# Why was Sméagol so easily influenced to begin with?



## Aglarthalion (Dec 31, 2003)

When Sméagol attacks Déagol and takes the Ring from him, we clearly see that Sméagol is by nature a much more aggressive, and even violent character than say a Hobbit of the Shire, or even Déagol himself. And even at that early stage, Sméagol showed signs of being susceptible to the Ring, without even having posessed it before.

Because of this, I was wondering why Sméagol is this way? It definitely seems out of the ordinary that he would be that way before he began to become corrupted by the Ring. Perhaps it was something earlier on in Sméagol's life which over time made him become weak-minded, which then showed when he first saw the Ring?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 31, 2003)

Aglarthalion said:


> When Sméagol attacks Déagol and takes the Ring from him, we clearly see that Sméagol is by nature a much more aggressive, and even violent character than say a Hobbit of the Shire, or even Déagol himself. And even at that early stage, Sméagol showed signs of being susceptible to the Ring, without even having posessed it before.
> 
> Because of this, I was wondering why Sméagol is this way? It definitely seems out of the ordinary that he would be that way before he began to become corrupted by the Ring. Perhaps it was something earlier on in Sméagol's life which over time made him become weak-minded, which then showed when he first saw the Ring?



Interesting question! I was thinking about this myself not long ago. Of course we're talking about imaginary characters, so it doesn't do to get _too_ involved. But going back to Smeagol at the beginning (when he lived with his grandmother), Tolkien seems to have written him as a potentially mean-spirited person by nature.

And my fantasy on why he was so quick to murder Deagol was that his personality was quite fragile and easily influenced. So the ring (in my fantasy) sensed this and as soon as Deagol brought the ring on land, it _immediately_ seized control of Smeagol and forced him to murder his (less useful to the ring) cousin. 

Smeagol/Gollum is indeed a tragic figure: one completely taken over by an evil force and driven to madness and mayhem all quite against his powers to resist. So he really _is_ to be pitied as well as reviled.

Lotho


----------



## FIRELILY (Dec 31, 2003)

I think Smeagol's personality definitely predisposed him to the influence of the ring. His family was well-off, he was spoiled and pampered by his grandma, used to getting whatever he wanted. His greed and, I think, immaturity was the perfect spot for the evil of the ring to grab onto and quickly grow. Smeagol was the Chia Pet in which the evil seed flourished.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 31, 2003)

FIRELILY said:


> Smeagol was the Chia Pet in which the evil seed flourished.



I love it!

Lotho


----------



## Jesse (Dec 31, 2003)

It's due to the One Ring. The Ring seduced Smeagol and he couldn't resist. Instead of trying to change, Smeagol stayed evil.


----------



## Inderjit S (Dec 31, 2003)

> . Of course we're talking about imaginary characters, so it doesn't do to get too involved



Why do you keep stressing that? We all know. When people are writing essays on books or movies for school or university then they have to get immersed in the Book. As a English Literature student, I can tell you that getting_involved_ in the Books and characters is the only way you can understand them and the author. The fact that these characters are "not real" goes without saying.

Sméagol was inherently bad-natured (in comparison to other Hobbits) and this should account for his pre-disposition to the Ring. There were other factors. It was his birthday and although he had already been given a present by Déagol he was using the Ring as a excuse in claiming the Ring. 

Tolkien's races were by no means perfect. We get bad-natured Elves (Fëanor, Curufin, Maeglin) Dwarves (The Eastern mansions who became evil, as well as the inherent conceit of the Dwarves) Men, and naturally, bad-natured Hobbits. Gandalf states that same could have happened to some Hobbits that he knew. 

Sméagol thought the gold was beautiful (he had been watching Deagol previously) and when Deagol refused to give him the Ring he strangled him. Was this a tad extreme? Yes-but we are talking about the One Ring here. It perpetuated the intrinsic lust of individuals, lust if of course relative, but it was stronger in Sméagol then it was in say Frodo or Bilbo. Bilbo came to the ring through pity (or at least his first act when wearing the ring was a noble one), and Sméagol through murder. Is it any wonder they turned out so different?


----------



## jallan (Dec 31, 2003)

Of course all we _know_ about the murder of Déagol is what Gandalf deduced from Sméagol's mixture of lies and possible truths.

So one is quite free to imagine a number of scenerios.


----------



## Illuvatar (Dec 31, 2003)

Also, Smèagol was also very weak-willed, and was more susceptible to the power of the ring. Remember Boromir. The ring had the same effect on him, too.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 3, 2004)

I do not think it is necessary to assume that Smeagol was particularly weak-willed or even especially evil before coming under the Ring's influence. As Illuvatar has pointed out, Boromir also fell under the influence of the Ring. There is also the case of Isildur. Thousands of his people, including his father(not to mention their elvish allies) had just given their lives to destroy the power of the Ring, yet when he had the chance to destroy it, he couldn't, because of its evil influence. Later when he and his men came under attack he put the Ring on in an effort to slip away and save himself, instead of staying and aiding his men (an invisible warrior would seem to be a big help in a fight). Of course, the Ring betrayed him by slipping off his finger and made him visible to his enemies. There is also, the case of Galadriel who is tempted by the Ring when Frodo offers it to her, but she manages to resist the temptation. Finally, there is probably the supreme example of the Ring's ability to corrupt some one -- Saruman. Merely studying closely the "arts" of Sauron corrupted Saruman, and he never even came close to the Ring! As for the interaction between Smeagol and Deagol, I think with the little we know about their encounter with the Ring the most we can say with any certainty is that Smeagol was physically stronger than Deagol.


----------



## Flammifer (Jan 3, 2004)

Agalarthalion said:


> When Sméagol attacks Déagol and takes the Ring from him, we clearly see that Sméagol is by nature a much more aggressive, and even violent character than say a Hobbit of the Shire, or even Déagol himself. And even at that early stage, Sméagol showed signs of being susceptible to the Ring, without even having posessed it before.
> 
> Because of this, I was wondering why Sméagol is this way? It definitely seems out of the ordinary that he would be that way before he began to become corrupted by the Ring. Perhaps it was something earlier on in Sméagol's life which over time made him become weak-minded, which then showed when he first saw the Ring?



