Split Personality? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

littlemanpoet · 09-10-2007, 03:32 PM

Gollum & Smêagol. Slinker & Stinker.

The Books and the Movies handled them differently. At least so it seems to me.

How do you see as the differences? Do you like the book's representation, or the movie's, better? And why?

I know what I think, and those who know me can probably guess, but I'll hold back for now.

alatar · 09-11-2007, 09:30 AM

First off, all characters are different in the Books and Movies, and that includes Smeagol/Gollum. The split, to me, is better 'visualized' (Duh!) in the Movies. I read the text where Slinker and Stinker debate their plans for Master and the Fat One, but it's Peter Jackson's camera angles and Andy Serkis' facial expressions that really drives home that this creature is truly mad. Though going into TTT I of course knew that Smeagol and Gollum were internally at war, but even so, PJ's delivery of this war made me almost think, for a moment, that there truly were two creatures.

Like Boromir in the Movies, Gollum here is slightly more sympathetic. And the Henneth Annûn beating of Smeagol left me thinking that anyone involved deserved whatever treachery they received. Ouch! On the other hand, when Smeagol plays the happy puppy, I'm a little put off as I still see the creature as rarely being comical - unlike dwarves, which are the buffoons of Middle Earth.

Aiwendil · 09-11-2007, 03:43 PM

Peter Jackson seems to interpret the Gollum-Smeagol dichotomy as a true example of 'dissociative identity disorder' (formerly 'multiple personality disorder'). The sense I got from the films was that Gollum and Smeagol were to be thought of as two distinct minds, able to converse with one another but each ultimately self-contained, with its own thoughts and will.

I don't think that the book necessarily excludes that situation as an interpretation, but it also does not necessitate that interpretation, nor even particularly suggest it. My understanding prior to seeing the movies was always that Gollum was merely ambivalent and that the two 'personalities' were not much more distinct than the competing impulses in the mind of anyone who is ambivalent about something.

Boromir88 · 09-11-2007, 11:05 PM

I fall along the same line as Aiwendil. When reading the books, I got a sense that Smeagol didn't have a split personality, he just represented the struggle that every person deals with (I like Aiwendil's word...impulses).

Sociologists argue that we all have a desire to go against the 'norms of society.' As norms are pretty much like laws, and having laws isn't always fun. So we have one side that is all about pleasure and satisfaction and another that reminds us 'umm society says this is wrong, your parents say this is wrong...maybe you shouldn't do this.' Very much like a conscience.

Even before coming across the Ring Smeagol wasn't the most upstanding and moral figure. He's described as 'mean' and 'damnable.' Plus his actions after the Ring I think also speak to his character (as why doesn't someone like Bilbo or Frodo commit murder and then go about to lie and cover it up when they get the Ring?) Immediately after murdering for the Ring Smeagol turns to what he knows already how to do...he was the 'mean son of a thief,' (Letter 181) so he starts sneaking around spying and stealing.

Arguably even before coming across the Ring, you could say there already was a 'Gollum' in Smeagol. There already was the urge to 'strive against the norms of society.' Now, I think what the Ring does is polarize the two 'impulses,' and create a bigger gap between the two. On one end you have the nicer and more compassionate Smeagol, and on the other is the mean-spiritted Gollum. However, the Gollum already existed within Smeagol before coming across the Ring, the Ring just brought more of his Gollum-self out and polarized the two.

The movies chose to go a different route, but I do like how they portrayed it. And there's no arguments from me about the scene where we see the 'split-personality' of Gollum. Eventhough, I never got a sense in the books that Gollum had a split-mind, I like the approach and the way Jackson chose to show it. (I can't say I agree with the Ranger's treatment of Gollum...as they weren't 'thugs' and Faramir doesn't slam Gollum up against the wall threatening to gut him right there; or whatever he does).

davem · 09-12-2007, 12:23 AM

I can't help thinking of the cartoons where someone has a little angel on one shoulder & a little devil on the other...

Of course, we find Frodo on Amon Hen 'writhing' as he's caught between the Voice & the Eye, & Sam in Mordor arguing with himself over whether or not there's any point continuing with the Quest. I'm sure others could be pointed up.

