The Taming of Smeagol

I can't seem to find "Emyn Muil" in the map provided at the beginning of this Book, but I'm sure I must just be blind. Any landmark tips?

Why can Frodo not see anything after he falls down the ledge until Sam lowers the Elvish rope?

Very cool that Sam is able to "call" the rope after he and Frodo get down.

I don't trust Smeagol/Gollum, even if he does appear to be temporarily tamed. Tolkien does a wonderful job of describing how Gollum moves and looks as he climbs down the precipice. The following paragraph made me shudder:


down the face of a precipice, sheer and almost smooth it seemed in the pale moonlighyt, a small black shape was moving with its thin limbs splayed out. Maybe its soft clinging hands and toes were finding crevices and holds that no hobbit could ever seen or used, but it looked as if it was just creeping down on sticky pads, down head first, as if it was smelling its way. Now and again it lifted its head slowly, turning it right back on its long skinny neck, and the hobbits caught a glimpse of two small pale gleaming lights, its eyes that blinked at the moon for a moment and then were quickly lidded again.


It -is- interesting, however, how Gollum seemed to change after being touched by the Elven rope. Or perhaps it was because Frodo showed mercy on him?

I still don't trust Gollum, though. I hope Frodo and Sam don't, either.

I am very glad that Sam is with Frodo, not only because he's a great help, but also because he adds some comic relief to what could otherwise be a very grim chapter.

Pretty exciting; I'm hooked.

Was any extra history given about Gollum in the Hobbit or the Silmarillion?

[Previous entry: "Two Towers: BOOK III - Chapter 11"] [Next entry: "Two Towers: BOOK IV - Chapter 2"]

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 May 23 09:18 AM EST

For now I'll simply say that when I sit to re-visit LOTR I almost always end up lost in Book 4 first. There are so many powerful and moving moments, so many scenes that have stayed with me forever. I envy you reading them for the first time.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 May 23 10:12 AM EST

There is a summary chapter concerning the third age at the end of "The Silmarillion" that mentions Gollum in passing and with no detail at all. You would have had to read the other books to even know it was Gollum. The actual stories contained in "The Silmarillion" take place long before the ring was made.
And other than the afore mentioned chapter Hobbits don't appear at all.

Posted by J'nae Rae Campbell @ 2001 May 23 10:18 AM EST

I must say that I love the Hobbit, read it over and over and over and devour it, while LoTR bores the crap out of me. I haven't tried it in several years; I may after watching Debbie get through it. :-> But the Hobbit isn't only a children's book, and is only 'more shallow' than LoTR in the sense that it's NOT full of long pointless crossing-the-land-for-fifty-pages passages and fifteen bazillion people, all of whose names you have to remember because it'll be important later.

That's not shallow,t hat's better written, to me. :->

Eloise, the token LoTR Disliker.

Posted by Eloise @ 2001 May 23 10:55 AM EST

As someone who read LOTR before "The Hobbit", I can't agree, Eloise. After being swept away by the power and emotion of LOTR, I did find "The Hobbit" disappointing when I first read it. The portrayal of Gandalf and the Elves, well, I was just horrified :). It took me several years to come around to its youth audience perspective and simplicity, despite knowing that it was written for children. Just my fate for having read the books backwards :).

Posted by Allison @ 2001 May 23 11:20 AM EST

Eloise,
Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" as a childrens book. He also left out most of the evlen names of things, making it a simpler read. It is shallow in the sense that it delves less into the history of middle-earth. It is concerned only with Bilbo's adventure and told mostly from his view point. LotR is much more complex in its weaving together the different threads of the story and a heavier reliance on the history. Here also you find the elven names in use. This makes LorR a more adult book in reading level. The true difference between a children's book and an adult book isn't in the story, but in the way it is written. Admitedly, in some books, content is the deciding factor. A well done children's story is just as enjoyable for adults as one written in a more complex fashion. I am sure this is what Katarina was referring to and not the lack of discription of the journey though it probably does include the lack of all those names you disliked.

