Talk:Gollum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Gollum's betrayal

In the following: In The Lord of the Rings, Gollum reappears searching for the Ring and betrays the Fellowship to a band of Orcs. (This is purely conjectural: Gollum had been following the Fellowship down the River Anduin, but there is no textual indication that the Orc attack near the Falls of Rauros was a result of any betrayal on his part; both Sauron and Saruman had forces on both sides of the river, and Gollum was unlikely to deliver the Ring to forces who would make sure he could never recover it)

I deleted the note. It should be here, not in the article. -- Zoe

I'm going to delete the whole thing -- pure speculation. It doesn't say that Gollum flew in on a B52 either, so maybe we should mention that possibility! ;-) -- Tarquin 09:16 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Mental/psychological state

I'm genuinely surprised that there's nothing covering his mental and psychological condition in any depth. Gollum obviously exhibits multiple personality disorder, yet there's really nothing stating how tha disorder was viewed at the time, or how victims and doctors treat Gollum's portrayal in either the books or the movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe routt (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, everybody talks about Gollum's madness. Has some measure of its I.Q? He obviously knows well clued-in on the Dead Marshes and the war front. And he is not stupid: the betrayal of the spider, his cooperation with the Orcs and other "strong friend", his interesting riddles in the dark.

I am more fascinated by the Chrakter itself: perhaps a loner with a predilection for beautiful objects. And the perfect object has simply defeated him, the ring. He likes things more than people - they can not hurt him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.164.114.43 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Action Figure

Is the action figure photo a good illustration for this (and Aragorn, Legolas)? I don't like it too much... Ausir 10:19, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't like them very much as well.. even screen captures from the movies might not be a very good idea, many fans has their own versions of the characters in their minds, so the character pages for middle-earth characters should stay moviepictureless IMHO. --Conti|✉ 22:24, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Gollum had been a prisoner of the Elves, and had in fact escaped. He was in Lorien in the book, and was seen climbing the trunk of the trees where the fellowship lay sleeping before being led to Galadriel days later. Someone editing these pages really needs to read the BOOK rather than just watch the movies. They are COMPLETELY different. (Understandably as the movie would have been about 22 hours long if it followed the book exactly).

ALSO... Shelob's Lair in the BOOK happened during The Two Towers, Not Return of the King, and someone needs to read the BOOK ending of Gollum rather than spewing the ending of the movie.

THANKS!69.204.126.223 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Jen

Broken Bridge

It is mentioned in the text that it is unknown how Gollum crossed the chasm after the Bridge of Khazad-dŭm was broken. However, we later see that Orks are able to exit Moria, perhaps by means of the large blocks that we saw trolls bringing to bridge another chasm in the same chamber. Gollum most possibly exited Moria the same way. What do you think? --Bill the Greek 07:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sméagol picture?

Should we also have a picture of Andy Serkis as Sméagol? Seeing as we are dealing with two characters here, in a fashion.--DooMDrat 06:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

-We should also have a picture of Serkis as Gollum as to not confuse poor wikipedians. Hoyohoyogold 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Age of Gollum

The article says that Gollum was 33 years old when he got the Ring. Can anybody provide a reference for this claim? I don't see how we could know that. Eric119 20:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

As usual, the movie makers decided to fill in some perceived gaps. Unlike Legolas' age this one makes a bit of sense, though. Since 33 is the age a Shire Hobbit becomes officially an adult, and Sméagol "found" the Ring on his birthday — a birthday he got gifts — they evidently decided that this day was Sméagol's 33rd birthday. [1]. However they forgot a) Sméagol was not a Shire Hobbit, but a Stoor, b) we know that the Rhovanion Stoors received, and did not gave gifts on their birthdays (UT, letters, HoMe), and c) the date T.A. 2463 when the Ring was found is an approximate, not a precise date. Ergo, movie info, not book info.

