Smaug vs. Gollum

Radaghast wrote:Gandalf evidently thought it important that Smaug be destroyed. And, it's all well and good that all he wanted was his hoard, but he stole it and the mountain itself from the dwarves. Not really cool to let the dwarves be nomads just so this thief could be left alone to his treasure.

1. Destroying evil is always good.
2. Yes, good to give the dwarves an ancestral home back.

I was just making the point that the hoard of treasure was actually an anchor or shackle for Smaug. IMO it kept him from wandering and terrorizing a far greater area, basically the whole of middle earth. Who would have withstood him?

Mrs Figg wrote:But he was one of the last Dragons, its like saying its ok large predators all die out because they eat us, they may eat us but something important and magical leaves the Earth forever once they are all gone.

All true, but if it was your family that Smaug roasted you'd have viewed his demise differently.

He was only evil if you tried to nick his treasure

Mrs Figg wrote:But he was one of the last Dragons, its like saying its ok large predators all die out because they eat us, they may eat us but something important and magical leaves the Earth forever once they are all gone.

The level of damage a lion, say, can do does not approach that of a dragon; lions certainly can't destroy entire villages and environments in one go. And dragons were engineered by Morgoth (no doubt a factor in Gandalf's fear of Sauron recruiting Smaug) to do nothing but cause destruction; not a integral part of an ecosystem. In Tolkien's world, they're basically bad news and nothing else. That Smaug apparently forgot anything about Morgoth if he ever knew, did nothing curb his destructive and evil nature. Sure, he was only interested in sleeping on his ill-gotten hoard, but he wasn't merely minding his business. He'd have to wake every so often to eat and he wouldn't have been discreet about it.

Mrs Figg wrote:He was only evil if you tried to nick his treasure

Which he forcibly took from the dwarves, and which he had limited use for (that use being gems encrusted in his hide, which only made him close to invincible and thus a menace).

I do sort of miss seeing a new vs thread everyday  

Smaug had personality.  If you could squeeze him into a pub I think he'd make fabulous if crusty company...at least until you said something that hacked him off.  But....if that pub was home base to a decent motorcycle gang I think Smaug would be wise to put a lid on it. Might get by with only a scorch or two before they calmed him down with a tire iron.  And he'd fit right in with the boasting contests.  They'd be totally outmatched, come to think of it.

Yep, as drinking buddies goes, Smaug once again wins hands down over that sorry-ass whiner Gollum.

Smaug for me over that whinging weasel Gollum.  Smaug could fly, Gollum cant, Youde get some lovely Aeriel shots going over the land. Smaug probably could tell you some interesting tales of cities now gone, races now lost. I think his stories would be more interesting than Gollums, after all, Smaug is older,has ancestry. I think all Gollum would do is whine on "poor me!" all the time & no one likes that. Smaug is esthetically better to look at. Red, golden,shiny,iridescent even ? Gollum is lily white & putrid, bug eyed, slappy mouth, teeth like tomb stones, slimy, yuk! He has a cold look about him where Smaug has a warm look. Smaug I feel has travelled more, out in the open. Gollum has sneaked around more, Smaug has seen more,Gollum has not, unless you count life in the dark. Smaug has the intensity of speed, A couple of wing beats & hes in another area. He can dispatch enemies in a blast of fire, Gollum chooses to use other people to do his dirty work. Smaug would be more interesting at conversation, AND, when all's said & done..........



He's got a stash !!

The thing is I dont agree that the Death of Smaug was without ripples of loss spreading out over Middle Earth. This is my interpretation but I think Tolkien was very aware that with any Death of something we may call evil there are positive and negative results. When Sauron was destroyed that resulted in the High Elves leaving ME forever, Evil was gone but so was Good, there were consequences. Ripples. The Elves leaving meant that something mysterious and magical was becoming extinct, so for me the Death of Smaug meant that, yes, evil was conquered, but something else, something mysterious and magical was lost forever. there is a cost to be paid.

Who wants to live in a world without dragons?

Dratted Bard. I doubt that damn spoilsport would even drink bucky.

