Bilbo´s treachery

[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.