Did you trust Gollum/Smeagol? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Gayahithwen

01-05-2002, 08:24 AM

I did sort of trust him.. at least I hoped that he would be trustable.. and after all, remember that scene in the book where Gollum looks at Frodo and suddenly looks like an old, old man (hobbit), and then Sam comes in and shoos him off.. then I acctually got mad at Sam.. if he hadn't acted like that, maybe the whole thing had ended differently. Maybe Frodo would have destroyed the Ring anyway, and Gollum would have been free from it's enchantment.. but that is, of course, only my opinion, and it is a HUGE maybe..

Nazgûl Queen

01-11-2002, 11:51 PM

<center><font color="red">I did not trust him...
But i pitied him and I wished that there was some way in which he could escape the terrible power the ring had over him and be free.
And although Sam was right, he could have been a little less harsh. No matter how deep it was, i feel that deep down Smeagol really did want to help.

Alkanoonion

01-12-2002, 04:13 PM

I also felt sympathy for Gollum, Sympathy but not trust. He may have had some good in him at one point but the One Ring Corrupted whatever that was. I am on Sam’s side

SlinkerStinker

01-17-2002, 03:20 AM

I think Gollum is one of the most fasinating characters in fictional literature, but to say the ring made him do it, is being a bit too easy on him. Remember he murdered his "friend" who had found the ring, before he had ever touched it or given under it's power.

While he appeared to be trying to help Frodo, I personally think he was just looking to get another "birthday present". Friends don't let friend hang with Smeagol.

BTW- I'm new here, nice to meet you all smilies/biggrin.gif

Bad Fairy

01-17-2002, 03:54 AM

From my point of view Ive been a Gollum fan since the Hobbit and have always found him a fascinating character. He is cetainly twisted by ownership of the ring but I did, for a while, think that whilst leading Frodo & Sam (' nice hobbitses' ) he may have changed. However It became clear to me that this may not be the case as they got nearer to Mordor and his vanishing acts became more and more frequent !! smilies/evil.gif

Eowyn of Ithilien

01-17-2002, 05:36 AM

I agree there were times when he wavered...as when he appeared an old hobbit worn down by time and softly touched Frodo's hand, but Sam woke and spoke harshly to him...it's true to life that your pure and heartfelt gestures can be misinterpreted and lead you to be resentful

Dûrkriswen

01-17-2002, 07:18 PM

I felt sorry for him, and I trusted him, but I never completely trusted him. I allways felt that sooner or later the Ring would get the better of him and he would try to steal the Ring back from Frodo. I never thought he would go as far as to try to get Frodo killed though.. smilies/frown.gif Poor guy, sometimes I try to imagine him BEFORE he got the ring.

Daisy Sandybanks

01-18-2002, 12:19 AM

I didn't trust Gollum at all, though I geuss I would have to say I did feel just a bit sorry for him, just a bit though....

Rose Cotton

01-19-2002, 11:00 AM

Just for discution sake, let's say Gollum did change and he didn't do the betrayal thing. And than somehow they were able to destroy the ring without any sacrifices. What do you think it would have been like bringing Gollum home with them.You know "Hey everyone, check out our new friend!" What do you think?

SlinkerStinker

01-20-2002, 01:14 AM

Corect me if I am wrong, but Frodo couldn't destroy the ring, but for Gollums greed for it that allowed it to be destoryed. If Smeagol didn't betray them, I doubt that the ring would have been destroyed, and maybe, just maybe, Elrond would have to get off his *** and destoy it himself since he had at this point witnessed two individuals who lacked the willpower to destroy it. JEEZ!!!!

Sindalómiel

01-20-2002, 04:58 AM

I feel sorry for Gollum but I don't trust him. At the moment I don't know if he does anything bad, coz they're still at the main gate to Mordor, but I'm not trusting him at all.

