why Frodo?

[thalioniathiel]

after reading Return of the King again and noting how the ring didn't affect Sam at all in the way it affected Frodo, the question came up in my mind, why wasn't Sam the ring bearer? I kinda feel this is probably a pointless question, so maybe it would be better to ask, what qualities do you think Frodo has that Sam doesn't which make Frodo "the one" and not Sam?

the first thing that comes to my mind is that the only reason Sam went along was because of his love for his master. he wouldn't have decided, like Frodo did, to take on the quest himself, being the loyal homebody he was. (never mind the fact that he wouldn't have inherited the ring from Bilbo anyway...)

my heart just breaks to read at the end of the book, when Frodo is so broken and sad. I guess I can't help but wonder why couldn't Sam have taken the ring to Mordor and destroyed it and returned home and be happy? although the story wouldn't be as good if it were so easy...but I can't help but feel that the ring would not have corrupted or hurt Sam like it did Frodo, so...why Frodo?

[Gorwingel]

I think there is already some threads on this topic, but the main reason it did not effect Sam was that he did not have it for a long time. If he would have had it for as long as Frodo, he probably would have turned out the same way.

[Aratlithiel]

I don't think Sam would have lasted til Bree if he didn't have his love for Frodo to drive him. That love was more important to him than his garden, The Shire or even Middle-earth, as evidenced by his refusal to leave Frodo's body to the orcs outside of Cirith Ungol. He knew the peril he was placing the Ring in - he knew he AND the Ring would be captured - but he chose to forsake everything else for his master, even though he believed him dead at the time. I firmly believe Sam would have shoved Frodo into the Cracks of Doom if Frodo had asked him to - and probably would have jumped right in after him.

That being said, Frodo certainly would never have made it to the mountain at all without Sam. He needed someone with him to keep pushing him and Sam was the only one who loved him enough to do that - again, because it was what Frodo wished. Can you imagine Merry or Pippin (as steadfast and true as they were) pushing Frodo the way Sam did? No, I think they would have stopped him "for his own good" eventually, believing they were saving him. Sam knew the only way to save Frodo was to complete the Quest and he only knew that because of his deep love and understanding of him.

I think Frodo and Sam (Gollum aside) were the only combination that could have accomplished the task.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[doug*platypus]

I agree that Sam was far more suited to the role of secondary hero. I also think that in some kind of Bombadil way, he wouldn't really care about the Ring at all. He never experiences any desire for It, and even when he tries to keep It after rescuing Frodo, this is only (at least on the surface) out of concern for his master. While history tells against such things, I think that Sam would have been strongly tempted to either cast away the burden, or just lay it aside and get on with mowing the lawn.

[aragornreborn]

I agree with all that's been said, but let me emphasize some parts of it in particular.

Above all things, Sam loved Frodo. Which is why he was perfect for his job as a "supporter" and "pusher." After Frodo, Sam loved Middle Earth. To be more specific, he loved the Shire and life as he knew it. If Gandalf had come to him first, no doubt he would have dived behind his wheelbarrow, told Gandalf to find some brave warriors to get rid of the ring, and then hung out with Rose. While he knew that the ring had to be destroyed, he most certainly did not feel he was the one to do it. Frodo on the other hand, was not tied to Middle Earth as much as Sam. Sure he had some friends and a house, but other than that he was pretty much alone. I think he knew deep inside that he was meant to do it, too. I'm not sure if he had any particular characteristics that made him the "better" one to destroy the ring. But, apparently, he was born with a mission and any qualities that would help him with that mission.

Ring-getting-rid-of genes [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Arwen_Evenstar]

I think that had the ring a come to Sam at a different time, it would have corrupted him. When he had it the first time, he found out(a little further on) that frodo was alive, so all his thoughts were bent on finding and saving his master. If it was just sam, I dont think he would of gotten very far.

[akhtene]

I simply don't believe that the quest could be completed by anyONE on his own. To undertake such task one had to be absolutely overcome by the idea of the quest, just the way Frodo was, so that at some stage he stoped caring for eating, resting or choosing the way. If he wasn't, he might have probably turned back. But having achieved this state of determination, he could have probably died of exaustion, if not for Sam's support.
As for Sam, I don't think he could show the same devotion to the IDEA as he showed to a PERSON. And if he could - I don't think his situation would have been any different from Frodo's.

[ January 22, 2003: Message edited by: akhtene ]

[thalioniathiel]

thanks for all the responses! I've think that you have all put into words the feeling I had about Sam and Frodo and the quest but couldn't quite sort out. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Orual]

I agree with everybody who's posted thus far. Sam, I think, wouldn't have been able to take that first step--accepting the mission. I don't think he would have stepped up at the Council and said "I'll take the Ring." He simply didn't think himself cut out for that job. But when Frodo became involved in the Quest, well, that was a different story. Now Sam had emotional ties to the whole journey, which totally changed his view. I think it's the sort of thing where people will join the armed forces if their best friend joins with them, even if they wouldn't have otherwise.

