LOTR: Is Samwise Gamgee the real hero of the books?

[Whack-a-Mole]

I was reading the comments in a recent Reddit thread about this and figured I'd get a better discussion on this here (for a variety of reasons but particularly because the format is more amenable to discussion here).

In short the premise is that while Frodo is the ring bearer he could not possibly have made it without Sam. Not just a little help, Sam carries the day repeatedly.

More than that, and most interesting and something I never thought of before, Sam is one of only two characters to ever willingly give up the One Ring (the other being the enigmatic Tom Bombadil). All other characters who possess the One Ring never willingly hand it over to someone else. Not Bilbo. Not Frodo. Gandalf and Galadriel know better than to even touch it for a second.

I know Samwise was crucial to Frodo in getting him there but I never considered that in many ways he was the one most responsible for their ultimate success in destroying the One Ring. That it was Samwise who possessed the stronger constitution that not even Frodo had when it came to resisting the One Ring.

All that said it has been years since I have seen the movies and decades since I read the books so opinions?

[astro]

Relevant discussion here

Is Bilbo's resistance to the Ring stronger than Frodo's?

[Johanna]

Upon completing one of my re-readings of the book, what I took away from it was that Gandalf did way more heavy lifting than any other single character. He even became an army general of sorts, which is a fairly far departure from his usual public image. He actually spent more narrative time as an action hero than as a magician or scholar, especially in Books IV and VI.

Popular demand focuses on those little hairy foot guys who fit the classic English heroism mold of the common man/"little man" (so called) displaying indomitable pluck that ultimately saves the day. So analyses like the OP take it for granted that a hobbit character is the top protagonist. But J.R.R. himself seems to have had his heart more in the saga of the mythological ages deep in the background, and Gandalf was a direct connection to the Undying Lands and the Valar in a time and place where such direct experiences of the numinous were few and far between. So no wonder he got a huge role.

As to the OP: Yeah, I'd have to agree that the very nature of the plucky little hobbits, who have more to them than meets the eye, pretty much automatically foregrounds them as dramatic heroes (as distinct from narrative big wheels like Gandalf). My take on your OP question is that the Frodo-Sam team is the real core of this heroism. You can't really break up a winning team when it's the teamwork that saves the day.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

LOTR: Is Samwise Gamgee the real hero of the books?

Yes, for what you said. Sam is the plucky little Tommy who, in his thousands, selflessly fought for king and country. He's Frodo's batman, dragging his officer along when Frodo grew tired.

However, it turns out that Wikipedia agrees so I may be wrong.

J. R. R. Tolkien took the relationship of his characters Samwise Gamgee and Frodo Baggins from his observations during his military service during World War I of the relationship between a batman and his officer.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by astro

Relevant discussion here

Is Bilbo's resistance to the Ring stronger than Frodo's?

Not seeing that as a good discussion.

They claim Bilbo willingly gave up the ring which Bilbo most certainly did not.

He was not as beholden to it as Gollum to be sure but when Gandalf tries to get the ring from him Bilbo never quite manages to hand it over. Gandalf has to get rather forceful with him IIRC.

The only two people in the books to hold the One Ring and hand it back are Tom Bombadil and Samwise (and even Samwise is a little slow to hand it back but manages it...Tom seems utterly unaffected).

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Johanna

...especially in Books IV and VI.

Books 4 and 6 of a trilogy???

LOTR is three books (the Hobbit not being a part of LOTR).

I am missing something here.

[Knorf]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Not seeing that as a good discussion.

They claim Bilbo willingly gave up the ring which Bilbo most certainly did not.

Yes, he certainly did.

Gandalf has to get rather forceful with him IIRC.

You remember incorrectly. Persuasion, not force. No force was used.

[JohnT]

What you're missing Whack-a-mole, is that this morning George Lucas optioned three new LOTR movie prequels, complete with a Timothy Zahn novelization for each movie, so now the original books are numbered 4, 5, and 6.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Knorf

Yes, he certainly did.

You remember incorrectly. Persuasion, not force. No force was used.

