Entmoot
 


Go Back   Entmoot > J.R.R. Tolkien > Lord of the Rings Books
FAQ Members List Calendar

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-07-2003, 03:06 PM   #36
barrelrider110
Peer of the realm of Sanguine
 
barrelrider110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Hill, Marlton, NJ
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally posted by azalea
And it was debated in another thread about whether or not the corruption was immediate, or whether Smeagol had a "predisposition" to evil, since Bilbo didn't become "evil", even after years of possessing the Ring. That may be where some people got the idea that Smeagol was evil beforehand. I tried to find that thread, but couldn't, so it must have been debated within a thread about something else (maybe a "ring" thread).

1. Smeagol seems to be immediately corrupted to the greatest extent, even though the Dark Lord is more latent than he'll be by the time Bilbo finds it.
2. Bilbo is immediately corrupted in that he hides the ring and lies about it (and also keeps it although he knows in his heart that it belonged to Gollum). But I think we can agree that murder of a loved one is more evil than hiding/ lying about a possession. A "severe corruption" scenario probably would have seen Bilbo killing Gollum (assuming that Bilbo and Gollum have the same amount of natural "goodness").
3. This is a very important issue because if indeed the amount of basic goodness is a factor in the immediate "corruptability" of a being (IMO, amount of native power is another), that would help us to understand Frodo's level of corruption at whatever given point in his journey. (And hence would strenthen my case for his pure motives in volunteering to take the ring to Mordor -- see the Why did Frodo Volunteer to Take the Ring? thread j/k)
The thread you refer to is "Concerning Smeagol" and I started it a couple of months ago (I don't start many) that discussed almost the same.

Remember that Gandalf said that Bilbo gave up the ring willingly, and that was important. It showed that the ring did not have the hold over Bilbo that it did over Gollum. The real question is why. Tolkien gives no definitive answer, not even a clue. Was Gollum evil from the start, or was he merely susceptable. I suggest it was because he was young when the ring "found him." There's no evidence to support this, but I picture Smeagol and Deagol as two kids out for a day fishing on the river when the ring was found. Like a lazy Saturday afternoon, away from the grownups, bored silly when this big fish bites, and pulls Deagol into the water. . etc. Reminds me of my childhood. (No fish ever pulled me into the water, I was a bit too overweight).
__________________
“"I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider,"

Fear Complacency!
___________________
Something under the bed is drooling

Last edited by barrelrider110 : 03-07-2003 at 03:12 PM.
barrelrider110 is offline   Reply With Quote
 



Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
They'd never say that! (part 2) jammi567 Middle Earth 126 01-17-2014 06:03 PM
Why wasn't Gollum turned into a wraith? CAB Middle Earth 98 06-27-2006 05:41 PM
(Discussion) Bilbo in Beleriand adaneth RPG Forum 3 04-01-2005 01:55 AM
Gollum zavron Middle Earth 8 12-13-2002 05:48 PM
Some questions about Gollum SilvaRanger Lord of the Rings Books 17 02-18-2001 07:19 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) 1997-2019, The Tolkien Trail