frodo was both the weakest and strongest person in the Trilogy?

[the_master_of_puppets]

I feel that Frodo was both the strongest and weakest members of the books.

I feel he was the weakest because i couldnt bring himself to kill, even when defending his beloved Shire, and he always seems to have given up but goes on simply because he just can and that it. He doesnt have hope or any real will to acclumplish anything, and in one way he doesnt in the end anyway (aclumlish anything).

On the other hand he was the strongest because no other could bear it as far as he with it having little affect on him. It would be wrong to suggest it doesnt affect Frodo at all, because we see him harsher with Gollum than we would expect in TTT, and in TROTK we see him snap at sam 4 example because it is eating away at him. It is a sad fact Gollum was needed to get the ring into the mountain, but i think if he hadnt been around Sam would have got it off Frodo somehow even if he had to throw himself in to protect Frodo an everyone else...

Which leads me on to saying Sam is a stronger person, personality wise, and he is one of the true heros of the book. In many ways Frodo is not the hero at all, and tho he perhaps doesnt get enough credit, he doesnt deserve as much as his friends who fought and risked their lives for everyone else. Which even at the end, Frodo proves he will not do.

Whats everone think of my ramblings?!

[Enedhil]

Whew...glad i'm not the only one! smilies/smile.gif i understand what you mean

[Joy]

In some ways I agree with you. Sam is the stongest of the two hobbits. As some one stated before, that LotR was Sam's tale, it ended with him saying Well, I'm back

It was a story of his growth, his undying love and friendship to Frodo.

As far as Frodo being weak because he couldn't bring himself to kill to defend the Shire, I do not see this. The reason he did not want to kill was because of mercy and pity. He had learned pity through Gollum. Remember the line that Gandalf said to Frodo?

Frodo: He deserves death.
Gandalf: Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

It takes a stronger person to stay the hand in mercy than it takes to strike with the hand.

[Elven-Maiden]

I agree: Frodo was both weak and strong. Sam was strong in his love for Frodo, but weak on his own.

Therefore, both are strong and weak in their own way. smilies/frown.gif oh well! that was fun smilies/biggrin.gif

[Rosa Underhill]

I feel he was the weakest because i couldnt bring himself to kill

On this point, I disagree. As stated above, it takes great strength to stay the hand; a man who kills easily is truely weak.

But I agree about Frodo being both weak and strong. It took strength to bear the burden, but in the end, the burden crushed him and he became weak.

[Lush]

To me, Sam is the real hero of the story. He carried Frodo up that darned mountain. And I daresay he would have succeeded where Frodo failed. I am glad that afterwards, Sam was the one allowed to live out his life in the Shire, surrounded by his family. The meek shall inherit the Earth indeed.

[Rosa Underhill]

Well, if you think on it, Frodo really couldn't have lived happily if he'd stayed in Middle-earth anyway. He was wounded in more than one way. Of the two, Sam certainly is the stronger; he bore the Ring without any ill effect. Ah, good ol' Sam!

[Thingol]

I think that bearing the Ring was a much more difficult task than the actual physical journey into and through Mordor. Just look at what the Ring did to Boromir, and he only saw it once and briefly at that. It is amazing that the Ring did not overcome Frodo much sooner. There is no way that anyone in Middle Earth could have willingly cast the Ring into Mount Doom; not Gandalf, not Aragorn, not Elrond, not even Sam. Frodo's character is certainly more complex than Sam. Sam is a fairly static character, he starts out totally devoted to Frodo and remains so. Sam's perception of the world is altered only slightly, certainly not to the extent that Frodo's was. Frodo is a dynamic character who grows throughout the book. At the beginning of the Fellowship he wished Bilbo had killed Gollum, but at the end he tells Sam to forgive Gollum. Frodo's experience with the Ring has such a profound effect on him that he can not remain in the Shire. Sam's wounds are merely physical, which are soon overcome, Frodo's afflictions are much deeper. Sam embodies the themes of loyalty, friendship, and devotion in The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is certainly the story of Sam in that those themes play an important role in the book. However, I believe that the main theme is the inevitable change that comes about with the defeat of evil and the passage of time. Frodo is certainly the more complex character, he is changed by his experiences with the Ring. The Lord of the Rings is a story about Frodo and the fading of the past. The Lord of the Rings is the greatest adventure story ever told, but that alone is not what makes it great. It is not the epic tale that keeps me coming back to The Lord of the Rings, it is the imagery and the language that is associated with the theme of change, and the sadness that comes along with change, that really moves me. The profound melancholy that permeates The Lord of the Rings is derived from Frodo’s struggle with the Ring, not Sam’s heroics and total devotion to Frodo. Nothing against Sam, but Frodo's mental struggle is by far more difficult (and in my opinion more important to the book) than Sam's physical struggle.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Nova]

You must admit that of all the Fellowship, and perhaps among all those we meet in the trilogy, Frodo has the edge in sheer force of will -- he never wants to continue, he just does it anyway. Although I see Sam as an incredibly strong character as well, it's possible to just look at him as Frodo's devoted and dependant servant.

In reality, I think the strengths of the two hobbits really complement each other. Frodo has the mental and emotional sturdiness to survive his burden and continue on against impossible odds, and Sam has the sheer devotion that keeps Frodo going when he is too beaten down by what he faces. As was said -- none could have undertaken that quest alone. We say that Sam was strong because the Ring never damaged him, but how long did he carry it for? How long did Frodo carry it, before he began to truly feel the effects? And how long would it have been were he not wounded at Weathertop?

The issue isn't as cut and dry as it may seem.

[Rosa Underhill]

How long did Frodo carry it, before he began to truly feel the effects?

The effects started telling on Frodo even before he ever wore it. Recall his concern for the Ring when Gandalf threw it in the fire? (Of course, that was after seventeen years of owning the thing, but that wasn't the same as wearing it, which Frodo doesn't do until Gandalf shows up again.) And don't forget Boromier, who not once even touched the Ring but was driven mad by it. The length of time one wears the Ring doesn't always matter. It started to get to Sam just at it did to Frodo but Sam rationalized (in his simple way) the draw of the Ring away. Frodo could not deny the Ring's call, especially so near Mordor. But I digress. (Now I think I'm back to where I started with favorite characters: Frodo and Sam are equal again, though I love them each for different reasons.)

Regardless, neither Frodo nor Sam would have finished the quest without each other; that's the true strength seen in this book. The stength of friendship. You'll notice that it isn't just Frodo and Sam who are bound by it; Merry and Pippin would not have fared well without each other; even Legoalas and Gimli were made stronger by their bonds of friendship. The one who suffered the most dire consequences of the fellowship was the one who was, ultimately, alone: Boromir.

[Aralaithiel]

Well said, Thingol!
I also agree that Sam & Frodo complement each other.
Cool thread!

[Pips]

Originally posted by Thingol:
<STRONG>I think that bearing the Ring was a much more difficult task than the actual physical journey into and through Mordor. Just look at what the Ring did to Boromir, and he only saw it once and briefly at that. It is amazing that the Ring did not overcome Frodo much sooner. There is no way that anyone in Middle Earth could have willingly cast the Ring into Mount Doom; not Gandalf, not Aragorn, not Elrond, not even Sam. Frodo's character is certainly more complex than Sam. Sam is a fairly static character, he starts out totally devoted to Frodo and remains so. Sam's perception of the world is altered only slightly, certainly not to the extent that Frodo's was. Frodo is a dynamic character who grows throughout the book. At the beginning of the Fellowship he wished Bilbo had killed Gollum, but at the end he tells Sam to forgive Gollum. Frodo's experience with the Ring has such a profound effect on him that he can not remain in the Shire. Sam's wounds are merely physical, which are soon overcome, Frodo's afflictions are much deeper. Sam embodies the themes of loyalty, friendship, and devotion in The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is certainly the story of Sam in that those themes play an important role in the book. However, I believe that the main theme is the inevitable change that comes about with the defeat of evil and the passage of time. Frodo is certainly the more complex character, he is changed by his experiences with the Ring. The Lord of the Rings is a story about Frodo and the fading of the past. The Lord of the Rings is the greatest adventure story ever told, but that alone is not what makes it great. It is not the epic tale that keeps me coming back to The Lord of the Rings, it is the imagery and the language that is associated with the theme of change, and the sadness that comes along with change, that really moves me. The profound melancholy that permeates The Lord of the Rings is derived from Frodo’s struggle with the Ring, not Sam’s heroics and total devotion to Frodo. Nothing against Sam, but Frodo's mental struggle is by far more difficult (and in my opinion more important to the book) than Sam's physical struggle.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]</STRONG>

I agree 100%!!

[the_master_of_puppets]

I think, althought i still c Frodo as both strong and weak, that his character is the more complex as it has been suggested here. And having thought more sensibley, the thing about pity staying the hand to make a stronger man (or hobbit in this case!) i now totally agree with. What, perhaps i meant and didnt put very well, is that Frodo has remained unchanged in the sense he still does not wish to kill (that isnt necessarily a bad thing btw!), whereas merry/sam/pippin are all willing to. I just meant it as an example of their characters growing and his not in the same way.

[Tarlondeion Of Gondolin]

I just finished reading the book again and I think that Frodo seems to do nothing, Sam's always doing everything for him, making and finding food, finding water, defending him even carrying him. Frodo may have been carrying the ring but from the very start he does nothing.

[Aralaithiel]

How can Frodo do much of anything when that dang ring is messing with his mind? It's consuming his thoughts, emotions, etc. So he needs his clear headed buddy to do the simple things for him. smilies/rolleyes.gif

[dragongirlG]

Well said, Thingol. I couldn't have done better.

In response to Tarlondeion Of Gondolin's thread --Frodo is always doing something. He's carrying the Ring. That in itself is a great task and burden. Frodo is physically impaired during his journey because of the burden of the Ring, therefore he cannot do the things that Sam can do. I believe Frodo is the stronger character because even though the Ring's power grew on him, he still had the will and the strength to carry on to Mount Doom. Sam's strength lies in his devotion to his master and his ignorance and purity of heart. Frodo is not able to have these characteristics because he is the Ring-bearer.

I want to say more, but can't think of what. Oh well. smilies/smile.gif

dragongirlG

[Pips]

Really, I mean that ring's gotta be a pain in the butt, alway whispering black words to you, trying to curropt you, controll you, to get you to PUT IT ON! Hell, I'd need my best friend, just to keep me SANE!

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

perhaps the fact that Frodo was too "weak" to kill meant that only he was "strong" enough to bear the ring
I love them both smilies/smile.gif

[Joy]

Eowyn, I think your right. You said in one sentance that which it has taken me all day to explain to my mother. That was a wonderful statement.

