# Would Sméagol have murdered without the Ring?



## Ancalagon (Nov 15, 2002)

> ' "Oh, are you indeed, my love," said Sméagol; and he caught Déagol by the throat and strangled him, because the gold looked so bright and beautiful. Then he put the ring on his finger.



I wonder if Sméagol would have murdered someone eventually even if he had not set eyes on the Ring of Sauron? Did the Ring only serve to accelerate his murderous intent or was it alone responsible for Sméagol murdering Déagol?


----------



## ltas (Nov 15, 2002)

I wonder... The fact that Smeagol was affected by the ring in such a short time does make one suspect that he might have already had some criminal tendencies before. I am doubtful, however, if, without the appearance of the ring, he would have ever had the motive for committing a murder.


----------



## Confusticated (Nov 15, 2002)

I think the desire for the ring (if this was the first time Smeagol had killed/I don't recall if the book states that it _certainly_ was) was just the first situation that heated Smeagol up enough to kill. 
I think one of the following must be true:
1) Smeagol had already the potential to murder his own kind, but the conditions just hadn't been ripe until he saw something he wanted so badly as he wanted the ring.
2) Smeagol didn't have a murderous streak within him, but rather a personal weakness, and vulnerability to evil.

I think that 1, and the latter part of 2 are correct.

I reason all of this because nowhere else do we see someone who is "good" attempt to kill for the ring only seconds after they first see it. In fact Gollum was of a hobbit kind, and they are slower to be pulled into the ring's evil than men and probably elves. All the more reason that Gollum should not have been.
Sam, Merry, Pippin, and their friend Fatty and that other one who's name I do not recall, never even considered taking the Ring from Frodo, let alone by murder. The only way their situation was different than Smeagol's is that they knew a tad bit more about the ring. I don't think that alone would have been enough to make the difference. One of the hobbits even saw Bilbo use the Ring (Pippin I think?) to hide from the Sackville's but never once did he try to take the thing.
Also to consider is this: Bilbo and Frodo both had possession of the ring for many years but they were not turned into sneaking, creeping, theiving, gollums by it as was Smeagol. That says to me that Smeagol's nature was darker (more evil) than the others to begin with. Which means Smeagol may well have reached the point of murdering even if not for the finding of the ring.


----------



## YayGollum (Nov 15, 2002)

No, poor Smeagol would not have murdered anybody at any time if he never ran into the One Ring. 
Why would you think that? You people have no idea what poor Smeagol was like. The only time we ever get to see an uncorrupted Smeagol is when Gandalf tells Frodo what Gollum told him about the incident. Very sad. 
We can only guess what the dude was actually like. We have no idea what Deagol was like, either. I like to think that Deagol was evil to poor Smeagol. Smeagol was this annoying little rich kid at the time, and got mad when he didn't get what he wanted. I pictured poor Smeagol as a little kid around this time. He always seems childlike to me. oh well. 
As for the scary Confusticated's number 1, I would say everyone has the potential to murder their own kind. The evil One Ring brings out all kinds of evil things in people. sorry about that. It gives people what they want. That's why I think that Deagol was evil. I see no other (Gollum supporting  ) reason for why the Ring would make Smeagol kill him. It could have done other stuffs. It could have used Deagol. It just saw that it could work with Smeagol better. That's why I would think that poor Smeagol was just a stupid little kid. Easily influenced. All of the other crazy people who ran into the Ring were adults. 
The number 2 thing is better, but again, everyone has a personal weakness and vulnerability to evil. Poor Smeagol was just stupider than the evil Deagol. 
What was that about the nasssty hobbitses knowing a tad bit more about the Ring? I would call it a little more than a tad bit. Poor Smeagol knew nothing about the thing. Those other hobbitses definitely weren't experts on it, but they knew it was evil and that they should even try to resist it. Argh! oh well. 
What was that about some stinky hobbit seeing Bilbo use the Ring one time? So what? It was a completely different situation. It was a curiosity for him. He was like, "Hey, cool! Bilbo has a magic ring!" It's not like he was right next to him and was able to catch him anyways. oh well. 
What was that about the other hobbitses not turning into sneaking, creeping, theiving, gollums by it as was poor Smeagol? Do you know how long it took for poor Smeagol to turn into that weird looking thing? Me neither. Obviously longer than any of them had it.


----------



## gate7ole (Nov 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Nóm _
> The only way their situation was different than Smeagol's is that they knew a tad bit more about the ring.


