Do you think Gollum is closer to a villain or an anti-villain?

[Deimos]

He's a villain in the sense of... someone with addiction to something who you know should be locked up. You feel pity but its obvious that you cant have them running around either.

Well said. Elves made the mistake of pitying him too much and not giving full consideration to his history of "behaving badly".

 

[Maedhros_Nelyafinwë]

Regarding the definitions of villain and anti-villain, what do you guys think of this?

Not sure who came up with this, but I like the simplicity and clarity of these definitions.

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

Regarding the definitions of villain and anti-villain, what do you guys think of this?
View attachment 26774
Not sure who came up with this, but I like the simplicity and clarity of these definitions.

It's interesting. How exactly can one do evil for the right reasons? My immediate thoughts jumped to Fëanor, but the phrasing alone makes me think how can such be.

 

[Maedhros_Nelyafinwë]

It's interesting. How exactly can one do evil for the right reasons? My immediate thoughts jumped to Fëanor, but the phrasing alone makes me think how can such be.

I guess I think the Sons, more so than Fëanor himself, fall into this category. Like I think the sons' goals are noble in and of themselves (loyalty to their father, trying to defeat Morgoth, trying to reclaim the Silmarils) but the way they went about it was bad (opposing the Valar, murdering innocents).

Fëanor might have started out with noble goals but I think even those noble goals got corrupted over time.

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

I guess I think the Sons, more so than Fëanor himself, fall into this category. Like I think the sons' goals are noble in and of themselves (loyalty to their father, trying to defeat Morgoth, trying to reclaim the Silmarils) but the way they went about it was bad (opposing the Valar, murdering innocents).

Maybe so for some of them. I see Maedhros especially as a tragic hero, for he fits the Aristotelian definition of one perfectly. Noble upbringing, high-quality character traits, but doomed to always in the end make choices with terrible repercussions. Maglor could fit it as well, but I think Maedhros is most suited for that definition as he was the oldest.

 

[Maedhros_Nelyafinwë]

Maybe so for some of them. I see Maedhros especially as a tragic hero, for he fits the Aristotelian definition of one perfectly. Noble upbringing, high-quality character traits, but doomed to always in the end make choices with terrible repercussions. Maglor could fit it as well, but I think Maedhros is most suited for that definition as he was the oldest.

I agree 100%! It's like his good traits are pitted against him.

 

[Muskrat]

One critic sees Gollum as an addict. I have worked with them for many years and I like the theory. An a ddict is a person over whom something gets a hold so strong that he or she will do anything to obtain it, including destroying their own lives as well as those of others. It is rather like insanity. They are childish, untrustworthy, changeable, and can be very dangerous. I do not see them as villainous even though they can do cruel and destructive acts. Nothing matters except obtaining, well, the ring in this case. A truly terrible state to be in, but most addicts, like Gollum, do not want to recover from the addiction.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

One critic sees Gollum as an addict. I have worked with them for many years and I like the theory. An a ddict is a person over whom something gets a hold so strong that he or she will do anything to obtain it, including destroying their own lives as well as those of others. It is rather like insanity. They are childish, untrustworthy, changeable, and can be very dangerous. I do not see them as villainous even though they can do cruel and destructive acts. Nothing matters except obtaining, well, the ring in this case. A truly terrible state to be in, but most addicts, like Gollum, do not want to recover from the addiction.

He almost did if it wasn't for Sam...

CL

 

[Muskrat]

But would it have lasted? Maybe, but I do not know if anything for him was stronger than desire for the Ring.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

But would it have lasted? Maybe, but I do not know if anything for him was stronger than desire for the Ring.

Per Tolkien's letters, yes, he would have sacrificed himself to destroy the ring, but alas, Sam destroyed any hope of that venture.

CL

 

[Muskrat]

I know Tolkien says that, but I an not sure the book shows it. It is hard, but not impossible, for me to believe that Gollum was going to change the whole course of his life, save for a chance remark of Sam’s.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

I know Tolkien says that, but I an not sure the book shows it. It is hard, but not impossible, for me to believe that Gollum was going to change the whole course of his life, save for a chance remark of Sam’s.

I mean if the author says that his word is law, as far as I am concerned.


CL

 

[Muskrat]

That is one approach. Another holds that just because an author intended to say something, it does not mean that that is what he said. I have had many years interpreting statutes, and it is very common for the writers of the statute to have written something that is interpreted in ways, they would not have understood.

 

[Muskrat]

Another thread cites Tolkien is calling Sam “despicable“. I think very few would agree with his opinion in that matter.

