So... There are two kinds of LOTR fans.
Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users like kratoz29.
You're viewing a single thread.
Frodo is the most beautiful and tragic of the hobbits.
I can't stand anyone who denigrates him to idolize Sam. I broke up with my ex girlfriend of many years who thought Frodo was lesser to Sam, not necessarily for that reason but it didn't help her case. I love Sam too, but I don't think Frodo needs to be taken down just to build up Sam. Sam was instrumental in what he did but Frodo was the only individual in the world that could do what he did.
I see what you're saying, but Frodo literally couldn't have done it without Sam. We see that directly.
We don't know if it could happen the other way around or not because that's not the story we were told.
I'm not trying to diminish what Frodo did but it seems to me the statement "Frodo was the only individual in the world that could do what he did" does so for Sam's contributions.
Honestly all of it wouldn't have worked without all of the surviving Fellowship's (plus Gollum) actions, but Sam's are the most direct.
It seems to me there's a reason that Aragorn didn't bow to Frodo, but all four of the Hobbits. They were all simple folk, not warriors who achieved great things with plenty of sacrifice. Elevating Frodo does a disservice to the others.
I can't believe Aragorn had them share that dais with such a fool of a Took!
"And what did you do in the fellowship?" "I smoked the dankest chronic..."
That fool unwittingly made it all work out in the end though. So he wasn't effective on purpose but he was still important on his own way.
I see what you mean.
But I don't think elevating Frodo does a disservice to anyone. Frodo was the first to voluntarily go out on this journey to, essentially, sacrifice himself for the Shire and the rest of the world. And he lost more than any living member of the Fellowship, everyone gains after the journey but Frodo loses his sense of self and his form of life. He does not return the same person, nor a stronger person, he returns a broken person. He deserves the recognition he receives and more.
While I love Sam and what he did was extremely important because he made it possible for the Ring to be destroyed, but what he did was basically support Frodo. Everyone in the Fellowship supported Frodo and no one contests it as being a lowly task, it is an all-important task. We know that what Frodo did no one else could have done because we are literally told that. Frodo carried an all-powerful, seducing demonic entity around his neck day in and day out while going through all sorts of OTHER trials and obstacles. When Sam temporarily held the Ring in Mordor, he was already being seduced by it. There is no way he could have carried it the way and duration that Frodo did. To my knowledge, despite it not being possible for Frodo to have gotten that far without Sam, it is never stated that no one else could have done what Sam did. In other words, that Sam could not be substituted for someone else to support Frodo on that journey. It's possible to imagine that there is someone else in that world that could support Frodo all the way, the way Sam did, maybe even one of the other hobbits. But it's not possible to imagine anyone else, including Sam or the other hobbits, doing what Frodo did.
This is not to put Sam down. Sam is a hero in his own right and I don't actually think anyone could replace Sam because Sam is irreplaceable and incommensurable, the same way everyone in the story is unique and incommensurable. But Frodo is honestly at a different level of tragic, self-sacrificial humility and goodness that should be seen as the only thing that can bring the destruction of powerful evil. Everyone can be unique and valueable in their own way, while still acknowledging how particularly special and important one individual is. I think Tolkien makes Frodo so important and says that Frodo is the only person who could have done that, not because of the character of Frodo himself or the desire to make the main character necessarily the most important, but because he wants us to see that Frodo's uniqueness lies in his extreme sense of goodness, humility, and self-sacrifice and only those things can bring evil to the brink of destruction.
Sure, we're told that, but we're not shown it. I've heard that a given person is the only one that can do a thing and it's rarely true. While these are not ordinary circumstances by any means, just being told such is just that. And if we want to get very technical we would need to acknowledge Tom Bombadil.
Sam was tempted, sure, but Frodo was already being tempted before they left the Shire. Hiding behind a tree with a Nazgûl leaning over I don't believe for a moment it was Frodo wanting the ring on and I think the way he snaps back supports that. The Ring grew stronger as they grew closer. It's like chronic pain. If you deal with a certain kind of pain every day it's tiring but you get accustomed to it. If someone just going about their life gets sudden pain to the same level it might bring them to their knees. It doesn't mean anything accept that you've had time to adapt and they have not.
Do you honestly believe that Frodo's sense of sense of goodness, humility, and self-sacrifice is greater than that of Sam or really most of the fellowship? If that's what it comes down to then he would need to be far more advanced in those than everybody else. I think Sam easily demonstrates as much if not more of most if not all of those. If you think about it Frodo isn't shown to have much holding him to the Shire apart from Bag End. Sam has a life, hopes, and dreams. He left all that to go with Frodo, and was prepared to drown to continue to do so when Frodo was going to set off on his own. If there's not mountains of goodness and self sacrifice there I don't know where there is. And I really don't think I need to give examples of humility in Sam.
If goodness and self sacrifice are such a huge part of it too then how was Gandalf so readily susceptible? He may not be as humble as a Hobbit but he was clearly prepared to give his life for the fellowship.
I think we are to accept that there's a quality to Hobbits and the lives they choose to lead. I think, in fiction, the biggest part of Frodo entering the journey is the fact that he inherited the ring. As we know the ring chooses who carries it I think it's not unreasonable that it could have had some influence on moving to Frodo. Bilbo having second thoughts doesn't change that. Bearers from Isildur to Gollum didn't want to give it up. If anything the fact that he could may demonstrate the ring's influence. Surely it wouldn't choose someone it thought could destroy it. Without Sam I think it's pretty clear to say that's accurate. Frodo nearly fails more than once but Sam gets him back on track. The Ring cab choose its bearer, but not the people around them.
To me Frodo being the single most important part of success is a lot like so many people who think Romeo and Juliet is a romance. We're not shown that Frodo is unique or special in his ability to carry the ring to Mount Doom (especially since he clearly couldn't on his own) but that we can accomplish great things by working at them together. Tolkien's life before he wrote it feels like an important piece of support for that idea.
Very well put. Why does everything have to be a competition with our species?
Without Gollum they would have both failed anyway. Everyone has their part, and maybe that's a subtle message to us in reality.
