Split Personality?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Not Smeagol. I believe Smeagol was before the Ring...not an innocent figure, but certainly more innocent than the creature that owned the Ring.

He was Gollum...Gollum as Gollum was when Bilbo took his Precious. Not happy, but able to survive and willing to be consumed.

Yeah. I agree with this. But I don't buy "split personality"; I think that all the Smeagol that had remained inside the creature got snuffed out when Sam chose his words badly at the moment he almost repented.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Yeah. I agree with this. But I don't buy "split personality"; I think that all the Smeagol that had remained inside the creature got snuffed out when Sam chose his words badly at the moment he almost repented.

And of course, it was Smeagol himself who did the 'snuffing'. He chose to respond the way he did to Sam's words. Sam , effectively, passed him a loaded gun & Smeagol chose to put it to his own head & pull the trigger. One could argue that if Sam hadn't given him the 'gun' he wouldn't have killed himself, but one can't argue that Sam pulled the trigger himself.

But ... Gollum is Smeagol & vice versa. They are not two different beings in the same body, he is a single being who makes a moral choice. We are dealing here with Smeagol making a final choice that he doesn't care anymore - Smeagol is Gollum with the remnants of a conscience, Gollum is Smeagol having decided that conscience is going to get him nowhere - he casts it aside with less regret than Sam later casts away his pans.

We have here not so much a 'split personality' as an individual who makes a moral choice to finally & completely become a monster - of course, by that time its actually easier to take that last little step than to turn around & trek all the way back, but the point is all along his long road Smeagol has been in control of his choices. Smeagol/Gollum is no more a 'split personailty' in the psychological sense than any of us who have had that inner argument with ourselves over whether or not to take the last cake or leave it for the missus, whether or not to leave our details when we shunt that parked car when there's no witnesses about or to use the Bart Simpson Get out of jail free' card - 'It was like that when I got here'. Of course, the first few times we argue with ourselves over whether or not we should do it, but the more often we choose the former & give in the easier it becomes. That's simply about having a conscience & choosing to act in accordance with it or ignoring it or more usually constructing complex justifications ('the cake would have gone off/they wouldn't mind me having it', 'Its only a small scratch & hardly worth making a fuss over - in fact, anyone who would make a fuss over such a small scratch is such a petty minded jerk that they're not worth the hassle I'd have to go through', 'That vase was an accident waiting to happen - balanced so precariously on that little table....'). As I said, every step down that road gets easier to make, & turning around & going back gets harder & harder, but I think that's the kind of person Tolkien is showing us in Smeagol, rather than an individual suffering from a mental disorder. Smeagol/Gollum is not mentally ill, but morally corrupt - as a result of his own choices.

Of course, that's not to say that his failure to repent isn't tragic - it is (didn't Tolkien say he wept?) - but by that point it was pretty much inevitable. One feels that if Sam had woken up & simply said 'Good morning' Smeagol would have taken it the wrong way. The idea that at that point, so close to getting his hands on his Precious, anything was going to stop him, is I think mistaken. He still, I believe, intended to lead them to Shelob & take his Precious back, but in what would prove to be the last flare of conscience & empathy in him (before he killed it) he fleetingly considered the consequences of that act.... Sam's words simply enabled Smeagol to make the choice he really wanted to make all along. He could proceed with his plan, but blame Sam for 'forcing him into it'

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

We have here not so much a 'split personality' as an individual who makes a moral choice to finally & completely become a monster

I do think that there are two personalities acting in our villain. As Gandalf says:

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed -as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things. But that, of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end – unless it could be conquered.

Thus, I would say that what Tolkien was trying to portray in Gollum was not a split personality in the sense of multiple personalities of rather equal standing, split from the same root - but a mind crushed by a power greater than it, which has taken under its dominion almost all its willpower. I believe it is safe to say that Smeagol would not have done worse deeds than theft or pranks if he didn't have the ring. If we are to take the Shire as a point of reference for Smeagol's lands too, then killing another hobbit is rather out of the question, and his past wouldn't justify, in my opinion, his going down that road by himself. To be more exact, the two personalities at work would be Smeagol - and the ring's taint on his mind.

[littlemanpoet]

Although I see where Raynor is coming from in regard to the "chink in his mind", and even though the Ring is an overwhelming artifact, davem's point remains valid that Gollum lusted for the Ring and committed murder to get it.

Unlike Frodo, who fought the Ring's influence all the way to the Crack of Doom, Gollum colluded with the Ring's influence. The only exception to this collusion was Frodo's mercy, which opened the door on that chink.

That said, I don't think there is quite the determinism going on that davem implies (or ast least I infer ). There was just as much a chink of hope as there was a chink of light that Gollum might repent; otherwise it would not be the kind of tragedy that it was.

But it's interesting to consider that Tolkien wept over this scene. I remember doing so too. One grieves only for those things that one loses, that one loves (or at least likes). So for all of Gollum's moral corruption and monstrous deeds, we still are helped to see something piteous and, well, human and sympathetic, about this fallen Hobbit.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

Gollum lusted for the Ring and committed murder to get it

True, but with the exception of Tom, everyone in the book is susceptible to lusting for the ring. Do you think he would have killed if this wasn't the one ring?

[littlemanpoet]

It's likely since he was already a thief before the Ring was ever found. Gollum was already corrupt. The others who fell to the temptation of the Ring, lusting after it, were Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (were there others?); it may be argued that whereas they had moral weaknesses, they had not yet, when they discovered that the Ring existed, committed any deeds of moral failure.

[alatar]

Nice post, davem. But what of PJ's Gollum?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The others who fell to the temptation of the Ring, lusting after it, were Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (were there others?); it may be argued that whereas they had moral weaknesses, they had not yet, when they discovered that the Ring existed, committed any deeds of moral failure.

Then again, their situation is not comparable, since they were not in the vicinity of the ring when they discovered that it existed. Furthermore, I didn't say all the others lusted, only that they were susceptible to lust - given the rather irresistible possessiveness the ring inspired. That Gollum was already weakened further takes some of his blame away; he was not in the same situation of dealing with the ring as a normal person would have been, and he did not take the road of petty theft aware of the deadly threat it would open him to. Should we all know the consequences of our small evils, our guardian angels would likely be less busy.

Originally Posted by davem

If you ignore it, leave it by the wayside (as Faramir put it) its powerless. In Tolkien's M-e you can make a moral choice not to claim it, & therefore it can gain no hold on you. It only has power over those who succumb to it. Anyone 'taken over' by the Ring has made a choice to be taken over - even Frodo right at the end has chosen to claim the Ring, though at that point he is so weakened & psychologically vulnerable that it was almost (but only almost) inevitable.

If you imply that one can have the ring and not be influenced by it, simply by not claiming it, I disagree. After Gandalf says that

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

If [a mortal] often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he_ fades:_ he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. Yes, sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last – sooner or later the dark power will devour him.

From Gandalf's own words, even he would succumb to the ring, due to his pity and desire to use it for good (not out of lust for the ring itself).