True Hero: Frodo or Samwise?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Wiscott

I think you may be asking the wrong question. It is not really "who was the true hero" but "who do we learn from most?"
-----------------------
However, when it comes down to it, Sam is the character you identify with, not Frodo. Frodo's role is tragic, because he does succumb in the end. By the time the ring was destroyed, the noble attitude that drove Frodo to make his choice was all but gone. The reader begins the story identifying with Frodo, but ends it identifying with Sam because he is more human.

Well said Wiscott. But I also think there are some other problems here too. One of them is the "writing out the thing I'm after" -stuff by J.R.R..

What I mean is: look at the "main roles" in LotR. So full of life and character all of them! Bilbo with his earlier travels and the thirst to make all of his last days, his love of Elves, his past with the ring.... Sam with Rose in his head through the journey, his garden, the cooking, the empathy... Aragorn with his major internal fights between the woman and the Elven maiden (add all the symbolism here), the conflict between his "fate" and his initial nature... Boromir & Faramir with their father, contradicting loyalities and the similarities & differences in their personalities... And one could go on.

But what is there for Frodo? Just being the hero. As a character I see him as a shallow one, at least when comparing him to others (aside with Legolas, who's somewhat an empty "hero" too). Somehow Frodo never gets "the flesh over the bones" (as the Finnish idiom makes it) as he is just the vessel of the story. The hero without a personality, without affinities, without feelings that would relate him to the world around him.

Surely Tolkien spends a lot of time trying to make these connections, but often they seem to be more like abstract ideas or ideals dressed into the story (pity, accepting a preordained fate, standing for one's values etc.) than building a real living character in the story. So being a hero in a story with moral connotations thins the character?

[Sardy]

Good points, Nogod. It's true that Frodo often espoused a "love of the Shire", but it was Samwise who lived this love of his Shire...

[Wiscott]

Surely Tolkien spends a lot of time trying to make these connections, but often they seem to be more like abstract ideas or ideals dressed into the story (pity, accepting a preordained fate, standing for one's values etc.) than building a real living character in the story. So being a hero in a story with moral connotations thins the character?

I see what you mean about Frodo. Thinking about it a little more, I have to say that Frodo could be the central "hero" in that his place is to make an enormous sacrifice. That is a real-world theme that Tolkien wove into the story through Frodo's character: the truly heroic act is one of sacrifice. Frodo ends up being the sacrifice by bearing the burden of the ring for the rest of his life - not only when he possessed the ring physically. In that way, Frodo is the noble, tragic hero of the story; and certainly Sam is not. If you think of Frodo's character always in light of his sacrifice, his place in the story makes more sense. Frodo was never meant to have the depth of character that most of the Fellowship has. His role is to be a sacrifice; this is actually emphasized by the lack of depth. There is nothing to distract you from one of the most important parts of the story this way.

That's Frodo's role, in my opinion. I still say that, though Frodo may very well be the principle (I avoid saying real) hero, Sam remains the central object of the reader. All the other characters have their very high, noble, and important purposes; Sam is just the plain little Hobbit who happens to be touched by their lives, and therefore is most like the reader. I may have been unconsciously illustrating this in my earlier post when I said that most people would want to be Sam, not Frodo: in fact, this is exactly what happens. The reader experiences the story vicariously through Sam in the fullest sense. In a way, the effect all the events have on Sam is the effect they are intended to have upon the reader (emotionally, at least).

Anyhow, that's a little more expansion on my view. Excellent points in this thread so far

EDIT: I guess my post has a lot to do with Sardy's question a couple posts back. Concisely, it is obvious that Frodo sacrificed more than Sam, and that is an important distinction between the two hobbits, in my opinion. Frodo's sacrifice saved Sam from suffering the same thing, even if Sam wanted to (he certainly longed to help his master bear the Ring on those last days to Mount Doom).

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Ultimately, there is no one single hero to Lord of the Rings. Its nine central characters, and many of the various people with whom they cross paths all have their struggles and their own heroic moments.

Now that that's said, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to narrow it down to just two characters for a moment: Frodo and Sam.