[Alchrivëwen]

Well this has been said enough and more but I agree, the two hobbits could not have made it through without each other so therefore no one can take all the credit unless it be gollum who mistakenly threw himself in the cracks ofdoom along with the Ring, Also I agree on the point of the Ring, the struggle was not physical it was mental which iswhat Sauron wanted, but also if you recal, Sauron was also captured by the Ring, which makesw me amazed that if a Maya could be captured by the Ring, would the Valar resist? and if they could would you need to be a Valar to distroy the Ring? or is it just frendship that can distroy the ring or evil in real life. youve all probably heard the term 'only love can conquer hate' personally I think that that was what Tolkien was trying to insinuate

[Joy]

Spoiler alert: Skip if you haven't read through the whole series.


Frodo and the rest of the company was willing to distroy the ring. They set out with that mission. I believe that the ring would have to be carried by someone who the ring could have control over, but strong enough in spirit/mind/character to endure and overcome the power and lust for the ring. I know that in the end, it was distroyed by Gollum, who never wanted the ring to be distroyed, but the ring was taken to Mount Doon freely for the purpose of distroying it, then when Frodo took claim upon it, I believe that Destiny/Fate/Eru Illuvatar stepped in. (that was a major run-on) It was because of this willingness that allowed Illuvatar to move the circumstances for the ring to be destroyed.

[Bruce MacCulloch]

One of the things that shows Frodo's strength is the scene at the Fords of Buirien. Frodo, by himself, stands up to the Nine. Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up. With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword.
'Go back!' he cried. 'Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more! ' His voice sounded thin and shrill in his own ears. The Riders halted, but Frodo had not the power of Bombadil. His enemies laughed at him with a harsh and chilling laughter. 'Come back! Come back!' they called. 'To Mordor we will take you!'
'Go back!' he whispered.
'The Ring! The Ring!' they cried with deadly voices; and immediately their leader urged his horse forward into the water, followed closely by two others.
'By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,' said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, 'you shall have neither the Ring nor me!'
Then the leader, who was now half across the Ford, stood up menacing in his stirrups, and raised up his hand. Frodo was stricken dumb. He felt his tongue cleave to his mouth, and his heart labouring. His sword broke and fell out of his shaking hand. The elf-horse reared and snorted. The foremost of the black horses had almost set foot upon the shore. Indeed, Frodo is the only person in the book to stand up against all of the Nine, and he did it alone.
This is actually one of my big problems with the movie, that Frodo's finest moment was taken from him. (But I'm not going to go into that here smilies/wink.gif )

[the_master_of_puppets]

i agree! it is sad frodos moment is taken, but im sure they'll make up for it in other ways

[Bruce MacCulloch]

You have much more faith than I, then.

[LúthienTinúviel]

I see Frodo as both the more complex of the two (Sam and Frodo) and the stronger. Sam's loyalty remains the same throughout the book. He starts off with that task, and he sees it through. Now, don't get me wrong, his journey was one of immense courage and stregth, but I think Sam is more loyal than anything else, wich is a kind of strength.

As for Frodo, he didn't just have one person to be loyal to. By accepting the Ring, he took upon himself the burden of the future of all of Middle-earth and its inhabitants. His responsisbility was to everyone. He had to make the choices that would determine the fate of the world, and he was hunted, both physically and mentally, at every step of the way. The hordes of Sauron were after him. The Ring bore down on him with relentless evil will. He saw his friends torn apart. He suffered the guilt that if he did succeed, he saved Men but doomed the Elves, and if he lost, he doomed everyone, but more particularly the race of men. He was beset from without and within. The Ring tried to control him and the people around him. After the Ring's power grows stronger on the way to Mordor, he staggers on. If even Gandalf, Elrond or Galadriel could not bear the Ring, what does that say of Frodo?

Sam did carry the Ring, but only very briefly. Only time could say whether he could carry it as Frodo did. They were both strong, but Sam's situation was much simpler than Frodo's.

Sorry about the rambling, but I love Frodo. I cried so many times in the book when he was tired or naked or cold. And in the movie, Elijah Wood was so amazing that at the end, when he's standing by the water and later when he's embracing Sam in the boat, he looked so sorrowful and haunted that it broke my heart.

Namárië,
Lúthien

[mark12_30]

Luthien, that wasn't rambling, that was golden. Thanks for pointing out the (easily forgotten) guilt about destroying the elves' staying power if he destroys the ring. It's mentioned often in Lorien and Rivendell, but I forget all about it by Ithilien and Mordor! As an elf-friend, that guilty knowledge must have been a nasty, nasty thing to carry all the way to Mordor all by itself.

No, Frodo had all he could do to stumble forward one foot in front of the other. Sam was his Rock, and Frodo couldn't have made it without him certainly; but Frodo was neither selfish, self-centered, weak, wympy, or wishy-washy.

I reread Shadows of the Past last night, and the section where Gandalf tests Frodo by challenging him to toss the ring into the fire-- and Frodo can't do it even then-- amazed me deeply. Gandalf even said that same day that nobody could take the ring from Frodo or make him destroy it because it would shatter him. And yet Gandalf trusts him to take it to Mordor. The only way I can reconcile that is that Gandalf trusted ILUVATAR to get the ring to Mordor and destroy it there. And Frodo was the one to do it; in despair and without hope (how often did he say "The whole thing is quite hopeless, Sam"?) he set his face (like flint) toward the darkness and marched.

I wish I was one-tenth the man that Frodo was.

--mark12_30

[Alchrivëwen]

*clapps* you are a very good speaker Luthien

[LúthienTinúviel]

Thanks guys! And I also wish I was one trillionth the man, erm...the woman...uhh...person, as Frodo. smilies/smile.gif

Namárië,
Lúthien

[Alchrivëwen]

L smilies/tongue.gifL

[LúthienTinúviel]

PS: You people with the Orlando Bloom advertisemnt make me sad. I am not. I am a well-behaved, mature 17 year old...does that count? smilies/frown.gif

Namárië,
Lúthien

[Alchrivëwen]

EVERY ONE HERE IS OLDER THAN ME, Im only 13

[Rosa Underhill]

Luthien and mark, you guys are awesome! Thank you for writing.

I think I'll change my WWSD? slogan to WWAHD? "What would a Hobbit do?" Woo hoo! Go Iluvatar! smilies/biggrin.gif I, too, wish I were more like the kuduk(hobbits).

It doesn't matter who was "weakest" or "strongest". Inevitably, we silly Big Folk get it wrong most of the time. What we see as weakness is real strength and vice versa. Middle-earth would have seen it's end days in the War of the Ring if Iluvitar hadn't had other designs.

[dragongirlG]

EVERY ONE HERE IS OLDER THAN ME, Im only 13
I'm getting off on a tangent here...but so am I! Muahaha! I'm 13 but I'm not one of those ditzy girls; I HATE THEM! I'm sort of a "nerd" but not exactly...I'm just a normal "smart" person but I have my own special talents smilies/smile.gif

[the_master_of_puppets]

I'm not that much older than u: im 15.

Ages aside, i had actually forgotten the whole deal todo with dooming the elves, and about gandalf/elrond/galadriel not being able to take the ring.

In my mind, simply put, Frodo is strong in his head and heart and Sam is strong physically and in his heart too.

Does this make sense?
But at the same time Frodo is weak because he cant finish the job, but then how many could, if any? So is everyone weak? lol, u get confused after so long... smilies/eek.gif

[Rosa Underhill]

dragongirlG, there are no "normal smart people". smilies/biggrin.gif In fact, normality is a myth. (Seriously, it is! I don't believe in normal.) smilies/biggrin.gif

[Samwise]

As far as Frodo being weak because he couldn't bring himself to kill to defend the Shire, I do not see this. The reason he did not want to kill was because of mercy and pity. He had learned pity through Gollum. Remember the line that Gandalf said to Frodo?
quote:
---------------------------------------------
Frodo: He deserves death.
Gandalf: Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
---------------------------------------------
It takes a stronger person to stay the hand in mercy than it takes to strike with the hand.

Well said, Joy. I agree.
"Well, I'm back."
Sam Gamgee

[Pips]

Originally posted by LúthienTinúviel:
<STRONG>I see Frodo as both the more complex of the two (Sam and Frodo) and the stronger. Sam's loyalty remains the same throughout the book. He starts off with that task, and he sees it through. Now, don't get me wrong, his journey was one of immense courage and stregth, but I think Sam is more loyal than anything else, wich is a kind of strength.

As for Frodo, he didn't just have one person to be loyal to. By accepting the Ring, he took upon himself the burden of the future of all of Middle-earth and its inhabitants. His responsisbility was to everyone. He had to make the choices that would determine the fate of the world, and he was hunted, both physically and mentally, at every step of the way. The hordes of Sauron were after him. The Ring bore down on him with relentless evil will. He saw his friends torn apart. He suffered the guilt that if he did succeed, he saved Men but doomed the Elves, and if he lost, he doomed everyone, but more particularly the race of men. He was beset from without and within. The Ring tried to control him and the people around him. After the Ring's power grows stronger on the way to Mordor, he staggers on. If even Gandalf, Elrond or Galadriel could not bear the Ring, what does that say of Frodo?

Sam did carry the Ring, but only very briefly. Only time could say whether he could carry it as Frodo did. They were both strong, but Sam's situation was much simpler than Frodo's.

Sorry about the rambling, but I love Frodo. I cried so many times in the book when he was tired or naked or cold. And in the movie, Elijah Wood was so amazing that at the end, when he's standing by the water and later when he's embracing Sam in the boat, he looked so sorrowful and haunted that it broke my heart.

Namárië,
Lúthien</STRONG>

FINALLY!!! Someone else who Loves Frodo like I do.(Don't look at me like that! Not that kind of Love, I don't want to marry him!)
Luthien! I feel the same way you do, and I cried so much at the end of the movie, because I felt for Frodo. I've cried so much reading the book, there's this little voice in the back of my mind asking why I still read it. Simple. Because the story is streamed with humanity and traits I would love to see in people in this day and age.

[LúthienTinúviel]

Originally posted by Pips:
<STRONG>

FINALLY!!! Someone else who Loves Frodo like I do.(Don't look at me like that! Not that kind of Love, I don't want to marry him!)
Luthien! I feel the same way you do, and I cried so much at the end of the movie, because I felt for Frodo. I've cried so much reading the book, there's this little voice in the back of my mind asking why I still read it. Simple. Because the story is streamed with humanity and traits I would love to see in people in this day and age.</STRONG>

Yeah! Let's start a club! I'm in love with Frodo!

Namárië,
Lúthien

Hahaha...I'm losing credibilty aren't I? I go from intelligent comments to insane screaming. Go me.