No, he didn't give it up willingly and maybe we can call it forceful persuasion:

‘Well, if you want my ring yourself, say so!’ cried Bilbo. ‘But you won’t get it. I won’t give my Precious away, I tell you.’ His hand strayed to the hilt of his small sword. Gandalf’s eyes flashed. ‘It will be my turn to get angry soon,’ he said. ‘If you say that again, I shall. Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked.’ He took a step towards the hobbit, and he seemed to grow tall and menacing; his shadow filled the little room.

<snip>

Bilbo took out the envelope, but just as he was about to set it by the clock, his hand jerked back, and the packet fell on the floor. Before he could pick it up, the wizard stooped and seized it and set it in its place. A spasm of anger passed swiftly over the hobbit’s face again. Suddenly it gave way to a look of relief and a laugh.

Source: The Fellowship of the Ring

[Superhal]

Yes, this annoyed me about the LotR movies as well as the Harry Potter films: the supposed main character (Frodo and Harry) actually do nothing but get dragged around by other people and stand around doing Keanu Reeves impressions. (Dear Keanu: One day, I'd like you to look into the camera with an expression that says you're not shocked and surprised by what just happened.) I'd say the way the movies treated the LotR franchise, Aragorn was actually the main character and the other stuff was the B plot.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Johanna

Upon completing one of my re-readings of the book, what I took away from it was that Gandalf did way more heavy lifting than any other single character.

Not really.

Gandalf was one of the Istari. He was of the Maiar. As one of the Maiar he was only surpassed in power by a few others in Middle Earth.

For all his power he keeps a pretty low profile. He is an advisor mostly. He only really wields his true power in special circumstances (e.g. fighting the Balrog which is another Maiar). He steps in there because absolutely no one else has a chance in hell against it.

Beyond that, despite great power, he leaves most of the heavy lifting to everyone else. One would think he could go all Rambo and toss fireballs and lightning willy-nilly blasting anything that gets in their way but he doesn't.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Superhal

Yes, this annoyed me about the LotR movies as well as the Harry Potter films: the supposed main character (Frodo and Harry) actually do nothing but get dragged around by other people and stand around doing Keanu Reeves impressions. (Dear Keanu: One day, I'd like you to look into the camera with an expression that says you're not shocked and surprised by what just happened.) I'd say the way the movies treated the LotR franchise, Aragorn was actually the main character and the other stuff was the B plot.

This misses a subtle point.

The One Ring was hugely powerful and utterly corrupting. The ONLY creatures that could possibly carry it to its destruction were the Hobbits (and even then in particular Frodo...not just any Hobbit would do). Aragorn would be utterly ruined by the ring. For all of the ass kicking Aragorn does it would come to nothing if the ring is not destroyed.

Yeah the Hobbits are not as bad ass when it comes to mass carnage but they are not supposed to be. Aragorn is holding the line while they sneak in. It's akin to everyone else busting their ass so Luke can sneak in and shoot the exhaust port on the Death Star.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

In short the premise is that while Frodo is the ring bearer he could not possibly have made it without Sam. Not just a little help, Sam carries the day repeatedly.

But they all do. Apart from Boromir.

More than that, and most interesting and something I never thought of before, Sam is one of only two characters to ever willingly give up the One Ring (the other being the enigmatic Tom Bombadil). All other characters who possess the One Ring never willingly hand it over to someone else. Not Bilbo. Not Frodo. Gandalf and Galadriel know better than to even touch it for a second.

Frodo gives it up at the Council of Elrond. He also offers it to Galadriel.

I know Samwise was crucial to Frodo in getting him there but I never considered that in many ways he was the one most responsible for their ultimate success in destroying the One Ring.

Samwise wasn't taxed by carrying the Ring.

That it was Samwise who possessed the stronger constitution that not even Frodo had when it came to resisting the One Ring.

Not really. Samwise wasn't close enough to the Ring for long enough. In the films, at least, the task is split: Frodo carries the mental burden; Samwise the physical.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Frodo gives it up at the Council of Elrond. He also offers it to Galadriel.

