Why did Bilbo age so quickly, yet Gollum remained youthful?

[Lizra]

Why did Bilbo get so decrepit after giving up the ring, yet Gollum remained agile and youthful enough to travel, after an even longer period with, then without the ring?

[Legolas_GreenLeaf]

What do you mean when you say "agile and youthful to travel"? I think I'm just misunderstanding your question..:confused:

[crickhollow]

Gollum had the ring for what, 600 years? Bilbo only carried it for 60. My guess would be that the longer you carry it, the longer lasting its effects would be.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Lizra
Why did Bilbo get so decrepit after giving up the ring, yet Gollum remained agile and youthful enough to travel, after an even longer period with, then without the ring? Maybe because Bilbo didn't lose the Ring, but really gave it up, whereas Gollum lost it and ever tried to regain it. The Ring still held power over Gollum, but not over Bilbo.

[azalea]

Hey, didn't I address this in another forum?;)

[Attalus]

I would add that the Ring took over almost all of Gollum, but touched Bilbo very little. Therefore Gollum was sort of a minor Ringwraith, with different characteristics due the the difference in the Rings involved.

[WallRocker]

Originally posted by crickhollow
Gollum had the ring for what, 600 years? Bilbo only carried it for 60. My guess would be that the longer you carry it, the longer lasting its effects would be.

That would make sense. Also remember that Bilbo and Smeagol were diffrent kinds of Hobbits(if Smeagol was really a Hobbit at all), and Gollum constantly had the RIng on, unlike Biblbo.

[Attalus]

Gandalf said that Smeagol's people were "the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors." Smeagol didn't wear the ring constantly, but hid it for whiles. That was how Bilbo found it.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by azalea
Hey, didn't I address this in another forum?;)

My search on Bilbo's age didn't bring much, if this is somewhere else, I'd like to read it! :)

Bilbo was a tottering arthritic old geezer there at the end in Rivendell, constantly nodding off, unable to travel the paths of Mirkwood, the Lonely Mountain etc. (as he wished)

Gollum was catching fish by hand, leaping, slinking, and hopping about with ease, taking the Hobbits to Mordor. I was at a loss for an explanation when someone asked me this!

[WallRocker]

Originally posted by Attalus
Smeagol didn't wear the ring constantly, but hid it for whiles.

Actually, I meant that Gollum was constantally thinking about the Ring, and obsessing over it

[Dúnedain]

There are a lot of great points here and I think it is definitely a combination of them all. First and foremost is the shear length of time that the ring was in Gollum's keeping. He held it for over 500 years and it completely consumed him, all that he was and all that he knew. I guess you could say he became one with the ring or even became the ring itself. As was said above, he was so obssessed with the ring that his will to live and go one was just that, whereas with Bilbo it wasn't so. Granted Bilbo held the ring and craved it, but it didn't consume him as it did Gollum. Overall though, I think the whole time period is the difference here because Gollum was transformed, you can even see the entire different persona of him in the book when he speaks to his multiple personalities....

[Huan]

I think the length of time spent with the Ring is the important thing. By the time Gollum lost the Ring, it had already quite thoroughly done its work on him. Bilbo, on the other hand, had only just begun to "go Gollum." He was, after all, beginning to feel "sort of stretched, like." I like to think that it was in fact a VERY near miss, that he was at the precise turning point, where he could keep the Ring and become another Gollum (or another Sauron can you imagine!), or "fade into the West" as they say.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Huan
Bilbo, on the other hand, had only just begun to "go Gollum."

LMAO, that was great :p

[cassiopeia]

I agree with what everyone else has said, but I have another point to make: Smeagol was evil (or at least not 'good') before he got the ring, wasn't he? He did kill Deagol for it. So maybe the ring had a greater influence on Gollum because he was evil in the beginning and therefore the ring had a greater influence over him, so he didn't age as much when he lost the ring. (I hope that makes sense). :)

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I agree with what everyone else has said, but I have another point to make: Smeagol was evil (or at least not 'good') before he got the ring, wasn't he? He did kill Deagol for it. So maybe the ring had a greater influence on Gollum because he was evil in the beginning and therefore the ring had a greater influence over him, so he didn't age as much when he lost the ring. (I hope that makes sense). :)

Actually no, the story is said that Smeagol was well liked and was friendly among those who knew him. However the thing that made him kill Deagol was the ring itself. The ring grasped him when he saw it, and it was the ring that made him act in that evil manner. It took him before he even had it...