-- Jordi·✆ 00:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Took the above out, it was added again. In short, don't use movie websites as a reference for book sections. :-P Uthanc 13:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The book ending vs. the movie ending

I felt that the description of the ending was a bit vague. As I had understood the book, the section where Gollum took one last swing at Frodo, on the hillside, was critical because Frodo bound Gollum by the ring to fall into Mount Doom himself if he attacked him again. That Gollum did so only after he got the Ring proved fortuitous, but Gollum was having a hot bath either way the moment he attacked Frodo. The movie went in an entirely different direction, of course, with Frodo fighting back and such, but I felt that the critical point of the book was that the ring's treachery towards Gollum ironically destroyed it, too.

I can post references later, but I don't have the book in front of me just now. I tried to edit it in myself, but it read awkwardly since the current entry doesn't really discuss the differences between the book and the movie through the narrative and I don't want to rewrite it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.133.250 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about this, we should put something in the adaptions section since the movie takes a much lighter turn with some pretty standard heroics to make Frodo more of a conventional "hero" rather than the books darker ending in which the ring destroys Gollum showing its own uncontrollability and giving no cheap redmeption to Frodo allowing to remain a more complex character (this modern sugarcoating also seen in the removal of "Scouring of the Shire" chapter in all versions of the film giving the Shire a positive future rather than being mangled by industry and then cursed to barrenness by Saruman's dying moments) AKLR 10:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple pics

There are some duplicate pics in this article; are they really necessary? I mean, maybe we can get another pic of Gollum, as using it twice seems... not smart. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Smeagol vs. Gollum

Ignoring the movie, as it is full of innacurate statments. I think that we should split the article in to one for Smeagol and Gollum, where the early history of how "they" got the ring belonging to smeagol, Bilbo getting the ring going to Gollum, the journey with Frodo being split accordingly. It would require some work, but I think it would be better then having one article for both of them. nn False Prophet 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. It should remain one article, but it does need some work. -- Jordi·✆ 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that this page should be moved to Smeagol? Gollum is his 'nickname'! His actual name is Smeagol - am I right or am I right? On another note, I have found that Smeagol is a great name for a cat (no joke)!Undoubtedly0 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, I removed your merge tag from the article and replaced it with the {{move}} tag. I agree that the page should be moved to Smeagol, because that is the character's original name. I've also noted this discussion at the bottom of this page, and I will put in a request at WP:RM. Please discuss. Bry9000 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after reviewing the guideline at WP:COMMONNAME, I am persuaded to change my mind. See my comments under "Move proposal," below. Bry9000 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In the directors and writers audio commentary of the extended version of Peter Jackson's Return of the King movie, when Frodo says "Sméagol promised" and Gollum replies "Sméagol lied", writer Philippa Boyens said the reason for the line was to show that "actually, people who'd been sucked in by how nice Sméagol was had misunderstood his character". This confused me, as I always thought that Sméagol was, as the article states, the good personality. Does anyone know what she meant or if Smeagal was meant to be less good in the films?Web wonder (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, good and evil is complicated. Before a good character is seduced to evil, he is sometimes a little strange. Smeagol was not innocent, but in comparison to Gollum already. Think of similar character like Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader or Norman Osborn / Green Goblin. Supervillains can turn unhappy character to hero's or poor victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.164.114.43 (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cognate

the Trah- stem in Trahald and Trâgu is thus a cognate of the Germanic stem present in both Sméagol and Smaug (with a meaning of squeezing through a hole.)

Is this paragraph seriously suggesting that Westron and Germanic share a common ancestor? The Wednesday Island 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What is intended here is that the Westron stem trah- is related to the Germanic stem smug-. As for Westron and Germanic sharing a common ancestor, this was the case at least at one point in Tolkien's ideas: Taliska was supposed to be a proto-Gothic. -- Jordi·✆ 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this right?

