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

[Saltire]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

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.

I think you have to acknowledge that some creatures being irredeemably evil is just a trope of folklore that existed long before Tolkien came along. I think he put it into his stories to reflect the standards of folk storytelling. He wasn't trying to prop up the class system, nor to knock it down.

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

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.

He doesn't necessarily mean he viewed them as potentially superior officers. I took it to mean he considered them braver, stronger or generally better people.

[Steophan]

Tolkien was brought up by his mother until her death when he was twelve, after his father's death when Tolkien was an infant. After his mother's death, he was raised by his Catholic Priest. This was in no way a privileged upbringing, rather the opposite. He excelled at his studies, and won a scholarship to one of the top schools in the country, before going up to Oxford.

He was an officer because of his education, not his class - unless you consider that this education raised his class, in which case, it's an argument his belief that class is immutable, and that he assumed people should know their place. Indeed, his stories are full of people who do not know their place, and fight to improve their lot, and they are the heroes. Whether it's Sam discovering the inner strength to support Frodo on his journey, and later become mayor of the SHire for half his life, Eowyn riding to battle and killing the Witch King, Thorin refusing his status as an exile and fighting - and dying - to reclaim his lands for his people, or Beren stealing the Silmaril from Morgoth to win the hand of Luthien despite him being human and her an Elf, Tolkien's heroes are all those who succeed despite their background and circumstances.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Steophan

He was an officer because of his education, not his class - unless you consider that this education raised his class, in which case, it's an argument his belief that class is immutable, and that he assumed people should know their place. Indeed, his stories are full of people who do not know their place, and fight to improve their lot, and they are the heroes.

Even Aragorn didn't start the journey intending to become King on Gondor, and in fact had previously left a good chance to do that alone. He was a hard-bitten ranger on the outskirts of civilization. Yes, he was a leader among the Rangers, but did not by any stretch look or act much like the Gondorian elite. In fact, his original plan seems to have been to go into Mordor with Frodo, a probable death sentence.

And this is the guy who is *most* buried in a specific social class. Legolas is an Elven prince but runs around using his skills to fight just like everyone else. Dwarves seem to have rather flexible social rank in any case, but Gimli is definitely connected, and he's right there down on the field ready to do battle like a common soldier (OK, uncommon soldier).

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

Even Aragorn didn't start the journey intending to become King on Gondor, and in fact had previously left a good chance to do that alone. He was a hard-bitten ranger on the outskirts of civilization. Yes, he was a leader among the Rangers, but did not by any stretch look or act much like the Gondorian elite. In fact, his original plan seems to have been to go into Mordor with Frodo, a probable death sentence.

I'd argue this supports my point. Aragorn didn't particularly want to be a King and he had other goals in life. But Tolkien didn't see this as an acceptable outcome. The message of the book is that Aragorn was born to be a King and he should therefore restore the natural order by accepting the role of being a king. It's a violation of the social order for somebody like act outside their station. Gondor's problems arose from Denethor and Boromir trying to be kings instead of just stewards. The problem was resolved by Faramir stepping aside and accepting his role as steward to the real king, Aragorn.

And again, this isn't real history. It all happened because Tolkien wrote it that way. It was Tolkien's decision to resolve a major plotline by everyone going to the place they were supposed to hold by birth. Tolkien could have just as easily have had Aragorn renounce his claim to the throne and give it to Faramir with a pronouncement that the House of Huron had earned the kingship by their centuries of service to Gondor.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I'd argue this supports my point. Aragorn didn't particularly want to be a King and he had other goals in life.

Not at all. He was brought up to know his birthright, and strongly desired to claim it, not least because it would allow him to marry Arwen. There's no sign of any goals that aren't tied to this.

But Tolkien didn't see this as an acceptable outcome. The message of the book is that Aragorn was born to be a King and he should therefore restore the natural order by accepting the role of being a king. It's a violation of the social order for somebody like act outside their station. Gondor's problems arose from Denethor and Boromir trying to be kings instead of just stewards. The problem was resolved by Faramir stepping aside and accepting his role as steward to the real king, Aragorn.

Gondor's problems arose because Denethor was using his Palantir, and Sauron was manipulating what he was seeing to remove all hope of victory from him. Not that there was much hope of victory anyway, and Denethor was facing the loss of Gondor, and with it any hope for freedom for Man. That, combined with the loss of his favourite son, drove him mad at the time Gondor needed the leadership he would otherwise have been able to provide.

