True Hero: Frodo or Samwise?

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Ultimately, there is no one single hero to Lord of the Rings. Its nine central characters, and many of the various people with whom they cross paths all have their struggles and their own heroic moments.

Now that that's said, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to narrow it down to just two characters for a moment: Frodo and Sam.

Frodo
If Lord of the Rings has a central character, it would be him. The beginning of FOTR is narrated with a definite slant towards him. Sam is nothing much more than a quirky sidekick, like Merry and Pippin. As the story travels on, Frodo becomes less reachable to readers: through his shouldering of the burden of the Ring, he becomes less "human", and more of something else. Yes, he suffers greatly, and that's a powerful thing, because he understood, and took it on anyway. But it's a distant, contained sort of suffering, high and sad, painful and beautiful, in its own right--like that of the Elves. Frodo's is the kind of sadness that hits you in the head, if you follow me...

One of my friends with whom I frequently talk Tolkien says that her favorite character is Frodo, because he suffered so much for the good of everyone else. I find Frodo slightly less accessable and easy to relate to for just that reason.

Sam
Somewhere along the journey, almost without my notice of the exact moment of change, Sam becomes less of the cute, bumbling sidekick, and more of a person, with depths of astonishing truth, hope, and wisdom. It's almost an inversion of Frodo. Sam becomes more reachable as the story travels on: Sam becomes less of a caricature and more of a "human" through his shouldering (once or twice literal, and many times figuratively) of the harsh burden of his own best friend. Sam, too, suffers greatly, but it is much more the heartbreaking kind of suffering, open and immediate and all too real, deep and powerful. His is the kind of sadness that hits you in the heart...

I disagree with my friend. My favorite character, and not just of the two, but of the whole book, is Sam, because he went through so much, not in the name of everyone else, but in the name of one person.

It may be Frodo who takes up the actual burden of the Ring...but it is Sam whose indomitable hope and belief in love and true friendship, and in simple things, like gardens and stars, who ensnares readers' hearts, and who makes me cry, every time.

[obloquy]

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=10496

Can I vote Gandalf??????

[Parmawen]

Well, on surface level it would appear Frodo is more of a hero than Sam, as it's to him that the direct task of destroying the ring falls on.

But really, I agree that it's Sam. It depends on what the definition of "hero" is. According to dictionary.com (I know, not the trustiest of resources) the two most applicable definitions are: 1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life
These are more descriptions of Frodo, but according to Tolkien, it's Sam who's the real hero. I think that's because in Tolkien's mind being a hero is more of a sacrifice. One of the things that Sam loses is his innocence, he's awakened to the harsh realities of his world by the trip to Mount Doom. But maybe the act of being a hero is the ability to still function after that. Despite this sacrifice, Sam can move on, fall in love, and hangs on to his optimistic outlook on life, even though he's suffered so much. It's the difference between Frodo and Sam, for Frodo is changed just as much...but he becomes mellow, subdued, and while we don't really have a clear access to his thoughts before leaving for the Gray Havens, it is obvious that there has been a major change in his countenance. He is more melancholy and reminiscent. Yet Sam still has in his heart the capacity to love and to live in this world. While it may just be because he was not so tainted by the ring as Frodo was, it still shows an aptitude and attitude that reflect on him as a hero, because he has hung onto that shred of optimism that within, courage and strength lie.

[Wiscott]

Originally Posted by Azaelia of Willowbottom

Frodo
If Lord of the Rings has a central character, it would be him. The beginning of FOTR is narrated with a definite slant towards him. Sam is nothing much more than a quirky sidekick, like Merry and Pippin. As the story travels on, Frodo becomes less reachable to readers: through his shouldering of the burden of the Ring, he becomes less "human", and more of something else. Yes, he suffers greatly, and that's a powerful thing, because he understood, and took it on anyway. But it's a distant, contained sort of suffering, high and sad, painful and beautiful, in its own right--like that of the Elves. Frodo's is the kind of sadness that hits you in the head, if you follow me...
.................................................. .................................................. ......................
It may be Frodo who takes up the actual burden of the Ring...but it is Sam whose indomitable hope and belief in love and true friendship, and in simple things, like gardens and stars, who ensnares readers' hearts, and who makes me cry, every time.

I agree with you, and I especially like your description of Frodo. Very well put, in my opinion.