Alone and without the emotional stimulus of making sure that Frodo was okay, I really don't think that Sam could've dealt with the burden of the Ring. And this is out of the mouth of one of Sam's biggest fans, okay? I really don't think he could have. The action-reaction that it took to push Sam over that line in the sand depended on Frodo's being in peril. And heaven knows he was in peril often enough during the course of the Quest. If it had just been the, honestly, the abstract goal of "saving the world," he probably wouldn't have thought "okay, I have to do this." Sure, it sounds pretty urgent and immediate and pressing and all, but think about it. You're putting your own life on the line because you've been told that the world depends on it. There's really no proof--life in your own little community has been going on much the same as it has as long as you've been old enough to notice. No orcs have been knocking at your door. You've seen a few Nazgul, but only because you have this blasted Ring in the first place, so if you give it up it'll all be dandy, right? That's certainly what I'd think. And it's probably what Sam would think. Fortunately it wasn't what Frodo thought, which is why he took the Ring.

Sam is the best friend that we've never had, the guy who's always there when you need him, and to take that extra step when he really must. That's his role, that's his personality, it's what he's suited for. Look as it might that he'd've made the perfect Ringbearer, after considering it as I write this post I really think that it would've been a mistake, and that Elrond knew what he was doing when he gave the Ring to Frodo.

Whew! That was long-winded...sorry, guys! I gota little carried away.

~*~Orual~*~

[ January 23, 2003: Message edited by: Orual ]

[Aratlithiel]

Sam is the best friend that we've never had

Oooh, I like that alot. I'm tired of the hints about homosexuality whenever a critic or scholar expounds on this book. Best friend, friend of friends, best friend you never had - that's the very best description of Sam I've ever heard.

(P.S. Please don't take the above comment as a bias against same-gender relationships. I have absolutely no prejudice against homosexuality - I just don't think it exists here. However, that is a matter for another thread.)

[Child of the 7th Age]

Sam was indeed a staunch hobbit who gave of himself a thousand times over to help Frodo accomplish his mission. Without Sam, Frodo would never have made it as far as he did.

But there's one other point that hasn't been brought up. In his Letters Tolkien makes it clear that no being in Middle-earth could have succeeded in tossing the Ring into Sammath Naur. We are simply too "flawed" in our nature. Even Gandalf, who was a maia, clearly stated that he could not have resisted the temptation of the Ring. This means Sam would also have been tempted in some way or form.

One of the key differences between Frodo and Sam was that the former showed kindness to Gollum above and beyond what any 'normal' person would have done, and it was this showing of mercy which made possible the action of providence on Mount Doom. Sam was different. His strengths were loyalty, steadfastness, and a stubborn endurance that were undoubtedly stronger than Frodo's. But there was also a "down" side. He was insular and suspicious. This is reflected in his earliest encounters with Strider as well as his dealings with Gollum. Tolkien talks about this in his Letters as well.

Some of us would say that Sam was more realistic in his assessment of Gollum, but Tolkien didn't see it that way. He tells us that Frodo's mercy which seemed to go beyond the rational was essential for the story to succeed. Think how much more suspicious Sam would have been if he had actually been bearing the Ring. He would have wanted to protect it against Gollum. I doubt Gollum would have lasted too long. During one of their arguments, Sam would have blasted him away.

There is an irony in this: Sam would have replicated the scene between Deagol and Smeagol that started this whole mess with the Ring and Gollum. It would be another case of hobbit slaying hobbit, and on some level I think Sam sensed that. So the cycle of evil would have been perpetuated by Sam and we'd be right back where we started. Once the slaying was done, Sam's spirit would have been corrupted and there is no way he could have gotten the Ring to Mount Doom, let alone throw it in.

It is easy to point to Frodo's shortcomings. From our easy armchair perspective, he seems to have been tinged with a martyr complex and too often fallen prey to internal pressures, losing sight of hope without enough of a fight. But there's another side here. The amazing thing is that Frodo was able to look at Gollum with a gentler heart, recognizing some of what he'd gone through. It would have been so easy for Frodo to become possessive about the Ring and lash out at Gollum, since the latter so obviously wanted it for himself.

It is not Sam who has the gleem of an Elf friend in his eye or who is becoming like the phial of Galadriel. It is Frodo. Sam recognizes that quality in Frodo and loves him for it. Sam is the good and decent person who sacrifices himself for those he loves in amazing ways. Frodo is the quieter one who can look beyond what we see in everyday human life and get a hint of what lies beyond. This is what makes him able to show mercy when, by any rational earthly standard, he should have clobbered Gollum over the head.

[Eldar14]

I don't think that Frodo's kindness towards Gollum was because he was such a good Hobbit. Yes, Frodo was good inside, but I think his kindness had other motives. I think Frodo was nice to Gollum because he needed proof that the ring couldn't corrupt him all the way; he needed to know that he still had a chance of always having that bit of good deep down inside of him, regardless of what power the ring had over him.