[Pips]

Tell ya what, when I and a friend of mine finsh our site, named Hobbit Groupie, for the fans of the hobbits, I'll give you the address.

[LúthienTinúviel]

Thanks Pips!

[Mat_Heathertoes]

The great man himself had a great many letters in his lifetime about Frodos bearing and accomplishments and replied with interesting things to say about it

I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of the quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.

We are finite creatures with absolute limitations upon the powers of our soul-body structure in either action or endurance. Moral failure can only be asserted, I think, when a man's effort or endurance falls short of his limits, and the blame decreases as that limit is closer approached.

the letter also goes on to say...

Frodo undertook the quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could; and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could, to try and find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been - say, by being strangled by Gollum or crushed by a falling rock.

Letter 246 September 1963

I tend to agree with the man himself on this thread. I don't see any discernible weaknesses in Frodo's character up to and including his actions at the Sammath Naur. He did more than any other individual in the mythology by bringing himself, fighting against every screaming fibre of being and will and at the nadir of the West's and the near zenith of the Enemy's power, to the very threshold of the Rings' doom and then the Other kindly took over ... Better late than never eh?

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Mat_Heathertoes ]

[Rosa Underhill]

He's never late, though. God works on His time, not ours. Anyway, I agree with that. Thanks for the info. (Hey, what's the full title of the "Letters" book. I get money tomorrow and I want it! smilies/biggrin.gif)

Hey, Pips, can I have the link to your site too? I'm kuduk groupie! Er, hobbit groupie, sorry. (I love Soval Phare. smilies/smile.gif)

[Bruce MacCulloch]

Hey, what's the full title of the "Letters" book. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter with the assistance of Christopher Tolkien

[goldwine]

Yup! Frodo and Sam had different tasks to accomplish. Frodo (as already stated) bore the spiritual and intellectual responsibility of "ring bearer" - an office not just a physical task. Sam's deep love for his master was the passionate and driving force which the council gave in to, allowing Sam's role in the fellowship. He was there as Frodo's supporter and protector, even though he carried the ring for a while.
As said so eloquently in other posts it took all of their combined strength - physical, emotional and spiritual to get to Mt Doom.
In the end, of course, it was Frodo's compassion, wisdom or fate's influence that stayed his hand with Gollum in the past and the goal was completed through his intervention.
Thanks for the Tolkien letters quotes - they provide such great insight, don't they?

[LúthienTinúviel]

Atta boy, Mat! Straight to the source! It's nice when the big man himslef confirms your opinions!

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: LúthienTinúviel ]

[dragongirlG]

Thanks for the letter quotes! Straight from the author, what better source could there be?

[Pips]

Rosa, Sure thing! We Hobbit Groupies need to stick together. We're working on the "rough Draft" of the site to get it up, then once it's up, we'll start to improve it. But I've almost got it to where you guys can come join.

[Amarinth]

hi! i'm new to the message board, but may i make bold to say am really glad that this question was asked, because it's one that is quite dear to my heart. permit me to pick up thingol's train of thought way up there, and say you couldn't have put it more eloquently or elegantly, thingol (takes leaf circlet off head, bows)...

may i add, frodo's strength cannot only be gauged by how far and effective he bore the ring and how changed he was in its course to doom, but also by how much he had to sacrifice in both the bearing and after. nearly all of the fellowship, save him and boromir, had emerged from the war of the rings to greater glory, fame even reward; it had always pained me that for frodo, sacrifice was the greater part of his lot even after the war. he had renown very little in the shire, the pain that never goes away, and the ultimate sacrifice of giving up the one thing he cherished above all else-- his beloved shire. in the larger sheme of things, having chosen the ring and the frightening change it occasioned, he had given up everything. it is the greatest courage there is -- "someone has to give it up, lose it, so that others may keep it". this is the very stuff heroes and martyrs are made of.

every man's life is a path to the truth -- hess

[the_master_of_puppets]

having read the letter JRR wrote himself further up the page has made me understand what i didnt before, and restored my lacking faith in poor old frodo

[Halbarad]

Man I've been gone a long time- I don't recognise anyone. Having said that, I think Frodo is an ideal picture of how pure a person can be. Indeed, Saruman says right at the end "You have grown indeed halfling." As others have said, Frodo would not bring himself to kill, but that does not in any way make him weak. His body may have been weakened but not his soul. I say this for many reasons:
-Frodo learned from Gandalf in Moria, with the Gollum debate about dealing out death in the name of justice. He learned it from one of the wisest beings in Middle earth. The Valar did not kill people such as Feanor, even though he did many terrible things, does that make them weak?
-Sam was stupid, plain and simple, but rustic people have their own wisdom. If Sam had borne the same burden , he would have succumbed, in my opinion- he did not know how to deal with it (we see Sam flustered whenever he gets responsibility, while Frodo remains calm throughout).
-Frodo killed in th LotR- remember the cave troll? He killed only when absolutely necessary. Remember it was he who kept the Shire hobbits from killing the ruffians in the scouring of the Shire, when it would have been tempting to punish them for ruining the Shire? He even wanted Grima to stay alive, not out of weakness but out of mercy- just as the Valar were merciful to Melkor in the beginning. In a similar situation Aragorn was merciful to Beregond, when he committed an offence punishable by death in spilling blood in the citadel. I argue that it is the same thing as Frodo's reluctance to kill.
It is tempting to call peacemakers weak, but as Joy pointed out, it takes a stronger person to stay the hand in mercy than it takes to strike with the hand.

[LúthienTinúviel]

Well said, Halbarad, although calling Sam stupid sounds a little harsh to my ears, but I know what you're getting at. Sam's was a strength of the body and heart. Frodo's strength was that of the will and of the mind.

In regards to the comments made about Frodo "doing nothing:" That is as far from the truth as anything is possible to be. Every moment, even in his sleep, he had to battle the will of Sauron. Can you imagine that? This small hobbit battling the will of the Dark Lord himself, something that Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel all said they could not do. If what Frodo did was nothing, then nobody in LotR did anything, and it is a book about nothing.

But that is clearly not the case. One of the major themes in the book is that of struggle. Frodo struggles with the will of Sauron. Sam struggles to curb his homesickness and remain with Frodo. Aragorn struggles to choose the right path for the Fellowship. Boromir struggles to save his country. The whole of Middle-earth struggles against the might of Sauron. All these struggles are manifested in different ways, but none are less real than the others. Just because Frodo's struggle is internal, does not make it less credible or necessary. His is the ultimate battle. And yes, at the end, he fails, but he fails at something that no one could succeed in. Not even Gandalf the White. At the end, he is overcome, but it is at the end of a long and terrible battle. We cannot blame a hobbit for succumbing to the will of the Dark Lord...on his own turf.

[Joy]

Halbarad, very good. I have been reading this thread since it was posted. And for my 300th post, I decided that I would get on my soapbox, as my mother says. smilies/tongue.gif

Earlier I stated that Sam was the strongest person, what I was trying to say was that Sam's loyalty to Frodo made him strong. Now if he had to carry the ring, I don't know if he could. We don't get to see much of the "spiritual" side of Sam. Sam's weakness is exposed in the situations with Smeagol/Gollum. But again, this anger is cause by his loyalty to Frodo. He doesn't want harm to come to his master.

Now, back to Frodo. I again state what I said in a previous post. As far as Frodo being weak because he couldn't bring himself to kill to defend the Shire, I do not see this. The reason he did not want to kill was because of mercy and pity. He had learned pity through Gollum. Remember the line that Gandalf said to Frodo?

quote:
---------------------------------------------
Frodo: He deserves death.
Gandalf: Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
---------------------------------------------
It takes a stronger person to stay the hand in mercy than it takes to strike with the hand.

Also, note that when Frodo is wounded at Weathertop by the Morgul blade, he remains strong. Even at the chase at the Ford Frodo states "Go back! he cried. Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more!"... "By Elbereth and Lùthien the Fair," said Frodo, with a last effort, lifting up his sword, "you shall have neither the Ring or me!"

Gandalf himself stated that Frodo was made of stronger stuff than most men. In the chapter "Many Meetings" Gandalf and Frodo speak of what happened.

Gandalf: "Elrond is a master of healing, but the weapons of our Enemy are deadly. To tell you the truth, I had very little hope; for I suspected taht there was some fragment of the blade still in the closed wound. But it could not be found until last night. Then Elrond removed a splinter. It was deeply buried, and it was working inward."
Frodo shuddered, remembering the cruel kife with notched blade that had vanished in Strider's hands. "Don't be alarmed!" said Gandalf. "It is gone now. It has been melted. And it seems that Hobbits fade very reluctantly. I have known strong warriors of the Big People who would quickly have been overcome by that splinter, which you have borne for 17 days..."

"Yes, fortune or fate have helped you," said Gandalf, "not to mention your courage. For you heart was not touched, and only your shoulder was pierced; and that was because you resisted to the last. But it was a terribly narrow shave, so to speak..."

Gandalf moved his chair to the bedside, and took a good look at Frodo. The colour had come back to his face, and his eyes were clear, and fully awake and aware. He was smiling, and there seemed to be little wrong with him. But to the wizard's eye there was a faint change, just a hint as it were of transparency, about him, and especially about the left hand that lay outside upon the coverlet.
"Still that must be expected," said Gandalf to himself. "He is not half though yet, and to what he will come in the end not even Elrond can foretell. Not to evil, I think. He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see that can."

Frodo, even though he failed in completing the mission, though it was completed, came back with a pure heart. He was strong in the defense of the Shire, stronger yet was his resolve in pity and mercy. He extended mercy those who destroyed the Shire, even Saurman and Grima Wormtongue. I believe that Sharkù, old Saurman said it best when he said You have grown, Halfling. You have grown very much. You are wise and cruel. You have robbed my my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in my bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you!.."

[Rose Cotton]

Frodo was very strong in his will power.
The thing is that for half of TTT and ROTK Frodo is not himself.
If the ring wasn't weighing on him I'm sure he would have tried harder to accomplish his task.
Because if you remember he tried realy hard in the begining because the ring didn't have as much of a hold.
As for not wanting to kill in the Shire I agree that Frodo learned pity from Gollum and that made him even stonger.

Sam wasn't that strong in the begining. Part of it was because he was in a 'growing' stage and Part of it was he had people to protect him.
His love for Frodo is what made him strong as did the relisation that he alone had to help Frodo in TTT and ROTK.
If you remember Sam always took it on himself to do the jobs and take care of things.
As for it being Sam's story it kind of swiched over halfway through the story.
The first part was Frodo's side of the story and the second part was Sam's side of the story.

Does that make sence?

