Gandalf and the Ring... - Page 2

Attalus · 12-09-2003, 11:00 AM

I don't think that you needed to know that the Ring was irredeemably evil, but you did need to know that it was the Ruling Ring, as Isildur did. BTW, JRRT stated conclusively in the Letters that Tom Bombadil was intentionally left an enigma.

Kirinki54 · 12-09-2003, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bacchus
I don't see a discrepancy. The Ring cannot corrupt instantaneously.

Well, I do not agree if we speak generally. Smeagol seems to have been corrupted very quickly. But if you speak of Gandalf, I think you are right.

CardenIAntauraNauco · 12-09-2003, 11:12 AM

As thorough as Tolkien was, I think he had some inconsistencies as to the nature of the ring. It was almost as if the ring's charachter was in formation as Tolkien was writing LOTR. This is obviously true of his first version of the hobbit, where tolkien has Gollum giving him the ring and showing him to the exit. With such an involved and complex object involved in such a complex plot it's hard to write definite rules for how the ring affects people.

brownjenkins · 12-09-2003, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Smeagol seems to have been corrupted very quickly.

unless he was somewhat of a bad apple to begin with (or at least less strong-willed than some of the others)... so the ring had a much easier time influencing him almost immediately

Bacchus · 12-09-2003, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brownjenkins
unless he was somewhat of a bad apple to begin with (or at least less strong-willed than some of the others)... so the ring had a much easier time influencing him almost immediately

My precise counterargument

Attalus · 12-09-2003, 02:59 PM

Actually, the impression that I had when I first read the books was that Sméagol was already bad, and that he was just stealing an obviously valuable artifact; as the text says, "because the gold looked so bright and beautiful." Thus, the Ring's hold on him was immediate and total. Later, I developed questions about this, since obviously the Ring could affect even those not in possession of it. But I still think he was evil from the begininning, in a small way, as Gandalf would put it.

Artanis · 12-09-2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Attalus
Actually, the impression that I had when I first read the books was that Sméagol was already bad, and that he was just stealing an obviously valuable artifact; as the text says, "because the gold looked so bright and beautiful." Thus, the Ring's hold on him was immediate and total. Later, I developed questions about this, since obviously the Ring could affect even those not in possession of it. But I still think he was evil from the begininning, in a small way, as Gandalf would put it.

I agree. I think Gandalf once said that Sméagol started his career as Ringbearer with stealing and murdering, and therefore the Ring got completely power over him at once. Whereas the first thing Bilbo did as Ringbearer was to show pity to Gollum, and so he was not so affected by the power of the Ring.

Quote:

Originally posted by CardenIAntauraNauco
As thorough as Tolkien was, I think he had some inconsistencies as to the nature of the ring. It was almost as if the ring's charachter was in formation as Tolkien was writing LOTR. This is obviously true of his first version of the hobbit, where tolkien has Gollum giving him the ring and showing him to the exit. With such an involved and complex object involved in such a complex plot it's hard to write definite rules for how the ring affects people.

When Tolkien wrote his first version of The hobbit, the ring that Bilbo found was just an 'ordinary' magical ring. When Tolkien started to write LotR, he saw that he had to change the Gollum chapter in the Hobbit. Cleverly enough he incorporated the story change into LotR, making the first version a change deliberately done by Bilbo himself.

Kirinki54 · 12-09-2003, 05:33 PM

The issue was: could the Ring corrupt instantaneously? And with Gollum, it obviously could. I see no counterargument to that in your posts.

Was he a bad apple to start with? Yes, perhaps (though Gandalf´s tale in Shadow of the Past does not say that). But going from potential bad to strangling your friend over a trinket (no matter how shiny) is quite a long step, and obviously entails some very heavy instantaneous corruption.

I find it very interesting from Gandalf´s tale that Smeagol seemed to possess a mind set for research, scientific so to speak. That might have made him just as easy to lure as being bad, given Tolkien´s general approach to what can happens to meddlers.

