Why Frodo is so misunderstood and underrated character? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Formendacil · 08-24-2014, 07:11 AM

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.

08-24-2014, 07:11 AM	#12
Formendacil Dead Serious Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Perched on Thangorodrim's towers. Posts: 3,328	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. __________________ I prefer history, true or feigned.