[Frodo Baggins]

Hear hear to Luthien Tinuviel, that was golden. And to those of you that say I did nothing, you probably wouldn't feel like doing much if an evil ring was dragging you to the ground and you spent all your time resisting. Not to mention sleepin being nearly as bad as waking. [QUOIf what Frodo did was nothing, then nobody in LotR did anything, and it is a book about nothing.
TE] [/QUOTE]
Hear hear!!!
Man you are good, Luthien!!

YOu all havr great points. smilies/smile.gif smilies/wink.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

Thank you, Frodo Baggins, for pulling up this thread again. This humble, admiring hobbit certainly thanks you for all that you've accomplished on behalf of the Shire and Middle-earth.....

I had not read this thread before so I'm glad to get a chance to look at it. So many excellent things have been said here that there isn't a lot to add, except I do have one personal comment.

Yes, it's quite certain that Frodo would have failed without Sam's help. Without Sam's physical assistance, Frodo literally wouldn't even have made it up the ashen slopes of Mount Doom. Even more importantly, the only way for Frodo to stave off the power of the Ring, to push down its incessent clamor in his heart and mind, was to bind himself to others. And this is what Sam allowed Frodo to do by providing that opportunity for closeness and caring, a mode of caring which Frodo extended even to the character of Smeagol/Gollum itself.

Yet, by this same standard, Sam also needed Frodo. He relied on Frodo to teach him gentleness towards a miserable creature also bound to the Ring and to share the quiet stories and memories that helped push these two determined hobbits onward through the Shadow.

Since we all know this to be true, why does this question come up time and time again-- the endless task of trying to weigh and measure the exact contribution of Frodo and that of Sam? Fan sites debate this issue endlessly, and critics also chip in with articles explaining why Sam is or is not the "real" hero of the Lord of the Rings. I can't think of any other characters we do this with. There are few heartfelt threads weighing the comparative contributions of Merry/Pippin, Gimli/Legolas, or any other possible pair you care to imagine. With these folk, we're content to appreciate their individual contribution without trying to weigh and measure it down to the tiniest degree.

I myself have done it as an admirer of Frodo Baggins. Heh, why doesn't Frodo get the credit he deserves from the Shire? So Sam thinks it's so easy to bear the Ring, just let him try! What do you mean that Frodo sailed to Elvenhome purely out of despair, while Sam had the courage to return to the Shire and bring life to the earth? How can you say that? Can't you see that Frodo hears the call of the Elves at least as strongly as he feels the tug of the Shire?

Just why do I, and we, do this? Certainly, these are the two chief characters in the story. Tolkien created an ensemble cast but no one else, neither Gandalf nor Aragorn, played quite the same role as Sam and Frodo. After thinking about this for some time, I feel there's something else going on. That "something" focuses not merely on the story but on ourselves as individuals, our hopes and ways of looking at things.

At heart, I think, when readers meet Sam and Frodo, each individual feels a natural empathy to one of the two archetypes that these characters represent. And these two hobbits are so very different, and so very good for each other's souls, because they do represent two distinct ways of dealng with and looking at life. In a very real sense, Sam fills the holes in Frodo's heart and Frodo does the same for Sam.

Sam is the practical doer, who does because he has a basic and unswerving commitment to the people he loves in his life. He has a direct and often simple view of things that enables him to surmount any obstacle and to go on when hope seems lost. His eyes stay focused on the close horizon because this is where he can do so much good. Within the circle of his friends and community, he gives of himself again and again without question. He is the loving spouse and friend who can appreciate the secrets of elves, but who can also go through every daily disaster and come out on top.

And Frodo? Frodo is the seer and the prophet whose eyes and ears are tuned to distant music. He is the one who understands what sacrifices must be made to reach out beyond ourselves and grasp on to something higher whose meaning we can barely comprehend. He never forgets the sound of the Sea or the vision of the green distant land. He brings gifts of love to his small group of dear friends--gifts like laughter, stories, and the teaching of mercy. His way is less practical so the world will often shake its head in bewilderment or even turn aside, not understanding his growing reluctance to wield a sword or his trusting in strange and flawed creatures. Above all, he will bind himself to an idea, and make that commitment the center of his soul, without thought of personal happiness or reward.

It is the sad ending of the book that each of these character has grown to the point that they must take a different path in life. Sam and Frodo, so good for each other but so unlike, come to the parting of ways at Grey Havens, and we are left with a tremendous sense of sorrow and loss. We wish Tolkien were here to tell us exactly how it turned out for the two of them. We do know a bit about Sam, but for Frodo there is only a sad blank page. And that makes it so much harder for us to comprehend his choice.

I am certain, however, that they each took the path that was right for them. And, whether in the Shire or in the West, they continued to grow and learn, one perhaps with less effort and the other perhaps with more pain, but still going on.

And so each of us, as readers, feels a natural empathy towards either Sam or Frodo, largely dependent on our own ideals and attitudes towards life. We may respect and admire them both, but there is one who will tug more natually at our heart.

Has anyone else sensed this in their reading?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Nar]

Well, Child of the 7th age, I have always enjoyed your able defenses of Frodo-- I think you understand his character on a very deep level. Your analysis of Sam, I am happy to say, is on the same level. Like you, I have always seen these two hobbits as beautifully complimentary. I really have never seen Frodo's fate as a sad one. It is sad for me that the story ends, and sad for Frodo and Sam to be parted-- but just think of all the wonderful elves Frodo will be able to meet out there! No doubt all the best Noldor kings who went down fighting Morgoth will have been reborn by this time, so Frodo will be able to meet Fingolfin and Finrod Felagund --find out what Beren and Luthien were REALLY like. And as I've said before, Frodo and Sam's meeting after Sam's had his life with Rosie will be very very good.

[Baran]

And so each of us, as readers, feels a natural empathy towards either Sam or Frodo, largely dependent on our own ideals and attitudes towards life. We may respect and admire them both, but there is one who will tug more natually at our heart.

Has anyone else sensed this in their reading?



Brilliant post, I know excactly what you are talking about.

My hobbit is Frodo, I just cant imagine Sam as the ringbearer, he was strong because of his love to Frodo, I think the ring would have taken controll over him pretty soon. If Sam had made the descissions they would have killed Gollum when they first encountered him, and so the task would have failed.

[Nar]

Yay! I have just discovered Tales from Tol Eressea by Mithadan in the reader fiction site, a lovely, lovely embodiment of all these Tolkien dreams we've been discussing in this thread -- wow, Mithadan, you put everything I wanted to know about in. Thank you! I disagreed with the ending, but I loved the story! smilies/smile.gif

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[littlemanpoet]

Excellent post, Child.

Sam learning from Frodo:
'Now!' said Sam. 'At last I can deal with you!' He leaped forward with drawn blade ready for battle. But Gollum did not spring. He fell flat upon the ground whimpering.
'Don't kill us,' he wept. 'Don't hurt us with nassty cruel steel! Let us live, yes, live just a little longer. Lost lost! We're lost. And when Precious goes we'll die, yes, die into the dust.' He clawed up the ashes of the path with his long fleshless fingers. 'Dusst!' he hissed.
Sam's hand wavered. His mind was hot with wrath and the memory of evil. It would be just to slay this treacherous, murderous creature, just and many times deserved; and also it seemed the only safe thing to do. But deep in his heart there was something that restrained him: he could not strike this thing lying in the dust, forlorn, ruinous, utterly wretched. He himself, though only for a little while, had borne the Ring, and now dimly he guessed the agony of Golllum's shriveled mind and body, enslaved to that Ring, unable to find peace or relief ever in life again. But Sam had no words to express what he felt.
'Oh, curse you, you stinking thing!' he said. 'Go away! Be off! I don't trust you, not as far as I could kick you; but be off. Or I [i]shall hurt you, yes, with nasty cruel steel.'

It would be more accurate to say that Sam learned this lesson from experience wearing the Ring, reminiscent as it is of Gandalf's and Frodo's words as to what Gollum deserved and ought to receive. So Sam learned pity and mercy in the degree to which he was capable.

Frodo & Gollum & Sam as a triad:
Child, I think you're descriptions of Frodo and Sam as representations of two different archetypes are insightful and useful.

I think there's an additional approach, regarding F & S and Gollum as a triad. In TTT the pov is increasingly that of Sam, especially in regard to Gollum. I quote:
For a moment it appeared to Sam that his master had grown and Gollum had shrunk: a tall stern shadow, a mighty lord who hid his brightness in grey cloud, and at his feet a little whining dog. Yet the two were in some way akin and not alien: they could reach one another's minds. Gollum raised himself and began pawing at Frodo, fawning at his knees.
'Down! down!' said Frodo. 'Now speak your promise!'

We see the other two through Sam's eyes. He is our awareness. Gollum is the chaotic, enslaved, repugnant one. Frodo is the latent nobility, the unearthly power. And the Ring is inextricably woven into the character of each, especially after Sam has worn it. It is a negative force that reveals three different aspects of, perhaps, one hero, one lonely triadic protagonist which betrays itself sometimes, works together rather well sometimes, allows the repugnant part to lead through the most treacherous and difficult areas at times, and is forced to gain what strength it can from the light of Galadriel when no other helps avail. It's most interesting to me how Sam as the simple one, practical, is forced to take onto himself the character of the elflord, borrowed in a sense from Frodo AND Galadriel's light; ever at odds with the repugnant shadowy Gollum, who himself has two sides! Complexity upon complexity!

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Nar]

Great ideas, child and littlemanpoet! I've just been struck reading these posts by how living and responsive the story becomes because of the shifting dualities among the three companions, Sam, Gollum and Frodo. These comparisons of oppositions in character, virtue and light/dark myth never settle into leaden schema. The three characters always remain distict but never become deterministic or -shudder- allegorical. They remain applicable, with the elusiveness of living creatures that can never be just summed up into a few categories.
Seen by us: Sam and Frodo, heart/caregiver and spirit/seeker.
Seen by Sam: Frodo and Gollum, holy man and fallen man.
Seen by us: Sam and Gollum, true friend and embittered/unfaithful friend.
This is a fantastic composition! Three characters paired and re-paired into different dualities -- lots of mythic resonance and yet a light, living, developing thematic pattern.

That's a great technique. Have to go internalize it now, so I have it available when I need it.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Nar -- Very, very perceptive. Yes, there are so many layers of meaning with both pairings and triangular schema. It's almost like unwrapping the skin of an onion.

How about other ways of understanding these characters in terms of trangular relationships and themes, as Littlemanpoet suggested? Frodo's internal perception of himself as reflected in the eyes of Gollum: who Frodo is, what he must at least in part become, and what he must struggle not to become. This is certainly in accord with Tolkien's comments after Gollum pledges Frodo not to lead the Ring to Sauron:

Yet the two were in some way akin and not alien: they could reach one another's minds. II, 225

And then there's the possibility of the good/bad triangularity with Sam as the "good" Frodo and Gollum as the "bad" Frodo. Many critics have said this, but I am not overy fond of this paradigm. I think it is too simplistic, given some of Sam's real shortcomings in his perceptions and relationships with Gollum.