Apart from all the evidence other people have given (which I agree with), I would also add that the Ring had decided that it was time to go. It put forth all the power of its will so that it was enticing to both Deagol and Smeagol. According to the Ring's designs, the pair came to blows, and it was the fact that Smeagol was physically stronger than Deagol that allowed Smeagol to claim the Ring.

Therefore I would say that the Ring, knowing that it must somehow get out of the Gladden Fields, put for all its power so that very few wills (if any) could have refused it. It was in desparate need to leave, so it used all its enticing power.


----------



## jallan (Jan 3, 2004)

Flammifer said:


> Therefore I would say that the Ring, knowing that it must somehow get out of the Gladden Fields, put for all its power so that very few wills (if any) could have refused it. It was in desparate need to leave, so it used all its enticing power.


Yes.

The poor, little, lost Ring heard it’s daddy calling again after over 1400 years alone in the dark with Gollum.

"Coming", it cried, "coming, coming as fast as I can, dear, horrid, vicious daddy!"


----------



## Saermegil (Jan 3, 2004)

I guess the ring chose to esnare Smeagol *and* Deagol, because, if you think about it, Deagol could have just given it to Smeagol and not lose his life. But the character of both hobbits was such that Deagol denied that ring from his friend, and Smeagol killed for it. I dont know if the ring tried to influence Smeagol more, but perhaps that is posible.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 4, 2004)

But why should Déagol give Sméagol a beautiful ring that he had just found? I cannot fault Déagol in refusing to give Sméagol the Ring. Would you just give something to someone because they asked? That would be imprudent. 

Déagol had already brought Sméagol a present 'more than I can afford' there was no reason as to why he should just hand over the Ring. Of course, it is as you say, the beauty of the ring would have made it nigh on impossible for him to hand over.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 4, 2004)

Inderjit S said:


> But why should Déagol give Sméagol a beautiful ring that he had just found? I cannot fault Déagol in refusing to give Sméagol the Ring.



My fantasy on this is that the ring immediately sensed that Smeagol's personality was fragile and easily overcome, and therefore much more useful to it than Deagol. So it immediately took control of Smeagol, had him murder Deagol, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Lotho


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 4, 2004)

> _by Lotho_Pimple_
> 
> My fantasy on this is that the ring immediately sensed that Smeagol's personality was fragile and easily overcome, and therefore much more useful to it than Deagol. So it immediately took control of Smeagol, had him murder Deagol



But why assume that Smeagol's personality was any more "fragile" than Deagol's? If Deagol had been physically stronger he would have won the encounter and kept the Ring. Is there any reason to think the further course of "history" would have been remarkably different than it was? Deagol could never have withstood the power of the Ring. No one could in the long run.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 4, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> But why assume that Smeagol's personality was any more "fragile" than Deagol's? If Deagol had been physically stronger he would have won the encounter and kept the Ring. Is there any reason to think the further course of "history" would have been remarkably different than it was? Deagol could never have withstood the power of the Ring. No one could in the long run.



As I said, Greenwood my friend, it's my _fantasy_, my speculation. Why would you want to argue with me just because you have another take on it? I'm entitled to my view of this, and you to yours. As Bilbo said in PJ's FOTR, "It's just a bit of fun!"

Lotho


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 4, 2004)

Lotho,

You are entitled to your fantasy and I apologize if my post came across as any sort of infringement of your right to fantasize. I thought we were still discussing the original question of this thread which seemed to presume a predisposition on Gollum's part to be more readily influenced than Deagol by the Ring. In terms of that discussion I see no reason, based on what we are told in LOTR, to think that Smeagol was any different than Deagol with the exception of being stronger (or more cunning?, or luckier?) in a hand-to-hand fight between the two.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 4, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> Lotho,
> 
> You are entitled to your fantasy and I apologize if my post came across as any sort of infringement of your right to fantasize. I thought we were still discussing the original question of this thread which seemed to presume a predisposition on Gollum's part to be more readily influenced than Deagol by the Ring. In terms of that discussion I see no reason, based on what we are told in LOTR, to think that Smeagol was any different than Deagol with the exception of being stronger (or more cunning?, or luckier?) in a hand-to-hand fight between the two.



No need for apologies! 

As I remember the book, Smeagol seemed to be the more naturally aggressive of the two, and generally had the nastier disposition. The whole passage is short, and Deagol's character is hardly developed at all. But unless there's something that Tolkien wrote somewhere about that passage that would explain it once and for all, it's pretty much just conjecture. So everyone, in the lack of the light of an authoritative explanation, is pretty much entitled to their own take, sez I.

Lotho

AFTER POST EDIT: My screen shows a quote box in this post of only one line deep, and no scroll box. Anybody else show this?


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 4, 2004)

I know that some of you have indeed touched on the intrinsic power of the Ring over specific people, has different influences on different people (thank God we're not all the same, even in Tolkien's _fantasy_, sorry Lotho ), but are we really appreciating that power? That Ring had been buried for 2461 years!!! It would have been dying, and I mean dying, to be found. It needed to find a grasp, a ledge to hang from. I believe that the Ring, extremely desperate exerted the fullness of its power on Sméagol. A good example would have been Frodo at the Crack of Doom. The Ring would have realized its peril, just as Sauron did.



> _The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: Book II: Chapter III: Mount Doom_
> *"The fires below awoke in anger, the red light blazed, and all the cavern was filled with a great glare and heat. Suddenly Sam saw Gollum's long hands draw upwards to his mouth; his white fangs gleamed, and then snapped as they bit. Frodo gave a cry, and there he was, fallen upon his knees at the chasm's edge. But Gollum, dancing like a mad thing, held aloft the Ring, a finger still thrust within its circle. It shone now as if verily it was wrought of living fire.*"



Not too much to really go on, but the One Ring was working its hardest right there in Sammath Naur, it had corrupted Frodo successfully, and likely knew that Sam would not hurt his master. Did it want Gollum to take it? I'm not sure, which would have been better for Sauron to deal with? My point is that the Ring had been lying at the bottom of the Anduin for 2400 years. It would have made a rather desperate attempt on Sméagol, knowing that he must have been the weaker of the two. It couldn't risk getting lost again.


