Why Frodo is so misunderstood and underrated character?

[FerniesApple]

I think you are confusing me. I didnt say Frodo was an aggressive guy fighting a lot. I said he was more assertive than film Frodo. Book Frodo does fight more than in the film, for example on Weathertop.
Also you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I have never said people are saying he go 'full on Conan' you seem to have completely missed the point I am trying to make. try reading my post again.

[Morthoron]

Frodo is misunderstood because most folks lack reading comprehension....



including a certain director and his scriptwriters who have a penchant for overwrought fan-fiction.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Frodo is misunderstood because most folks lack reading comprehension....



including a certain director and his scriptwriters who have a penchant for overwrought fan-fiction.

What about those who claim to have read books for decades? I often see such folks on Facebook who completely fail to understand him. Many article/essay writers tend to have this problem as well.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

What about those who claim to have read books for decades? I often see such folks on Facebook who completely fail to understand him. Many article/essay writers tend to have this problem as well.

You mean, you don't think those people understand Frodo the way you do.
I think it's interesting that Tolkien did not consider Frodo to be the "hero" of the story, but Sam.

Different people are going to like/dislike things done by Frodo, and all other characters, colored by their own personalities and beliefs. What one reader considers heroic, another may see as merely stupid. That's the beauty of books: people take from them what they put into them.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

You mean, you don't think those people understand Frodo the way you do.
I think it's interesting that Tolkien did not consider Frodo to be the "hero" of the story, but Sam.

Different people are going to like/dislike things done by Frodo, and all other characters, colored by their own personalities and beliefs. What one reader considers heroic, another may see as merely stupid. That's the beauty of books: people take from them what they put into them.

I was waiting for you reply, sir! Yes, that's true everyone is free to have their own opinions according to their psychology, experiences and lives, but there are some facts that do not change with these opinions. Frodo being the hero of LotR is one of them. Tolkien did say Sam was the chief hero but he wrote in most of his letters Frodo is the hero. And I'm talking about everyone understanding or liking Frodo the way I do, the real question is of general knowledge. For example, there was an article where the author compared both Bilbo and Frodo, and he concluded that Bilbo's adventure was no less frightening than that of Frodo's; still Bilbo comes as stronger one. He also said that Bilbo's company didn't give him the respect that Frodo's did etc. etc. Albeit these points hold true for the stories but they don't prove why Bilbo's struggles are greater than Frodo's. Frodo literally carried the fate of ME on his shoulders, why wouldn't they support him, while Bilbo became the man of focus in Mirkwood? Bilbo's adventures were certainly never as childish as children might assume but they did not require all from Bilbo. What's need to say Frodo's not as heroic as is meant to be?

[Formendacil]

I think the problem here (if problem it is: my thesis is essentially that it is a symptom of a good thing) is that there is something of a paradox at the heart of Frodo's portrayal.

On the one hand, Frodo legitimately is a weak person. Gandalf and Elrond make it quite clear that Frodo's smallness is tied to his fitness for the quest--if he were a great warrior, he would end up as Boromir or worse, and this is but part of the greater theme that Tolkien is playing, that it is the small of the world that will shake its foundations. And as far as this goes, the theme absolutely requires that Frodo be dependent on Sam and be dependent on Gollum, etc.

By the same token, the books (not so much the movies... but we not speak of those in this post) make it clear that Frodo is exceptional. His status as an Elf-friend is not only extended to him early, it is STILL not extended to Sam, Merry, and Pippin at the end of the book, even though they are arguably greater then than Frodo was at the beginning. Tolkien goes out of his way to say that no one could have carried the Ring as far as Frodo, even if he succumbed in the end.

And that end, the failure/success in Mt. Doom is sort of the crux of the matter. Frodo DOES fail but he DOES succeed. This is the theme that the hands of the small make possible miracles that the deeds of the great do not, the idea that, though they are legitimately small, Hobbits are also incredibly tough. As the central character of the book, it is natural that Frodo should embody the entirety of this paradox--and being a paradox, it is impossible to entirely resolve it: you can only collapse one side of it and pretend that either:

a.) Frodo is weak and useless and completely dependent on others, or
b.) Frodo is the greatest of all heroes, inimitable in his success.

Of course, both are true. And that's the point.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I think the problem here (if problem it is: my thesis is essentially that it is a symptom of a good thing) is that there is something of a paradox at the heart of Frodo's portrayal.

I agree. Frodo is indeed a paradox. His actions or their outcomes contradict themselves in all ways. For example his weakness, strength, failure, success etc.

On the one hand, Frodo legitimately is a weak person. Gandalf and Elrond make it quite clear that Frodo's smallness is tied to his fitness for the quest--if he were a great warrior, he would end up as Boromir or worse, and this is but part of the greater theme that Tolkien is playing, that it is the small of the world that will shake its foundations. And as far as this goes, the theme absolutely requires that Frodo be dependent on Sam and be dependent on Gollum, etc.

Elrond says if Frodo has taken this decision freely, his seat/place should be among the great Elf-friends. His weakness turned out to be his strength.

By the same token, the books (not so much the movies... but we not speak of those in this post) make it clear that Frodo is exceptional. His status as an Elf-friend is not only extended to him early, it is STILL not extended to Sam, Merry, and Pippin at the end of the book, even though they are arguably greater then than Frodo was at the beginning. Tolkien goes out of his way to say that no one could have carried the Ring as far as Frodo, even if he succumbed in the end.

Even though he succumbed, it doesn't the fact that he struggled the most. Most of the quote by him in the books and Tolkien words in his letters prove the same.

And that end, the failure/success in Mt. Doom is sort of the crux of the matter. Frodo DOES fail but he DOES succeed. This is the theme that the hands of the small make possible miracles that the deeds of the great do not, the idea that, though they are legitimately small, Hobbits are also incredibly tough. As the central character of the book, it is natural that Frodo should embody the entirety of this paradox--and being a paradox, it is impossible to entirely resolve it: you can only collapse one side of it and pretend that either:

a.) Frodo is weak and useless and completely dependent on others, or
b.) Frodo is the greatest of all heroes, inimitable in his success.

Of course, both are true. And that's the point.

It's more like you are given two things: you have to choose good or bad. It depends on your personality or thinking if you choose bad. I'm ashamed to say that most folks I see around choose this negative side of the coin. Wonderful post, btw.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

I think you are confusing me. I didnt say Frodo was an aggressive guy fighting a lot. I said he was more assertive than film Frodo. Book Frodo does fight more than in the film, for example on Weathertop.
Also you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I have never said people are saying he go 'full on Conan' you seem to have completely missed the point I am trying to make. try reading my post again.

Well it would be helpful if i knew what you are talking about. Was your post about Film- or Book Frodo, or a mixture of both? Im just trying to figure out if you think readers of the book will go "meh, what's with that wuss Frodo? Why is he so unmanly? He should kick more ***!" Because that is what you are describing and I just don't see that happen.

[FerniesApple]

I am talking about film Frodo being negatively compared to book Frodo. Some people critisize the fact that film Frodo seems to be less assertive. They critisize Woods performance as being 'wimpy'.
I have not personally heard of anyone critisizing book Frodo. Most people I have spoken to about LOTR seem to think Frodo in the book is courageous. They normally bring up moments like his challenging the Ringwraiths at the Ford.