Have to run. Given time, I'm sure we could come up with many others.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[littlemanpoet]

I remain intrigued by stone-of-vision's thoughts on 'the light in frodo's face' thread, regarding the Ring. May we have a quadrad? What is the nature of the Ring? It's a negative force, made by Sauron, an evil Maia, but subcreated by him from that which had been brought into being by Eru, so I guess I'm arguing for something in the Ring that cannot be subsumed under the categories of 'negative force' and 'evil'. Obviously, the Ring was these things, but I think/hope/expect/wonder-if there's more than that, especially in terms of the interrelatedness between the Ring and Frodo, the Ring and Gollum, the Ring and Sam, and all the interrelatednesses. Any thoughts?

By the way, Luthien and others who had been posting up until recently on this thread, I fear you may feel this has gone beyond you. Your insights were powerful and perceptive. I'd be interested to learn what you may have to add to this, too.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet -- Great comments. Just one or two observations.

The question of when Sam learned the lesson of pity and mercy towards Gollum ......

I absolutely agree that Sam is able to internalize the lesson, at least to some limited degree, only after he has the experience of wearing the Ring and realizing its potential for misery and corruption. But I would also say that Sam and Gollum would never have even reached that point on the slopes of Mount Doom without Frodo functioning as a teacher and ameliorating force on both their personalities. It was Frodo's concrete example that began to put the seeds in Sam's mind so that, when he wore the Ring, he was open to the possibility of growth. Ganadalf had functioned in a similar way for Frodo in the earliest part of the story.

Sam initially found Frodo's decisions regarding Gollum incomprehensible, mistaking his kindness for blindness, or so the text tells us. Frodo's decision not to bind Gollum, and to accept his oath as legitimate, to offer him food from their limited stores (which Gollum rejected as he was not able to eat lembas); Frodo's later actions to protect Gollum from Faramir at the fish pond -- all these helped prepare Sam's mind for learning the later lesson.

And one of the most poignant scenes to me was where Frodo awoke refreshed:

He had been dreaming. The dark shadow had passed, and a fair vision had visited him in this land of disease (me--perhaps similar to that he had experienced at Tom's?). Nothing remained of it in his memory, yet because of it he felt glad and lighter of heart.....Gollum welcomed him with dog-like delight. He chuckled and chattered, cracking his long fingers, and pawing at Frodo's knee. Frodo smiled at him. "Come!" he said. You have guided us well and faithfully....

Those final sentences, to me, are absolutely astounding, especially the smile that arose from Frodo's heart. Never could I imagine Sam doing this, no matter how long he wore the Ring. Sam heard and saw this whole exchange, and how very strange it must have seemed to him. In fact, Sam replied gruffly to Gollum just a few sentences later: "Get on with you!...Let's get it over!" But all this had to be like water on a rock, slowly wearing into his subconscious.

On the other point, I can definitely see Frodo, Gollum and Sam functioning in a variety of configurations, sometimes as a triad and sometimes in various pairings. And, yes, you can see the three of them as different aspects of one hero. Nar talks about some of this. I think it is far more insightful and accurate to view these three characters in terms of a series of shifting configurations rather than trying to figure out some artificial formula supposedly to determine whether Frodo or Sam is the "real" hero of the quest.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

p.s. Just saw your latest post on the possibility of a "quadruple" configuration which would include the Ring. The one problem I see is this: the Ring is essentially one-dimensional because it is a great evil and, like Sauron, could be sneaky and shifty and mighty but presumably lacks imagination or even gradations of "not good."

The one thing that make Sam and Frodo and Gollum so fascinating in these chapters is that all three, yes even Gollum, have some potential for both good and evil in their soul. Of course, the portion of good and evil is mixed so differently in each of these characters. It's not hard to look at Frodo and Sam and find evidence of failings in their souls: Sam's lack of mercy and his shortsighted nature; Frodo's tendency to fall into despair both during and after the quest. And you can see tiny seeds of possible goodness in Gollum in his attitudes and treatment of Frodo. But how would the Ring fit in here since it is so one-dimensional. You could however, analyze its impact on each of these characters individually and as a group. But is it possible to go further than this and postulate a quadruple configuration? It would have to be a configuration of a slightly different type than those we've discussed before. sharon, again

Anyone else have any ideas on any of this??? I'd still like to hear whether other people react to Sam and Frodo the way I talked about a few postings back: a close personal identification leaning towards one or the other characters, not just based on the book, but stemming from their own personal values and feelings about life, i.e., the man of our world who serves man (Sam) versus the man of spirit who serves a dream (Frodo)

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Gimli Son Of Gloin]

Frodo and Sam are simbionts(is that how you spell it?). Neither one of them could have succeeded without the other. I don't think Sam could have carried the Ring all the way without him claiming it for himself a lot sooner. Frodo needed Sam, for phyisical and mental reasons. Without Sam he couldn't have escapes from from Cirith Ungol, and without Sam he wouldn't have had the encouragment to go on.

[stone of vision]

The thread

Hail, very nice topic master of puppet (are you a fan of Shirow/ ghost in the shell ?). So Glad to find people so fond of those hobbits dear to my heart. smilies/smile.gif

I amazed by the deep of all the thoughts I’ve read, giving a shed of light on complexity of those characters, and it seems that Sense needn’t waiting for older aging! (oooh I’m so older, but let’s say, like the elves I stop aging in my mid twenties smilies/wink.gif)

Thingol, I appreciate very much your pov as mine(s) are quite closed to yours.

Luthien, and all the hobbits lovers, I found your thoughts and ideas interesting and very refreshing like a new born and cheerful wind blow.

Child, littlemanpoet, Nar, you great thinkers, pleased to hear from you again.

Gimli, symbiote is full of sagacity and true in a certain way.

I would like to talk about the “love triangle”, Frodo/Sam/Gollum; you are so right littlemanpoet, it ‘s very difficult not to think of them as a triad, and I approve Sharon’s comment about the interactivity of each of them as different pairs.

I don’t know if the ring could be considered like the fourth of them. I would rather see it like the link/ the tools/ the mediator/ the motor between the threesome’ s interaction.

I’m striked by the perspicacity of yours, Sharon, to guess so well my thoughts: the light we choose to shed on, depends on the sensitiveness and references each reader have.
I’m sure there are numerous views of the triad’s interaction.

So what I shall post next is only my own interpretation.
Oh my ! I have so much to say, hope I won’t traumatize you with my ramblings smilies/rolleyes.gif

A bientôt smilies/smile.gif

[littlemanpoet]

Yes, Child and Stone of Vision, my notions and words are improved by both of you. I don’t know if the ring could be considered like the fourth of them. I would rather see it like the link/ the tools/ the mediator/ the motor between the threesome’ s interaction.
Yes, Stone of Vision, that is what I have been trying (and failing) to say. Thanks! smilies/smile.gif Gollum has not worn the Ring for perhaps 50 years after having lived an unlife of slavery to it for perhaps 500 years, his own murderous greed in having first possessed the Ring working the evil and slavery into him more quickly than it might otherwise have done.

Frodo bears it and has had it in his humble possession for perhaps 20 years; he has worn it and perceived the negative world of spirit, and has become more powerful in force of will because of his refusal to give into it by the time Smeagol joins the triad.

Sam remains an observer only until he has worn the Ring. What changes do we see in him because of his temporary possession of it? One change has been spoken of already, regarding his newfound pity for Gollum on Mount Doom. What else is there?

[littlemanpoet]

On Sam's stupidity:
In The Passage of the Marshes, just after Gollum's split personality episode over the sleeping Frodo, Tolkien writes: To [Sam's] simple mind ordinary hunger, the desire to eat hobbits, had seemed the chief danger in Gollum. He realized now that it was not so: Gollum was feeling the terrible call of the Ring.
And in The Black Gate is Closed JRRT writes: While these doubts were passing through Sam's slow but shrewd mind... The doubts referred to are Sam's ruminations about Gollum's motivations for leading them away from the Black Gate to 'another' way into Mordor.

Regarding the effect of the Ring on the triad:

Tolkien writes a rather detailed description of the Ring's effect on Frodo and Gollum, as well as Sam's usually accurate perceptiveness. The passage is too long to quote but comes just after the Nazgul pass overhead three times and totally unnerve Gollum (my book, TTT p237-238). It helps to read Frodo's trials from this point to Mount Doom with this description firmly in mind, of The Eye: that horrible growing sense of a hostile will that strove with great power to pierce all shadows of cloud, and earth, and flesh, and to see you: to pin you under its deadly gaze, naked, immovable. So thin, so frail and thin, the veils were become that still warded it off. That's Frodo's plight moment by moment.
Of Gollum it says: Gollum probably felt something of the same sort. But what went on in his wretched heart between the pressure of the Eye, and the lust of the Ring that was so near, and his grovelling promise (italics mine) made in fear of cold iron, the hobbits did not guess. Here we have the best glimpse of the inner struggle of Gollum, pulled in three different directions at once.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet

This refers back to your question about what had changed in Sam after he made the decision to put on the Ring.

I actually think the initial change in Sam's persona came not with the decision to accept the Ring, but earlier when he first believed Frodo to be dead. In this scene, for the first time in the book, Sam doesn't use the formal "Mr. Frodo" but shifts to simply "Frodo" instead: "Frodo, me dear, me dear." Sam will shift back to the more deferential form after rescuing his master, but the underlying change in his attitudes and actions remains.

This change in naming is symbolic of themes developed in ensuing pages. First, as the name itself implies, Frodo and Sam come into a more equal relationship. Sam makes more decisions on his own, the act of taking the Ring being the first example. In fact, as events unfold, it will be Sam who must take the main initiatives as they approach Mount Doom. This is very different from their earlier relationship. In the Fellowship, Sam had been more the simple servant; in the beginning of the TTT, he had been the sometimes aggressive watchdog, but one who was always submissive to the will of Frodo. For the first time in the story, he is alone and independent.

Sam's new maturity and status is reflected in several motifs. First, he comes to the realization that he is not putting himself forward to take the Ring. Just like Frodo, he is not the one choosing, but the one chosen. He renounces the temptation to use the Ring as his own. And when he returns, the Orcs acknowledge his elevated status, perceiving him as a great Elf warrior. He flings his defiance against the shadows, singing a song of hope: "I will not say the Day is done, or bid the Stars farewell."

As Frodo weakens in the final pages of the book, Sam continues to act in a more independent mode, taking on all practical decisions. Their friendship, however, raised to a new level of equality, intensifies. Physically and spiritually, they are closer than ever before.