Frodo
If Lord of the Rings has a central character, it would be him. The beginning of FOTR is narrated with a definite slant towards him. Sam is nothing much more than a quirky sidekick, like Merry and Pippin. As the story travels on, Frodo becomes less reachable to readers: through his shouldering of the burden of the Ring, he becomes less "human", and more of something else. Yes, he suffers greatly, and that's a powerful thing, because he understood, and took it on anyway. But it's a distant, contained sort of suffering, high and sad, painful and beautiful, in its own right--like that of the Elves. Frodo's is the kind of sadness that hits you in the head, if you follow me...

One of my friends with whom I frequently talk Tolkien says that her favorite character is Frodo, because he suffered so much for the good of everyone else. I find Frodo slightly less accessable and easy to relate to for just that reason.

Sam
Somewhere along the journey, almost without my notice of the exact moment of change, Sam becomes less of the cute, bumbling sidekick, and more of a person, with depths of astonishing truth, hope, and wisdom. It's almost an inversion of Frodo. Sam becomes more reachable as the story travels on: Sam becomes less of a caricature and more of a "human" through his shouldering (once or twice literal, and many times figuratively) of the harsh burden of his own best friend. Sam, too, suffers greatly, but it is much more the heartbreaking kind of suffering, open and immediate and all too real, deep and powerful. His is the kind of sadness that hits you in the heart...

I disagree with my friend. My favorite character, and not just of the two, but of the whole book, is Sam, because he went through so much, not in the name of everyone else, but in the name of one person.

It may be Frodo who takes up the actual burden of the Ring...but it is Sam whose indomitable hope and belief in love and true friendship, and in simple things, like gardens and stars, who ensnares readers' hearts, and who makes me cry, every time.

[obloquy]

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=10496

Can I vote Gandalf??????

[Parmawen]

Well, on surface level it would appear Frodo is more of a hero than Sam, as it's to him that the direct task of destroying the ring falls on.

But really, I agree that it's Sam. It depends on what the definition of "hero" is. According to dictionary.com (I know, not the trustiest of resources) the two most applicable definitions are: 1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life
These are more descriptions of Frodo, but according to Tolkien, it's Sam who's the real hero. I think that's because in Tolkien's mind being a hero is more of a sacrifice. One of the things that Sam loses is his innocence, he's awakened to the harsh realities of his world by the trip to Mount Doom. But maybe the act of being a hero is the ability to still function after that. Despite this sacrifice, Sam can move on, fall in love, and hangs on to his optimistic outlook on life, even though he's suffered so much. It's the difference between Frodo and Sam, for Frodo is changed just as much...but he becomes mellow, subdued, and while we don't really have a clear access to his thoughts before leaving for the Gray Havens, it is obvious that there has been a major change in his countenance. He is more melancholy and reminiscent. Yet Sam still has in his heart the capacity to love and to live in this world. While it may just be because he was not so tainted by the ring as Frodo was, it still shows an aptitude and attitude that reflect on him as a hero, because he has hung onto that shred of optimism that within, courage and strength lie.

[Wiscott]

Originally Posted by Azaelia of Willowbottom

Frodo
If Lord of the Rings has a central character, it would be him. The beginning of FOTR is narrated with a definite slant towards him. Sam is nothing much more than a quirky sidekick, like Merry and Pippin. As the story travels on, Frodo becomes less reachable to readers: through his shouldering of the burden of the Ring, he becomes less "human", and more of something else. Yes, he suffers greatly, and that's a powerful thing, because he understood, and took it on anyway. But it's a distant, contained sort of suffering, high and sad, painful and beautiful, in its own right--like that of the Elves. Frodo's is the kind of sadness that hits you in the head, if you follow me...
.................................................. .................................................. ......................
It may be Frodo who takes up the actual burden of the Ring...but it is Sam whose indomitable hope and belief in love and true friendship, and in simple things, like gardens and stars, who ensnares readers' hearts, and who makes me cry, every time.

I agree with you, and I especially like your description of Frodo. Very well put, in my opinion.

[Folwren]

I think that, all in all, Samwise, over Frodo, is the hero. . .I didn't just read the entire thread (I'm sorry, Boromir88, if you happen to read this, but I don't have time, but I really want to post now and not later), but I glanced over the posts and I see where most people stand.

Sam is the ultimate cause of the Ring's destruction. Someone said (won't pull up quotes because that, too, takes time) that Sam would have killed Gollum if it hadn't been for Frodo and he really wanted to. I won't deny that, before he bore the ring himself for a little time, he would have, but after he did carry the ring, he realized something of what Gollum felt, and he did have mercy on him that one time that Frodo was not there to defend Gollum.

