The domination of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Sméagol. In a letter to Michael Sraight, Tolkien writes: This was alluded to pretty explicitly by Tolkien himself. so it's possible The One ring amplified Smeagol's sociopathy. We know that the other Rings amplified their wearers' attributes, e.g. This is reinforce by several different points form canon: So, it's just as plausible to explain Smeagol's behavior by his innate negative qualities, as it is by the Ring somehow acting very differently on him than Bagginses. 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. In reality, hobbits are humans (from JRRT's "storytelling" point of view, not in-universe-biological one). 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. Why did the ring have such a different effect on Sméagol?Įdit: 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. 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. 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. So Sméagol was actually a Hobbit, just like Frodo and Sam. With men-as opposed to a Harfoot or Fallohide, who sharedĬharacteristics with dwarves and elves, respectively. Specifically, he was a Stoor, a variety of Hobbit that had an affinity Same "kind" - ie race - as the hobbits that Frodo knew.
"I guess he was of hobbit-kind" means that he was of the Point of clarification: Smeagol wasn't "hobbit-like", he was actuallyĪ hobbit. I was reading this question and I noticed Daniel Roseman's comment:
0 kommentar(er)