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Dúnadain
Actually no, the story is said that Smeagol was well liked and was friendly among those who knew him. However the thing that made him kill Deagol was the ring itself. The ring grasped him when he saw it, and it was the ring that made him act in that evil manner. It took him before he even had it...

Yup, you are right, I just checked, it certainly doesn't say in the FOTR that Smeagol was evil before seeing the ring. I somehow got it into my head he was evil before the ring was found. Must be those stupid fangirl threads. :rolleyes:

[Attalus]

We, in fact know little about Gollum before the Ring came into his life. We know that Deagol gave him an expensive birthday present, so that he must have had some redeeming qualities. But, apparently the Ring knew that his capacity for evil was far more than Deagol's, and so ensnared him, instead.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Lizra
My search on Bilbo's age didn't bring much, if this is somewhere else, I'd like to read it! :)


I was kidding, I thought you started this because you had seen my answer to this same question that was asked a few days ago in the Gollum thread in the Hobbit forum, and wanted more opinions!:)

[Lizra]

I think I stumbled over that recently. I see the point you all are making, but I would be more likely to think....Gollum had the ring much longer, so was technically "older", so when he lost his precious, he aged rapidly and dramatically. Wouldn't be a very interesting story though! :rolleyes:

[Beleg Strongbow]

Well, I suppose it was his old arthritic hip that broke and sent him tumbling into the Cracks of Doom. :D

[Lizra]

Could be! :)

[Earniel]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Yup, you are right, I just checked, it certainly doesn't say in the FOTR that Smeagol was evil before seeing the ring. I somehow got it into my head he was evil before the ring was found. Must be those stupid fangirl threads. :rolleyes:

Well you're not alone. I was thinking along the same lines. Well not truly evil but something more like inclined to evil when given the chance. I don't think I've got that from fangirl threads. So where DID I get it? 's probably my imagination.

[BeardofPants]

I seem to remember that he got kicked out by his guardian for being something equivalent to a peeping tom? (sneaking, stealing, all that sort of stuff.) Am I just being delusional, here? :confused:

[Dúnedain]

I never heard of that, I remember reading that Smeagol was very well liked by everyone and was his grandmother's favorite. However, BoP, I do remember that after he had the ring and was back in his village he was using it to spy on people, such as to see what they were talking about or if they were talking about him. Eventually the town caught on and were getting mad at this behaviour and they asked him to leave, even his grandmother. That is probably what you are thinking about....

[BeardofPants]

Oh. Yeah, come to think of it, you may be right there... Which puts an entirely different light on Gollum. It makes it possible that he could have been redeemed.

[Dúnedain]

You can find all the info for Smeagol/Gollum on pages 51-57 in FotR, here are some passages:

"There was among them a family of high repute, for it was large and wealthier than most, and it was ruled by a grandmother of the folk, stern and wise in old lore, such as they had. The most inquisitive and curious-minded of that family was called Smeagol. He was interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed under trees and growing plants; he tunnelled into green mouns; and he ceased to look up at the hill-tops, or the leaves on trees, or the flowers opening in the air: his head and his eyes were downward."


"No one ever found out what had become of Deagol; he was murdered far from home, and his body was cunningly hidden. But Smeagol returned alone; and he found that none of his family could see him, when he was wearing the ring. He was very pleased with his discovery and he concealed it; and he used it to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. He became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful. The ring had given him power according to his stature. It is not to be wondered at that he became very unpopular and was shunned (when visible) by all his relations. They kicked him, and he bit their feet. He took to thieving, and going about muttering to himself, and gurgling in his throat. So they called him Gollum, and cursed him, and told him to go far away; and his grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole."

[entss89]

i dont believe smeagol is still young but i think he still has his spirit!

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Well you're not alone. I was thinking along the same lines. Well not truly evil but something more like inclined to evil when given the chance. I don't think I've got that from fangirl threads. So where DID I get it? 's probably my imagination.