More than that, Sam was actually someone who over came the influence of the ring. He bore it for about twenty-four hours, and I know that's not a long time, but no one can say he wasn't terribly tempted when he looked out over Mordor with it on. Yet he over came it and gave it back to Frodo immediately (in the book) when he was asked.

Without Sam, Frodo really, honestly, couldn't have made it. Samwise Gamgee was Frodo's strength. It’s not so much who the readers sympathize and grow to like the most – that’s not the question – the question is, who, out of these two, was the hero. Frodo may have born the weight of the ring, but he didn't bear it well, and in the end, it over came him. Sam bore, in my opinion more than that. He felt, briefly, the power of the ring, so he knew what it was like. But Sam had to be the strong one. At times when there was absolutely no hope whatsoever, Sam had to be the one to still hope, to get up and make his master go on, even though he wanted to let Frodo rest. He had to be the one who watched Frodo transform from his beloved master to something that he hardly knew. And in the end, he had to carry him up the slope.

Another thing that strikes me is this. Often when I read books, and when I really like them, I would like to be able to find characters that point to Christ or other great people from the Bible. In the LotR it's extremely hard because Tolkien didn't write a direct allegory. There are several Christ like figures - Gandalf and Aragorn are two obvious ones. But is Frodo or Sam one as well? Sam is an excellent picture of an overcomer and just maybe a type of Christ, but what is Frodo? He may have born the burden, but he didn't succeed in the end. Sam saw his job to the end, but Frodo didn't. He failed. Does this make him not a hero? I don't know. It's just my opinion that Sam was more of a hero than Frodo.

But to differentiate between the two of them is hard, because it couldn't have taken place without one or the other.

-- Folwren

[Raynor]

I go with Sam too. Interestingly enough, Tolkien seemed to have a "Sam" of his own:

Originally Posted by War, Part two of "J.R.R. Tolkien A Biography", by Humphrey Carpenter

These old campaigners were ready to take advantage of any slip made by a recruit, and Tolkien reported that they treated him like an inferior schoolboy. He had more respect for the ‘men’, the N.C.O.s and privates who made up the other eight hundred or so members of the battalion. A few of them were from South Wales but most were Lancashire men. Officers could not make friends among them, for the system did not permit it; but each officer had a batman, a servant who was detailed to look after his kit and care for him much in the manner of an Oxford scout. Through this, Tolkien got to know several of the men very well. Discussing one of the principal characters in The Lord of the Rings he wrote many years later: ‘My “Sam Gamgee” is indeed a reflexion of the English soldier, of the privates and batmen I knew in the 1914 war, and recognised as so far superior to myself.’

Sam seems to me the most simple and humble character; on this, Tolkien stated in letter #181 that LotR was planned to be "'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble", or, as he said in letter #163, paraphrasing the Magnificat canticle: : "Deposuit potentes de sede et exaltavit humiles": "He has put down the mighty from their seat and has exalted the humble and meek". He also called Sam "a jewel among hobbits", though most likely in a humorous sense . There is some quote, somewhere, I can't remember for the life of me, where Tolkien states that one of the most moving moments for him was when Sam carried Frodo.

Originally Posted by Folwren

There are several Christ like figures - Gandalf and Aragorn are two obvious ones.

I would disagree; of Gandalf in particular it is said:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees.

and, in general, I might say there is no Christ figure at all:

Originally Posted by Letter #297

I relate these things because I hope they may interest you, and at the same time reveal how closely linked is linguistic invention and legendary growth and construction. And also possibly convince you that looking around for more or less similar words or names is not in fact very useful even as a source of sounds, and not at all as an explanation of inner meanings and significances. The borrowing, when it occurs (not often) is simply of sounds that are then integrated in a new construction; and only in one case Earendil will reference to its source cast any light on the legends or their 'meaning' - and even in this case the light is little. The use of earendel in A-S Christian symbolism as the herald of the rise of the true Sun in Christ is completely alien to my use. The Fall of Man is in the past and off stage; the Redemption of Man in the far future.

Sam saw his job to the end, but Frodo didn't. He failed.

Well, a matter of debate; in letter #246, Tolkien stated that "his real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that".

[Child of the 7th Age]

On this thread, people have talked about Frodo largely in terms of "sacrifice". While that is a large part of who Frodo is, Tolkien does give us other glimpses of his personality.