----------



## Saermegil (Jan 4, 2004)

I argee with you Úlairi. I think people usually underestimate hw strong a will the rings was meant to have or how sentient (is that the right word?) it is. I said in my previous posts that it may chose to esnare Smeagol more than Deagol, for reasons known only to Mr Tolkien.



Yay for me! first post w/ avatar!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 4, 2004)

Úlairi said:


> ...It would have been dying, and I mean dying, to be found.
> ... the One Ring was working its hardest right there in Sammath Naur...the Ring had been lying at the bottom of the Anduin for 2400 years. It would have made a rather desperate attempt on Sméagol, knowing that he must have been the weaker of the two. It couldn't risk getting lost again.



Good take! But you make it sound as if it had eaten far too much and had been waiting 2400 years to... never mind...

Lotho


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 5, 2004)

> _from The Shadow of the Past/FOTR, Gandalf speaking:_
> 
> ".... The most inquisitive and curious-minded of that family was called Smeagol. He was interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed under trees and growing plants; he tunnelled into green mounds; and he ceased to look up at the hill-tops, or the leaves on trees, or the flowers opening in the air: his head and his eyes were downward.
> 
> ...



We are told that the only difference between Smeagol and Deagol was that Smeagol was quicker and stronger. There is absolutely nothing to indicate Smeagol being weaker-willed, or more prone to the Ring's power than Deagol. He was just the physically stronger of the two and ended up with the Ring. The Ring is making no "choice" here, other than to be found and recovered from the bottom of the river. If one argues that the Ring was making a conscious choice here, an argument could be made that it made a pretty poor choice, because though it got out of the river it just ended up under the mountains for another 500 years!

Yes, the Ring has tremendous power and in a sense is a character in it's own right in LOTR, but it is not a sentient being. There is no evidence for it to have the ability to think and plan on its own.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 5, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> the Ring has tremendous power and in a sense is a character in it's own right in LOTR, but it is not a sentient being. There is no evidence for it to have the ability to think and plan on its own.



Then why are we all so left with the impression, from almost the moment Frodo took possession of it, that "the ring was trying to get back to its master"?

There is even the impression that the ring deliberately left Gollum so to be found by Bilbo. (I would go passage-searching, but it's almost midnight here, and I just don't have the juice.)

Lotho


----------



## Eriol (Jan 5, 2004)

Lotho_Pimple said:


> There is even the impression that the ring deliberately left Gollum so to be found by Bilbo. (I would go passage-searching, but it's almost midnight here, and I just don't have the juice.)
> 
> Lotho


Gandalf speaks of Bilbo's finding of the Ring _as if_ the Ring wanted to be found. Of course, according to Gandalf himself "only the Power who made the Rings knows everything there is to be known about them", so Gandalf was making a guess. A very informed guess, but still a guess. (Both paraphrased quotes from "The Shadow of the Past").

I don't think there is any hard evidence that the Ring was indeed sentient without asking Sauron or the Ring himself .


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 5, 2004)

Lotho_Pimple said:


> Then why are we all so left with the impression, from almost the moment Frodo took possession of it, that "the ring was trying to get back to its master"?
> 
> There is even the impression that the ring deliberately left Gollum so to be found by Bilbo. (I would go passage-searching, but it's almost midnight here, and I just don't have the juice.)
> 
> Lotho



Yes, the Ring is "trying" to return to its master, and yes it can exert tremendous influence on people (and this influence would be strongest at the Cracks of Doom, its "birthplace"), but this is not the same as sentience. Most plants grow towards sunlight -- they "want" to grow in the sun -- but they are not thinking, conscious beings. I also do not think most people would ascribe conscious thought to most animals, but I don't think they would have any problem with a sentence that said: "The field mouse wanted to store food for the winter." Finally, this is a fantasy world with talking trees and magic rings, etc. Things do not have to work the way they do in our world. Yes, the Ring wants to return to Sauron and it should be thought of as a character in its own right (as I said in my previous post), but there is no reason to ascribe higher level thinking and thus careful planning and deep thinking to it.


----------



## FIRELILY (Jan 5, 2004)

BUT......Smeagol was the GREEDIER of the two -built in, getting worse, if metal detectors were invented back then he'd be using it to find money in the dirt.
Smeagol had gotten a b-day present & wanted another (yes, a ruse to try & get what he wanted but whatever), Deagol had gotten him a present and couldn't afford another one-HE wasn't made of money. Smeagol was already a spoiled little creep and the ring just made it worse.
When Smeagol was cast out of his home, he was all so wrapped up in 
self-pity. He wasn't salivating at the prospect of an invisibility ring and the many wonderful and dastardly things he could do with it. NOOOOO! He was already such a self-absorbed loser that he all he did was cry and hide. 
While I don't think the ring "picked" it's victims/finders, I do think that the evil exerted by it was drawn to and attractive to those more suseptible to it's power. Like, the whole bad kharma thing, man.


----------



## Snaga (Jan 5, 2004)

That is a good analogy, and one that sounds right to me. I think that to say that the ring 'made an attempt' at seducing Smeagol is unlikely. If the ring was able to do this, how would Bilbo have kept the Ring successfully hidden? You would think the ring would be making 'attempts' at all sorts of people?

Of course the movie has a much more 'sentient' ring than I feel is portrayed in the book. In the book, most of the anthropomorphic discussion of the ring is Gandalf attempting to explain matters to Frodo, that are plainly liable to go over his head.

Nonetheless the uniqueness of Smeagol's murder of Deagol should not be forgotten. It is the only recorded killing of one hobbit by another. This leads us to the idea that only the ring could explain this evil act.

