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

[Radaghast]

There seems to be a belief among some book fans that the quote in the title means Gandalf actually burned Gollum. The full sentence:

‘I endured him as long as I could, but the truth was desperately important, and in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him, and wrung the true story out of him, bit by bit, together with much snivelling and snarling.

I got into a debate with someone at Quora over this. I argued that Gandalf would not necessarily have had to burn Gollum to get information out of him, that the fear of fire would not necessitate inflicting it on Gollum. But I thought I'd bring the question to this board and see what people here think. Gandalf's statement is rather open-ended. I personally don't believe Gandalf would resort to physical torture, though.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

See some of @YayGollum 's comments about "Evil Torturer Gandalf".

 

[Radaghast]

See some of @YayGollum 's comments about "Evil Torturer Gandalf".

Yeah, I'll get right on that 😜

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

You can just do a search for "Evil Torturer Gandalf", e.g.

Post in thread 'One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them...' https://thetolkien.forum/threads/one-ring-to-rule-them-all-one-ring-to-find-them.19209/post-486626

 

[Radaghast]

You can just do a search for "Evil Torturer Gandalf", e.g.

Post in thread 'One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them...' https://thetolkien.forum/threads/one-ring-to-rule-them-all-one-ring-to-find-them.19209/post-486626

Hm... haven't found much so far. I found one post with this poster using that term but it's hardly an argument. Also, he decries Gandalf for what he perceives as torture but "yays" 'evil murderer Gollum'. Weird 🫤

 

[Maedhros_Nelyafinwë]

I don't have an arsenal of text to back up my opinion, but to me, "the fear of fire" sounds like it could be a figure of speech, and not necessarily literal. That's just my first impression based on how the language is used. Gandalf might not have even threatened Gollum with literal fire. He could have intimidated him with other means.

 

[Radaghast]

I wonder if it's too late to make this a poll.

 

[Radaghast]

Gandalf might not have even threatened Gollum with literal fire. He could have intimidated him with other means.

Excellent point.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

I wonder if it's too late to make this a poll.

It is. But if you make a separate post as a poll, we can then merge this post into that one so the poll is included and then rename it back to this title or whatever you want.

 

[Radaghast]

It is. But if you make a separate post as a poll, we can then merge this post into that one so the poll is included and then rename it back to this title or whatever you want.

Cool—Thanks!

Now... how do I create a poll? Thought I saw an option for it, now I don't 😕

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

I think we actually took the poll option out of the book forums because too many polls that weren't really polls were being made like "how many battles happened during the first age..." that shouldn't be a poll, it should b a question that people answer. So I'd say to make it a poll, you can do that in the Hall of Fire, which is still a deep dive into Tolkien books.

 

[Radaghast]

I see—thank you.

 

[Eljorahir]

I looked back at some of YayGollum's posts. They were quite entertaining. Anyway...

Gandalf does have a habit of threatening people with fire, but I'm sure he would never really burn anyone (well, except for those two times involving wolves attacking. Oh yeah, and that one time where he burned a bunch of goblins with sparks after breaking into their cave. Oh, and he never actually burned our friendly innkeeper, but there was a threat in writing regarding late mail delivery: 'I hope Butterbur sends this promptly...If he forgets I shall roast him.')
And look at what he did to these innocent hobbitses:

 

[Eljorahir]

I did my best to channel YayGollum in the previous post.

Eljorahir's answer:
Nope. I don't think Gandalf actually burned Gollum nor would he have done so.

 

[Radaghast]

Here's a post from the no doubt erudite YayGollum:

Sure, I know that Smeagol was honest every now and then, but it seems to me to be that Gollum was the more aggressive and evil and around in negative type situations type of personality. Who's more honest? Smeagol or Gollum?

Anyways, sure, it makes sense that you'd trust the evil torturer Gandalf over Gollum, but the evil torturer got the information from Gollum, so it all comes down to trusting Gollum in the end.

Also, yes, of course the evil torturer Gandalf evilly tortured poor Smeagol! That's somewhere in The Fellowship Of The Ring. He evilly tortured the poor guy with fire.

Yeah. I'm convinced😶

 

[Radaghast]

I found a PDF article that argues that Gandalf did torture Gandalf. I'm hesitant to link a PDF here (plus it makes comparisons of the sort disallowed on this site) so I will just quote the most relevant part (and the citation in case anyone wants to look for the article):

...there can be little doubt that Gandalf tortured Gollum. By his own admission he intentionally inflicted “severe pain or suffering” to “obtain[ ] from [Gollum] information or a confession.” Although Tolkien glides over the details of what actually happened inside Gollum’s prison cell, Gandalf’s own choice of words — “fear of fire,” “harsh,” “wrung the true story out of him,” “bit by bit,” “sniveling and snarling” — make a compelling case. Indeed, when Gandalf described his interrogation of Gollum to Frodo and the Council he likely minimised the severity of his treatment his captive, both out of self-interest and because there were more pressing matters on the Council’s agenda.

