|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Apr 8 2010, 10:33am
Post #2 of 19
(6833 views)
Shortcut
|
Very suggestive indeed.
And there is another angle you haven't mentioned, although it leapt to my mind when I read "a childless old lady who cannot let a precious infant go, but will continue to baby it, coddle it, spoil it, and dominate it, long after it is time to let the child grow up – and so she becomes the child, and the child becomes her", thinking that a nurse might often be "a now childless old lady" - which made me think of Gollum and his grandmother. He taught her how to suck egsses back in the first edition, didn't he?
"It will support thee and defend thee from weariness" - Cirdan.
|
|
|
aranelthehobbit22
Mithlond
Apr 8 2010, 11:58pm
Post #3 of 19
(6752 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Wow! Thanks so much for sharing!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I really enjoyed reading this! It was really good!
Thanks!
'Help oft shall come from the hands of the weak when the Wise falter.'
"Yet in that hour was put to the proof that which Mithrandir had spoken, and help came from the hands of the weak when the Wise faltered."
|
|
|
brokentusk
Lindon
Apr 9 2010, 12:27am
Post #4 of 19
(6741 views)
Shortcut
|
Well-written and insightful.
Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
GAndyalf
Doriath
Apr 9 2010, 1:04am
Post #5 of 19
(6785 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I've been wond'ring for decades...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
About that original edition, but have never found one to read for exactly the purpose of those not-so-subtle differences.
"Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Apr 9 2010, 6:53am
Post #6 of 19
(7436 views)
Shortcut
|
The origins of Gollum are almost a riddle in themselves!
I'm certainly convinced by your arguments regarding the source of Gollum's speech as the kind of infantilising talk that some adults use with children. I'm less convinced about the nursemaid, and had the same thought as sador about the source being the grandmother, who we learn about even in the original version (I don't own a copy of the Annotated Hobbit, so I'm relying on this side-by-side comparison of the two versions of Riddles in the Dark.)
What strikes me now, after reading your thoughts, is just how much of Gollum's life story is found even in the original. The narrator claims at first "I don't know where he came from, nor who or what he was" (this remains in the amended version as well). Yet very soon he's giving us backstory and letting us see Gollum's thought processes in a way that breaks away completely from the Bilbo-eye-view that we usually get of the story. We aren't told that Gollum is hobbit-like in so many words, but even in the original we hear that his people lived in holes, and specifically that riddles were "the only game he had ever played with other funny creatures sitting in their holes in the long, long ago." We hear about his living conditions and about his grandmother: "Gollum brought up memories of ages and ages and ages before, when he lived with his grandmother in a hole in a bank by a river", and then we get that funny riddle-related joke about teaching his grandmother to suck eggs... I sometimes wonder if the grandmother was invented especially to create an "origin" for this very odd expression, but if so, I think she grew a bit in the telling, and is the best candidate as the source of Gollum's childish speech.
What's most striking, perhaps, is the very fact that we get so much insight into Gollum's past - how many children's stories would even inquire into the history of an evil creature, let alone provide quite sympathetic insights into his lost life? I don't think we get such background on any of the other creatures in The Hobbit. We even find out that the ring was a "birthday present". What child could fail to feel some fellowship with someone who gets birthday-presents? Gollum may be nasty and scary, but he's given a pretty sympathetic and human-like background. And that's before he became the creature we know from LotR. I think perhaps you're underestimating him when you call him "a mere figure of passing comic-horror in the same league as the three Cockney trolls."
The relationship to the ring, I agree, was changed in later tellings of Gollum's story, but his own hobbit-like, river-dwelling origins were there from the start. Now I'm wondering if Gollum inspired the changes to the Ring even as the Ring inspired the changes to Gollum. Is it possible that the simple detail of Gollum's river-dwelling past actually provided the seed for the Disaster of the Gladden Fields, for example? And the "symptoms" of the Ring were in Gollum's original story too - the great age, the change from a simple river-dweller to a nasty creature, even the idea of the ring being a present, all come from the very first version of Gollum's tale. It's as if Gollum's original tale affected the Ring just as much as the Ring affected him.
