49

I was reading this question and I noticed Daniel Roseman's comment:

Point of clarification: Smeagol wasn't "hobbit-like", he was actually a hobbit. "I guess he was of hobbit-kind" means that he was of the same "kind"—i.e. race—as the hobbits that Frodo knew.

and further down Jon Purdy's comment:

Specifically, he was a Stoor, a variety of Hobbit that had an affinity with men—as opposed to a Harfoot or Fallohide, who shared characteristics with dwarves and elves, respectively.

So Sméagol was actually a Hobbit, just like Frodo and Sam. But where it takes quite some time before Frodo starts showing some signs of greed and corruption caused by the ring, it only takes a look at the ring for Sméagol to go completely mental and kill his brother. Sam has also seen the ring lots of times, and even kept it for a while, but he didn't try to choke Frodo during their trip.

Why did the ring have such a different effect on Sméagol?

Edit: Now that I'm thinking about it, Bilbo went a bit off the rails near the end, but he never actually hurt someone to protect his ring either.

Lexible
  • 21,386
  • 5
  • 72
  • 134
Kevin
  • 1,871
  • 5
  • 18
  • 28
  • 4
    possible duplicate of How did Sam remain unaffected by the ring's power? – phantom42 Nov 04 '14 at 14:00
  • 2
    Specifically, Jack B Nimble's answer goes into this. – phantom42 Nov 04 '14 at 14:01
  • 8
    Smeagol definitely didn't instantly go crazy and kill his brother. It made him a bit more jealous, and they got into a bit more of a fight than they normally would have, and Smeagol went a bit too far. – Gorchestopher H Nov 04 '14 at 14:03
  • 1
    weve seen the ring can exert its corruption at times, and amplify itself for brief periods of time, then once it has you, theirs no going back. the ring had just lied dormant for what a thousand years or more? im sure it could wield an exceptionally strong burst of evil after that, because after the killing, smeagol did almost immediately get driven out of his home into the mountains. where he hung out all creepy for hundreds of years. – Himarm Nov 04 '14 at 14:09
  • @kevin also since your quotes show that smeagol had affinity towards men, then simply he was most prone to the rings attraction at the start, as we see men are often grabed by the rings influence only seeing it once. where as the other hobbits have affinity with either dwarves (the ring would arguably have little to no influence) or elves(probably what frodo and bilbo where) in which case the ring took about 40-60 years each respectively before its corruption was apparent. – Himarm Nov 04 '14 at 14:13
  • 4
    I suggest leaving this open, as it acknowledges that Frodo, Sam & Bilbo were affected, but is instead asking about the length of time taken to be affected; i.e what was so special or different about Smeagol that the Ring was able to get him instantly (the same would apply to Isildur - if it's a dupe it's more a dupe of this one than the suggested). –  Nov 04 '14 at 14:21
  • 1
    I also think this should remain open. It is indeed a similar question, but this answers a different question because it deals with the differences of the different kinds of hobbit. Not all hobbits are created equal. The families had distinctly different characteristics. – Jason Hutchinson Nov 04 '14 at 14:27
  • It has been a while since I have read it, but it seemed to me that it was not necessarily all that short of a time span between when Smeagol found the ring and when he killed his brother. Also, it does seem to affect each individual differently. – Dave Johnson Nov 04 '14 at 14:48
  • @DaveJohnson It's been while since I read the books, so the movies may have clouded my memories. But I'm pretty sure they go fishing on Sméagol's birthday, Déagol gets pulled in the water by some big fish and finds the ring in the mud. When he resurfaces and shows the ring to Sméagol, Sméagol demands it as a birthday present. When Déagol refuses, the whole thing escalates into a fight where Déagol dies by suffocation. – Kevin Nov 04 '14 at 15:42
  • 2
    It may not happen in a journey of a decade, but sometimes you just want to choke your best friend. – Trollwut Nov 04 '14 at 16:09
  • @Kevin - this is correct per the books too, yes. They were also friends, not brothers. –  Nov 04 '14 at 16:15
  • Within the same race, the extend of the corruption by the Ring can vary greatly, as shown by the example of Boromir and Faramir. – Taladris Nov 05 '14 at 03:42

6 Answers6

66

This isn't supported in canon, but your question makes an underlying assumption that all hobbits are 100% the same, which I feel is not a correct assumption.