But it is the final confrontation of Sam and Gollum which shows how far the Hobbit has come. Frodo is too wrapped up in his own misery to act as a teacher or an ameliorating force for Sam as he had constantly done before. Sam has grown up, is on his own, and must decide what to do about that pest Gollum.

Twice before Sam was in a critical situation and made what appears to be a wrong decision. First, he had driven off Gollum when the latter had tried to touch the sleeping Frodo's knee, and thus ended all hope of repentence. Second, in the spider's lair, hate had led Sam to turn aside and spend time trying to kill Gollum, rather than returning immediately to his master. This had given Shelob the chance to attack Frodo in what appeared to be a mortal fashion.

Now, Sam faces the final test, utterly alone because Frodo has passed beyond all human dimension. And this time, he succeeds. Though his speech is hardly poetic, his choice is the right one as he lets Gollum escape:

Oh, curse you, you stinking thing!" he said. "Go away! Be off! I don't trust you , not as far as I could kick you,; but be off. Or I shall hurt you, yes with nasty cruel steel."

Sam has grown up; he no longer needs Frodo as moral compass or anchor. He is ready to return to the Shire and travel his own road, just as Frodo, who had appeared so Elven even to Sam as he lay in Shelob's lair, will also have a different path to follow. It is so ironic that here, at the time of their greatest drawing together, the foundation has been laid for the maturity which will now enable and even demand that they pull apart. sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[littlemanpoet]

A very well written and moving account of Sam's growth, Child.

I've just been rereading Frodo's interrogation by Faramir in Ithilien. In the context of Frodo's plight as quoted in my last post on this thread, the self-control exhibited by his careful words and circumspection reveal his depth of character. Funny, I had not noticed it in qutie that light before. Faramir's words capture a part of it: ...there is something strange about you, Frodo, an elvish air, maybe. I have to smile at Tolkien's own circumspection in using Faramir, a true descendant of Numenor, to perceive this elvish element in Frodo, and then "coda" it with "maybe".
Having read this section over again for the first time in a few years, my appreciation for Faramir has again risen right up there with Gandalf and Aragorn. Suddenly he is my favorite character after Frodo and Sam - again. And his devotion to Boromir makes me want to read all over again Boromir's dying words, acknowledging Aragorn as "my king". Powerful stuff.

[stone of vision]

Aaya Littlemanpoet,
Sorry if I misread or misunderstood

And his devotion to Boromir makes me want to read all over again Boromir's dying words, acknowledging Aragorn as "my king". Powerful stuff.

Isn't that the line Boromir embodied by Sean Bean said in the movie?

As I told in an other thread:
In the movie, Sean Bean’s acting at the last moments of Boromir touched me very much,) his respectful aknowledgement and acceptation, his “love” for Aragorn as the man he is, as his king, leads him to the peace of mind and the satisfaction he may desire. Boromir left the middle earth his spirit and his soul free and intact in the vision of P jackson. (sob !)

On the contrary in the book, Boromir keeps his pride and his unsatifaction till the end. . He didn’t challenge openly Aragorn’rights but never recognized personally it.
His last words said he was sorry. Who was he sorry for the hobbits? For frodo? For himself? For failing? Not for forgiveness. Then he stated with coldness “I have paid” implying he own defeat, his own belated error, accepting what he thinks he deserved.

I admit because of the movie influence, Sean Bean's acting/ PJ 's pov- I also get confused about my own beliefs in the book where Broromir's portrayal is less pleasant.

And yes I quite liked the way Sean Bean/PJ portrayed Boromir smilies/smile.gif

[littlemanpoet]

Oops. I wondered about that as I wrote my last post on this thread. Sure enough, it was in the movie and not the book. I shall now commit heresy against the subcreator himself and suggest that PJ and the movie and Sean Bean surpassed Tolkien's rendition of the scene. Not that I necessarily believe it, just felt like throwing it out there. However, I do read the scene a little differently than you, Stone of Vision, my friend. I see Boromir's recognition of Aragorn's rights in: 'Farewell, Aragorn! Go to Minas Tirith and save my people! I have failed.' In saying this, Boromir acknowledges Aragorn's right to be the savior of his people. And Aragorn denies Boromir's defeat by saying 'few have gained such a victory'. The victory is having died well. Very Nordic.

I wish Sean Bean got better movie roles than he does. I've seen him in much, but never in a better role than LotR-FotR.

[stone of vision]

Dear littlemanpoet,
I would be honnored if could have a look at my post about one of the possible Boromir's portraying in the thread"the original breaking of the fellowship" where I had extracted some parts in my fore message. ( the third one)
Here's the link:
the original breaking of the fellowship (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000637)

I would like you to give your opinion about it. Please smilies/smile.gif

What is disturbing me in 'Farewell, Aragorn! Go to Minas Tirith and save my people! I have failed

is the fact that Boromir used the possessive pronoun ** my** people. couldn't he have said rather : " the people of Minas Thirith"

Certainly another geekyness of my part smilies/rolleyes.gif
smilies/biggrin.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlmanpoet and Stone of Vision -- Guess what? Faramir is also my "third favorite" character after Frodo and Sam. And that is saying a lot, since I tend to be partial to elves, hobbits, and other non-human characters.

What fascinates me about Faramir, among other things, is how closely Tolkien identified with him. And I feel that identification affected not only Faramir, but also the role of his brother Boromir in the story. In one of his Letters, Tolkien denies he is like Gandalf in response to a query and instead asserts that the character he is most like is Faramir (though the author claims not to have the latter's courage.)

Tolkien had a recurring dream in life where a huge wave overcomes an island, obviously a reference to Numenor/Atlantis. His son Michael had this very same recurring dream about the Great Wave, even though he had no knowledge of the dream by his father. (A little strange, no?) Anyways, it is this dream which he gives to Faramir in the story. It is also Faramir, the only character in the book, who stands up with his men before a meal and faces West. As he explains to Frodo, this is to face towards Elvenhome and Valinor and remember the great ones who live there. The way this is phrased, and I don't have the book beside me this minute, it is, in effect, a prayer. Frodo hangs his head and says he "feels rustic" and inadequate after hearing this explanation of what is obviously a very spiritual thing since his own culture had nothing like this. How interesting that Faramir, whom Tolkien identified with, should be the only character to have this overt religious expression! Also like Tolkien, both Faramir and his bride Eowyn were motherless.

Tolkien was an enormously private person and for him to admit his identification with Faramir in writing is, I believe, quite revealing. I think Faramir walked right out of Tolkien's subconscious. Again, in the Letters, Tolkien says: "A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him, though I like him, but there he came walking out of the woods of Ithilien) Faramir, the brother of Boromir...." So if Faramir says he can see an elvish look about Frodo, you can bet your boots that the author is saying he sees it too!

Given Tolkin's identification with the character, Faramir's limitations also intrigue me, especially his suspicions of Gollum and how his archers almost make an end to him. In this instance, as contrasted with the prayers before dining scene, it is Frodo who comes over as the more sensitive and compassionate.

Now, in the Letters, while Tolkien goes on and on at length in several places about Faramir--he barely mentions his brother Boromir. At one point, Tolkien gives a spirited defense of Faramir's relationship with Eowyn. There are a scant 4 references to Boromir in the entire letters. So I think there is something personal going on here. Tolkien truly liked Faramir and identified with him and, by contrast, I believe, he truly disliked his counter-ego Boromir. I think that duality strongly affects how these two characters come over in the book. Iwould say it is one of the things that makes Boromir's "repentence" less convincing.

I agree that PJ's Boromir is a lot "nicer" than JRRT's, but I think that has a lot to do with how Tolkien viewed Faramir whom he sympathetically described in the Letters as having "a bossy brother" and a "stern proud father." And I'm afraid I have a feeling closer to JRRT than PJ on this one, though it made for a great scene in the movie! sharon the 7th age hobbit

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[littlemanpoet]

Stone of Vision, I'll look up that thread as soon as I've post this reply to Child regarding Faramir.

Child, the connection between JRRT and Faramir is convincing. I accept it. Regarding, however, Faramir's lesser compassion for Gollum as compared to Frodo, I would not go too far with the subconscious iconography (I may be using that word wrong, it just tripped out). Tolkien's revision was a very conscious process, as he tells us himself, and Faramir's Gondorian-ness and duties as a lieutenant with orders to follow require that he be strict regarding Gollum's illegal entry into the Caves. That he actually relents and lets Gollum go reveals his depth of compassion and perhaps foresight, as well as, perhaps, the connection again to JRRT subconsciously.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Re Faramir:

That he actually relents and lets Gollum go reveal his depth of compassion and perhaps foresight, as well as , perhaps, he connection again to JRRT subconsciously.

Good point, Littlemanpoet. Unlike the situation with Sam, you never sense a personal animosity. The one thing Faramir did not have, could not have, was the sense of connection with Gollum, the identification with the suffering of Gollum, which was fostered by the wearing of the Ring itself.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[littlemanpoet]

I suggest that we continue this discussion regarding Faramir and Boromir on the currently extant Faramir vs. Boromir thread and leave this one for further discussion of things Frodo/Sam/Gollum. It would aid clarity, methinks.

I've taken the liberty of quoting the entirety of the posts regarding Faramir and Boromir on the other thread.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon, 7th age Hobbit:

Greetings and thanks for a number of deep posts.

In answer to your question you voiced at the end of your analysis of Sam and Frodo as archetypes: Practical and locally focused, versus Seer and visionary. Your question was "Has anyone else sensed this in their reading?"

What can I say but a resounding Yes? I definitely sense what you describe, and am heartily grateful that you were able to clarify it so well.

And I find it fascinating, as a starry-eyed idealist, that my closest friends through the years (including my spouse) have been reality-driven practical types-- as you describe Sam. (I might add, the hardest years in my life were also the years when I was without a "Sam.")

And indeed, some of those Sam-like friends do not necessarily understand why Frodo behaves the way he does in The Return Of The King, and denounce his actions on Mount Doom and in The Scouring of The Shire. (When they do I seem to take it as a personal attack...) Your idea of the archetypes could explain why.

So on several levels, thanks for your explanations.

I wish I was as certain as you that Frodo took the path that was right for him in going to Valinor (or Tol Eressea); I read Mithadan's fanfic on that topic, and was haunted by the image of Frodo waiting for some sixty-odd years between Bilbo's death and Sam's arrival. I know he's an elf-friend, but still, being the only hobbit among a host of elves could get lonely after a while? I hope I'm wrong.