[Folwren]

I think that, all in all, Samwise, over Frodo, is the hero. . .I didn't just read the entire thread (I'm sorry, Boromir88, if you happen to read this, but I don't have time, but I really want to post now and not later), but I glanced over the posts and I see where most people stand.

Sam is the ultimate cause of the Ring's destruction. Someone said (won't pull up quotes because that, too, takes time) that Sam would have killed Gollum if it hadn't been for Frodo and he really wanted to. I won't deny that, before he bore the ring himself for a little time, he would have, but after he did carry the ring, he realized something of what Gollum felt, and he did have mercy on him that one time that Frodo was not there to defend Gollum.

More than that, Sam was actually someone who over came the influence of the ring. He bore it for about twenty-four hours, and I know that's not a long time, but no one can say he wasn't terribly tempted when he looked out over Mordor with it on. Yet he over came it and gave it back to Frodo immediately (in the book) when he was asked.

Without Sam, Frodo really, honestly, couldn't have made it. Samwise Gamgee was Frodo's strength. It’s not so much who the readers sympathize and grow to like the most – that’s not the question – the question is, who, out of these two, was the hero. Frodo may have born the weight of the ring, but he didn't bear it well, and in the end, it over came him. Sam bore, in my opinion more than that. He felt, briefly, the power of the ring, so he knew what it was like. But Sam had to be the strong one. At times when there was absolutely no hope whatsoever, Sam had to be the one to still hope, to get up and make his master go on, even though he wanted to let Frodo rest. He had to be the one who watched Frodo transform from his beloved master to something that he hardly knew. And in the end, he had to carry him up the slope.

Another thing that strikes me is this. Often when I read books, and when I really like them, I would like to be able to find characters that point to Christ or other great people from the Bible. In the LotR it's extremely hard because Tolkien didn't write a direct allegory. There are several Christ like figures - Gandalf and Aragorn are two obvious ones. But is Frodo or Sam one as well? Sam is an excellent picture of an overcomer and just maybe a type of Christ, but what is Frodo? He may have born the burden, but he didn't succeed in the end. Sam saw his job to the end, but Frodo didn't. He failed. Does this make him not a hero? I don't know. It's just my opinion that Sam was more of a hero than Frodo.

But to differentiate between the two of them is hard, because it couldn't have taken place without one or the other.

-- Folwren

[Raynor]

I go with Sam too. Interestingly enough, Tolkien seemed to have a "Sam" of his own:

Originally Posted by War, Part two of "J.R.R. Tolkien A Biography", by Humphrey Carpenter

These old campaigners were ready to take advantage of any slip made by a recruit, and Tolkien reported that they treated him like an inferior schoolboy. He had more respect for the ‘men’, the N.C.O.s and privates who made up the other eight hundred or so members of the battalion. A few of them were from South Wales but most were Lancashire men. Officers could not make friends among them, for the system did not permit it; but each officer had a batman, a servant who was detailed to look after his kit and care for him much in the manner of an Oxford scout. Through this, Tolkien got to know several of the men very well. Discussing one of the principal characters in The Lord of the Rings he wrote many years later: ‘My “Sam Gamgee” is indeed a reflexion of the English soldier, of the privates and batmen I knew in the 1914 war, and recognised as so far superior to myself.’

Sam seems to me the most simple and humble character; on this, Tolkien stated in letter #181 that LotR was planned to be "'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble", or, as he said in letter #163, paraphrasing the Magnificat canticle: : "Deposuit potentes de sede et exaltavit humiles": "He has put down the mighty from their seat and has exalted the humble and meek". He also called Sam "a jewel among hobbits", though most likely in a humorous sense . There is some quote, somewhere, I can't remember for the life of me, where Tolkien states that one of the most moving moments for him was when Sam carried Frodo.

Originally Posted by Folwren

There are several Christ like figures - Gandalf and Aragorn are two obvious ones.

I would disagree; of Gandalf in particular it is said:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees.

and, in general, I might say there is no Christ figure at all:

Originally Posted by Letter #297

I relate these things because I hope they may interest you, and at the same time reveal how closely linked is linguistic invention and legendary growth and construction. And also possibly convince you that looking around for more or less similar words or names is not in fact very useful even as a source of sounds, and not at all as an explanation of inner meanings and significances. The borrowing, when it occurs (not often) is simply of sounds that are then integrated in a new construction; and only in one case Earendil will reference to its source cast any light on the legends or their 'meaning' - and even in this case the light is little. The use of earendel in A-S Christian symbolism as the herald of the rise of the true Sun in Christ is completely alien to my use. The Fall of Man is in the past and off stage; the Redemption of Man in the far future.