In reality, hobbits are humans (from JRRT's "storytelling" point of view, not in-universe-biological one). And one thing we know about humans is that 1-3% of them are sociopaths/psychopaths, who would gladly kill a person for a pretty ring even without the ring being Sauron's One Ring.

So, it's just as plausible to explain Sméagol's behavior by his innate negative qualities, as it is by the Ring somehow acting very differently on him than on Bagginses. This is reinforced by several different points from canon:

  • We know that the other Rings amplified their wearers' attributes, e.g. Dwarves' greed... so it's possible the One Ring amplified Sméagol's sociopathy.

    This was alluded to pretty explicitly by Tolkien himself. In a letter to Michael Straight (Letter 181), Tolkien writes:

    The domination of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not been a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path

  • We see the same existence of good/evil individual in Men in Tolkien, in general.

    Grima Wormtongue is one example. The Witch-king of Angmar another (even pre-Ring). Haradrim are considered evil though that's probably just pro-Elvish propaganda.

    • Or, hell, even in hobbits. Ted Sandyman and Lotho Sackville-Baggins are seen as bad hobbits.

  • We also see how the ring amplifies the natural negative qualities and behavior in everyone:

    • Humans: the lure of the Ring and its power affected Boromir vs. Faramir differently. Or Denethor (at a distance, natch) vs. Aragorn.

    • Even Wizards (Gandalf vs. Saruman, who wasn't even near the Ring)

  • The Ring didn't cause other heroes to murder either - it was seen, aside from Bagginses, by everyone at Council of Elrond; by Galadriel; and Samwise Gamgee didn't seem affected at all, even less so than Frodo.