Regarding Frodo's choice to sail, there is a great article referenced for the hall-of-fire chat for this past weekend, and the link is:
http://home.mn.rr.com/karynmilos/essays/toodeeplyhurt.html

I highly recommend it. That, combined with re-reading "The Sea-Bell" from that Tom Bombadil collection, finally persuaded me that Frodo's choice to leave was a valid one... for three decades now I've always hated that choice, and it was nice to finally come to some sort of peace about it.

Even so, I still find myself wishing he could have stayed.

So.. Sharon, thanks again for your many thoughtful posts.

--mark12_30

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mark12_30 ---

I've really enjoyed reading a number of your recent posts and ideas. I think we probably view Frodo quite similarly.

No, I'm not certain he did the right thing. Just look under "Frodo's Sacrifice" in Books I and you'll see I just posted a thread where I'm regaling everyone else to give me their opinion on that critical question. I swing back and forth for a number of reasons.

I'm familiar with the Milos essay and have mixed feelings about it. She does a great job listing all the negative things which caused pain in Frodo. She pulls in more references than I ever could. And the poem in Bombadil that became known as "Frodo's Dreme" certainly suggests how hurting he was.

But I still think it's half a picture. Take a look at the HoMe books on the LotR. As early as the very first drafts, while Frodo was still known as Bingo, Tolkien said he would send him on to the West at the end of the book. This was even before he knew how hurt Frodo would be.

In Tolkien's earliest drafts of the manuscript, Frodo doesn't show such strong evidence of hurting; he takes a very active role at the Scouring and the Shire is very appreciative of Frodo's sacrifice (all this will later change). But the author is still certain that Frodo must move on. Frodo, hurt or not, is just different, I think.

Someone who has a deep and serious longing for the Sea, who sees visions (including one of the West), and who looks Elvish (according to Faramir and Sam) and who has the light of an Elf-friend in his eyes---is this a person who can comfortably stay in the Shire? I have my doubts. And Frodo loved Bilbo as deeply as he loved Sam.

Yet, it's still hard to get around the sadness of Grey Havens, and the feeling that Frodo is going somewhere we simply can't follow. I understand the beauty of the Shire. I have more trouble relating to the mystical and spiritual vision which, I believe, is inherently part of the West.

As for myself, I'm between Frodo and Sam as far as practicality and idealism go. And I'm a definite pathbreaker and non-conformist so I've always identified closely with Bilbo, but I always look up to someone who has a special gift like Frodo to see beyond the everyday world. (Bilbo must have also seen this in Frodo.)

Anyways, interesting questions.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Kalessin]

The analysis of the various characteristics of Sam and Frodo in this thread is both complex and enlightening, and has certainly broadened my awareness of both figures smilies/smile.gif

I would venture to say that, despite the development in Sam's 'wisdom' throughout the narrative, as elucidated above, the traditional master-servant relationship as idealised by Tolkien is still at the heart of their relationship, and Sam's pivotal (and no less heroic) role at the climax of the story. Tolkien creates a dynamic between the two that allows for both inequality and intimacy, and where Sam is neither demeaned nor diminished by his role or the willing acceptance of it.

On a more general level this is arguably an area where Tolkien's works can be subjected to criticism - for their nostalgic rendering of rigid hierarchies - where true kings are born such (not made), and radiate that nobility by virtue of birth, or where races (or perhaps tribes) are universally differentiated by degrees of 'baseness' or 'bearing'. In my view this aspect IS certainly present, but subtly so, and requires a certain level of extrapolation in order to make the critical point.

The positive side of this argument, however, is perhaps best exemplified by Sam and Frodo, and to a lesser extent by the fealty of Pippin and Merry to Denethor and Theoden respectively. Both the "secondary" hobbits exhibit the utmost honour and conscientiousness in their conception of duty, which seems one of the most highly developed hobbit social mores. And Sam goes even further in his unswerving devotion to, and love for, Frodo. When all else fails, it is this devotion and commitment that brings Frodo both in and out of Mount Doom. Indeed, in the end there is not even a conscious 'selflessness' in Sam's actions - it is a dogged, almost instinctive persistence.

From this, surely it is impossible to see how a romanticised concept of duty (even more than loyalty) could not be something central to Tolkien's notion of heroism, and whilst 'duty' is a contentious issue in the modern world, with all our acute political antenna and culture of 'self-actualisation' (or it's evil twin 'instant-gratification' smilies/wink.gif ), in LotR it is at once the most humble and noble of virtues.

This context to Sam and Frodo's relationship remains to the end, with the pathos of Sam standing at the Grey Havens watching Frodo depart, truly a very touching scene. Naturally it is Frodo who must bear the deep scars of their ordeal, and Frodo who must first depart to a more elevated and mysterious plane. Whereas, Sam arguably receives the greater reward for his lesser wisdom, able to cultivate land and family in abundance and contentment. You could mischievously suggest some tenuous colonial allusions here, but I'll save the paternalist critique for now smilies/smile.gif

Again, the insights into both figures in this thread have been fascinating and eloquently put. My compliments smilies/smile.gif

Peace.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[littlemanpoet]

Kalessin, I am given to understand from your posts that you read LOTR for the first time rather recently, perhaps within the last year or two. Is that so?

Irregardless, C.S. Lewis and Tolkien had a catch-phrase which served as a critique of much of the criticism of which they were targets: "chronological snobbery". They used this term to describe a perspective by which critics and their ilk considered something to be less good merely because it was no longer popular, extant, 'the way it is done'. Lewis and Tolkien considered themselvs dinosaurs, willing to consider aspects of times past frankly better than current.

Your comments regarding Tolkien's idealisization of kings born-to-be and the master/servant relationship of Frodo and Sam brought this to mind.

Your comments are incisive, and I would consider 'snobbery' to be saying far too much of them; nonetheless, I do sense a chronological bias in your comments, sometimes persuasively so - that is to say, I have been persuaded by your words to change my views about certain things as better now than what was then. I can't think of an example off hand, though. Nevertheless, I would be interested in your estimation and response to the chronological bias notion.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet and Kalessin--

I actually typed a post on this earlier today and the phone connection went dead and wiped away my words. How ironic that this should happen in my response on this particular subject!

My reply was similar to, although not identical with that, of Littlemanpoet.

Let me begin by saying I have strong feelings about this. I spent years and years earning a doctorate in medieval history. I ate a lot of spaghetti and beans and lived in a single room. It is part of me I prize, even though I was only able to use it on the job market for a few years. At first jobs were incredibly tight, 300-500 people applying for each position (not an exaggeration, I assure you.) Then, I did teach at a college for a bit and later chose to earn a degree in librarianship to gain more flexibility.

Anyways, I would not have put myself through this unless I believed that history has an amazing amount to teach us. Yet the modern world, certainly contemporary education, sadly sees little to value from the past.

There is no question that people in past ages were limited by their assumptions and values. But so too are we limited by our perspectives. I am a child of the 60s and, even if I live to be 111, I will look at many things that way. Ironically, this precious gift opens up vistas for me, but is also a set of blinders that limits the angles from which I can view things.

Tolkien was no different. His mind seems to have been fixed on the era before World War I. Other authors born at that time may have felt part of the post-war generation, but not Tolkien. And this is why the Shire and the hobbits are so attuned to the Edwardian age, and the same goes for Sam and Frodo's relationship.

Often, the Edwardian Shire seems to have been dropped into a world which was essentially one of ancient northern myths. Hobbits, even more than men, don't quite fit in. This is very true in the Hobbit, but it even holds to a large degree for LotR. How else can you explain fish and chips, express trains, umbrellas, handkerchiefs, and fireworks?

The Shire is like a half-way land beween Faerie and reality, and helps people like us who stand outside in the modern age to again have access to the time of legends. After all, if the crotchety, Edwardian Bilbo can turn into a writer of Elvish poems and history, then I am certain we too can share in this world.

I think two of the themes that tie the Edwardian Shire into the lands and people of northern myth are precisely those you have identified--a belief in duty and a hierarchical structure. Both the Edwardian age and the ancient epics could come together in appreciation of these tenets. Our own world--well, that's another story that's not,I believe, directly relvant here.

The question is not whether Tolkien should have used these themes, but how well he used them. And I would say he used them very, very well indeed.

Now, I will admit there are limits to this process in my mind. If Tolkien had written a book which implicitly advocated slavery or genocide, for example, I would not have been sympathetic, however wonderful his writing. But this is not what he did. He has shown us a noble society with very different assumptions, but one which is strangely alluring. And interestingly, this is a world where different races preserve their cultures and get along relatively well. (The problems of dwarves and Elves are nothing when compared with what out age has done and is still doing in this regard!)

It is quite clear that I, who am a female from a working class background, could not have done in his world what I have managed to do in mine. But then I am also sure that people from Middle-earth might stare at my own universe and shake their head in disbelief, perhaps mourning how we have managed to destroy so much beauty and make our lives increasingly impersonal, or set up death camps for each other.

So my feeling about hierarchies is perhaps different than yours. And I would also argue that these hierarchies were a bit less "rigid" than you imply. The Tory in Tolkien left room for paternalism (which I know you don't like), and this did bring about some change. How else did Sam get his education from Bilbo? And I do believe that the relationship between Frodo and Sam had gone far beyond master/servant by the end of the story. There is too much genuine feeling here.

Yes, Middle-earth took on certain forms reflective of the age in which Tolkien lived, but I would argue that his characters are a great deal more than the sum of these parts.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I don't believe there is an undercurrent of chronological snobbery in Kalessin's observation of the emphasis placed on duty and nobility by birth (..said Marileangorifurnimaluim, who is, by-the-way, on her 30th reading of the LotR and first read it 21 years ago, speaking of chronological snobbery smilies/tongue.gif ). It is there, and consciously so, and no less valid for having been observed.

Chronological Snobbery does not have quite the lofty appeal it once did, as the LotR has held the popular imagination for fifty years, thus clearly can no longer be considered to be an example of an 'outmoded' ideal. Rather it has edged up in snob circles to 'romantic' idealism. Still sniffed at, of course. As the language and cultural framework that held the LotR begins to unwind, it will be interesting to see where it floats in hallowed ivory halls of such distinguished opinion. No doubt when it can no longer be read at all, save with a degree in ancient languages, it will be held in very high regard.

-Maril smilies/wink.gif

[Kalessin]

I think a general point about chronological bias can be made (albeit as qualified by Maril), although I did at various times in my contribution try and stress the nobility and dignity with which Tolkien imbued Sam's role, and I think Sharon's analysis of his development illustrates that Tolkien created a valid and rounded character who epitomises many virtues, not least humility and generosity of spirit. My point was more about the relationship of Sam and Frodo, and the centrality of the romanticised master-servant aspect.

