I refuse to believe that smeagol was evil. It is true that he killed his cousin during the first encounter with the ring, but we cannot know how strong the ring affected him. I'm not too certain of the nature of the ring, but its will could have been strong enough to get such a flawed character, as smeagol, to do something that irrational. Like Boromir, he wasn't a 'great' man (hobbit), so it would be understandable how vulnerable he was. We also need to know of the rings past against its other victims. The first Isuldor, which was the greatest of men. He fails almost instantly, even with the knowledge of what he kept, and with the guidance of elves.( im not exactly sure this happened as is but it still makes a point). After Smeagol, there was Bilbo. He lived in a very peaceful environment that was extremely safe, and with little to none competition. This does not include he under the constant supervision of Gandalf. Bilbo was also a very strong person(hobbit) in most conventional standards. (brave, moral, loyal, rich, etc...) Frodo was much like Bilbo. Even though his position was much more stressful, he recieved a lot of support. The greatest of ME had their eyes on him. Only Bilbo had the ability to defeat the ring because of Gandalf's insistence. The others failed for their respective reason. I think the point is clear. I think it is. I'm not goign to proofread.
|