Bilbo´s treachery

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

You know, I find that the whole scene of Bilbo taking the Arkenstone reminds me a bit of Pippin taking the palantír of Orthanc from Gandalf. Two hobbits, two stones wrought with great art in days long past, one scintillating with light, the other dark, but glowing with a heart of fire. And both hobbits grab the shiny mystery, even though both know they shouldn't. Was it just the Took in Bilbo that made him take the Arkenstone?

Ah! *facepalm* How could I leave this out of my example list? That's a great one, thanks for bringing it up.

[Pitchwife]

Let me return the compliments:

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

First of all, regardless of what motivated Bilbo to take the Arkenstone in the first place, I always had the feeling that after that moment of weakness he never really meant to keep it, he just didn't know how to come forwards about it

This! Haven't we all been in situations like that? I have, at least. You do something you know isn't the best of ideas and mean to put it right after a while, but the situation is never quite right for doing something about it and it gets worse the more you procrastinate. Giving the stone to Bard must have been a relief.

Originally Posted by the same

in Bilbo's case the Ring is quite safe and happy. None of his plans appear to involve any harm (direct or indirect) being done to the Ring. If Bilbo had to give his ring to Bard and Thranduil rather than the Arkenstone - oh how the story might have gone differently. But he wasn't, so there isn't much reason for a burst of activity from the Ring.

This, I think, is also a good point. Of course the Ring would be working on Bilbo to corrupt him, but that would have been a slow and subtle process, slowed further by Bilbo's nature - which surely wasn't sterling but basically decent - and the mercy he had shown Gollum, so it wouldn't necessarily show any noticeable results in the short time span covered by The Hobbit.

[Inziladun]

Leaving aside the RL points about the Ring as conceptualized in The Hobbit vs. LOTR, can we look at another Ring-bearer to see if it seems to have pushed him to any treachery?

Frodo began his time as a Bearer after Sauron's power was greater than at the tine of the Battle of Five Armies, after the latter had returned to Mordor and openly declared himself.
Is there any indication on Frodo's part of him betraying his friends, or wanting to? Any suggestion of an usual greed that does not pertain to the Ring itself?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Leaving aside the RL points about the Ring as conceptualized in The Hobbit vs. LOTR, can we look at another Ring-bearer to see if it seems to have pushed him to any treachery?

Frodo began his time as a Bearer after Sauron's power was greater than at the tine of the Battle of Five Armies, after the latter had returned to Mordor and openly declared himself.
Is there any indication on Frodo's part of him betraying his friends, or wanting to? Any suggestion of an usual greed that does not pertain to the Ring itself?

I generally agree with that point, but just to play devil's advocate, there are a couple counter-points. Firstly, Frodo was aware of the effect the Ring can have on people, and was consciously resisting its pull. He was also among the stauncher people, willpower-wise, to inhabit Middle-earth. Therefore, he might be less susceptible to some of the less subtle influences of the Ring, as he can recognize them and suppress them.

Let's take a glance at yet another Ringbearer, who - like Bilbo - was unaware of the Ring's nature: Smeagol. Within seconds of seeing the thing, he kills his best friend to get hold of it. He then proceeds to sneak around, steal things, be generally nasty to those around him, ruin every relationship he ever had, and get kicked out of his family with shame. While killing Deagol is explained by the Ring evoking possessiveness, and getting chucked out is explained with the formidable grandmother, stealing and sneaking are the aspects of Gollum's behaviour I want to emphasize. He wasn't a model boy before the Ring either, but it seems that such a rapid downfall was augmented and sped up by the Ring's presence. Perhaps it was the power of invisibility, which Smeagol applied to crooked uses (and the new ability just enhanced what character was already present), but here I think the argument that the Ring corrupted Gollum seems just as compelling. Or rather, I should say that it looks like an even mix of the two. There is certainly a meanness in him to serve as the base, but the decline seems too rapid to be of Smeagol's doing alone, and some habits, like muttering or speaking in plural about oneself (really, referring to himself and the Ring) aren't explained by Gollum's initial personality.

