Why "is" Gollum?
by Vison
In
Faramond’s thoughtful and excellent post, this alternate history is put
forward that Deagol was “meant” to find the ring, and that Saruman the
White was “meant” to cast it into the Fires of Mt. Doom. That this is
how it had been “meant” by the Powers That Be.
This makes me squirm with unease. Not the “alternate” telling, no. It’s
a plausible history, yet if that had been what happened, we would never
have had our beloved tale. (Who knows how many times this has happened?
How many great Evils have been averted and since they were, we never
knew?)
What makes me uneasy and rebellious, makes me grimace and frown, is
this whole “meant” idea. If the Powers That Be want the Ring destroyed,
why don’t they just do it themselves? Ah, yes. Well, if they do, first,
we have no beloved story; and second, the characters we love will not
“learn” what they must learn for the Plans of the mighty to be
fulfilled.
It is but a step, one tiny little step, for me to go forward and say,
“This is my problem with God!” It is my problem with God, actually, but
I’m going to leave that out of this thread and stick with the peoples
of Middle Earth and the Great Enemy and his Ring.
Since I read LOTR many, many times before I ever read The Silmarillion,
the landscape of Middle Earth, both physical and spiritual was plain in
my mind. Eru, as far as I recall, never set foot in LOTR and even the
Valar were mighty thin on the ground. A scant mention, by Faramir’s men
scattering before the Oliphaunt; Gandalf’s careful phrasing “ that the
ring was meant to be found by Bilbo”, etc. These little clues were not
clues to me, I confess, or if they were, I ignored them.
My simple version is just that, my simple version, that this is a
History of What Happened in the War of the Ring. This is what did
happen. These characters did these deeds and the result was that the
Ring was destroyed. I did not see it as the workings of Providence,
just as I do not see the real world as the workings of providence: I
live in a world where things happen. There are always causes, of
course; it is always possible for reasons and motives to be found. But
I see no hand of providence, nor plan, and I can’t enter into the
mindset that does.
Middle Earth is a marvellous world, an alternate reality so lovely that
it was and is always a great pleasure to go there. I say the physical
landscape is plain, but that is manifestly not true, I could not draw a
map of Middle Earth though I have walked every inch of it. I have no
“visual” imagination, I guess, and I’m always staggered by the people
who just know, without having to stop and think, that this rocky
outcrop or that swamp, or that mountain peak was here, and that PJ’s
movies were exactly right. They certainly looked exactly right to me,
but not because they matched my mental photographs! No, my “physical”
reality was vague and unformed, yet at the same time, I recognized it
when I saw it. Someone above was amazed to find something South when it
had always been North. Well, I just ignore details like that, to be
honest, it makes no difference to me.
What matters to me in a book is the people. They must be “real”, and
they must act “naturally”, for me to love a story. Reading LOTR as
history doesn’t change that requirement in my mind, because I read
“real” history the same way. “Real” history is the record, true to one
degree or another (which study might reveal), of what our ancestors
did. I don’t see history as “progression” from simple to complex, as
primitive to modern, but as the long story of our race, humans moving
from the past to the present, retaining their essential nature. This is
not depressing or terrible, the awful past was also the place where
people lived and loved and were kind and thoughtful, “history” is a
cherry-picked tale of events, a listing of horrors or wonders. We ought
to examine the horrors and attempt to avoid them, and we must always
marvel over the wonders, they are “us” at our best.
The essential nature of Frodo is such that he is “real” to me. He is an
“ideal” in some ways, an innocent, simple hearted, unsophisticated: but
not unreal. Nor is Sam. Nor is Aragorn, nor Boromir nor the rest. The
difficult one: Gollum, of course. Because, in this straightforward
history, this recounting of deeds, this description of men and women,
here is this tool of destiny, this “meant to be” device.
Gollum as a “device” changes LOTR from history to something else,
something I don’t like and have no affinity with. I accepted the tale
as the recounting of events. It does not mean that I never speculated
on why characters acted as they did, indeed I have spent a great deal
of time pondering that very issue. To read it as a history does not
mean I never imagined other outcomes, that I never wondered what might
have happened if X had done Y, instead of X doing Z. I have tried to
enter into the minds of all the characters, as I did in the piece above
about Galadriel.