Posted by J'nae Rae Campbell @ 2001 May 23 11:45 AM EST

Eloise
I didnīt mean to say that The Hobbit is shallow! Of course it isnīt, it is in itself a wonderful book. I read it before LOTR, as I child, and adored it. Itīs just that now I have read LOTR so many times. And when I reread The Hobbit it is interesting to see how the Middle Earth with the hobbits, Gandalf, the elves, The Ring, Gollum etc etc expanded in Tolkiens imagination over the years that passed between the books. His account thereby became richer an more nuanced in LOTR. So, someone reading The Hobbit after LOTR, like Allison and maybe Debbie, might find it shallow and be disappointed. Which is a shame!
Keep loving The Hobbit, Eloise! And I really hope you will like LOTR someday, too. :)

Posted by Katarina @ 2001 May 23 11:51 AM EST

Comparing "The Hobbit" and LOTR is one of those apples-and-oranges situations. They are written in different styles for different audiences, and are both perfect in their way. I personally feel it is preferable to read Hobbit first, but for those who can't appreciate a children's book on it's own terms, this might be a mistake. The somewhat coy tone might put them off reading LOTR, which would be very sad.

Posted by Paul Mendenhall @ 2001 May 23 11:54 AM EST

I have grown to really like "The Hobbit" since, too. It's a wonderful piece of children's literature and I love children's literature. I've read "The Hobbit" to my students before and shown them the animated movie that first turned me on to Tolkien and I recommend it to kids all the time. (Aside: right now one of my students is totally lost in the world of Narnia, which makes me just as happy. I've had to scold him for reading Narnia during math a few times and if you read my comment from a few days ago, you can appreciate the irony in that :). Boy, I'd rather read Tolkien or Lewis than do math any day myself, so I was gentle with him :).)

A small part of me, though, wishes I first read "The Hobbit" when I was 8 or 9, it would have been one of the very special books of my childhood. Instead, other books hold that place in my memory and I had to wait a few years to allow LOTR to become the pivotal book of my teenage years and my favorite book ever since.

Posted by Allison @ 2001 May 23 12:18 PM EST

Emyn Muil -- Follow the northwest corner of Mordor, where the Ered Lithui and Ephel Duath converge at the Morannon, northwest past the dead marshes and you're there. I wouldn't worry too much about keeping you sense of direction. I still look at the maps when I read LOTR and only now am I beginning to be able to relate "so and so turned west and went hither" to the geopgraphy of ME.

Another thought on the Hobbit: I find the best way to relate to it is taking it as Bilbo's own writing. That's what Tolkien intended the Red Book to be. It's "hobbitish" if you know what I mean with it's easy dialogue and wit. I imagine it like it's being read by Bilbo to some young wide-eyed hobbits around the fireplace at Bag end. But that's just me.

Posted by Phil @ 2001 May 23 04:33 PM EST

ALLRIGHT, THAT TEARS IT. I'm going to my local bookstore, and I am picking up "The Hobbit". Today. ASAP. You guys have got me twitching like Gollum in the Wedding Band department of Filene's. Speaking of our froggy little fiend, I'm most interested to see what he sounds like in the movies. I've got very strong opinions on what he looks and sounds like, mostly gleaned from the Rankin-Bass cartoon version, and I want to see how close Peter Jackson and I come on this. I mean, Burgess Meredith! Come on! How cool is that? You keep expecting him to start telling Bilbo that he's going to eat lightning, and crrrrrrrap thunder!

Posted by Chris H. @ 2001 May 24 07:26 AM EST

Honestly, all your comments only back up my feelings about LOTR. What y'all call nuances I often call overcomplicated unnecessary crap, most of the time. :-> (at least the degree to which LoTR takes it) But then again, I've managed to make it through most of the Wheel of Time since I last tried LoTR, so maybe I've worked up a tolerance, immunized my brain.

Posted by Eloise @ 2001 May 24 11:23 AM EST

I saw your link over at TORN and i really enjoy reading your thoughts of the first reading of LOTR. You've heard all this before so i will get to the point...if you are enjoying the books that much, a good idea is to get The Atlas of Middle Earth (any bookstore has it). It is a beautifully done atlas of pretty much everything in the book plus lots and lots more.

best wishes and enjoy!
jeff stiefer

Posted by jeffro @ 2001 Jun 01 04:57 AM EST

Chris H,

I'm sure you'll have done this by now, but if you view the new trailer for FoTR you can hear Gollum - just how I'd envisaged it!

