Quote:
|
Why is it that when Bilbo acquires the Ring that he doesn't turn into an angry, bitter, murdering Gollum? Because Bilbo prior to the Ring wasn't a Gollum. He uses the Ring as an occasional trick and to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses.
|
I'm not denying Bilbo is different than Smeagol, but it is also implied that the circumstances in which a person obtains the ring affect the subsequent power the ring has over that person:
Quote:
|
'Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy, not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he bagan his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity." (FOTR 69)
|
If beginning his ownership of the ring with pity had a protective effect on Bilbo, as Gandalf implies (it doesn't seem as if he's referring merely to Bilbo's innate good nature, but to the specific events surrounding his finding the ring), beginning with a murder would have the opposite effect: increasing the ring's influence all the more over the person's subsequent actions.
The influence of the Ring doesn't seem, initially at least, to be to turn people toward a sort of generalized 'evil'; rather, it seems mostly to draw people to it, to create a powerful desire to own it and use it. Bilbo didn't act against this influence when he spared Gollum; he already had the ring and was able to escape with it.
Desire for the ring, though, can bring out a darker side even in Bilbo, who began his ownership with Pity:
Quote:
|
'Well, if you want my ring yourself, say so!' cried Bilbo. 'But you won't get it. I won't give my precious away, I tell you.' His hand strayed to the hilt of his small sword. (FOTR 42)
|
When Smeagol killed Deagol, it wasn't because the Ring amplified his personality; it was because he was possessed with an overpowering desire for it, and Deagol stood in the way. The desire was the effect of the Ring; the same effect it had on everyone who encountered it. Whether this desire inspired actual violence would have depended on:
1. Whether violence would help one get or keep the ring (obviously if one finds or inherits it, there is no need to resort to violence)
2. How violent, impulsive, weak etc. the person is by nature.
3. How much prior knowledge the person had:
-knowing that the Ring is perilous, and that it will be tempting, would help a person resist its power.
-knowing the Ring is evil.
4. Whether the person had time to consider his actions, or acted on impulse.
Was Smeagol 'more evil' than Bilbo, before encountering the Ring? I don't doubt it. Was he 'evil' in the absolute sense? I would say he was only a rather unstable, impulsive and ignorant young hobbit who encountered a temptation that he could not resist was subsequently very quick to succomb to the ring's influence.