"I Liked Him Better Than All The Other Characters"

- J.R.R. Tolkien (1964) Admin is @grouper:)

[smeagol-daily]

Unknown Photographer. Elijah Wood. 2006/01.

[laerwenmith]

Bilbo: the riddle game is sacred and everyone, even wicked creatures, knows you don't cheat it.. this is common knowledge of course that all beings in middle earth are aware of

Gandalf: yeah no that's not a thing, I'm pretty sure that fucked up cave guy is another hobbit somehow

[smeagol-daily]

Okay Hi so I just got some tips about new Gollum Magic the Gathering art and I will absolutely post those later as a duo post , thank you for the tip-off!

[smeagol-daily]

Im not going to lie while I am here for Gollum as much as anybody else, I am fascinated with other Gollum enjoyers to a different degree. Who are you people. Are you doing a bit. Do you need to have all those AI generated Gollum feet pics on your blog. Do you know you're alive

[frankensteinsmonst3r]

The gollum and Bilbo scene in the hobbit is so funny. Gollum is like “I’m going to attack you and eat you whole you pathetic weakling, unless 👆, you answer my riddle three.”

[glorf1ndel]

Which of these Tolkien characters would rock at Dancing with the Stars?

Beren (trained by Lúthien)

Maedhros (only one hand, but not two left feet)

Pippin (would be enthusiastic at least)

Annatar (has the gift… of dancing)

Thranduil (turning those battle moves into dance moves)

Gollum (chaotic on the floor, but potentially an audience fave)

Tulkas (encouraged by Nessa)

Tom Bombadil (whimsy to the max)

Voting ended onAug 10

Pick a Tolkien character that would rock at Dancing with the Stars! 💃 🕺 🌟

[dearest-loveliest-elizabeth]

Where does Frodo’s insistence of Gollum being able to be saved AND Sam disliking Gollum straight away come from?

Well, maybe from Gandalf.

I think the scene in the fellowship, before the quest, when Gandalf explains all about the ring and Gollum to Frodo is so underrated because it’s more important that it seems.

This is the first time Frodo (and Sam!) learn things about Gollum, outside of the humorous tales of Bilbo’s quest, and Gandalf doesn’t help, Gandalf mixes things up. He talks badly of Gollum but also claims there can still be hope, and that Bilbo was right in not killing him.

Is it really so strange that Frodo, as a ring bearer, wants to save Gollum, keeping in mind this is one of the first things he heard of him (by someone he trusts, like Gandalf)?

(Did you catch that little parallel? Let’s see it side by side:)

During Frodo’s talk with Gandalf he claims he wishes Bilbo had killed Gollum, that he does not pity him at all, but as the trilogy goes on this changes, as Frodo understands the true power of the ring. It’s impossible to understand being a ring bearer if you’re not (to be a ring bearer is to be alone).

Therefore Sam, Sam doesn’t understand. Sam also heard about Gollum still maybe being able to change, but he also heard all that Gollum did, how he’s searching after Bilbo (technically Frodo who now has the ring) and means to steal it even with violence, that Gollum is a liar, that he killed his friend, this horrifying description (specially from Sam’s pov, who is a hobbit from the Shire, a safe place):

etc etc, but more importantly, Frodo’s thoughts on it.

Sam trusts Frodo, probably more than Gandalf. And one of the first things he learns too is that Gollum wants to harm Frodo (Bilbo, technically) to take the ring. We know how protective Sam is. Is it so strange he immediately hates Gollum, just by knowing 1) he wants to harm Frodo and 2) Frodo dislikes him? Also especially since their first real meeting is with Gollum trying to kill them. Just confirming what Sam already thought, then. Frodo’s mind changes over time, but Sam is not only stubborn, but just unable to truly understand the influence of the ring over Gollum.

Besides, Frodo has seen more than Sam. Sam has heard Gandalf say Bilbo was the only one able to leave the ring, although with his help, but it’s Frodo who saw Bilbo become tempted by the ring again in Rivendell (depends on how you interpret that scene, but I think Bilbo was tempted, even if just a little, in both interpretations).