Boromir recognised Aragorn as his king from the beginning of their friendship, and again at his death. Neither he nor his father attempted to claim the throne, and Denethor rejects having any right to it - but also considers that Aragorn has to earn his throne, not simply claim it. Which he does.

Aragorn, of course, is superior to other men, by virtue of having Elves and a Goddess in his ancestry, a situation that doesn't really have a parallel in the real world. The story is not an allegory for anything, and cannot really be forced to be one. It's a fantastical mythology, and works best when understood as such.

And again, this isn't real history. It all happened because Tolkien wrote it that way. It was Tolkien's decision to resolve a major plotline by everyone going to the place they were supposed to hold by birth. Tolkien could have just as easily have had Aragorn renounce his claim to the throne and give it to Faramir with a pronouncement that the House of Huron had earned the kingship by their centuries of service to Gondor.

Faramir would have refused. He would have had to let Boromir live for that to happen, then the story would be entirely different. That said, such a story could have worked, but would have shown someone working to rise above their place just as much as the current story does.

Aragorn does not become king because of who he is, but because of what he does. That no-one else could have done it does not mean it is inevitable that he will.

[Little Nemo]

Steophan, you seem to be treating the story as if it was a historical event that Tolkien was merely reporting. As I'm sure you know, this is fiction. Nothing was in the story because it happened that way. Everything that happened is there because Tolkien chose it to happen that way. So it's not just the way Tolkien wrote about events but the events themselves that indicate Tolkien's views.

Aragorn isn't superior to other men because he is partly descended from elves. Aragorn is superior to other men because Tolkien wrote him that way. Aragorn didn't become king because it was his long-foretold destiny. Aragorn became king because Tolkien wrote that he did on page 304.

And I'm not saying that The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings is an allegory of the British class system. They're great works and they can't be reduced to such a simple level. But they're works that were written by somebody who firmly believed in a class system and they reflect their author's beliefs.

[Johnny Bravo]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It was Tolkien's decision to resolve a major plotline by everyone going to the place they were supposed to hold by birth.

You're still only focusing on the parts of the story that support your argument. Plenty of folks in the thread have pointed out lots of plot elements that involve characters acting 'outside' their station. What about them?

Saying that context and background don't matter because "Tolkien wrote him that way" is pretty weak literary criticism.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo

You're still only focusing on the parts of the story that support your argument.

Obviously. Everyone discussing the books (or, for that matter, any other subject) is obviously going to present the evidence that they feels backs up what they're saying. How else is a debate supposed to work?

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo

Plenty of folks in the thread have pointed out lots of plot elements that involve characters acting 'outside' their station. What about them?

I have addressed several of the particular points others have made. But I don't want to be one of those people who posts five page long rebuttals where they go through other people's posts line-by-line. (It's getting near the edge here and this is only three sections.)

If there's some particular point you'd like me to address, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo

Saying that context and background don't matter because "Tolkien wrote him that way" is pretty weak literary criticism.

I very much disagree. I think judging an artistic work in view of its author's intent is a very important critical approach. I might even argue it should be the primary approach to judging an artistic work.

When you read Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for example, you're not reading what Huckleberry Finn and Jim and Tom Sawyer did. You're reading what Samuel Clemens did. That, to me, is an incredibly important point. You can't forget that novels have no independent existence - they only exist because authors write them.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I think judging an artistic work in view of its author's intent is a very important critical approach. I might even argue it should be the primary approach to judging an artistic work.

Ah, so you'll accept that Tolkien was creating a mythical past with no relevance to modern society, and no applicability to it then? Because that was his stated aim.

[Johnny Bravo]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I think judging an artistic work in view of its author's intent is a very important critical approach.

I totally agree with you. The problem is that you're hand-waving away all of Tolkein's vast histories and notes (and there's a LOT of it) in order to create a false context and intent.

You'd have a much better shot (though still a specious one, IMO) at arguing that LotR is racist, not classist.

Though he was quite classy.

[the_diego]

Frodo, more than Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf or any of the elves/half-elves.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Ah, so you'll accept that Tolkien was creating a mythical past with no relevance to modern society, and no applicability to it then? Because that was his stated aim.

Authors are only human. They can sometimes be blind to their own idiosyncrasies, just as anyone else can be.