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Elvenhome
Apr 9 2010, 3:24pm
Post #7 of 19
(6751 views)
Shortcut
|
I think I remember reading the original RR post. As usual, I have nothing to add except another example. This is from Narnia, "The Silver Chair":
"Rain'll wash away all the nasty snow. Precious poppet will be able to go out and play tomorrow."
That was also a nursemaid-turned-monster, as the giant nurse knew that the children were being kept as the main course for the upcoming feast.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories
leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(This post was edited by Aunt Dora Baggins on Apr 9 2010, 3:25pm)
|
|
|
GAndyalf
Doriath
Apr 9 2010, 3:33pm
Post #8 of 19
(7663 views)
Shortcut
|
One point you don't mention is that when Tolkien was pondering the sequel that as it formed he CHOSE to make the Ring the link between the stories and that, I think, it key to supporting your argument. Any writer makes choices in sequels that make them sequels and not stand-alone stories. Ideally a writer would not want to re-invent too much in order to make the sequel both a worthy story in its OWN right as well as compellingly related to the story it came from. If my last supposition is true, then your theory becomes powerfully compelling because it allows Tolkien not only to build a sequel, but to put down roots into the deep past (something he states over and over as highly valuing and is readily apparent in his choices to deeply link LotR with The Sil). So as the Lord of the Rings changed Gollum and his backstory slightly it also allowed JRRT to imbue LotR with a depth in my opinion unmatched for telling a story of choices and empathy, pity and wisdom pervading a children's story instead of a more "dominating" this is what's right!
Thank you, FarFromHome, that is one of the better pieces on Gollum I've read in a very long time.
My quibble with squire's theory on the peculiar speech being attributed to Gollum's grandmother is that when someone is along for a very long time (think Tom Hanks in "Cast Away" (wonder why they chose to use two words there, I usually interpret it as one when talking about a person rather than what was done?) one tends to either revert or to invent something of a speech idiom and it's my opinion that most of the time it's an amalgamation of the two in such a process. It's out of human reckoning what would happen over that long of a period, though.
"Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!"
---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
|
|
|
LordotRings93
Nargothrond
Apr 10 2010, 12:58am
Post #9 of 19
(6801 views)
Shortcut
|
I never knew this. I never knew that Tolkien rewrote the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter. It made it seem like Gollum used to be a nice creature, who didn't refer to the Ring as "precious". A very interesting read. It's amazing how Tolkien changed a few words and changes the whole character of Gollum.
The HUGEST Lord of the Rings fan ever!
Owner of all Lord of the Rings merchandise.
"I know what I must do. It's just... I'm afraid to do it."
|
|
|
simonm
Registered User
Apr 10 2010, 2:32am
Post #10 of 19
(7388 views)
Shortcut
|
You're over-analysing a bit much? I don't ever want to analyse Tolkien to that degree lest I cease to enjoy his wonderful lyricism.
The Hobbit is first an foremost a children's story. By using such juvenile language, I believe Tolkien intended to make Gollum a character that children could identify with, albeit a slightly naughty character. Bilbo was middle aged and was intended more as a role model (styled after Tolkien himself) than someone that children could/would relate to. The story needed other characters that children could identify with and Gollum is not the only character with juvenile dispositions. As mentioned, the trolls also display particular stupidity, which helps children feel somewhat empowered and self-assured; positive qualities that Tolkien wanted to develop in his children.
I don't think there is really much more to it than that. I believe this is a perfectly reasonable and sufficient theory for Tolkien's use of juvenile language for certain characters.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
Apr 11 2010, 2:27pm
Post #11 of 19
(7167 views)
Shortcut
|
You're over-analysing a bit much? I don't ever want to analyse Tolkien to that degree lest I cease to enjoy his wonderful lyricism.
This TheOneRing.net wouldn't have lasted very long without 'over-analysing', and this is a particular 'habbit for we hobbits', as it were. As a matter of fact, the practice of over-analyzation runs deep in the Tolkien family as well: Christopher Tolkien gave us 12 volumes of over-analyzation in his History of Middle-earth which, of course, was culled from his father's ponderous piles of rewrites, meanderings, sundered storylines, aborted plots and inveterate dissembling, reassembling and reiteration.