But I couldn’t enter into Gollum’s mind any more than I can enter into
an Orc’s mind. Gollum seemed only the personification of lust and
greed. Smeagol was so quickly come and gone that he took on no reality
for me. Right from the first reading, Gollum made me uneasy. I tried to
discover his nature, and ended by just accepting him as he was, maimed
and deformed by the Precious. It was not entirely satisfactory, it
still isn’t.
He is a “symbol”, not a character. Well, real history has symbols, too,
or at least there are men and women from our past who have taken on the
form of symbols, either because they lived in a past too remote for our
examination or because they were so great in evil or goodness that they
seem removed from our ordinary selves. They never are removed from us,
of course, a truth that can be hard to accept. Hitler was as human as
Ghandi, or you, or me.
As a symbol of greed and lust, Gollum has his place in LOTR. When I saw
Smeagol murder Deagol in the movie, I was able to give Gollum a little
more humanity. The scene was well done, horrible without being
unnatural, the nasty-minded little creep willing to do murder for a
shiny trinket was “real” enough. The transformation of Smeagol into the
Gollum was more believable in the movie than in the book, for me, and I
could accept all the mercies shown to him.
That’s the only way I can swallow Gollum, I have to be able to see him
as a human being, not a “device”. I won’t let him be just a tool of the
Mighty, put in the tale to forward Frodo’s moral development and to
allow the Ring to be unmade. If the Powers that Be want Frodo to grow
in goodness and enlightenment, then why don’t they do it direct? If the
Ring offends them, why don’t they just get rid of it? Why did they
allow it to be made in the first place?
“Meant to be”? Meant by whom? Why?
I can’t ever get past this, my friends: what kind of Powers are we
talking about, that would create Gollum, poor wretched Gollum who
suffers centuries of misery and pain, who causes untold agonies for
others, who exists only to further some plan involving another man’s
education, and to aid in the destruction of an evil device that the
mighty allowed to be made in the first place?
I can’t and won’t accept a universe in which such things happen.
Powers, whether Eru or not, that make souls to suffer seem wicked and
wrong to me. In The Silmarillion Tolkien, in that turgid, dense, and
contradictory prose, creates his universe. The music is glorious, but
then the music is marred, and then we all sigh and say, “ ‘Twas ever
so….”
But I don’t sigh, I grimace and frown and am very glad I read LOTR
before I ever tried The Silmarillion. If LOTR had never been written,
who would ever have read the Silmarillion? I’ve heard people say, “Oh,
I would have! It’s infinitely superior, etc., not just a grand tale, a
fairy tale like LOTR, that appeals to the common folk!”
********, I say. ********, ********, ********. LOTR is a great book. It
might not be great literature. I am not a literary critic, I’m not
always in agreement with those who are, either. Every trade has its
jargon and its trade secrets, every practitioner likes to manifest his
superior understanding and trot forth his arcane knowledge, and
literary criticism is like other trades in that. For me a book must do
one thing above all: it must tell me the story of some people and what
they do, and those people must live on the page, they must jump out at
me, demanding that I listen. The characters “acting” will teach me any
lessons the author intended, or they will not. And, obviously, the
lessons I discern are not necessarily what the author had in mind, or
what other readers find.
Twice in the movies, Peter Jackson caused me to see “reality” in
characters I could see little realism about in the book. One was
Gollum, and one was King Theoden. I won’t bring King Theoden into this
thread, but (and you may take this as either a promise or a threat) I
am working on a post about him.
Much has been made of the changes Jackson made in the relationships
between Frodo and Sam and Gollum, the triumvirate trudging to Mordor. I
disliked much of it, particularly what I saw as Frodo’s “dumbing down”.
The “moral universe” as seen by Peter Jackson is not the “moral
universe” as seen by Tolkien, and in my heart I will always think
Tolkien’s is superior. But Jackson’s is not merely the silly loud
SFX-fest I saw at first, either. Thanks to some great writing on this
forum, I have learned to see the movies with kinder eyes. I now see
that Jackson was able, in particular, to take two unsatisfactory people
and make them more human than Tolkien had, and for that, if nothing
else, I am grateful.