**Nurvingiel** · 12-09-2003, 05:36 PM

Yes, didn't Gandalf say something about the Ring affecting you according to your nature?

The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are still continuous, he just doesn't explain all the details of a Ring that is supposed to be an enigma.

Bilbo didn't just find a magic ring in The Hobbit, he only thought that was all he found.

cassiopeia · 12-09-2003, 07:37 PM

Tolkien says in the Letters that Gollum was 'mean' before he found the Ring:

Quote:

But he [Gollum] would never had to endure it [the ring] if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.

I think the Ring was able to corrupt Gollum quickly because of his inherent 'bad' nature.

Wayfarer · 12-09-2003, 07:59 PM

There's a flaw in your reasoning, though. Can you see it?

It's that, in middle earth, /nobody/ is inherently bad.

cassiopeia · 12-09-2003, 08:08 PM

Okay, you got me there. Even Melkor and Sauron and Saruman weren't evil at the beginning. Inherent is the wrong word. Let me say: Sometime in his life Gollum turned 'bad'. That's why the Ring corrupted him very quickly.

Wayfarer · 12-09-2003, 08:17 PM

Maybe... But I don't think that gollum was even really evil before the ring found him. It seems a lot more likely to me that murdering deagol was the first act of true evil he performed.

Rosie Gamgee · 12-09-2003, 09:09 PM

I don't know... I always pictured him as the bullying type. For him to just ask Deagol unresonably for the Ring for the sole reason that it was his birthday kind of makes you think that Smeagol was used to getting his way. Anyway, people who live with their grandmothers tend to be a bit spoiled anyhow

.
As for the Ring corrupting instantly or over a period of time, it depends on the resilience of the person it comes in contact with. Also, I think it depends on their motives. For Gandalf, the first time he touches the Ring, he is proving to Frodo that it is the Ruling Ring. It may have even been then that he realized that the Ring could even corrupt him quite quickly, and then that would be why he freaked out when Frodo offered it to him- because he saw what one touch did earlier. When he picked it up before, it was with the intention of doing good- getting rid of the blamed thing. It must've played upon that and began tempting him even in that moment to use it for good. He was smart enough to realize that he was not strong enough to resist it, and that one more touch could finish him.
When Isildur picked up the Ring, he had just lost his brother and his father. The Ring used that, making him want to keep it in memory I guess of his father and brother. He took it, and then after holding onto it for a while, he was completely powerless to stop its effects on him.
Bilbo's finding the Ring was a complete accedent. The Ring did not mean to be picked up, it did not have to use any of its considerable charm to wheedle its way into Bilbo's keeping. Bilbo kept the Ring, and never felt any inclination to use it for anything but what a hobbit might find useful- escaping the S-. B.s

. He did, nowever, become quite attached to it anyhow. However, because of the resilience of hobbits toward the One Ring, he was able to give it up without lasting effects.
When Frodo gets it, it starts working on him apparently quickly, but that is only because he is called upon to let it go much earlier than Bilbo. Not to mention, now that Sauron returned, and the Ring woken, it's power was greater.
When Smeagol saw the Ring in Deagol's hands, he immeadiatly wanted it, presumably because he was already a spoiled brat- plus is was his birthday

- and so the Ring used that to get into Gollum's keeping. The seed of greed (say, it rhymes!!) was already planted in Gollum's heart, and the Ring merely amplified it.

As for being a ringbearer, I agree with whoever it was that said that a ringbearer is someone who is actually entrusted with the (or a) Ring.

Attalus · 12-10-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Maybe... But I don't think that gollum was even really evil before the ring found him. It seems a lot more likely to me that murdering deagol was the first act of true evil he performed.

