Bilbo´s treachery

[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.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

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.

Thank you.

My LAST post, about further thoughts. I've taken enough of your time. Whatever you say about it all (if anything), I'll simply read, accept and move forwards.

I assume (please correct me if I'm off target), terms of manners (e.g. 'sorry', etc ie emoticons stuff) is okay. And also that 'thread cross linking?' (i.e. cross-discussion links), are okay. Some forum frown on it, for different reasons.

Please correct me on any of the following if needed. I'm not at all presuming the ideas are 'permitted'. However:

This topic here, I'm going to make 'home' (it's the one I used to 'land my spaceship). This thread (gut instinct) has about 10,000 X 10,000 X (1.1.1) posts of undiscovered, on topic features that are going to -- over time (you watch) -- come out, and add to this -- most extremely interesting topic, in the strangest of unforseen ways. It's the ring/Ring (why don't you give me a call - Abba - apologies just one stupid joke), with the Hobbit's --TEMPORAL-- facility in a DUAL context - twicely varied (once each for 'real time' - Tolkien-Tolkien - and once each Poster DUAL Time Each-Each and then - something else. Here's the best bit....this one is best discovered by each reader in turn. Because it belongs to everyone. So, I'll PM a trusted poster (cc'ing moderators - to prove the idea is real, and how it looked when it was inspired), soon. But hint:

A.... (the first letter of the idea. The rest I'm putting into notes, to handball soon.)

I'm assuming also it's okay -- across the Tale of the Years (Ages) (thread coming) to return to 'bump' it, upon inspiration. E.g. new posters arrive: it's not a welcome sticky. It's an ontopic compliant standard.

I do this.

"Hey, nice to meet you - hava look at >>The Tale of the Years <<.

Such a post (anywhere) then points to a particular thread. Or someone else please - set it up?

what I want to do, is ***wade*** through (over time) the Forum's extraordinary wealth of prior wisdom to assemble a URL list, with snippets or context thingies etc (it's not a sticky, and it's funner (but strictly on topic and Forum compliant) if it's (not) a sticky. Gives posters ideas about 'on topic synthesis tools as well).

There's a second way I do it. A Thread with an OnTopic, URL-list, plus discussion context of --'synthesis concepts--


e.g. in a

[PS]

Do you like Rings? We have several Meta-Ring themes thread here. Different threadkeepers.
Do you like Orcs? Try these. and
Do you have any ideas you like - post em as you like".[/PS]

So, it's a 'thread about threads' with an Opening Post for Content Standards - but broader than 'one topic at a time'.

Please let me know if these initiatives are too pushy. I'm happy to be guided. But, I'm hoping the concepts will add popularity to these most fantastic boards, but we (me and my long-term poster pals, now sadly lost in Time) found that posting rates skyrocketed.

And I'm missing Morthorond, and want him back. I hope he returns to this very thread - I need the battering at times. It sets me straight. He's an extraordinarily funny person, and I like him. I like a person, either of if he dislikes or likes me. Having posted over 150,000 geek posts over the last 15 years, I welcome absolutely anything anyone wants to say. I also have a feeling - a really good one: it's instinct Mithidan - that something very fruitful is coming of it. If he wants a public apology, I'm giving it here. If he doesn't want it, I'm not giving it here I really want to see the Canon arm of the Bilbo thread continue. I have developed a growing love of it! And - good god, I think I'm going to take the Tolkien subject next year (just one) at our State's major University - where it has been hosted - for decades.

And so...


Kind Regards

[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.]

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

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.]

All right. From birth, perhaps not, at least not so strongly. Nevertheless, it's clear Sméagol was already ripe for the Ring's influence before he first saw it.

Tolkien noted in Letters # 181:

The domination of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.

He 'became' mean and mischievous. Why? Was it something to do with the environment, his personal life? I doubt it. Stoor society would seem to be very hobbit-like in general, and I cannot imagine any traumatic childhood or something similar that could have pushed him to being a ready tool for the Ring against his nature.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

[...]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.

Well, I disagree. I think it's very much appropriate to draw those comparisons. Just like the participants of the Council of Elrond, or Boromir, Sméagol never touched or used the Ring before. He was exposed to it for the first time and had no Idea what it was about. The circumstances of those different people are alike to one another and yet they act fundamentally different. The only reason that those other people are not "antagonists for the possession of the Ring" is that they either don't are tempted by the Ring, or don't act out (as violently) on that impulse.

The Frodo/Bilbo incident at Rivendell, on the other hand, is hardly comparable to the Sméagol/Déagol situation, in that sense. It's clearly a situation of rivalry between two long time Ring-bearers where both of them knew about the powers of the Ring. So the question remains, what was it that "magnified this impulse"?!

As we all seem to agree, the answer is most likely Sméagol's twisted character.

Here's a quote from Gandalf about Gollum:

He was very pleased with his discovery and he concealed it; and he used it to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. He became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful. The Ring had given him power according to his stature.

It seems to me that the Ring didn't really corrupt Sméagol in a metaphysical/magical manner as much. It simply gave him the opportunity (and the power) to act out on his malicious desires in a very effective manner.


Although I find it important to say that this doesn't mean that the opposite constellation would be true: A good character obviously doesn't ensure a carefree contact to the Ring, nor does a good character enable an individual to use the Ring as tool for good means.

[Pitchwife]

You're right to disagree with me, Leaf ; in my desire to stress the element of contest I neglected the element of first sight vs having been under the influence of the Ring for months.

Inzil, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a person's nature divorced of all environmental influences, but I won't belabour that point. I did, however, look up what Gandalf has to say about Sméagol's character before the finding of the Ring:

Originally Posted by LotR Book One Ch. II, The Shadow of the Past

The most inquisitive and curious-minded of that family was called Sméagol. He was interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed under trees and growing plants; he tunnelled into green mounds; and he ceased to look up at the hill-tops, or the leaves on trees, or the flowers opening in the air; his head and his eyes were downward.

None of these interests of Sméagol's seem particulary evil to me - aren't tunnelling and burrowing pretty normal hobbitish activities? It is, of course, to be noted that he lost interest in the beauty of nature, which is never a good sign in Tolkien. But it's a long way from there to murdering his best friend over a ring, isn't it?

I'm not sure we should keep discussing this here (if at all), because, well, once upon a time this thread used to have a topic, but I think Leaf has hit on a question that is not as easy as it looks.