And yet is this so? In "The Scouring of the Shire" Frodo has to restrain hobbits from killing ruffians who had surrendured. When they run into Sharkey the hobbits are in angry mood, quite willing to slay Saruman but again Frodo has to restrain them. But when Wormtongue does exactly what they wanted to do, they kill him forthwith. This tells me that although they are normally a gentle people, hobbits are not saints. Smeagol is not exceptional: when you consider that, it makes his fate even sadder.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 5, 2004)

But, there is no evidence in Gandalf's account (which is all we have) that Smeagol was greedier than Deagol *before* seeing the Ring. Do you think Smeagol would have killed Deagol for the large fish that dragged Deagol under? Or for a fishing lure if that had been what Deagol surfaced with? Smeagol killed Deagol out of a desire for the Ring. What evidence is there that any other item could have precipitated that murderous attack by one friend on another? The Ring was inherently evil and had an evil influence on many of those who came into contact with it (both directly and indirectly). In LOTR Smeagol/Gollum is an unfortunate creature who deserves pity (and this is what he recieves from Frodo, to Frodo's credit and ultimate salvation). 

I agree with Snaga that the Ring was not just reaching out and looking for people it could snare in some sort of kind of telepathic hunt for suitable vicitims. If it had that kind of power than the Sackville-Bagginses would have been expected to kill Blbo for it as soon as he returned from his adventure. Bilbo kept the Ring secret and with very few exceptions, hobbits in the Shire did not know of its existence. 

If you look at the history of the Ring in LOTR, all those who are tempted by it, or who seem to fall victim to its evil influence either come into direct contact with it (Isildur, Smeagol, Boromir, etc.) or know about it and its powers (Saruman, Denethor, etc.). Even Galadriel admits to long desiring the Ring, but when directly offered it by Frodo is able to resist the Ring's temptation, but she never actually possessed the Ring. Only two people ever voluntarily gave up the Ring: Bilbo when he left it to Frodo and Sam when he returned it to Frodo in the tower of Cirith Ungol. It is perhaps significant that even Bilbo did not actually hand the Ring over to someone else (Frodo), but merely left it in an envelope for Frodo (and only with considerable help from Gandalf). Sam is the only person to actually give the Ring to someone else (with reluctance), but he had only possessed it for a very short time. This action of Sam's shows that he is every bit as strong and heroic as Frodo or any other of the heroes of LOTR.

(Yes, I remember Tom Bombadil, but he is a special case. He certainly isn't "human".)


----------



## FIRELILY (Jan 5, 2004)

Well, I wish I had my book with me so I could pick out the part that lead me to conclusions about Smeagol but alas!
You know, sometimes it's hard to discern when someone else is agreeing with you. Greenwood, you agreed with Snaga who agreed with me but I'm not quite sure we agree??
As I said, though, I don't think the ring "picks"/seeks out it's prey but like flies to rotten fruit I think those more suseptible to their primal desires are more receptive to the ring's lure.
Why should Smeagol kill anyone for a fish or a lure? He can get his own or buy some if he wanted. A beautiful, unique gold ring that is not willingly parted with, however, is another story. So yes, I think the ring is the only thing that could cause something like hobbit killing hobbit.(Though was a Smeagol-type hobbit {Stoor?} more suseptible than a Shire hobbit?)
Had Bilbo been less careful with the ring, I don't doubt Lobelia would've knocked him in the head for it.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 5, 2004)

Well, I was wondering if it was going to go into the very depth's of 'Ring sentience', and I'm glad it did. I believe strongly that the Ring did indeed 'have a will of its own', one strong argument for this is if Sauron is overthrown, the Ring still exists. How could a metallic object (with only the will of its own master), bereft of its masters will (which is 'supposedly' its own will) possibly still hold sway over greater peoples of Middle-earth. Tolkien uses the example of Gandalf. 



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien
> 
> 246 *From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts)* September 1963_
> *"One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.
> ...



So, the Ring (and its will endures) without Sauron? How is this possible, unless, seeing as the Ring endures, Sauron himself endures, but then how is it possible that he is entirely destroyed? Paradoxical, no?

Now, another thing is that if the Ring isn't a sentient entity, Sauron's will must be present at all times within the Ring, and must therefore be aware of the Ring at all times, no matter where it is. So, why didn't he sense it coming into Mordor? Or even when Sam put the Ring on when he followed the Orks to the Tower of Cirith Ungol? Also, when Frodo shows Gandalf the Ring in _The Shadows of the Past_???



> _The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: Book I: Chapter II: The Shadow of the Past_
> *"Frodo took it from his breeches-pocket, where it was clasped to a chain that hung from his belt. He unfastened it and handed it slowly to the wizard. it felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it."*



Now, don't feed me the BS that it was Frodo, it could have been both or Tolkien would have never mentioned the reluctance of the Ring in that quote. Obviously he was toying with the idea of Ring sentience. The Ring in that scene (if you agree that it was reluctant for Gandalf to touch it) proves that it does indeed have perception, an prerequisite of sentience.

Now, maybe Gandalf just an old coot that really doesn't have a clue (according to a few people), but I believe he shows a great deal of insight.



> _The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: Book I: Chapter II: The Shadow of the Past_
> *"'A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it."*



*It* may slip off? A Ring of Power looks after *itself*??? Well, it certainly looks as though Tolkien was certainly 'toying' with the idea that the Ring was sentient. If so, it perceived all around it, and it also has different effects on different people. Gandalf to use it foor good, Boromir his patriotism, Galadriel likely for preservation of her _hröa_, but she also mentions being a ruler, so, perhaps for domination also. This would then suggest (as the Ring seems to 'use' different attributes of different people), that the Ring perceives the minds of others, and perceived the mind of Sméagol.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 6, 2004)

As we saw at the end of the Second Age, overthrowing Sauron without destroying the Ring is a futile exercise -- Sauron returned. The only way to destroy Sauron without destroying the Ring would be if someone with great power of their own took the Ring as their own and wielded it against Sauron. Elrond explains that in the Council of Elrond in FOTR. What you would then end up with is a new Dark Lord, a new Sauron, if you want to phrase it that way. Of course the Ring would continue to exist even if Sauron is destroyed, because it would have a new master.