Well, Bilbo didn't know a thing about the ring when he found it. He was at the same situation with Smeagol. Plus, Sauron was back on ME and the Ring was more active. Yet, Bilbo didn't kill Smeagol, though he had the opportunity and reason to do so. So, we can't justify Smeagol by saying that "he didn't know".
Then would Smeagol have murdered without the Ring? Taking into account that he is a hobbit, and all hobbits we know never had such intentions, I would say that he wouldn't. Just because it is not in the nature of hobbits. He might steal or lie, but I don't find him capable of murdering someone.
Of course it's all hypothetical and I may be wrong.


----------



## Confusticated (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by gate7ole _
> *Well, Bilbo didn't know a thing about the ring when he found it. He was at the same situation with Smeagol. Plus, Sauron was back on ME and the Ring was more active. Yet, Bilbo didn't kill Smeagol, though he had the opportunity and reason to do so. So, we can't justify Smeagol by saying that "he didn't know".*


If you were addressing me, and not YayGollum with the above quote, then take into consideration that you apear to have taken a phrase of my post and held it independant of what I said directly before and after; thus giving it your own meaning.
This is what I said, the part you quote me on being in blue.


> Sam, Merry, Pippin, and their friend Fatty and that other one who's name I do not recall, never even considered taking the Ring from Frodo, let alone by murder. The only way their situation was different than Smeagol's is that they knew a tad bit more about the ring. I don't think that alone would have been enough to make the difference.


The portion in red shows that I say that Sam, Merry, Pippin, and Fatty were in a slightly different situation than was Gollum. I did not mean Bilbo was.
Then green portion of my quote shows that I too, do not think this excuses Smeagol. Rather I am more inclided to think that this would be evidence contrary to that.
Perhaps you were addressing YayGollum though...





> _by gate7ole_
> *Then would Smeagol have murdered without the Ring? Taking into account that he is a hobbit, and all hobbits we know never had such intentions, I would say that he wouldn't. Just because it is not in the nature of hobbits. He might steal or lie, but I don't find him capable of murdering someone.*


We both use this fact that it was not normaly in the nature of a hobbit to kill like this, as evidence. Whereas you say that this likely indicated that Smeagol would not have killed otherwise. I say that the fact that he was so quit to kill shows that he wa snot your typical hobbit and therefore may have killed otherwise.

YayGollum, it is true that the number 1 option that I posted could apply to everyone, though I ment that it would apply to Smeagol to a greater extent. Yes, anyone may be driven to murder, but I ment this very fact could be the reason that he killed Deagol for the Ring.
As for number 2: weakness and vulnerability to evil, yes you are right, everyone has this to a degree though I ment that this could be Smeagol's reason for being pulled into the power of the ring so quickly.



> _by gate7ole_*
> Of course it's all hypothetical and I may be wrong. *


So might all of us.


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 16, 2002)

I fell that Gandalfs words to Frodo go some way to explaining the influence of the ring upon Smeagol, as it used him while trying to 'return' to its master;


> 'There was more than one power at work, Frodo. The Ring was trying to get back to its master. It had slipped from Isildur's hand and betrayed him; then when a chance came it caught poor Deagol, and he was murdered; and after that Gollum, and it had devoured him. It could make no further use of him: he was too small and mean; and as long as it stayed with him he would never leave his deep pool again.


However, I fear it only served to accelerate his own natural desires, enhanced his more base traits of envy, jealousy and selfishness, which actually seems more apparent as you read through the works and learn more about Gollum. Yet, he was ever plagued by guilt for commiting this murder, hence the design of 'the birthday present' story to make it more pallitable to himself. This alone however does not answer the question? Would he have murdered without having set eyes on the ring? The question also asks how much influence did the Ring have on him so rapidly? This it seems was a matter of seconds before it took hold of Smeagol......as Gandalf said; it spotted a window of opportunity and murdered Deagol! I fear Smeagol would have been driven to such an act at sometime in his life.......but it was the fact that he was watching Deagol;


> But Sméagol had been watching him from behind a tree, and as Deagol gloated over the ring, Sméagol came softly up behind.


 This leads me to the conclusion that he had a sinister nature, compounded by his own enviousness. If not the Ring now, then possibly something else later would have taken hold of him?!


----------



## Confusticated (Nov 16, 2002)

When Gandalf says that Gollum was too small and mean for the Ring to make further use of him, I wonder does this mean that Smeagol started out being too mean, or that the ring caused him to be too mean?
The fact that he says "small" in the exact same context as "mean" may be an indication that meanness was something Smeagol already had. Since smallness was.
Otherwise Gandalf might have said:
"He was too small and had become too mean."
I had never questioned this before.
It had always been my interpretation that Smeagol himself was already mean. Never did Bilbo sneak around intentionally causing mischief among his people!


