|
Post by Andorinha on Jun 1, 2008 10:13:49 GMT -6
I've just gotten myself "re-interested" in the character Gollum/ Smeagol, arguably the most creatively designed and interesting of all Tolkien's Middle-earth personnel. Who was G/S, what motivated him (was he "evil" even before he picked up the Ring), how did possession of the Ring impact his life, how does he function within the narrative of LotR and does his role in The Hobbit differ significantly from his portrayal/ use in LotR? On the balance, was G/S "evil" or "good," "neutral," and what role does he play in the achievement of the Ring Quest? In the final analysis, was G/S "redeemable," and did he ever have a real chance of achieving any sort of redemption?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jun 1, 2008 10:20:06 GMT -6
The Roots of Schizophrenia: Two different characters, blended.
We, fortunately, or unfortunately are dealing with two quite different Gollums by the time we get to LotR. The original character was simply a casual monster, some sort of odd creature, a member of a species not even human/ hobbit that lived in the deep places of the world. This Gollum was never specifically assigned a designation "good guy" or "bad," though he was still dangerous as he was quite willing to stake Bilbo's life on the outcome of a riddle-game. But, this 1937 version Gollum was a creature of its word, an honourable thing, and he had promised a gift to Bilbo should the hobbit win the game -- as he did. The gift was a ring, not yet The Ring, but still a magical ring that conferred both luck and invisibility upon its bearer. Unknown to Gollum, the ring had been lost and then found by Bilbo who, at the end of the riddle-game already had it in his pocket. Unable to give Bilbo the promised ring/ present, Gollum sought honourably to make up for its lack by showing Bilbo the way out of the caves and mines. "Now Gollum had to agree to this, if he was not to cheat. He still very much wanted just to try what the stranger tasted like; but now he had to give up all idea of it." (Annotated Hobbit, p. 130) At last Gollum faithfully led Bilbo to the final passage that opened onto the Goblin's gate and the two politely said "goodbye" before Gollum padded back to his lake and Bilbo braved the Goblins at the door. So, other than a slightly distressing penchant for eating his fellow "speaking" creatures, Gollum comes off as a fairly decent sort in the pre-LotR days.
With the writing of LotR, Tolkien altered the character of Gollum's magic ring, elevating it to its potent position as The One Ring. It now became necessary to alter Gollum's own nature, and make him a far more desperately dangerous, and deceitful creature, a mind-blasted addict whose dope was the Ring. A more suitable "back-history" had to be developed for Gollum, detailing who/ what he had been; how he had possessed himself of the Ring; and how the Ring eventually possessed him, together with the great changes it made in his personality, body, and mind. Gollum, now Smeagol, was made a hobbit, but the back story was not sufficiently detailed in LotR to give us a chance to class him (in his pre-Ring days) as a "bad" hobbit, like Lotho Pimple, Lobelia, Ted Sandyman, or simply a regular "good" hobbit (like Samwise) who will later be vastly perverted by the Ring. It is perhaps somewhat indicative of his originally "bad" nature that the mere, first sight of the Ring calls so strongly upon some answering evil in Smeagol, that, before he even touches the thing, or wears it, it corrupts him to an immediate act of murder. Had two "regular" or good hobbits come upon the Ring by chance, say Merry and Pippin, would the result have been the prompt murder of one of them by the other? So, I think we are fairly safe in assuming that there was something "wrong" with Smeagol the hobbit from the beginning, some character flaw that left him particularly vulnerable to the Ring's seduction and control.
Still, perhaps because there were two Gollums, the 1937, dangerous but honourable creature, and the LotR degraded-addicted character, the final Gollum comes out looking schizophrenic -- he is sometimes motivated by honourable intentions (as was the 1937 Gollum), but now, in LotR, he is sometimes overpowered by his own desires and the rot the Ring has created in his brain. Sometimes he is an object that solicits our pity, sometimes he is a hateful bundle of sheer malice. I think Tolkien's real genius shines out here, he keeps us ever in suspense with Smeagol/ Gollum, never letting us become comfortable with the ever-changing character, never letting us resolve the ambiguities that surround him, never letting us fully assign him a role that can distinctly be said to be "evil" or "good." This constant tension of suspended judgment makes Gollum the most memorable and vitally alive of all Tolkien's characters, or so I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Jun 8, 2008 3:00:08 GMT -6
I completely agree. Gollum is my favorite character in Tolkien's work. I find that unsettling shade of gray about the character fascinating, as well as his constant struggle against his darker nature. He also has one of the most distinctive speech patterns of any character in fiction, which I also love.