Well, we do not know what would have happened if Galadriel said, "Really? I can have the Ring? Awesome, hand it over!"

Bilbo is at first amenable to giving the ring to Gandalf when asked but when it comes to actually having to hand it over he can't...not without prodding.

Samwise wasn't taxed by carrying the Ring.

Is there anyone in Middle Earth who can so much as touch the Ring and not become beholden to it? Even Gandalf and Galadriel (who both have substantial power) refuse to touch it for even a second.

Samwise was holding the Ring and gave it back (as did Bombadil...the only other character to do so). Isildur couldn't give it up after defeating Sauron.

I also though that while the Ring Bearer suffered the worst effects of the Ring it still happened that the Ring exerted an effect on those nearby (to wit Boromir). Although admittedly I am not sure if it was the Ring or Boromir being Boromir.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Books 4 and 6 of a trilogy???

LOTR is three books (the Hobbit not being a part of LOTR).

I am missing something here.

The Fellowship of the Ring is Book 1 and Book 2
The Two Towers is Book 3 and Book 4
The Return of the King is Book 5 and Book 6

Book 1 covers the journey to Rivendell and everything before it
Book 2 runs from the Council of Elrond to the Breaking of the Fellowship
Book 3 follows everyone who isn't Frodo and Sam from Boromir's death to Gandalf and Pippin's arrival on the borders of Gondor
Book 4 follows Frodo and Sam from the Emyn Muil and the taming of Smeagol to Shelob's lair and the capture of Frodo
Book 5 covers the war in Gondor and ends with the last Army of the Free being swamped by Sauron's forces before the Black Gate
Book 6 begins with Sam's rescue of Frodo and covers all the subsequent events up to Frodo's departure into the West.

All of this you can confirm by reaching down your copy of LotR from the bookshelf.

[standingwave]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Books 4 and 6 of a trilogy???

LOTR is three books (the Hobbit not being a part of LOTR).

I am missing something here.

LOTR was originally meant to be published as a single-volume work (divided into 6 'books'). Traditionally, the series has been published in 3 "volumes", with each volume divided into 2 "books".

Books I and II - The Fellowship of the Ring
Books III and IV - The Two Towers
Books V and VI - The Return of the King

ETA: missed it by that -><-much!

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

All of this you can confirm by reaching down your copy of LotR from the bookshelf.

Cool although to be fair I read the books about 30 years ago and my copy is in a box under a shitload of other boxes in my storage locker so I'll take your word for it.

[Superhal]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

This misses a subtle point.

The One Ring was hugely powerful and utterly corrupting. The ONLY creatures that could possibly carry it to its destruction were the Hobbits (and even then in particular Frodo...not just any Hobbit would do). Aragorn would be utterly ruined by the ring. For all of the ass kicking Aragorn does it would come to nothing if the ring is not destroyed.

Yeah the Hobbits are not as bad ass when it comes to mass carnage but they are not supposed to be. Aragorn is holding the line while they sneak in. It's akin to everyone else busting their ass so Luke can sneak in and shoot the exhaust port on the Death Star.

The main difference with Luke though is that his decisions actually drove the plot, his actions actually had an effect, and other characters had to react to what he did. The story of Star Wars is Luke's story, beginning to end (I'm currently denying the existence of the prequels.) Frodo, on the other hand, was literally dragged along to the inevitable conclusion. In character development terms, the key factor is does the character learn, grow, and change between the beginning and end of the story? I would argue that Frodo did none of those, and actually of all the characters in all the books, he did them the least of any of the characters. It actually makes more sense if Frodo was changed to Bilbo, where the character growth and development had already occurred in The Hobbit, and then he could just trundle along in the next three books. When I read the series, I got this really odd feeling that for some reason, Bilbo was supposed to be the Frodo character, but was replaced at the last minute.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

The Fellowship of the Ring is Book 1 and Book 2
The Two Towers is Book 3 and Book 4
The Return of the King is Book 5 and Book 6

Book 1 covers the journey to Rivendell and everything before it
Book 2 runs from the Council of Elrond to the Breaking of the Fellowship
Book 3 follows everyone who isn't Frodo and Sam from Boromir's death to Gandalf and Pippin's arrival on the borders of Gondor
Book 4 follows Frodo and Sam from the Emyn Muil and the taming of Smeagol to Shelob's lair and the capture of Frodo
Book 5 covers the war in Gondor and ends with the last Army of the Free being swamped by Sauron's forces before the Black Gate
Book 6 begins with Sam's rescue of Frodo and covers all the subsequent events up to Frodo's departure into the West.

