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

[BalrogRingDestroyer]

He's definitely not hero and he doesn't really fit anti-hero (that would be more Boromir (and, to a degree, his father), Thorin Oakenshield, and Túrin), but doesn't seem to fit the villain role of pretty much being all bad and no good (even Bill Ferney seems more of a true villain than Gollum, despite Gollum having done horrible things, Gollum also was instrumental, even voluntarily, of helping to destroy the Ring.). He seems to share some qualities of Feanor and his sons, who seem to fit anti-villain role (Feanor seems almost to border upon villain, if not for the fact that, while he wasn't ever allied with either Sauron or Melkor, his actions are probably the biggest factor in the downfall of the Noldor and he was horrible even to his own fellow elves and own family, and his greedy desire and actions to get his Precious Simarils back make Gollum's actions seem puny by comparison.))

 

[Ent]

even voluntarily

Not sure we can conclude there was anything 'voluntary' about Gollum's part in the destruction of the ring. He was, it seems, all about possession of the ring.

"Labels" are difficult. Is Gollum a 'Villain"?
Definitions: (From Oxford, Cambridge, Webster, Collins)
- "a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot."
- "a character in a story or play who opposes the hero"
- "a deliberate scoundrel or criminal"
- "one blamed for a particular evil or difficulty"
- "a character in a book, play, movie, etc. who harms other people"
- "a bad person who harms other people or breaks the law:"
- "someone who deliberately harms other people or breaks the law in order to get what he or she wants."
- "in a novel, movie, or play is the main bad character."

Gollum started his 'badness' with murder. It's true he was worked on by the ring... but it happened VERY quickly, and remember the ring's power and speed in 'working on an individual' is in part based on that individual's basic moral character to begin with. (As stated in the Hobbits' ability to resist the ring.) Now Gollum was a 'hobbit of old'... but clearly not one of the more 'moral' ones.

Was he a 'villain' ? Well, what's your definition? Did he do evil actions or have motives important to the plot? Does he oppose the hero? is he a deliberate scoundrel or criminal? Does he harm, or intend harm to, other people to get what he wants?

He's certainly not the 'main bad character' so that definition is in the trash can.
As to the rest, he does fit the definition of a 'villain' in my view.

There are those who want to say he's just a 'victim of circumstances'. This of course eliminates all need for responsibility for one's own choices. It took him no time at all to choose to murder Deagol. He was fundamentally a selfish, greedy individual the ring was very happy to locate.

So for Ent, yes he's a bit of a villain.

Anti-villain? Definition: "a character with heroic goals, personality traits, and/or virtues who is ultimately the villain."
No way.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

Not sure if villain or not but the story of him on his birthday demanding the Ring from Déagol reminded me of a spoiled child, "It's mine, I want it now." The Ring just brought that out of him and manifested it to the point that it could work with.

And I think it was Gandalf that said Smeagol did Déagol a favor, otherwise it would have been him hiding out in a cave all those years.

Also from another TTF post, I found this quote from Tolkien's letters regarding Smeagol:

from The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, 181 To Michael Straight [drafts]
[Before writing a review of The Lord of the Rings, Michael Straight, the editor of New Republic, wrote to Tolkien asking a number of questions: first, whether there was a 'meaning' in Gollum's rôle in the story and in Frodo's moral failure at the climax; second, whether the 'Scouring of the Shire' chapter was directed especially to contemporary England; and third, why the other voyagers should depart from the Grey Havens with Frodo at the end of the book – 'Is it for the same reason that there are those who gain in the victory but cannot enjoy it?']
[Not dated; probably January or February 1956.]

The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean son of thief before it crossed his path. Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths? A kind of answer cd. be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different!

 

[Eljorahir]

Anti-villain? I think: No.
However, if Merriam-Webster's definition of antihero is correct, surprisingly I think Gollum seems to qualify.

antihero: a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities

I wouldn't call Gollum a protagonist, but he's certainly a notable figure. And the rest of the definition is a perfect fit.

Edit: Upon further consideration: That definition can't be right because then almost every villain would meet the definition of "antihero".

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I wouldn't call Gollum a protagonist

Everyone is the "protagonist" of his own story. 😉

For anti-hero, I find Northop Frye's fictional modes useful, where a character is classified by his power of action:

If inferior in power or intelligence to ourselves, so that we have the sense of looking down on a scene of bondage, frustration, or absurdity, the hero belongs in the ironic mode. This is still true when the reader feels that he is or might be in the same situation, as the situation is being judged by the norms of a greater freedom.

The ironic mode of literature came into its own in the 20th century (earlier in French literature), where we find dingy characters caught up in hopeless or tragic circumstances not necessarily of their making, and seemingly chosen at random. Think of Kafka's characters, for example.

Of course, Gollum acts villainously, but was his murder of Deagol prompted by his own character, or through the influence of the Ring? This is one of the "either it or he himself " moments of ambiguity Tolkien was so fond of.