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Nóm_
> *Smeagol didn't have a murderous streak within him, but rather a personal weakness, and vulnerability to evil.*


I agree with this statement. I think Gollum was receptive to the evil of the Ring, which had been 'looking for a chance' to ensnare somebody weak in order to return to his master, because he was open to new things and wanted to learn al he could about the world. You know what they say: "Curiosity killed Déagol."


----------



## Grond (Nov 16, 2002)

> _from The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, Letter #181 to Michael Straight, February 1956_
> Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. 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'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. *But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean son of thief before it crossed his path.* Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths?


Though I'm sure that Yay will contend that the author doesn't know the characters he created, it would appear, at least, that the author felt Smeagol was already corrupted when the incident with Deagol occurred. A wicked little creature subject to wicked actions.


----------



## YayGollum (Nov 16, 2002)

Yikes! What is this? A bash Gollum Fan thread? Very evil! Oh, let's get all kinds of quotes to prove poor YayGollum wrong!  Okay, the questions are would poor Smeagol have murdered someone eventually even if he had not set eyes on the Ring of Sauron? And did the Ring only serve to accelerate his murderous intent or was it alone responsible for Smeagol murdering Deagol?
To the first question, I would say stuff like Do what? and That's just crazy! Why would you think that? We know nothing about what poor Smeagol was really like, dudes! The only scene where we get to see an uncorrupted Smeagol is the part where he first runs into Sauron! You can't judge a dude by one scene! Okay, the evil Grond person gave a quote where Tolkien says that poor Smeagol was a mean son of thief. All I have to say to that is, Woah! Now we know something about his dad!  Anyways, from that quote, people say, Yikes! Tolkien says that poor Smeagol is evil! When I see the word mean in that sentence, I think Okay, his grandma was the matriarch lady so he might be a little stuck up. That's being mean, right? I would never think that poor Smeagol was actually a superly evil and mean dude! Why would you? You gots no reason to. Maybe someone can tell me why they don't like Smeagol. You don't know what he was really like. oh well.
To the second question, I would say Woah! Why does everyone believe that poor Smeagol killed Deagol? I still haven't gotten a real answer to that, I think. oh well.


----------



## Grond (Nov 17, 2002)

Yay, you are a glutton for punishment.


> _from The Fellowship of the Ring, The Shadow of the Past_
> "Oh, are you indeed, my love," said Smeagol; *and he caught Deagol by the throat and strangled him*, because the gold looked so bright and beautiful. Then he put the ring on his finger.
> 
> 'No one ever found out what had become of Deagol; he was murdered far from home, and his body was cunningly hidden. But Smeagol returned alone; and he found that none of his family could see him, when he was wearing the ring. He was very pleased with his discovery and he concealed it; and he used it to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. He became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful. The ring had given him power according to his stature. It is not to
> be wondered at that he became very unpopular and was shunned (when visible) by all his relations. They kicked him, and he bit their feet. He took to thieving, and going about muttering to himself, and gurgling in his throat. So they called him Gollum, and cursed him, and told him to go far away; and his grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole.


Okay, I know, I know. Gandalf was simply trying to frame Gollum and it only says he strangled him and not that he murdered him. Poor, poor Smeagol. Poor, poor Gollum. Always blamed of the worst and always trying to do the best.


----------



## Daeron (Nov 17, 2002)

Maybe Smeagol was just obsessed with shining things....thats just me thinking though...my opinion doesnt count does it?


----------



## ltas (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Daeron _
> *Maybe Smeagol was just obsessed with shining things....thats just me thinking though...my opinion doesnt count does it? *



Everyone's opinion counts, Daeron


----------



## YayGollum (Nov 18, 2002)

Ack! What's with the crazy quote by the scary Grond person? I never said that Gandalf was trying to frame anybody. I remind people that Gandalf only told Frodo that craziness because Gollum told him that craziness when he was being tortured. I point out that Gollum isn't the most honest dude in Middle Earth. I point out that the event took place a long time ago and that poor Smeagol isn't really entirely sane. His imagination teamed up with his guilt and went crazy. He probably just knocked Deagol out or something.


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 18, 2002)

That is a fair point YG! Nobody ever discovered the body of Deagol, so there could be the possibility he is still wandering about looking for his ring!


