Gollum era mau?

Question

Gollum era mau?

#1 resposta do (11 votos)

11

Algumas das perguntas leia aqui recentemente discutimos Gollum, seu comportamento, a natureza da dinâmica Gollum / Smeagol e sua maneira de falar, entre outras coisas. Mas, apesar de muitas dessas perguntas e respostas chegarem perto de lidar com a questão da natureza pessoal de Gollum, nenhuma aborda diretamente a questão.

E assim eu tenho que fazer a pergunta a mim mesmo.

De acordo com Tolkien-in O Hobbit , o Senhor dos Anéis , suas cartas, ou quaisquer outras fontes que você possa encontrar- foi Gollum / Smeagol mal, inerentemente, ou depois de algum momento de sua vida? Ou ele era simplesmente fraco e, portanto, facilmente corrompido pelo Anel, mas não verdadeiramente maligno?

Eu sei que Tolkien abordou esta questão e especificamente disse que Gollum tinha uma chance de redenção. Essa chance veio pouco antes de ele levar Sam e Frodo para o covil de Shelob. Para quem não se lembra, Frodo está dormindo, sua cabeça no colo de Sam; Gollum saiu sozinho algum tempo antes. Gollum retorna, vê os dois hobbits dormindo e sua expressão muda drasticamente. Seus olhos perdem seu brilho ameaçador, seu rosto suaviza e ele é dominado pela emoção. Ele gentilmente estende a mão e afaga carinhosamente o joelho de Frodo. Frodo murmura em seu sono, e Sam acorda e grosseiramente repreende Gollum, acusando-o de alguma irregularidade desconhecida.

Nota: Todas as ênfases nas citações seguintes são minhas. Além disso, Tolkien parece usar a palavra "malvado" em seu sentido original - barato, egoísta e avaro - ao invés do senso mais comum de uma pessoa desagradavelmente hostil.

If [Sam] had understood better what was going on between Frodo and Gollum, things might have turned out differently in the end. For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes in II 323 ff. when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing', said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!'. His repentance is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense) wasted. Shelob's lair became inevitable.

This is due of course to the 'logic of the story'. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last (III 221-222) but for the good of Gollum too late.) If he had, what could then have happened?

...I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love [of Frodo] would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together – and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo.

The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien 246: To Mrs. Eileen Elgar (Draft). September 1963

E:

[Gollum's] marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'...

The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean son of a thief before it crossed his path. Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths? A kind of answer [could] be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different! By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Sméagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost.

The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien 181: To Michael Straight (Draft). January or February 1956

As declarações de Tolkien nessas cartas chegam perto de dizer que Gollum é mau, mas nunca chega a fazê-lo; na verdade, eles dizem que ele não foi completamente corrompido. O único lugar onde ele usa a palavra "mal" na segunda citação não descreve o próprio Gollum como mal, ele simplesmente diz que sua "coragem e perseverança" eram "devotadas ao mal"; mais tarde, ele diz que algumas pessoas, incluindo Gollum " aparecem para ser" condenável "." Aparecer para ser condenável não é exatamente a mesma coisa que ser condenável.

As passagens que citei também implicam duas coisas, ambas advindas da alegação de que Gollum tinha uma chance de redenção:

A redenção era necessária , então ele era maligno, ou algo próximo a ela.
A redenção era possível , então ele pode não ter sido inerentemente maligno.

Tolkien disse mais alguma coisa sobre esse assunto?

tolkiens-legendarium the-lord-of-the-rings the-hobbit

por Wad Cheber 23.05.2015 / 01:04

1 resposta

Tags tolkiens-legendarium the-lord-of-the-rings the-hobbit

Existe apenas um sétuplo de Endless que supervisiona todas as continuidades de DC? Água verde de alface?

score 11 · Accepted Answer

Tolkien nunca chama completamente Gollum de "malvado"; ele era um pouco cauteloso, como você poderia esperar de um homem temente a Deus. No que diz respeito a Tolkien, o julgamento final de "bom" ou "mal" não pertence a ele, mas a Deus. No entanto, lendo seus escritos sobre o assunto, é difícil defender a posição que Tolkien achava que Gollum era, em qualquer sentido real, "bom"; da Carta 181, por exemplo:

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee'¹, as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean son of thief before it crossed his path.

^{_{The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien 181: To Michael Straight (Draft). January or February 1956}}

O contexto para dizer que Gollum era um "filho mau de ladrão" é expandido na Carta 214:

[Earlier sections of the letter are required for context, but are too long to quote in a concise answer; suffice to say that Hobbit birthdays involve giving gifts as well as receiving them]

A trace of this can be seen in the account of Sméagol and Déagol – modified by the individual characters of these rather miserable specimens. Déagol, evidently a relative (as no doubt all the members of the small community were), had already given his customary present to Sméagol, although they probably set out on their expedition v. early in the morning. Being a mean little soul he grudged it. Sméagol, being meaner and greedier, tried to use the 'birthday' as an excuse for an act of tyranny. 'Because I wants it' was his frank statement of his chief claim. But he also implied that D's gift was a poor and insufficient token: hence D's retort that on the contrary it was more than he could afford.

^{_{The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien 214: To A. C. Nunn (Draft). 1958/1959}}

E em uma nota de rodapé na carta:

There is no mention of Sméagol's presents. I imagine that he was an orphan; and do not suppose that he gave any present on his birthday, save (grudgingly) the tribute to his 'grandmother'. Fish probably. One of the reasons, maybe, for the expedition. It would have been just like Sméagol to give fish, actually caught by Déagol!

^{_{The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien 214: To A. C. Nunn (Draft). 1958/1959}}

Enquanto Gollum era inquestionavelmente desagradável, hesito em chamá-lo de mal; Eu prefiro dizer que ele estava interessado em si mesmo, e seu interesse pessoal o levou a fazer coisas más.

¹ Esta frase significa algo nos moldes da "mente de Deus". O significado da frase inteira deve ser óbvio