# Talk:Gollum

There is way more to Gollum's fall in the book than anything brought up in this article. I will cite the relevant quotes at the end to back up my points. So in chapter 3 of book 4, Frodo warns Gollum that he could use the Ring's power against Gollum due to the oath that Gollum swore, and he states that he would use it in the last need and make Gollum 'leap from a precipice or cast [himself] into the fire." Then, in RotK, this very situation occurs (an obvious moment of set-up and payoff), where Frodo, clutching the Ring as a 'wheel of fire' makes his threat a reality by saying 'if you touch me ever again, you will be cast into the Fire of Doom.' And when Gollum does touch Frodo again by biting off his finger, he almost immediately is thrown into the Fire. This isn't mere foresight, it's Frodo laying down the consequence for Gollum's disobedience. Since Gollum put himself under Frodo and the Ring's power, the Ring plays a significant role in his ultimate fate. I'm not saying all these nuances should be present, but I do think that suggesting that it's all a happy accident is false. The complexities of the book should be hinted at more. 
"Would you commit your promise to that, Sméagol? It will hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may twist your words. Beware!" - Book 4, Chapter 1
"You swore a promise by what you call the Precious. Remember that! It will hold you to it; but it will seek a way to twist it to your own undoing ... You will never get it back. But the desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never get it back. ... the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command." - Book 4, Chapter 3
"Frodo flung him off and rose up quivering... clutching his hand to his breast, so that beneath the cover of his leather shirt he clasped the Ring. ... Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape... and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice. 'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'" - Book 6, Chapter 3 Brooksboy78 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. These are all primary (Tolkien) quotations, and we are forbidden from drawing any conclusions of our own (Original Research) from primary materials. The article cites a wealth of reliable secondary sources, including many scholarly opinions, which it summarizes in some detail. If further scholars choose to draw additional conclusions from the materials you mention in the future, then we will be able to make use of their work when it is published. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
But this isn't a subjective interpretation of themes, this is just... what is right there in the plot of the novel. All of these quotes tell us in very plain words what happened here, with no further insight needed from me. Brooksboy78 (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
ChiswickChap is correct - we can't comment on any of this without a source. This is your own interpretation of events in the book - it's pure OR. Girth Summit (blether) 07:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
So, objectively, what are these passages from the book saying then? And why aren't they relevant to the main article or to Gollum? They're all about Gollum and they are all direct quotations, and yet the second and third quotes I provided are completely passed over. The Gollum article has many, many quotes from the novel, so what's the problem with including these? Brooksboy78 (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
On their own, they don't say anything: points can only be made by reliable secondary sources, as you've already been told. Please read WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Quotes are relevant when they support a point made in the article, cited to a reliable secondary source. Quotes are dangerous when they are assembled (as here) to attempt to make a point in an editor's mind: this is called "Original Research by Synthesis". If you are asking for an extension to the existing plot section, bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site: plot summaries are required to be brief (this one is already quite long) and plain (we can't add detailed quotes to provide colour). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
CC has explained it well. To answer your question about 'what are these passages from the book saying', the only answer from encyclopedia's perspective would be 'we don't know without a source'. Our job is to summarise sources, not to interpret stuff ourselves. The book does not explicitly say 'Frodo used the power of the ring to chuck Gollum into the pit'. We as editors can't discuss our ideas of what we feel is heavily implied without a source. Girth Summit (blether) 09:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Alright, so I found this source from JSTOR (here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26812484.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A6685177d222de4648cbab764652bc25d&ab_segments=0%2Fspellcheck_basic_search%2Ftest&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1).