All of this you can confirm by reaching down your copy of LotR from the bookshelf.

That's right and I mistyped. I should have said G. is an action hero in Books III and V. I counted wrong.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Well, we do not know what would have happened if Galadriel said, "Really? I can have the Ring? Awesome, hand it over!"

I think that's shown in the film: she'd become a dark and terrible queen.

Bilbo is at first amenable to giving the ring to Gandalf when asked but when it comes to actually having to hand it over he can't...not without prodding.

Well yes, but I'm talking about Frodo, who handed over the Ring at the Council of Elrond.

I also though that while the Ring Bearer suffered the worst effects of the Ring it still happened that the Ring exerted an effect on those nearby (to wit Boromir). Although admittedly I am not sure if it was the Ring or Boromir being Boromir.

Boromir was most susceptible, possibly due to his pride.

And Frodo offers the ring to Aragorn, who refuses; Faramir has the opportunity to take the Ring and also refuses.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

They claim Bilbo willingly gave up the ring which Bilbo most certainly did not.

Didn't Gandalf comment on the significance of Bilbo having willingly given up the ring? And if I'm recalling correctly,that makes at least one more person who disagrees with you: Tolkein, the guy who wrote the book. But perhaps I misremember.

[Khadaji]

My thought was point was every one could be hero of sorts. The hobbits all had their heroic moments. Éowyn played her part. Each gave in their own ways to help move things towards the greater good, from the mighty to the less so.

[lawoot]

Originally Posted by Quartz;15347541Well yes, but I'm talking about [b

Frodo[/b], who handed over the Ring at the Council of Elrond.

Well he doesn't actually hand it over to anyone else - he just pulls it out and displays it to the others, and the Ring apparently isn't too happy about THAT:

from The Fellowship of The Ring:
"Bring out the Ring, Frodo!" said Gandalf solemnly. "The time has come. Hold it up, them Boromir will understand the remainder of his riddle."

There was a hush, and all turned their eyes upon Frodo. He was shaken by a sudden shame and fear; and he felt a great reluctance to reveal the Ring, and a loathing of its touch. He wished he was far away. The Ring gleamed and flickered as he held it up before them in his trembling hand.

"Behold Isildur's Bane!" said Elrond.

I imagine the Council would have seen a different hobbit had anyone tried to take it from Frodo.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by lawoot

Well he doesn't actually hand it over to anyone else - he just pulls it out and displays it to the others,

In the film he does: he puts it in the middle of the table.

and the Ring apparently isn't too happy about THAT: I imagine the Council would have seen a different hobbit had anyone tried to take it from Frodo.

I'm not so sure. I think the scene in the book is showing the Ring's growing influence but not yet mastery - compare it with Frodo's behaviour after Samwise rescues him from the orcs and gives him back the Ring.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by JohnT

What you're missing Whack-a-mole, is that this morning George Lucas optioned three new LOTR movie prequels, complete with a Timothy Zahn novelization for each movie, so now the original books are numbered 4, 5, and 6.

"Fly, you fools! (pause) to the theater to watch episode 1..."


No, given that we're going to end up with 3 'The Hobbit' movies with additional material, this serves the purpose of the Prequel Trilogy.

[The Man In Black]

I can't see Sam as a hero. The parts that stick out the most to me are where Sam is beating or abusing the mentally ill addict.

[Chimera]

oh sweet jesus. That again.

[Johnny Bravo]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Is there anyone in Middle Earth who can so much as touch the Ring and not become beholden to it?

