• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

"I put the fear of fire on him..."

Yes, the SIL is a bit of a thorny issue overall isn't it. I think I've always believed that as Tolkien had been working on the material of the SIL for so long (wasn't there some stuff that dates back to 1917?) that CT was basically just putting it into some knd of order. This may actually be wide of the mark, and I do think that the HoME series (though undoubtedly interesting) is more definitely the work of CT and not JRRT. Again, this is probably up for debate.

I really like the phrase my Middle Earth. I think this sums up what I've previously (and rather clumsily) referred to as a lot of Tolkien's writing giving itself to personal interpretation by the individual reader. There is enough leeway for an awful lot of differing (not necessarily contradictory) opinions by different readers. Which leads to a lot of really interesting debates!

In my Middle Earth Orcs are more interesting than Men or Elves (though Feanor and his lads are definitely worth reading up on!). They are also immortal, both because I can see textual evidence for this, and also because I really want them to be; this lets me think that old Tracker Orc scarpered off somewhere safe and is just lying low somewhere chillaxing. Maybe he met up with the errant Mumakil that Sam so coarsely calls an Oliphaunt, and became a kind of middle Earth Hannibal for a while...
 
Another possible side note here:
In 'The Council of Elrond' Aragorn tells of how he captured Gollum in the Dead Marshes:

'He will never love me, I fear; for he bit me, and I was not gentle. Nothing more did I ever get from his mouth than the marks of his teeth. I deemed it the worst part of all my journey, the road back, watching him day and night, making him walk before me with a halter on his neck,gagged, until he was tamed by lack of drink and food,driving him ever towards Mirkwood.'

Now the first part of this seems to me to be fairly straightforward. We know what a tough customer Gollum can be, as Sam and Frodo found out when they first encountered him in the Emyn Muil. Aragorn obviously had to overpower him quickly.
Even gagging him is a fairly obvious move, as Aragorn will have wanted to leave the area quickly and quietly. Leading him by the halter has an echo later on, with Gollum reacting violently to the elf-rope used on him by Sam and Frodo, so perhaps Aragorn was using rather more mundane equipment (or Tolkien hadn't introduced the idea of Gollum being so allegic to anything to do with the Elves?)

It's the latter part of the statement which interests me. Does Aragorn 'tame' Gollum by deliberately refusing him food and water, and would this constitute deliberate torture?
We know that Gollum can't abide Elvish food such as Lembas, which you would think Aragorn may be carrying on his person, but we know this only from the later chapters, plus he has no aversion to water.
Or does Tolkien simply mean that Gollum is 'tamed' by Aragorn having little sustenance himself to share?
 
So, you're discounting what Tolkien says about his own character because he never intended to publish it? 🤔 Anyway, again, that Gollum chose the path he did because of who he is. Boy, my head is starting to spin from all the circles in which this discussion is spinning 😵‍💫😉

Again, irrelevant, unless one contradicts the other. Do they, in your view? If that is the case, I'm very curious to see your argument along those lines. As i see it, the Ring doesn't cause Gollum to petulantly refuse the light. Gollum himself makes that conscious choice.

Yes, he ignores the wisdom because of his arrogance. Again, not commending Boromir's actions or demeanor. But his motives are noble, yes, absolutely. And, yes, the Ring would absolutely be worse in Boromir's hands than it ever was in Gollum's.

If Gollum was a born psychopath, then how is that different from saying he was born evil? I don't understand the distinction here.
Click to expand...
Psychopathy is a widely misunderstood condition. One who is born a psychopath is not necessarily going to commit criminal acts, but can certainly be influenced in that direction.
What Is a Psychopath? I'm probably painting with a broad brush here but I think the general idea is worth considering.

Didn't I say things could have turned ugly? 🤔 And you're missing the point about Frodo being in enemy territory, having had the Ring for 17 years, etc. And despite all that Frodo doesn't immediately jump to the conclusion that murders it the only way.

So, then, we cannot attribute evil acts solely to the Ring, if we can freely make such exceptions. And if you want to argue that Sam just wants the simple things in life, what does Gollum want? Apparently, to have the Ring. He seems content living under a mountain and eating orcs and cave fish.