• It is hinted in "The Hobbit" that Gollum had stolen and devoured human infants from unguarded households at times, during the years after his ostracization from his village, but this is never mentioned in Peter Jackson's movie adaptions, merely his admition that orcs taste bad, in "The Return of the King". This was a modification of a passage in "The Hobbit", where Gollum recalls once stumbling upon, smothering and eating an orc (goblin) infant in the tunnels under the Misty Mountains.

At least the orc-eating is right... Uthanc 05:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

why is there not as single picture of gollum as he was potrayed through most of lord of the rings? There is only the pre-gollum pic.

Actually, there is no reference in "The Hobbit" to Gollum's infanticide; it is in the Chapter "The Shadow of the Past" in Fellowship. Gandalf, telling Frodo about Gollum's history, mentions the time he spends in Mirkwood near the Woodmen, and the rumors that circulated then of a ghost that slipped through windows "to find cradles." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.130.104 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Easter Egg...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the easter egg (for the MTV Movie Awards) is only available in the Extended Edition of TTT, isn't it?

And what is this line...

"When taking his prize for the MTV Award, Gollum says 'pithat' at the very end."

...Doing in the External links section?

Vicco Lizcano 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uldrolic Hobbit?

In the infobox, Gollum's race is described as being an "Uldrolic Hobbit". Okay, what exactly is an Uldrolic Hobbit supposed to be? Not only am I unable to find any mention of such a race of Hobbits in any of the articles here, but I also did a Google search for the word "Uldrolic" and I only got one match: This article. So yeah, I'm beginning to think that someone just made that word up or something. Any second opinions here? –Nahald 07:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I know a bit about Tolkien, and I've never heard that term before either, so I've removed it, since it sounds pretty iffy to me too. If someone knows where "Uldrolic" comes from and can give a citation for it, it can be restored. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Appearance

Article says "Shelob, an Orc from Lord of the Rings"

Someone needs to correct this: Shelob is NOT an Orc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.211.228.154 (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I fixed it, although you could have done it too.--CyberGhostface 18:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gollum's Third Personality

There is no discussion on the third personality which is shown in the movie. The treacherous lady persona which asks Gollum to lead them "to her"... and "she is always hungry.. she needs to feed".

-Anoop

I think this is a reference to Shelob. 139.230.245.21 08:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the spider, not a 3rd personality. --JT 06:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics

The statement: "He is also not above cannibalism, threatening to kill and eat Bilbo in The Hobbit," is not entirely accurate. Although of hobbit roots, Gollum is not strictly a hobbit (more a Stoor, an early hobbit). So eating Bilbo wouldn't make him a cannibal, strictly.139.230.245.21 08:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A 'stoor' is a surname - I'm sure he once was a hobbit.87.102.5.137 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Axtually Stoor is a race of Hobbit, as you have different races of men in LoTR. See lotr.wikia.com/wiki/hobbit for more details.--Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 01:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Story-telling

Am I the only one that thinks the "Literature" section is over-long and overly-detailed. It seems to get into quite a bit of what I would term "story-telling" as opposed to simply explaining the significance of the character along with a few salient details. --Justanother 16:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Other Gollums in fiction (the REAL disambiguation)

I added a note about it, and it really should be further investigated. Tolkien's Smeagol isn't the only gollum in fiction. Frank Herbert's "Dune" series also has a gollum, the reconstituted Duncan Idaho. The characters refer to him/it as a gollum before they have any knowledge of its multiple personalities. I believe I may have read of another gollum or two in years past as well.

We really need to get to the truth of this, not just cite the most famous one and consider it another name that Smeagol goes by. --JT 06:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As further proof, I'm including this post, also made on the Duncan Idaho talk page: The terms are similar enough to be the same, singular and plural. Those similarities should not be offhandedly dismissed.

We find that golem, a slightly different spelling than Tolkien used, is, (from Jewish folklore) an artificially created human being that is given life by supernatural means, a figure artificially constructed in the form of a human being and endowed with life.