So go figure.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I generally agree with that point, but just to play devil's advocate, there are a couple counter-points. Firstly, Frodo was aware of the effect the Ring can have on people, and was consciously resisting its pull. He was also among the stauncher people, willpower-wise, to inhabit Middle-earth. Therefore, he might be less susceptible to some of the less subtle influences of the Ring, as he can recognize them and suppress them.

True enough. Yet, though the reader is given some insight into Frodo's thoughts after he obtained the Ring, there is no mention of his having to suppress the desire to to evil, or even ordinary meanness.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

While killing Deagol is explained by the Ring evoking possessiveness, and getting chucked out is explained with the formidable grandmother, stealing and sneaking are the aspects of Gollum's behaviour I want to emphasize. He wasn't a model boy before the Ring either, but it seems that such a rapid downfall was augmented and sped up by the Ring's presence. Perhaps it was the power of invisibility, which Smeagol applied to crooked uses (and the new ability just enhanced what character was already present), but here I think the argument that the Ring corrupted Gollum seems just as compelling. Or rather, I should say that it looks like an even mix of the two. There is certainly a meanness in him to serve as the base, but the decline seems too rapid to be of Smeagol's doing alone, and some habits, like muttering or speaking in plural about oneself (really, referring to himself and the Ring) aren't explained by Gollum's initial personality.

The Ring works with what's there in a particular person, sure. It enhanced Sméagol's mean, sneaking (I'm sure he'd been called 'sneak' many times before, explaining why he bristled so when Sam said it ) nature. We don't really know of the time frame involved in the transformation from Sméagol the Stoor into Gollum though, do we? It might not have been a terribly short time. A few years at least, maybe.

Bilbo lacked the 'basic materials' for which the Ring had an affinity, though. He was not a sneak or a thief by nature, and I think it unlikely the Ring influenced his decision to take the Arkenstone.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

True enough. Yet, though the reader is given some insight into Frodo's thoughts after he obtained the Ring, there is no mention of his having to suppress the desire to to evil, or even ordinary meanness.

The Ring works with what's there in a particular person, sure. It enhanced Sméagol's mean, sneaking (I'm sure he'd been called 'sneak' many times before, explaining why he bristled so when Sam said it ) nature. We don't really know of the time frame involved in the transformation from Sméagol the Stoor into Gollum though, do we? It might not have been a terribly short time. A few years at least, maybe.

Bilbo lacked the 'basic materials' for which the Ring had an affinity, though. He was not a sneak or a thief by nature, and I think it unlikely the Ring influenced his decision to take the Arkenstone.

True enough, on all counts. And bottom line - Bilbo doesn't appear to become more sneaky or mean after years of possessing the Ring. It wouldn't make sense that there was so little effect later on if the Ring had a strong enough hold on him already in Erebor to prompt him to take the Arkenstone.

[Mithadan]

@Mithadan (is this allowed here? or....how strict is the 'on-topic' standard? the 'ps' thing, and variations, was what some of ways we spoke at the Foundations.

In the event that anyone is curious, staying "on topic" is encouraged but is more a goal than a requirement. Staying on topic means conducting discussions that, at least, loosely relate to the original point of the thread.

Given the gyrations this thread has taken, I wonder how many of the current posters on this thread have read the first post, which framed the "topic". One reason that we encourage staying on topic is to encourage discussion. If a thread goes in too many directions, it becomes hard to respond to and difficult to follow. A new issue that is too far afield from the topic being discussed should be raised as a new thread. This gives us more to talk about and improves the focus of the forum. There are altogether too few new threads being started right now and we encourage it.

So, a brief "ps" is ok occasionally but it should not be longer than the point being made in a post and if directed to a single member should be done in a pm.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Let's take a glance at yet another Ringbearer, who - like Bilbo - was unaware of the Ring's nature: Smeagol. Within seconds of seeing the thing, he kills his best friend to get hold of it. [...]While killing Deagol is explained by the Ring evoking possessiveness, and getting chucked out is explained with the formidable grandmother, stealing and sneaking are the aspects of Gollum's behaviour I want to emphasize. He wasn't a model boy before the Ring either, but it seems that such a rapid downfall was augmented and sped up by the Ring's presence. [...]