Arwen daughter of Elrond

01-28-2002, 03:34 PM

I dunno. I trusted Smeagol but i didn't trust Gollum. smilies/eek.gif it sorta gets confusing

Aldaron

01-28-2002, 11:52 PM

Very interesting discussion. It only goes to show what an intelligent writer Tolkien was. Some of us trusted Gollum and others were always suspicious. A writer has to work hard to create that sort of situation. Gollum seemed for so long to be helping Frodo and Sam but always in the back of his mind was the endgame, so to speak.

Mayla Took

01-28-2002, 11:58 PM

I have to addmit also that I thought that Smeagol had taken over most of the Gollum side. Or as Sam would say "Sliker" got the best of "Stinker". I also felt sorry for Gollum/Smeagol and I hoped that Smeagol would beable to become more human (or what ever he was)!

Rosa Underhill

01-29-2002, 05:17 AM

I almost trusted Smeagol for a time. I was really hoping he'd find redemption. I even got mad at Sam for chasing him off, but the minute Gollum started getting prickly with Sam again, I knew he hadn't changed at all. Poor guy, he reminds me of me and of mankind in general quite a bit. But I did forgive him in the end; Middle-earth would have ceased to be as it was if it weren't for poor, corrupted Gollum/Smeagol.

Rose Cotton

01-31-2002, 05:12 PM

I'm not saying anything bad agaist Tolkien. It's just on Smeagol's behaf that I realized that from the beganing it says in the book the after Smeagol got the ring he was really bad. But Tolkien never talks about before Smeagol got the ring. He might have been a really nice guy, just like the rest of our favorite charicters.

Armadoin

10-01-2002, 02:27 PM

Absolutely not would I have ever trusted Gollum. The way he kept going back and forth to Smeagol and Gollum; just freaked me out the door. Besides, it was clear to me he was completely evil smilies/evil.gif because otherwise he wouldn't have been drawn to Mordor and then found and captured. I don't think I even felt pity for him, even though Gandalf said not to pass out judgment like that...

Meela

10-01-2002, 03:03 PM

nope

The Gollum

10-01-2002, 03:11 PM

Poor us. So many did not trust us. Well, did you actually think that we would help the nasty hobbit that stole our precious? Well, not really stole it, but inherited it from the nasty baggins who did steal it! WE HATES HIM FOREVER!!!!

But he is a nice master! We wants to help!

NO WE DOESN'T!!! I am Gollum and you are merely smeagle, therefore i am better and what i say goes.

Rose Cotton

10-01-2002, 04:11 PM

I trusted you Gollum! *gives The Gollum a hug*

Brinniel

10-01-2002, 04:53 PM

I didn't trust Gollum for some time. But right before they entered Cirth Ungol, I have to admit that I began to trust him a bit.

Arwen Imladris

10-01-2002, 06:02 PM

No, I did not trust Gollum. The book gave so many hints that he was not good, it is kinda hard to think that he is good.

elfling

10-01-2002, 06:09 PM

I never really trusted Gollum but I trusted Frodo. He trusted Gandolf. With out Gollum Frodo never would have tossed the ring.

Tigerlily Gamgee

10-01-2002, 07:16 PM

I will admit that I never trusted Gollum, even when he was "good". I knew something was up all along. I was on Sam's side all the way. I actually didn't expect to see him again after Shelob's Lair... surprise, surprise.

lathspell

10-02-2002, 09:41 AM

Well, Gollum wasn't to be trusted, though without it would have been in vain. I t would have been in vain already at the Morannon, for either Sam nor Frodo knew of the other way.

Even the Wise can not see all ends. If Gollum was to be trusted and didn't take the Ring from Frodo... well, I don't know what would happen. Maybe Samwise the Strong would sacrifice himself in some way. I guess it would be less hard for him than leaving Frodo in Cirith Ungol.

greetings,
lathspell

P.S.: After all Gollum is to poor a name for the creature, he is the one that (accidently) unmade the Ring... he is therefore Lord Smeagol

Eruwen

10-02-2002, 10:34 AM

Well, Sam has always been a pretty good judge of character. And I never really trusted Gollum anyway. The ring was too powerful for him to handle. It changed him too much.

So, I would have to say I go with Sam on this one. Gollum just isn't trustable to me.