As for Sauron's will needing to be present at all times in the Ring, there is no evidence for this and no reason for it to be true. Gandalf tells Frodo in Shadow of the Past that Sauron put a great part of his power (and evil) into the Ring when he created it. There is nothing about Sauron putting part of his mind or sentience into the Ring. Many of the examples given are exactly why I say the Ring needs to be treated (in a sense) as a character in LOTR, but it is not a living, thinking being. At least, not in the calculating, planning way that is being suggested by some in this thread. If it is so intelligent and able to think why fall from Gollum's finger when there is no one around (only to be found by Bilbo)? Why not fall off right in front of some nice big, evil orc?

I suppose you can say the Ring has some characteristics of a sentient being, but there is no evidence in LOTR that is has the kind of higher level thinking and planning ability that has been suggested.

But to return to the subject of this thread, there is no evidence in LOTR that Smeagol was inherently more "evil" or subject to the Ring's evil influence than Deagol.


----------



## ssgrif (Jan 6, 2004)

This is not exactly in keeping with this thread, but talking about the influences the ring had on smeagol / gollum I'd like to ask: 

How is it that we are told that both Gollum and Bilbo Baggins were blessed with long life due to the infuences of the ring, being ring bearers themselves, but only Bilbo starts to age again once he is seperated from the ring? How come Gollum, who is about 500 years old, doesnt start to rapidly age and even die since he no longer holds the ring?


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 6, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> As we saw at the end of the Second Age, overthrowing Sauron without destroying the Ring is a futile exercise -- Sauron returned. The only way to destroy Sauron without destroying the Ring would be if someone with great power of their own took the Ring as their own and wielded it against Sauron. Elrond explains that in the Council of Elrond in FOTR. What you would then end up with is a new Dark Lord, a new Sauron, if you want to phrase it that way. Of course the Ring would continue to exist even if Sauron is destroyed, because it would have a new master.
> 
> As for Sauron's will needing to be present at all times in the Ring, there is no evidence for this and no reason for it to be true. Gandalf tells Frodo in Shadow of the Past that Sauron put a great part of his power (and evil) into the Ring when he created it. There is nothing about Sauron putting part of his mind or sentience into the Ring. Many of the examples given are exactly why I say the Ring needs to be treated (in a sense) as a character in LOTR, but it is not a living, thinking being. At least, not in the calculating, planning way that is being suggested by some in this thread. If it is so intelligent and able to think why fall from Gollum's finger when there is no one around (only to be found by Bilbo)? Why not fall off right in front of some nice big, evil orc?
> 
> ...



Believe what you will Greenwood, but I have shown a lot more evidence on my side indeed, and the Ring would have no master, but be master of all in the end.


----------



## Snaga (Jan 6, 2004)

Firelily, I was actually agreeing with Greenwood's analogy of the field mouse 'wanting' to store food for the winter. Having said that, I don't think there is any reason why we should _reject_ your belief that Smeagol was a generally bad sort of hobbit. When other hobbits have veered towards disputing ownership of the ring (Frodo/ Bilbo and Frodo/Sam) they have not come to blows over it. Arguably, Frodo WAS prepared to fight for the ring, but in conditions where the ring had been 'at work' for far longer. However in each case, Frodo was the 'legitimate' owner of the ring which puts him morally in Deagol's position. Was Deagol prepared to fight for the possession of the ring? We don't know. That behaviour would not have been necessarily wrong, but it could certainly been seen as irrational. Sam and Bilbo both contemplate disputing Frodo's claim but reject this. Why? They love Frodo, but we may believe that Smeagol loved Deagol too. More crucially, both had recognised Frodo's claim prior to this moment: but Smeagol did not accept Deagol's "finders keepers" claim. So perhaps there was less of a mental barrier for the ring to overcome. This appears a significant issue throughout: consider Boromir's words: "It is not yours save by unhappy chance." (I hope I got that right... that might be just a movie line but from memory it is in the books!) Even so he tries to get Frodo to agree to lend him the Ring. Ownership is critical in other places: Bilbo makes up stories to strengthen his claim, as did Gollum.

Thus while we might believe that Smeagol was more susceptible than SOME other hobbits, we could also suggest that the thought of taking the ring occurs in others, and it was the perceived weakness of Deagol's claim that made Smeagol believe he was somewhat legitimate in disputing it.



Úlairi said:


> Well, I was wondering if it was going to go into the very depth's of 'Ring sentience', and I'm glad it did. I believe strongly that the Ring did indeed 'have a will of its own', one strong argument for this is if Sauron is overthrown, the Ring still exists. How could a metallic object (with only the will of its own master), bereft of its masters will (which is 'supposedly' its own will) possibly still hold sway over greater peoples of Middle-earth.


 Ulairi, the quote doesn't talk of Sauron being destroyed. It says that the effect on Sauron would be the same as if he was destroyed. Of course destroying the ring does not bring to nothing his spirit, it merely weakens it so fundamentally 'that none can foresee him ever arising'. He would be reduced to a empty and powerless shadow, gnawing on his own hatred. But he is, and would remain, an immortal spirit, and he would not die while Arda remains.

SSgrif: I think you are mistaken about the aging effects. If you go and re-read the scenes at Rivendell in FotR, it is not at all explicit that Bilbo has aged since he left the Shire. It is only after the ring is destroyed that this occurs.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 6, 2004)

Snaga said:


> Ulairi, the quote doesn't talk of Sauron being destroyed. It says that the effect on Sauron would be the same as if he was destroyed. Of course destroying the ring does not bring to nothing his spirit, it merely weakens it so fundamentally 'that none can foresee him ever arising'. He would be reduced to a empty and powerless shadow, gnawing on his own hatred. But he is, and would remain, an immortal spirit, and he would not die while Arda remains.



