What’s in a Name?

Tolkien is well known for his careful choice of names in his works.  He made an effort to give them meaning, symbolism and authenticity.  They were built with etymological meaning.  It is hard to think any Tolkien has no name.  And yet there is one: Gollum. 

This name has no true meaning.  It is nothing more than onomatopoeia, mimicking the gurgling cough of Smeagol.  Why would Tolkien do this?  It is obvious to any reader, that he’s not the type to just toss in a name off-hand.  So there must be some meaning to this apparently meaningless title.

An interesting way to look at the origin of Gollum is to think of when it is first used as a name. Smeagol becomes Gollum after taking possession of the Ring. The fact that the name has no meaning is intrinsic to the uniqueness of the character. Gollum, in truth, no longer has meaning. His entire being is wrapped up in the power of the Ring. Essentially he is a shell, he becomes the personification of the Ring’s vices. From this, it is easy to see why Gollum calls himself “My Precious.” He is the Ring, it has consumed him.  The murder of Deagol is more; it is also the “death” of Smeagol. 

His existence becomes consumed by the obsessive need to protect his precious and nurture his hatred.  He begins his ownership of the Ring with murder, theft and treachery.  This is key.  Remember Tolkien’s initial conception of the power of the ring.  It gained dominance over the bearer through his or her wrong-doings.  Essentially, Gollum is nothing more than the host to a pernicious parasite.  He is an embodiment of evil.  In the world of Middle Earth, people avoid naming evil.  Sauron is the “shadow,” the “eye,” his name is anathema.  This can be interpreted in many ways.  The use of the name may draw his attention to the speaker.  OR, evil itself is nameless.

Gollum’s lot becomes a bit clearer when he becomes the guide of Frodo.  For a short time, he is brought back to life by the kindness and pity of Frodo.  Frodo’s insistence upon the use of the name Smeagol grants some level of dignity and respect to Gollum.  He is no longer the “thief,” the “murderer,” or the “sneak.”  He is a person.  No longer just a symbol or embodiment of vice.  For a short time he is Smeagol again.  He is his own, no longer dominated by another entity.  He regains his own name and his own being.  

A quick comment

So, I’m sure by now all of you have heard the news about the fate of The Hobbit;  they’ve finally come to an agreement and we’ll have two movies in a couple of years.  Now does the fact that they are making two movies bother anyone else?  I know for myself, and many I’ve talked to, this is a major matter for concern.  According to the “rumor mills,” the second film will deal with the time between the end of The Hobbit and the beginning of The Lord of the Rings.  Granted, Tolkien wrote quite a bit of back story for this time, with many time lines and shorter tales, but can this constitute an entire film?  I don’t know.  I fear the film makers may use the lack of a concrete story to take control and make up their own story.  And, if you want a doom and gloom tale, if it succeeds as such it would lead to a whole trail of “LotR inspired” movies; because we all know how much Hollywood will do to make money…

I still am waffling over whether having Peter Jackson at the helm is a good thing or not.  Yes, his films were beautifully done.  Yes, they were entertaining.  Yes, they portrayed the basic plot of the books.  BUT…as you probably know by now, hopefully having read my previous posts, Peter Jackson and co. mangled much of Tolkien’s masterpiece to the point where it is no longer recognizable.  I think it is good at least that the vision of Middle Earth and the rigor with which they brought it to life will be continued in the new films.  But I cannot help but be wary of what they may produce; especially given the nature of The Hobbit.  It is a light-hearted book.  It does not have the gravitas and epic weight of LotR.  For this reason, I fear any movie maker will take much more dramatic license with it.  We shall see. 

Try Me: The melding of two Worlds

Turin Hurinson asked “What do you make of how the Lord of the Rings is a combination of originally separate worlds of the Hobbit and the Silmarillion? I love Tolkien’s works.  Is it conceivable that he would have been better off keeping them separate, and if not, why was it good that he combined them? It’s true we wouldn’t have LotR if he hadn’t, but I’m sure we would have had something equally impressive set only in the Hobbit world or (more likely) in Beleriand.”