“Hope” flew last from Pandora’s box. I have read that this was the last
Evil, for Hope is always a “fool’s hope”, that Hope keeps man from
accepting Fate, from what is inevitable. It is better to bend your neck
to the axe, that belief says, than to hope for the rescue that will not
come.
Sam went on hoping, but Frodo had bent his neck, had he not? Which was
right? Frodo’s rejection of hope was not so much that the Quest would
fail as his certainty of what would come after. Whether the Ring was
destroyed or not, Frodo had no hope for himself. He was spent, empty,
could see no tomorrow.
Is this vanity, to give in to despair? Frodo has been called a “moral
failure” for claiming the ring, but was his moral failure this
rejection of hope?
Again, I think I am going to wander off the beaten path here, because I
don’t see his failure. I never have. “Things happen because they
happen”, I say. Or, in the alternate view, Gollum was “meant” to
destroy the Ring. Frodo was overcome, defeated by an enemy too powerful
for him. Where is the failure in that? Think of what he did succeed in
doing, carrying that awful burden so far, fighting as hard as he
fought! At the end, he had not become wicked. The Ring overbore him,
yes, but Frodo was still there, deep down in his heart he was still
Frodo. The Ring spoke out of his mouth, the Ring spoke with Frodo’s
voice, but I never believed it was Frodo. I think he would have cast
himself into the fire, had not Gollum appeared.
“Gollum on the edge of the abyss was fighting like a mad thing with an
unseen foe.” Here, at the end of things, Gollum and Frodo are One. Here
is the dark twin struggling with the bearer of light. It was always an
obvious reading, to see Gollum and Frodo as two sides of a coin, and in
Jackson’s movie it was much plainer than in the book, because of the
physical similarity between the two on screen.
On the page, Sam sees only Gollum, but of course Frodo is there. For
the last moments of that Age, they are one. Centuries of history come
rushing to this point, upon which the future rests, balanced as on a
fulcrum. Gollum “beats” Frodo in this fight, and the Precious is once
more in his grasp. The future swings down, into despair and darkness.
Then, although Why is hard to know, Gollum falls and the future swings
up to hope and sunshine.
Did Gollum fall “by accident”? Or was he playing out the last act of
“meant to be”? Or was there a third way? I think there was, although I
have a hard time explaining it. Many forces were at work, not least the
Ring itself. I believe, I think, I imagine, that the Ring longed to
return to the Fire where it was born, like some great golden firefish
returning to the stream where it was spawned. Between these three, the
“meant”, the accidental, and the purposeful, Gollum fell.
So, for today’s odd theory: Sauron had poured much of himself into the
ring when he made it, and as is often the case, the creation took on a
life of its own he did not intend. Yes, the Ring might have been glad
to return to the hand that once bore it, but maybe it would not. The
Ring had a kind of life, as Tolkien and Sauron made it. It sang, and
many ears heard the song.
Did the Ring reject Sauron? There are days, and today is one, when I
think it did. Had Saruman, or Boromir, or Sauron gained it, the Ring
would have become once again only the tool of power Sauron meant to
create. But it had been off his hand for too long, and as it neared the
fires of its birth, it became “fell and unmanageable”.
If we are to deal in symbols, and if those symbols are to have any
meaning, we must be able to enter into them, to see the life they have
been endowed with. Why, many readers and critics have asked, did Sauron
create stupid ring in the first place, and pour much of his power into
it? Why, indeed? A puzzle I’ve never managed to solve, myself. However,
since this is History, we know he did. And having done so he created,
like many powerful beings before and since, something essentially
beyond his control.
The Ring, rolling through Middle Earth, borne on one hand, then upon
the other, sought its own ends and end, did it not? Does this teach me
a lesson of some kind? I don’t know. But then again, it doesn’t change
the fun of reading the story.
Response from Ladyhawk:
The problem I see with questioning the existence of Gollum in such a
way begs for questioning the existance of Gandalf and Saruman, wizards,
not to mention Sauron, the giant eyeball, and Treebeard, a talking
tree, well, Ent, anyway, We'll not even approach the likes of dear Tom
B. and Goldberry.
Be that as it may, it needs to be considered that Gollum is first from
The Hobbit, not LOTR. His character is continued from one book to the
next.