I'm intrigued by your description of the pre-LOTR Gollum. I have no memory of some of the events you describe. I take it that chapter was different in earlier editions of The Hobbit and was revised later by Tolkien? My memory of events is that Gollum refused to part with his Precious and would never have offered it as a present to Bilbo or voluntarily lead the "tasty morsel" to the exit.
As for whether he was "evil" or flawed to begin with, it's hard to say. It's difficult to tell if there was something inherently wrong with him or if he just lacked the will to resist the Ring. Could it be possible that Smeagol's idyllic riverbank life hadn't prepared him for the temptations and dangers of the outside world? That he was simply naive and weak of will?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jun 9, 2008 21:19:12 GMT -6
Hi, Fredegar!
Yeah, you would not have any recollections of the first story unless you had access to the 1937 first edition Hobbit. But there is a current, in-print version available.
The best version of The Hobbit to date would seem to be Douglas A. Anderson's The Annotated Hobbit 2002. Here he gives all the textual alterations and a wealth of background data, including a picture of the post card "Mountain Spirit" from which Tolkien derived his own image of Gandalf back in the mid 1920s (p. 38).
Relevant to the "Two Gollums" are pages 128 - 131 note # 25. Just in brief I'll post some "synopsizing" quotes:
"25 The first edition of The Hobbit (1937) contains a significantly different version of this chapter. As Tolkien wrote the sequel, The Lord of the Rings, he found it necessary to revise The Hobbit in order to bring it in line with the sequel. The portrayal of Gollum has been substantially altered; in the first edition, he is not nearly as wretched a creature. And the stakes of the riddle contest are slightly different: It was still Bilbo's life if he lost, but if he won, Gollum would give him a present. The riddle contest is pretty much the same in both versions..." (p. 128)
Bilbo wins the riddle game, and Gollum is going to give him the magical ring which confers invisibility, a trait Gollum has, in the past taken advantage of while hunting. So, the ring is still a potent thing, but it is NOT The One Ring of Sauron, and it has no adverse side affects, no mind-twisting, life-extending, corrupting properties. Gollum has absolutely no obsessive/ possesive desire concerning the thing, and he willingly tries to give it to Bilbo. But, Gollum has already lost it, and unknown to him, Bilbo already has it.
" 'What about the present?' asked Bilbo, not that he cared very much, still he felt that he had won it, pretty fairly, and in very difficult circumstances too.
'Must we give it the thing, precious? Yess, we must! We must fetch it, precious, and give it the present we promised.' "
Of course, the ring is lost, Bilbo plays with it in his pocket, realizes it must be the "present ring" but he does not announce his possession of it, and gets Gollum to offer him a substitute -- leading him to the mine's exit. So, there is an element of deceit in Bilbo's behavior in this first edition that JRRT expanded in LotR, but there is no deceit in Gollum's behavior in this first version.
"I don't know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo's pardon. He kept on saying: 'We are ssorry; we didn't mean to cheat, we meant to give it [Bilbo] our only present, if it won the competition.' He even offered to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as a consolation.
...[Bilbo then said] ... 'I will let you off on one condition.'
" 'Yes, what iss it? What does it wish us to do, my precious?'
'Help me get out of these places,' said Bilbo."
After traversing the labyrinth they come to the exit:
" 'Here's the passage,' he [Gollum] whispered. ' It musst squeeze in and sneak down. We durstn't go with it, my preciouss, no durstn't, gollum!'"