Posted by Andy @ 2001 Jun 01 06:32 AM EST

While reading Tolkien's Biography and Letters I came across this rather interesting trivia about the Hobbit: In the original version (first edition) Gollum actually *shows* Bilbo out after the riddle game. He accepts defeat and they part on friendly terms. When Allen & Unwin started realising the popularity of the book they asked JRRT for a sequel. JRRT was more interested in publishing his mythological epic (the original Silmarillion), but they refused it (probably just as well, eh?). So he started on the sequel and realized quickly that the Ring would make an excellent vehicle for the story. He then rewrote chapter 5 of the Hobbit to the version we are familiar with in order to set up the LoTR plot - although he was still far from discovering the full impact!

The Hobbit was originally published in 1937. A first edition copy recently sold for US$12,500 (as I recall). If you come across a copy in your grandfather's bookshelf HANG ON TO IT!!!

Anyway, I'm currently reading The Lost Road and Other Writings (book 5 of the HoME series). In it Christopher discusses the evolution of the second age and the fall of Numenor (Tolkien's Atlantean legend) and Sauron's involvement with it. He even touches upon the Last Alliance (Elendil & Gil-Galad) and the defeat of Sauron at the end of the Second Age, but this was all in 1937-1938. The Ring, however, does not even enter into the picture at this stage of the development.

When he started writing "the sequel" Tolkien struggled a lot to find the right voice for it. His mind was set on "epic mythology" but they wanted a sequel to a children's story. It took him another ten years to create the LoTR, during which he also continued dabbling in the big stuff. It's interesting to me to see how it all evolved - how events that take place at the end of the Third Age ended up shaping the events of the second age.

The Hobbit was not originally placed in Middle Earth as Tolkien envisioned his mythological realm at the time of its writing. Sauron is mentioned as the Necromancer, and really is only brought in as a mechanism to get Gandalf away from the Dwarves and Bilbo. In fact the name Sauron was still evolving from Thu at that period of Tolkien's developments. It was the tying of the sequel to the Hobbit with the Mythologies that resulted in the Lord of the Rings, and hence why I think it's so great a tale - it has "real" history to surround an initially very simple tale (intended for children).

Posted by Lindo @ 2001 Jun 01 01:01 PM EST

Hmm... Maybe someone already said this, but:

The best history you'll find about Gollum IS in the LoTR, when Gandalf is talking to Frodo at Bag End about the Ring. Look back at that, you'll understand Gollum a little more.

Posted by Glen @ 2001 Jun 01 03:21 PM EST

I've been working backwards, rereading Debbie's comments (and snickering ).

A few comments I wanted to make about the Hobbit, since it was discussed here:

First of all, Allison mentioned how appalled she was at the portrayal of Gandalf and the dwarves in the Hobbit. I read the Hobbit first, then LotR, then went back to the Hobbit... and was appalled. :) Last year, though, I finally got my hands on UT and was totally blown away by a small section in which Gandalf, sitting in Minas Tirith with Frodo and Co. during those spring months after March 25th, discusses "There and Back Again" and the discrepancies. Allison, it's not just a children's story! It's also BILBO's story, and he doesn't grow up on his journey quite as much as Frodo does. He misses out on a lot of background material. It's only a page or two, but it's great reading.

I also wanted to comment on Lindo's observation that the original riddle chapter in Hobbit had Gollum AGREE to show Bilbo the way out. Does anyone else marvel at Tolkien's genius here? He decided he wanted to revise something, so he incorporates that revision into the story! The "original" chapter becomes the false story that Bilbo tells the dwarves, and "puts down in the Red Book," because the Ring is already starting to work on him. This is why, in Council of Elrond, Bilbo looks sideways at Gloin and apologizes for having told a different story at first. Amazing, isn't it? :)

Posted by Sandy @ 2001 Jun 21 11:33 AM EST

anyone who thinks LOTR has a lot of characters to keep track of really needs to read Tad WIlliam's Memory, Sorrow and Thorn series. More people with similar names than you can poke a stick at, although i do like them still. Also the Sithi from those books (assuming anyone reading this has read them) are so like the elves from Tolkiens work.

Posted by Chris @ 2001 Jun 29 08:53 AM EST