Really Snaga? Is that so? Well, thanks for clarifying that one for me! Well, in that case if Sauron weren't utterly vanquished (which I already knew), then he should be able to come back, or he should be able to live on present in the Ring, as they are One. My point is, that if Sauron is severed from the Ring, and the Ring still holds sway over its bearer, then is has to be a sentient entity, as if it wasn't, then the reduction of Sauron to a mere shadow would imply that its power too, would also be dramatically reduced down to a negligible point, but we see no evidence of this at all. Tolkien talks of the Ring as a separate entity, not direct from Sauron. If it weren't sentient, then I would be able to think that Sauron could somehow inhabit the Ring himself and eventually become the Lord of the will that vanquished him in the first place.


----------



## Two_Trees (Jan 6, 2004)

Anything could have happend.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 6, 2004)

*cough* Someone hasn't read the books *cough*


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 7, 2004)

The Ring was made by Sauron. If it is a sentient being in its own right that would mean that Sauron created a sentient being. This would completely violate Tolkien's world view of Middle Earth. No one in Middle Earth, certainly not Sauron, has the power of independent creation. The Ring is an inanimate object which has tremendous evil influence over people, elves, etc. It is in a sense a "character" in its own right, but it is not a sentient creature. LOTR, as real as it feels, is not the "real world" and real world rules do not apply.


----------



## Snaga (Jan 7, 2004)

Ulairi, bringing up a point that you hadn't mentioned isn't intended to imply that you were ignorant of it.

In response to your statement:
- I don't think Sauron lives on "in" the One Ring. But it enables his spirit to regain its strength in a way that he would not if he was no longer connected to it.
- You say that there is no evidence that the reduction to Sauron to an empty shadow would reduce the power of the Ring. I agree with that - indeed Gandalf and Galadriel's assertions that they could wield the One imply the opposite.
- But I don't see that this carries with it the implication of 'sentience' on the part of the Ring. It merely suggests that the intrinsic properties of the Ring are not dependent on the strength or weakness of Sauron. 
- You also say "If it weren't sentient, then I would be able to think that Sauron could somehow inhabit the Ring himself and eventually become the Lord of the will that vanquished him in the first place." Again, I don't see why that follows. Can you elaborate?
- I am guessing that you mean that only a sentient object could "hold sway" over the behaviour of sentient being. I disagree. Many non-sentient objects have an influence over people's behaviour. For example, gold. Or another example: a nasty parasite called the Guinea worm that gets under the skin of people living in parts of Africa, and grows to extraordinary lengths there, until it "desires" to return to the water. Whereupon it imparts to its human host the almost unstoppable craving for water. The human, under the sway of the parasite, immerses himself in water. The Guinea Worm returns to the water, reproduces, and awaits the next host to come for a swim.

In fact we are discussing an area of deliberate ambiguity in the text. The Ring appeals to and provokes the darker side of the imagination of those around it, particularly those who bear it. Do the fantasies of power and wealth come only from the Ring? No, almost certainly not. But neither are we supposed to believe they are entirely from within. The Ring is altogether evil. It is an undoubtedly evil influence. But in Tolkien's writings there are other parallels to consider. The treasure of Smaug is said to be responsible for inflaming Thorin's heart. Here the treasure is not evil, but the ill-will of Smaug lives on after his death. Similarly, the treasure of Glaurung, brought by Hurin has a similarly evil enchantment upon it. Thingol has the treasure wrought into a necklace, and the Silmaril is placed in it - adding to its potency. The effect is catastrophic: the power of Glaurungs curse, allied to the Doom of Mandos - now this is indeed an ill-omened treasure. But that it can hold sway over the mind of Thingol, and the dwarvish craftsmen is not a sign of sentience either. But a contrary example: the sword of Turin, made by Eol, is said to be evil. And sentient for sure: it can talk! The evil here comes from 'the dark heart' of its creator; and this would be an interesting analogy for the Ring, which is gets its evil from Sauron. But the Ring doesn't talk, so we cannot say with certainty it is sentient. There appears to be more active malice than that of a dragon's treasure, but less than Gurthang the talking sword!

In my own view it allows more a more interesting examination of the hearts of men (or hobbits) to not be clear where the line is between the evil of the Ring, and the evil of those who are influenced by it. In the case of Turin, we can only feel pity for the man who is utterly befuddled by both the dragon and the sword: he contributes some haste and anger, but is essentially a victim.

Gollum and Boromir are more complex: are they villains or victims? To what extent could they be expected to resist the evil of the Ring? To what extent do they redeem themselves? Gandalf and Aragorn give some sense that we are able to forgive them, but if the Ring is made too cunning and too powerful then there would be nothing to forgive and we would only pity them, as with Turin.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 8, 2004)

Snaga said:


> Ulairi, bringing up a point that you hadn't mentioned isn't intended to imply that you were ignorant of it.



Sorry I jumped at you Snaga. 



Snaga said:


> In response to your statement:
> - I don't think Sauron lives on "in" the One Ring. But it enables his spirit to regain its strength in a way that he would not if he was no longer connected to it.



Neither do I, it was merely a suggestion based on logical deduction.



Snaga said:


> - You say that there is no evidence that the reduction to Sauron to an empty shadow would reduce the power of the Ring. I agree with that - indeed Gandalf and Galadriel's assertions that they could wield the One imply the opposite.



I don't see how, it implies greater strength in the Ring's power if you read Letter #246.



Snaga said:


> - But I don't see that this carries with it the implication of 'sentience' on the part of the Ring. It merely suggests that the intrinsic properties of the Ring are not dependent on the strength or weakness of Sauron.



Well, I believe I provided a case for that, but it is certainly up to you whether you decide to agree with it or not.  



Snaga said:


> - You also say "If it weren't sentient, then I would be able to think that Sauron could somehow inhabit the Ring himself and eventually become the Lord of the will that vanquished him in the first place." Again, I don't see why that follows. Can you elaborate?