By the way, the anti-villain definition cited by Ent would fit Sauron, at least after the fall of Morgoth.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

anti-hero (that would be more Boromir (and, to a degree, his father), Thorin Oakenshield, and Túrin)

Yow! None of those are "anti-heroes", by any definition I know of. 😳

 

[Eljorahir]

By the way, the anti-villain definition cited by Ent would fit Sauron, at least after the fall of Morgoth.

Are you sure you weren't looking at Ent's "villain" definition?

Otherwise, applying Ent's anti-villain definition, Sauron would be...
"a character with heroic goals, personality traits, and/or virtues who is ultimately the villain."?

For this to be true I think Sauron's desire for domination of Middle-earth would have to be a "heroic goal". Isn't this simply a villainous goal?

 

[Ent]

For this to be true I think Sauron's desire for domination of Middle-earth would have to be a "heroic goal". Isn't this simply a villainous goal?

And I can certainly find no 'heroic VIRTUES' in him.

Virtue: definition: behavior showing high moral standards.

 

[Deimos]

And I can certainly find no 'heroic VIRTUES' in him.

Virtue: definition: behavior showing high moral standards.

Well there's "perseverance"... isn't that a virtue?
Sauron definitely displayed perseverance... (probably learned it from Morgoth...)

 

[Eljorahir]

Well there's "perseverance"... isn't that a virtue?
Sauron definitely displayed perseverance... (probably learned it from Morgoth...)

I suppose one could persevere in an endeavor exhibiting high moral standards or in an endeavor exhibiting low moral standards.

Both would be perseverance, but only one would be virtuous, applying Ent's definition.

Therefore, perseverance is not necessarily virtuous, IMO.

 

[Ent]

(probably learned it from Morgoth...

And it's highly unlikely Sauron learned 'perseverance' from Morgoth, whose hatred drove him so hard he was downright hasty and without a good deal of foresight, pouring all his effort into immediate control, including of the earth itself. (His own "One Ring"... )

Thus Tolkien writes Sauron, in the 2nd and 3rd ages, was actually 'greater' tham Morgoth, accomplishing far more because of his patience and foresight, not expending himself in the same ways Morgoth did. In other words, maybe in original 'raw power' Sauron came behind Melkor, but Sauron was 'far more effective' than Morgoth ever was.

Anyway, I see 'perseverance' more as a characteristic than a virtue, bent toward bad choices (evil) or good choices (good) based on the virtue of the 'employer of the characteristic' in their endeavors.

 

[Deimos]

And it's highly unlikely Sauron learned 'perseverance' from Morgoth, whose hatred drove him so hard he was downright hasty and without a good deal of foresight, pouring all his effort into immediate control, including of the earth itself. (His own "One Ring"... )

Thus Tolkien writes Sauron, in the 2nd and 3rd ages, was actually 'greater' tham Morgoth, accomplishing far more because of his patience and foresight, not expending himself in the same ways Morgoth did. In other words, maybe in original 'raw power' Sauron came behind Melkor, but Sauron was 'far more effective' than Morgoth ever was.

Anyway, I see 'perseverance' more as a characteristic than a virtue, bent toward bad choices (evil) or good choices (good) based on the virtue of the 'employer of the characteristic' in their endeavors.

Patience is a virtue.
Also perseverance is normally requires patience, because perseverance is used (typically) for a long range goal.
Also perseverance would normally require foresight, else how would you know if you are making progress?
And finally, finally, relative my original post (and even now) did neither of you see that my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek?
Good heavens... subtle humour seems to have been a casualty in the arena of "serious discussion".

 

[Ent]

subtle humour seems to have been a casualty in the arena of "serious discussion".

My dear Deimos...
Almost a year and a half has Ent been here, and he always the same has been.
At any time, has 'subtle humor' of him been seen as a medium received and understood?

Easier for an eagle to fly a ring to Mt. Doom it is, than Ent to 'subtle' discern.
And in digital mode, hard to see is a tongue in one's cheek stuck.

For Ent, not 'subtle' but 'hidden' it is.

(p.s. - I would respond to yours above, as gaping holes there are....but as humor sits at the bottom, need to deal with the top there is not.)

 

[Deimos]

My dear Deimos...
Almost a year and a half has Ent been here, and he always the same has been.
At any time, has 'subtle humor' of him been seen as a medium received and understood?

Easier for an eagle to fly a ring to Mt. Doom it is, than Ent to 'subtle' discern.
And in digital mode, hard to see is a tongue in one's cheek stuck.

For Ent, not 'subtle' but 'hidden' it is.

(p.s. - I would respond to yours above, as gaping holes there are....but as humor sits at the bottom, need to deal with the top there is not.)

