Gollum or Golem
 

Today in my class Making Monsters (indeed an awesome course), we learned about the golem and its background. During our discussion, a student came up with an interesting question: Is there any connection between the golem and Tolkien's Gollum?

Now at first glance, it doesn't seem that the two would have anything in common. After all, the golem is "an animated being created entirely from inanimate matter." It is brainless and cannot speak. And of course, we all know Gollum was never made from mud or clay, and he definitely had plenty to say. Yet, there is a connection. As my professor commented: Tolkien was a scholar, so he was aware of the meaning of the word golem. So, he must have had a reason behind of the choice of the name Gollum.

Smeagol may not have any connection, but looking at it closely, I can see the similarities in Gollum. Like the golem, Gollum has no will of his own. He is enslaved to the power of the Ring. Also, as Smeagol transforms into Gollum his form takes that of a creature, or as some may describe, a monster. While in this form, Gollum may not be slow and clumsy, his appearance certainly reflects the impact the Ring has on him - another idea that can be connected to the golem.

Anyways, I was just curious on what everyone's thoughts are on this. The golem is an interesting creature, as is Gollum, and some may know more about it then others (and I'm sure there are plenty who know more about it than I do). What other elements of the golem do you see in Gollum, if any?

For reference:
The Golem on Wikipedia.
An article that compares the golem and Gollum.

Gollum cannot speak for its self, for the most part, too. The monster he has become with no free will is really similar to a golem. I never thought about that before!

By the way, where is this course you are taking? It sounds fun.

Gollum appears pretty capable to speak. There is no instance I know where he tries to speak and isn't capable.

Robot Gollums from beyond the web
 

That article looked pretty thin on research and evidence to me: it seemed mainly to be based on the similarity between the words 'Gollum' and 'golem', which only look alike when written.

Tolkien was once obliged to correct a Mr. Rang, who wrote to him with a number of amateurish philological observations about names in LR, most of which had a similar basis. One of those was a suggestion that Moria was in some way related to the biblical Land of Morīah, Tolkien's comments on which may be found in an old thread about the subject. Tolkien's main point was that a mere similarity of appearance, or even sound, was not a sign that a name was intended to have a meaning in a real-world language.

In the case of Gollum and golem, though, we are faced with the additional inaccuracy that the name 'Gollum' dates back to the composition of The Hobbit in the mid 1930s, whereas the conception that the character had been corrupted by the One Ring did not arise until Tolkien was working on LR. The relationship that this article assumes between the names relies on a connection that Tolkien cannot possibly have made. Sméagol, on the other hand, is derived from Old English smeáh, smeóh, which has two meanings that both apply to Gollum/Sméagol: 'creeping in, penetrating' and 'subtle, crafty'. Since this name was chosen during the writing of LR, it is much more likely that Tolkien chose the name based on those meanings.

From the above example we can see something of how Tolkien used words from real languages. Normally in his works names fit their owners very closely, without ambiguity or loose ends. Mere similarity of sound doesn't mean that Tolkien meant there to be a connection, so we should be very careful with situations where one seems to have been made.

I'm not really sure if Gollum could be classified as a monster either...I've never really understood how the 'artists' got their visions for Smeagol/Gollum.

In The Hobbit Gollum has pants (or at least some form of clothing with pockets)...where the idea that he had a small loincloth came from I don't know. But a lot of 'reputable' artists (Alan Lee, Hildebrandt, Nasmith...etc) depict Gollum as only having a loincloth.

Also Gollum must of had quite a bit of hair considering in Emyn Muil Frodo pulled Gollum up by the 'lank of his hair.' Yet most artists depict Gollum as bald or nearly bald.

I'm sure he was malnutritioned from food and lack of sunlight. Also Gandalf says he was a 'gangle' creature...or someone that walks/moves awkwardly. I'm pretty sure we're also told he had few teeth. But I don't know if 'monster' is a good word for describing Gollum. Afterall Gandalf and Frodo found Pity for him...and as Gandalf remarks once he got out of his 'hiding hole' he 'grew stronger and bolder' because of the new air and new food.

Anyway, onto Golems...I think the Orcs would fit much better under 'golems.' They were slaves (and called ant-like) under the domination of Morgoth and Sauron. In Tolkien's earliest writings Morgoth made the Orcs out of rocks and clay (very golem-esque)...though he would scrap that idea. Still I think the Orcs are the best fit. And even the Orcs had a free will, though it seemed to be a rare occurance...the Orcs could beg and plead for mercy, and Shagrat and Gorbag's conversation is quite revealing towards the ability of Orcs to have a free will.

I would say Gollum certainly does have a free will...though he was under strong influence of the Ring, his redemption was still possible...and he was almost redeemed. I also disagree with the author of the article you link to, saying Gollum 'in the end destroys himself.' As Tolkien tells us several times Eru intervened and caused the Ring's destruction (hence causing Gollum's fall).