Yes, poor innocent Gollum, just merrily going about his business when he is hit be a "thunderbolt of evil". I'm sorry, I don't see how you can have it both ways: that some are resistant and others aren't and still say "The Ring did it." Also, understandable? How is Sméagol's murder of Déagol understandable? 🫤

And, yet, it would have happened if not for Sam's suspicious remarks (and Sam's overall disposition towards him, neither of which justifies wickedness). It's Gollum who wouldn't allow the redemption. After Sam is, admittedly, a jerk to him, Gollum is all like, "Nope, I'm done with this good and love business. And I'm going to use Sam's behavior as justification for what I'm going to do next. And I'm going to punish Frodo even if it was just Sam being a jerk."

as I said before, I think the finale of the quest would have been hugely diminished if Frodo (or anyone else) was able to destroy the ring - it's simply too powerful.
Click to expand...
Yes, Tolkien said as much:
​
 
The version of The Silmarillion CT put out is his version of the legendarium. He picked and chose from the various versions to put together a coherent narrative, but all versions were written by his father. The History of Middle-earth cannot be considered more the work of CT than JRRT. It's material that been collected and organized by theme into a book series, again, written by JRRT, except for annotations by CT.
 
Last edited:

Let's take the early Fall of Gondolin, for example, as described by Christopher Tolkien in Unfinished Tales:

"There is no question, however, that that (most remarkable) narrative is not suitable for inclusion in this book. It is written in the extreme archaistic style that my father employed at that time, and it inevitably embodies conceptions out of keeping with the world of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion in its published form."​

That's putting it very briefly of course. I've emphasized "with the world" as, for notable example, there was a time in which JRRT's subcreated world contained the idea that Tol Eressea actually became England.

And generally speaking (and with a bit of hyperbole to press the point) one gets the impression that Tolkien could hardly put pen to paper without revising (updating, expanding, and so on).

The only complete "Silmarillion" Tolkien ever wrote is dated to 1930 (Qenta Noldorinwa). He began it over and over as the decades drove by, but in my opinion, never again came near to finishing it -- with respect to updating it after The Lord of the Rings was written and published (enter Galadriel). Generally speaking, the earlier chapters often saw the most updating.

And then there are grey areas where even Christopher Tolkien can't certainly know his father's "final" intent (ignoring for now what "final" might mean in this scenario). Also, there's an example concerning certain later Silmarillion chapters, amended here and there in the later 1950s, where Christopher Tolkien himself warns the reader that the emendations noted do not necessarily illustrate a fully considered revision, and he gives his reasons why.

Nor were ideas written in 1958 necessarily safe from further changes. The Silmarillion was fluid, and much of it could continue to be fluid, having not been published to a "once and future" readership.

TrackerOrc said:
This may actually be wide of the mark, and I do think that the HoME series (though undoubtedly interesting) is more definitely the work of CT and not JRRT. Again, this is probably up for debate.
Click to expand...

It's my view that the constructed Silmarillion, as well as the much later constructed Children of Húrin, were never intended as canon. They are "versions for readers" as I call them, and in my opinion, both constructed works succeed highly at being just that.

The History of Middle-Earth series is a different animal however, and gives Tolkien fans the external, textual evolution of the "Legendarium" (includes the Silmarillion), with a section devoted to The Lord of the Rings draft texts. Thus, in HME we have much of Tolkien's text as it actually stood, with lots of good background information from Christopher Tolkien.

CJRT even explains, with a measure of regret, his handling with respect to an invention of his (with help from Guy Kay) concerning The Fall of Doriath.

With HME, one can now compare TWT ("Tolkien Written Texts") to the 1977 constructed Silmarillion. We don't have every text or note that JRRT ever wrote (to make such a comparison) however, as CJRT's more detailed, personal History of the Silmarillion has not been made public.

Anyway, with publication a new scenario arises: even given that Tolkien decided to alter certain already published details for the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, now, any such tinkering would affect the art of world-building.


That is, of course, a fine way to use it

So just to (possibly) clarify what I meant above in the context of canon: my Silmarillion is built on my ideas of how "best" to incorporate (what I see as) draft texts into the author-published world. So in those cases, if I were chatting with someone, obviously we wouldn't be considering the same story, and simply interpreting it differently.

Also, my Silmarillion comes with an "advantage" (of a kind). I'm not Christopher Tolkien! I don't have
to play by the rules he appears to have set for himself, and (usually) followed. I don't have to make a version for readers, although sometimes I'll comment about how I'd incorporate a later idea within my imagined "published" version.

Basically, I'm making my own Silmarillion with imaginative ink, given that the author himself never published his version.

🐾
 
Last edited:
I'm discounting the letters in the sense of not giving them as much value; if we never read anything other than TH and LoTR then I personally think we have all we need about Gollum or any of the other characters. As I've said before, we don't know what criteria HC used to compile his list, we have no idea whether letters were excluded deliberately for one reason or other. We also have no idea how many letters have never been discovered. So on the one hand we have the complete published works, written over decades and sent out to the greatest number of readers possible, as opposed to a number of private letters which as far as we know where always intended to rremain private. To me it's just a question of balance - Gollum (or any other character) equals what is written about him in the published texts.