Tom Bombadill is completely immune to the power of the ring - so much so that he can't even be trusted to guard it since he'd just forget about it entirely.

[Just1Lurk]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

Didn't Gandalf comment on the significance of Bilbo having willingly given up the ring? And if I'm recalling correctly,that makes at least one more person who disagrees with you: Tolkein, the guy who wrote the book. But perhaps I misremember.

The relevant passage:
"A ring of power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but it's keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else's care - and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo only in history has ever gone beyond playing and really done it. He needed all my help, too."

That's Gandalf speaking. He helped, but ultimately the act was Bilbo's. Sam does get credit for doing it unassisted, though.

[Hello Again]

, the key factor is does the character learn, grow, and change between the beginning and end of the story? I would argue that Frodo did none of those, and actually of all the characters in all the books, he did them the least of any of the characters.

What you're missing is that it's not about Frodo's growth it's about his destruction;' how he sacrificed everything to the cause and is left with nothing. As the book opens Frodo's an average, somewhat wealthy hobbit with no particular problems; by the end he just wants to die and end his mental and physical suffering. Yes, there is a change, a huge change - it's a tragedy though. Lucky for Frodo he can go west instead of just killing himself.

Faramir (of the books) claims to have no interest in the ring and says he wouldn't pick up the ring if he saw it lying in the road. It's true (book) Faramir makes no effort to seize it from Frodo, but what I can't recall is if he ever actually gets a look at it. Is he actually immune to its temptation?

[standingwave]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

Didn't Gandalf comment on the significance of Bilbo having willingly given up the ring? And if I'm recalling correctly,that makes at least one more person who disagrees with you: Tolkein, the guy who wrote the book. But perhaps I misremember.

You remember correctly... Gandalf speaking to Frodo:

'He felt better at once,' said Gandalf. 'But there is only one Power in this world that knows all about the Rings and their effects; and as far as I know there is no Power in the world that knows all about hobbits. Among the Wise I am the only one that goes in for hobbit-lore: an obscure branch of knowledge, but full of surprises. Soft as butter they can be, and yet sometimes as tough as old tree-roots. I think it likely that some would resist the Rings far longer than most of the Wise would believe. I don't think you need worry about Bilbo.

'Of course, he possessed the ring for many years, and used it, so it might take a long while for the influence to wear off - before it was safe for him to see it again, for instance. Otherwise, he might live on for years, quite happily: just stop as he was when he parted with it. For he gave it up in the end of his own accord: an important point. No, I was not troubled about dear Bilbo any more, once he had let the thing go. It is for you that I feel responsible.

[Hello Again]

I think that it's true that Bilbo hesitated at the crucial moment, and that Gandalf used pressure and persuaion. I think it's also true that Bilbo feared disappointing his dear friend Gandalf, more than he wanted the ring, and that was part & parcel of his essential Hobbitishness and the quasi-immunity to the Ring's lure that most Hobbits have because they do not desire what the ring provides, ie, Power and Influence. if the ring produced ham and mead and ripe peaches, Hobbits would be on it like white on rice.

[The Second Stone]

I agree that Sam carries Frodo and inspires Frodo on numerous occasions when Frodo could not have gone on. But Sam would not have done it if not for his caring for Frodo. Would not have left Hobbiton if not for Frodo.

The movies also downplay Merry's knowing what what going on and making plans prior to leaving the Shire.

[Little Nemo]

Tolkein totally bought into the class system of his era. Sam couldn't be the hero, regardless of what he did, because he wasn't the right class to be a hero.