The correlation is plain... and makes Duncan Idaho and Smeagol cousins.:) --JT 06:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on the Lord of the Rings Character not the Jewish Golem, nor a character from Dune, that should go into disambiguation Carl Sixsmith 07:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. this bit

This page is about the fictional character. For the Wikipedia-specific browser, see Gollum browser. For the language, see Golin language.

Carl Sixsmith

Carl, in this case I have to disagree, rather strongly. We're talking about spelling differences ONLY, and "gollum" wasn't his name, it was a description of what he, Smeagol, was. In fact, THIS gollum belongs as a disambiguation, linked to Smeagol and LOTR. Rather than getting into a Corrections war with you, I'm going to ask you to consider what I'm pointing out and get back with me. --JT 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree, in the LOTR, 'Gollum' was the name of the stoor Smeagol for 500 years, it was based on the coughing/gurgling noise he made in his throat, given to him by the people of his village and bears no relationship to Golem's in Jewish literature. Plus Gollum is how he is known to people who have both read and not read the Lord of The Rings, Gandalf for instance is known as Gandalf, but that is only his name in one area of middle earth, and his earliest known name is Olorîn, I don't think anyone would consider renaming that article. If the disambiguation belongs anywhere then it would be under in the article Golem rather than here. I think we should open this discussion up a bit though rather than just us two arguing over it :-) Carl Sixsmith

I generally agree that other input would be welcome, but only from an objective standpoint. Let's face it, some folks get rather protective/possessive of LOTR. What I'm bringing up, really, is that a golem is not original to Tolkien OR Herbert. Tolkien most certainly meant to reference the golem concept, or he'd have chosen another word and/or employed a MUCH more different spelling. In both Herbert and Tolkien's uses of the term (I'm equating them all now, writing off the distinctions as merely differences in spelling, owing to that the spellings are all lose, as would be an Anglicization from another language,) we find an altered character, one which has undergone a rather extreme metamorph, and this (cocoon) is the root of the term golem. It is that commonality upon which I base my argument. --JT 20:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish golem is a animated clay statue. Gollum (really the only fictional character named "Gollum") is a creature of flesh and blood, a member of a different human species if you will; a normal creature turned abnormal - given prolonged life thanks to his ring. In Dune gholas are clones. Beyond some sort of "unnatural" life (not established in the original, pre-writing-of-LOTR Hobbit for Gollum, since his ring wasn't the One Ring yet) and similar names, are there really substantial connections? Are these? Gollum has nothing else in common with the others. Also you'd need references before putting these connections in articles. Uthanc (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"References in other movies & games" section

What in the world is an "exactly stressed personality"? -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - article not moved.

Please see the header "Smeagol vs. Gollum" above, currently header number 11 on this page. Another user and I have proposed that this page be moved to Smeagol. Bry9000 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME (same as why Palpatine should not be Darth Sidious) - most screen time is as Gollum, most of the texts treats the character as Gollum, character is introduced as Gollum in The Hobbit. Author's first incarnation of character is Gollum from 1st edition Hobbit. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Best known as Gollum, his original name is a fact to be included in the article. Someone who wants a reference to Gollum explained should not wind up at an article with a completely different title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The character is known widely as Gollum, both to readers of the novel and those who have not, in context of the story he was known as Gollum for over 500 years to the point where he had almost forgotten his original name. If we where to rename this article then Gandalf's article should be renamed Olorin. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the LotR books he is commonly referred to as Gollum and he is called this throughout the whole series. Yes, Sméagol is his original name, but when he becomes obsessed with the one ring and then kills for it, he becomes "Gollum" and this he remains until the end. – Axman (☏) 13:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME/others' reasoning (note his true original name is Trahald). No need for article-splitting either (if anyone's thinking of it), that's just cruft-making. Uthanc (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, after reading the guideline at WP:COMMONNAME, I'm persuaded that the page shouldn't be moved. (I'm the editor who posted the {{move}} tag above.) Unless there is a huge groundswell of support for the move proposal by this weekend, I will withdraw the proposal and remove the tag, and Smeagol will remain a redirect. Bry9000 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. This page will remain Gollum. Bry9000 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fictional cannibals?