What about the Frodo who made a conscious decision to stay and try to rescue his friends at the Barrowdowns, despite the fact that he could have gotten away on his own, or the Hobbit with "perky cheeks" who danced and sang on a tabletop in the Prancing Pony? Then there's the Frodo who struck out with Sting against the Ringwraith at Weathertop or who escaped on Glorfindel's horse, crying out in defiance: "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair,....you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" Or the Frodo who cried out "They cannot conquer forever" upon seeing the flower garland bound about the head of the king's statue as a token of hope. While we do not see enough of this high spirited Frodo, these references suggest he was surely there.

Secondly, Frodo is unique among Tolkien's characters (certainly among hobbits) in that he had one foot in the real world and one foot in Faerie (the world of the Elves), even more than his mentor Bilbo did. This "spiritual" aspect of Frodo was evident even before he took on the burden of the Ring. It can be seen in his attempt to learn Elvish and his wanderings about the Shire at night. It can also be seen in Frodo's dealings with Glorfindel and his later conversations with Faramir, especially his inherent feeling of shame that his own people did not stand and look to the West after their meals as the men of Gondor did.

I certainly do not doubt that Sam is a strong and compelling character, and that Frodo would have failed without his aid. Yet Frodo exhibits a poise, a gentleness, almost an other-worldliness that can't be found in Sam. Sam would likely have slain Gollum without Frodo's more gentle staying hand. More than anything else, it is this otherwordly quality that makes Sam love his master. We see this quality in Frodo through Sam's eyes. This is one of my favorite passages in the book.....

The early daylight was only just creeping down into the shadows under the trees, but he saw his master's face very clearly, and the hands too, lying at rest on the ground beside him. He was reminded suddenly of Frodo as he had lain asleep in the house of Elrond, after his deadly wound. Then as he had kept watch Sam had noticed at times a light seemed to be shining faintly within ; but now the light was ever clearer and stronger. Frodo's face was peaceful, the marks of fear and care had left it; but it looked old, old and beautiful, as if the chiselling of the shaping years was now revealed in many fine lines that had before been hidden, though the identity of the face was not changed. Not that Sam Gamgee put it that way to himself. He shook his head, as if finding words useless, and murmured, "I love him. He's like that, and sometimes it shines through, somehow. But I love him, whether or no."

Frodo a "thin" character? I think not. The light in Frodo's eyes is the same light that shows in the eyes of the Elves. While sitting beside the ill Frodo in Rivendell, Gandalf sees this light and actually compares Frodo to the Phial of Galadriel, a phenomenon that Verlyn Flieger discusses at length. And it is this same gentleness and light that almost brings Gollum to repentence, that causes him to reach out with love and touch the knee of the sleeping Frodo until he is chased off by Sam. Tolkien states in his Letters that this is a turning point in the story and that Sam's actions, though motivated by love, actually did great harm.

How could so many readers have overlooked or forgotten such scenes? Looking back on this thread, I sometimes fear that the Frodo people are referring to is not Tolkien's Frodo, but that of Peter Jackson. PJ did a disservice to Frodo by portraying him as a one-sided victim, who did nothing to try and combat the power of the Ring. PJ's Frodo is truly annoying---constantly swooning and keeling over, standing mesmerized in front of the Nazgul rider while actually offering him the Ring. I have said this before in other threads: I fear that readers of the LotR, especially new readers who saw the movie before they read the book, will never be able to see beyond PJ's limited depiction of Frodo.

I don't want to get into the discussion of "Who is the hero of LotR?" because there are many, many heroes -- not just Sam and Frodo. I think the question is inherently limiting. And while it's possible to point to one quotation in the Letters where Tolkien says Sam is the hero, it's also possible to point to others where Tolkien "complains" about Sam's limitations -- how Sam can not see even a glimmer of hope in Gollum, which Frodo does. My real concern in this post is not to identify a hero or downgrade Sam but to make sure that the different dimensions of Frodo's personality are not overlooked.

P.S. Frodo's "job" by the way was to take the Ring to the slopes of Mt. Doom. He was not asked to do what no one could do, which is to discard it after having been under its influence. Even Gandalf could not do that. Tolkien is very clear on this point in his letters -- no one could have done more than Frodo did. In that sense, Frodo very much succeeded in his task.