True Hero: Frodo or Samwise?

[MatthewM]

A lot of good points and debates on this thread. One thing I want to clear up, to the first poster- this question is obviously commonly debated upon amongst fans of The Lord of the Rings. I am not personally advacating a single hero, as there are many in the story. But (as you can see from this thread) this question sparks up some good Tolkien talk.

I've read most of the posts here, and I see it's branched into somewhat of a morality thread, contrasting the characters of our "chief" hobbits Frodo and Sam. I like what one poster said, about the sacrifice of Frodo that somewhat gives way to a lightness of character. I do think we gain a lot about Frodo's character and internal mind however, starting from the beginning of the story until the end. As someone has said, Sam's character evolves from a side-kick to huge depth.

There is a certain pity that Frodo gives to all things that sets him apart from Sam. As Sam is more personal, Frodo isn't. He urges to spare the life of Saruman as he flees the Shire. Now, anybody else in that position I think would have ordered him dead. I would say that Sam would not spare him. Just something to think about when looking at the different kind of love present within Sam and Frodo.

[Thinlómien]

So good points this far that I'm almost afraid of putting my shallow scramblings here...

I very much agree with Child that Frodo's not a person who lacks character, though I think it's very easy to think so. Frodo is always a bit distant character to the reader, but the more I read LotR, the more I understand and admire him. He could nearly fit into an old ancient Greek tragedy.

Frodo's personality may seem something straightforwardly protagonist heroish. I agree to some point; I think the biggest problem with his character is the lack of faults and vices. That leads to that if the book is not carefully read, his character lacks nuances. I think anybody who thinks Frod's lacking character should read through the Bree-chapters. All that jumping on the table and singing...

Though I think Frodo has a personality of his own I still agree with Nogrod that he's one of the "thinnest" of the main characters. Partly restating Wiscott here, I think Frodo is, as well as the sacrifice in the story, the sacrifice for the story. His "general hero personality" works well to emphasise other characters' personal qualities. Also, he represents the Ring's power and the corruption it brings,; he represents fading (like the Elves) and putting other people before himself. A person with such a quality must seem very strange indeed; seldom we see people who can sacrifice themselves for others.

P.S. I'm aware of only agreeing and flip-flopping here - must have learned that from werewolf!

[Boromir88]

Wow, what some great ideas and thoughts being tossed around here, wonderful thread.

First off to Folwren, I catch everything...sooner or later (and now it's often later) I catch everything.

Mathew, nice thread idea, and I would first like to say that it's not so clear cut as some would like to think. Just because Tolkien happened to think Sam the "chief hero" doesn't mean he necessarily is. There is a difference between Tolkien the author/omniscient narrator and Tolkien the reader/spectator. (Especially in his letters) Sometimes it's a little hard to spot, but the easiest ones is when he comes right out and says "I think..." then you know he's sitting back more, looking at it from a reader's perspective, instead of being our all knowning author. I at least feel the same way about Tolkien's thoughts on Sam. It's him sitting back sharing his thoughts from a reader's perspective, he is the character Tolkien most connected with as the "chief hero" and being "bilbo-esque."

It's certainly hard and there's a lot of things to consider. There's no doubt in my mind both are heroes. But, I think they are two different kind of heroes.

Frodo to me seems more of the tragic hero of the story, and for that because he ends the way he does, I sympathize for him, but it's not what you would expect from a "chief hero." Frodo, I think, shows the most courage of anyone in the entire story. He's the one who steps up to the plate and puts the fate of Middle-earth on his shoulders. He's the one who as Wiscott says makes that ultimate sacrifice. He takes on an impossible task, that could not be completed by anyone on Middle-earth, but he sacrifices himself for the good of Middle-earth. Here are actually Tolkien's thoughts on Frodo as a hero:

Frodo indeed ‘failed’ as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say ‘simple minds’ with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. Their weakness, however, is twofold. They do not perceive the complexity of any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget that strange element in the World that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgement (since it is Present in the Divine nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God. For finite judges of imperfect knowledge it must lead to the use of two different scales of ‘morality’. To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve. To others, in any case of which we know enough to make a judgement, we must apply a scale tempered by ‘mercy’: that is, since we can with good will do this without the bias inevitable in judgements of ourselves, we must estimate the limits of another's strength and weigh this against the force of particular circumstances.*

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 his 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.~Letter 246

Again, I think this is Tolkien looking as a reader, and certainly one may not see Frodo as a "hero." It's all up to what your expectations are, what your definition of a hero is, and can it be supported. (Reminds me of horrendous reference sheets in college ). What's interesting here is this is basically all of Tolkien's opinion. What he feels as a hero, what he thinks of "morality," and how that all weighs in.