• "Gandalf as Torturer" - Adam Rosman

Sorry, none of this is hard evidence that Gandalf tortured Gollum. "Fear of fire" may be no more than an expression. One can be verbally or psychologically "harsh". That Gandalf had to wring the story out of Gollum "bit by bit" is on Gollum, not Gandalf. As for "snivelling and snarling" Gollum did that when Frodo and Sam tied him with elven rope. Evidently, it does not take much to distress Gollum.

I suppose we could argue that Frodo tortures Gollum here to get what he wants, except here we actually even witness physical contact, between rope and Gollum. And it could perhaps be argued that whereas Gandalf had to get what he needed "bit by bit" Frodo gets almost immediate results. This might suggest that Gandalf was less harsh than his words suggested.

Also, when does Gandalf ever admit he inflicted "severe pain and suffering" upon Gollum. I could find no such quote. And what's this nonsense about "self-interest"?

 

[TrackerOrc]

As always with Tolkien, I think the language here is important: 'I put the fear of fire on him'. (my italics)
This, to me, strongly suggests a literal reading of the line - if he meant that there was actually a physical element to the act he would have said so.
But, of course, that always leaves the option of whether psychological torture can be just as harmful as a physical act of violence?

 

[Deimos]

Let us not forget that Gandalf is a Maia, an angel (for lack of a better word).
Whatever he did, he answers only to Eru, or a delegated representative.
He may well have been permitted to scare the bejeebers out of Gollum as well as apply some mild physical persuasion.
Also Gollum's nearly thorough corruption, freely decided upon when he initially murdered Deagol, carries within its own penalty, which could have been (among other afflictions) a heightened sensitivity to physical discomfort.

Something else to consider:
In English there is an expression, with variations : "To put the fear of God/hell" in someone, which means to frighten someone very badly with any kind of threat, and not only physical. It could be threat of banishment, threat of separation from family or tribe.
Tolkien may have wanted to avoid using the word "God" and likewise "Hell" because of their common usage in our world, so he used "fire " instead.
(Just a surmise....)

 

[TrackerOrc]

Let us not forget that Gandalf is a Maia, an angel (for lack of a better word).
Whatever he did, he answers only to Eru, or a delegated representative.
He may well have been permitted to scare the bejeebers out of Gollum as well as apply some mild physical persuasion.
Also Gollum's nearly thorough corruption, freely decided upon when he initially murdered Deagol, carries within its own penalty, which could have been (among other afflictions) a heightened sensitivity to physical discomfort.

Something else to consider:
In English there is an expression, with variations : "To put the fear of God/hell" in someone, which means to frighten someone very badly with any kind of threat, and not only physical. It could be threat of banishment, threat of separation from family or tribe.
Tolkien may have wanted to avoid using the word "God" and likewise "Hell" because of their common usage in our world, so he used "fire " instead.
(Just a surmise....)

I think you're being a tad harsh on poor old Gollum there Deimos.
He's out fishing with his best friend and two minutes later he's zapped with the full force of a ring so malevolent and powerful that Gandalf (as you say, basically an angel), or the most powerful of the Elves left standing won't touch it with a bargepole.
Poor little fellow never stood a chance!

 

[Deimos]

I think you're being a tad harsh on poor old Gollum there Deimos.
He's out fishing with his best friend and two minutes later he's zapped with the full force of a ring so malevolent and powerful that Gandalf (as you say, basically an angel), or the most powerful of the Elves left standing won't touch it with a bargepole.
Poor little fellow never stood a chance!

I most respectfully disagree....
The ring enhanced the more dominant character traits the wearer already had.
Gollum (I will posit) already possessed mostly a "not very nice" character. The Ring brought all his worse traits to the fore.
Cf. Boromir ... just knowing about the Ring AND being in close proximity to it brought all his ambition of his character (zeal for Gondor's fame but also for himself) to the fore.
When Sam donned Ring after he thought Frodo had died (at Cirith Ungol) he had visions of himself striding though the thoroughly desolate Mordor making a garden of it.
Cf. Frodo a very decent "the best of Hobbits" in donning the Ring never did evil with it. Even in his deception of Gollum to trick him into being captured by Faramir's men, he deeply regretted that the deception was necessary to save Gollum's life. That is, despite having worn the Ring several times, he did not become evil, because he wasn't of bad character to begin with.
WHich is exactly what Gandalf meant when he said the Ring did little damage to Bilbo because he began his ownership of it with an act of mercy in sparing Gollum's life even as he knew Gollum would kill him the first chance he got.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it 😉