Sam saw his job to the end, but Frodo didn't. He failed.

Well, a matter of debate; in letter #246, Tolkien stated that "his real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that".

[Child of the 7th Age]

On this thread, people have talked about Frodo largely in terms of "sacrifice". While that is a large part of who Frodo is, Tolkien does give us other glimpses of his personality.

What about the Frodo who made a conscious decision to stay and try to rescue his friends at the Barrowdowns, despite the fact that he could have gotten away on his own, or the Hobbit with "perky cheeks" who danced and sang on a tabletop in the Prancing Pony? Then there's the Frodo who struck out with Sting against the Ringwraith at Weathertop or who escaped on Glorfindel's horse, crying out in defiance: "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair,....you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" Or the Frodo who cried out "They cannot conquer forever" upon seeing the flower garland bound about the head of the king's statue as a token of hope. While we do not see enough of this high spirited Frodo, these references suggest he was surely there.

Secondly, Frodo is unique among Tolkien's characters (certainly among hobbits) in that he had one foot in the real world and one foot in Faerie (the world of the Elves), even more than his mentor Bilbo did. This "spiritual" aspect of Frodo was evident even before he took on the burden of the Ring. It can be seen in his attempt to learn Elvish and his wanderings about the Shire at night. It can also be seen in Frodo's dealings with Glorfindel and his later conversations with Faramir, especially his inherent feeling of shame that his own people did not stand and look to the West after their meals as the men of Gondor did.

I certainly do not doubt that Sam is a strong and compelling character, and that Frodo would have failed without his aid. Yet Frodo exhibits a poise, a gentleness, almost an other-worldliness that can't be found in Sam. Sam would likely have slain Gollum without Frodo's more gentle staying hand. More than anything else, it is this otherwordly quality that makes Sam love his master. We see this quality in Frodo through Sam's eyes. This is one of my favorite passages in the book.....

The early daylight was only just creeping down into the shadows under the trees, but he saw his master's face very clearly, and the hands too, lying at rest on the ground beside him. He was reminded suddenly of Frodo as he had lain asleep in the house of Elrond, after his deadly wound. Then as he had kept watch Sam had noticed at times a light seemed to be shining faintly within ; but now the light was ever clearer and stronger. Frodo's face was peaceful, the marks of fear and care had left it; but it looked old, old and beautiful, as if the chiselling of the shaping years was now revealed in many fine lines that had before been hidden, though the identity of the face was not changed. Not that Sam Gamgee put it that way to himself. He shook his head, as if finding words useless, and murmured, "I love him. He's like that, and sometimes it shines through, somehow. But I love him, whether or no."

Frodo a "thin" character? I think not. The light in Frodo's eyes is the same light that shows in the eyes of the Elves. While sitting beside the ill Frodo in Rivendell, Gandalf sees this light and actually compares Frodo to the Phial of Galadriel, a phenomenon that Verlyn Flieger discusses at length. And it is this same gentleness and light that almost brings Gollum to repentence, that causes him to reach out with love and touch the knee of the sleeping Frodo until he is chased off by Sam. Tolkien states in his Letters that this is a turning point in the story and that Sam's actions, though motivated by love, actually did great harm.

How could so many readers have overlooked or forgotten such scenes? Looking back on this thread, I sometimes fear that the Frodo people are referring to is not Tolkien's Frodo, but that of Peter Jackson. PJ did a disservice to Frodo by portraying him as a one-sided victim, who did nothing to try and combat the power of the Ring. PJ's Frodo is truly annoying---constantly swooning and keeling over, standing mesmerized in front of the Nazgul rider while actually offering him the Ring. I have said this before in other threads: I fear that readers of the LotR, especially new readers who saw the movie before they read the book, will never be able to see beyond PJ's limited depiction of Frodo.