What does everyone else think? He threatens to eat Bilbo, after all... Not050 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Not050

Gallery

It is a breach of fair-use policy to have a gallery of non-free images in this article. Sadly, I've had to remove them. I suggest consensus is reached here for a minimal use which does not breach WP:NFCC#8. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see they're back, in much the same format. It's not the gallery itself, it's the fair use criteria that have to be satisfied, and at present, they breach this because they are not necessarily referred to in the text. They need to go unless they are, and justifiably. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Andy serkis one should definitely stay, and after that, maybe the cartoons. I'm not too sure about the comic or play one though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Middle-earth Wikiproject held (holds) that non-free images in some Tolkien articles are justified because there are no other alternatives to illustrate iterations of characters in particular adaptations. They're not just being used to illustrate the articles. See here for the beginnings of this standard, originally made concerning infoboxes. Feel free to correct, if necessary. Also it wouldn't be fair to just give the spotlight to one version, say Jackson's (part of the reason why the above ruling was made), so it would be better to more than one adaptation image on articles.

Rodhullandemu, are you referring to "[the image must] significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? How much is "significant"? No doubt images would help people. Also, what do you mean by "not necessarily referred to in the text"? The adaptations are all mentioned in the article.

The test of fair-use is whether it is necessary to assist the user's understanding of the article and goes beyond being "merely decorative". If there were a section "Depictions of Gollum" (and, er, there may be), the images would validly replace text. As it was, a chunk of images, not aligned to article text, breaches fair-use because it's difficult to see how they aid the reader's understanding. They can be moved to be adjacent to text referring to that incarnation (if that's the right word) to avoid using excessive verbiage. I can't get too excited about it, and I'm sure the problems can be surmounted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the need for more stringent rules. This may be my cranky psuedo-purist side coming out but Template:Externalimages would suffice for most adaptation images (no non-free pictures would be fairer than just one - I know, extreme) - but there may be no off-site alternatives for some, for all I know. For the record I uploaded the comic image. Uthanc (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Britains got Talent 2008

Will there be any comment to the guy on BGT who did the impression of him? Or not worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewds (talk • contribs) 11:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

gollum, possibly from the yiddish "Golem?"

is it possible that the name actually originates from the jewish tales of "golem" the humanoid? In the stories of course the usually refer to a figure made living from lifeless by humans. But that could be something to look into... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.197.120 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence to suggest that "Gollum" was derived from "golem". However, Tolkien was a linguist who had intimate knowledge of several European languages and mythology, so he was undoubtedly aware of the Jewish golem. Both creatures were influenced by forces they could not or had little ability to control, and both were tragic characters. It's possible that Tolkien may have drawn inspiration from the name or the image of the golem, in the same way that much of his fiction draws from known mythology and literature, but this is purely conjectural. -- Myrddin_Wyllt 1/27/10

I think that at some point Tolkien was asked this, and denied that there was any conscious connection between Gollum and the golem. But I can't find the source to verify that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gollum: How We Made Movie Magic

I have this book but I've misplaced it unfortunately. I'll try finding it, but in the meantime, it would probably be a very helpful reference to this article if anyone else has it. Serkis details a lot of behind the scenes bits about Gollum and what he did in trying to make the character tick.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have this book, and indeed has fantastic indepth information on how gollum was created Andrewds (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Name Gollum - from where derived?

I always thought the name Gollum came from the golomyanka - weird fish with big eyes found only in the incredible depths of Lake Baikal. Thoughts anyone? Plutonium27 (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is speculation that Gollum was originally a hobbit.

No, this is wrong. It was 100% confirmed that Gollum, originally Smeagol was a hobbit, just not one of the shire. I think this article should be heavily improved, as well as fixing that awful mistake. He IS, or well, once was a hobbit, this is a fact and nothing but. Speculation should not be on Wikipedia in the first place, it makes this article look bad. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 4.248.252.121 (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this 100% proof? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the original poster but I can say - look at The Letters of JRR Tolkien, Unfinished Tales, and the LOTR trilogy itself, including the appendices for Return of the King and the Prologue for FOTR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.187.41 (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't up to me to go researching if a fact is correct, if a user adds a fact to the article they need to cite their source, otherwise it should be removed as an uncited fact Carl Sixsmith (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it's up to you to make sure Wikipedia is accurate, and I'm the original poster and I DID cite a source. I am revising your edit, because it is 100% confirmed he IS a hobbit. FFS sir, read Return of the King, it's RIGHT THERE.

http://www.lord-of-the-rings.org/books/gollum.html

How exactly is that fan site a notable source pray tell. If you put a fact in wikipedia it is up to you to put the reference in. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Origins Of Déagol and Gollum

Both these articles take the speculation of Gandalf in the Shadows of the Past and present it as base fact, is there a reference somewhere that explicitly states that Gandalf's speculations are spot on? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the reference in the article is only about Gandalf speculating about him being of the Stoor-kind. But I've looked it up and in Unfinished Tales (Third Age, IV, Concerning Gandalf, Saruman and the Shire) there's an annotation about a Tolkien-Letter where JRRT writes "between 1463 [Christopher's edit: 'when the Stoor called Déagol found the One Ring]...". Unfortunately I don't have the English original, just the German translation (page 463), but UT implies that Déagol as well as Sméagol were Stoors (of which Gollum was the last one in his time). Do you think that this is sufficient to back up the article's claim? De728631 (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, then that is the source that needs referencing, not some arbitrary fan site. I will check my copy of Unfinished Tales tonight and update the articles accordingly. Cheers Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Smeagol was NOT the last Stoor of his time necessarily. He was the last of his "river folk" branch of Stoor Hobbits, but he was not the last Stoor. Tolkien works state that the Stoors continued to survive in the Shire (albeit somewhat mixed with the other branches) and that many pure Stoors survived in Bree as well as in the Shire itself (Buckland). Also, the prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring states Stoors as a tribe of Hobbits and not merely an "ancestor-strand" to Hobbits and "hobbit-kind" suggests not merely "kinship with Hobbits" but a descriptor of Hobbits in general, as "elf-kind" and "dwarf-kind" are also used in the series as well in the same manner. Tolkien himself clarifies in the letters that Smeagol is unambiguously of "hobbit-kind" or a Hobbit of the early Stoor tribe. The only difference between Smeagol and Frodo and company, as I see it, is one of cultural context. Smeagol was from a time prior to the Hobbit settling of the Shire. His branch of Stoor Hobbits were settled in the ancestral homeland of the Vale of Anduin, around the Gladden Fields. They were identified in the films as "the River folk" as opposed to the "Shire folk". Smeagol's people were probably a bit more primitive than the inhabitants of the Shire. They most likely didn't develop the "spiced cake/apple tart, pub/party" culture that you see flaunted in the Shire. The fact that Smeagol lived in a large hole-community dominated by his grandmother and consisting of his family suggests these people didn't have the same community lifestyle the Shire folk had. Thus the differences between the Shire Hobbits and Smeagol's Hobbits. Cultural, not racial.