Eventhough if I disagree, a very intriguing thread that can get some good discussion going. Also, so far I think the whole Golem/Gollum thing is a bit vague. There's some vague statements like 'Gollum had no free will' and 'Gollum is very similar to Golem,' therefor Gollum is like a Golem. These may be true if you can expand and show some examples. But often with large and vague statements you will find a loose connection, but dig a bit deeper and you realize there really is no connection there.

Edit:

After a kind tap on the shoulder...I botched this one a bit. Gandalf actually refers to Gollum as a 'gangrel' creature; and I'll just give you the explanation I received:

I'd second Boro. I think actually Gollum and Golem is very, very improbable to have any connection. I never thought of Gollum not having free will: actually, he has pretty lot of free will. And the Ring... even the Ring didn't totally enslave him. No, certainly not. The Nazgul have no free will, for example ("they have no other will than his own"). But Gollum?
Nothing more, nothing less. It has became almost unbearable for him - but he still remained himself.

I have always imagined the Trolls possibly more like Golem. No free will, made of stone... the Orcs, exactly as you said about Gorbag and Shagrat, seem to (at least in the final revision) have free will. But I know, I know, there are other topics about it...

Making Monsters?
Do you by any chance study at Hogwarts? :D
As far as your question is concerned, I too doubt there is a connection.
I would personally rather see the Silent Watchers at the entrance to Cirith Ungol as golem-like creatures.
They were made of inanimate substance, and they also seem to have no wills of their own, other then to do their job and keep any intruders out. Also, as golems, they never speak.
As far as Gollum is concerned, I guess Legate and Boromir have already explained it very well.

Coincidentally I read something in Shippey's "Road to Middle Earth" which suggests something rather like this as a solution to the "problem of orcs" which Tolkien didn't quite grasp despite having gathered the pieces.

As for Golems - I came across a short story called The Golem in an anthology while researching my dissertation. I pounced on it because of the Tolkien links (it wasn't too relevant to my main man Maupassant ...) and was naturally somewaht disappointed to find that despite being genuinely creepy it had no evident connection to the slinking Smeagol.

I do think it interesting though that Smaug's name has a similar meaning to Smeagol though from Old German smugen (squeeze through a hole)...

Since Gollum could not bear the touch of anything elvish I doubt that he would have worn any clothing they may have provided him with in captivity after his escape, unless his original clothes were peculiarly durable he must have either stolen some or gone naked. Both are possible - many observers think him some kind of animal which seems less likely if he were clothed however the woodmen's reports make it possible that he stole some clothes from them which raises the interesting psychology of Gollum being motivated to cover his nakedness even when he was slipping "through windows to find cradles".... of course he could just have been cold....

However having gone to the Lord of the Rings exhibition and been confronted with the nether regions of a loincloth free troll (at eye level too..), I am grateful for the small mercy and remarkable staying power of Gollum's hanky and piece of string..... :p

Well, whether Gollum is a monster or not can indeed be arguable. It all depends on how one defines the word. While one definition of monster can mean "an imaginary creature usually having various human and animal parts," the word can also mean "freak: a person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed." (as found on this site)

Yes, I know this is a stretch. I'm not saying Gollum is just like a golem, after all, the two have many difference, very obvious differences in fact. Searching through the internet, I noticed this topic has been discussed many times before - and I am most certainly not the first to wonder this. I cannot find any solid evidence on whether or not Tolkien actually intended connection between the two, so I suppose this must remain pure speculation.

Indeed redemption was possible. But I was always under the impression that it was only because of Smeagol.

Gollum was a split personality. The Smeagol side of him certainly did have plenty of free will, and it is what kept him from becoming entirely enslaved to the One Ring.

Completely severing Smeagol from the picture, I am strictly examining the Gollum side to this character. If you look at Gollum, not Smeagol, but just Gollum, does he really have free will of his own? It seems to me that all his actions, as well as his words, are done through the influence of the Ring. After all, it was the Ring that created Gollum, and if Smeagol had never found it, Gollum would not exist. While I do agree that there are other creatures in LotR that probably better represent the golem, such as the orcs and the trolls, I still think a connection is still possible between Gollum and the golem, however slight it may be.

Hehe..if only I were studying at Hogwarts. :p
My course is officially called Making Monsters: The Manifestation of Fear- a class I'm taking this semester at my school Emerson College (one of the many schools in Boston). In this class, we basically study the origins of monsters and fear by watching monster films and reading monster literature...as well as doing our own projects. Some of the monsters we study are Gilgamesh, Beowulf (we even read an essay by Tolkien), werewolves, and vampires. Of course, right now we're learning about golems and Frankenstein. Quite a fun course really. Who knew you could watch zombie films for educational purposes? :D

Squeezing in an enquiry
 

It is indeed very interesting. The two words are actually related: Primitive Germanic is the postulated common ancestor of all Germanic languages. You may remember the following from The Road to Middle Earth.