In it, Elizabeth Arthur (writing in Mythlore) makes very similar points about Gollum's fall that I made in this discussion thread. Look at pages 7 and 8, to be more specific. Here are some relevant quotes:
"The most striking and important demonstration of this pattern in Middle-earth is also the climactic event of the story. The scene at the Crack ofDoom has been called "one90 of the most perplexing episodes in The Lord of the Rings. But when Gollum is seen as the complicated character that he is, a struggling human being as well as a symbol of the battle between opposing forces, then the scene at the Crack is not perplexing but a masterful culmination of themes and motifs. The climax begins when Sam, carrying Frodo on his back, is suddenly struck from behind by Gollum, who has caught up with them. In hand to hand combat Frodo defeats Gollum, who crouches at his feet. Sam sees Frodo as a figure robed in white who holds at his breast a wheel of fire."
"The reader's thoughts should turn back to the scene beneath the Ephel Duath when Frodo reminds Gollum of his promise."
"Frodo has now given that command. Although he is not, on the slopes of Orodruin, actually wearing the Ring, the Ring's power has become so great as it draws close to the fire where it was forged that, as Frodo tells Sam, "I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades." (Ill, 215) There is no veil between Frodo and the power on his breast, and when he says to Gollum "If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom," he says so with the power of the Ring behind his words. Gollum, bound to the Ring by his promises and his centuries of enslavement, cannot escape the power of that statement, whichbecomes simply a statement of what must be now. When Gollum 'touches' Frodo, he does so by biting off his ring finger."
"Gollum is indeed "cast into the Fire of Doom," by the power of his own complex shackles to the Ring. And here is the ultimate demonstration of the truth that evil works often against itself. For how could the Ring know that it would be in Gollum's hand when it invested with the power of evil Frodo's command to Gollum? The greatest power of evil works here for the accomplishment of great good. Moreover, in one masterful stroke, Tolkien indicates again that the cosmos is providentially controlled. For although no one living could foresee the role Gollum would play, yet Gollum is there at the crucial moment, when Frodo claims the Ring for his own."
I excluded the Tolkien quotes she uses in the above passages as they are already in my initial post.
Is this a source that can be cited, at least as one viable interpretation, in this Gollum article? I do think the complexity of Gollum's ending should be touched on more than it is now. Brooksboy78 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed thoughts. Mythlore was not a peer-reviewed journal at the time; in 1991 it was still largely a fanzine, and indeed I've been unable to trace the article's author Elizabeth Arthur as a Tolkien scholar beyond this and one other piece in Mythlore. She does cite some Tolkien scholarship, and her discussion is thoughtful and critical (hinting, for instance, at character pairing), so I'd say we can cautiously use it as an interpretation. I'll see if there's anything in there that should be in our article here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The article has also been cited in subsequent articles from Mythlore. This one from 2023 cites her, for instance (https://dc.swosu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3025&context=mythlore). I'm not sure if that is relevant, but it might be notable that Tolkien scholarship has used this as a viable secondary source in recent years. Brooksboy78 (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I was aware of that, and it contributed to my feeling that she was usable despite the doubtful publication history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I found another, more recent academic source that touches on the subject as well (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329787703_Mirror_Characters_in_The_Lord_of_The_Rings_A_Complex_Analysis_of_the_Relationship_Of_Frodo_and_Gollum_Nova_filologicka_revue).
In it, Martina Juričková also brings up the complexity of Gollum's death and how the Ring itself punishes him for breaking his oat. On page 17 (translated):
"Consequently, what had been so many times prophesized happened the Ring betrayed him for breaking his promise not to hurt Frodo and led him to immediate death." 184.191.140.204 (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
That sort of material has more to do with the Ring and with questions of morality than with Gollum's character as such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
That's the main thesis of the paper, but the fact that the Ring plays a direct role in Gollum's demise is still brought up in the above piece (on page 17), even if it's not dealt with in depth. The subject is dealt with much more fully in the Elizabeth Arthur article (pages 7-8), where she spends multiple paragraphs on the subject. Brooksboy78 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Our topic here has the narrow focus of Gollum. Arthur has for her purposes felt free to cover related topics as well. That's fine in a negative article but is off-topic here; we have other articles for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)