"As you see it" is not what we are interested in here Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got it right, it is clear from many, many references that the Stoors living near the Gladden Fields are just that-- Stoors. Halflings. Hobbits. They may differ from Shire Hobbits in the same ways that Bulgarians differ from Danes: different secondary physical characteristics, different culture, different language, etc. But they are the same species, the same race, just different branches. One point you have wrong though-- Gollum was only about 600 years old. The Shire was founded long before he was born. The Shire settlement and the Stoor settlement in Wilderland were contemporaneous; at least until the Stoors abandoned it or died out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.130.104 (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've read the mythology, but I do know Smeagol found the ring in the 1300's of the TA whereas the Shire was founded in the 1600's. And the chronology of the TA goes from 1 onwards. So I'm pretty sure Gollum was from a time prior to the Shire's founding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.187.41 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually wait, I was misled. I assumed Gollum was from the same time as the Gladden Fields settlement's founding (1300's). So you're right there. Nevertheless, due to their isolation, the Anduin Hobbits most likely were not as culturally advanced as the Shire folk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.187.41 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Name change

The page ought to be renamed to "Smeagol", or better yet, "Smeagol/Gollum". The character's actual name was Smeagol and he was born Smeagol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopaka Teridax (talk • contribs) 02:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read the talk page this discussion has already happened and a move was declined. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Gollumjapyx smeagol

It is the speacie of arthropod, discovered in Spain and named after Tolkien's Gollum. It is quiet interesting, I think, and should be added to tha main article. However my English is far from nativ, so maby someone else could do this? Ejkum (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We also have an article about that: Gollumjapyx smeagol. Mindmatrix 00:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Eyes

In the books Gollum's eyes change colour depending on which personality is in control (green for Gollum, yellow-white for Smeagol) and in the movies his pupils dilate when Smeagol is in control and contract when Gollum is in control. This should be added to the Physical appearance and characteristics section. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gollum & the meaning of the name.

Hi for anyone who might want to update the page, I'm guessing the naming of gollum does not link to 'gold' as Peter Jackson thought, but to a golem, a mythical, half-formed jewish creature. 203.52.70.3 (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

we've had this discussion before here. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No interpretation section?

Why is there no section about a character interpretation and a elaboration on Gollum's importance to the story? ≡ CUSH ≡ 22:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Time Gollum Spent Searching for the Ring

I'm changing "and he pursued it for many years after he lost it." to "and he pursued it for seventy-six years after he lost it." Because, correct my number if I’m wrong: Bilbo had the Ring for 60 years before he left it to Frodo, Frodo delayed 15 years before setting out on the Quest, the Quest lasted "13 months to the day" (According to the movie version of The Return of the King); that makes 60+15+1=76

There should probably be a note that the Ring's power must have continued to sustain him after he lost it, or he would have died the minute it abandoned him in the cave, being over 500 years old at the time.

The Ring's continued existance sustained him, Bilbo, Sauron, and all others who were dependent on its power for sustained life. Looking at the Jackson films, Bilbo looked fine up until the Ring's destruction, at which point he began to age rapidly. 173.180.89.129 (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Eyes

Tolkein, especially in The Lord of the Rings, states that the light shining from Gollum's eyes changes colour from green to white depending on which personality is in control. 173.180.89.129 (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Gollum the Stalker

Did Gollum follow the Fellowship through Lórien? It seems unlikely. Even if he managed to elude the Elven archers, surely Galadriel would have perceived him with the power of Nenya. Much more likely that he went around.

He did, in fact. In the past he had always strayed around it, but the lure of the Ring was too strong for him, and he entered.

I don't rightly remember if it was the book or the movie but at one point Frodo wakes up and is almost face-to-face with Gollum in the tree-house. 173.180.89.129 (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Gollum's words

Article: He was eventually captured by Sauron's forces and tortured, but he revealed only the words "Baggins" and "Shire".

Text of LotR, Book I chapter 2: He [Sauron] has at last heard, I think, of hobbits and the Shire. ... I fear that he may even think that the long-unnoticed name of Baggins has become important.