 

[Ent]

He almost did if it wasn't for Sam...

Saruman hesitated, at the last offer to him of repentance as well. Yet chose a different course.

And that's another of the elements of religion Tolkien includes from the beginning of SIL through the end of LoTR. Our own choices are what we, in the end, answer for. There is no 'shuck and jive," there is no 'but the responsibility lies elsewhere'... throughout, Tolkien is consistent in showing the choices we make are the things we are responsible for.

While Tolkien may have said something elsewhere, what he displayed in the published lore was an unrepentant Gollum, who too had a great deal of opportunity to make alternative choices.

That said, one place he's consistent is the 'power of the ring' is, in the end, simply too great for anyone to withstand forever. (Few, including Frodo, withstood it successfully... and those who did were the ones who didn't 'possess' it to begin with.)

A study of those who fell to it and those who withstood it is "instructive" as Sherlock Holmes would say. Even the great Saruman was corrupted... by many things, but among them his desire for the ring. (Translate: power.)

But at the end of the day, 'choice' is what's at play.

People like Sam ever exist. But because a Sam says 'jump over the clilff', do we then decide we 'jump over the cliff' and its Sam's fault? No. We choose to jump.

Responsibility being attributed to each individual is a most unpopular truth... certainly in these times, when the greatest effort in almost all arenas is to 'make it all somebody else's fault so I'm not held accountable for my actions.' But the effort to avoid personal responsibility is...well... my current favorite word. "Rubbish".

 

[Muskrat]

All true, but Frodo does the worst thing by claiming the Ring, and he gets a break? Have we not all fallen short? And do we all not ask for mercy rather than justice?

 

[Ent]

and he gets a break? Have we not all fallen short? And do we all not ask for mercy rather than justice?

indeed, these are all potential consequences and results of our 'choice,' but of necessity must follow a 'choice.' They are not the action of choice itself..
And these too, we come down to the issue of 'respondibility.'
We are completely responsible for our 'choice' We are then equally completely responsible for the 'choices' we make following a wrong choice.
We move into the arena of two of the other 'elements of religion' Tolkien weaves through his work ,most especially Repentance. (The other is confession, but Tolkien has a tendency to leave confession out...and what 'confession' he does show is not properly a "Christian" confession... at least, not a 'biblical' one. It is a works-based confession, much more in line with religious thinking outside of Christian circles, though also found within them here and there..)

There's a massive chasm between the one who chooses to do a thing, then blames others refusing to take responsibility.... and the one who chooses to do a thing, but takes responsibility for his/her own error and action, admits it to be 'wrong' and solely his/her own wrong, then pleads for mercy rather than justice.

Which brings us to another of the elements of religion Tolkien included: forgiveness.

Saruman at orthanc was provided (through GAndalf) his last opportunity for repentance - a chance to 'come down', take responsibility, and repent. He again chose poorly. Thus, in the end, he received the justice due his ongoing wrong choices, rather than the forgiveness and mercy he might have received otherwise.

Again, though, all these 'elements' Tolkien chose to weave in cannot be attributed to "his own Christian/Catholic background"... as they are present in many 'religions' and 'myths' elsewhere as well. They are far from solely 'Christian.'

Thus, all the authors trying to "read into" Tolkien's work his own 'christian/catholic' background, are amiss, trying to form him into their mold, rather than taking from him his mold. He's just doing what he sad was essential to any myth... "including the elements of 'religion'' but not 'overt Christianity.' (@Olorgando, this relates to that other discussion again, and I'll not further point it out going forward. Hopefully what I"m trying to get at is becoming clearer. No one has to agree with me... but it's my current position nonetheless, certainly open to correction, though reading all these authors, I'm not finding a compelling need to yet.)

 

[Muskrat]

And, if you think about it, Frodo’s story is a string of failures. Sleeping beside a Barrow, puttng on the Ring at Weathertop, getting drunk or foolish at Bree- absurd, as Gandalf says. Going to Mordor alone when he does not know the way-madness. Taaking Gollum as a guide-foolish. Yet it worked out better than if Aragorn had taken the Ring. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio…

 

[Ent]

And, if you think about it, Frodo’s story is a string of failures.

moving us directly back again, of course, to Providence.
(I'll be writing a book about all this stuff... very soon now. I've an Appendix in a book soon to come out, dealing with 3 of the key 'elements' Tolkien incorporated... but only briefly. Bombadil is, of course, a classic example of Providence from beginning to end, as are each of the other events you've cited above.)

 

[Muskrat]

VERY Wise old ent. I can’t wait to read the book.