Tolkien Nína Rúna Kvaran
Professors: Matthew Whelpton
and Terry Gunnell

The Nature and Role
of
Gollum


December 8th 2003
When speaking of nature, whether it be the natural elements of the earth, the universe or the nature of man, there are certain keywords that cannot be avoided. Of those, balance and harmony are perhaps the most important. Life is a perpetual cycle of processes that depend desperately on carefully balanced harmony in order to run smoothly. The exquisite perception of this importance of how things, elements and creatures are interlinked, as shown by the mastery of Tolkien’s novel, The Lord of the Rings, is without a doubt largely the reason why his fantasy world has managed to capture so many readers into total fascination. The articulate way in which Tolkien slowly but surely created Middle-earth with its complex network of geography, languages, mythology and creatures, is evidence enough of his immense imagination and creative ability, but more importantly his sense of a whole coming together, unified in all its diversity. Each forest, each language and each creature within the Tolkien’s world has its own distinct role that eventually serves the whole for better or for worse. The hapless creature Gollum or Sméagol is no exception from this rule and his nature and role within the story, will be the topic of the following speculations.

When reading a book, watching a movie or indeed, participating in real life, there seems to linger a persistent tendency in most of us to label characters or persons, as good or evil, or at any rate either sympathetic or not. When evaluating characters such as Gollum, some readers come to an almost moral dilemma because they cannot help liking the wretched creature in some way. At first glance it seems obvious that such a creature deserves nothing but the readers contempt and even hate, as vile and horrible as he is by most depictions in the books. The evidence of Gollum's monstrous nature is clear when Gandalf repeats the Woodmen’s fearful description of a “…new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles.” This disgusting cannibal can hardly be worthy of any sympathies? But why then are so many of Tolkien’s readers moved to an almost compassion with Gollum?
Firstly, as Gollum’s history is revealed by Gandalf, we learn that he was not always so. He used to be a hobbit-like creature, living with his family, having friends and his own name, Sméagol. He is even said to have been “…the most inquisitive and curious-minded” of his family. Surely the knowledge of his rather lovely origins, so similar to those of Frodo and Sam, make the sad state he succumbs to a rich soil to plant seeds of pity in the reader’s mind.
Secondly, Gollum suffers greatly at the hands of others. Whether he deserves it or not is another thing but certainly he does suffer maltreatment several times in the story. Sauron’s forces capture him and in the wizard’s dark demesnes Gollum is tormented until he confesses everything that has happened to him. Later he is captured by Aragorn who admits at the Council of Elrond to have not been “gentle” with him. Interrogated by Gandalf, who uses the “fear of fire” on him, the luckless creature is again forced to speak against his will. Obviously, Aragorn’s and Gandalf’s treatment of Gollum cannot be compared to that of Sauron’s, but the way in which he is hated, despised and used by others, be it for good or evil, and how he weeps under Gandalf’s scrutiny, does evoke some feelings of pity for him.
Thirdly, the manner in which Gollum behaves is so incredibly pathetic that even though one might feel utter contempt for him at times, he also evokes feelings of compassion through the shear misery of his being. After being captured by Frodo and Sam and made to serve their purpose, his behaviour is depicted as such:
“…but he was friendly, and indeed pitifully anxious to please. He would cackle
with laughter and caper, if any jest was made, or even if Frodo spoke kindly to
him, and weep if Frodo rebuked him.”
These descriptions are as of an insecure child that is over-eager to please and surely, even the most cold-hearted of readers cannot avoid feeling slightly sorry for him even though he might very well deserve this humiliation. In the movie The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, his constant grovelling before the hobbits and secret confrontations with himself, even provide comic relief that no character truly hated by its reader or viewer could ever do.
Fourthly, Gandalf’s comments about how, despite there being very little hope for Gollum’s rehabilitation, he is not completely a lost cause, encourage the reader to view him as not wholly evil. A character that has “…a little corner of his mind that was still his own…” with, as Gandalf further explains “…a light coming through it…” cannot be completely dismissed as pure scum. This description of a once hobbit-like creature and its slow and agonising decay into evil is very sorrowful and makes the reader anxious to know whether Gollum really could be morally saved or whether it is just a matter of time before the tiny part of him that is still capable of good, disappears forever.
After having speculated thus briefly on Gollum’s nature it might be of interest to look further into his role within the story. What purpose exactly does he serve in the development of the plot of The Lord of the Rings? Seeing that this is a long story filled with different places, things and characters, it can be difficult to see clearly what function each individual has, that might affect the progress of the story. Some say that certain characters are there only to make a point without really being necessary for the plot itself and that other characters serve a much more direct purpose in bringing the plot together. Personally, I do not agree with this since I find a great loss in characters such as Tom Bombadil, even though he was successfully cut out of the movies without it seeming to harm the plot. This refers back to the point made before about how each element, thing or character introduced by Tolkien has a place and purpose within the story since a good story is not solely based on a good plot but a number of other elements that make it credible. In this way, Gollum has two functions within the story. He is a very important character when looking at the development of the plot and his own personal story and development as a character serves a universal point of its own because it brings a message to the reader.
