality spinters into subpersonalities who are "specialists," protectors of the core personality, who by this time has been virtually destroyed. Another mark of the disorder is lost time. Frequently one or more personalities come out and cause damage of some sort and leave the core personality holding the bag. The core personality suddenly comes out wondering where he (or she) is (many times the subpersonalities travel to strange places), what day it is, what location it is, and what the hell has happened during the time that the core personality has been suppressed. It is a terrifying experience. If you want to really get into this, find a copy of "The Minds of Billy Milligan," by Daniel Keyes.

Keyes documented the case of William Milligan (who was arrested for rape), who splintered into 24 separate subpersonalities, each of whom were specialists in the protection of the core personality Billy, who was kept asleep most of the time.

There were men, women and children, and even a lesbian personality: Philip was a petty criminal; Kevin dealt in drugs (to keep money coming in); April, who wanted to kill Billy's stepfather (who had been unbelievably cruel to Billy and his mother); Adelana, the lesbian who was involved in the rape; David, an 8-year-old whose responsibility was to "keep the pain;" and others. They were all immensely talented and intelligent. If any book would make a riveting movie, this one is it! 

The Gollum/Smeagol dichotomy is based on misunderstood split personality theory, and is far from the real thing.

Barley


----------



## Aglarband

YayGollum said:


> Don't worry Wood Elf! The Gollum expert is here!
> Ssgrif, the book obviously states that Sam sees Gollum arguing with himself. Probably one of the reasons he gives him the two names. He knows that Gollum has two personalities and the Gollum side won out. It seems like Smeagol was gone for good after the arguement that Sam saw, but Smeagol's strongest time was when he was having doubts about taking Frodo (only Frodo, forget Sam!) to Shelob. But of course Sam wakes up and insults him, which gets rid of Smeagol for good.
> Also, the ring was not in Bilbo's possession when he went a little crazy in Rivendell when Frodo showed him the ring.
> Frodo knew that if Gollum swore "on" the Ring he would steal it, but if he just swore "by" it he would think that it was the biggest oath.
> VoK, yes. Yay Tolkien! Of course.



Don't forget how Boromir went mad with lust for the Ring and tried to attack Frodo! Why arn't you talking about that too?

EDIT: Barliman, wouldn't the years of influence from the Ring be considered torture? I mean, he lived in a cave alone for years with nothing but the Ring. His "family" group clan thingy of River Folk casted him out probably not nicely, and he hated the dark and the light. He just hated the light more it seems. He was crazy go nuts, and the fact that he developed a split personality is not unlikely.


----------



## Narsil

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Well, I think it should be noted that PJ, not T, took the idea of multiple personality and developed it more fully (but inaccurately).
> 
> In the movie, the Smeagol side was the aspect of Gollum that was not wholly destroyed, as Tolkien specified. But the notion that the Gollum side actually subverted the Smeagol side to go along with the general treachery is PJ's idea. If you look carefully at them both in the movie, notice the eyes. When Gollum is in control, not only is the face much more evil, but the pupils of the eyes are contracted down to pindots. When Smeagol is out, the face is much more open and childlike, and the pupils of the eyes are more enlarged. Someone was damned clever here.



Tolkien does seem to go into it a bit. At one point Sam wakes up to find Gollum sitting by Frodo..



> Gollum was talking to himself. Smeagol was holding a debate with some other thought that used the same voice but made it squeak and hiss. A pale light and a green light alternated in his eyes as he spoke.



Seems the green light in his eyes and hissing voice are the "Gollum" side. Sometimes I wonder if Gollum is just having a debate with himsef or is actually presented as shizophrenic. I don't think Smeagol was nice to begin with. I think the ring brought out the evil that was already within and magnified it but even so there was some good (Smeagol) in there too and that would come to the surface as well..Hence the debating. After living alone for 500 years it doesn't seem unusual or unnatural that Gollum would occasionally talk to himself!  

In the end the evil side, the side that lusted after the ring, won out. 

It turned out to be a good thing too!


----------



## Gothmog

When I read the books first and again when I looked through them because of this thread, I did not get the impression that Tolkien was trying to present Gollum as shizophrenic, rather that he was a very lonely creature who had invented an imaginary friend/companion because he had no one else to talk to.

I read Gollum's debate with himself as just that, Gollum debating with Gollum because he was not sure at that point what he should do.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gothmog said:


> When I read the books first and again when I looked through them because of this thread, I did not get the impression that Tolkien was trying to present Gollum as schizophrenic, rather that he was a very lonely creature who had invented an imaginary friend/companion because he had no one else to talk to.



I think you're absolutely right: recluses do have a habit of talking to themselves. But after 500 years, it seemed (that in the book) he really did split himself into two people.

There is a great difference, by the way between schizophrenia and MPD. Schizophrenia is based in large measure on an ego so fragile that it cannot suppress subconscious aspects (audio and visual hallucinations), and the person is terrified by the voices he hears and the hallucinations he sees, because he has no control over them. This is a mental disease, having to do in part by a skewed brain chemistry, which can many times be treated by drugs.

MPD however, is not considered a form of insanity so much as a drastic-yet-elegant coping mechanism in reaction against extreme violence experienced in childhood, and it takes much careful and specialized therapy to fuse all the subpersonalities back into one. It's a totally different breed of cat.

Barley


----------



## Mirendabeth

ssgrif said:


> Gollum is not a scitzophrenic as some have suggested. There is no Smeagol, only Gollum now.


I agree in the sense that Gollum is not a schizophrenic, but I dont think that Smeagol has completely gone. 

Yes, Gollum is evil, and has been for the best part of 500 years. But when Frodo starts taking pity on him, his Smeagol side begins to fight back. I believe that Smeagol had been there all along, but just lying dormant inside, having been bullyed away by the Gollum side, which is controlled by the ring. Having lay dormant for so long, the Smeagol side of him is also controlled somewhat by the ring, but he is more capable of making his own decisions, and thinking things through logically than Gollum is. I too, think that it was quite possibly Sam that made Smeagol listen to the Gollum side agian - he fought it for a while, but then began to agree with him again, and listen to the calling of the ring. After having been awakened by the kindness of Frodo, it was then pushed away again from the insults from Sam perhaps.


----------



## Astaldo

I think that Sam was the only one who understood from the beggining that there was no hope for Smeagol/GGollum to be good again (if it had ever been). The change to his character was only for a few days and maybe the Gollum side decided to go back for a while in order to be thought good by Frodo and then when he had gained Frodo's trust and steal the One Ring. I do not believe that is Sam's fault that the Gollum side came back again.


----------