----------



## YayGollum (Nov 18, 2002)

Woah! Somebody actually bought the theory?   I mean, of course you did!  I've been saying it all the time! The only reason anyone doesn't like poor Smeagol is because they believed what Gollum told Gandalf. How many other things have you believed that Gollum said?


----------



## Confusticated (Nov 18, 2002)

While I do not take Gandalf's theories as fact I give them more weight than your theories YayGollum because I think Gandalf knew much more about Middle-earth than you do and was much wiser than us.


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 18, 2002)

A fictional character is wiser than you? Hmm..


----------



## YayGollum (Nov 18, 2002)

Okay. Sure. Thank you, crazy Confusticated person. But then, I think both me and Gandalf know the exact same thing. I'm just smarter and nicer because I don't trust Gollum. It's not like Gandalf was around to actually see Smeagol kill Deagol. If he did, why would he have even tortured poor Smeagol to find that out? Unless Gandalf is even more evil than I thought!


----------



## Ancalagon (Feb 16, 2003)

Do you honestly think Gandalf tortured Smeagol? Somehow that would paint the kindly old Wizard in a new light, though I do not subscribe to the theory.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ancalagon _
> *Do you honestly think Gandalf tortured Smeagol? Somehow that would paint the kindly old Wizard in a new light, though I do not subscribe to the theory. *



From _The Shadow of the Past_:



> 'The murder of Déagol haunted Gollum, and he had made up a defence, repeating it to his "precious" over and over again, as he gnawed bones in the dark, until he almost believed it. It was his birthday. Déagol ought to have given the ring to him. It had previously turned up just so as to be a present. It was his birthday present, and so on, and on.
> '*I endured him as long as I could, but the truth was desperately important, and in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him, and wrung the true story out of him, bit by bit, together with much snivelling and snarling*. He thought he was misunderstood and ill-used. But when he had at last told me his history, as far as the end of the Riddle-game and Bilbo's escape, he would not say any more, except in dark hints. Some other fear was on him greater than mine.



There was _some_ sort of violence involved, though nothing that serious I think. The truth was important, and it was crucial for Gandalf's task to find it out, and I don't blame him for being rough with Gollum.


----------



## olorin the maia (Feb 17, 2003)

Ithrynluin has the right of it. Gandalf was not a kindly old man, but a Maia, sent by the Lords of the West to contest with Sauron. He was forbidden to use his power, or to seek to dominate others in that contest (a requirement wherein Saruman failed).
But he was not cruel, and certainly pitied Gollum, even when he had to wring the truth out of him by the fear of fire.
And with Gollum, lately released from the torturers of Mordor, it probably wouldn't have taken much to get at the truth. Not physical harm, that is. His mind, though.....well, that is another matter.


----------



## ltas (Feb 17, 2003)

Hmh. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't a *real* physical fire that Gandalf used for threatening Gollum. I imagine that the ''fear of fire'' was the fear of Gandalf's inner power, the fire of his spirit.

(Actually I guess that the fire Sauron used for torturing the truth out of Gollum wasn't the real fire in it's physical sense either.)


----------



## Ancalagon (Feb 17, 2003)

Somehow I feel Sauron would have been more partial to physically hurting Smeagol, by whatever tortuous means at his disposal. Of course I am sure he probed his mind as Maia are capable of thought transfer, communication, reading etc.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ltas _
> *Hmh. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't a real physical fire that Gandalf used for threatening Gollum. I imagine that the ''fear of fire'' was the fear of Gandalf's inner power, the fire of his spirit.
> 
> (Actually I guess that the fire Sauron used for torturing the truth out of Gollum wasn't the real fire in it's physical sense either.) *



For some reason, I think that the "fire" is meant literally. All living things are afraid of fire burning them, and Gollum would be afraid of it too.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 17, 2003)

Woah! What's this craziness I am seeing over here? The evil torturer Gandalf not using real fire? Why not? Seems easier than some crazy mind game. You're just wondering because of the way it's written? He put the fear of fire on him? oh well. Either way, the evil torturer Gandalf is still torturing him with some form of fire. Even if you don't think that torturing people for the greater good is evil, I'm sure that Gollum wasn't having a good time. I call the evil torturer Gandalf the evil torturer Gandalf because that's what I think Gollum would agree with. oh well. How'd we get to this subject anyways?