Wow. I'll bet you're the life of the party 🙄 (jk 😄)

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

He's definitely not hero and he doesn't really fit anti-hero (that would be more Boromir (and, to a degree, his father), Thorin Oakenshield, and Túrin), but doesn't seem to fit the villain role of pretty much being all bad and no good (even Bill Ferney seems more of a true villain than Gollum, despite Gollum having done horrible things, Gollum also was instrumental, even voluntarily, of helping to destroy the Ring.). He seems to share some qualities of Feanor and his sons, who seem to fit anti-villain role (Feanor seems almost to border upon villain, if not for the fact that, while he wasn't ever allied with either Sauron or Melkor, his actions are probably the biggest factor in the downfall of the Noldor and he was horrible even to his own fellow elves and own family, and his greedy desire and actions to get his Precious Simarils back make Gollum's actions seem puny by comparison.))

I mean, Gollum ATE babies. Literally human children if Gandalf's off the cuff implication to Frodo in Fellowship of the Ring is anything to go by.


CL

 

[Ent]

OF GOLLUM:

If under covers children are, and dead of night it be,
then there our Gollum may be found...a snack it is he see.

His mind is not his own you see, the One Ring it did bake,
while over years and centuries it used him for its sake.

But never free of evil was the mind our Gollum had,
he ever leaned toward wickedness, making his people sad.

The Ring just knew he was a tool so ready to be used,
so bent his wickedness the more, 'til others he abused.

His people tossed him out in time, he fled to Mountain's gloom,
there to await the unfolding of his ultimate doom.

The ring left him and went elsewhere, to find its way back home
But Gollum could not leave the ring; to find it he did roam.

In the end our Gollum did at last regain his prize,
a small and base thing of the world, used ending counsels wise.

For when again the only thing he cared for in the world
was back in hand both he and it into Mt. Doom were hurled.

It came to him through murder, death and selfishness extreme.
His own death was the price he paid, its owning just a dream.

Yet this and everything we see was planned for from the start,
as Eru called To Be those things the Music did impart.

The great and small of Middle-earth can only dimly see,
and never know just what or how their part turns out to be.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Are you sure you weren't looking at Ent's "villain" definition?

Otherwise, applying Ent's anti-villain definition, Sauron would be...
"a character with heroic goals, personality traits, and/or virtues who is ultimately the villain."?

For this to be true I think Sauron's desire for domination of Middle-earth would have to be a "heroic goal". Isn't this simply a villainous goal?

I had in mind this, from "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age":

When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eonwe, the herald of Manwe, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented . . .

Tolkien discussed this idea in several of his letters, for example in No. 153:

Sauron was of course not 'evil' in origin. He was a 'spirit' corrupted by by the Prime Dark Lord (the Prime sub-creative Rebel) Morgoth. He was given an opportunity of repentance, when Morgoth was overcome, but could not face the humiliation of recantation, and suing for pardon; and so his temporary turn to good and 'benevolence' ended in a greater relapse . . .

And he described the process in Letter 183:

He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the earth.

So, the "heroic goals" part of the definition Ent provided seems to me to describe at least Sauron's initial impulse; "virtues" is certainly debatable, and of course the last part is definitely true.

"Anti-villain" was a term new to me, and seems to have originated among screenwriters, as a kind of play on, or counterpart of, "anti-hero". I suppose it could be a useful idea, although I have a feeling some may confuse the two. I guess it could justifiably be applied to a character like Lord Jim, who tried to be a hero, but ended up making a mess of things.

 

[Olorgando]

As to perseverance, there's the concept of "secondary virtues" ("Sekundärtugenden" in German). Punctuality, orderliness, perseverance etc. To use a modern term, they are "dual-use", it depends toward what goal, in what service they are directed. In a discussion some decades ago one participant pointed out that these "secondary virtues" can be used to run a concentration camp. Could have said that they were used to run at least some of them - in the service of mass murder.

 

[Ent]

Virtues: Definitions (again from various)...
- behavior showing high moral standards.
- conformity to a standard of right
- a particular moral excellence
- a good moral quality in a person, or the general quality of being morally good:

"Secondary Virtues" Ent has never held to.
yes, things like 'perseverance" etc. are included in them. But these are not 'virtues', but rather traits or characteristics.

All can be applied either for 'high moral standards' or for 'base uses'.

A "Virtue" is explicitly 'high moral standard or 'right'.

Of course... Man strives even to change the definition of 'right' and 'morality' until it becomes 'whatever I think is best at any given moment for myself'... as 'there is no real 'right' or 'wrong'. The objective of secularism.
(no names, political factions, countries, types of government etc. specifically singled out here... everyone and every one is guilty as sin.)

Thus I don't hold to 'perseverance' as a virtue... and many other things. Sauron definitely persevered. Melkor persevered to the extent his hatred allowed, though it eventually consumed him. Neither was in no way virtuous.

 

[herlig9]

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.