Frodo could have stayed in the Shire, tossed the Ring to Sam and told him, "I say there, Sam old boy, I need you to run this Ring over to Mordor and toss it in the volcano. And try to be back by harvest time. That's a good fellow." and Frodo would still have been the hero of the story because he was the one who sent Sam to destroy the Ring. Tolkein would have just filled the trilogy with chapter after chapter of Frodo sitting in his study reading books about Middle Earth history and linguistics (all of which would have been reproduced in full) with an occasional paragraph about how Sam was making out on his assignment.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Superhal

The main difference with Luke though is that his decisions actually drove the plot, his actions actually had an effect, and other characters had to react to what he did. The story of Star Wars is Luke's story, beginning to end (I'm currently denying the existence of the prequels.) Frodo, on the other hand, was literally dragged along to the inevitable conclusion. In character development terms, the key factor is does the character learn, grow, and change between the beginning and end of the story? I would argue that Frodo did none of those, and actually of all the characters in all the books, he did them the least of any of the characters. It actually makes more sense if Frodo was changed to Bilbo, where the character growth and development had already occurred in The Hobbit, and then he could just trundle along in the next three books. When I read the series, I got this really odd feeling that for some reason, Bilbo was supposed to be the Frodo character, but was replaced at the last minute.

Frodo does change a great deal over the course of the story, but he doesn't grow, he diminishes. The mental torment caused by carrying the ring, and the physical injuries from the Witch King and from Shelob destroy the cheerful, if somewhat intense, Hobbit we see at the start of the book, and at the end we have a distant loner, who is unable to take part in the celebrations that happen because he, basically, saved the world.

I posted a much longer and more researched post earlier today in another LOTR thread which touches on Tolkien's description of Frodo's melancholy and the necessity of his sailing to the West for some measure of healing.

To answer the question in the OP, in the traditional sense, Aragorn is the Hero, at least of what would normally be the main story. However, without the efforts of Sam and Frodo, his efforts would be in vain. Frodo does fail at the last, and in the view of Tolkien, in the letter cited in the post I linked to, the guilt for that failure is one reason for his distress. Sam, of course, could not have carried the ring for the whole of the journey, but never fails in his duty to support Frodo. Ignore the terrible scene in the films where Gollum convinces him to leave for a while, it didn't happen.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Tolkein totally bought into the class system of his era. Sam couldn't be the hero, regardless of what he did, because he wasn't the right class to be a hero.

You don't even know enough about Tolkien to spell his name, let alone to make sweeping and utterly false statements like this.

[Love Rhombus]

Originally Posted by Khadaji

My thought was point was every one could be hero of sorts. The hobbits all had their heroic moments. Éowyn played her part. Each gave in their own ways to help move things towards the greater good, from the mighty to the less so.

Gimli really didn't. I always felt like he got shafted in the books, not contributing in any meaningful way, but I may well be misremembering.

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

In short the premise is that while Frodo is the ring bearer he could not possibly have made it without Sam. Not just a little help, Sam carries the day repeatedly.

More than that, and most interesting and something I never thought of before, Sam is one of only two characters to ever willingly give up the One Ring (the other being the enigmatic Tom Bombadil). All other characters who possess the One Ring never willingly hand it over to someone else. Not Bilbo. Not Frodo. Gandalf and Galadriel know better than to even touch it for a second.

I know Samwise was crucial to Frodo in getting him there but I never considered that in many ways he was the one most responsible for their ultimate success in destroying the One Ring. That it was Samwise who possessed the stronger constitution that not even Frodo had when it came to resisting the One Ring.

All that said it has been years since I have seen the movies and decades since I read the books so opinions?

I always thought so. Sam is the one out there getting the job done, without the navel-gazing that Frodo indulges in. Yes, he's hard on Gollum, but somebody has to be.

Sam's always the one carrying everything, figuring out logistics, pushing Frodo when he needs a push, and doing the heavy lifting.

As to Sam's supposed stronger constitution, I always figured that Tolkein was a product of his culture, and couldn't see the laboring classes as complex enough to suffer from the temptations that plagued Bilbo and Frodo and Boromir and Sauron and all the rest. Kind of unfair to Sam.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Love Rhombus

Gimli really didn't. I always felt like he got shafted in the books, not contributing in any meaningful way, but I may well be misremembering.

I would say so. He, more than anyone, contributes to ending the old feud between Dwarves and Elves. And of course, he did his fair share of fighting along the way.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Steophan

You don't even know enough about Tolkien to spell his name, let alone to make sweeping and utterly false statements like this.