As I pointed out, the notion of duty or societal hierarchies IS one that we in the West tend to question - for example, it is perhaps difficult for a 21st century Western mind to feel comfortable with the nation of caste-restricted arranged marriages (although the British colonial powers often encouraged certain kinds of 'divide-and-rule' practices that might otherwise have died out). But I was not stating a personal opinion, or that this changing interpretation of duty is either a good or bad thing - but what I would say is that in Tolkien it is shown in its most heroic and noble sense.

My other point was that 'self-actualisation' (a part of Maslow's hierarchy of need), in effect the way in which Western society has become individuated and identity-centred, is in some ways antithetical to the conscientious fealty (which is a voluntary obligation well above run-of-the-mill patriotism or loyalty) which Sam, and more explicitly Pippin and Merry, exhibit in such a touching way.

A critique of Tolkien that highlighted the hierarchical aspect would, in my view, need to take into account the genuine friendship (and indeed love) between Merry and Theoden, and the subtlety of Frodo's status as 'master' - any sense of superiority is certainly not evident in his own actions or expectations, as the excellent insights by contributors above clearly show. He is a beautifully gentle and compassionate figure, whose humility becomes suffused by wisdom and, yes, the scars of his moral and physical struggle. I hope that here and earlier I have shown that in many ways the expressly political critique is at best tenuous given the actual narrative of the leading characters. But across Tolkien's works as a whole, perhaps there is a point to be made.

Littleman, you rightly suggest that I read Tolkien in the last few years - this is true (fortunately well before the film). In my teens I read avidly across many genres, and always with a love and empathy for both traditional myth, fantasy and science fiction - from Homer to Le Guin, Milton to Clarke, Beowulf to Solaris etc. I played Dungeons and Dragons at an early age, and wrote stories extensively. But incredibly, I rather disdained Tolkien ... for too many reasons (some of them good) to go into now smilies/smile.gif . However, I am really glad both to have re-discovered his work, and to have the opportunity on these boards to share, discuss and of course argue about them smilies/wink.gif . Naturally I defer to Maril's consummate steeping in Tolkienology ... (hmm - I'm not sure if being consummately steeped is quite right, it sounds a little decadent smilies/smile.gif )

Peace

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

My other point was that 'self-actualisation' (a part of Maslow's hierarchy of need), in effect the way in which Western society has become individuated and identity-centred, is in some ways antithetical to the conscientious fealty (which is a voluntary obligation well above run-of-the-mill patriotism or loyalty) which Sam, and more explicitly Pippin and Merry, exhibit in such a touching way.

Although one might argue that Merry and Pippin both enter into their service of their own free will, so that their fealty is ultimately a product of their inclinations; a concept entirely in keeping with a society that nominally values personal freedom. I say 'nominally' because the individual liberty that we value so highly has become so orthodox as to resemble a form of obligation in itself. The right to subject oneself to the service of another voluntarily is a personal freedom nonetheless, and one which is looked upon askance by our society.
I love paradoxes; don't you?

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I find the delicate balance between the master/servant role and personal friendship and need for each other particularly fascinating. I don't feel this master/servant role has become non-existent in the post-Edwardian world, rather it has reasserted itself in a different form, boss/secretary, president/staff. Status. No matter how many garbagemen we call maintenance engineers, equality escapes, and only really developes on an individual level.

One item we haven't touched on is the development of Frodo and Sam's friendship throughout the Lord of the Rings. Unlike the movie, initially Frodo and Sam were friendly, cordial and respectful, but not dear friends.

Frodo made few friends as a rule, and those late, and had a tendency even with them to be quite reserved, and probably only shared his mind completely with Bilbo, before he became friends Sam. It was clear that he chose his friends carefully, and gradually saw Sam as a worthwhile friend.

The development of the friendship between them began in after the meeting with Gildor. I think Frodo, from his position and 'breeding' was unconsciously condescending towards Sam, though kindly and protective - note his response to Pippin's "have you got the bathwater hot?" joke, jovially but firmly punishing Pippin for his prank on Sam. There's a slightly sharp unintentional undercurrent in that joke, reminding Sam that he was a servant among his betters.

While we got a glimpse of Sam's thoughtful side at the Green Dragon, talking of the elves sailing, sailing, Frodo had never seen that. He was surprised at Sam's observation of the nature of the elves "they seem quite above my likes and dislikes, so old and young, happy and sad.."

Afterwards he watched Sam, with a keen observation. "I've been learning a lot about Sam on this journey," he said outside Bree, was the only one not surprised by Sam's quoting the lay of Gil-Galad, and rightly guessed Sam made up the poem about the Troll. Very sharp, that Frodo, and his respect for Sam is clear, although at this point Sam had done nothing obviously remarkable. Yet Sam's clear sight, humility and hidden well-spring of talents, had measured up against a kind of inner standard Frodo held for those few he cautiously drew close. He not only picked up on Sam's hidden talents, but also his motivations. Oh yes, he'd been watching very carefully. He knew Sam was too humble to take credit, and it was to Frodo's credit that he took the opportunity to point out Sam's virtues to the others. Knowing Sam wouldn't. There is such respect in that, and kindness.

Sam's specific devotion to Frodo didn't really coallesce until Frodo's injury.

He was unaware of Frodo's observation until Frodo mentioned it, and didn't know Frodo well enough to know how rare this was. He kept a respectful distance, and admiration of Frodo. He considered the Bagginses to uncommonly kind and good, Frodo in particular, and increasingly so. But did not put himself on an equal enough footing to consider him something so ordinary as a 'friend.'

This admiration bloomed into a full-blown - I hate to use the word Crush, because I know the reaction it's going to get - but if you picture the kind of crush a little brother gets on his big brother, thinking everything he does is perfect and wonderful, you'll understand what I mean, and not Freak. smilies/tongue.gif It's not hero-worship, not so distant as that, because he also becomes so protective, after feeling helpless to do anything for Frodo on the journey in Rivendell. Rivendell and after he sticks to Frodo's side like glue, doing the little things like packing etc, not as just his job but with enthusiasm and to the best of his ability (took pride in packing little things Frodo left behind, which he could later triumphantly produce when called for..) but feeling rather inadequate. No surprise Sam is the first to react to the Watcher in Water. Must have been satisfying to finally be able to 'do' something.

Frodo was touched, and a little bemused, by Sam's sudden devotion to him. He accepted Sam's dogged following, but barely spoke with Sam in Hollin and Moria. In fact, he never did. Frodo had backed off, didn't want to encourage Sam putting him on a pedestal.

After Gandalf's fall you hear for the first time that perennial phrase 'Frodo and Sam,' almost immediately after. That shared loss sealed the bond of friendship between them.

It was in Lothlorien they spent all of their time together, and was where Sam learned much of Frodo's mind. Probably Frodo shared with Sam more about his own thoughts and fears than he ever had to anyone, other than Bilbo.

If the Fellowship had broken apart before Rivendell, Sam would not have guessed Frodo's plans.

The later development of their relationship has been covered very well in these previous posts.

I'm sorry the movie portrays them as friends from the start, it robs us the fun of watching the subtle shifts and growth in their relationship, though I understand why PJ did it.

I'd still like to hear whether other people react to Sam and Frodo the way I talked about a few postings back: a close personal identification leaning towards one or the other characters, not just based on the book, but stemming from their own personal values and feelings about life, i.e., the man of our world who serves man (Sam) versus the man of spirit who serves a dream (Frodo). I identify most with Frodo, but I think I see in Sam what Frodo saw, that in serving 'man' he approached unintentionally an ideal. And was somehow ennobled by the very fact that he approached this ideal unknowingly, without the pride of comparison that comes in considering oneself an idealist. I think Frodo viewed Sam as ultimately better than himself (true or not) because of that, coming closer to Frodo's own ideals in his actions than Frodo himself. Or so Frodo would have thought. (Prof. Tolkien mentioned in his letters Frodo's lingering guilt over having claimed the ring.) The difference between these two is slight, one of motivation alone.

Hey, you think this post is long enough?

[Nar]

What a lovely and insightful analysis, Maril. Your discussion of the gradations of Sam and Frodo's relationship from Rivendell to Lothlorian rang absolutely true, from's Sam's shift to Frodo's withdrawal. I missed most of that, and after rereading the books many times in the past 25 years! Thank you. smilies/smile.gif I agree with you about Frodo's assessment of Sam relative to himself, but what I most loved about your post was this: ... in serving 'man' he approached unintentionally an ideal. And was somehow ennobled by the very fact that he approached this ideal unknowingly, without the pride of comparison that comes in considering oneself an idealist. Very true, very good, very deep. smilies/cool.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

Meril--

This is such a beautiful and insightful analysis. I had noticed from the book that Sam and Frodo's relationship changed throughout the course of the quest, but I have never followed through so carefully as this. Thanks so much for this way of looking at things. I will pay closer attention to this idea the next time I reread these sections.

The movie, of course, is wonderful, but PJ does not capture these nuances of the master/servant relationship, or how the two gain insight into each other's souls and gradually become closer.

Again, many thanks.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Thank you both, Nar and Sharon. I really love the relationship between Frodo and Sam as much as I love the characters themselves. Sometimes I wish there were pages and pages more about them, regardless of whether it drove the story or not. smilies/smile.gif I think largely why they come across so well to us is that Tolkien liked these two as much as we.

[mark12_30]

Sometimes I wish there were pages and pages more about them, regardless of whether it drove the story or not.

...Heave, ho, splash, plump, Up they go, up they bump.

[Lotrelf]

I feel that Frodo was both the strongest and weakest members of the books.

I feel he was the weakest because i couldnt bring himself to kill, even when defending his beloved Shire, and he always seems to have given up but goes on simply because he just can and that it. He doesnt have hope or any real will to acclumplish anything, and in one way he doesnt in the end anyway (aclumlish anything).

On the other hand he was the strongest because no other could bear it as far as he with it having little affect on him. It would be wrong to suggest it doesnt affect Frodo at all, because we see him harsher with Gollum than we would expect in TTT, and in TROTK we see him snap at sam 4 example because it is eating away at him. It is a sad fact Gollum was needed to get the ring into the mountain, but i think if he hadnt been around Sam would have got it off Frodo somehow even if he had to throw himself in to protect Frodo an everyone else...

Which leads me on to saying Sam is a stronger person, personality wise, and he is one of the true heros of the book. In many ways Frodo is not the hero at all, and tho he perhaps doesnt get enough credit, he doesnt deserve as much as his friends who fought and risked their lives for everyone else. Which even at the end, Frodo proves he will not do.

Whats everone think of my ramblings?!

People are actually way too harsh on Frodo for not being able to destroy the Ring. And they think he's "weak" and that he got corrupted. Both the terms when talking about this Hobbit are ridiculous. Others are visibily stronger than Frodo, but people don't "get" the burden of the Ring. Others have said a lot. I feel nothing is there to add more.