First to start with fact.  I don’t have my copy of The Hobbit with me, so I’ll have to wing it a bit

While in the trenches in France and while recovering in the field hospital during WWI, Tolkien began to write what would become the Quenta Silmarillion.  It was always the work of his heart.  He struggled with it, writing and rewriting it unceasingly throughout his life.  To see its hold on him, one has only to look at his epitaph.  His life, his tales, are one.  The question becomes, then, how could he possibly keep The Hobbit, and subsequently The Lord of the Rings, out of the world of the Silmarillion?

But there is also a flaw in the original question.  The Hobbit is most definitely not in its own isolated world.  It hangs in the balance between the new and the world of Tolkien’s heart.  Granted Hobbits and the Shire are not of Middle Earth, they are more akin to England, but somehow they found their way into the ongoing tale of the Silmarillion.  The Hobbit, in many ways, can be seen as Tolkien’s attempt to reconcile modern English society with Middle Earth.  What would happen if a bourgeois Englishman were suddenly dropped into Middle Earth?  This is the essential question of The Hobbit, and hobbits themselves.  Using the anacronism of hobbit-culture and medieval Middle Earth creates humor as well as a point of familiarity for the reader.  It also sets up an interesting new hero-type; one who is just like us. 

This may be the starting point of The Hobbit, but it still does not touch upon the world it came to inhabit.  Were they ever truly separate?  Possibly.  At least in the beginning.  Yet already Tolkien’s great tale had its hold on him.  It would come to take a larger and deeper role in his writings as he wrote.  With The Hobbit, we begin to see the first shadows of a distant mythical past of Gondolin, High Elves and “Goblin” wars.  To use Tom Shippey’s terminology, it is the first instance of “interlacement.”  The story of Bilbo begins to weave itself into a wider and grimmer one.  This becomes fully developed in The Lord of the Rings. 

Is it a good thing that hobbits found their way into Middle Earth?  As a literary element, yes, but who’s really interested in that?…except maybe the critics and literary intelligencia.  What do the hobbits do for Middle Earth? 

It is important to recall that the Silmarillion, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were meant to create a new mythology for England.  They are a type of pre-history.  Hobbits are a bridge in that history; between elves and men.  Hobbits are still “mythical.”  They have comparatively long lives.  They can hide unseen and move silently.  They are very practical, full of hobbit-sense.  They act as the transition from the world of Elves to the world of Men.  Yet, even that is a literary device…so what really do the hobbits bring to Middle Earth?

I would have to say, most importantly, the hobbits bring innocence back to Middle Earth.  After the War of the Jewels, the Domination of Sauron and the Fall of Numenor, what innocence is left in the world?  What happiness, untainted by loss, yearning and regret?  Hobbits are the bastion of innocence.  One could even say they are far too innocent. 

In the end, I believe it would have been impossible for Tolkien to avoid the melding of these two worlds.  And looking at the results, I don’t think it could have worked any other way.  Elves and Men needed the innocence of Hobbits, just as the Hobbits needed the sorrow and strength of Men and Elves to ground them.

Try me

Ok.

Here’s your chance.  Is there something about Lord of the Ring’s or any of Tolkien’s works that you’ve wondered about?  Are there ideas and concepts of particular meaning to you that you’d like me to write about?  Or are there differences between the books and the movies that particularly irk you?  Here’s your opportunity. 

My current list of projected posts ideas has a healthy number of ideas, but I thought it would be interesting to see if there is anything in particular any of you readers would like me to touch upon.  If you have an idea, just post it as a comment to this post.  If I like your idea I’ll get to work, and do some research and we’ll see what I come up with!

The Ring of the Drafts

I have been reading The Return of the Shadow, the first book of the History of the Lord of the Rings sequence, and I’ve found an interesting tidbit. 

When he began to write, Tolkien did not have a clear conception of where his tale would lead.  And remember, at that point Gollum had seriously offered the ring as a prize to Bilbo.  The ring was not yet the Ring.  But it was getting there.

In the early drafts, the Ring is just the last ring beyond Sauron’s control.  It is most precious to him for some reason, but far from being the ‘One Ring,’ the ‘Ruling Ring’ it was to become.  What is most interesting to me is the mechanisms by which the Ring functions at this point. 

The Ring gains power over the bearer based upon the use it is put to.  Using it for escape or jest is permissible, but stealing or killing would give it power over the bearer, even to the point of making him a wraith.  This is why the pity of Bilbo is so important.  Had he not had pity on Gollum, he would have become a wraith fully under the power of the Ring.  This also lends itself easily to explain why Bilbo was able to pass the Ring on to Frodo (or Bingo), as well as why he was never greatly affected by the Ring.

While in some ways the Ring seems to have less power, it is more devious.  It takes hold of Bilbo through his feeling of sentiment.  Here is the souvenir of his great adventure.  For Frodo it is his great inheritance from Bilbo, it becomes the object of his love for Bilbo after he leaves.  And through these sentiments of attachment the Ring begins to take hold.

Gollum is not Smeagol at this point in the drafts, but Digol.  Interesting, right?  He merely finds the Ring; no yet beginning his ownership with murder.  Instead, he uses the Ring to steal and spy on his family.  These perfidious acts allow the Ring to bear heavily on him. 

Obviously this conception of how the Ring works did not last overtly through to the final book.  But it is interesting to consider how it remains.  The pity of Bilbo and subsequently the pity of Frodo are the key points in the book.  It may be Frodo’s pity for Gollum rather than hatred that saved Frodo from complete domination by the Ring.  More importantly, this pity is the reason why the Ring was destroyed, otherwise it would not have happened. 

And Gollum, here I may stretch things a bit too far, but I’ve come up with an intriguing application.  In the final version, Smeagol kills Deagol to gain the Ring.  He begins his ownership with murder and crime.  But what of his original name, “Digol,” awfully close to Deagol, right?  In a sense, in gaining the Ring and in killing Deagol, Gollum kills a part of himself.  He loses Smeagol and any love or hobbitness he once had.  He becomes the animated embodiment of the Ring.  He is “My Precious.” 

Samwise Gamgee: True Hobbit, Unlikely Hero

Samwise Gamgee is the only ordinary hobbit of the four.  Frodo is a Baggins, part Took and raised in Buckland.  Merry is a Bucklander and Pippin is a Took.  All are in some way associated with the “un-hobbitlike” behaviors.  Tooks have always been considered odd and prone to adventuring.  Bucklanders are odd for their liking of boats.  Also Buckland, to some hobbits, is outside the Shire, being across the Brandywine and under the shadow of the Old Forest.  Sam, on the otherhand, has no predispositions or oddities excepting a desire to see elves.

Sam is essentially the exemplar hobbit.  He has an aversion for adventure and boats, all he wants is to lead a simple life with a garden of his own.  Even his name is against him; Samwise means “halfwit.”  This is what makes Sam’s commitment and strength in the quest so outstanding.  He has no special virtues or abilities.  He is just a plain hobbit, with much hobbit sense.  His lowly station sets the stage for his unparalled devotion and love for Frodo.

This is what makes Sam so different.  He is like us, unwilling and unprepared for adventure.  His greatest asset is his love and loyalty.  If not for Frodo, Sam would never have left the Shire.  If not for Sam, Frodo would have never made it to Mount Doom.

This is why I think Sam is so often overlooked, for his “hobbitness.”  He is ordinary in a field of extraordinary characters.  The extraordinary deeds of Aragorn or Gandalf are plausible, their abilities coincide with their actions.  Sam’s actions, on the other hand, so exceed expectations they’re almost hard to believe.  He’s so ordinary it’s often hard not to overlook him.  And yet, in many ways, he is the heart and soul of the story.