I'd like to point out Pity and Mercy, big themes throughout the book. Wiscott brought up sacrifice, but also let's not forget Frodo's pity...pity for Gollum. Gollum was not a completely lost character, he still had a "corner of his mind" that was not corrupted. What's interesting is to show that Gollum is not completely lost yet, is that he can still remember his name...he remembers Smeagol, where The Mouth of Sauron was noted as not being able to remember his true name. (Same with the unnamed Ringwraiths) The Mouth was completely enthralled into Sauron's service, he had no "corner" left, where Gollum still had that hope. And Frodo's pity was about to save him. I want to point out a key moment in the books. Where Frodo had nearly gotten through to Gollum, but it was actually Sam who mistakes Gollum's "pawing at Frodo," and naturally protects his master. However, Sam ends up causing more harm then good as now the "Smeagol" is completely gone and he goes beyond redemption. Tolkien felt like this and the cock crow when Rohan arrived were the most touching moments to him. For, it doesn't mean that Sam is mean or ill-intended, but it shows that even the best of people try to help too much, but end up causing harm that they just didn't anticipate and didn't intend to do.

Now, again it's whether you happen to agree with Tolkien's assessment of a "hero" or not. For me, Frodo does not fit the "chief hero" he fits more into the tragic hero. He gives it all he's got, he gets the Ring to the one place where it can be destroyed. He can't get it himself destroyed, but this was said to be impossible for anyone to resist the ring's power at that one "maximum point" to cast it into Mount Doom or claim it (Letter 183). I like to put it in a bit of a rhyme, Frodo failed the personal test, but he did not fail the quest. The quest was to destroy the ring, and the Ring was destroyed. Frodo personally did not drop it in, but he got it to Mount Doom to where it could be destroyed. I'd also like to note Frodo being the tragic hero, because he becomes completely enthralled to the Ring. He falls completely to the Ring and the Ring controls him. This is what Shippey speculate in Tolkien- The Author, one view in which I happen to agree with.

Before entereing the Sammath Naur:

”No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.”

It all goes back to the Gollum thing I mentioned earlier. Gollum still at one time had a bit of Smeagol left, he had a hope, he had memories of his name and his passed life. He Frodo is completely losing these memories, he loses everything except for of couse the Ring.

The suddenly as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.

"Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."~Mount Doom

This is through Sam's eyes, as Frodo is unable to feel pity for Gollum, he is now "untouchable by pity." Frodo has clearly changed. And what Tom Shippey suggests is that Frodo has completely lost himself to the Ring. It's the Ring that speaks those words of "throw me into the Fire of Doom." For prior, Frodo had not had the strength to do it, now he suddenly has this strength. But it's actually the Ring driving Frodo to Mount Doom, for there is it's "maximum point of power," and it can get complete hold and domination over Frodo, to the final point where he claims the Ring as his own.

Frodo is a character that has many heroic qualities. He shows more courage than anyone else, he truly gives it everything that he has, and the Ring did get destroyed after all. However, Frodo to me this makes him a tragic hero. He loses himself completely to the Ring and he fails as a hero, despite the fact that he used everything that he had.

[Lalwendë]

A bit of a wormy thought here... What is a hero? Does a hero have to be perfect? Does he or she have to achieve their aims? Is it OK for a hero not to be perfect or even to not achieve what they set out to do?

I'm asking this as it seems to me that in LOTR there are no all-conquering heroes. Frodo and Sam are absolutely heroic, yes, but I question if they are traditional heroes. Frodo does not destroy the Ring, in fact he allows it to claim him, or else he claims it for himself; the latter is even worse than the former. In part, the memory of this is what ultimately destroys Frodo's future contentment. Sam too is flawed as he allows his anger to rule him in his judgement of Gollum; does he care too much for his master and not enough for the success of the quest?

Even amongst the other characters we see flaws. Aragorn can be high-handed and both Boromir and Faramir perhaps show a little too much loyalty to their father.

At the end of the book there is victory but it is tinged throughout with sadness. They have not regained a paradise in Middle-earth as much of it lies in ruins, and they are just one generation who have been victorious in fighting that 'long defeat'.

Maybe this shows how 'modern' LOTR is as a book. The traditional hero as a flawless, all-conquering figure doesn't exist in real life, and nor does it in this story. War is shown as something that can be won with effort and courage, but it is shown as something that does not 'elevate' people to the level of Hero.