My post is vindicated by your apparent inability to rebut it.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by Just1Lurk

The relevant passage:
"A ring of power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but it's keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else's care - and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo only in history has ever gone beyond playing and really done it. He needed all my help, too."

That's Gandalf speaking. He helped, but ultimately the act was Bilbo's. Sam does get credit for doing it unassisted, though.

Originally Posted by standingwave

You remember correctly... Gandalf speaking to Frodo:

'He felt better at once,' said Gandalf. 'But there is only one Power in this world that knows all about the Rings and their effects; and as far as I know there is no Power in the world that knows all about hobbits. Among the Wise I am the only one that goes in for hobbit-lore: an obscure branch of knowledge, but full of surprises. Soft as butter they can be, and yet sometimes as tough as old tree-roots. I think it likely that some would resist the Rings far longer than most of the Wise would believe. I don't think you need worry about Bilbo.

'Of course, he possessed the ring for many years, and used it, so it might take a long while for the influence to wear off - before it was safe for him to see it again, for instance. Otherwise, he might live on for years, quite happily: just stop as he was when he parted with it. For he gave it up in the end of his own accord: an important point. No, I was not troubled about dear Bilbo any more, once he had let the thing go. It is for you that I feel responsible.

Thanks to both of you for the confirmation!

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Hello Again

Faramir (of the books) claims to have no interest in the ring and says he wouldn't pick up the ring if he saw it lying in the road. It's true (book) Faramir makes no effort to seize it from Frodo, but what I can't recall is if he ever actually gets a look at it. Is he actually immune to its temptation?

He doesn't see it - as soon as Sam blurts out that what undid Boromir was his lust for the Ring, Faramir (not until then having known that the Ring had anything to do with what was going on, nor that it was the "Isildur's Bane" Boromir had gone to ask about) realizes it was too much temptation for his brother and it will be too much for him if he lets it. So he tells Frodo that he does not want to see it and they will not speak of it any more - and they do not.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

My post is vindicated by your apparent inability to rebut it.

Try reading Lord Of The Rings, and you'll see, if you have any ability to comprehend what you're reading, that Tolkien isn't promoting an inflexible class system, and instead is aware that heroes, villains, and ordinary people can come from whatever class.

That you think a man from a lower class background, who fought in the trenches in the First World War and lost most of his friends there, would think that common people couldn't be heroes, is ridiculous. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you know nothing about him, rather than that you are being idiotic.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Try reading Lord Of The Rings, and you'll see, if you have any ability to comprehend what you're reading, that Tolkien isn't promoting an inflexible class system, and instead is aware that heroes, villains, and ordinary people can come from whatever class.

That you think a man from a lower class background, who fought in the trenches in the First World War and lost most of his friends there, would think that common people couldn't be heroes, is ridiculous. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you know nothing about him, rather than that you are being idiotic.

Do you seriously think I would have offered that opinion if I hadn't read Tolkien's books?

Heck, go get your copy of The Hobbit and reread the second chapter. Three cockney trolls named Bert, Tom, and William? You don't see any evidence of class issues in that?

And Tolkien was aware that heroes, villains, and ordinary people can come from whatever class? You want to remind me of who the orcs or goblins or trolls were at the Council of Elrond? Seems like Tolkien had some pretty strong dividing lines in his world and certain people were firmly over there on the bad side. Sure, you could fall down into the lower classes, but no orc was ever going to rise up and become the equal of an elf. An Englishman can go native but a native can't become English.

[Little Nemo]

I will say this. Tolkien was more egalitarian than most of his predecessors. Fantasy heroes had usually been kings and queens and princes and princesses. Tolkien took his heroes from the middle class (his own class - Tolkien would have been horrified to hear you describe his background as lower class). The Bagginses were essentially landed gentry.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Do you seriously think I would have offered that opinion if I hadn't read Tolkien's books?

I hoped so, but I was obviously wrong.

Heck, go get your copy of The Hobbit and reread the second chapter. Three cockney trolls named Bert, Tom, and William? You don't see any evidence of class issues in that?

