True Hero: Frodo or Samwise?

[Lalwendë]

A bit of a wormy thought here... What is a hero? Does a hero have to be perfect? Does he or she have to achieve their aims? Is it OK for a hero not to be perfect or even to not achieve what they set out to do?

I'm asking this as it seems to me that in LOTR there are no all-conquering heroes. Frodo and Sam are absolutely heroic, yes, but I question if they are traditional heroes. Frodo does not destroy the Ring, in fact he allows it to claim him, or else he claims it for himself; the latter is even worse than the former. In part, the memory of this is what ultimately destroys Frodo's future contentment. Sam too is flawed as he allows his anger to rule him in his judgement of Gollum; does he care too much for his master and not enough for the success of the quest?

Even amongst the other characters we see flaws. Aragorn can be high-handed and both Boromir and Faramir perhaps show a little too much loyalty to their father.

At the end of the book there is victory but it is tinged throughout with sadness. They have not regained a paradise in Middle-earth as much of it lies in ruins, and they are just one generation who have been victorious in fighting that 'long defeat'.

Maybe this shows how 'modern' LOTR is as a book. The traditional hero as a flawless, all-conquering figure doesn't exist in real life, and nor does it in this story. War is shown as something that can be won with effort and courage, but it is shown as something that does not 'elevate' people to the level of Hero.

Or does the book show that even ordinary people who are flawed and not at all perfect can at least act like a Hero?

[Boromir88]

What is a hero? Does a hero have to be perfect? Does he or she have to achieve their aims? Is it OK for a hero not to be perfect or even to not achieve what they set out to do?~Lal

It all depends upon what someone thinks a hero is. It does get tricky because there are so many different classifications, and sub-classifications of heroes.

Let's start with the two main hero definitions...

1) The mythological hero/legend. Someone who is known for great feats of courage, bravery, and is praised for their achievements and accomplishments.
In this, I guess I am what Tolkien would call "simple-minded," as I do not think Frodo lives up to this definition of a hero. What is it that he acheived? What did he accomplish? Well we know what his goal was, and what he wanted to accomplish...destroying the Ring, but Frodo falls short. He gave it all that he had, but it wasn't enough. He got it to the cracks of Doom, but he could go no further and it was providence that had to step in:

Frodo deserved all honour because he spend every last drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'~Letter 192

So, Frodo deserves hounour and praise for doing all that he could, but he falls short of his goal. He, himself, does not destroy the Ring, he "came up short." It was Eru who took over.

2) The other definition is like a soldier. They have courage and nobility of purpose. They make the ultimate sacrifice, their life, for a "good purpose."
Here, I kind of think of as a moral hero, where Frodo succeeds...he did not fail morally (at least again in Tolkien's opinion, whether you agree or not is up to you ). Frodo took the fate of Middle-earth on his back, he sacrificed his life for the good of Middle-earth. Then he used everything that he had, he did all that he could, and it just so happened that it wasn't enough. But, in this definition I think Frodo fits best as a hero, he sacrificed his life, and he did not give up. Which is important, he didn't "throw in the towel", he had absolutely nothing he had done all that he could.

Then we get into all these sub-groupings like tragic hero, Byronic hero...etc. But, Lal, I think the bigger question is what exactly was Tolkien thinking as a "chief hero?" Is the "chief hero," the main, typical mythological type hero in novels? If that is the case, then I would say Sam does fit best as the "chief hero," because he does accomplish his goals, where Frodo falls short. It wasn't Sam's task to do the impossible and destroy the Ring. Sam made a committment to stick with Frodo, not "lose him," follow him to the end. And that is exactly was Sam does. All the heroism he displays along the quest (storming Cirith Ungol, kicking Shelob's butt...etc) and then above that he accomplishes what he, himself set out to do...go with Frodo until the end. So, Sam does fit in best to the first definition of a hero. And if that's what Tolkien had in mind as the "chief hero," the one readers can most easily see and connect with as the hero.

Sam too is flawed as he allows his anger to rule him in his judgement of Gollum; does he care too much for his master and not enough for the success of the quest?

And that's the thing, everyone has their flaws. I think (but not sure) Tolkien mentions that Sam does end up getting "Pity and Mercy", but by this time it is too late, the damage to Gollum had already been done and it was because of Sam's mistake.

Maybe this shows how 'modern' LOTR is as a book. The traditional hero as a flawless, all-conquering figure doesn't exist in real life, and nor does it in this story. War is shown as something that can be won with effort and courage, but it is shown as something that does not 'elevate' people to the level of Hero.

Or perhaps it's just the modern view of a hero. It's not like the mythological times, the legends that seemed all too great and powerful. Sam and Frodo all the modern day heroes. They have heroic qualities and display great courage...and all that hooplah, but they are flawed and are not "all powerful." They are not those fantastic knights that always seem to do the right thing and come out victorious.

Or does the book show that even ordinary people who are flawed and not at all perfect can at least act like a Hero?

I actually do think they are heroes, or I consider them heroes. I think more of they are your everday, flawed individual, but what they did made them heroes. I'm reminded of the poem Hollow Men, by T.S. Elliot. Hollow Men meaning scarecrows that don't do anything, all they do is sit their and wait for their death. They have potential, but they do nothing with that potential. And the "Hollow Men," are your ordinary everday people that sit back, it is the "wide majority,"...which Elliot included himself as one. Then we get those few, that step out and want to make a difference, and try to make a difference. Whether it be for a good purpose or ill purpose, they step out of the majority and make themselves heroes, but still are your everyday individual with their flaws.

And backtracking a little bit:

War is shown as something that can be won with effort and courage, but it is shown as something that does not 'elevate' people to the level of Hero.

Also, at what cost?