I doubt that - it is rare for anyone's first crime to be one as evil as murder. And it really was murder: killing his friend for a trinket. Besides, strangulation is a method that requires practice and premeditation, unlike, say, a sudden blow or stab. I agree with Rosie that Sméagol's request (order, really) that Déagol give him the Ring was preemptory and unreasonable. Déagol's reply seems to me to indicate that this attitude was habitual with Sméagol and he was used to dealing with it in him.

Imric · 12-10-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cassiopeia

I think the Ring was able to corrupt Gollum quickly because of his inherent 'bad' nature.

Well, not so much 'inherently' bad since Tolkien does make a point of stressing that even Morgoth and Sauron weren't created to be entities which were irredeemably evil. Rather, they fell into corruption over time and foolishly scorned opportunities for redemption. Gollum/Smeagol wasn't born evil himself but he had obviously developed a weak and fragile personality (possibly being prone to delusional thinking) before encountering the One Ring. I've always thought he was very likely a malicious bully and petty thief who came to harbour secret thoughts or fantasies of violence towards his fellow haflings. The Ring acted as a catalyst which prompted him to finally translate his fantasies of revenge into actuality. After beginning his possession of the One Ring with such a vile act very little hope remained for him thereafter to be saved.

**Nurvingiel** · 12-10-2003, 02:35 PM

Yes, and maybe the Ring wanted Smeagol to find it because of his weak personality. When Deagol found it instead, it 'made' Smeagol kill him.

Bacchus · 12-10-2003, 05:47 PM

We're getting a bit afield. Regardless of whether the Ring could instantly corrupt Gollum (a point on which i remain unconvinced), the fact remains that the Ring did not generally cause instant debauchery. Bilbo bore the Ring for 60 years, and Frodo for 17, without appreciable corruption (ignoring Frodo's eventual claiming of it-even this involved an extended period and the strengthening of the Ring in proximity to the Sammath Naur). Gandalf was NOT afraid of handling it, but was rather afraid of possessing it for an extended period. Likewise, Galadriel implies that she would slowly succumb in her reply to Sam that she would set some things to rights, but that it "would not stop there."

Recall as well that someone took the Ring from Frodo and placed it on a chain at Rivendell. That person was presumably not instantly turned evil either. Even Boromir required months in close proximity to the Ring before he briefly lost control and tried to take it, and he regained control of himself quickly.

Kirinki54 · 12-10-2003, 05:59 PM

Just a small clarification: when I wrote that the Ring could corrupt instantaneously, that does not mean that it always did and I doubt it always intended to. The impact on different individuals was obviously different. As seen from the tale.

Attalus · 12-10-2003, 07:40 PM

Doesn't Gandalf say that the process would be slower if the Bearer was strong and well-meaning in the beginning? Cannot we infer the converse that it would be quicker in the weaker and already corrupt, as Gollum was? Like Bacchus, I am not totally convinced that the Ring was able to corrupt Sméagol instantly enough to make him murder his friend; I have argued for a previous career at criminality, and I like Imric's suggestion that he might have secretly fantasized about murder.

12-09-2003, 11:00 AM	#21
Attalus Swan-Knight of Dol Amroth Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: On the Bay of Belfalas Posts: 1,125	I don't think that you needed to know that the Ring was irredeemably evil, but you did need to know that it was the Ruling Ring, as Isildur did. BTW, JRRT stated conclusively in the Letters that Tom Bombadil was intentionally left an enigma. __________________ "What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Urn Burial.