Bombadilo

10-06-2002, 03:00 PM

I never in no way trusted Gollum one bit. I guess its the shrewd pessimist in me, but I knew that he was not going to change. I did not feel sorry for him either, because i felt that had he wanted to change badly enough, he could. I guess thats what I think of all people, even hobbit-like Gollum.

Mungo of Bracegirdle

11-05-2003, 11:35 PM

Gollum - purely evil. Nothing redeeming about that vile creature at all. I never felt the least bit sorry for him. He was a baddie before the Ring showed up and after... well, it was all downhill from there.

I cannot agree with this. Smeagol was not evil to start with. Yes, he did have certain undesirable qualities (jealousy, sneakiness, and an unquenchable curiosity) but that does not make him evil. Indeed, the evilness of the ring simply played off these qualities. He was jealous he did not find the ring. He was envious. The ring felt it, and in its desperate straits exerted its power over Smeagol, effectively making him kill his friend. From that moment forward, the ring enslaved Smeagol. I think its very sad and he deserves our pity. However, our trust is another matter. Smeagol always felt the power of the ring once it got a hold of him. The ring is treachorous. Therefore, so is Smeagol, and its never a good idea to trust a traitor!

Cheers

Mariska Greenleaf

11-06-2003, 02:49 AM

Smeagol was not evil to start with.

I must disagree. I believe Smeagol was a very evil character. He killed his brother to get the ring, and I don't think that the ring at that point had such an influence on him, because they just found it. I could be wrong of course, but I'd never trust him.
The movies made him look too sympathic. I never felt any sympathy for Gollum reading the book, while watching ttt you really start liking him and feel sorry for him... smilies/rolleyes.gif

barandilwen

11-06-2003, 03:31 AM

i also never trusted gollum. he was too evil, at my point of view and capable of tricking frodo and sam and eventually he did. and besides, i never did think that giving him another chance can change his evil desires, he was too corrupted by the ring that he can never see the new life he can have in front of him.

Eggy

11-06-2003, 11:05 AM

In my opinion Smeagol deserves our pity because its my opinion that the ring drove him mad. There is a kind of split personality going on in his mind, a battle between Smeagol and Gollum.
Gollum is the surviver, the one who could stoop to living deep under a mountin eating raw fish and and the odd Goblin or Orc.
But Smeagol was the poor unfortunate soul to find the evil ring and be corrupted by it. If Frodo (who knew the pain of the ring) could pity him then surely we should also pity him, but to trust him i think not.
Like a Nazúl he is drawn to the ring and as Gandalf himself said "but both loves and hates the ring as he loves and hates himself"
well this is just my opinion and i welcome any debate on wat i have said

Arwen1858

11-06-2003, 02:43 PM

I didn't trust Gollum in that I thought he would always help Frodo, but I greatly pitied Gollum, and always hoped he would turn back to being good. I think it's really sad in Cirith Ungol when he got back from talking with Shelob, and was sitting there stroking Frodo, and *almost* repented, and then Sam woke up and snapped at him. I don't like the way Sam acts towards him at all. When Frodo is nice to him, and calls him Smeagol, he seems to be getting better. It's when he feels like his master 'tricksed' him that he turns bad again. But still, he isn't beyond hope, because even after he tells Shelob about them, he comes so close to repenting!! They'd better do that scene justice in the movie! If they leave that out, I will be really mad at PJ! When I first read the books last year, I hoped so much right up to the very end, that Smeagol would repent and turn good. And even reading it for the second time this year, knowing how it would end, I still greatly pitied Gollum. Even after he betrayed them to Shelob. I like Sam's loyalty to Frodo a lot, but I really like Frodo much better because of his mercy towards Gollum. And I don't think Gollum was evil, because evil is the total and complete absence of any good, and there was still good in him.
Arwen

Elizabeth Elindel

11-06-2003, 04:00 PM

Well, to be honest, I was always wary of him. smilies/smile.gif Even when he seemed nicer, I was always wondering about him in the back of my mind, and... thinking. smilies/smile.gif I know... but it's logical, if you think about it.