It seems in some cases to be an internal 'battle' & in others an 'external' one in which the individual is both the battleground & the thing fought for. Perhaps another example of the old Boethian/Manichean thing....

littlemanpoet · 09-12-2007, 08:51 AM

I see things generally as do Aiwendil & Boromir88. Except that I didn't like the way the movie portrayed it. My reason is that it reduces the thing to a psychological, "poor sick hobbit, he's really nice and it's all the Ring's fault". Whereas this interpretation isn't necessary, the precisely psychological spin leads one to it. Tolkien's description leaves more possibilities, as Aiwendil said. One such possibility is the moral wrongdoer in concert with the evil of the Ring are overpowering the little bit of good that remains, which calls itself Sméagol. Something about this latter intepretation seems more robust somehow.

Folwren · 09-16-2007, 06:44 PM

Why does everything have to get so fiesty and mean? It's kind of fun sitting on the side lines and just watching - cheering for the people you agree with, and laughing when they make a good point that will apparently squash their opponent's reasoning, but...well, I've done enough of that. I'll throw in my two cents.

The original question of this thread was:

Quote:

How do you see as the differences? Do you like the book's representation, or the movie's, better? And why?

I don't know if you all had forgotten, but just in case, I figured I'd post it.

A lot of people here have made very good points. I won't site all the posts or anything, but if you've read the thread, you should know what I'm talking about. Gollum in the book had a very deep and intriguing character - one that I could never simply say was 'good' or 'bad' until the end of the TT (at which point I hated him with a vengeance). He was a very pitiable character, but at the same time, he was repulsive you knew he was evil. But something struggled within me to think, "No...he's not so bad...there is a glimmer of good in him..." It's harder the more I read it. I know how it all ends up, I'm no longer surprised and shocked when he betrays them in Shelob's lair, but still as I read it, I always hope, and every time, I think, "If only Sam hadn't woken and snapped at him on the stairs. If only he had repented."

Okay, so that's the book. In the movie it was different. I still pitied him, but I never hoped that he would turn good. I never wished that Sam had slept longer (they didn't even have that part in the movie, instead it turned out that Sam was right about him Sneaking). The struggle between good and evil didn't seem quite so desperate. In the one scene where the good wins - great! It seems finished. In the struggle wherein the bad wins - after Faramir's men are wicked to him - Of course it won! Frodo had just betrayed him.

But I did think he was a great villain. Andy Serkis did an awesome job on his motions and his voice and the crew did a supurb job turning the thing in to Gollum. I will prefer my strong yet subtle feelings while reading the books, but I will also greatly enjoy watching Gollum on screen.

---

As for what PJ did to improve the story...well, we didn't think long, but my Mom could only think of one thing - he drew out the grief of the company a lot more after Gandalf's death than Tolkien did. A valid point.

Pop thought the elves coming to Helm's Deep was cool. I didn't argue with him.

I have nothing to say to that point just now.

-- Folwren

09-10-2007, 03:32 PM	#1
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	Split Personality? Gollum & Smêagol. Slinker & Stinker. The Books and the Movies handled them differently. At least so it seems to me. How do you see as the differences? Do you like the book's representation, or the movie's, better? And why? I know what I think, and those who know me can probably guess, but I'll hold back for now.

09-11-2007, 09:30 AM	#2
alatar Doubting Dwimmerlaik Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Heaven's basement Posts: 2,466	First off, all characters are different in the Books and Movies, and that includes Smeagol/Gollum. The split, to me, is better 'visualized' (Duh!) in the Movies. I read the text where Slinker and Stinker debate their plans for Master and the Fat One, but it's Peter Jackson's camera angles and Andy Serkis' facial expressions that really drives home that this creature is truly mad. Though going into TTT I of course knew that Smeagol and Gollum were internally at war, but even so, PJ's delivery of this war made me almost think, for a moment, that there truly were two creatures. Like Boromir in the Movies, Gollum here is slightly more sympathetic. And the Henneth Annûn beating of Smeagol left me thinking that anyone involved deserved whatever treachery they received. Ouch! On the other hand, when Smeagol plays the happy puppy, I'm a little put off as I still see the creature as rarely being comical - unlike dwarves, which are the buffoons of Middle Earth. __________________ There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.