I like to think that Tolkien was more careful about creating his
characters than simply using them as plot devices. Gollum seems to be
living proof of the power of the Ring to prolong life and it's
inescapable hold.
There is a part of me that wonders if Tolkien knew where he would take
Gollum when he created him for the Hobbit. Did he? When he first
started LOTR, did he truly plan to bring Gollum back into the story, or
was it something that happened as the story went along?
The story would not be the same without Gollum, and I don't mean about
him being the one that finally sees the deed done. He is a protagonist,
and yet very different from Sauron or Saruman. Both of those characters
are clearly in the "game" for themselves, for the power they could
wield.
Gollum is a very different character. He is simply in it for himself.
Nothing else. Yet, are there not those just like that in the common
population?
There is a part of me that suddnely wonders if Gollum is not unlike
someone Tolkien knew. Someone who is only concerned about what they
want and yet actually have no interest in being one of the movers and
shakers. They just want what they want, and pity the poor sap that gets
in their way.
Each person has a role to play, regardless of religious beliefs. No one
simply exists, simply because by merely existing others are affected,
either for good or ill. Not unlike the butterfly effect (long before
the movie).
There was a time, when I was very small, that I could believe that what
happened on the other side of the world does not affect me, but I've
learned much since then. I've lived on the other side of the world,
(Thailand and England) and both places have changed me.
I can't watch the news without being ultra aware of what goes on in
other places, even more so now. Simply because of various board members
I'm far more aware of what is going on in the world. I've never tracked
hurricans, until these past few years. Now I have a website bookmarked
to make it easier. I watch the weather, the politcal conditions, the
stories, not because they affect me directly but because they may
affect those I care about, and so it matters to me.
Gollum is the beat of a butterfly wing, changing the course of the
world. His path crossed with Bilbo's, in the dark caverns, in the
bowels of a mountain, for the briefest of times, and the world changed.
Then he turned into a hurricane, but how appropriate, for does not
Tolkien suggest over and over that it is the little things that change
everything? Doesn't get much smaller, in size and heart, than Gollum.
Things happen, and one can believe it is by divine providence or not.
They happen. Lives are affected, and decisions must be made. There are
those who take comfort in believing even bad things are intended,
because it offers the hope that someone is in control. But one may
choose to believe that or not. It does not change that everyone, at one
time or another, will find themselves in a position to make a
difference, for good or ill.
For myself, I do believe in God, but I do not believe He causes bad
things to happen. We have the right to choose, and He does not take
that way simply because some of us choose badly. But just because
someone chooses badly, does not mean God cannot find a way to work it
for good.
Tolkien chose to leave God out of the picture, for the most part, which
gave the story an opportunity to touch more lives, for there are those
who don't believe in God, and yet there are universal truths
independent of God that speak to all. Tolkien's myth eloquently speaks
those truths.
Gandalf saying it was intended, was meant to be comforting, to offer
hope. Why throw that away? Tolkien's book is about hope, however one
finds it. Gandalf does not say who intended it, simply that it was
intended, suggesting that someone was in control, and in this case,
Frodo was in control of his own destiny. He decided if he moved
forward. He decided whether or not he gave up.
What a blessing that the likes of Gollum does not seem real... what a
blessing not to know such evil. Others are not so blessed. Gollum is
frighteningly real to me.
So perhaps it is not the telling of the story that gets in the way but
one's own life experiences. And refusing to accept the way Tolkien
tells the story is always a choice, but it does not invalidate the way
he told it. I don't like the way the story ends, but it doesn't mean
the ending was wrong. I can in fact fight for the ending of the story
to be just as it is, and have done so. But I also reserve the right to
re-write it my own way.
Stating that the story CAN'T be done this way or that closes the door
to hope and to seeing things from a different point of view. The true
value of a story is its ability to open one's mind to the possibilities
of something never before imagined or considered, and the opportunity
to rethink long held ideas. One may come away with their convictions
all the firmer, but one may also change.