Yes, it's humour based around class issues. The opposite situation occurs when the Dwarves meet Beorn, who is about as rustic as it's possible to get, and he comes off as noble and the upper-class Dwarves as ridiculous.

And Tolkien was aware that heroes, villains, and ordinary people can come from whatever class? You want to remind me of who the orcs or goblins or trolls were at the Council of Elrond? Seems like Tolkien had some pretty strong dividing lines in his world and certain people were firmly over there on the bad side. Sure, you could fall down into the lower classes, but no orc was ever going to rise up and become the equal of an elf. An Englishman can go native but a native can't become English.

You are surprised that monsters created by the force of Evil Incarnate are irredeemably evil, and not invited to discuss tactics over tea with their sworn enemies? That has precisely nothing to do with class. You'd have a better chance using that argument to claim there's inherent racism in the stories.

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Do you seriously think I would have offered that opinion if I hadn't read Tolkien's books?

Heck, go get your copy of The Hobbit and reread the second chapter. Three cockney trolls named Bert, Tom, and William? You don't see any evidence of class issues in that?

And Tolkien was aware that heroes, villains, and ordinary people can come from whatever class? You want to remind me of who the orcs or goblins or trolls were at the Council of Elrond? Seems like Tolkien had some pretty strong dividing lines in his world and certain people were firmly over there on the bad side. Sure, you could fall down into the lower classes, but no orc was ever going to rise up and become the equal of an elf. An Englishman can go native but a native can't become English.

I'm not sure the names of the trolls mean much. Surely the name "William", if not the others too, was perfectly "respectable" at the time?

You could also argue that, although Frodo is middle class in the Shire, the Hobbits as a whole represent a lower class and there are several references to Hobbits being underestimated and ignored (see standingwave's post). They're generally considered inconsequential, much as the "Proles" in Nineteen Eighty-Four are. The Elves, Men and Dwarves are all intentionally made to look slightly arrogant in their misjudgement of "Halflings", but if I remember rightly the smart ones normally seemed to end up saying how they finally appreciate Hobbits. And of course in the end they (whether you think it's Frodo or Sam) save the day.

A quick look at Wikipedia gives this quote, supposedly from Tolkien:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

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.

On the other hand, Aragorn is destined to be awesome simply for being the distance heir to a king of the master race.

Either way, although I'm agreeing with Steophan on the class matter I can't say I agree with his tone.

[Gukumatz]

Mod Note:

People in this thread need to calm down.

- Gukumatz,
(Filling in)

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Bozuit

A quick look at Wikipedia gives this quote, supposedly from Tolkien:

I think that's actually quite a telling post. If those privates and batsmen were far superior to Tolkien, why was he commanding them instead of them commanding him?

The British Army in Tolkien's time was very class-based and Tolkien's statement reflected this. Tolkien wasn't an officer because he was better than his enlisted men - he admits that wasn't the case. He was an officer because he was from the middle class and they were enlisted men because they were from the working class. Tolkien and his contemporaries just saw that as natural and never questioned it.

And by the same token, Frodo was the leader and Samwise was the follower, regardless of which of them was more capable. It was just part of the order of the world.

Originally Posted by Steophan

You are surprised that monsters created by the force of Evil Incarnate are irredeemably evil

Let me point out the obvious. There were no monsters created by the force of Evil Incarnate. All the monsters in the books were created by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. If there were races or groups that were irredeemably evil by their very nature and had no possibility of good in them, it's because that's the way Tolkien imagined them to be. He's the one who wrote people as being what they are born into and as having no ability to rise above their station in life. That sounds to me like a world that would be invented by somebody who's a strong believer in a class system.

[Johnny Bravo]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

He's the one who wrote people as being what they are born into and as having no ability to rise above their station in life. That sounds to me like a world that would be invented by somebody who's a strong believer in a class system.

Except for the whole bit at the end, where Frodo, Samwise, and Gimli all go west by virtue of their deeds and nothing more. If that's not "rising above their station in life," I don't know what is.

Valinor is, after all, the ultimate gated community.