When looking at the plot it is rather obvious that Gollum serves a repeated point in its development. He is absolutely a key character in the plot, appearing several times exactly at a crucial point where he can make a difference relevant to the entire progression of the story. In The Hobbit, Bilbo would never have found the ring had Gollum not originally brought it to the Misty Mountains and been careless enough to leave it unprotected. Had Bilbo not been moved to pity as he watched the creature from his secure invisibility and spared Gollum’s life, the whole order of events that was to take place in The Lord of the Rings would have been completely altered. As Gandalf told Frodo:
“My heart tells me he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end;
and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many—yours not
least.”
Had Sauron’s forces not captured Gollum, Sauron would likely not have discovered the whereabouts of the ring or the existence of the Shire. Without Gollum’s lead, Frodo and Sam would not have found their way into Mordor and last, but not least, without Gollum’s participation, the ring would never have been destroyed. These events are evidence enough in themselves as to how Gollum affects the story and do not need further proving. Certainly, there might be other aspects to Gollum’s importance in the plot but these particular instances are some of the most obvious cornerstones of his importance. These incidents all seem to be coincidences at first but by looking at the way in which Gollum has a repeated impact on the fate of the ring, it becomes more and more clear that his destiny lies with it. Gandalf’s eerie way of prophesising what is to come emphasis the fact that Gollum’s certainly unwilling part in the destruction of the ring is foreordained:
“He must do what he will. But he may play a part yet that neither he nor Sauron have foreseen.”
Regarding the more vague, universal role of Gollum, it might be said, that aside from serving an obviously important point in the story plot, Gollum represents with his own pitiful existence, larger themes that lie deep within the roots of The Lord of the Rings. One of these themes is the seemingly endless struggle between good and evil. This theme has omnipresence in the story and Gollum’s struggle with himself, so humorously depicted in the abovementioned movie, can be seen as symbolic for the conflicts between good and evil as represented in the books and also within every one of us in our daily lives. Gollum is an awful example of a person ruined. He fell under the spell of the ring and became corrupted by its power just as both Middle-earth and indeed almost every single being living there, is at risk of being corrupted by the lure of power. Perhaps this underlying theme of corruption also offers one more explanation of why Gollum’s character has fascinated so many readers. He represents something in us. He is an example of the moral decay that can so easily devour us if we let our guard down. This is made abundantly clear in Gandalf’s reply to Frodo’s disgust of Gollum:
“I think it is a sad story…and it might have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known.”
In her article Moral Vision in The Lord of the Rings, Rose A. Zimbardo talks of the problem of “the All versus the self in human consciousness.” She explains how evil in the romance vision is a perversion of human will. By perversion of will she is referring to when a man uses his will first and foremost to service himself instead of the whole, or the All. Selfish deeds therefore lead to lack of morality and in the end, total corruption. As Zimbardo says, had Frodo not been unselfish enough to spare Gollum’s life, he would have lost his own life later and in the process ruined many others. By this I am referring to the scene in Mount Doom where Frodo cannot destroy the ring but since Gollum attacks him and falls into the abyss while holding the ring, he saves Frodo from the spell of the ring and prevents him from making a fundamental error in judgement. Yet another service that Gollum unwittingly provides.
Zimbardo describes the All as being a chain, perhaps a chain of life of some sorts in which all creatures have their own place, providing harmony similar to what I mentioned before. But as each creature has its place within the complex network of the world of Middle-earth, it also has an evil counterpart, if not personally then as a species. So that for the beautiful and noble elves there exist the hideous and decadent orcs, good Men are counter-parted by the evil Ringwraiths, Gandalf has an evil counterpart in Saruman’s treacherous character and last but not least, Frodo has his evil counterpart in Gollum who is the opposite of everything in the least bit hobbit-like. This all leads us to yet another one of Gollum’s very important roles within the story. Frodo knows every detail about Gollum’s miserable life. He knows how Gollum came to possess the ring through murder and then how he became consumed by it as the years went slowly by, as if being eaten alive. This knowledge and then Frodo’s personal relations with Gollum, both serve as a stern reminder for him. A reminder of what could easily be his fate if he falls under the power of the ring and a reminder of the extreme importance of the success of the task he has been entrusted to fulfil. As Zimbardo says:
“Frodo must conquer his own dark counterpart, the Ring bearer must prevail
over his own image turned Ringwraith, before the destruction of that image, and
with it the destruction of the Ring, can be accomplished.”
The conclusion therefore is, that Gollum is Frodo’s alter ego of sorts, providing Frodo with a horrifying mirror image that could easily become reality if he caves in to the awful temptation of the ring.

