Why did Bilbo age so quickly, yet Gollum remained youthful? - Page 3

barrelrider110 · 03-07-2003, 03:06 PM

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).

***azalea*** · 03-07-2003, 10:24 PM

I could support that theory. The more youthful the bearer, the more susceptible to corruption perhaps due to the fact that they do not "know" themselves as well yet. But I do think that Smeagol was a more selfish sort, maybe spoiled, who knows. I also happen to think that the kind of creature he was, although the ancestors of hobbits, were more primitive. More innocent (in a way), but also not as well developed a system of social mores or personal ethics. All of these could contribute to the corruptability factor.
(Note: although there were beings of other societies more advanced than that of the Shire that would have been more corruptable, I mean that the hobbits in particular had a way of life and moral philosphy that -- what's the opposite of predispose? -- they just evolved in such a way that evil is not in their nature, which we all know from Gandalf saying as much at different times in the book, and also from the actions of the hobbits themselves. Valuing peace and quiet, good food and a warm fire above all else becomes the key ingredient for withstanding the power of the ring. But then they had to learn to stand up for themselves because it can also be a detriment when it becomes necessary to fight off evil. Don't know if I've made the point clear, but I think you can see what I'm getting at).

TwirlingString · 03-11-2003, 12:29 AM

I think its because Bilbo hardly ever wore the ring

barrelrider110 · 03-11-2003, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TwirlingString
I think its because Bilbo hardly ever wore the ring

Bilbo did use the ring, probably regularly; he didn't know it was unwholesome to do so. He used the ring when it became useful to be invisible, such as to avoid being seen by one of his annoying relatives. He also kept it on a chain because it changed size and could easily slip off a finger. Even Merry had seen him slip it on. I don't know if he used less frequently than Gollum; he certainly possessed it for less time. He used it out of convenience. Gollum used the ring to kill for food but to kill nonethess. Maybe that had something to do with it.

I think the ring had less effect on Bilbo than Gollum because of his nature: his innate goodness and inner strength.

Lizra · 03-11-2003, 01:31 PM

Yes, and didn't Bilbo wear the ring almost constantly when the dwarfs were locked up by Thranduil? He and the ring were mighty busy there for awhile!

03-11-2003, 12:29 AM	#43
TwirlingString Elven Warrior Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: My mother would say somewhere between the adult mystery section and the YA sci-fi Posts: 489	I think its because Bilbo hardly ever wore the ring __________________ "The Astels are an emotional people. They cry at the drop of a handkerchief. Their culture is much like that of Pelosia. They're extremely devot and invincibly backward. It's been demonstrated to them over an over that serfdom is an archaic, inefficent institution, but they maintain it anyway--largely at the connivance of the serfs thmselves. Astellian nobles don't exert themselves in any way, so they have no concept of human endurance. The serfs take advantage of that outrageously. Astellian serfs have been known to collapse from sheer exhauston at the very mention of such unpleasant words as 'reaping' or 'digging'." ----------------------------------------------- “They lost him?!” Lupin asked , amazed. “Voldemort has been after Harry for 15 years, and then he misplaces him?!”

03-11-2003, 01:31 PM	#45
Lizra Domesticated Swing Babe Join Date: May 2002 Location: Reality Posts: 5,340	Yes, and didn't Bilbo wear the ring almost constantly when the dwarfs were locked up by Thranduil? He and the ring were mighty busy there for awhile! __________________ Happy Atheist Go Democrats!

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

03-07-2003, 10:24 PM	#42
*azalea* Long lost mooter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 3,342	I could support that theory. The more youthful the bearer, the more susceptible to corruption perhaps due to the fact that they do not "know" themselves as well yet. But I do think that Smeagol was a more selfish sort, maybe spoiled, who knows. I also happen to think that the kind of creature he was, although the ancestors of hobbits, were more primitive. More innocent (in a way), but also not as well developed a system of social mores or personal ethics. All of these could contribute to the corruptability factor. (Note: although there were beings of other societies more advanced than that of the Shire that would have been more corruptable, I mean that the hobbits in particular had a way of life and moral philosphy that -- what's the opposite of predispose? -- they just evolved in such a way that evil is not in their nature, which we all know from Gandalf saying as much at different times in the book, and also from the actions of the hobbits themselves. Valuing peace and quiet, good food and a warm fire above all else becomes the key ingredient for withstanding the power of the ring. But then they had to learn to stand up for themselves because it can also be a detriment when it becomes necessary to fight off evil. Don't know if I've made the point clear, but I think you can see what I'm getting at).