I'm glad I'm not crazy. :D I perhaps got confused by the second paragraph Dunedain posted. But I was fairly sure. Maybe it's in the Hobbit. I'll post a quote if I find something.

Edit: I didn't find anything in The Hobbit, so I must be confused. :confused:

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I'm glad I'm not crazy. :D I perhaps got confused by the second paragraph Dunedain posted. But I was fairly sure. Maybe it's in the Hobbit. I'll post a quote if I find something.

Edit: I didn't find anything in The Hobbit, so I must be confused. :confused:

This is probably what you are talking about, this is from a few paragraphs above what I quoted earlier in FotR:

"And behold! when he washed the mud away, there in his hand lay a beautiful golden ring; and it shone and glittered in the sun, so that his heart was glad. But Smeagol had been watching him from behind the tree, and as Deagol gloated over the ring, Smeagol came softly up behind.
'Give us that, Deagol, my love,' said Smeagol, over his friend's shoulder.
'Why?' said Deagol
'Because it's my birthday, my love, and I wants it,' said Smeagol.
'I don't care,' said Deagol. 'I have given you a present already, more than I could afford. I found this, and I'm going to keep it.'
'Oh, are you indeed, my love,' said Smeagol; and he caught Deagol by the throat and strangled him, because the gold looked so bright and beautiful. Then he put the ring on his finger.'"

Now, this I think is the most important part of that passage, "he caught Deagol by the throat and strangled him, because the gold looked so bright and beautiful." To me, that line is telling me the ring drew him in and made him kill his best friend....

[azalea]

And it was debated in another thread about whether or not the corruption was immediate, or whether Smeagol had a "predisposition" to evil, since Bilbo didn't become "evil", even after years of possessing the Ring. That may be where some people got the idea that Smeagol was evil beforehand. I tried to find that thread, but couldn't, so it must have been debated within a thread about something else (maybe a "ring" thread).

1. Smeagol seems to be immediately corrupted to the greatest extent, even though the Dark Lord is more latent than he'll be by the time Bilbo finds it.
2. Bilbo is immediately corrupted in that he hides the ring and lies about it (and also keeps it although he knows in his heart that it belonged to Gollum). But I think we can agree that murder of a loved one is more evil than hiding/ lying about a possession. A "severe corruption" scenario probably would have seen Bilbo killing Gollum (assuming that Bilbo and Gollum have the same amount of natural "goodness").
3. This is a very important issue because if indeed the amount of basic goodness is a factor in the immediate "corruptability" of a being (IMO, amount of native power is another), that would help us to understand Frodo's level of corruption at whatever given point in his journey. (And hence would strenthen my case for his pure motives in volunteering to take the ring to Mordor -- see the Why did Frodo Volunteer to Take the Ring? thread:D j/k)

[FattyBulger]

I know that gollum wasn't ALWAYS wearing the ring but he wore it much more than Bilbo did.

eg: He lived off fish and stray goblins, the goblins were armed and bigger than him, the only way he could get the chance to eat them would be if he was wearing the ring. Also, to manage to stay alive in the pool with gollum, the fish would have to be very quick and slippery, gollum might wear the ring when catching them.

[cassiopeia]

I have just been reading the Letters of Tolkien and I came across this comment (#181):
But he [Gollum] would never had to endure it [the ring] if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.
So I am not crazy after all (I don't think!): Gollum was 'mean' before he found the ring. What do you think of this comment?

[olsonm]

I think it means that he wouldn't have stolen it from Deagol if he hadn't already been mean. I wonder how Deagol would have fared as a Bearer?

[Elvedans]

Thinking of that makes me wonder what sort of a people the riverfolk were. Were they all given to mean, selfish deeds as was Smeagol, or was he just a "bad egg"?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

In Tolkien's letters, he said that both Deagol and Smeagol were 'mean'; but I doubt that that would apply to all river-folk.

[Lizra]

But Cassiopeia just said there was a letter that said he was a mean sort, before the ring crossed his path. :confused:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what the confusion is about?

[Lizra]

I don't think I did either! :D I thought you said they wern't mean, I guess! Nevermind!

