True Hero: Frodo or Samwise?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by McCaber

Frodo was given the impossible task of destroying the Ring, while Sam's duty was to support Frodo. Without each of them, the other would have failed.

Yes, they do seem to support each other, and rescued each other from death, so they are both as important, but I think Sam was more heroic, because he had a choice, and he chose to help, whereas Frodo was destined to be ringbearer, so he (in reality) had to, whatever anyone says about his choice in the matter.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Yes, they do seem to support each other, and rescued each other from death, so they are both as important, but I think Sam was more heroic, because he had a choice, and he chose to help, whereas Frodo was destined to be ringbearer, so he (in reality) had to, whatever anyone says about his choice in the matter.

Are you saying that Frodo had a destiny from which he could not deviate, but Sam essentially had no destiny? That Frodo was bound by his destiny to be the Ringbearer, but it was not Sam's intractable destiny to accompany Frodo? Why would this idea of predestination only affect Frodo's free will and not Sam's?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Somewhere in Letters Tolkien points out that the great moment of Frodo's heroism was at the Council, where he said "I will take the Ring," and compares it to Mary at the Annunciation. Frodo perhaps was *meant * to have the Ring, but he was not *mandated* to take it. Elrond understood this, and therefore ranked Frodo with the greatest heroes of the Elder Days simply for shouldering the burden, with no guarantee, or even likelihood, of success.

[Galendor]

Both Frodo and Sam are "heroic" characters, but in my thinking Frodo is meant to be the main "hero" - because he chose to be the Ring bearer, and suffered greatly and permanently from this immense burden.

I see Sam more as the "everyman" character - a type of character that the reader can more relate to, in terms of motivations and reactions.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galendor

I see Sam more as the "everyman" character - a type of character that the reader can more relate to, in terms of motivations and reactions.

Really? I won't generalize this one. Personally, when reading, I always could easier relate myself to Frodo than to Sam. So I would say this depends.

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I always could easier relate myself to Frodo than to Sam. So I would say this depends.

Yes, I agree, I may have over-generalized. I think I also felt more connected to Frodo than to Sam. But it seems like some people find Sam more relatable, and some here even think Sam is the true hero of LOTR. I disagree.

In clearer response to the primary thread question: it is clear to me that, if one must choose, Frodo is the main hero in the classical sense, not Sam. Frodo did not have to be the Ring-bearer. If Frodo had not volunteered to personally bear the Ring to Mordor, it is doubtful that Sam would have stepped forward and offered to do it. I think Sam would have been more than happy to forget the whole thing, turn around, and head back to the Shire. Then none of the hobbits would have been in the story beyond Rivendell. And I think it is clear that Frodo ultimately suffered more than Sam. Frodo's choice to undertake a suicide mission, and his greater suffering for that choice, make him the classical hero of the story. But that is not to say Sam was not also heroic.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, conservative Catholics like Tolkien, fortified by professional Medieval studies, would I think tend to have a rather pre-Renaissance, pre-humanist view of things: a belief that life in this world, with all its suffering, is only a preparation for the next; and that random death is 'cruel' perhaps from a human perspective, but from the divine is merely a transition into another phase of existence.

I think Tolkien would naturally endorse the view held from Aquinas (or before) on down: world without evil would be a world without free will, a deterministic dictatorship. If Men are to be free, they must be free to do evil.

Nor can the Creator make a personal appearance (except in disguise) without effectively destroying free will, at least the freedom to reject Belief. As Pratchett says of the Discworld: witches and wizards don't believe in the Gods, because it would be rather like believing in the postman.





(He does however point out that the DW Gods love atheists- they make great target practice).

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Are you saying that Frodo had a destiny from which he could not deviate, but Sam essentially had no destiny? That Frodo was bound by his destiny to be the Ringbearer, but it was not Sam's intractable destiny to accompany Frodo? Why would this idea of predestination only affect Frodo's free will and not Sam's?

That's been my question as well too all those who think Frodo was predestined to carry the Ring. Why was the Will of the Higher Power affecting only Frodo and not Sam? Be it Eru's or Valar's decision for Frodo's finding the Ring, carrying the Ring seems his own *free will*.