The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Child of the 7th Age · 07-08-2002, 06:02 PM

Akhtene -- You make some interestig points about how trusting those characters are who stand on the side of goodness. Perhaps, Gandalf would simply say it was inherent in their characters. I am sure he would point out that it is always better to err on the side of trust where there is any doubt about the individual involved. The harm that it does to one's own soul is a factor that can not be discredited.

And yet......

The one "good" character who sometimes went in the opposite direction was Sam, at least vis a vis both Aragorn and Gollum. Certainly, Sam was mistrustful of anyone or anything who seemed suspicious, at least in terms of offering a threat to Frodo. Actually, hobbits in general were suspicious of "outsiders". (even their own kind who came from "over the water").

It is true that Sam did not respond with a physical act against those he mistrusted. Yet even this is not totally clear. Without Frodo's constant restraint, I'm not certain whether Sam might have been tempted to use more extreme measures against Gollum. Generally, however, Sam simply kept the person he mistrusted under close personal observation to make certain he did not do any mischief.

LOL. Imagine if Sam had been faced with Saruman, and that he perceived Saruman as a threat to Frodo. I tend to think Sam would have snooped about to find more information, much as he acted as the "spy" for Frodo's friends at the beginning of the book! I have a humorous picture in my mind of Sam as Saruman's gardener sying on his boss. It would serve Saruman right, since he used so many spies.

Of course, the problem is knowing when to show trust and/or mercy and when to show a healthy mistrust. Who was to know that trust extended to Gollum would ultimately lead to a great boon, while the trust placed in Saruman would bear no outward results?

It should be noted that the trust extended to Saruman by the Fellowship extended to the very end of his life when Frodo himself insisted that he not be killed. So his own little nasty Wormtongue had to turn around and do it.

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

07-08-2002, 06:02 PM	#11
Child of the 7th Age Spirit of the Lonely Star Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 5,133	Akhtene -- You make some interestig points about how trusting those characters are who stand on the side of goodness. Perhaps, Gandalf would simply say it was inherent in their characters. I am sure he would point out that it is always better to err on the side of trust where there is any doubt about the individual involved. The harm that it does to one's own soul is a factor that can not be discredited. And yet...... The one "good" character who sometimes went in the opposite direction was Sam, at least vis a vis both Aragorn and Gollum. Certainly, Sam was mistrustful of anyone or anything who seemed suspicious, at least in terms of offering a threat to Frodo. Actually, hobbits in general were suspicious of "outsiders". (even their own kind who came from "over the water"). It is true that Sam did not respond with a physical act against those he mistrusted. Yet even this is not totally clear. Without Frodo's constant restraint, I'm not certain whether Sam might have been tempted to use more extreme measures against Gollum. Generally, however, Sam simply kept the person he mistrusted under close personal observation to make certain he did not do any mischief. LOL. Imagine if Sam had been faced with Saruman, and that he perceived Saruman as a threat to Frodo. I tend to think Sam would have snooped about to find more information, much as he acted as the "spy" for Frodo's friends at the beginning of the book! I have a humorous picture in my mind of Sam as Saruman's gardener sying on his boss. It would serve Saruman right, since he used so many spies. Of course, the problem is knowing when to show trust and/or mercy and when to show a healthy mistrust. Who was to know that trust extended to Gollum would ultimately lead to a great boon, while the trust placed in Saruman would bear no outward results? It should be noted that the trust extended to Saruman by the Fellowship extended to the very end of his life when Frodo himself insisted that he not be killed. So his own little nasty Wormtongue had to turn around and do it. [ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ] __________________ Multitasking women are never too busy to vote.