Why Frodo is so misunderstood and underrated character?

[Lotrelf]

Okay, this has been my question since the day I finished the books last year and joined the Facebook pages of LotR. It's quite common to see people degrading Frodo most of the time. Like, "Frodo wouldn't have made it without Sam," "Frodo's quest would have been in vain if not for Gollum." or "Frodo didn't do a ****.." and blah blah! Many, I see, completly misinterprete his character. For example there was a thread entitled Failure and Punishment where the author of the book (whose ideas about Frodo were reason of the thread) made many silly comments. Rest, I see people talking about him from start to the end in all the negative terms: His decision to go to Mordor in Rivendell is said to be his desire to not being able to part with the Ring; while in reality it is complete the opposite. His mercy for Gollum is said to be "his selfish desire to have a way for himself to survive" while books speak completly the opposite. His so-called failure is deemed as a sign "of weakness" and by some "of pride". Books completly speak otherwise. His sacrifice is said to be of lesser degree than it actually is. And worst of all, his departure from ME is believed to be "his desire to enjoy the life/bliss in the UL." While reading the books, I nowhere got these ideas, so how come many readers ignore there facts clearly written the book and degrade Frodo?

I really apologise for the thoughts not being not proper for now. I hope it all made sense.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Like, "Frodo wouldn't have made it without Sam,"

But this statement is undoubtedly true. To claim otherwise would be the opposite of "degrading".

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

"Frodo's quest would have been in vain if not for Gollum."

This statement is true aswell. Evidently Frodo claimed all the power the ring could offer. He failed. That´s not to say that I don´t understand this failure. I guess no person in ME would have been able to destroy the ring willingly.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Rest, I see people talking about him from start to the end in all the negative terms: His decision to go to Mordor in Rivendell is said to be his desire to not being able to part with the Ring; while in reality it is complete the opposite.

I don´t know if it is the "complete opposite". I would rather say that both might be true. Frodo feels responsible for the fate of the ring. Wishing not to depart from the ring is just the other side of the coin. I guess they both mark the end of a spectrum.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

His mercy for Gollum is said to be "his selfish desire to have a way for himself to survive" while books speak completly the opposite.

Again, there is truth in this statement. However, I wouldn´t argue that his actions regarding Gollum are solely motivated by selfishness. He feels compassion towards Gollum. But in order to feel this kind of sympathy there has to be some kind of self-reference! So called selfishness doesn´t have to be a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

His so-called failure is deemed as a sign "of weakness" and by some "of pride". Books completly speak otherwise.

As I said before, his failure is a sign of weakness, and pride aswell. But they are not personal flaws of his character per se, but structural, inherent character traits of all persons.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

And worst of all, his departure from ME is believed to be "his desire to enjoy the life/bliss in the UL." While reading the books, I nowhere got these ideas, so how come many readers ignore there facts clearly written the book and degrade Frodo?

Hm, I don´t see the problem here. Frodo left ME because he felt a kind of unrest which could not be healed there. His wish to live a life without this pain might be inspired by self interest, but I wouldn´t condemn him for this.

P.S. It would be neat if you adress the, so called, clearly written facts. Often times you claim that the book says the complete opposite. Maybe you could give us examples of this, or explicate. In many cases I really don´t know what you a refering to and just stating that they are there is not very helpful.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Leaf

But this statement is undoubtedly true. To claim otherwise would be the opposide of "degrading".

I never claimed it was wrong. All I meant the help that Sam provided doesn't degrade the struggle that Frodo did. Most of the readers tend to ignore this. They in order to think or say "Frodo wouldn't have gotten that far without Sam" completly overlook the battle Frodo fought and Sam didn't. I don't think it's really appropriate to do so and ignore Frodo like this.

This statement is true aswell.

Again, I didn't mean it to be wrong. But this one, too, doesn't prove Gollum ever struggled as much Frodo did. So, for Gollum and his efforts, ignoring Frodo is absolute wrong. The problem is, I think, most people go for the success. They hardly notice the struggle of an individual. This is how the world works. And as Brain Games says, we see things the way we are used to, so we do see things this way. What majority says or thinks is not often true.

I don�0…7t know if it is the "complete opposite". I would rather say that both might be true. Frodo feels responsible for the fate of the ring. Wishing not to depart from the ring is just the other side of the coin. I guess they both mark the end of a spectrum.

Hm, I don't see the problem here. Frodo left ME because he felt a kind of unrest which could not be healed there. His wish to live a life without this pain might be inspired by self interest, but I wouldn't condemn him for this.

I forgot to mention something else: "He abandoned Sam to enjoy bliss in UL." This statement is completly wrong. IIRC, Professor Tolkien nowhere mentions "Frodo wanted healing", he says, "Frodo needed healing." Frodo went to UL not only because he wanted to, but also because if he didn't Sam would be "torn in two". The reason Frodo left can't be only for his own welfare but that of Sam's too. I hope I haven't confused you now. I tried to be as clear as possible.

[Leaf]

Well, the problem for me is that I never saw anyone making such claims until you brought them up in this thread. For all I know this could be strawman arguments. But I woulnd't really care if this is indeed the case either. Frodo's reputation among readers doesn't concern me at all. I just wanted to answer to some of your statements in a contentual fashion. I'm really not interested in a discussion about who is blaming Frodo or if Frodo deserves the blame.

[FerniesApple]

Perhaps some people critisize Frodo because they fundamentally dont understand the depth of his character, or they see him through the corrupting lens of 21st century values, ie heros MUST be big butch sword weilding aggressive types. They MUST be manly if they are male, they are expecting Frodo to 'man up' and kick some butt. He doesnt. He is gentle and vulnerable to the bitter end. He is an unlikely hero and some people just dont get it. Its their loss.

[Leaf]

You are confusing me, FerniesApple. According to your last post in the Movie area Book-Frodo is an aggressive guy who's fighting alot. Now it's the complete opposite?! Or are you talking about the movies, again? Besides I have never seen anyone complaining that Frodo should go full Conan. This is such an absurd claim...