Yeah, that selfish bastard, wanting to save his town and its people from a hideous, burning end!  

Sarcasm aside, I get what you guys are saying about Smaug and I agree to an extent, but such sentiments are not exactly practical for the inhabitants on the receiving end of his fire blasts. As for the cost of Smaug's death, I'm not really sure what that is. The reader might feel the loss, but the inhabitants surely don't.

I do wish that Tolkien had made dragons a bit more complex, i.e. not all evil, though.

well if humans will insist on living in the shadow of a Dragon its tough titty when they get deep fried. Its like living at the edges of the jungle in India, sooner or later youre gonna get eaten, its not the Tigers fault

The tiger is not comparable to Tolkien's dragon. The dragon is not a naturally occurring creature, like the tiger. It was created by an evil being. It's also bigger, more destructive and evil, unlike the tiger.

And where would the people go? What if a bunch of dragons came out of the heath and decided to squat? Is it the peoples' fault for being in the dragons' way? Does might make right?

Well seeing as the Dragon in question seemed to have gone into hibernation, nobody having remembered or seen him for generations, he wasnt doing anything wrong, just minding his own buisness. If left well alone he may have not stirred for centuries.

He wouldn't have stayed that way forever and the fact remained that he took the dwarves' home. And he destroyed the environment for miles around him.

Yeah, I mean, as a reader dragons are cool and stuff, but I wouldn't mourn one if they were real and I lived in the area. Also, dragons in Middle-earth are the literal spawn of Satan, so...

  I am half Welsh. Red Dragons are cool.

This is a dragon I can root for:

I'm liking the conservationist approach to Smaug Figg.   Still I'm not sure the Hobbit would have worked if written in that spirit with relation to Smaug, though as you pointed out it was a theme in Tolkiens writing.

Still I have trouble seeing Smaug that way. As opposed to a tiger, Smaug was highly sentient and comes across as more intelligent than any of Bilbo and the dwarves. His actions then being put down to instinct I find a bit hard to accept. A tiger kills on instinct to eat and survive. Smaugs actions would have been conscious choices. I don't think he could have been forgiven for those actions on that pretext any more than a human would.

Still in relation to dragons and dwarves, they could both be said to lay to much importance on a treasure I guess.  

Radaghast wrote:This is a dragon I can root for:

Is that from Spirited Away?

This is a dragon I can root for!





  

Bluebottle wrote:I'm liking the conservationist approach to Smaug Figg.   Still I'm not sure the Hobbit would have worked if written in that spirit with relation to Smaug, though as you pointed out it was a theme in Tolkiens writing.

Still I have trouble seeing Smaug that way. As opposed to a tiger, Smaug was highly sentient and comes across as more intelligent than any of Bilbo and the dwarves. His actions then being put down to instinct I find a bit hard to accept. A tiger kills on instinct to eat and survive. Smaugs actions would have been conscious choices. I don't think he could have been forgiven for those actions on that pretext any more than a human would.

Still in relation to dragons and dwarves, they could both be said to lay to much importance on a treasure I guess.  

thanks Blue. But like Tigers we humans think we have the right to decide who lives and who dies, we impose our moral views on creatures that have their own unalienable right to exist. Gandalf himself said as much. Gollum was evil and intelligent but Gandalf stopped Frodo from Killing him. Smaug had caused destruction and was probably without a good bone in his body, but he was part of the food chain.

People avoided his corpse even though it was encrusted with jewels. He unbalanced the food chain with his nigh invincibility. He was a corrupt, evil thing, created by an even eviler thing.

Recoveryanonymous wrote:Is that from Spirited Away?

Yup!

I do like that perspective Figg.   

I would still say that Smaug brought his end on himself though. He stormed out of the lonely mountain in a fit of rage because someone had stolen a small trinket from his vast treasure intent on destroying Laketown. That the people in Laketown defended themselves in those circumstances I don't think they can be blamed for.

I do agree that it's sad though. The last of the great dragons dying. Just like it's sad that the elves leave Middle Earth. And that is a common theme in Tolkiens work.