Eowyn:Lady of Rohan

11-07-2003, 12:17 AM

After I read THE TAMING OF SMEAGOL, I stayed unbias, sure he changed, but I know Sam is very trustworthy and cautious. I stayed with Sam's idea that Gollum was tricking them.

Lotessa

11-07-2003, 01:28 PM

Yes, I also looked at Sam's reaction to Smeagol and then I thought twice about him. But I guess even when he was a Hobbit, he was rather evil - he killed Deagol! smilies/eek.gif

~Lotessa

Arwen1858

11-07-2003, 01:47 PM

But was he really evil as a hobbit? I think the Ring had a lot to do with it. It was drawing him. After all, it does have a will of its own, and wanted to be found. Maybe it was drawing people to it so strongly it was incredibly hard to resist.

Mooncalf

11-07-2003, 06:06 PM

I wanted to trust Gollum, and I was hoping that he would change... but after "Journey to the Crossroads" I suspected that he wasn't. I was really disappointed that he betrayed Sam and Frodo, but I wasn't completely surprised.

The Saucepan Man

11-07-2003, 08:28 PM

But was he really evil as a hobbit? I think the Ring had a lot to do with it.

But he was driven to murder his best friend by the very sight of the Ring. The Ring seems to have been unable to achieve anything approaching this with anyone else save Boromir, who had a few months exposure to it (and understandable, if misguided, reasons as to why it might be in his, and more importantly his people's, interests to gain it).

I don't believe that Smeagol was evil from the outset. But he was secretive and somewhat of an outsider (his name suggests as much). And he was clearly unusually (especially for Hobbit-kind) susceptible to the Ring.

Clearly, he is a tragic character, to be pitied. Had Deagol never found the Ring, he would probably have led an unremarkable life. But, once Deagol found it, his fate was, I believe, sealed. Much as he tried to resist it in response to Frodo's kindness, I do not think that he would ever have escaped its influence, regardless of Sam's involvement.

Theoric Windcaller

11-07-2003, 08:54 PM

Yes, I did trust Smeagol, but I knew that Gollum was and always would be evil. I knew that eventually Gollum would overcome Smeagol and persuade him against the two Hobbits. It's a common fact that Gollum has always wanted the ring, and he would've done everything in his power to get it. Gollum was going to get into Smeagol's head one way or another, and he was going to get to the ring if he had to go through hell and back. And he did, he went through Mordor only to claim the ring, but fall to his fiery death once his prize was claimed.

Arwen1858

11-07-2003, 10:26 PM

The Ring seems to have been unable to achieve anything approaching this with anyone else save Boromir, who had a few months exposure to it (and understandable, if misguided, reasons as to why it might be in his, and more importantly his people's, interests to gain it).

Yes, but when it was near Boromir, circumstances were different. When Deagol found it, it had been lost for a long time, and would have been desperately trying to be found. So it would have been exerting its will very strongly. Whereas when Boromir was around it, it had already been found for a long time. It wouldn't have been as desperate as it was when Deagol found it and Smeagol felt it's pull.

The Saucepan Man

11-07-2003, 10:55 PM

When Deagol found it, it had been lost for a long time, and would have been desperately trying to be found. So it would have been exerting its will very strongly. Whereas when Boromir was around it, it had already been found for a long time. It wouldn't have been as desperate as it was when Deagol found it and Smeagol felt it's pull.

But it had been found, by Deagol. If there was nothing to choose between the two, why not stay with him? I suspect that it sensed that Smeagol was more susceptible and therefore chose to work its wiles on him. That doesn't make Smeagol evil from the outset, but it does suggest that there was more there for the Ring to work on than with Deagol.

As for Boromir, I feel that the Ring would have been keen to escape from Frodo, having not intended to fall into Hobbit hands in the first place (it would have preferred a Goblin when it escaped Gollum), and Frodo was displaying a remarkable resistance to its wiles. Boromir, being the son of the Steward of Gondor, was a prime target. So I am sure that it worked on him just as much as it had worked on Smeagol. And Boromir resisted for a good few months, unlike Smeagol.

