Split Personality?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

We have here not so much a 'split personality' as an individual who makes a moral choice to finally & completely become a monster

I do think that there are two personalities acting in our villain. As Gandalf says:

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed -as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things. But that, of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end – unless it could be conquered.

Thus, I would say that what Tolkien was trying to portray in Gollum was not a split personality in the sense of multiple personalities of rather equal standing, split from the same root - but a mind crushed by a power greater than it, which has taken under its dominion almost all its willpower. I believe it is safe to say that Smeagol would not have done worse deeds than theft or pranks if he didn't have the ring. If we are to take the Shire as a point of reference for Smeagol's lands too, then killing another hobbit is rather out of the question, and his past wouldn't justify, in my opinion, his going down that road by himself. To be more exact, the two personalities at work would be Smeagol - and the ring's taint on his mind.

[littlemanpoet]

Although I see where Raynor is coming from in regard to the "chink in his mind", and even though the Ring is an overwhelming artifact, davem's point remains valid that Gollum lusted for the Ring and committed murder to get it.

Unlike Frodo, who fought the Ring's influence all the way to the Crack of Doom, Gollum colluded with the Ring's influence. The only exception to this collusion was Frodo's mercy, which opened the door on that chink.

That said, I don't think there is quite the determinism going on that davem implies (or ast least I infer ). There was just as much a chink of hope as there was a chink of light that Gollum might repent; otherwise it would not be the kind of tragedy that it was.

But it's interesting to consider that Tolkien wept over this scene. I remember doing so too. One grieves only for those things that one loses, that one loves (or at least likes). So for all of Gollum's moral corruption and monstrous deeds, we still are helped to see something piteous and, well, human and sympathetic, about this fallen Hobbit.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

Gollum lusted for the Ring and committed murder to get it

True, but with the exception of Tom, everyone in the book is susceptible to lusting for the ring. Do you think he would have killed if this wasn't the one ring?

[littlemanpoet]

It's likely since he was already a thief before the Ring was ever found. Gollum was already corrupt. The others who fell to the temptation of the Ring, lusting after it, were Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (were there others?); it may be argued that whereas they had moral weaknesses, they had not yet, when they discovered that the Ring existed, committed any deeds of moral failure.

[alatar]

Nice post, davem. But what of PJ's Gollum?

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Nice post, davem. But what of PJ's Gollum?

PJ's Gollum is an innocent, a nice, friendly guy out fishing with his friend who is instantly corrupted by the Ring. That's PJ's take on it - the Ring instantly corrupts anyone who comes into contact with it, rather than just tempting them. The point of the Ring in the book is that its both the most powerful & the weakest thing in M-e - if you claim it & use it its the most powerful thing. If you ignore it, leave it by the wayside (as Faramir put it) its powerless. In Tolkien's M-e you can make a moral choice not to claim it, & therefore it can gain no hold on you. It only has power over those who succumb to it. Anyone 'taken over' by the Ring has made a choice to be taken over - even Frodo right at the end has chosen to claim the Ring, though at that point he is so weakened & psychologically vulnerable that it was almost (but only almost) inevitable.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The others who fell to the temptation of the Ring, lusting after it, were Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (were there others?); it may be argued that whereas they had moral weaknesses, they had not yet, when they discovered that the Ring existed, committed any deeds of moral failure.

Then again, their situation is not comparable, since they were not in the vicinity of the ring when they discovered that it existed. Furthermore, I didn't say all the others lusted, only that they were susceptible to lust - given the rather irresistible possessiveness the ring inspired. That Gollum was already weakened further takes some of his blame away; he was not in the same situation of dealing with the ring as a normal person would have been, and he did not take the road of petty theft aware of the deadly threat it would open him to. Should we all know the consequences of our small evils, our guardian angels would likely be less busy.

Originally Posted by davem

If you ignore it, leave it by the wayside (as Faramir put it) its powerless. In Tolkien's M-e you can make a moral choice not to claim it, & therefore it can gain no hold on you. It only has power over those who succumb to it. Anyone 'taken over' by the Ring has made a choice to be taken over - even Frodo right at the end has chosen to claim the Ring, though at that point he is so weakened & psychologically vulnerable that it was almost (but only almost) inevitable.

If you imply that one can have the ring and not be influenced by it, simply by not claiming it, I disagree. After Gandalf says that

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

If [a mortal] often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he_ fades:_ he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. Yes, sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last – sooner or later the dark power will devour him.

From Gandalf's own words, even he would succumb to the ring, due to his pity and desire to use it for good (not out of lust for the ring itself).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

If you imply that one can have the ring and not be influenced by it, simply by not claiming it, I disagree. After Gandalf says that

From Gandalf's own words, even he would succumb to the ring, due to his pity and desire to use it for good (not out of lust for the ring itself).

No - I imply that one is free to reject it altogether - refuse to have it at all, even if that means inevitable defeat. If one rejects it (like Faramir) one is not tempted by it & will not succumb to it. Even if one bears it one does not have to surrender to it - though it becomes increasingly difficult not to. Gandalf & Galadriel refuse to take it because they feel they would eventually succumb & use it, but they would still have a choice in the matter. They just don't trust themselves to have it & not use it in extremis.

[Raynor]

Your post is somewhat equivocal, davem. Don't you agree with Gandalf that anyone would eventually succumb to the dark power of the ring, regardless of one's moral nature?