Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Raynor
Would you care to give some Middle-Earth related evidence that would refute Gollum's canibalism? 
LotR as we know it was, presumably, assembled from notes and accounts not only from the hobbits, but also from Rohan and Gondor, where annotations and corrections were added. Nothing, anywhere, discards what we already know of Gollum. |
Doesn't work. A reading of HoM-e gives us so many different versions of the story. Smeagol originally didn't exist & there was only one 'Hobbit' - Digol - who becomes 'Gollum' as a result of his finding the Ring. In the first draft Gandalf states that Gollum himself is the source of the 'stealing from cradles' story ('He boasted of it') & yet even then Gandalf states that Gollum is a liar & his words have to be sifted.
In the published version we have a 'story' about Gollum. And any 'evidence' is circumstantial'. Its entirely possible to read this as Gandalf simply reporting the story to Frodo to make him aware of all that is known about Gollum - the true & the false. Or, more subtly to 'test' Frodo's reaction.
Which reaction is interesting ... Smeagoi, on coming across the Ring responds murderously. Frodo's response on hearing Smeagol's story is equally 'murderous' - 'its a pity Bilbo did not kill him when he had the chance.' That's worth considering - if Frodo could wish Gollum murdered on the basis of a
story, one can understand Smeagol's murderous reaction in the presence of the real thing.
Tolkien's only 'judgemental' comment on Smeagol (ie Smeagol prior to the Ring's appearance) seems to be in the letter where he refers to his 'mean little soul' - yet this was written after the event. Leaving this aside one can read Smeagol as 'victim' of the Ring's influence, & I think Tolkien is clear that he is a victim. And even if the story was true I think it would take a very hard hearted approach to the story of stealing babies from cradles for one to interpret it as depicting Gollum's 'evil' or monstrous nature rather than as depicting the horror of his existence, what this 'Hobbit' had been turned into by the Ring.
Yet there are other monsters in Mirkwood with a taste for human flesh, so the reader (as probably intended) is left with the option of whether they believe the story or not - & that, perhaps, says more about the reader than about Gollum himself.
Some readers do seem to prefer to divide the inhabitants of M-e into 'Good' & 'Evil', refusing to believe the 'Good' can do any evil & that the 'Evil' are capable of any attrocity imaginable. Personally, I find such an approach overly simplistic.