Lotessa

11-07-2003, 11:44 PM

Hmm..I wonder why Smeagol was the most drawn to the Ring and that he would go so far as to murder his best friend.

The Cool Took

11-09-2003, 11:33 AM

Well, I always pictured Gollum as a baddie from the first time I read tLotR, although I recall that I felt bad for him when he fell into Mt. Doom (how odd). No other character, who had possession of the ring, murdered to obtain it, that I know of, and Gollum murdered Deagol before he even owned the ring. I'm sure it was the ring's influence that pushed him over the edge, (he probably wouldn't have killed Deagol over a plan old gold ring... maybe) but it was a very bad start to it's owner/slave-ship, none the less. I certainly never pictured Gollum the way he was portrayed in the movie version; sad and squeeky and almost huggable. In print, I always thought he was too far gone from years of owning the ring, and from just being a bad egg from the get go. I'd be cranky too if I were over 500 years old.

I also agree with all of you who said Gollum is the bad guy you love to hate. The thing I like the most about tLotR is the fantastic dialogue, and Gollum has some fantastic lines. From his amusing ambition when he contemplates gaining the ring back:

"Perhaps we grows very strong, stronger than Wraiths. Lord Smeagol? Gollum the Great? The Gollum! Eat fish every day, three times a day, fresh from the Sea."

to moment when he being questioned by Faramir and is asked who he is and where he's going:

"We are lost, lost," said Gollum. "No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty. Only hungry; yes we are hungry. A few little fishes, nasty bony little fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death. So wise they are; so just, so very just."

I smile every time I read those lines, and many others. And, of course, Frodo could not have destroyed the ring with himself, for whatever that's worth in redeeming Gollum. I don't think it does. All in all, Gollum makes a great story and has a character background as interesting as any of the main characters.

Eggy

11-10-2003, 10:33 AM

i agree with The Cool Took Gollum was always alot more sinister in the books, after i finished the lotr this year again i went back and read his chapter in the hobbit and it was very interesting looking into his character and behavour now that i had the extra information. I firmly believe that the ring meant all to him, it was his friend,father, master. And when frodo obtained the ring Frodo took on the master role, but his heart had been turned to darkness.
when he repented after the shelob encounter it shows just how strong he was, that after all these years he could still have some good in him....
or mabey he just felt guilty since frodo was probably the first person in a long time to show him any kindness

Imladris

11-10-2003, 10:50 AM

When I first met Gollum/Smeagol, he gave me the creeps and I did not like him. However, after Frodo was nice and all and Gollum became more Smeagol, I pitied him and actually started to like him, in a round-about way (one reason for my anger at Sam in the books). Of course, no one can deny that Sam had a good head on his shoulders deciding it was best not to trust Gollum/Smeagol. I always hoped that Smeagol would change into Smeagol for good, and I even thought it possible at one point.

As for whether Smeagol was bad in the beginning, I think not. He was probably weak in moral character (contrary to Boromir) and that is why he succumbed so quickly.

Arwen1858

11-10-2003, 11:10 AM

I pitied him and actually started to like him, in a round-about way (one reason for my anger at Sam in the books).
I felt this way as well! I didn't want to be mad at Sam, and I felt like I shouldn't, as he was so loyal to Frodo, but when Gollum almost repented while watching the hobbits sleep, and Sam woke up and snapped at him, I was really mad at Sam. I felt like Gollum could have repented if it hadn't been for that. And when I watch TTT, I feel mad at Sam for jerking Gollum around on the rope like he does, and for calling him names, and just not being nice to him. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who felt that way!

Dolenarda

11-11-2003, 12:53 PM

Initially, I thought i could trust him but after learning of his multiple personallity, i found that trusting him could be like trusting your hand in a toaster

Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1

11-12-2003, 03:07 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smeagol was not evil to start with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must disagree. I believe Smeagol was a very evil character.
I thought one of Tolkien's main points was that nothing is truly evil to begin with, and that all evil things are corrupted? Eg Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman...just as Smeagol was corrupted with the sight of the Ring.

