As to what Smeagol was like before the Ring came to him, Tolkien does make some interesting comments in Letter 181:
Quote:
|
Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, & the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage & endurance, as great as Frodo & Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, & appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are 'in the same boat' must not usurp the judge. The domnation of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Smeagol but he would never have had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.
|
So, Smeagol was a 'mean sort of thief before it crossed his path', & had a 'mean soul'. Which, as Tolkien points out in the same letter, doesn't mean he deserved to be tempted by it, merely that (unlike the way the discovery is depicted in the movie) he was the kind of person who was likely to respond to it in the way he did. In the book, nobody is instantly tempted to snatch the Ring & use it. It works slowly & subtly on most & there is always he opportunity to reject it (at first) - hence Faramir can say that he would not pick it up if he found it by the wayside, because, unlike Smeagol, he doesn't have a 'mean soul'.
Certainly Smeagol didn't go looking for the Ring, but equally certainly he grabbed it as soon as it appeared. Not such a tragic victim as one might be tempted to think - especially in light of the movie. This, for me, makes Frodo's compassion & display of pity & mercy towards him all the more moving - Smeagol didn't deserve Pity & Mercy, but Frodo gave him both...