I don't want to get into the discussion of "Who is the hero of LotR?" because there are many, many heroes -- not just Sam and Frodo. I think the question is inherently limiting. And while it's possible to point to one quotation in the Letters where Tolkien says Sam is the hero, it's also possible to point to others where Tolkien "complains" about Sam's limitations -- how Sam can not see even a glimmer of hope in Gollum, which Frodo does. My real concern in this post is not to identify a hero or downgrade Sam but to make sure that the different dimensions of Frodo's personality are not overlooked.

P.S. Frodo's "job" by the way was to take the Ring to the slopes of Mt. Doom. He was not asked to do what no one could do, which is to discard it after having been under its influence. Even Gandalf could not do that. Tolkien is very clear on this point in his letters -- no one could have done more than Frodo did. In that sense, Frodo very much succeeded in his task.

[MatthewM]

A lot of good points and debates on this thread. One thing I want to clear up, to the first poster- this question is obviously commonly debated upon amongst fans of The Lord of the Rings. I am not personally advacating a single hero, as there are many in the story. But (as you can see from this thread) this question sparks up some good Tolkien talk.

I've read most of the posts here, and I see it's branched into somewhat of a morality thread, contrasting the characters of our "chief" hobbits Frodo and Sam. I like what one poster said, about the sacrifice of Frodo that somewhat gives way to a lightness of character. I do think we gain a lot about Frodo's character and internal mind however, starting from the beginning of the story until the end. As someone has said, Sam's character evolves from a side-kick to huge depth.

There is a certain pity that Frodo gives to all things that sets him apart from Sam. As Sam is more personal, Frodo isn't. He urges to spare the life of Saruman as he flees the Shire. Now, anybody else in that position I think would have ordered him dead. I would say that Sam would not spare him. Just something to think about when looking at the different kind of love present within Sam and Frodo.

[Thinlómien]

So good points this far that I'm almost afraid of putting my shallow scramblings here...

I very much agree with Child that Frodo's not a person who lacks character, though I think it's very easy to think so. Frodo is always a bit distant character to the reader, but the more I read LotR, the more I understand and admire him. He could nearly fit into an old ancient Greek tragedy.

Frodo's personality may seem something straightforwardly protagonist heroish. I agree to some point; I think the biggest problem with his character is the lack of faults and vices. That leads to that if the book is not carefully read, his character lacks nuances. I think anybody who thinks Frod's lacking character should read through the Bree-chapters. All that jumping on the table and singing...

Though I think Frodo has a personality of his own I still agree with Nogrod that he's one of the "thinnest" of the main characters. Partly restating Wiscott here, I think Frodo is, as well as the sacrifice in the story, the sacrifice for the story. His "general hero personality" works well to emphasise other characters' personal qualities. Also, he represents the Ring's power and the corruption it brings,; he represents fading (like the Elves) and putting other people before himself. A person with such a quality must seem very strange indeed; seldom we see people who can sacrifice themselves for others.

P.S. I'm aware of only agreeing and flip-flopping here - must have learned that from werewolf!

[Boromir88]

Wow, what some great ideas and thoughts being tossed around here, wonderful thread.

First off to Folwren, I catch everything...sooner or later (and now it's often later) I catch everything.

Mathew, nice thread idea, and I would first like to say that it's not so clear cut as some would like to think. Just because Tolkien happened to think Sam the "chief hero" doesn't mean he necessarily is. There is a difference between Tolkien the author/omniscient narrator and Tolkien the reader/spectator. (Especially in his letters) Sometimes it's a little hard to spot, but the easiest ones is when he comes right out and says "I think..." then you know he's sitting back more, looking at it from a reader's perspective, instead of being our all knowning author. I at least feel the same way about Tolkien's thoughts on Sam. It's him sitting back sharing his thoughts from a reader's perspective, he is the character Tolkien most connected with as the "chief hero" and being "bilbo-esque."

It's certainly hard and there's a lot of things to consider. There's no doubt in my mind both are heroes. But, I think they are two different kind of heroes.