In order for any of this to work, the Ring must have the will of Sauron and Sauron only, but the mere suggestion of the idea that it would be the master in the end (if Sauron were vanquished by another), but then this would suggest that Sauron was never present within the Ring in the first place. If the Ring can survive (and all its works endure) without the will of Sauron present within it, then it would indeed suggest sentience, or at least the presence of another power. Therefore, if the Ring wasn't sentient, and didn't have the power of another inherent to it (or will), then it should in fact be Sauron itself, and therefore Sauron, being a master of necromancy should find a way to inhabit the Ring (as he should be in the first place!). 



Snaga said:


> - I am guessing that you mean that only a sentient object could "hold sway" over the behaviour of sentient being. I disagree. Many non-sentient objects have an influence over people's behaviour. For example, gold. Or another example: a nasty parasite called the Guinea worm that gets under the skin of people living in parts of Africa, and grows to extraordinary lengths there, until it "desires" to return to the water. Whereupon it imparts to its human host the almost unstoppable craving for water. The human, under the sway of the parasite, immerses himself in water. The Guinea Worm returns to the water, reproduces, and awaits the next host to come for a swim.



Very interesting analogy, and no, I never implied that a sentient being can only 'hold sway' over another, that would be ignorant on my part. 



Snaga said:


> In fact we are discussing an area of deliberate ambiguity in the text. The Ring appeals to and provokes the darker side of the imagination of those around it, particularly those who bear it. Do the fantasies of power and wealth come only from the Ring? No, almost certainly not. But neither are we supposed to believe they are entirely from within. The Ring is altogether evil. It is an undoubtedly evil influence. But in Tolkien's writings there are other parallels to consider. The treasure of Smaug is said to be responsible for inflaming Thorin's heart. Here the treasure is not evil, but the ill-will of Smaug lives on after his death. Similarly, the treasure of Glaurung, brought by Hurin has a similarly evil enchantment upon it. Thingol has the treasure wrought into a necklace, and the Silmaril is placed in it - adding to its potency. The effect is catastrophic: the power of Glaurungs curse, allied to the Doom of Mandos - now this is indeed an ill-omened treasure. But that it can hold sway over the mind of Thingol, and the dwarvish craftsmen is not a sign of sentience either. But a contrary example: the sword of Turin, made by Eol, is said to be evil. And sentient for sure: it can talk! The evil here comes from 'the dark heart' of its creator; and this would be an interesting analogy for the Ring, which is gets its evil from Sauron. But the Ring doesn't talk, so we cannot say with certainty it is sentient. There appears to be more active malice than that of a dragon's treasure, but less than Gurthang the talking sword!



Some good points, but understand, Gurthang is of great help to the argument, and just because we never really hear the Ring talk is no implication of the Ring not being sentient (which you yourself pointed out). As for the active malice in treasure, well, I wouldn't account the Ring to be a treasure, people desire to have it for domination, not for wealth and greed, but the Ring may use these things on say, a Dwarf. But the Ring seems to know the weakness of any it comes into contact with.



Snaga said:


> In my own view it allows more a more interesting examination of the hearts of men (or hobbits) to not be clear where the line is between the evil of the Ring, and the evil of those who are influenced by it. In the case of Turin, we can only feel pity for the man who is utterly befuddled by both the dragon and the sword: he contributes some haste and anger, but is essentially a victim.



My point exactly! 



Snaga said:


> Gollum and Boromir are more complex: are they villains or victims? To what extent could they be expected to resist the evil of the Ring? To what extent do they redeem themselves? Gandalf and Aragorn give some sense that we are able to forgive them, but if the Ring is made too cunning and too powerful then there would be nothing to forgive and we would only pity them, as with Turin.



Well, that's up for the thread to decide, but I personally think we should make this a more broader topic. 

Saving the best 'till last here.



Greenwood said:


> The Ring was made by Sauron. If it is a sentient being in its own right that would mean that Sauron created a sentient being. This would completely violate Tolkien's world view of Middle Earth. No one in Middle Earth, certainly not Sauron, has the power of independent creation. The Ring is an inanimate object which has tremendous evil influence over people, elves, etc. It is in a sense a "character" in its own right, but it is not a sentient creature. LOTR, as real as it feels, is not the "real world" and real world rules do not apply.



Yeah, can't disagree with you there! An inherent factor of sub-creation is that it indeed cannot be sentient without the will of Ilúvatar, but there are some special exceptions. Take Gurthang for instance!



> _The Silmarillion: Quenta Silmarillion: Chapter XXII: Of Túrin Turambar_
> *"But as Thingol turned the hilt of Anglachel towards Beleg, Melian looked at the blade; and she said: 'There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves; neither will it abide with you long.'"*



Eöl begrudged the sword to Beleg Cúthalion, and it was made with his own malice and mind, or his heart dwells in the sword. So, I daresay that a smith, with significant power (Sauron was a Maia of Aulë, so there is no problem there), letting his own being passing into an object therefore makes it sentient. Aulë with the Dwarves wanted to give them their own cognizance i.e. not his own conscienceness, but Sauron let his very being pass into the Ring, as Eöl the Smith let pass into Anglachel.



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_
> 
> 131 *To Milton Waldman*
> 
> *"But to achieve this he had been obliged to let a great part of his own inherent power (a frequent and very significant motive in myth and fair-story) pass into the One Ring."*



So, I don't even need to make an argument about 'Arda Marred' and what that might have to do with the sentience of the Ring, because I have the wonderful example of Anglachel to back me up (which, mind you, I had forgotten completely about). So, I rest my case there.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 8, 2004)

No where does it say that Sauron "let his being" into the Ring! It says he placed much of his "*power*" or as in Tolkien's letter "great part of his own inherent power" into the Ring; this is not sentience. The Ring is not Sauron, though much of his power is in it.

Similarly, in the quote: "But as Thingol turned the hilt of Anglachel towards Beleg, Melian looked at the blade; and she said: 'There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves; neither will it abide with you long.'", there is nothing about sentience. Malice -- yes; evil -- yes; sentience -- no.


----------



## Saermegil (Jan 9, 2004)

How can a talking sword not be sentient? How would you explain it's ability to talk and express an opinion?


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 9, 2004)

Saermegil said:


> How can a talking sword not be sentient? How would you explain it's ability to talk and express an opinion?