I didn't trust him. I was wary of him through the Dead Marshes...then Sam overheard him. That bit I found particularly intruiging.
Now, was it just me, or did you think that in the book it was Slinker attempting to overcome Stinker but in the film it was the other way round? (Stinker attempting to overcome Slinker). I can't really remember the book Gollum, I need to reread it. But that was the general impression I got...

Kalimac

11-12-2003, 07:37 PM

I wanted to believe in him but really couldn't; I didn't doubt his sincerity *at the moment he was speaking* but he had not exactly shown himself to be steadfast before, except in his loyalty to the Precious. He just wasn't the kind of person you could depend on without question, like Sam, and never would be. He does look bad compared to Sam Of No Self-Interest, I have to say. (OK, Sam's a little jealous of Gollum in the sense of Frodo taking him under his wing, but wouldn't you sleep with one eye open in the same situation?)

Saucepan Man, I think you're right that Smeagol was inherently - not evil, exactly, but more weak in the face of temptation, more naturally prone so to speak. Also, while the comparison to Boromir is apt, I never got the impression that Boromir meant to murder Frodo regardless in order to get at the Ring. It's easy to see him killing half-accidentally in the heat of the moment, but if he had really wanted Frodo dead, he could have done it in a heartbeat. The fact that he did *not* kill Frodo efficiently, then take the Ring, argues that he had a much stronger character than Smeagol, especially since, as you say, this was the result of several months' exposure.

Smeagol, on the other hand - one look at the Ring, one demand (not even Boromir's halfhearted kickoff "Could we share?" proposal, just "I want that"). Deagol says no, Smeagol strangles him in the next five minutes, and knowing Gollum's later style it's safe to say that Deagol was attacked from behind. Boromir, whatever his personal issues, would never had done anything like that; and in fact, he didn't.

kittiegirl

11-13-2003, 04:20 PM

Um I didn't exactly trust him in the begining, then he became tamed, but in the end, I didn't trust him once again.
He went through a period where he was calm in the books, and he didn't scare me(And Frodo).
In the movies he doesn't really go through a period like in the books where he was tamed and didn't have conversations with himself either.
He just kind of acted like a wild animal.

wishn4sumfishn

11-13-2003, 06:01 PM

I must say I love smeagol, and I love how his personalities change, i think it's really funny.
I think it's weird how his appearence changed from a hobbit to how it is now just by the influence of the ring.

kittiegirl

11-13-2003, 06:07 PM

Well the ring was like a powerful machine, and it could control people, and change them from the inside out.

The Only Real Estel

11-13-2003, 08:04 PM

Personally I never trusted Gollum/Smeagol for a second. Obvioulsy I found him a tragic figure & did actually feel sorry for him (believe it or not), but I never fully trusted him. Especially after the conversation between his halves that Sam overheard (in the books).

i think it's really funny

It shouldn't have been. The directing of it or something wasn't quite handled right, & it did come across as funny to a lot of people. It really should be a tragic & suspensful scene smilies/frown.gif.

Imladris

11-13-2003, 10:20 PM

In the books, the scene was sad and pitiful...almost frightening. He was so messed up.

Celeburiel

11-14-2003, 07:39 AM

Gollum's soul was a sadly stunted thing before he found the Ring. Once the Ring had destroyed what little their was of it, the Ring ruled entirely. There was no possibility of him doing anything but trying to get the Ring back

The Only Real Estel

11-14-2003, 06:08 PM

There was no possibility of him doing anything but trying to get the Ring back

Don't be to hard on him. I think there might've been the slightest chance. Remember when Sam spoiled what appeared to be an actual turn-around? You never know...I think he could've 'come back', as Frodo said in the TTT movie, I just never did quite trust him.

Gorwingel

11-15-2003, 02:25 AM

I felt sorry for Gollum, but I never trusted him. When I first heard of him I just did not like him. I would have been like Sam. During the entire time I read the book, and whenever Gollum came up I would say to myself "Why don't you just kill him, he is going to cause you trouble" (I know that sounds really lame, but that is really what I said). I know, I know that the ring probably would not have been distroyed if he had not been there. But I still don't like him.