Frodo to me seems more of the tragic hero of the story, and for that because he ends the way he does, I sympathize for him, but it's not what you would expect from a "chief hero." Frodo, I think, shows the most courage of anyone in the entire story. He's the one who steps up to the plate and puts the fate of Middle-earth on his shoulders. He's the one who as Wiscott says makes that ultimate sacrifice. He takes on an impossible task, that could not be completed by anyone on Middle-earth, but he sacrifices himself for the good of Middle-earth. Here are actually Tolkien's thoughts on Frodo as a hero:

Frodo indeed ‘failed’ as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say ‘simple minds’ with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. Their weakness, however, is twofold. They do not perceive the complexity of any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget that strange element in the World that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgement (since it is Present in the Divine nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God. For finite judges of imperfect knowledge it must lead to the use of two different scales of ‘morality’. To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve. To others, in any case of which we know enough to make a judgement, we must apply a scale tempered by ‘mercy’: that is, since we can with good will do this without the bias inevitable in judgements of ourselves, we must estimate the limits of another's strength and weigh this against the force of particular circumstances.*

I do not think that Frodo’s was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.

We are finite creatures with absolute limitations upon the powers of our soul-body structure in either action or endurance. Moral failure can only be asserted, I think, when a man's effort or endurance falls short of his limits, and the blame decreases as that limit is closer approached.~Letter 246

Again, I think this is Tolkien looking as a reader, and certainly one may not see Frodo as a "hero." It's all up to what your expectations are, what your definition of a hero is, and can it be supported. (Reminds me of horrendous reference sheets in college ). What's interesting here is this is basically all of Tolkien's opinion. What he feels as a hero, what he thinks of "morality," and how that all weighs in.

I'd like to point out Pity and Mercy, big themes throughout the book. Wiscott brought up sacrifice, but also let's not forget Frodo's pity...pity for Gollum. Gollum was not a completely lost character, he still had a "corner of his mind" that was not corrupted. What's interesting is to show that Gollum is not completely lost yet, is that he can still remember his name...he remembers Smeagol, where The Mouth of Sauron was noted as not being able to remember his true name. (Same with the unnamed Ringwraiths) The Mouth was completely enthralled into Sauron's service, he had no "corner" left, where Gollum still had that hope. And Frodo's pity was about to save him. I want to point out a key moment in the books. Where Frodo had nearly gotten through to Gollum, but it was actually Sam who mistakes Gollum's "pawing at Frodo," and naturally protects his master. However, Sam ends up causing more harm then good as now the "Smeagol" is completely gone and he goes beyond redemption. Tolkien felt like this and the cock crow when Rohan arrived were the most touching moments to him. For, it doesn't mean that Sam is mean or ill-intended, but it shows that even the best of people try to help too much, but end up causing harm that they just didn't anticipate and didn't intend to do.

Now, again it's whether you happen to agree with Tolkien's assessment of a "hero" or not. For me, Frodo does not fit the "chief hero" he fits more into the tragic hero. He gives it all he's got, he gets the Ring to the one place where it can be destroyed. He can't get it himself destroyed, but this was said to be impossible for anyone to resist the ring's power at that one "maximum point" to cast it into Mount Doom or claim it (Letter 183). I like to put it in a bit of a rhyme, Frodo failed the personal test, but he did not fail the quest. The quest was to destroy the ring, and the Ring was destroyed. Frodo personally did not drop it in, but he got it to Mount Doom to where it could be destroyed. I'd also like to note Frodo being the tragic hero, because he becomes completely enthralled to the Ring. He falls completely to the Ring and the Ring controls him. This is what Shippey speculate in Tolkien- The Author, one view in which I happen to agree with.

Before entereing the Sammath Naur:

”No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.”

It all goes back to the Gollum thing I mentioned earlier. Gollum still at one time had a bit of Smeagol left, he had a hope, he had memories of his name and his passed life. He Frodo is completely losing these memories, he loses everything except for of couse the Ring.

The suddenly as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.

"Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."~Mount Doom

This is through Sam's eyes, as Frodo is unable to feel pity for Gollum, he is now "untouchable by pity." Frodo has clearly changed. And what Tom Shippey suggests is that Frodo has completely lost himself to the Ring. It's the Ring that speaks those words of "throw me into the Fire of Doom." For prior, Frodo had not had the strength to do it, now he suddenly has this strength. But it's actually the Ring driving Frodo to Mount Doom, for there is it's "maximum point of power," and it can get complete hold and domination over Frodo, to the final point where he claims the Ring as his own.

Frodo is a character that has many heroic qualities. He shows more courage than anyone else, he truly gives it everything that he has, and the Ring did get destroyed after all. However, Frodo to me this makes him a tragic hero. He loses himself completely to the Ring and he fails as a hero, despite the fact that he used everything that he had.