Now, Tolkien was not obligated to teach any sort of message nor to demonstrate anything through any symbol or motif throughout the course of 'The Hobbit' or 'Lord of the Rings'. In my opinion, no writer is really obliged to do anything they don't really want to do, and it raises the question of why a writer really writes which is beyond the scope or intention of this entry. Whether Tolkien intended to demonstrate or teach anything is another matter. It is not precisely clear what his absolute intentions were when portraying or writing about characters and events; it isn't to me, anyway, since I haven't read any of his letters at this moment, although it is something I intend on doing eventually. However, the beautiful part about the entirety of literature is the fact that, regardless of original intentions or lack thereof, anything can be perceived in any way if there's enough stock to support that perception. A prime example of this is the character of Iago in 'Othello'. Many people believe that Iago did what he did because of a jealousy of Othello stemming from homosexual feelings. There are some that would find this idea laughable, but there is some stock to the idea, considering his expression "I am your own forever" when speaking to Othello, his desperation to destroy Othello's marriage, and his disgusting, misogynistic attitude towards his own wife. Shakespeare does not really clarify clearly whether Iago was homosexual or not, although he does clearly say that Iago was definitely motivated by Cassio's success over him and his suspicion that his wife had been unfaithful with none other than Othello. Shakespeare's ambiguity, only hinting towards the possibility, leaves plenty of room for interpretation, and many people have interpreted Iago's actions as having homosexual motives, as is their right and, in all honesty, their privilege, since we are much obliged to Shakespeare for leaving room for discussion, even following the catastrophe at the end of 'Othello'.
Regardless, I digress. My point was that literature is very liberal in the sense that one can interpret it in many ways if there's stock in the interpretation and leeway to do so. Hell, you don't even need any stock in a literary opinion to withhold it, although it's probably better to find some if you hope to have it taken seriously. The reason I mention this in connection to Gollum (I almost forgot that I was meant to be writing about him) is my interpretation of his character. I believe he represents something rather deeply-etched into our very humanity and something rather symbolic, regardless of religious standpoint. This idea is the idea of sin, which has inspired many people on many levels to do many things, both good and bad. Some have been led to perform horrific acts of terrorism in order to feel like they're ridding themselves somehow of the poison. Others have performed acts of justice and liberation indirectly inspired by their belief surrounding sin and how to be forgiven of it. It's also inspired pieces of literature such as Milton's 'Paradise Lost', which directly involved mankind's descent into sin, written in a time of massive political strife.
All things of the significance of the idea aside, I feel that, regardless of whether Tolkien purposely wrote Gollum in that way or not, Gollum represents and is even a symbol of sin, or alternatively, sin's effect on people. Perhaps it would be better to say that the Ring is a symbol of sin and Gollum represents what sin is meant to do on a person if they're not forgiven/do not repent of it. Tolkien could very well have written Gollum with this idea in mind; surely it is plausible, considering Tolkien's identity as a Catholic, something which even led to C.S. Lewis turning to Christianity, which in turn resulted in 'Mere Christianity', a fantastic piece of theological discussion. Of course, it is equally plausible that Tolkien did not and I am simply drawing a perspective from pure coincidence. If Tolkien mentioned anything of the sort in his letters, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone reading this would let me know if they know, since, as I previously said, I have not yet read the letters.
At this point I should probably elaborate on my idea. The Ring, as I see it, seems distinctly similar to the nature of sin, since both are considered exceptionally powerful and difficult to resist. The temptation of sin stems from its power in the form of the allure of the flesh and the physical pleasure that can be taken from indulging in it. The allure of sin also comes from the way of the world being steeped very heavily in sin, and many people feel obliged to follow the world's ways because of the power of the media, the political sphere, the strength possessed by habit, upbringing and surroundings, and, in many cases, something as simple as peer pressure. All of these things represent sin's power and its grip on the human nature. Similarly, the Ring is greatly tempting to the people it comes in contact with because of the allure of the power and the resulting pleasure that comes from possessing it. Sauron has attached himself so much to it that, despite all of his evident power, its absence results in his downfall, which illustrates one of the more three-dimensional aspects of his character and shows that he has needs and desires similar to that of the other characters, even though he is never physically seen (not counting the appearance of the Eye) and is described as an almost all-powerful, godlike character. All of the characters obsess over it; it is ironic that something so small and insignificant possesses the power which is the driving point of the books. It is said that essentially nobody can resist the power of the Ring if they are subjected to it for enough time, which is why Frodo is eventually unable to dispose of it and claims it. The same applies to sin; the belief is that we've been born into it and it is all we know. We are intrinsically sinful, and it is impossible to avoid that harsh reality. Nobody, apart from God Himself, was devoid of sin, although there are people that believe that the Prophets were not sinful either. In both cases, resistance is potentially quite difficult (excluding those that were never subjected to the Ring long enough to be physically unable to resist it, like Sam or Faramir).
