Gollum and Pleasure

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Did Smeagol come "undormant" because of the oath of the Ring, or because of the human contact? Maygbe there's a mix here, I don't know.

I would say both were behind Sméagol's new-found friendliness.
On the one hand, the oath he had sworn by the Ring brought him into a very close psychological relationship with the Ring-bearer, which forced him to "open up" emotionally.

On the other, I think the fact that his new companions were of his own kind was significant. It's said different times in the books that Hobbits generally preferred the company of other Hobbits, and Gollum wasn't nearly as friendly, it seems, with those noble Mirkwood Elves with whom he was a guest.

[Mister Underhill]

Eh, I always thought the films way overplayed the idea that Gollum and Sméagol were actually distinct personalities. That scene where Gollum and Sméagol argue and S tells G to "Leave, and never come back!" is a great bit of performance by Serkis and is pretty wonderfully executed, but I think it takes Gollum's debate in the Marshes a step too far. To me, Gollum's internal debate is the debate of an integrated character, and the scene that Sam overhears is really just an extension of his long habit of talking to himself, Sam's assessment of "two halves", Slinker and Stinker, notwithstanding.

"Poor Sméagol" is how he thinks of himself; Gollum is the name that the world has given him.

But whether a split or a single personality, I'm not sure why we should be surprised that Gollum would have his pleasures, mean as they are. Among the Ringbearers, we don't see a loss of pleasure as an effect of the Ring, do we?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

But whether a split or a single personality, I'm not sure why we should be surprised that Gollum would have his pleasures, mean as they are. Among the Ringbearers, we don't see a loss of pleasure as an effect of the Ring, do we?

But we do see the de-valuing of life. Most of the Fellowship members haven't held the Ring close enough or long enough to really feel the long-term effect. But you see Bilbo feeling all stretched and unsatisfied with living (but he doesn't attribute it to the Ring, of course). And Frodo starts forgetting both physical and emotional pleasures:

...I know that such things have happened, but I cannot see them. No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. ~Frodo, Mount Doom, ROTR

Then there are the Ringwraiths, and, while we know neither their thoughts nor their exact relationship with nature / the physical world, I think it's safe to say that pleasure is not something they experience.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Among the Ringbearers, we don't see a loss of pleasure as an effect of the Ring, do we?

Actually, we do. As Frodo sinks deeper into the Rings power in Mordor he seems to lose his capacity for pleasure. In particular there is that part when Sam asks if Frodo remembers the rabbits Gollum caught and Frodo says no, that while he knows such things do happen, he no longer has any memory of them. Something along the lines of "No taste of Food, no cool of water, no warmth of sun, no blue of sky) (or am I just remembering a bit from the radio version). In any case Gandalf says when describing the effects of the ring that the ring extends life until all ones days are weariness (or something like that) which seems to indicate a loss of pleasure in living.

[Pervinca Took]

True, but that's the extreme potency of the Ring as it reaches its point of maximum power, very near the fire where it was made.

Gollum's "bless us and splash us, my precious!" pleasure in fish and the prospect of raw goblin/Baggins is possible because the Ring is so far from Mordor.

Also Frodo is still resisting the Ring, and that is why it is torturing him to the degree it is at the point of the "wheel of fire" speech.

Whether Frodo's ability to experience emotional and physical pleasure is permanently damaged is an interesting point. Like Celebrian, he loses delight in Middle-earth, and exposure to the Ring (and the things this led to, such as his inability to renounce it in the end) is a huge part of this. The wounds he received along the way were more due to the fact of his being the Bearer, and his mission throwing him constantly into the line of fire, and they contributed too.

But I wonder how far the sensory and emotional pleasures returned once the Ring was destroyed. I would think that he was able to sense them again, but maybe some kind of detachment remained. For one thing, he deputised as Mayor once because Will Whitfoot "needed a lot of feeding up" before he could go back to presiding at banquets. Could just refer to the fact that Will was in a pretty bad way and Frodo had recovered from his physical privations, but he'd hardly be psychologically capable of attending a banquet if no sense of such pleasures had returned.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

True, but that's the extreme potency of the Ring as it reaches its point of maximum power, very near the fire where it was made.

A good point. Look at Bilbo, having the Ring a much longer time than Frodo, but apparently losing none of his ability to find pleasure in food, drink, song, and poetry, even while feeling "thin and stretched".

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Whether Frodo's ability to experience emotional and physical pleasure is permanently damaged is an interesting point. Like Celebrian, he loses delight in Middle-earth, and exposure to the Ring (and the things this led to, such as his inability to renounce it in the end) is a huge part of this. The wounds he received along the way were more due to the fact of his being the Bearer, and his mission throwing him constantly into the line of fire, and they contributed too. But I wonder how far the sensory and emotional pleasures returned once the Ring was destroyed. I would think that he was able to sense them again, but some kind of detachment remained.

Frodo was able to laugh again certainly, and find some measure of relief with the Ring gone, but as Tolkien noted in Letters #246

[Frodo's] real desire was hobbitlike (and humanlike) just 'to be himself' again and get back to the old familiar life that had been interrupted. Already on the journey back from Rivendell he suddenly saw that was not for him possible.