As for the Ring rejecting Sauron, Tolkien never hints at such a
possibility. Over and over, it is stated that the Ring wishes to return
to the hand of its master, and uses whatever means are available to get
there. If the Ring wanted to return to the fire from which it was made,
then why did it not convince Frodo to throw himself in or simply let go
of it, there at the cracks of Doom? If it was made as an extension of
Sauron himself, as is suggested, then it would follow that it no more
wanted to be destroyed than Sauron did.
As for losing control of the Ring, I don't know as Sauron ever
considered the possibility that it could be taken from him. Like many
of his ilk, he overestimated himself and his abilities. "I am the all
powerful wizard of OZ." Oops, dropped the Ring. Sauron never imagined
anyone would actually try to destroy the Ring. Surely, anyone holding
it wouldn't be so stupid as to get rid of something so powerful. There
is the flaw. The unwillingness to consider all the possibilities.
I wonder now if Sauron thought the Men of the West might have the Ring
for why else would they come to his very gate to challenge him? Surely
they knew it was hopeless... unless they had the Ring...
Ooooo the possibilities... Thanks so much Vison for sharing the musing.
It certainly got a lot of thoughts running around in my head. I do hope
you post the one on Theoden.
Response from Dr. Gamgee:
Vison,
You asked for a response, so here goes. We have been friends for quite
a while, and you know that while we may not always agree, I respect you
and understand that you are entitled to your beliefs (as am I mine).
Here is the problem that I am having. You state:
Quote:
That’s the only way I can swallow Gollum, I have to be able to see
him as a human being, not a “device”. I won’t let him be just a tool of
the Mighty, put in the tale to forward Frodo’s moral development and to
allow the Ring to be unmade. If the Powers that Be want Frodo to grow
in goodness and enlightenment, then why don’t they do it direct? If the
Ring offends them, why don’t they just get rid of it? Why did they
allow it to be made in the first place?
“Meant to be”? Meant by whom? Why?
I can’t ever get past this, my friends: what kind of Powers are we
talking about, that would create Gollum, poor wretched Gollum who
suffers centuries of misery and pain, who causes untold agonies for
others, who exists only to further some plan involving another man’s
education, and to aid in the destruction of an evil device that the
mighty allowed to be made in the first place?
And yet, your response to it, in fact, robs him of his 'humanity' as it
seems to nullify his ability to choose. You say, in essence, "Why would
God create poor wretched Gollum?" and "Why would he allow the Ring to
be made in the first place?" In reality, He created Gollum, and
Gollum's choices made him wretched -- if Sam could resist the Ring in
MORDOR, then Smeagol COULD have let Deagol have it. He also created a
creature of great good (Sauron), and Sauron's choices created the Dark
Lord, and the Dark Lord created the Ring. But, as you don't believe in
a Heavenly Father who could do this, I will leave this for now, and
discuss something that you can believe, my worldly father.
He raised me to be a good kid. And yet, when I was 4, I stole a candy
bar from a store. My father didn't create me and raise me to be a
thief, and yet, there I was -- a thief. Not what was intended, not
abused and thus 'needing' something. I saw it, I took it, I didn't pay
for it, didn't say I had it, I just took it. That is what a thief does.
As the saying goes, "If it walks like a duck (thief) and talks like a
duck (thief), then it must be a duck (thief)." And as I wasn't created
for that purpose, then all you can say is that I 'chose' to be one.
Afterall, I didn't HAVE to take it. I knew it was wrong (thus hiding my
actions) and yet I did it anyway.
Now my father had about four choices. He could let me get away with it
and do nothing; he could kill me for disappointing him and being a
failure as a son; he could have punished me for doing so, kept the
candybar for himself, and never let the storeowner know abou it; or he
could make me take it back, admit that I had taken it, apologize for
having tried to steal it, and leave knowing that he had done all he
could; which is what he did. Had he chosen the first, I would most
likely taken whatever I wanted and remained a thief. The second choice
would guarantee that I would never steal again -- the only way that he
really could insure that outcome. The third may have worked, but having
seen that I would have quickly realized it is all about power -- when I
was bigger than him, I could do what I wanted, just as he did. His
choice of taking the high road affected my upbringing, and thus, I am
no longer a thief. But it is still all about my choices. I could just
as easily do the wrong thing. There is no guarantee that I won't do it
again.