I wrote that we can judge a work by its author's intent. That doesn't mean we have to accept that an author always achieved his intent. Tolkien may have said that it was his intent to create a setting with no connection with the modern society he lived in. But is that really possible? I don't see how any author can completely divorce himself from his work. And you yourself have claimed that Tolkien's life influenced his work. The only difference between us is we disagree on the specific directions in which his life influenced his work.

While I've said that I see evidence of a belief in a class system in Tolkien's work, I've never said it was the most important part of that work. I stand by my opinion that it's there but it's a minor aspect of his work. Overall, I imagine we're mostly in agreement over Tolkien. So I don't see why you need to make such a big issue out of this one minor area in which we disagree.

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Tolkien was brought up by his mother until her death when he was twelve, after his father's death when Tolkien was an infant. After his mother's death, he was raised by his Catholic Priest. This was in no way a privileged upbringing, rather the opposite. He excelled at his studies, and won a scholarship to one of the top schools in the country, before going up to Oxford.

He was an officer because of his education, not his class - unless you consider that this education raised his class, in which case, it's an argument his belief that class is immutable, and that he assumed people should know their place. Indeed, his stories are full of people who do not know their place, and fight to improve their lot, and they are the heroes. Whether it's Sam discovering the inner strength to support Frodo on his journey, and later become mayor of the SHire for half his life, Eowyn riding to battle and killing the Witch King, Thorin refusing his status as an exile and fighting - and dying - to reclaim his lands for his people, or Beren stealing the Silmaril from Morgoth to win the hand of Luthien despite him being human and her an Elf, Tolkien's heroes are all those who succeed despite their background and circumstances.

Pretty good post I think.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Steophan, you seem to be treating the story as if it was a historical event that Tolkien was merely reporting. As I'm sure you know, this is fiction. Nothing was in the story because it happened that way. Everything that happened is there because Tolkien chose it to happen that way. So it's not just the way Tolkien wrote about events but the events themselves that indicate Tolkien's views.

Aragorn isn't superior to other men because he is partly descended from elves. Aragorn is superior to other men because Tolkien wrote him that way. Aragorn didn't become king because it was his long-foretold destiny. Aragorn became king because Tolkien wrote that he did on page 304.

And I'm not saying that The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings is an allegory of the British class system. They're great works and they can't be reduced to such a simple level. But they're works that were written by somebody who firmly believed in a class system and they reflect their author's beliefs.

The majority of stories have "heroes", and fantasy especially is full of them. And most heroes don't work very well if they're not somehow superior to the competition. Saying "Aragorn is superior because Tolkien wrote him that way" is making it too simple. Every story has characters that are superior but what matters is how the author justifies that superiority. And to look at that it helps to effectively treat the story as a historical event reported by the author.

[Airk]

Originally Posted by Steophan

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.

It's also humour based around language. There's a lot of this in The Hobbit, because it is, fundamentally, a children's book.

Gondor's problems arose from Denethor and Boromir trying to be kings instead of just stewards.

I'm sorry, but THIS is completely unsupported, and makes you look like you are grasping at straws with your argument. Gondor's problems ACTUALLY arouse from the arrogance of their king back in the day, and Denethor, Boromir, and the other stewards have been doing a fine job of fighting the good fight hundreds of years. If anything, the problems of Gondor -cause- the difficulties that Denethor and Boromir experience, not the reverse. Similarly, Faramir is rewarded with a princedom for having been a good Steward.

To try to avoid making this a total hijack post, no, I don't think Sam is "the real hero" or somesuch. I think to say that is to oversimplify the work tremendously. Was Sam of crucial importance? Absolutely. But so was Frodo. So was Gandalf. And none of them follow a particularly archetypical character arc. I don't think it's fair to say that any of them are the "real hero" of the tale.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Airk

Gondor's problems ACTUALLY arouse from the arrogance of their king back in the day, and Denethor, Boromir, and the other stewards have been doing a fine job of fighting the good fight hundreds of years. If anything, the problems of Gondor -cause- the difficulties that Denethor and Boromir experience, not the reverse. Similarly, Faramir is rewarded with a princedom for having been a good Steward.

You do realize that's not the real history of Gondor, right?

[Airk]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You do realize that's not the real history of Gondor, right?

Right. Tolkien set up the causes so that he'd have the effect he wanted. And the effect that he wanted (and wrote) is not the effect you said.

Therefore, your argument is still wrong.

Look:

Character A shoots character B.
Character B dies.

Character B died because the author wrote that Character A shot him. We get it. That doesn't make it okay for you to argue that Character B died because he had sudden heart attack.