The book does not say that Gollum said only the words "Baggins" and "Shire" -- for the good reason that neither Gandalf, nor any other character who at any point discusses Gollum's imprisonment, would be in a position to know what Gollum's exact words were. Unless Tolkien clarified this matter elsewhere, I'm assuming this is confusion with Peter Jackson's film version and amending it. (In fact, the book only says "taken for examination" and makes no explicit reference to torture, though it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.) 2.25.134.24 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My Precious

In the actual novel of The Hobbit, when Gollum first speaks, it is stated that he calls himself "My precious," not the ring. Should this be added to the article? 67.171.158.2 (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

As long as it's sourced, sure.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

Can someone please explain to other editors that Oxford English is British English. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See [2]. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all explained in the article Oxford English. William Avery (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added the appropriate template to the article, {{Use British (Oxford) English}}. This template should be uniformly applied to WP:Middle-Earth articles so that this problem does not arise again. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now fully protected the article until 9 January because of this ongoing edit war. Mythical Curse has also been invited to join this discussion. I'd also like to note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards#Usage and spelling currently only recommends the use of "British English", but the language tag for Oxford spelling is "en-GB-oed" and not "en-INT-oed" or something similar. Therefore it seems to me that Oxford spelling is actually a valid variant of British English. It is "similar to the British standard but with a few nuances and can be considered the most international English (world English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary)" [3]. Another convincing argument I have seen, is the fact that Tolkien himself used the Oxford variant for his writings. Elizium23, can you please dig out the direct link to the discussion at WP:Middle-earth that recommends the use of "British (Oxford) English" as you wrote here? De728631 (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

See [4] Specifically mentions Tolkien. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Good work, Gimli. The link points to WP:MOS which says that "for articles about modern writers or their works, it is sometimes decided to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote (especially if the writings are quoted). For example, the articles on J. R. R. Tolkien's works, such as The Lord of the Rings, use British English with Oxford spelling" (my emphasis). Judging from the edit history of that page this is not just a recent addition but an established consensus to be used as part of said guideline. With this in mind I don't see any reason not to use Oxford spelling in the Gollum article or any other Tolkien-related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De728631 (talk • contribs)

Arabic

Just noticed something whilst looking at a totally unrelated subject. "The name Ghulum can be translated as 'slave'",[5] presumably from either Arabic or Farsi. Not that either was one of JRRT's specialist subjects, from what I can see, but possibly it's how he first arrived at the name. It's OR, and tenuous at that, hence here rather than in the article. Bromley86 (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Gollum in the first edition of the Hobbit

There should be a few sentences or even a paragraph about how he appeared in the first edition of the hobbit before Tolkien revised Riddles in the Dark.

Something along the lines of:

"The Lord of the Rings brought about changes to the context of the original story, and led to substantial changes to the character of Gollum. In the first edition of The Hobbit, Gollum bets his ring on the riddle game and if Bilbo wins, the ring will be presented as a present. After losing, Gollum seeks for the ring, but cannot find it. He begs for Bilbo's pardon and shows him the way out. Tolkien made Gollum more aggressive in the second edition to reflect on the concept of the ring's corrupting abilities. In The Lord of the Rings, the original version of the riddle game is explained as a "lie" made up by Bilbo under the harmful influence of the Ring, whereas the revised version contains the "true" account." - from Lord of the Rings wikipedia 25willp (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gollum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVIM92Z?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehugoawards.org%2Fhugo-history%2F2004-hugos%2F to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2004-hugos/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

The "Gollum Channel System" in the Porcupine Seabight is also named after Gollum, as many nearby ocean features are named after Tolkien's books. Many Wikipedia articles have a section called Legacy, where objects are named after the subject. The spider and slug belong there, perhaps as a subsection in "In other media". TGCP (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge Déagol here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. Jack Upland (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

---

There isn't much to say about Déagol, apart from his murder by Gollum. That article already overlaps this one significantly. I propose Déagol be merged here.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support the merger. Deagol is not indepdently notable of Gollum.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Only notable in relation to Gollum. Hog Farm (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.