Maybe that's one reason why Frodo did it. If Sam had been the one to bear the ring, his motivations would have been to save Middle Earth. To save the Shire and Rosie and all of that. But maybe Frodo had the slightly personal quest; he had seen the effect of the ring on Bilbo, and the effect it was starting to have on him, and he felt that he had to destroy it to save himself. Regardless of how good of a person you are, the motivation to save one's own skin is a very strong motivation, even stronger than the one to save the world.

[Iris Alantiel]

If Sam had been the one to bear the ring, his motivations would have been to save Middle Earth. To save the Shire and Rosie and all of that. But maybe Frodo had the slightly personal quest; he had seen the effect of the ring on Bilbo, and the effect it was starting to have on him, and he felt that he had to destroy it to save himself.

But if Sam had been the one to bear the ring, wouldn't he have felt its effects and needed to save himself? Wouldn't it have become more personal for him? It might have started out as a labour of love for ME, but wouldn't it develop into a quest for personal salvation as he saw the ring beginning to take over?

[Oroaranion]

i thought that as the Ring got closer to Mordor, it's power increased. and so therefore Sam would be greater affeceted in that time than if he had borne the One while they were passing through the Shire.

[Eldar14]

I wasn't saying that Sam would have taken the quest and failed because of lack of inspiration. I'm saying that that's why Sam would never volunteer for the quest. Sam feared for ME's fate, but he realised that everyone else at the council did also, and that someone else would volunteer if he didn't. But Frodo had to volunteer for his own sake.

I think that either Frodo or Sam could have actually succesfully completed the quest, but only Frodo had sufficient reason to volunteer.

[Child of the 7th Age]

eldar14 ,

I see a lot of problems in what you are saying. I simply don't see support for some of your ideas in Tolkien's writing.

I don't think that Frodo's kindness towards Gollum was because he was such a good Hobbit. Yes, Frodo was good inside, but I think his kindness had other motives. I think Frodo was nice to Gollum because he needed proof that the ring couldn't corrupt him all the way; he needed to know that he still had a chance of always having that bit of good deep down inside of him, regardless of what power the ring had over him.

This is the "modern" psychological interpretation that PJ has given us in the movie. It is not what Tolkien wrote. We can certainly imagine and dream that Frodo may have had an underlying psychological motive of this type, being in the situation he was in, but that is very different from actually looking at the book and finding words that Tolkien wrote that would support such an argument.

. If Sam had been the one to bear the ring, his motivations would have been to save Middle Earth. To save the Shire and Rosie and all of that. But maybe Frodo had the slightly personal quest; he had seen the effect of the ring on Bilbo, and the effect it was starting to have on him, and he felt that he had to destroy it to save himself. Regardless of how good of a person you are, the motivation to save one's own skin is a very strong motivation, even stronger than the one to save the world.

In his Letters, Tolkien discusses the fact that Samwise was limited in his visions and aspirations. He was motivated by a staunch love for Frodo but sometimes couldn't see beyond that. Tolkien says, in that respect, Samwise was a more typical hobbit. His motivation was not to save Middle-Earth as you suggest, but to provide support for the friend he loved. He gave of himself unceasingly but it was for a friend rather than an abstract ideal.

Moreover, there is no hint anywhere in Tolkien that Frodo was aware of any detrimental effect that the Ring had on Bilbo: Gandalf was the only one who could see that. After all for 111 years of age, Bilbo looked mighty good to Frodo! When Frodo began the quest, he had no idea of what the Ring could do, either to himself or to the world. Even at Rivendell, he was just beginning to understand. Frodo had absolutely no personal reason to take up the Ring. He was by nature a stay-at-home hobbit, much more so than Bilbo. It took him months to leave the Shire after Gandalf spoke to him. He did not want to leave and hesitated to take up the Ring even in Rivendell. Look at the words Tolkien uses when Frodo finally spoke up and agreed to take on the job. When the actually spoke at the meeting, he felt as if someone else was using his voice, some other will was intervening. There was, thus, no personal motive to 'save his skin' as you state. Frodo can be accused of various shortcomings -- seeing himself as a martyr, losing hope too fast, dwelling on the negative-- but he never gave the least indication of taking on the job for personal reasons. Perhaps you get some sense of this in PJ's film? But it has nothing to do with Tolkien.

One of the things that bothers me greatly is that a lot of assumptions from the movie are creeping into the Books forum and being presented as fact or Tolkien's interpretation. There is a vast difference between movie Frodo and book Frodo. On this click here.

[warrenerd]

frodo was chosen to keep the ring as the heir of bilbo. therefore, he brought the ring to the counsel of elrond, which samwise did NOT attend. (and wasn't spying on, as seen in the movie) plus, samwise was more of a servant than a leader, don't you think?