12-09-2003, 11:12 AM	#23
CardenIAntauraNauco Elven Warrior Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: rural oklahoma Posts: 324	As thorough as Tolkien was, I think he had some inconsistencies as to the nature of the ring. It was almost as if the ring's charachter was in formation as Tolkien was writing LOTR. This is obviously true of his first version of the hobbit, where tolkien has Gollum giving him the ring and showing him to the exit. With such an involved and complex object involved in such a complex plot it's hard to write definite rules for how the ring affects people. __________________ "We will have peace","Yes we will have peace...we will have peace when you and all your works have perished - and the works of your dark lord to whom you would deliver us. You are a liar,Saruman,and a corrupter of men's hearts. You hold out your hand to me and I percieve only a finger of the claw of Mordor. Cruel and cold! Even if your war on me was just - as it was not,for were you ten times as wise you would have no right to rule me and mine, for your own profit you desired-even so, what will you say of your Torches in westfold and the children that lie dead there? And they hewed Hama's body before the gates of Hornburg, after he was dead. When you hang from a gibbet at your window for the sport of your own crows, I will have peace with you and Orthanc. So much for the House of Eorl. A lesser son of greater Sires am I, but I do not need to lick your fingers. Turn elsewither for I fear your voice has lost it's charm. Last edited by CardenIAntauraNauco : 12-09-2003 at 11:15 AM.

12-09-2003, 02:59 PM	#26
Attalus Swan-Knight of Dol Amroth Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: On the Bay of Belfalas Posts: 1,125	Actually, the impression that I had when I first read the books was that Sméagol was already bad, and that he was just stealing an obviously valuable artifact; as the text says, "because the gold looked so bright and beautiful." Thus, the Ring's hold on him was immediate and total. Later, I developed questions about this, since obviously the Ring could affect even those not in possession of it. But I still think he was evil from the begininning, in a small way, as Gandalf would put it. __________________ "What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Urn Burial.

12-09-2003, 05:33 PM	#28
Kirinki54 Elven Warrior Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: European Union Posts: 463	The issue was: could the Ring corrupt instantaneously? And with Gollum, it obviously could. I see no counterargument to that in your posts. Was he a bad apple to start with? Yes, perhaps (though Gandalf´s tale in Shadow of the Past does not say that). But going from potential bad to strangling your friend over a trinket (no matter how shiny) is quite a long step, and obviously entails some very heavy instantaneous corruption. I find it very interesting from Gandalf´s tale that Smeagol seemed to possess a mind set for research, scientific so to speak. That might have made him just as easy to lure as being bad, given Tolkien´s general approach to what can happens to meddlers. __________________ 'They need more gardens,' said Legolas. 'The houses are dead, and there is too little here that grows and is glad. If Aragorn comes into his own, the people of the Wood shall bring him birds that sing and trees that do not die.'

12-09-2003, 07:59 PM	#31
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	There's a flaw in your reasoning, though. Can you see it? It's that, in middle earth, /nobody/ is inherently bad. __________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned

12-09-2003, 08:08 PM	#32
cassiopeia Viggoholic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 1,749	Okay, you got me there. Even Melkor and Sauron and Saruman weren't evil at the beginning. Inherent is the wrong word. Let me say: Sometime in his life Gollum turned 'bad'. That's why the Ring corrupted him very quickly. __________________ Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

12-09-2003, 08:17 PM	#33
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	Maybe... But I don't think that gollum was even really evil before the ring found him. It seems a lot more likely to me that murdering deagol was the first act of true evil he performed. __________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned

12-09-2003, 09:09 PM	#34
Rosie Gamgee The Lovely Hobbit-Lass Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Bounded in a nut-shell Posts: 1,593	I don't know... I always pictured him as the bullying type. For him to just ask Deagol unresonably for the Ring for the sole reason that it was his birthday kind of makes you think that Smeagol was used to getting his way. Anyway, people who live with their grandmothers tend to be a bit spoiled anyhow . As for the Ring corrupting instantly or over a period of time, it depends on the resilience of the person it comes in contact with. Also, I think it depends on their motives. For Gandalf, the first time he touches the Ring, he is proving to Frodo that it is the Ruling Ring. It may have even been then that he realized that the Ring could even corrupt him quite quickly, and then that would be why he freaked out when Frodo offered it to him- because he saw what one touch did earlier. When he picked it up before, it was with the intention of doing good- getting rid of the blamed thing. It must've played upon that and began tempting him even in that moment to use it for good. He was smart enough to realize that he was not strong enough to resist it, and that one more touch could finish him. When Isildur picked up the Ring, he had just lost his brother and his father. The Ring used that, making him want to keep it in memory I guess of his father and brother. He took it, and then after holding onto it for a while, he was completely powerless to stop its effects on him. Bilbo's finding the Ring was a complete accedent. The Ring did not mean to be picked up, it did not have to use any of its considerable charm to wheedle its way into Bilbo's keeping. Bilbo kept the Ring, and never felt any inclination to use it for anything but what a hobbit might find useful- escaping the S-. B.s . He did, nowever, become quite attached to it anyhow. However, because of the resilience of hobbits toward the One Ring, he was able to give it up without lasting effects. When Frodo gets it, it starts working on him apparently quickly, but that is only because he is called upon to let it go much earlier than Bilbo. Not to mention, now that Sauron returned, and the Ring woken, it's power was greater. When Smeagol saw the Ring in Deagol's hands, he immeadiatly wanted it, presumably because he was already a spoiled brat- plus is was his birthday - and so the Ring used that to get into Gollum's keeping. The seed of greed (say, it rhymes!!) was already planted in Gollum's heart, and the Ring merely amplified it. As for being a ringbearer, I agree with whoever it was that said that a ringbearer is someone who is actually entrusted with the (or a) Ring. __________________ It's New Years Day, just like the day before; Same old skies of grey, same empty bottles on the floor. Another year's gone by, and I was thinking once again, How can I take this losing hand and somehow win? Just give me One Good Year To get my feet back on the ground. I've been chasing grace; Grace ain't so easily found One bad hand can devil a man, chase him and carry him down. I've got to get out of here, just give me One Good Year!

12-10-2003, 05:47 PM	#38
Bacchus Elven Warrior Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Houston TX USA Posts: 245	We're getting a bit afield. Regardless of whether the Ring could instantly corrupt Gollum (a point on which i remain unconvinced), the fact remains that the Ring did not generally cause instant debauchery. Bilbo bore the Ring for 60 years, and Frodo for 17, without appreciable corruption (ignoring Frodo's eventual claiming of it-even this involved an extended period and the strengthening of the Ring in proximity to the Sammath Naur). Gandalf was NOT afraid of handling it, but was rather afraid of possessing it for an extended period. Likewise, Galadriel implies that she would slowly succumb in her reply to Sam that she would set some things to rights, but that it "would not stop there." Recall as well that someone took the Ring from Frodo and placed it on a chain at Rivendell. That person was presumably not instantly turned evil either. Even Boromir required months in close proximity to the Ring before he briefly lost control and tried to take it, and he regained control of himself quickly. __________________ Yet neither by wolf, nor by Balrog, nor by Dragon, would Morgoth have achieved his end, but for the treachery of Men. Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

12-10-2003, 05:59 PM	#39
Kirinki54 Elven Warrior Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: European Union Posts: 463	Just a small clarification: when I wrote that the Ring could corrupt instantaneously, that does not mean that it always did and I doubt it always intended to. The impact on different individuals was obviously different. As seen from the tale. __________________ 'They need more gardens,' said Legolas. 'The houses are dead, and there is too little here that grows and is glad. If Aragorn comes into his own, the people of the Wood shall bring him birds that sing and trees that do not die.'

12-10-2003, 07:40 PM	#40
Attalus Swan-Knight of Dol Amroth Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: On the Bay of Belfalas Posts: 1,125	Doesn't Gandalf say that the process would be slower if the Bearer was strong and well-meaning in the beginning? Cannot we infer the converse that it would be quicker in the weaker and already corrupt, as Gollum was? Like Bacchus, I am not totally convinced that the Ring was able to corrupt Sméagol instantly enough to make him murder his friend; I have argued for a previous career at criminality, and I like Imric's suggestion that he might have secretly fantasized about murder. __________________ "What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Urn Burial.