But that is the thing about free will -- the choices you make have
consequences. Frodo chose to trust Gollum. By doing that, Gollum kept
him from being captured at the black gate and got him into Mordor via
the stairs. Sam could have taken the Ring and left Frodo to his own
end. We even see that Sam could have claimed the Ring for himself. All
these choices.
If you look at all of these choices, we were very lucky. Lucky that
Frodo didn't kill Gollum earlier. Lucky that Sam gave back the
all-powerful Ring. Lucky that Shelob was a spider who doesn't kill
prey, but keeps them alive. Lucky that Faramir had more wisdom than his
brother and didn't try to take the Ring to Gondor. Lucky that he asked
Frodo about Gollum rather than just shooting him. Lucky that neither
Bombadill, Gandalf, Elrond, or Galadriel took the Ring for themselves
(especially as it was offered!). Lucky that Pippin looked into the
Palantir and took Sauron's eye away to far off lands. And lucky for
Aragorn, so that he could use the Palantir and scare Sauron into
thinking that Aragorn must have the Ring and was coming to challenge
him with it, distracting him. Lucky that Gollum lived all those years
and the Ring didn't betray him earlier and fall off when Orcs would
have found him or the Ring, or both. Lucky that Bilbo found the Ring.
Lucky that Bilbo and Gollum had enough in common that the Riddle Game
was understood -- I am not sure that had I been underground in a
Goblin's cave, that I would have known the rules and been ready to play
that quickly. Lucky that the dwarves were superstitious and needed one
more traveller. Lucky that they took on a burgler with no experience,
and that it was Bilbo (an honest hobbit) who didn't use the Ring to
steal Michael Delving blind (and the rest of Hobbiton). Lucky that
Bilbo didn't get eaten by the Trolls, or drown with the barrels, or get
killed in the battle of 5 armies, or in his dealings with Smaug. Lucky
that Bilbo was a good guy who given the opportunity to disappear at
will decided not to and instead stuck around to raise his nephew. There
are a whole lot of choices here, places where had the choice gone the
other way, the story would have died a-bourning. So some will say that
it is the wishes of Eru to right a wrong choice made by Sauron long
ago. Others will disagree.
The question of "why not just pop in and do it Himself/not allow it to
be made in the first place" is because had He done that, what would
have been the point? Unless he unmade every bad decision ever made or
to be made (much like killing me as a thief) someone else would have
just gone about the same choice later. Saruman perhaps. He could only
guarantee that all decisions would be good, if he removed the ability
to choose. At which point, you would have no choice but to believe in
him, or else you wouldn't exist. Choices are dangerous things. We make
them every day without thinking.
So the question now becomes, "Why Frodo and Sam?" And here is why I
believe it was Frodo and Sam and not Glorfindel, Gandalf, or some
other. Frodo and Sam were gloriously common. They didn't come from
aristocracy or a line of kings. they were halflings -- not great Elf
Warriors, not men of Arms. They had no magical qualities that people
could ascribe to them. They were not powerful, but their choices were.
Knowing that they were the least likely heroes ever, they chose to try
to become them nonetheless. Frodo was wise, but he knew little about
the world outside of the Shire. He knew some Elvish, and he chose to
take his studies wisely. Sam didn't have the schooling, but had the
common sense and ability to and desire to learn. In this way, Eru
showed that we needn't feel impotent because we aren't Saruman, or
Gandalf, or Giant Trolls, or Strong. We can make choices that can
change the world from a bleak environment where evil is everywhere, to
a place where Good prospers. Where friends protect each other. Where
caring for others is more important than caring for just yourself.
Where your POWER is your ability to CHOOSE.
Had he come and done it himself, we would all sit there and say, "Sure,
he did it. He is ERU. He has all the power. I can't. I'm not a God. My
choices don't matter." and thus would we have sunk into chaos, as we
felt impotent to make changes that would right things.
I will stop there. Thank you for your post, Vison.