Gollum Debate

[Dreran the Green]

Originally posted by Attalus
What a strange thread. Pscho Kitty, I agree with Starr Polish that your experiences and mechanisms of dealing with the stresses and pains of adolescence are hardly novel, nor is your identifying with a literary character that you perceive as suffering in a way that you do. If you want to admire Gollum and project your anxieties and fears onto him, it is fine by me. I do object to your statement that there are no heroes in RL (I could name a dozen - I get the strong feeling that you associate heroes with the "Popular Element" in school. They aren't heroes, or even close.) and that animals don't feel devotion. Dogs, to an abnormal degree, but even in the wild. Have you ever seen the behavior of a Snow Goose whos mate has been killed? Screaming and covering the corpse with its wing? I have. For the record, I dislike Gollum, and have always liked that JRRT made him to be the one thing that could destroy the One Ring, because it had destroyed his will. At any rate, I hope that you find your way out of the dark place that you find yourself in. Pax.

Uh...ditto. Except I don't dislike Gollum....and I have never seen a goose in mourning

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Dreran the Green
Uh...ditto. Except I don't dislike Gollum....and I have never seen a goose in mourning

It's not a sight for the tender-hearted, I assure you. I have never been goose-hunting, since.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Okay, I'm just going to say a few things:

We are not picking on you because you are new; we are quite a newbie-friendly environment. However, you have made it quite evident that you are considerably more comfortable pretending to be the victim of the evil people who don't agree with you, then go right ahead.

Also, the topic was not about which existing character you want to be. Original characters (and not just gender-changes) were used by the other people

Yes, some people want to convince others to think like them, but not everyone in this thread is that way. I hope you'll realize there are independent thinkers here, too, and that you'll enjoy engaging us in more witty reparté.

Quite amusing.

Okay, and now I am officially bowing out of this thread, as it is quite obvious what this is, and I highly doubt anyone's going to do anything at all of any value, so I don't see a point in trying.

[Dreran the Green]

They're right ya know about how they don't pick on newbies. I'm a newbie too. I haven't been picked on
..........unless you're all whispering behind my back *looks around suspiciously*
............Nah.

[Psycho Kitty]

Hamlet: Yes, I can see why you would identify with him.

hey i love tragedies that involve insanity. <evil laugh>

Seeking death: No. Do not go committing suicide because I told you it was oblivion. (Somehow I doubt you will though.)

nope. dont worry. its not a plan. beleive it or not ive never even tried.

So! The topic: Does Gollum have an ideal life?

wait was that the topic?

He loves and hates the Ring, and the murder of his best friend haunts him. He lives in a cold dark place and can never feel the sun or the wind or the light of the stars. He longs for company, but rejects it and tries to kill it when it comes. Sound ideal?

you are making the mistake of speaking mostly of smeagol here. maybe the confusion could be avoided if he had like a third name. and that would be the guy that combines both gollum and smeagol. what i see as gollum is the empty creature bent only on survival and isolation. the social one is smeagol.

[Psycho Kitty]

Attalus ...

Pscho Kitty, I agree with Starr Polish that your experiences and mechanisms of dealing with the stresses and pains of adolescence are hardly novel, nor is your identifying with a literary character that you perceive as suffering in a way that you do. If you want to admire Gollum and project your anxieties and fears onto him, it is fine by me.

then you like star polish are speaking to the wrong person because you DONT know me and you dont know squat about what ive been through and what Im really like. so dont write me off as just some dark troubled teenager full of angst and with no direction because you really have no clue. and i dont fit any easy stereotype at all. i dont think gollum suffers like i do. i want to BE him. in the way that he has something that i dont. or maybe a better way to put it would be he DOESNT need to live a way that i have to. i have no one and nothing to project my anxieties onto and i fear very little. but im beginning to get the impression that a lot of people are projecting their stereotypes onto me. especially since some of you have been so off base.

I do object to your statement that there are no heroes in RL (I could name a dozen - I get the strong feeling that you associate heroes with the "Popular Element" in school.

case in point to what i said above. its hard for there to be a big "popular element" in your school when you are home schooled. and i stand by my statement about heroes. there are heroic ACTIONS but not heroes. because there are no perfect people. and heroism is by definition untainted. you may not like that definition but thats the one ive come to by observing people in my life.

At any rate, I hope that you find your way out of the dark place that you find yourself in. Pax.

i wish i was in a darker place now. thats exactly where i want to be.

[Psycho Kitty]

Originally posted by Dreran the Green
They're right ya know about how they don't pick on newbies. I'm a newbie too. I haven't been picked on
..........unless you're all whispering behind my back *looks around suspiciously*
............Nah.

dreran Ill take your word for it. but surely you can agree that if you had posted something you felt was true about you and you had people suddenly jumpin all over you and threatening to eat your guts and torture you wouldnt you wonder what the heck was up with that? call me paranoid if ya like but sometimes theres a half decent reason for it.

[Starr Polish]

About your definition of hero being untainted:

I'm all for living by personal definitions, by far. I've often been misunderstood (particularly when I say I'm spiritual, but not particularly "religious") because of personal defnitions of words. BUT, if we were going by the rigid definition of hero...

Hero 1. A person of great courage, spirit, etc., esp. one who has undergone great danger or difficulty. 2 Any admirable or highly regarded man. 3 The main male character in a fictional or dramatic word. 4 In classical mythology, a man of both mortal and divine parentage, noted for outstanding courage, fortitude, etc. 5 A sandwich made from a loaf of bread or large roll split lengthwise...