DavidW
  • 128,443
  • 29
  • 545
  • 685
DVK-on-Ahch-To
  • 342,451
  • 162
  • 1,520
  • 2,066
  • 3
    Also, I remember references to Silmarillion saying that the future-Ringwraiths resisted the power of their rings according to their own goodness/willpower and varied at that. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Nov 04 '14 at 22:28
  • 3
    "In reality, hobbits are humans" - How is this correct? – bobbyalex Nov 05 '14 at 05:25
  • 1
    Could you please reference the "[In storytelling] Hobbits are humans" claim? I find it very fascinating and would like to read more about it. – Maurycy Nov 05 '14 at 07:40
  • 2
    @BobbyAlexander I can't seem to find it at the moment, but I read a quote that Hobbits are supposed to provide humans with a familiar reference point to get familiar with the story. – SBoss Nov 05 '14 at 08:46
  • 1
    @BobbyAlexander - That's a basic principle of storytelling. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Nov 05 '14 at 12:25
  • 6
    @MaurycyZarzycki one issue is the notes for translators by Tolkien himself - stating all the hobbit-related names (places, things, surnames, etc) shouldn't be left alone/transliterated (as for elvish and other names) but replaced with native sounding names of local culture to invoke a feeling of home that the characters are leaving behind. – Peteris Nov 05 '14 at 15:27
  • 1
    1-3% of people would kill for a pretty ring? Source? – JMD Nov 05 '14 at 20:21
  • 1
    @JMD - Wikipedia. "A 2008 study using the PCL:SV found that 1.2% of a US sample scored 13 or more out of 24, indicating 'potential psychopathy'". And "Hare reports that about 1 per cent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy" – DVK-on-Ahch-To Nov 05 '14 at 20:25
  • 1
    @DVK psychopaths are not all murderers, and I'm sure almost all of them have seen a pretty ring before. – JMD Nov 05 '14 at 20:27
  • @JMD - yes, most are worried about prison. If you're a powerful person from clan leadership, AND can kill, AND have strong coveting for the property, you likely will be capable of it. Read up on ASPD definition in DSM-IV – DVK-on-Ahch-To Nov 05 '14 at 20:28
  • 1
    @DSM - the point isn't that every psychopath kills. It's that they are more likely to kill than a normal person, AND that they aren't rare in humans, at all. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Nov 05 '14 at 20:30
  • 1
    @DVK sorry, that's a strong conjecture. I like most of your answer though, hence the upvote, but the part about Smeagle being a psychopath and therefore will kill over a pretty ring doesn't connect. Can't he just be a piece of garbage that would kill for a super compelling magical artifact without being part of some 1% group of psychopaths? – JMD Nov 05 '14 at 20:31
  • 3
    @JMD - ask on Cognitive Psychi SE :) I'm not an expert. Could he? Guess so. Is there a VERY strong correllation between people who murder for material goods (especially small cheap ones) and psychopathy? Yes. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Nov 05 '14 at 21:30
  • @JMD let's make a real world analog: Bob and Alice are friends. They see a winning lottery ticket on the ground. They both go for it. They argue about who saw it first. They provide various reasons that one of them deserves it over the other. Tempers rise. They fight. Alice kills Bob and takes the lottery ticket. Whoops. Oh well, it's Alice's ticket now. She misses Bob, and she feels it prudent to move away with her new winnings to distance herself from the murder, but she got what she wanted, so, you know, all's well. Is Alice a psychopath? In general, I think that's enough for a diagnosis. – Jason Nov 06 '14 at 14:27
  • @Jason You forgot that the lottery ticket is a sentient, magical object that can impose it's will on other people. Also, I'm going to need to discount any speculation on what Alice/Smeagle was feeling about the actual murder. For all we know Alice/Smeagle is very remorseful about having to kill to retain the mind-controlling ring. – JMD Nov 06 '14 at 14:33
  • 1
    @JMD point is, people prone to psychopathy would be more liable to fall rapidly under the One's influence, and seeing their psychopathy amplified to the point where they're quite capable of killing, effectively losing what restraint society still has on them. – jwenting Nov 06 '14 at 14:51
  • @JMD admittedly I conjectured along one path... that's all we've got, here, conjecture. Why did Smeagol kill his friend? One reason might be that he had psychopathic tendencies already, and it's not so incredibly rare that this would constitute a great stretch. It's not the only explanation, though, as you note, but at minimum we can assume that Smeagol was of weaker moral constitution than his other Hobbit relatives that came into contact with the ring. But, as I recall, we do know that Smeagol showed some little remorse for having killed his friend, but only a little. – Jason Nov 06 '14 at 14:52
  • Halflings are also "men" in the sense that they are essentially afterborn Children of Iluvatar. The relationship is fairly distant and they are much smaller, but they aren't a separate kindred as elves and dwarves are. – Francis Davey Dec 14 '14 at 23:13
  • This is correct, but there is canon evidence (insofar as anything in Tolkien is canon). In a letter to Michael Sraight, Tolkien writes: "The domination of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not been a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path" – Jason Baker May 20 '15 at 03:46
  • @JasonBaker - should I edit that in or do you prefer to make a separate answer based on that quote? – DVK-on-Ahch-To May 21 '15 at 14:01
  • @DVK Go ahead and edit it in; your answer is already correct, this is just the icing on the cake – Jason Baker May 21 '15 at 14:12
  • 1
    According to Tolkien, Hobbits are humans in-universe, too. Just an obscure, pygmy race of humans. – Ber May 24 '16 at 08:27
  • Tolkien was explicit that Elves, Men, and Hobbits were not biologically distinct: they were the same species, differing in spiritual endowment and cultures. – Lexible Dec 27 '23 at 15:34
27

Gandalf himself hints at it when speaking of Bilbo:

Frodo: “What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!'”

Gandalf: “Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.”

So it seems that your motives when dealing with the Ring can moderate the effect the Ring has on you. Obviously Frodo's and Sam's motives were fair which explains the difference in the effects.

Edit: There is a section on the effect of the Ring and its relation to individual's character and motives in a study by David Harvey - "ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL - Study of the History, Symbolism and Meaning of the One Ring in J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth".

Rafał Dowgird
  • 371
  • 2
  • 5
6

According to LotR, Sméagol was rather nasty before acquiring his "birthday present". Its acquisition made doing nasty stuff easier. After that, he had the Ring for much longer than a Hobbit lifetime, the better part of an age. Bilbo, Frodo and Sam were rather nice people before acquiring the ring and mostly stayed that way.

  • Of the three, Bilbo had it the longest and mostly used it to avoid bothersome people. Except for a desire to keep it, Bilbo seemed rather unaffected.

  • Frodo had it without using it for several years. On his trip to Mount Doom, he only wore it a time or two. Again, the effect on his personality was that he desired to keep it.

  • Sam, the one who had it the least of the three, was the only person to ever give it up without a fuss*.

Isildur did not live long enough for us to know whether he would have been corrupted by the Ring. He did not invent were-geld.

(*) I'm counting Gandalf's treating it like a hot potato as a fuss.

DavidW
  • 128,443
  • 29
  • 545
  • 685
Michael Hennebry
  • 81
  • 2
5

We should also keep in mind that all we know about that story was extracted from Sméagol himself, when Gandalf questioned him after captured by Aragorn. This information was bound to have lots of gaps in it. In particular, I much doubt he would have clearly told about the murder of Déagol — perhaps Sméagol (Slinker) first denied having anything to do with it, and then Gollum (Stinker) suddenly came out, evil-exaggeratingly, with the story that Gandalf later told Frodo. Perhaps he actually inferred the whole thing, with some assumptions of his own about the Ring's power. We don't know, in-universe, what actually happened; maybe Déagol's death was more accident than anything else and Sméagol took rather more blame on it than due.

DavidW
  • 128,443
  • 29
  • 545
  • 685
leftaroundabout
  • 4,487
  • 26
  • 24
2

When Sméagol found the One Ring, it was not long after it had been lost by Sauron himself, with only Isildur holding it for a very brief time, deciding not to destroy it. It was still strong with dark powers, and there immediately was a quarrel between him and one of his relatives for the ring. It was easy for the Ring to corrupt him rapidly.

For Bilbo, the Ring had been lying dormant for decades, and when he found it no one was around but himself. He kept it in his pocket most of the time and didn't come to realize its power right away.

For Frodo, the Ring had been in possession of his Uncle, a very unassuming and peaceful creature, and one who was very resistant to the Ring's power from the start. And it had been lying mostly dormant, since Bilbo hadn't much need for it in daily hobbit life.

And for Sam...well, he only used it once and very briefly, albeit deep in the heart of Mordor. His love for Frodo was impressively strong, he'd only had it for a few hours at most, and the natural resistance to ring-corruption hobbits have likely helped.

In each of these cases though, it was still very hard to give up the ring. For Bilbo, it took every ounce of Gandalf's cleverness and convincing to get him to part with it. And for Sam, it took his own steel reserves to hand it back to Frodo.

Sméagol was just unlucky - he found the ring when it was most powerful, was tempted early on to commit a very violent act, and did so, thus sealing his corruption. It's also implied early on by Gandalf, when talking about Gollum, that the type of 'Hobbit' he is/was isn't quite as peaceful a creature as Bilbo/Frodo/Sam. Which may have meant less resistance to the ring's corruption.

DavidW
  • 128,443
  • 29
  • 545
  • 685
Zibbobz
  • 24,282
  • 16
  • 104
  • 175
  • 15
    Where did the idea come from that the ring would lose power over time? – sbi Nov 04 '14 at 14:39
  • @sbi I'm not sure. It's implied that it remained dormant for a long time in Smeagol's posession, but that could be all it is - an implication, not a definite. – Zibbobz Nov 04 '14 at 15:01
  • Just FYI that wasn't Smeagol's actual brother it was one of his relatives. – DoctorWho22 Nov 04 '14 at 15:16
  • 14
    Even if the "decays over time" theory had any canon support, it's based on flawed information. Deagol found the ring 2463 years after Isildur had taken it from Sauron, and Bilbo found it 478 years after that. How could the ring be at its "most powerful" at one but "dormant" at the other? – Plutor Nov 04 '14 at 16:52
  • @Plutor The Misty Mountains may have something to do with it. The ring lay beneath them while Smeagul held it, outside of Sauron's sight and influence. – Zibbobz Nov 04 '14 at 17:05
  • And Sam did actually use it; he not only used it, but he used it in Mordor (Book 6 Chapter 1). A clear -1 I'm afraid. –  Nov 04 '14 at 19:46
  • and where does the idea come from that the One "fully corrupted" Isildur? All I've read suggests that Isildur wanted to keep the One as a trophy and little else. – jwenting Nov 06 '14 at 14:53
  • @jwenting Wasn't he encouraged to cast it into the fire immediately after finding it? Or was that an invention of Peter Jackson? – Zibbobz Nov 06 '14 at 14:56
  • 1
    @Zibbobz you mean Isildur? yes, he was warned about the dangers of the One, but chose to ignore those. Whether that means he was being corrupted by it or not I can't say, but at the time he'd never yet even touched the ring, the warnings came before he cut it from the hand of Sauron (and probably continued afterwards). – jwenting Nov 06 '14 at 15:00
  • @jwenting Sounds like whether or not it had influence over him is unknown then. I'll edit it to play down the influence a bit. – Zibbobz Nov 06 '14 at 15:02
-1

It's not a case of the Ring affecting them differently. It affected them all in the same way. What was different is that Dèagol tried to take the Ring from Smèagol. By force, even! Whenever Frodo, or Bilbo, or even Sam gave up possession of the ring, they all did so voluntarily.

I can think of two scenarios when force was attempted (+1 where it succeeded):

  • When Boromir, at the foot of Amon Hen, tries to take the ring from Frodo by force. And
  • Before reaching the Sammath Naur, when Gollum appears and tries to take the ring from Frodo by force. Incidentally, this attempt was what shook Frodo out of his lethargic stupor, reviving his will enough to throw off Gollum and climb into the Sammath Naur.
  • Later, when Gollum renews his attack (inside the chamber) he wins possession of the Ring from Frodo, causing Frodo to kill him (was it by accident? Was it deliberate?).

There's a LOT of things that have already been mentioned, like Gandalf telling Frodo "Be sure he (Bilbo) took so little hurt from the evil of the and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so; with pity." There are many other good points to consider, such as the mischievous nature of Smèagol before ever finding the ring, etc... I shan't reproduce these here, since they're already on this page elsewhere. I just thought it important to point out that it was Dèagol trying to take the ring by force that caused Smèagol to kill him.

Also worth noting is that when climbing the Endless Stair, Frodo was convinced by Gollum that Sam wanted to take the Ring for himself. Just the thought of this caused Frodo to send Sam away. Perhaps if Sam had ACTUALLY tried to take the Ring by force, Frodo might have tried to kill him, just as Smèagol had killed Dèagol?

LogicDictates
  • 116,405
  • 22
  • 418
  • 512
Razar Campbell
  • 17
  • 2
  • 5
    I believe you are confused. Déagol found the Ring and merely wouldn't give it up. Sméagol attacked and killed him; there's no evidence the Ring made Déagol violent. – DavidW Sep 30 '22 at 03:29
  • Frodo doesn't send Sam away in the book. – Ian Thompson Oct 07 '22 at 20:49
  • Also, Frodo did not kill Gollum, not even accidentally. Gollum won and then slipped while doing a happy dance. – Michael Richardson Oct 07 '22 at 21:06
  • 1
    In the movie, maybe Gollum slipped accidentally, but in the book, he was clearly commanded to be cast into the fire for attacking Frodo again after attacking him on the way. "‘Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.’" – Michael Foster Dec 27 '23 at 13:31
  • 1
    @MichaelFoster --- In the book, Gollum fell into the Crack of Doom. He didn't jump in, and Frodo had no power to make him do so. – Ian Thompson Dec 27 '23 at 16:00
  • 1
    @IanThompson The Ring made him fall in, after Frodo invoked it, according to the quote. I explain this further here. – Michael Foster Dec 27 '23 at 16:36
  • @MichaelFoster --- The Ring made him fall in, while he was holding ... the Ring? – Ian Thompson Dec 27 '23 at 16:59
  • @MichaelFoster --- Re. your theory based on the linked post: Frodo says putting on the Ring would give him the power to command Smeagol. However, Frodo does not wear the ring during the encounter outside Sammath Naur; nor does he ever command Smeagol to cast himself into the Fire. Smeagol fell: "... even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell." – Ian Thompson Dec 29 '23 at 23:24