Or does the book show that even ordinary people who are flawed and not at all perfect can at least act like a Hero?

[Boromir88]

What is a hero? Does a hero have to be perfect? Does he or she have to achieve their aims? Is it OK for a hero not to be perfect or even to not achieve what they set out to do?~Lal

It all depends upon what someone thinks a hero is. It does get tricky because there are so many different classifications, and sub-classifications of heroes.

Let's start with the two main hero definitions...

1) The mythological hero/legend. Someone who is known for great feats of courage, bravery, and is praised for their achievements and accomplishments.
In this, I guess I am what Tolkien would call "simple-minded," as I do not think Frodo lives up to this definition of a hero. What is it that he acheived? What did he accomplish? Well we know what his goal was, and what he wanted to accomplish...destroying the Ring, but Frodo falls short. He gave it all that he had, but it wasn't enough. He got it to the cracks of Doom, but he could go no further and it was providence that had to step in:

Frodo deserved all honour because he spend every last drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'~Letter 192

So, Frodo deserves hounour and praise for doing all that he could, but he falls short of his goal. He, himself, does not destroy the Ring, he "came up short." It was Eru who took over.

2) The other definition is like a soldier. They have courage and nobility of purpose. They make the ultimate sacrifice, their life, for a "good purpose."
Here, I kind of think of as a moral hero, where Frodo succeeds...he did not fail morally (at least again in Tolkien's opinion, whether you agree or not is up to you ). Frodo took the fate of Middle-earth on his back, he sacrificed his life for the good of Middle-earth. Then he used everything that he had, he did all that he could, and it just so happened that it wasn't enough. But, in this definition I think Frodo fits best as a hero, he sacrificed his life, and he did not give up. Which is important, he didn't "throw in the towel", he had absolutely nothing he had done all that he could.

Then we get into all these sub-groupings like tragic hero, Byronic hero...etc. But, Lal, I think the bigger question is what exactly was Tolkien thinking as a "chief hero?" Is the "chief hero," the main, typical mythological type hero in novels? If that is the case, then I would say Sam does fit best as the "chief hero," because he does accomplish his goals, where Frodo falls short. It wasn't Sam's task to do the impossible and destroy the Ring. Sam made a committment to stick with Frodo, not "lose him," follow him to the end. And that is exactly was Sam does. All the heroism he displays along the quest (storming Cirith Ungol, kicking Shelob's butt...etc) and then above that he accomplishes what he, himself set out to do...go with Frodo until the end. So, Sam does fit in best to the first definition of a hero. And if that's what Tolkien had in mind as the "chief hero," the one readers can most easily see and connect with as the hero.

Sam too is flawed as he allows his anger to rule him in his judgement of Gollum; does he care too much for his master and not enough for the success of the quest?

And that's the thing, everyone has their flaws. I think (but not sure) Tolkien mentions that Sam does end up getting "Pity and Mercy", but by this time it is too late, the damage to Gollum had already been done and it was because of Sam's mistake.

Maybe this shows how 'modern' LOTR is as a book. The traditional hero as a flawless, all-conquering figure doesn't exist in real life, and nor does it in this story. War is shown as something that can be won with effort and courage, but it is shown as something that does not 'elevate' people to the level of Hero.

Or perhaps it's just the modern view of a hero. It's not like the mythological times, the legends that seemed all too great and powerful. Sam and Frodo all the modern day heroes. They have heroic qualities and display great courage...and all that hooplah, but they are flawed and are not "all powerful." They are not those fantastic knights that always seem to do the right thing and come out victorious.

Or does the book show that even ordinary people who are flawed and not at all perfect can at least act like a Hero?

I actually do think they are heroes, or I consider them heroes. I think more of they are your everday, flawed individual, but what they did made them heroes. I'm reminded of the poem Hollow Men, by T.S. Elliot. Hollow Men meaning scarecrows that don't do anything, all they do is sit their and wait for their death. They have potential, but they do nothing with that potential. And the "Hollow Men," are your ordinary everday people that sit back, it is the "wide majority,"...which Elliot included himself as one. Then we get those few, that step out and want to make a difference, and try to make a difference. Whether it be for a good purpose or ill purpose, they step out of the majority and make themselves heroes, but still are your everyday individual with their flaws.

And backtracking a little bit:

War is shown as something that can be won with effort and courage, but it is shown as something that does not 'elevate' people to the level of Hero.

Also, at what cost?