Sam heard about Gollum killing Déagol, which, in comparison to Frodo who is completely loyal to Sam, it’s a pretty bad look on Gollum, specially because he killed him before he even carried the ring, but it’s Frodo who understands the pull Gollum felt to do that, the power the ring held. Even if he never felt it so strongly as to harm Sam, he got closer to understanding it that Sam ever would.

Gandalf downright calls Gollum a liar, something I think Sam repeats in the two towers. Has Gollum lied to Sam? His plans of killing Frodo and stealing the ring that Sam heard, but is that where the adjective liar comes from? Or does Sam maybe remember someone else calling him that?

When Frodo says Gollum deserves to die, Gandalf doesn’t outright disagree! He says he also thinks so, but that it’s not his (nor Frodo’s) place to kill anyone. But he agrees that Gollum should die! Sam very likely doesn’t understand the nuance in Gandalf’s saying.

Gandalf repeats again that Gollum can be cured, but he has already made his opinion on Gollum very clear.

Gollum is also just… not a good company to be around lmao. I can’t blame Sam, specially because his dislike was 100% reciprocated, which didn’t help, but yeah, there was some prejudice going on.

[durneytune]

Gollum was an überchad who mastered the pescatarian paleo-diet and should theoretically be ripped

[smeagol-daily]

Unknown Photographer. Elijah Wood. 2006/01.

[smeagol-daily]

Krahenbuhl, Taylor. Gollum.jpg. 2012. Photoshop. Burbank, California. American.

[wltsquareih]

It's been a long time coming but here's my interpretation of Smaug as a cat :3 the 3rd image is inspired by @hobbitunderthemountain ficlet which also gave me a push to finally draw this entire thing, highly recommend you check it out!

[neonjawbone]

watched fellowship w my mom on christmas and spent the 6 hour drive home thinkin bout gollum

[bogcreacher]

Gollum fanart

[eizneckam]

I actually do think that it is important in some ways to LOTR's themes that Gollum does not get redeemed.

The first thing I want to say is that not every writing decision is strictly better or worse. If Gollum had redeemed himself, I think that would have been fine too. Different themes, but fine. But back to what actually happens.

I think, for many people who are both viewing fiction, and thinking about real life, that the world is divided into Good People and Bad People. Good People are, well, inherently good and well-meaning. They make mistakes, and even do bad things, but it's because their heart is in the right place, and they can always come back to the light. Bad People, meanwhile, are rotten to the core. Any action they take that is Good is basically self-serving to advance their position, and they can never make up for any sin they commit no matter how hard they try. (Thank you, Calvin.) For many people, a "good" redemption arc is when a Good Person has a redemption arc. After all, they were always well-meaning, and just needed to see the error of their ways. A "bad" redemption arc is when a Bad Person tries to redeem themselves. Obviously, people can be forgiven, but there are some things you just never come back from, that are signs of an inherently rotten and malign soul. There's no way anyone who does stuff like (FILL IN THE BLANK) can really redeem themselves.

I say all this, because I want to make clear that by all possible definitions, Gollum is one of The Bad Ones. Yes, his situation is pitiable in some ways, but as Tolkien himself pointed out: "The Ring was too strong for Smeagol but he would never have had to endure it if he had not already been a mean sort of thief." Smeagol's first act upon finding the Ring was to kill his own cousin; compare that with how long it took for Bilbo or Frodo or Sam to start feeling the effects of the Ring. Gollum literally eats babies, for crying out loud. From a very cynical point of view (one that I don't necessarily uphold), one could (one-sidedly) argue that his budding friendship with Frodo was merely finding a point of connection with another living soul for the first time in hundreds of years rather than any sort of true remorse, and look how easily that relationship soured (Gollum and Frodo stay cordial for less than half a book).