I'm not sure what you mean by Gollum 'petulantly refusing the light'. If it refers to the first time Gollum is exposed to the ring, then I can't see any petulance here.

I just can't make sense of Gollum killing Deagol without the ring having a tremendous, instant, affect on him. If you say that he was always going to do it as he was a basically bad person, then this takes away the power of the ring, which makes no sense to me - this is an artefact that the Wise are scared to even touch, whose destruction at the end of the book changes the world - how can this thing not be the prime mover in Gollum's actions?

I do acknowledge that the ring affects some people more than others, with Gollum being the most extreme example and perhaps Bilbo being the least. I do believe, however, that it will always affect people, in an evil sense, to a greater or lesser degree.

Boromir's actions, to my way of thinking, are not completely noble - there is a mixture here of the noble and the personal - it's telling that it's always about what he will do with the ring; setting yourself up as a great king? The rightful king of Gondor is Aragorn, as he well knows, so how is that noble? And this is completely understandable and makes Boromir a much more relatable character to me.

I'm afraid I still don't understand the difference between being a psychopath and being evil. If you are psychopathic, then don't you have to have done something to be identified as such? If Gollum doesn't do anything evil, then is he not evil? I think Gollum becomes someone who does evil things (because of the ring) so we would have to say he is evil. The action, to me, is the important thing.

So things 'turning ugly' would be because Sam keeps hold of the ring; the crucial point here is that he doesn't - he gives it back to Frodo. Can we honestly say that Frodo would not have attempted absolutely anything to get the ring back - and this goes to the point I've already made that Gollum is denied the ring, and this is the crucial factor to me.

To me, the base point is that Gollum is initially overwhelmed by the ring and reacts in an extraordinary manner. As I've said, the scene just doesn't make sense to me otherwise. He then uses the ring for 'crooked and malicious uses' as Gandalf says in 'The Shadow of the Past', and is then shunned and turns his back on the world to live under the Mountain. Once he is there he does remarkably little evil (apart from eating Orcs!) for centuries - and I'd say that this is because he doesn't always wear the ring, and he is comfortable because he has it in his possession. When it is taken from him is when things start getting ugly - so doesn't this suggest that the ring is the prime mover here?

I'm confused as to your point about the redemption arc. Are you saying that there was a specific moment where Gollum would have been redeemed if Sam hadn't made some nasty remarks to him? I'm not sure whereabouts this is in the text?

Now the letter you have quoted is really interesting to me. He says definitively that Frodo 'failed'. i think anyone reading the book would wholeheartedly agree with that statement.
He then goes on to say that it is possible that Frodo had little recollection of events after the ring was destroyed. This is almost as if he is discussing a character in someone else's work; there's no sense of him saying that this is exactly what Frodo did or didn't do, yet he is the author. It's as if he is still undecided about the events, or at least the interpretation of an event that he himself has created.
This is what I meant when I said that the letters could be seen as 'works in progress' (even though the letters are post-publication); if Tolkien is still using quantifiers such as 'possible' then I think this strengthens my claim that the text must be held as paramount.
 
I've always thought that the SIL was, as you say, JRRT's material basically put into a coherent order by CT.
However, I always thought that HoME was much more in the way of CT gathering masses of undeveloped material/first drafts/sketches and basically creating his own overarching narrative.
In the first work I believed that the editorial touch was extremely light, whereas in the second I thought that CT had a much more extensive role in creating the final narrative.
Good heavens! I may have been looking at this in completely the wrong way!
 
Just a quick technical question here guys,

I'm hopeless at the technicalities of posting, so could someone explain how I do multiple quotes in my replies to posts?
I mean that when I'm replying to multiple points in a post I'd like to highlight the points I'm talking about (if that makes sense!)
For instance, Radaghast highlights each individual point I make that he is discussing, whereas my replies don't, and this makes my relies rather difficult to follow I think
 
If you highlight the part of the text you want to quote, a 'reply' button should appear under it. When you click it, that highlighted portion will automatically appear in the text box where you're writing your reply.

Like this:

 
That seems to work for the first part of the text I quote - the highlight comes up blue and I get the reply button.
But when I highlight the second quote I want to talk about the highlight is white and I just get a cut copy paste list.
I have to warn everyone, I really am useless at this stuff!
 
Ah, I think I may have stumbled on an answer.
I've been clicking the reply button on the bottom of the post before doing anything else; I think I need to simply highlight each point individually as I go along.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!
 