It is true that many critics do not like the idea of interpreting a moral message from the works of authors, especially not by claiming that that is exactly the intention that the author had in mind as he wrote his work. As a general rule, I tend to agree because as a reader, I do not appreciate a preachy tone in a narration. It can at times make the story seem awkward and the narration somehow too conscious of itself. But nevertheless, there are some moral lessons to be learnt from life since mostly, incidents and happenings tend to follow a pattern. In the same manner, The Lord of the Rings, although it has first and foremost a wonderful tone and sense of storytelling, does have an undertone of morality and the importance of making the right kind of decisions. Although obviously, Sauron and his ring are the ultimate symbols of moral corruption they are impersonal and therefore difficult to associate with anything remotely human. But Gollum is not. His depressing fate not only has a profound effect on the story, making him one of the most important characters, but also on the reader because he is a reminder of the power and ruin of corruption. He represents, in fact, what could have been the fate of Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf and numerous other characters tempted by the awesome power of the ring, had they not been saved from such a gruesome destiny. The power of evil is a prominent theme within the story and according to Cliffs Notes on The Lord of the Ring, Frodo’s ignorance of his “shadow self”, that being Gollum of course, causes him too easily pass judgement on Gollum, but as his experience accumulates he later is moved to pity. Gollum multi-sided personality furthermore serves as a testimony to the author’s mastery in character construction. The genius with which Tolkien constructs Gollum by his behaviour and by how his story is told in bits and pieces, starting in The Hobbit and coming to a bitter end in The Lord of the Rings, brings the reader into the same kind of love-hate relationship with Gollum as Gollum in fact has with himself and the ring.




Bibliography

Hardy, Gene B. Cliffs Notes on Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbitt.
Lincoln, Nebraska. Cliffs Notes, Inc. 1998. Page 60.

Tolkien, J. R. R. The Hobbit or There and Back Again. London. Grafton (An Imprint
Of HarperCollinsPublishers). 1991.

- - -. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and
The Return of the King. London. HarperCollinsPublishers. 1999.

Zimbardo, Rose A. Tolkien’s Moral Vision in The Lord of the Rings, from Tolkien
and the Critics: Essay’s on J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Ed. Neil
D. Isaacs and Rose A. Zimbardo. London. 1968. Pages 100-108.

Movies Referred to

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Director Peter Jackson. Actors
Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen and others. New Line Cinema.
2001.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Director Peter Jackson. Actors Elijah Wood,
Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tylor and others. New Line Cinema.
2002.