[davem]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

For some reason I have always loathed Gollum. Maybe it is basically because of how he looks, the way he speaks, to something deeper like his treachery. But reading the chapter again, I have finally felt the pity that Bilbo felt for him, the reason why he stayed his hand and did not kill him.

He could be hated for killing Deagol, but the Ring is the only thing to blame, for its beauty has blinded him to murder. The following line, especially, almost brought me to tears in pity for Gollum

I think the strangest change Tolkien makes in the drafts of this chapter is how he makes Gollum more & more of a monster. In the first drafts he's not a murderer- there's only Digol, who finds the Ring, makes a nuisance of himself, & gets exiled for it. By the end he's the murderer of his best friend & a canibal (eating babies! ).

Is it a case of as Frodo becomes more 'saintly' his 'shadow', Gollum, must become darker - another 'shadow' there. Or perhaps Tolkien felt that Gollum must be made as monstrous as possible in order to emphasise the necessity for, & value of, pity, by requiring us to pity a true 'monster'. We are presented with someone for whom there is absolutely no reason to feel pity. But Tolkien seems to be saying that we should feel pity. So, it doesn't matter what an individual does, its somehow 'obligatory', according to the 'Wise' to feel pity for them, & to show mercy. Why? Simply because that is the opposite of what the Enemy would do? We establish our allegiance to the 'Good' by such things - not by fighting the 'bad' guys, using force of arms to defeat them - but by our moral choices - pity, compassion, mercy, forgiveness - even if those things are not deserved?

(Oh, finally, as no-one's mentioned him :'Mad Baggins' -

The second disappearance of Mr. Bilbo Baggins was discussed in Hobbiton, and indeed all over the Shire, for a year and a day, and was remembered much longer than that. It became a fireside-story for young hobbits; and eventually Mad Baggins, who used to vanish with a bang and a flash and reappear with bags of jewels and gold, became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after the true events were forgotten.

I just find it fascinating how Tolkien is depicting the way folklore is created. And its totally believable. It also makes you wonder how other 'legends' arose, & how much basis they have in fact. I'm also struck by the statement that Mad Baggins 'became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after the true events were forgotten'. Strange to think that for ordinary Hobbits their only memory of the events of the end of the Third Age was this strange character & his adventures. As a side issue, I also find myself wondering about the characters in poems like the Stone Troll, & the others in the Red Book (well, the ones in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil ). Is it possible that some of these characters & events have a similar origin to the character of 'Mad Baggins'?