So welcome to the fora, Simon. It's simple: if this type of literary word-wraithing and story exploration turns your stomach, then this place certainly won't be your cup of tea. You will undoubtedly suffer some form of debilitating nervous tic if you keep reviewing the Reading Room forum, which is chock-full of over-analyzation.
Squire, very interesting take on the riddle game and Gollum in particular. When thinking of Gollum, even before the 1947 rewrite, one can't help but think of previous characters in literature who have gone mad after prolonged isolation and wonder if perhaps Tolkien didn't get his cues from elsewhere, such as R.L. Stevenson's Treasure Island and the character Ben Gunn, who has a notably 'rusty voice' and colorful grammar filled with contractions like mighn't and further'n, and often refers to himself in the third-person. Just a thought that I'll expand upon as I think about it.
"I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy." -- Charles Manson
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Apr 11 2010, 2:29pm)
|
|
|
Lily Fairbairn
Gondolin
Apr 11 2010, 6:36pm
Post #12 of 19
(6797 views)
Shortcut
|
Oddly enough, about an hour before I read your essay I fell over---and stopped to ponder---the word "durst" in a book about the history of Britain published in 1961, referring to Queen Elizabeth I drinking beer "So strong as there was no man durst touch it". When I searched on the phrase, I found it repeated in an article about Elizabeth and other female beer-drinkers, but given no attribution.
I also found "durst" and "durstn't" used in Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Dickens. So I'd say it's not a regionalism, but an old-fashioned variation on "dare" and "dare not", like so many other wordsTolkien used.
Thank you for the essay!
(For anyone who's interested in word origins, let me highly recommend http://www.worldwidewords.org/index.htm. I subscribe to the weekly newsletter, which is fascinating.)
* * * * * * *
Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?
A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day!
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Apr 12 2010, 11:50pm
Post #13 of 19
(6713 views)
Shortcut
|
You've done a fine job of separating the Ring-inspired Gollum from the original Gollum.
I like your nursemaid theory; perhaps, as Tolkien read these lines to his boys, he imitated the family's domestic? (As I recall, Edith did have daily help in the house.)
This also brought back to mind something I'd read a while ago about "teaching grandmother to suck eggs". Here is a great explanation of that phrase, from Lily Fairbairn's recommended World Wide Words site.
Obviously, it was was a saying which Tolkien, and his children, were well acquainted with; trust a philologist to find a plausible way to put it to use - and undoubtedly get quite a chuckle from the boys!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
GAndyalf
Doriath
Apr 13 2010, 2:26pm
Post #14 of 19
(6625 views)
Shortcut
|
For adding another layer of enjoyement for me! <chuckles> "swine to teach Minerva"!
"Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!"
---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Apr 13 2010, 4:09pm
Post #15 of 19
(6620 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Dreamdeer mentioned it as well
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Here.
"It will support thee and defend thee from weariness" - Cirdan.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Apr 13 2010, 6:21pm
Post #16 of 19
(6628 views)
Shortcut
|
I like how you pointed out that Gollum's speech was childish in many ways. I would add that his obsession with calling the Ring his "birthday present" and his outrage over the loss of his "present" were childish as well. Who is more greedy than a little kid is about their presents, and how much hell breaks loose if their present gets nicked in the slightest way? Pre-corrupted Smeagol talks to Deagol more like an adult (though his speech is still odd and creepy).
Gandalf told Frodo that Gollum was a divided soul with a little bit of decency still in him after centuries of bearing the One (the men who become Nazgul, by contrast, seem to lose all trace of human decency). He was after all a hobbit, a race which is mostly good by nature. So I speculate that the residual morality in Gollum retreated into childhood to justify his murder of Deagol, theft of the Ring, and hatred of the world since no adult would be able to do that easily. He couldn't accept himself as evil, so he used a child's imaginary rationalizations to pretend to himself that he was the aggrieved victim bullied by the world, which he continues to do in LoTR. Though as you say, Smeagol was flawed to begin with, and I don't think the Ring created all his flaws, but it exploited and exaggerated them.