It has been many years since I read The Silmarillion so I would have to go back and refamilarize myself with the sword under discussion, but I have read LOTR more times than I can remember and I have read many of Tolkien's letters. No where does he treat the Ring as anything sentient, he always treats it as an object with special powers. Here is a relevant (I think) quote from one of his letters:



> _from Letter 211_
> 
> “You cannot press the One Ring too hard, for it is if course a mythical feature, even though the world of the tales is conceived in more or less historical terms. The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatments of the placing of one’s life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself. If I were to ‘philosophize’ this myth, or at least the Ring of Sauron, I should say it was a mytical way of representing the truth that _potency_ (or perhaps rather _potentiality_) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalized and so as it were passes, to a greater or less degree, out of one’s direct control. A man who wishes to exert ‘power’ must have subjects, who are not himself. But he then depends on them.”
> 
> [_italics in original_]



I think questions like "Why didn't the Ring do this?" or "Why didn't the Ring do that?" are examples of "pressing the Ring too hard". I believe these attempts to give the Ring the power of rational thought and the ability to plan a course of action go against what Tolkien wrote and rob the story of much of its magic and poetry. It forces Middle Earth into our world rather than our entering its world and accepting the terms of that world. Pointing to quotes from the story where the Ring is said to "want" to do something and using that as justification for saying it is sentient is putting too much emphasis on the literal meaning of the word "want" and not the overall feeling of the story. At Boromir's "funeral" Aragorn and Legolas sing of asking the north, south and west winds for tidings of Boromir. I have not heard anyone suggest that they actually thought the winds were sentient. But, if you are going to make an argument based on the literal interpretation of what they say, then they must think the winds are sentient, since you would only ask a sentient being questions. Before someone jumps in and says that they were not really asking the winds questions I will point out that when Gimli says that they left the East Wind to him, but he will say nothing of it, Aragorn replies: "In Minas Tirith they endure the east Wind, but they do not ask it for tidings."

My point here is that just because one can find phrasings in LOTR that in a literal sense would mean an object is sentient in the "Real World", it does not follow that Tolkien meant the object to be sentient in Midddle Earth. Please do not rob the story of its magic, poetry and beauty by shoe-horning it into the "Real World". Sometimes you can analyze a thing too much!



> "And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 9, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> It has been many years since I read The Silmarillion so I would have to go back and refamilarize myself with the sword under discussion, but I have read LOTR more times than I can remember and I have read many of Tolkien's letters. No where does he treat the Ring as anything sentient, he always treats it as an object with special powers.
> 
> I think questions like "Why didn't the Ring do this?" or "Why didn't the Ring do that?" are examples of "pressing the Ring too hard".



THANK YOU for bringing the letters in to settle such matters! It's understandable that those who've not read them (let alone not heard of them) should raise such issues.

Speaking of which: I found a site (http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html) where the site owner has gone into the letters and, wherever he has seen answers to questions, has put the questions on the site, and the letter where the answer can be found. I'm not sure if his site is complete yet, but it sure is useful!

Lotho


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 9, 2004)

> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_
> 
> 211 *To Rhona Beare*
> 
> *“You cannot press the One Ring too hard, for it is if course a mythical feature, even though the world of the tales is conceived in more or less historical terms. The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatments of the placing of one’s life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself. If I were to ‘philosophize’ this myth, or at least the Ring of Sauron, I should say it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps rather potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalized and so as it were passes, to a greater or less degree, out of one’s direct control. A man who wishes to exert ‘power’ must have subjects, who are not himself. But he then depends on them.”*



_One's life_? Well, there's the admission that it was mere 'Power' that Sauron imbued the Ring with Greenwood. Every sentient being externalizes _potency_, and, isn't this suggestive that the Ring was passing out of the control of Sauron, as he was exercizing his potency in a more _internal_ fashion?



Greenwood said:


> My point here is that just because one can find phrasings in LOTR that in a literal sense would mean an object is sentient in the "Real World", it does not follow that Tolkien meant the object to be sentient in Midddle Earth. Please do not rob the story of its magic, poetry and beauty by shoe-horning it into the "Real World". Sometimes you can analyze a thing too much!



Perhaps, but wouldn't imbuing an object with one's own mind be inherently mythological in nature? As it is certainly an impossibility now.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 9, 2004)

Úlairi said:


> _One's life_? Well, there's the admission that it was mere 'Power' that Sauron imbued the Ring with Greenwood. Every sentient being externalizes _potency_, and, isn't this suggestive that the Ring was passing out of the control of Sauron, as he was exercizing his potency in a more _internal_ fashion?



Yes, it certainly was *Power* that Sauron placed in the Ring, not sentience, not thinking ability. And the Ring most certainly "passed out of Sauron's control". Isildur cut it off his hand!


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 10, 2004)

Fool of a Took! *slaps head* You know what I mean.


----------



## DocMoriartty (Jan 19, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> Lotho,
> 
> You are entitled to your fantasy and I apologize if my post came across as any sort of infringement of your right to fantasize. I thought we were still discussing the original question of this thread which seemed to presume a predisposition on Gollum's part to be more readily influenced than Deagol by the Ring. In terms of that discussion I see no reason, based on what we are told in LOTR, to think that Smeagol was any different than Deagol with the exception of being stronger (or more cunning?, or luckier?) in a hand-to-hand fight between the two.



Going by the movie (which may or may not be a mistake) my feeling is that the Ring did to Smeagle and Deagle the same thing it did to the Council of Elrond. It promoted aggression, hatred, and violence at the council which nearly caused the elves and dwarves to come to blows. If it can do that to such powerful people as those in the council then what is it going to do to a couple of hobbits who were just out fishing?


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 20, 2004)

Apart from the sly comment by Gloin there was little arguing between the Elves and Dwarves in the Council. They certainly do not nearly come to blows in the book. The movie is the movie and should not be considered in a book discussion.


----------



## Bree friend (Nov 19, 2004)

He was shall we say "simple" and Wanted it for his birthday


----------