Bilbo then makes his exit, and uses the ring to work his way through the goblins.
|
|
|
Post by Vanye on Jun 9, 2008 23:47:38 GMT -6
I decided to reread The Hobbit (which i'm now doing) Reading the paperback version & at the same time reading the Annotated Hobbit & the illustrated version. Reading all of the notes in the annotated version. This immersion method is rather intense. The first few chapters have lots of notes so even though am now reading Flies and Spiders in the PB am only now reading the notes for An Unexpected Party. Got to catch up but the story has me so absorbed have trouble getting myself to do it! Have discovered so many details that i had totally frogotten from the first 4X i read it. Maybe it's just my part-timers kicking in! Vanye
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jun 10, 2008 6:15:45 GMT -6
It was a revelation to me to get my copy of Annotated Hobbit and read how the book changed over the years with the extention of the LOTR story.
It still puzzled me that Gollum would have given Bilbo his magic ring as a prize in the first publication anyway. If it was magic and helped Gollum hunt for food in the roots of the mountain and keep safely hidden from Goblins, it just didn't make sense that he would offer it as a gift and seemingly without any hesitation.
At this point, I don't really think Bilbo would have cared for that kind of prize anyway! He wanted out of the mountain and to get back to his companions. However, if you do win a game, I guess there should be some kind of prize.
I need to scan my Annotated Hobbit to see what Bilbo offered in return if Gollum had won!Was it only himself as dinner? It seems an unfair exchange anyway you look at it!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jun 12, 2008 10:09:32 GMT -6
RE Stormrider's: "It still puzzled me that Gollum would have given Bilbo his magic ring as a prize in the first publication anyway. If it was magic and helped Gollum hunt for food in the roots of the mountain and keep safely hidden from Goblins, it just didn't make sense that he would offer it as a gift and seemingly without any hesitation."
Yeah, the 1937 version seems to have less "reality" to it. The "ring," even just as a conveyor of invisibility, would seem to be a vital necessity for such a creature as Gollum. In keeping with the earlier "fairy tale" structure of The Hobbit, a far less "reality-based" story than LotR, it may be that JRRT just never thought much about the motivations. In Fairy Tales, quite often, characters do things simply because they DO, and no really convincing reason is ever given. In this early version, Bilbo needs an "equalizer," something that will give him status/ power sufficient to accomplish tasks that are truly "super-hobbitish." A magic ring acquired in some adventuresome confrontation was required, and in a "children's tale," reality-based motivations were not particularly important? Maybe Gollum type characters, not ostensibly human in this first version, simply "act that way?"
The altered story is much more plausible in terms of reality-based motivation, and plays nicely into the more "mature target audience" of readers, for whom LotR was designed.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jun 12, 2008 10:13:40 GMT -6
RE Vanye's: "The first few chapters have lots of notes so even though am now reading Flies and Spiders in the PB am only now reading the notes for An Unexpected Party. Got to catch up but the story has me so absorbed have trouble getting myself to do it! Have discovered so many details that i had totally forgotten from the first 4X i read it. Maybe it's just my part-timers kicking in!"
Yeah, I was surprised by all the arcane connections that were revealed in the annotated version, very rich stuff! It is also remarkable how captivating The Hobbit remains even after repeated readings, never fails to draw me back in -- maybe the hallmark of truly good literature?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jun 14, 2008 17:17:52 GMT -6
In reviewing the Old Archives of Gondor, I find an intriguing line started years ago by Algamesh, asking specifically how Shelob and Gollum communicated. Following this up here:
Shelob and Gollum -- While the Spiders of Mirkwood have voices, and language, in "The Hobbit" at least, Shelob is mute in LotR. How does Gollum "worship" her, how does he communicate with her. When he promises to bring her meat, does she understand what he says? In real life, spiders communicate with pheremones, gestures, body-shape/ colour, and touches to distinguish themselves from mere items of food. But, alas, JRRT does not directly tell us how Gollum keeps from being added to the bill of fare. He does suggest, perhaps, that there is some sort of direct communication by "will power" that allows the two to form some sort of working relationship: "he [Gollum] had bowed and worshipped her, and the darkness of her evil will walked through all the ways of his weariness beside him, cutting him off from light and from regret. And he had promised to bring her food." (TT, hb ver. pp 332-33)
From this quote, I get the impression that Shelob could understand the thought and intent of Gollum, and he could understand her sufficiently to know that her "lust" was always for food. Being of little nutritional value himself, his offer to bring her better fare insured his continued survival in her presence.