Last edited:
I've always thought that the SIL was basically CT collating the material which JRRT had worked on, with the editorial touch being very light. As such I've regarded it as as near canon as makes no difference. There could be a lot of reconsidering going on!
Good heavens. I may actually have been treating the SIL and HoME completely the wrong way round. This is a very interesting development, to say the least.
 
TrackerOrc said:
Good heavens. I may actually have been treating the SIL and HoME completely the wrong way round.
Click to expand...

Christopher Tolkien's Foreword to The War of the Jewels contains some interesting stuff to chew on here. Of course, full context is always best, but for examples:

"In Part Two of this book it will be seen that in this later phase [later 1950s, generally speaking]
of his work the Quenta Silmarillion underwent scarcely any further significant rewriting or addition, other than the introduction of the new chapter Of the Coming of Men Into the West with the radically altered earlier history of the Edain in Beleriand; and that (the most remarkable fact in the whole history of the Silmarillion) the last chapters (the tale of Húrin and the Dragon-gold of Nargothrond, the Necklace of the Dwarves, the ruin of Doriath, the fall of Gondolin, the Kinslayings) remained in the form of the Quenta Noldorinwa of 1930 and were never touched again. Only some meagre hints are found in later writings."

1930! Galadriel didn't even exist yet!

Incidentally, Christopher here refers to the Quenta Silmarillion tradition of The Fall of Gondolin (the chapter intended for that account). Obviously, Tolkien turned again to the long prose tradition of The Fall of Gondolin after 1930, but again, and sadly, he didn't get very far.

Christopher goes on to say that the "Silmarillion" in the widest sense: "can only be defined in terms of its history; and that history is with this book largely completed (. . .) It is indeed the only completion possible, because it was always "in progress"; the published work is not in any way a completion, but a construction devised out of the existing materials. Those materials are now made available, save only in a few details and in the matter of Túrin just mentioned; and with them a criticism of the "constructed" Silmarillion becomes possible. I shall not enter into that question; although it will be apparent in this book that there are aspects of the work that I view with regret."

Anyway, I got to post something again before my nap.

Tar-Elenion said:
I can dream about reading those 2600 closely typed pages...
Click to expand...

Me too. I wonder, will it ever be made public?

I realize such a tome would not be for everyone; but well, for some of us, it might be too short!

 
Last edited:
But why assume HC has any criteria or agenda at all? And why assume there might be letters that say Gollum was just a misunderstood guy? 🤔

I'm not sure what you mean by Gollum 'petulantly refusing the light'. If it refers to the first time Gollum is exposed to the ring, then I can't see any petulance here.
Click to expand...
It's that scene on the stairs of Cirith Ungol where Gollum sees the two hobbits and almost repents of his wickedness and is ready to join the light. Then Sam wakes up and instinctively assumes the worst, thwarting Gollum's redemptions arc. But, as Tolkien wrote in a letter (not sure if I quoted it or not) it is "too easily withered." This is very telling (even if you may not wish to accept its validity based on it being from a letter).

I think the Ring certainly influenced Sméagol, but I don't think it possessed him to do it. I think the seed was already in him, just as the seed was in Boromir to act as he did on Amon Hen. Maybe Sméagol was always a bully and a jerk to Déagol (and maybe Déagol just took it, for lack of any other friends).

Yes, his noble intentions are already being twisted by the Ring. I never said the Ring didn't influence either Gollum or Boromir. Boromir's initial intentions are to save Gondor, but delusions of grandeur start creeping up on him quickly with the Ring so close and only a small person guarding it.

I encourage exploring the links I posted. Again, it's a very misunderstood condition. People hear the word psychopath and the next word association is "serial killer" or something. But it is not necessarily so; very much not, in fact. Psychopathy is merely a condition, it is not a predisposition to do evil things or a criminal record. A person can be a psychopath and live their entire life with the condition and not even know it.

No, and again I already conceded that something ugly might have occurred. Point is, it would have taken time, as opposed to Gollum's murder, in which he strangles his cousin from behind and with very little provocation. And note how quick Frodo is to show remorse at his behavior to Sam.

If we solely blame the Ring for Sméagol's actions then we have to wonder why it didn't compel Isildur, Bilbo, Frodo and Sam to do the same. Heck, let's throw Déagol in there while we're at it? If the Ring was so overwhelmingly influential, Déagol should have been compelled to attack Sméagol when the latter demands the Ring, shouldn't he? But it those others can readily resist the Ring's ability to influence people to commit murder, then doesn't that make Gollum the exception and not the rule?