[cassiopeia]

I think this thread is making everybody go crazy! :D
Where were you when I first posted here Gwaimir? :) I had read the letters before, so that's where I got the idea Smeagol was mean before finding the ring.
Anyway, back OT, I'll stick with my first post.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

If you mean Entmoot, then probably it would be in Portugal, though maybe in KC. If you mean this thread, then I was probably:

1) Elsewhere on Entmoot
2) On some other forum
3) Fidgetting with my LOTR RPG

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by azalea
And it was debated in another thread about whether or not the corruption was immediate, or whether Smeagol had a "predisposition" to evil, since Bilbo didn't become "evil", even after years of possessing the Ring. That may be where some people got the idea that Smeagol was evil beforehand. I tried to find that thread, but couldn't, so it must have been debated within a thread about something else (maybe a "ring" thread).

1. Smeagol seems to be immediately corrupted to the greatest extent, even though the Dark Lord is more latent than he'll be by the time Bilbo finds it.
2. Bilbo is immediately corrupted in that he hides the ring and lies about it (and also keeps it although he knows in his heart that it belonged to Gollum). But I think we can agree that murder of a loved one is more evil than hiding/ lying about a possession. A "severe corruption" scenario probably would have seen Bilbo killing Gollum (assuming that Bilbo and Gollum have the same amount of natural "goodness").
3. This is a very important issue because if indeed the amount of basic goodness is a factor in the immediate "corruptability" of a being (IMO, amount of native power is another), that would help us to understand Frodo's level of corruption at whatever given point in his journey. (And hence would strenthen my case for his pure motives in volunteering to take the ring to Mordor -- see the Why did Frodo Volunteer to Take the Ring? thread:D j/k)
The thread you refer to is "Concerning Smeagol" and I started it a couple of months ago (I don't start many) that discussed almost the same.

Remember that Gandalf said that Bilbo gave up the ring willingly, and that was important. It showed that the ring did not have the hold over Bilbo that it did over Gollum. The real question is why. Tolkien gives no definitive answer, not even a clue. Was Gollum evil from the start, or was he merely susceptable. I suggest it was because he was young when the ring "found him." There's no evidence to support this, but I picture Smeagol and Deagol as two kids out for a day fishing on the river when the ring was found. Like a lazy Saturday afternoon, away from the grownups, bored silly when this big fish bites, and pulls Deagol into the water. . etc. Reminds me of my childhood. (No fish ever pulled me into the water, I was a bit too overweight).

[azalea]

I could support that theory. The more youthful the bearer, the more susceptible to corruption perhaps due to the fact that they do not "know" themselves as well yet. But I do think that Smeagol was a more selfish sort, maybe spoiled, who knows. I also happen to think that the kind of creature he was, although the ancestors of hobbits, were more primitive. More innocent (in a way), but also not as well developed a system of social mores or personal ethics. All of these could contribute to the corruptability factor.
(Note: although there were beings of other societies more advanced than that of the Shire that would have been more corruptable, I mean that the hobbits in particular had a way of life and moral philosphy that -- what's the opposite of predispose? -- they just evolved in such a way that evil is not in their nature, which we all know from Gandalf saying as much at different times in the book, and also from the actions of the hobbits themselves. Valuing peace and quiet, good food and a warm fire above all else becomes the key ingredient for withstanding the power of the ring. But then they had to learn to stand up for themselves because it can also be a detriment when it becomes necessary to fight off evil. Don't know if I've made the point clear, but I think you can see what I'm getting at).

[TwirlingString]

I think its because Bilbo hardly ever wore the ring

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by TwirlingString
I think its because Bilbo hardly ever wore the ring
Bilbo did use the ring, probably regularly; he didn't know it was unwholesome to do so. He used the ring when it became useful to be invisible, such as to avoid being seen by one of his annoying relatives. He also kept it on a chain because it changed size and could easily slip off a finger. Even Merry had seen him slip it on. I don't know if he used less frequently than Gollum; he certainly possessed it for less time. He used it out of convenience. Gollum used the ring to kill for food but to kill nonethess. Maybe that had something to do with it.

I think the ring had less effect on Bilbo than Gollum because of his nature: his innate goodness and inner strength.

[Lizra]

Yes, and didn't Bilbo wear the ring almost constantly when the dwarfs were locked up by Thranduil? He and the ring were mighty busy there for awhile! :)