Then there's that flash of hobbit in him when he's about to betray Sam & Frodo to Shelob and sees them sleeping innocently. How is he described? As an adult:an old, tired hobbit who's been dragged by destiny far away from friends, family, and the fields of his youth. The adult in him wants to reverse course and somehow reconnect with other hobbits. If he'd been given a chance to speak, don't you think he would have sounded a little more normal? But Sam blows it (tragically), and Smeagol returns to his juvenile ways.
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Apr 13 2010, 7:22pm
Post #17 of 19
(7063 views)
Shortcut
|
That's where I remember it from - thanks for finding that, sador!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
TheNazgul
Ossiriand
Apr 21 2010, 1:41am
Post #18 of 19
(7026 views)
Shortcut
|
he talked with yoda to long did he yes....
i have seen in my thoughts rins of smoke through the trees.....
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Sep 19 2010, 8:28am
Post #19 of 19
(6569 views)
Shortcut
|
|
While I did not examine Gollum's speech patterns,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I did consider the original version of Gollum when we discussed The Hobbit in 2004, in a post entitled "Bilbo's Dark Psyche." I concluded at that time that Gollum was, in both versions of The Hobbit, a foil for Bilbo -- Bilbo as he could have become if he had not found his courage.
Although he was not called a hobbit in The Hobbit, the riddles tell us that Gollum, unlike the goblins, was not always a monster living in a cave. We know from the riddles that at one time he lived above ground and knew the sun and daisies and robin's eggs. He and Bilbo share an interest in riddles, and knowledge of the riddle game. Furthermore, in both versions Tolkien's reference to the fish that wandered into the underground lake and whose "eyes grew bigger and bigger and bigger from trying to see in the blackness" hints that at one time Gollum's eyes were more like Bilbo's. It wasn't hard for Tolkien to turn Gollum into a hobbit because Gollum always seemed to have a background similar to Bilbo's.
Why, then, does Gollum talk to himself? Because he has gone mad. If he is speaking baby talk, and I'm still mulling that over, he is not really speaking it to Bilbo, but to himself. He has been speaking this way to himself for a very long time, and even when he speaks to Bilbo he still sounds like he is speaking to himself.
One of the examples you cite of baby talk isn't really spoken to a baby. Rather, Gertrude Stein uses "precious" and "baby" as a term of endearment for Alice B. Toklas. So it may be that Gollum addresses himself as "precious" simply because he is in love with himself.
I like the theory that Bilbo is recovering childlike qualities during the course of The Hobbit, but Bilbo does not become a child. At the beginning he is a parody of adulthood who thinks maturity means conforming to his neighbors' expectations. At the end he has recovered the best qualities of childhood and in so doing has matured into a true adult, someone willing to do the right thing regardless of what others think.
Gollum left behind the restrictions of society, but he also left behind his moral compass. Gollum regressed into childhood without retaining the best part of adulthood; as a result, he is as fearful and amoral as a child would be if left all alone in a deadly situation. Gollum is not a nightmare nanny, he is a nightmare child. Or perhaps he is both, like Norman Bates in Psycho -- a schizophrenic madman who insanely mothers himself.
So I agree with you that "Tolkien’s satirical rendering of a pathologically self-infantilized child-creature relates very well to the story of Bilbo, a child-sized adult who rediscovers his lost but strong inner fantasy-child. " I just wouldn't put as much emphasis on Bilbo being child-sized. Tolkien said that had to to with the hobbit's lack of imagination, and I believe him. Adult hobbits aren't modeled on children, they are modeled on modern adults. Bilbo is small in stature compared to Beorn because men have become metaphorically smaller since the time of Beowulf -- not more infantile, necessarily, but less heroic.
And it isn't Bilbo that Gollum insanely mothers, if that is what he is doing, it is himself. He refuses to leave his dark, wet, womb-like refuge. Bilbo could choose to do the same, if his courage fails him, but instead he escapes out of the cave and through the long tunnel into the light in an act of rebirth, literally squeezing through the final opening like a baby being born. And then Bilbo begins to grow into a true adult, rather than a parody of adulthood.
|
|
|
|
|