Yes, exactly. I remarked on this earlier in the post but will expound on it here. It's in the chapter "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol". Gollum finds the hobbits sleeping and he looks at them, then, "a spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate." Then he touches Frodo's knee, causing the hobbit to cry out softly, which causes the other hobbit to wake up and act accusingly towards Gollum.
​
It's that bit when that "green glint" ominously shows in his eyes where Gollum makes the decision to shun the light for good. Sam was definitely rough here. However, he tries to smooth things over, but it's too late.

Hm... I don't get that impression at all. If the possibility exists that Frodo had no recollection of that incident in Mount Doom, that's perfectly understandable, given all Frodo had gone through to that point. And it doesn't really bear on the story as a whole.

​
 

If you do a hard return after the part you want to reply to, it will separate that part and create a new quote underneath, like so:
Click to expand...
It will do this every time you press Enter after quoted text. I only have the initial quote labelling who the author is. I copy and paste subsequent parts I want to quote separately so they won't be labelled, as I don't think it's necessary and looks a bit cluttered to my eye, but that's just me.
 
Radaghast said:
But why assume HC has any criteria or agenda at all? And why assume there might be letters that say Gollum was just a misunderstood guy? 🤔
Click to expand...
I'm not assuming this to be the case, I'm basically just saying that the letters are, at best, an incomplete record, as opposed to the final, complete text. I'm actually convinced that HC has done a very good job - his biography of Tolkien was really good, I think. But we are still left with the fact that there could be material out there which hasn't been examined, for one reason or another.
Ah, I'm with you. It's a beautifully presented scene. To me it shows what the ring has done to Gollum over all those centuries, leaving him 'an old starved pitiable thing'. I believe that the ring was simply too powerful for a redemption arc to be really believable; having said that, the scene really does lend itself to that reading doesn't it? This, to me, is an example of the breadth of Tolkien's work allowing individual interpretation.
I do accept that the letter is valid, with the limitations I mentioned above; to me the text is the gold standard and other material has to be secondary.
But the text, which to me is all important, gives no indication of Smeagol being a bully or a jerk - he's described as inquisitive and curious-minded, which to me are positive traits; he then commits murder - a shocking act which I think can't be explained just as the influence of the ring - it's too extreme for that, I think.
Radaghast said:
Psychopathy is merely a condition, it is not a predisposition to do evil things or a criminal record. A person can be a psychopath and live their entire life with the condition and not even know it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I read your link, and I agree that psychopathy is much more complicated an issue than I gave it credit for; I was wrongly using psychopathy and evil almost interchangably as a kind of shorthand which is simply not the case.
To my mind, the 'something ugly' may have been Frodo trying to kill Sam to get the ring back; I don't understand how it would have taken time - I believe that if Sam kept the ring longer than he had, then Frodo would have acted there and then.
I don't think Gollum strangles Deagol from behind, as you have emphasised - he comes up behind him, and starts talking, but he catches Deagol by the throat, so doesn't this mean he must be standing in front of him by now?
Frodo does indeed show remorse, as does Boromir; and so does Gollum - Gandalf tells us in 'The Shadow of the Past' that the murder of Deagol haunted Gollum which is why he makes up the satory of the ring being his birthday present.
Because everyone you mention has possession of the ring and Gollum doesn't. If Deagol gave Gollum the ring, then he may not have acted in a bad way at all?
Deagol may well have attacked Gollum if Gollum hadn't attacked him almost instantly; this is another area where personal interpretation comes into play.
I've previously said that I believe Gollum to be the most extreme example of what the ring can do to someone, so in a sense you could say that he is almost the exception and not the rule.
My point was that it almost seems as if Tolkien was discussing the work of another author (much as we are doing now!). He is the author yet talks about whether Frodo did or didn't do something; the text is set in stone as it were, so to me the letter (however interesting) is of secondary value. To me it doesn't bear on the story in any way, as it isn't in the story that the text actually tells.
 
I'm so useless at this stuff that I'm just happy to be able to do the multiple quote thing even if it is cluttered!
The copy and paste thing might be the next step.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Similar threads

  • Poll
Did 🧙Gandalf torture Gollum with fire?
Replies
0
Views
1K
Radaghast
The Eyes of Tolkien
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Eljorahir
Was 👁️Sauron Afraid of Smeagol?
Replies
9
Views
6K
d4rk3lf
D
The Eru-as-Audience Symphony Theory
Replies
9
Views
1K
AaronAzrael
Your top favorite Tolkien Middle earth stories.
Replies
7
Views
4K
Starbrow
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…