Gondor's problems, AS WRITTEN, did not occur as a result of anything Denethor or Boromir did, OR anything that Tolkien had them do. There is no support for you to say this.

[smiling bandit]

Character starting and end points:

Bilbo: A well-off middle-class Hobbit of good means but no particular amibition, or particular distinciton outside of being fairly bright and fairly well-studied.

Saves a pack of skilled Dwarven fighters several times. Burgles Smaug. Helps arrange a peace between the Wood Elves, the men of Laketown, and the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain. Goes on adventure after adventure and becomes a good friend to Elrond and Gandalf, among other.

Frodo: A well-off middle-class Hobbit of good means but no particular amibition, or particular distinciton outside of being fairly bright and fairly well-studied.

Saves the world.

Samwise: begins as a Gardener.

Saves the world and then becomes Mayor, as well as arguably the true author of Lord of the Rings.

I could continue on, but I don't see the need. Basically, every character rises not to their "natural station" but to something above what they ever imagined themselves doing, or even being capable of. Gimli and Legolas, slightly altering that idea, more or less forgot their station and went on doing something else instead.

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

Samwise: begins as a Gardener.

Saves the world and then becomes Mayor, as well as arguably the true author of Lord of the Rings.

Yeah, in his version.

[the_diego]

Sam and Frodo had equal strength over the ring but Frodo was ever held the mightiest halfling who ever lived.

[Little Nemo]

Coincidentally, there's a new article just posted today at the Cracked website. It's about how people can be influenced by fiction without realizing it. It's mainly about movies not books but I think its points apply in general. The article even uses Frodo and The Lord of the Rings as an example (although of a different issue). He also points out how resistant people are to acknowledging how much they are subconsciously influenced by fiction.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

While I've said that I see evidence of a belief in a class system in Tolkien's work, I've never said it was the most important part of that work.

Moreover, what we see in the books is not so much "belief IN a class system" in the sense of advocacy of a class system, but rather recognition of the well-entrenched existence of a class system as part of the social norms appropriate to a work of fiction that is consciously assuming the mantle of archaic mythology.

That is, I don't think the class roles in LOTR necessarily tell us much about Tolkien's own views concerning class in modern society. They do make it clear, however, that Tolkien saw such class roles as indispensable to the type of legendary-saga storytelling he was trying to do.

Trying to write an epic that evoked ancient Germanic folklore and bardic genres, without putting in kings achieving heroic deeds, jolly peasants, bustling bourgeois, and so on would be simply silly. I think anything Tolkien might have been trying to say or even inadvertently proclaiming about his opinion of the class system(s) of his day was outweighed by his desire to avoid anachronism.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Tolkien's own views concerning class in modern society.

Not sure, but he did comment on class in old-fashioned rural England, which engaged him much more than modern society: "To tip your hat to the squire is damn bad for him, but it's damn good for you." In other words, the upper class has their egos fed, which is a bad thing because too much egotism is a bad thing, but the lower classes sensibly prune their egos with the stratified class system, and are better people for it. Not sure what I just said. But he seems to be supporting it while subtly criticizing it.

[Ethilrist]

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.

Tom-Tom Bombadil: "Meesa gonna stink up da WHOLE movie..."

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Johanna

Not sure, but he did comment on class in old-fashioned rural England, which engaged him much more than modern society: "To tip your hat to the squire is damn bad for him, but it's damn good for you." In other words, the upper class has their egos fed, which is a bad thing because too much egotism is a bad thing, but the lower classes sensibly prune their egos with the stratified class system, and are better people for it. Not sure what I just said. But he seems to be supporting it while subtly criticizing it.

Of course some of the Shire squirearchy are the right sort for all the hat-tipping. The Took, as Thain of the Shire, objects to Lotho's antics even though he himself hasn't attempted to exert his theoretical privileges in living memory, and makes the Took country a no-go area for Sharkey's men regardless of inconvenience, and the Master of Buckland seems blameless too. It seems to be mainly those who are asquiring to stations above their proper one who are prone to the damn-badness - although in the lower strata things can go badly wrong too; Ted Sandyman's on a par with Sam Gamgee but ends up a venal sneak and quisling.

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by Ethilrist

Tom-Tom Bombadil: "Meesa gonna stink up da WHOLE movie..."