But (finally getting to my point), that is exactly why it's important that Frodo spares Gollum, gives him mercy, attempts to befriend this wretched creature. Another facet of the Good Person/Bad Person dichotomy is that it transforms morality from an "internal rule" to an "external action" - murder is an act that is really neither good nor inherently bad, instead murder is Bad when it happens to Good People and Good when it happens to Bad People. Thus, morality becomes a subjective and self-absorbed game more than a code to live life by - since of course the self becomes the arbiter of all definitions, and no act can be unjustified. Frodo spares Gollum NOT because deep down, Smeagol is really a Good Person led astray by understandable mistakes. He spares Gollum because taking pity and having mercy is the right thing to do no matter who the action is being done to. Notably, the first and only time Frodo curses Gollum - "if you touch me ever again you shall be cast into the fire" - is the moment where it is implied the Ring finally takes full hold on Frodo's psyche.

Frodo's mercy is mistaken and undeserved, and yet that's the point. Human charity isn't necessarily pragmatic. It's not just given to those who "deserve" it. As Gandalf says, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

[ipsomaniac]

Yep, critical that Gollum doesn't get redeemed. Yes to the reasons above - there's certainly a positive moral message about the value of mercy. And the flipside to this is a negative moral lesson about the (Christian) nature of evil. Two key points on this:

No mortal being, no matter how virtuous, can overcome evil through their own virtue alone

Evil is its own undoing

For number 1: As OP says, Gollum and Frodo are such great foils for each other because one is the worst most depraved little fucker in existence, and the other is the epitome of virtue according to the moral framework of LOTR. But they are both equally incapable of resisting the Ring, in the end. Yes, Gollum succumbs much faster because he's a bad person who seized the Ring through violence, whereas Frodo, a good person who inherited the Ring reluctantly, is able to resist it far longer than anyone else in Middle-earth could have. Frodo's goodness and mercy matters - it gets him and Gollum up to the final brink - but it's not enough to take him to the end. Even he cannot throw the Ring into the fire, and crucially, this is not framed as a personal failing on his part. The point is, it doesn't matter how good he was; there's no counterfactual where he's able to destroy it because he was an even better person, nor is there some more virtuous being in Middle-earth who could have managed it. We are shown that while goodness can get you part of the way there, there is no amount of good you can be that will allow you to overthrow evil on your own. At the very end, evil will equalise us all, as it equalises Frodo and Gollum in Mount Doom. (I don't think Tolkien intends this or anything in LOTR as straight allegory, but this is drawn from the idea of Original Sin. In Christian terms, not even the most virtuous person can be redeemed through their own virtue alone - only through Christ.)

For number 2: Nobody will ever be able to willingly destroy the Ring, so the only way it can be destroyed is as a result of its own workings. This is why Gollum and his ultimate lack of redemption are essential: Gollum, the most profoundly corrupted of the Ringbearers, is the mechanism through which the Ring undoes itself. The Ring's means of self-preservation is to be so irresistible that it causes the bearer to betray themselves - their loyalties, values, even their own interests. So, Gollum cannot help himself from following Frodo to Mount Doom, and at Mount Doom, it is likewise inevitable Gollum will betray his oath of fealty to Frodo and transgresses the terms of the curse. But both the oath and the curse are magical contracts enforced by the Ring itself. Through the Ring's influence on Frodo, it sets up these binding magical contracts; through its influence on Gollum, it guarantees that Gollum will trigger the curse, and be in a position to bring the Ring down with it when he does. That 'Frodo Laid A Geas' post says it all. (Another Christian idea - that Satan is allowed his schemes, evil is allowed to unfold, because it will ultimately drive itself to destruction as part of God's plan.)

