Why save them?

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Thinlómien

This is a great question, although I haven't checked to see if there's already a similar thread. I actually think a general thread would work better than a poll. Otherwise people might just "punch the button" and not explain why they felt that way.

There is a similar thread. . .in fact, there is a thread talking explicitly about that. It's called 'Happy ending. . .or is it?' I could figure out how to make a link, but as I don't know if I have time nor wants, I won't do that now. It's a good thread, actually. I forget who started it.

-- Folwren

EDIT: I'm adding this having read more than just Child's last post. Once again, Boromir, I apologize - I have not read all of the entire thread since my last post. I have read most of it, but the posts that I have not read, I haven't even glanced over. However, my flitting eye would just happen to catch on this concerning Sam, wouldn't it? *sigh* Ever to his rescue.

Originally Posted by Rune

Personaly I don't think that Sam is that important after Orodruin. . . atleast I think that what ever changes there was in his esteem in the Shire, could have been shown in Merry and Pippin. I might be influenced by the fact, that I at times find Sam annoying.

I actually think it could work out quite nicely with Sam dying. . . If you don't care about the christian doctrines that Lommy speaks of, that is.

Sam is absolutely important! Even after Orodruin! He is one of the main charactesr, and he is the main character that makes the ending so good. If it were not for Sam, the end wouldn't have been what it is. Sam Gamgee was one of the only reasons that Frodo ever stayed so long, and he was also one of the only reasons that his departure is so heartbreaking. Sam's homecoming at the very end, and his famous line that will always be quoted in my home ('Well, I'm back,' he said) is what finally tells the reader, "Yes, everything is alright, even if Frodo did have to leave."

By the way, in my sometimes overberaing opinion, Sam is never annoying. Amusing, thick headed (atimes, not often, but sometimes), childish, but not annoying.

The edit is longer than the original post, but ah me.

And for any of you think this is straying from the point of thread. . .I wouldn't say so. This is a further explenation of why Sam shouldn't have died.

-- Folwren

[Mithalwen]

I rediscovered this thread looking for something else and thought I would bump it up partly because IMO it is worth a read and partly because since A Game of Thrones has come to prominence I have read comments implying that Martin is superior because he isn't afraid to kill off major characters. Now I can't judge that as I haven't got around to readin ASOIAF yet but this old thread does illustrate that Tolkien's choices are far more complex than mere squeamishness.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I rediscovered this thread looking for something else and thought I would bump it up partly because IMO it is worth a read and partly because since A Game of Thrones has come to prominence I have read comments implying that Martin is superior because he isn't afraid to kill off major characters. Now I can't judge that as I haven't got around to readin ASOIAF yet but this old thread does illustrate that Tolkien's choices are far more complex than mere squeamishness.

Tolkien has never been afraid to kill his characters, but the LOTR has always been told from a Hobbit POV, which is one of the great failings of the film.

Frodo and Sam are everyday men, Frodo richer than most, but get caught up in a traumatic experience for the Common Good. Frodo is pushed to his very limits and ultimately he breaks under pressure that is too great for him to handle. Effectively Frodo can never return back to what he was. It's a very sad and bittersweet ending that Frodo can never truly recover in this world after all he gave.

Sam on the other hand is the traditional and 'lucky' hero. His experiences whilst absolutely awful are do not completely destroy him. It leaves a stain that he cannot heal, but he can at least get on with a normal life. He marries the girl and has a happy family life.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

While noting the observation that Tolkien always planned on having Frodo survive, I've always thought an interesting plot development (and one taking away a criticism by some at the time the book came out that just about all the major characters survive) would have to had Frodo die from Shelob's sting and Sam then carry the Ring the rest of the way---just him and Gollum.

Biggest minus might have been having to rework the bittersweet ending.

Well. I'm back.

[Inziladun]

I agree with the observation that Frodo's survival specifically lets the reader see the emotional and spiritual aftermath of his undertaking. Dying was what Frodo expected after the Ring was destroyed; his sense of contentment with that is evident.

'Well, this is the end, Sam Gamgee,' said a voice by his side. And there was Frodo, pale and worn, and yet himself again; and in his eyes there was peace now, neither strain of will, nor madness, nor any fear.

ROTK Mount Doom

As a survivor, Frodo must confront what he saw as his "failure" at Mount Doom: not resisting the Ring at the end. It does serve to make the story more poignant.

Sam lives to be the conduit of history to future Hobbits. Through his children, he passes on his account of the War, and hopefully gives them a new found appreciation of the cost of their long time prosperity and peace.