I knew some people hate Tom Bombadil but this is taking the bullying too far.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Johanna

Not sure, but he did comment on class in old-fashioned rural England, which engaged him much more than modern society: "To tip your hat to the squire is damn bad for him, but it's damn good for you." In other words, the upper class has their egos fed, which is a bad thing because too much egotism is a bad thing, but the lower classes sensibly prune their egos with the stratified class system, and are better people for it. Not sure what I just said. But he seems to be supporting it while subtly criticizing it.

Sure, I don't deny that Tolkien had his own personal views on the class system of his day (and the traditional social patterns immediately preceding his day), and I don't dispute any biographical evidence that at least some of those views were positive. I'm just skeptical that we can reliably discern anything significant about those views from his portrayal of class roles in LoTR and the rest of his "mythological fiction".

He was trying to create for LoTR a world that would seem to contemporary readers both archaic and alien and yet natural and familiar. The Middle-earth works were supposed to produce some of the same responses in Anglophones that the genuine ancient Norse sagas and their ilk did in other Germanic or Celtic peoples: both "wow, this is completely unrealistic and mythical with all the trolls and fairies and magic swords and what have you", and also "ah yes, that's us: this is part of the history of my own people".

There's no way Tolkien could have given Middle-earth that aroma of strange half-recognition for English-speaking readers without incorporating into it some form of the traditional social class structure that was such an integral part of history for them.

[Johanna]

Lotho was of the local gentry and felt entitled when he took over Bag End and declared himself Boss and went all Oswald Mosely on the poor little hobbos. The closest literary parallel I can think of it Senator Trueba (a powerful rural landowner) in The House of the Spirits by Isabel Allende, who supported a brutal right-wing coup thinking it would bolster his class in society, but found out too late the ruffian forces he'd help unleash would destroy him too.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Sure, I don't deny that Tolkien had his own personal views on the class system of his day (and the traditional social patterns immediately preceding his day), and I don't dispute any biographical evidence that at least some of those views were positive. I'm just skeptical that we can reliably discern anything significant about those views from his portrayal of class roles in LoTR and the rest of his "mythological fiction".

He was trying to create for LoTR a world that would seem to contemporary readers both archaic and alien and yet natural and familiar. The Middle-earth works were supposed to produce some of the same responses in Anglophones that the genuine ancient Norse sagas and their ilk did in other Germanic or Celtic peoples: both "wow, this is completely unrealistic and mythical with all the trolls and fairies and magic swords and what have you", and also "ah yes, that's us: this is part of the history of my own people".

There's no way Tolkien could have given Middle-earth that aroma of strange half-recognition for English-speaking readers without incorporating into it some form of the traditional social class structure that was such an integral part of history for them.

Exactly. Along those lines, I think it's telling that his "damn bad" and "damn good" diction in that quote is so clunky-sounding, you can't even recognize the writer of that sentence as the author of LotR or Silmarillion, author of polished and elegant prose like

Few other griefs amid the ill chances of this world have more bitterness and shame for a man's heart than to behold the love of a lady so fair and brave that cannot be returned.

or

She spoke no word; but being filled with love Elwë came to her and took her hand, and straightaway a spell was laid on him, so that they stood thus while long years were measured by the wheeling stars above them; and the trees of Nan Elmoth grew tall and dark before they spoke any word.

I guess the quote shows that in his off hours, when he wasn't wearing his Mythopoeic Subcreator hat, he may have privately subsided into the persona of Cranky Old White Guy. I've seen it happen to <sigh> so many brilliant minds.

[Gagundathar]

Gosh, Johanna, that is a remarkable bit of insight. Thanks.

[Slow Moving Vehicle]

I remember discussing this very question in my "Fantasy Lit" class back in college. The professor pointed out that in classical romantic "quest" fiction, the hero successfully ends his quest with his society restored and he himself in his optimal relation to it, fitting in like a key in a lock. Classically, he is socially elevated and married. (I think G.K. Chesterton actually said that the natural end of the hero's tale is a wedding.)

So by this standard - Tolkien was a literary scholar, after all - Sam is indeed the hero of LoTR. He earns the rewards of the virtuous knight errant triumphant, and finishes the novel a husband and a father, Mayor of Hobbiton and master of Bag End, fully integrated in the restored order of creation. He has the very last line of the story: "I'm back."

Frodo, on the other hand, is the Tragic Hero, who never does find healing in the world. He has to leave it to find peace. And let's not forget that Frodo, heroic as he is, failed his Quest.