----------



## Grond (Feb 17, 2003)

I don't think Gandalf used anything physical to extract the information from Gollum. I think in Gandalf's haste, he was forced to call upon whatever power was invested in his ring, Narya. That would explain his comment, "I put the fear of fire on him...". Narya was, after all, the Ring of Fire.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *I don't think Gandalf used anything physical to extract the information from Gollum. I think in Gandalf's haste, he was forced to call upon whatever power was invested in his ring, Narya. That would explain his comment, "I put the fear of fire on him...". Narya was, after all, the Ring of Fire. *



There was no violent nature in the Three. Narya was especially the ring which strengthened people's spirits and encouraged them to perform deeds of bravery.
Gollum wouldn't have considered himself "ill-used" if Gandalf only questioned him, however severely. 
And if Gandalf did somehow use Narya (though I honestly doubt that), it must have been an immediate and somewhat impatient threat with fire.


----------



## Grond (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *There was no violent nature in the Three. Narya was especially the ring which strengthened people's spirits and encouraged them to perform deeds of bravery.
> Gollum wouldn't have considered himself "ill-used" if Gandalf only questioned him, however severely.
> And if Gandalf did somehow use Narya (though I honestly doubt that), it must have been an immediate and somewhat impatient threat with fire. *


 I beg to disagree.


> _from The Fellowship of the Ring, The Bridge of Khazad-dum_
> 'You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. 'I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'
> 
> The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.
> ...


I have always thought that when Gandalf spoke of himself as the "wielder of the flame of Anor" that he spoke of the Ring. I have always thought that his power when facing the Balrog was directly attributible to his "Ring of Power". 

It would have been easy for him to have lost patience with Gollum and simply displayed this type of "fire power" and I would think that Gollum would have told him anything he desired.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *I beg to disagree. I have always thought that when Gandalf spoke of himself as the "wielder of the flame of Anor" that he spoke of the Ring. I have always thought that his power when facing the Balrog was directly attributible to his "Ring of Power".
> 
> It would have been easy for him to have lost patience with Gollum and simply displayed this type of "fire power" and I would think that Gollum would have told him anything he desired.  *



See, that's where our opinions differ immensely. I see this as a reference to the "good" flame of the Lords of the West (and therefore Eru) as opposed to the "evil" flame of Morgoth (flame of Udun.

Gandalf used his innate Maiar power to defeat the Balrog, the Ring had nothing or very little to do with their encounter. The only thing it might have done in that moment was strengthen Gandalf's spirit to become more steadfast and eager to defeat his enemy.

From _Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age_:


> Now all these things were achieved for the most part by the counsel and vigilance of Mithrandir, and in the last few days he was revealed as a lord of great reverence, and clad in white he rode into battle; but not until the time came for him to depart was it known that he had long guarded the Red Ring of Fire. At the first that Ring had been entrusted to Círdan, Lord of the Havens; but he had surrendered it to Mithrandir, for he knew whence he came and whither at last he would return.
> ‘Take now this Ring,’ he said; 'for thy labours and thy cares will be heavy, but in all *it will support thee and defend thee from weariness*. For this is the Ring of Fire, and herewith, maybe, thou shalt *rekindle hearts to the valour of old* in a world that grows chill. But as for me, my heart is with the Sea, and I will dwell by the grey shores, guarding the Havens until the last ship sails. Then I shall await thee.’



This quote is well known to all of us. The Three were meant to preserve and prevent the decays of time...Narya preserved and enhanced the strength and eagerness of Gandalf's spirit, if you will. It also affected others (e.g. Theoden) in the same way...but in no way do believe that the ring has even the slightest violent properties. My humble opinion of course, Grond.

Grond, if you would like to further disprove my points, here's a thread for you :

What is the Flame of Anor?


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 17, 2003)

Yes, please do take arguements about boring ringses someplace else. Getting back to one of the few types of debates I'm a fan of, I don't see what the way the evil torturer Gandalf evilly tortured poor Smeagol has to do with the original question. I asked that before. Does anyone care to answer, or should this thread just be an extension of some crazy ring debate? Wasn't the original question something like the title of this thread?


----------



## ltas (Feb 20, 2003)

Can I say just one more thing about the Maiar? Pleeease, YayGollum?!? Just that in my opinion the main argument against the theory of Gandalf using real fire with Gollum is the fact that both Gandalf and Sauron have such powerful mental weapons at their use that they simply don't *need* to use anything as trivial as real fire to ''put fear'' on someone like Gollum... Thank you.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 21, 2003)

Hey, I'm not stopping anybody from saying anything. oh well. I just don't see what the arguement about how the evil torturer Gandalf evilly tortured poor Smeagol has to do with the question that this thread was made for.


----------



## ElvishHellion (Feb 25, 2003)

I don't think Smegol would have murdered without the ring btu he definalty had some major problems before hand which caused the ring to effect him


----------