On a side note: I think it's a little more complicated. It's important to emphasize that Smeagol was willing to murder his friend and kindred spirit, Deagol, within the blink of an eye. And I don't think that you can explain this decision simply by the fact that the Ring is evoking possessiveness. Something alike to this never occurs again (and never occurred before) in the dealings of mortals with the Ring of Power!

Never again does the mere presence of the Ring incite a Person, in an instance, to kill the Ring's current owner, to get hold of it. None of Frodo's Hobbit friends instantly go berserk to take the Ring away from him. The council of Elrond doesn't end in a blood bath. Faramir is able to deny the power of the Ring with a sense of reason and prudence.

The obvious exception is, of course, Boromir. But even in this case it took months and a whole lot of good reason (i.e. Boromir's desire to save Gondor) to get him to the point, where he is willing to take the Ring with force, if necessary. But he didn't just kill him slyly and scooted off. Boromir knew about the power of the Ring and wanted to use it for his own agenda. He conciously decided that this was, given the dire circumstances, the right course of action. Smeagol, on the other hand, didn't knew anything. All he knew was that there was this pretty looking golden Ring, and that this was his birthday.

Coming back to the case of Smeagol and Deagol, it seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1. The Ring's power was, at the time of the incident, stronger than it was ever again afterwards.

2. Smeagol's character is distinguishable and profoundly different from that of the whole lot of other people who knew about the Ring and were around to take it.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Coming back to the case of Smeagol and Deagol, it seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1. The Ring's power was, at the time of the incident, stronger than it was ever again afterwards.

That was not the case. The Ring grew in power along with its maker, for one thing. It was more powerful after Sauron returned to Mordor and openly declared his return, and it continued to increase in potency as Sauron's strength rose.

Originally Posted by Leaf

2. Smeagol's character is distinguishable and profoundly different from that of the whole lot of other people who knew about the Ring and were around to take it.

I think this is the key. Sméagol was a mean, sneaking sort from his birth. He had a head for mischief and secrecy
It was said of the Nazgûl that they had been conquered by their rings sooner or later, depending on their native willpower and character. The same would be true to a greater extent with the One.
Sméagol didn't resist the Ring because he lacked the desire to do so. It called to his lowest, deadliest wants, and he responded. Even had he possessed the awareness of Frodo and Sam of the Ring's potential, I doubt he could have been swayed from using the Ring.

[Pitchwife]

Let's consider the situation. The Ring had at that time lain on the bottom of the Anduin since Isildur dropped it [insert precise length of time which I can't look up now, being 60 km away from my copy of LotR]. Sméagol and Déagol would be its first chance in many centuries at getting any closer to its maker. Even if it was at an all-time energy low I could imagine it mustering what little power it had in one all-out activity burst, a desperate attempt to get on the finger of a convenient and malleable bearer.

Also, we have a direct contest between two antagonists for possession of the Ring. We shouldn't, in my opinion, look to Boromir or the Council of Elrond for parallels, but consider Frodo's reaction when Bilbo just asks to touch the Ring in Rivendell, or when Sam offers to carry it for him. His first impulse (immediately suppressed and regretted, of course) is to strike, lash out, claim possession. Magnify this impulse enough, and you get Sméagol killing his friend.

But Frodo still killed neither Sam nor Bilbo, even though he had carried the Ring for months then, whereas Sméagol had only just seen it for the first time when he killed his friend. I therefore concur with Inzil that Sméagol's character is key. He had a long headstart in his decline into evil even before he took the Ring. If Boromir didn't just backstab Frodo when they quarrelled it was because even then he was a nobler man than Sméagol had ever been.

[I must, however, object to this:

Originally Posted by Inzil

Sméagol was a mean, sneaking sort from his birth.

Nobody is mean, sneaking or anything of the like from their birth, and I would find such a statement atrocious if made IRL of a real person. Just saying.]