This brings the point back to Gollum. He seems to encapsulate everything that defines humanity's obsession with remaining in sin. Gollum, despite being made pathetic, pitiful and being drained of everything he was before encountering the Ring, continued to return to it and desire it. He's let it into his very being, and every fibre that made up him absolutely hated being removed from that which he'd grown to love obsessively. It was now his sole purpose of being, his very life, what filled him... his Precious. He'd murdered to be with it, and he was still willing to sacrifice Frodo and Sam to acquire it, regardless of swearing in its name. It is uncanny how much our human nature and its obsession with sin have in common with Gollum's reliance on the Ring. We are all made ugly inside by the sin that we so desperately cling to, just like the gross, thin figure of Gollum. It destroys us, yet it defines us. The monotheistic belief is that consistent indulgence in sin surely means that we're taken from God, yet we still indulge in it. It grabs us with the tempting pleasure we can take out of it. It is truly a pathetic spectacle, and no human today is an exception to it. However, it is ridden in our very nature after the Fall in Genesis, so what else can be expected from us? Our only escape from its clutches is through repentance to God, which will result in our forgiveness as long as we continue to believe in Him and try our best to avoid that which goes very obviously against His will. We will still sin because of its power, but we can't be expected to be perfect. Likewise, we couldn't seriously expect much else from Gollum simply because of what the Ring is. If Sauron, despite all of his power, continues to rely on it, what hope has poor Gollum got? Ironically, it's the Ring's allure which led to Gollum chasing it to the ends of the earth and falling into the destructive fires which would end it in his attempt to retrieve it.
Gollum was absolutely addicted to it, just as we are addicted to sin. So, with this thought in mind, it occurs to me that this idea of complete and destructive reliance on something shines through when considering the addiction people have to things such as drinking, smoking, excessive gambling and the abuse of particular drugs. These things have addictive qualities, but they all slowly destroy. In regards to drinking, it is said that some alcohol in good moderation has health benefits, but I refer to regular and repeated over-indulgence to alcohol when I refer to it here, since, if somebody becomes addicted to it, the over-indulgence is apparently regular and repeated. People continue to obsess themselves with these things once they're addicted to them, despite their negative effect on several levels and the destruction they cause. Obviously, once a person becomes addicted, it is really no fault of their own that they continue to return, because, like the Ring in Tolkien's work and like the religious idea of sin, the influence that these things possess is too strong. There are many reasons why people turn to these things, and it is nobody's place except the higher authorities to insist that it's wrong, but there are a number of people who turn to these things because it empowers them and satisfies something in their lives, much like the Ring empowered the person who possessed it. This isn't necessarily limited to the above, since it can potentially apply to anything that people become addicted to and obsess over, depending, of course, on the particular context. It can possibly apply to something as trivial as chocolate, although I'm yet to read anything that directly compares the One Ring to a bar of Dairy Milk. That's why the idea is one that is surprisingly applicable to a person's everyday life; we may not realise it, but there's something about pitiful Gollum's obsession which many of us can empathise with, although hopefully none of our addictions and obsessions will result in us falling into Mount Doom!
This is an idea which can also translate into Buddhist beliefs as well. Buddhism is based on the Four Noble Truths, the second of which says that the reason for humanity's suffering is our desire. Essentially, us desiring things means that we suffer, just like Gollum's desire means that he suffers through becoming the wretched being he eventually becomes. The Buddha went as far as to teach that life itself was suffering, meaning that our very existence is pain and toil because of our desire. Logically speaking, it can then be said that the only way to end suffering is to end desire, which is the basis for the last two of the truths. Buddhists tend to do this by following the Sevenfold Path and the Middle Way; many also follow the Five Precepts to try and avoid the sort of desire which defines Gollum. Heck, monks even follow the Ten Precepts. It's all rather algorithmic and logical, the more I consider it; if I weren't so bad at math I'd probably try and define it in a formula of some sort. The only escape from the wheel of Samsara is enlightenment, which can then lead to Nirvana.
So, in conclusion, that's exactly why I think Gollum represents mankind's destructive obsession with sin because of his obsession with the Ring. On a wider scale, he represents obsession, desire and addiction generally, or at least all of these things on whatever unhealthy scale that exists. I'm not aware if Tolkien considered this when writing his novels; if he actually only wrote 'The Hobbit' as an amusing story for his children with no further depth to it, it's very unlikely but not implausible. I'm growing increasingly certain that he didn't really consider it. However, regardless of whether he did or didn't, he created something of great significance which many people can relate to. For Christians, this is relevant to every human being today in their imperfection, since we are all intrinsically sinful and we are all completely obsessed with sinful things. Tolkien was a powerful writer and he continues to inspire many people in many ways, whether it was his intention to do so or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment