Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Folwren
Not happy endings, Lommy, the LotR doesn't have a happy ending.
|
That was actually partly sarcastic comment. But LotR does have a happy ending - in a way - for Frodo and Sam. And I'd still call LotR's ending more happy than sad, though that does not mean it ha a happy one. (Hey, we could start a new poll: "Does LotR have a happy or a sad ending?"
)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kath
Bittersweet moments were mentioned, here is the opportunity for a perfect one. Gandalf goes in to rescue them, but only finds one alive. There is joy in that one is saved, but sadness that one could not be. If you want a truly noble sacrifice, how about one life to save the world.
|
I see your point, but I disagree.
Who of them you'd condemn to death, Frodo or Sam, and not break the story?
Frodo's fate of losing the Shire after saving it is one of the most sorrowful events in the LotR and very important for the plot. It adds the famous bittersweetness and takes the ending further away from a clear happy ending. Frodo's going to west emphasises and adds to the fading of the Elves. Thereby, in my opinion, he couldn't die on Mount Doom.
In fairytales and in Christian faith's main doctrines, which were both important to Tolkien, good is rewarded (and evil punished). Such a good and loyal person who never failed as Sam couldn't be rewarded with death in a hope-forsaken place, though he craves to see his home, sweetheart and old father again. Also, Sam is very important for the healing of the Shire. No other character could easily take his place in it. So, in my opinion, he couldn't die on Orodruin either.
So, in my opinion, there would have been no point in killing neither Frodo nor Sam only to make a more sorrowful and bitter ending, (because they're both essential for the later story).