09-11-2007, 03:43 PM	#3
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	Peter Jackson seems to interpret the Gollum-Smeagol dichotomy as a true example of 'dissociative identity disorder' (formerly 'multiple personality disorder'). The sense I got from the films was that Gollum and Smeagol were to be thought of as two distinct minds, able to converse with one another but each ultimately self-contained, with its own thoughts and will. I don't think that the book necessarily excludes that situation as an interpretation, but it also does not necessitate that interpretation, nor even particularly suggest it. My understanding prior to seeing the movies was always that Gollum was merely ambivalent and that the two 'personalities' were not much more distinct than the competing impulses in the mind of anyone who is ambivalent about something. Last edited by Aiwendil; 07-15-2010 at 10:38 AM.

09-11-2007, 11:05 PM	#4
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,507	I fall along the same line as Aiwendil. When reading the books, I got a sense that Smeagol didn't have a split personality, he just represented the struggle that every person deals with (I like Aiwendil's word...impulses). Sociologists argue that we all have a desire to go against the 'norms of society.' As norms are pretty much like laws, and having laws isn't always fun. So we have one side that is all about pleasure and satisfaction and another that reminds us 'umm society says this is wrong, your parents say this is wrong...maybe you shouldn't do this.' Very much like a conscience. Even before coming across the Ring Smeagol wasn't the most upstanding and moral figure. He's described as 'mean' and 'damnable.' Plus his actions after the Ring I think also speak to his character (as why doesn't someone like Bilbo or Frodo commit murder and then go about to lie and cover it up when they get the Ring?) Immediately after murdering for the Ring Smeagol turns to what he knows already how to do...he was the 'mean son of a thief,' (Letter 181) so he starts sneaking around spying and stealing. Arguably even before coming across the Ring, you could say there already was a 'Gollum' in Smeagol. There already was the urge to 'strive against the norms of society.' Now, I think what the Ring does is polarize the two 'impulses,' and create a bigger gap between the two. On one end you have the nicer and more compassionate Smeagol, and on the other is the mean-spiritted Gollum. However, the Gollum already existed within Smeagol before coming across the Ring, the Ring just brought more of his Gollum-self out and polarized the two. The movies chose to go a different route, but I do like how they portrayed it. And there's no arguments from me about the scene where we see the 'split-personality' of Gollum. Eventhough, I never got a sense in the books that Gollum had a split-mind, I like the approach and the way Jackson chose to show it. (I can't say I agree with the Ranger's treatment of Gollum...as they weren't 'thugs' and Faramir doesn't slam Gollum up against the wall threatening to gut him right there; or whatever he does). __________________ Fenris Penguin

09-12-2007, 12:23 AM	#5
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	I can't help thinking of the cartoons where someone has a little angel on one shoulder & a little devil on the other... Of course, we find Frodo on Amon Hen 'writhing' as he's caught between the Voice & the Eye, & Sam in Mordor arguing with himself over whether or not there's any point continuing with the Quest. I'm sure others could be pointed up. It seems in some cases to be an internal 'battle' & in others an 'external' one in which the individual is both the battleground & the thing fought for. Perhaps another example of the old Boethian/Manichean thing.... __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

09-12-2007, 08:51 AM	#6
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	I see things generally as do Aiwendil & Boromir88. Except that I didn't like the way the movie portrayed it. My reason is that it reduces the thing to a psychological, "poor sick hobbit, he's really nice and it's all the Ring's fault". Whereas this interpretation isn't necessary, the precisely psychological spin leads one to it. Tolkien's description leaves more possibilities, as Aiwendil said. One such possibility is the moral wrongdoer in concert with the evil of the Ring are overpowering the little bit of good that remains, which calls itself Sméagol. Something about this latter intepretation seems more robust somehow.