Okay, the last definition makes me laugh (but it's really in my dictionary!) According to some of those definitions, heroes do exist in real life. According to your definition, no, the do not, except for those who follow certain relgious doctrines (and I don't want to bring religion into this thread).

Yes, I have no life, but I'm working on it.

[Elfhelm]

Nonsense. Some heroes don't live up to the expectations of their quests, like MacBeth or Hamlet. Heroes fail sometimes, that's partly why we care. Superheroes are not heroes. A successful hero brings what was gained back to the community, a failed hero uses what was gained to serve himself... generally.

You see, thousands of critics for thousands of years have argued what is a hero, and a dictionary is written by people who are not literary critics, so what makes anyone think any dictionary can define the concept of hero when nobody can agree on one!?

By Joseph Campbell's definition of a hero, which is the definition I have chosen to accept, it is Samwise Gamgee.

[Psycho Kitty]

you see hamlet as a hero?

[Elfhelm]

Sure, heroes don't always succeed.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I agree that heroes don't always succeed, but I don't think that a hero is just the central character.

[Sween]

Gollum is the ultimate anti hero! hes not a hero and basically has very little thats good about him. He was never a nice person lets set thats stright he killed degol in a second he was never quite right. Killing a friend does it make him evil (maybe) taking the ring and evil dead (nope the ring is alltogether evil)

his life was very awful and for what he may of done you will forgive him!

Did he ever intentionally help frodo? yes he did and for that he must be forgave for a while he still kept something good about infact in a weird way i think the good part of him may of gorwn because of the ring as strange as that is the evil was much stronger but at the same time he hated the ring and wanted just to be free in many ways and frodo held him in respect something he not known for a long time.

he allmost repent sending them to shelob but the ring had him in many ways it wasnt his fault.

did he mean to destroy the ring? No but without him it would never ever of come about. He isnt a hero but we should have pity and be grateful to him

[Elfhelm]

Like I said, the "what makes a hero" discussion has been going on for as long as there were stories. To me, a hero has to have a quest, at least. Hamlet's quest was to restore order to the state of Denmark. He has everything a hero needs including a spiritual adviser. Did he restore order in the end, or just make more chaos? I guess it's arguable either way. The number of bystanders slain because of his hedging and second-guessing leads me to say that he failed.

Did Gollum have a quest? I don't think so. Frodo obviously did, but I think that's really a smoke screen. The real quest is Sam's. He's the one who is tempted by what he sees in Galadriel's bowl. He's the one who has to endure when all seems lost. Gwaimir mentioned that Frodo isn't an Everyman figure. True. The Everyman figure is Sam. I could go on, but this is a Gollum thread. I think Gollum is an antagonist.

If Gollum did have a quest, what would it be? To find his precious and go back underground again? How would that right the wrongs in the world?

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Psycho Kitty

wait was that the topic?

I think so...

Originally posted by Psycho Kitty
you are making the mistake of speaking mostly of smeagol here. maybe the confusion could be avoided if he had like a third name. and that would be the guy that combines both gollum and smeagol. what i see as gollum is the empty creature bent only on survival and isolation. the social one is smeagol.

But remember, the change was gradual. Gollum thinks he's still Smeagol. They are the same person. Gollum does have memories of killing a dear friend and being banished from his village.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Firstly, I think that MacBeth didn't actually think he was writing wrongs; was there a specific part in the play that I forgot, where he said this? I got the impression it was lust for power.

Secondly, as Shakespeare was a Christian, I've read some interesting Christian commentary on MacBeth... But you wouldn't want that, would you?

Thirdly, Gollum and Smeagol, while certainly not the same, are not wholely distinguishable from one another, I think.

[Elf Girl]

O yesyesyes. They inhabit the same body, and I believe Gollum, at least, thinks that he is Smeagol.

[Psycho Kitty]

i think gollum is the way smeagols psyche deals with his rather messed up situation. i also think smeagol wasnt the greatest guy before he even ran accross the ring. but the ring drew out the animal/survival part of smeagol that became gollum. its not really just a schitzo thing going on with him because he isnt seeing someone else. he knows he is talking to himself. but it feels to him like two distinct personalities which it is. i think this kinda thing exists in all of us its just we dont run accross the supernatural power needed to cause such a major splitting of our personalities into seperate creatures like it did in smeagol/gollum. sometimes it can happen when there is severe stress and stuff like years of abuse then you get split personalities. ever read cybil? thats basically what i think is going on with gollum. only its special because of the ring. and gollum is simply the survivor who does what he needs to do despite what smeagol thinks. and has no remorse. in a way you can look at smeagol/gollum paralleling with sauron. cause sauron poured a lot of himself out into the ring. and the ring had a will of its own because of this. and smeagol because of the ring had his personalities split (or portions poured out) into gollum. im not saying gollum is like some kinda mr. hyde or something but the distinction is obvious to me.

[azalea]

I just want to make a minor point: technically, although Gollum certainly exhibited some schizophrenic traits, what people commonly refer to as schizophrenia in him re: Smeagol and Gollum is actually called dissociative disorder ("split personalities"), and is not the same disease as schizophrenia. This is a common misconception (ie, the old joke "Hi, I'm a schizo and so am I.") There are different types of schizophrenia, one being paranoia ("everyone's out to get me"), which I do think Gollum borders on having (other types include catatonic, where the person stays in one usually awkward position for a very long time, and the one that manifests itself in delusions of grandeur, such as the guy who thinks he's Napoleon.) Just FYI and to clarify that a bit.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
...Shakespeare was a Christian...

I think I'm going to get sick.