Since he felt he could not continue with life in Middle-earth, naturally the pleasures available there would have lost much of their luster.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Gollum's "bless us and splash us, my precious!" pleasure in fish and the prospect of raw goblin/Baggins is possible because the Ring is so far from Mordor.

That's the thing, though - raw fish and goblin meat are the few things Gollum still feels pleasure in. He hates everything else. Not sun/moon, not flowers, not music, not even good-tasting elvish food. Perhaps food is just such a basic necessity that not even the Ring can undo the pleasure of a full belly.

[Mister Underhill]

I'd echo Pervinca (Hi! Don't think our paths have crossed yet.) and Inzila that Frodo in Mordor is a bit of an exceptional case, though as Pervinca points out, the question of whether the Ring is somehow complicit in the "darkening" of Frodo is an interesting one. Is it a direct effect of the Ring? Or is it simply a very human reaction to his overall experience? I usually come down on the side of an interpretation which favors humanity and complex human reactions over characters being the victims of magical effects. It's one of the things, I think, that sets Middle-earth apart from other fantasy creations, where one can often detect a whiff of roleplaying and videogame influence in the treatment of magic. Tolkien's magic is, by and large, more subtle, more ethereal, less direct. It nudges rather than bludgeons.

As an example, I really didn't like the way Jackson interpreted Théoden as being literally under Saruman's spell, rather than having been manipulated and cozened by Wormtongue acting as Saruman's agent. I recognize that there's a continuum here though.

[Pervinca Took]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I'd echo Pervinca (Hi! Don't think our paths have crossed yet.) and Inzila that Frodo in Mordor is a bit of an exceptional case, though as Pervinca points out, the question of whether the Ring is somehow complicit in the "darkening" of Frodo is an interesting one. Is it a direct effect of the Ring? Or is it simply a very human reaction to his overall experience? I usually come down on the side of an interpretation which favors humanity and complex human reactions over characters being the victims of magical effects. It's one of the things, I think, that sets Middle-earth apart from other fantasy creations, where one can often detect a whiff of roleplaying and videogame influence in the treatment of magic. Tolkien's magic is, by and large, more subtle, more ethereal, less direct. It nudges rather than bludgeons.

As an example, I really didn't like the way Jackson interpreted Théoden as being literally under Saruman's spell, rather than having been manipulated and cozened by Wormtongue acting as Saruman's agent. I recognize that there's a continuum here though.

Hi Mr Underhill! The "darkening" of Frodo in Mordor, I think, is the deliberate effect of the Ring trying to save itself from destruction - somehow or in some way sensing its increasing proximity to the place where that might happen. As if that were part of the "design" that Sauron put into it, as a safeguard.

Potter haters - don't jump on me for this - but I always felt the way the locket horcrux (protected from being taken, let alone destroyed) was hidden under a potion that was terrible torture to drink (and could only be removed by one forcing another to drink it, so that one alone could not remove it) was similar, in a sense, to the impossibility of the Ring being cast away (except, as Tolkien said, by one of the Wise) by act of will at its point of maximum power. There is definitely powerful magic here, but much less obvious. However, Sauron was called the "Necromancer" in "The Hobbit," and seems to have used magic of a very dark kind to safeguard his precious Ring.

It's interesting that you use the word "darkening" - since it acts both by moral corruption and by cruelty (darkening pleasure, tainting peace of mind, becoming painfully heavy) - trying to break down the bearer's resistance by both physical and mental cruelty - and using that cruelty to help break down the purity of the bearer.

The after-effects that Frodo felt from this experience were probably just by-products of being exposed to all this for so long. How much is attributable to permanent damage done by the Ring at and near its point of maximum power is difficult to gauge. A huge part of the damage is the fact that he claimed it at the end, of course. But the things that trigger specific periods of illness don't refer to the time of maximum exposure in Mordor. One of the triggers is the memory of being parted from it, since he falls ill on the anniversary of Shelob's bite, when the Ring is taken from him, and when awakens in Cirith Ungol, believing all lost. The other is from the Morgul-knife ... which would probably have continued to give him trouble even if he hadn't gone any further than Rivendell (I think only one other survivor of a Morgul splinter (not a hobbit, but still), is actually recorded, and he died within about 12 years).

So, difficult to say, but I think the Ring's power in Mordor was its own survival mechanism. It pulls out all the stops not to get destroyed and will use any amount of cruelty to do it (it was made by Sauron, after all), but I don't think it "intended" (as far as Sauron could give it "intention") or thought of damage beyond that. I wonder if Sauron ever thought of another even wielding it, and how much of his thought and power he put into the Ring being able to create trouble to another who possessed it? Frodo does not desire power, but he has a natural fatalism. This is what the Ring latches on to in him, turning it to despair. (In Sam, it would have latched on to his positive side, his desire to do things, and put things right, corrupting good deeds to bad).

As an example, I really didn't like the way Jackson interpreted Théoden as being literally under Saruman's spell, rather than having been manipulated and cozened by Wormtongue acting as Saruman's agent. I recognize that there's a continuum here though.

I think Jackson probably favours the bludgeon over the nudge.