Earlier, I used to think that Gollum's possession of the One Ring had given him, as it will give Sam in chpt 10 "The Choices of Master Samwise," the ability to understand other languages, and perhaps this ability allowed him to communicate with Shelob. But the Great Spider has no audible tongue, no language to be translated, so I guess I'll have to opt out of that "explanation" and assume that the two communicated by the contact of their wills/ minds directly.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jun 15, 2008 7:18:14 GMT -6
Perhaps Shelob did not speak to Gollum but he spoke to her. She may have understood him whether or not she spoke herself. Many mute people still hear and understand others around them.
If a huge spider was bearing down on me with the intent to eat me, I might run, cringe, beg not to be eaten, and promise to bring better food back to her myself!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jun 18, 2008 16:04:14 GMT -6
Hmm, just wondering if Shelob brings out the Gollum in Smeagol, the way associating with Frodo brings out the Smeagol side?
Maybe Shelob lets Gollum live precisely because he in some way flatters her ego? I don't see the Orcs "worshipping" her, just tolerating her because Sauron finds her a useful guard upon the high paths, an amusing "pet"("his cat") to him. But Gollum seems, from the text, to really find some sort of horrid fascination in her presence.
I think we have talked before about the shift from The Hobbit to LotR, wher one of the differences is the presence of "talking animals" in H., and far, far fewer such occurrences in LotR. Here, LotR, TT "Shelob's Lair," Spiders do not talk, even though Shelob is plainly a sapient creature. I think, with the exception of the talking fox in the first part of FotR, and then a few speeches by the eagles, no "animals" speak in LotR. A pity, wonder how that might have altered our understanding of her relationship with Gollum, if she had been allowed the gift of speech?
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jun 19, 2008 6:29:01 GMT -6
Yes, spiders are rather fastinating to watch. Last year, there was a good sized spider who built a web everynight at dusk and took it down again in the morning. She would then hole up underneath the shingles during the day. She was building her web over our back door stoop. I stood out there for several nights just watching her. It was very interesting to watch her. After about a week of watching her she was gone! I don't know what happened to her! I have pictures in my head of my husband with a broom knocking her down and squashing her but I never saw him do such a thing. Desi was on vacation for three weeks in August last year when this took place and I was hoping she and the boys would be back to watch her spin her web when they got back--but they missed it.
Anyway, the point of the first paragraph is that I can see Gollum having a sick kind of fascination with Shelob. After all, she was huge and you could see all of her frightening anatomy very well--errr, it was dark in the tunnel, but Gollum having lived under the mountains for hundreds of years was dark-sighted and could see her well.
Didn't Ungoliant speak? I think I remember Melkor/Morgoth talking with her. Didn't Tolkien criticize CS Lewis for having talking animals in his Narnia tales?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jul 1, 2008 9:53:30 GMT -6
In this Letter, JRRT surmises that if Gollum had not been "pushed" back into the path of evil by Sam's mistake, Gollum would most probably have become a true companion in the quest, though still lusting after the Ring:
"Though the love [between Gollum and Frodo] would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss." (Letter #246, Sept. 1963, p. 330)
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jul 2, 2008 21:18:12 GMT -6
I think Smeagol was coming to trust and love Frodo. But I think that the Gollum side would have succumbed to the desire to possess The Ring no matter how much Smeagol was re-emerging. As far as sacrificing himself for Frodo and casting himself into the fire voluntarily...wow! that surprises me that JRRT stated that!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Sept 10, 2008 0:38:50 GMT -6
Just read an article comparing Gollum, to Aragorn, Beorn, and Turin that relates to the Gurgi aspect as Wood Wose that Fredegar presented. After properly digesting said article I'll synopsize it here!
______________
Yeah, Stormrider, for the story to succeed, Gollum does have to, eventually triumph over Smeagol...
|
|