He is an interesting charater though smilies/cool.gif

ArathorofBarahir

11-15-2003, 12:45 PM

Imladris

11-15-2003, 02:19 PM

I just feel sympathy for the tyke. I just think it is so sad, being so corrupt. Can you imagine living with your hateful, shriveled shell of a self for hundreds of years. Living with all that hate, all that bitterness, all that evil?

Mungo of Bracegirdle

11-15-2003, 02:49 PM

I kinda felt a little bit of pity for Gollum but that didn't last long. After he lead them into Shelob's Lair, I stopped feeling any type of warm emotion towards Gollum. When I think of Gollum I think of cold and darkness.

I don't know about you, but I don't consider pity to be a warm and fuzzy type of emotion. Rather, I think, especially in this case, it's a painful almost guilty feeling.

Cheers

kittiegirl

11-15-2003, 06:05 PM

Yeah, like you know that he's,um, distorted,and you feel you have to feel guilty for him.

Iris Alantiel

11-28-2003, 06:30 PM

I always liked Gollum as a character, always felt sorry for him, but I never really trusted him. I agree that it's letting him off too easily to just blame the ring for all of his actions. After all, lots of characters were tempted or affected by the ring, and they chose to behave differently from Gollum. Way way back, when Gollum killed Deagol for the ring, it was the first time he had ever laid eyes upon it. Now there were a lot of other characters who were not so driven by need for the ring that they had to have it, even if they had to commit murder to get their hands on it.

I think in the end, I don't trust Gollum for the same reason that I feel sorry for him - the fact that he's weak. Someone like Frodo or Sam was able to resist the power of the ring and hold on to their humanity (or it's hobbit equivalent), but Gollum just let go and allowed the ring to take hold way too easily. You could argue that the fact that he was weak wasn't his fault, and maybe that would be fair to say, but he's still not someone you want to trust, because when it comes right down to it, he'll do what he has to in order to get the ring, because he just hasn't got the strength to say no to it.

Firefoot

12-06-2003, 08:46 AM

I always pitied Gollum/Smeagol. I never trusted Gollum but if I didn't trust Smeagol I wanted to. However, I also really liked Sam and trusted his judgement. I guess it depended on where in the book it was. At times when Smeagol was on top I liked him but I guess I always sort of knew that the bad Gollum would end up on top.

The ring had such a hold on him that he couldn't completely help it. I don't think that Gollum started out bad but he definitely had some bad qualities which the ring played on: jealousy, greed, etc. Also he did not seem to be a strong character. This was also a reason which the ring took such an immediate hold on him.

So I suppose I never completely trusted him. Again, a large part of this is probably because I liked Sam a lot.

Fire-Galad

12-06-2003, 05:24 PM

I actually felt sorry for Smeagol because he starts of as a normal Hobbit or something close to one and after his cousin Deagol finds the ring and Smeagol kills him for it, then Smeagol is chased away from his home and family and becomes Gollum. then in The T.T. Smeagol starts to fight to control his evil side but fails in RotK.

Eggy

12-07-2003, 07:43 AM

Smeagol's life is a very sad story in my opinion and i felt great pity for him while i read the books. Mainly because he nearly turn back to the light(for want of a better phrase), untill the badness at the forbidden pool when he believed Fordo(his "new" master) betrayed him.I think that snapped his fragile new personality and let Gollum lose again..
A truely sad story.

The Perky Ent

12-07-2003, 11:07 AM

Yeah, Smeagol's life was very depressing. And you can't really blame him...or can you?...

Lord of Angmar

12-07-2003, 12:36 PM

When I first read the book, I would never say that I trusted him. I was not extremely suspicious of him either. Rather, although he was obviously gaining trust with Frodo and although Tolkien was trying to make the reader trust him a bit, I felt that at any moment, at the slighest provocation, his good behavior could screech to a halt and he could plunge once again deep into Gollumity. It felt rather akin to watching a just-rehabilitated alcoholic go to a kegger with one friend keeping him away from the beverages and another putting him down and encouraging him to drink up.