But this is where I slightly disagree with OP - I don't think it would be an equally artistically effective choice to have Gollum redeemed. The point is that the Ring destroys itself through Gollum's damnation. It would diminish the impact of the ending if Gollum, for example, threw himself into the fire with the Ring as an act of heroic self-sacrifice; this would trivialise and sentimentalise the problem of evil the story is grappling with, reassure us that if we only believe enough/are good enough/love someone enough etc. then we can overcome the evil through acts of individual moral heroism. But this isn't how it works in real life. In real life, when we try to undo evil, we fail, over and over again. Individual effort and goodness matter, but are never enough. LOTR addresses this reality. We don't get left with the simple moral victory of so many of LOTR's more banal descendants: we end in mutual damnation, in tragedy, in failure. Thus the victory is all the more mysterious, incredible, and serious. (My other minor quibble is on defining Frodo and Gollum's relationship as a friendship; even at its most cordial, it is never a relationship of equals. It's a hierarchical, feudal, magically-secured bond of mutual obligation between master and vassal, and this is very important to the way their tragic trajectory plays out).

[teainwednesday]

Just a bald kitten

[eizneckam]

I actually do think that it is important in some ways to LOTR's themes that Gollum does not get redeemed.

The first thing I want to say is that not every writing decision is strictly better or worse. If Gollum had redeemed himself, I think that would have been fine too. Different themes, but fine. But back to what actually happens.

I think, for many people who are both viewing fiction, and thinking about real life, that the world is divided into Good People and Bad People. Good People are, well, inherently good and well-meaning. They make mistakes, and even do bad things, but it's because their heart is in the right place, and they can always come back to the light. Bad People, meanwhile, are rotten to the core. Any action they take that is Good is basically self-serving to advance their position, and they can never make up for any sin they commit no matter how hard they try. (Thank you, Calvin.) For many people, a "good" redemption arc is when a Good Person has a redemption arc. After all, they were always well-meaning, and just needed to see the error of their ways. A "bad" redemption arc is when a Bad Person tries to redeem themselves. Obviously, people can be forgiven, but there are some things you just never come back from, that are signs of an inherently rotten and malign soul. There's no way anyone who does stuff like (FILL IN THE BLANK) can really redeem themselves.

I say all this, because I want to make clear that by all possible definitions, Gollum is one of The Bad Ones. Yes, his situation is pitiable in some ways, but as Tolkien himself pointed out: "The Ring was too strong for Smeagol but he would never have had to endure it if he had not already been a mean sort of thief." Smeagol's first act upon finding the Ring was to kill his own cousin; compare that with how long it took for Bilbo or Frodo or Sam to start feeling the effects of the Ring. Gollum literally eats babies, for crying out loud. From a very cynical point of view (one that I don't necessarily uphold), one could (one-sidedly) argue that his budding friendship with Frodo was merely finding a point of connection with another living soul for the first time in hundreds of years rather than any sort of true remorse, and look how easily that relationship soured (Gollum and Frodo stay cordial for less than half a book).

But (finally getting to my point), that is exactly why it's important that Frodo spares Gollum, gives him mercy, attempts to befriend this wretched creature. Another facet of the Good Person/Bad Person dichotomy is that it transforms morality from an "internal rule" to an "external action" - murder is an act that is really neither good nor inherently bad, instead murder is Bad when it happens to Good People and Good when it happens to Bad People. Thus, morality becomes a subjective and self-absorbed game more than a code to live life by - since of course the self becomes the arbiter of all definitions, and no act can be unjustified. Frodo spares Gollum NOT because deep down, Smeagol is really a Good Person led astray by understandable mistakes. He spares Gollum because taking pity and having mercy is the right thing to do no matter who the action is being done to. Notably, the first and only time Frodo curses Gollum - "if you touch me ever again you shall be cast into the fire" - is the moment where it is implied the Ring finally takes full hold on Frodo's psyche.

Frodo's mercy is mistaken and undeserved, and yet that's the point. Human charity isn't necessarily pragmatic. It's not just given to those who "deserve" it. As Gandalf says, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

[theonlyowen]

Sam’s Vision on Orodruin

.

Based off the chapter Mount Doom in The Return of the King, where Sam sees Frodo in a last desperate attempt to keep Gollum away, as a white robed figure with a wheel of fire at his breast. This moment felt poignant to me, and I wish it was found in Peter Jackson’s film