Well, Frodo, it's nice to see you again, but...

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Noting Anguirel's interesting thread, and blatantly
copying it's opening observation:
"I was wondering if I would have enjoyed The Lord of the Rings rather more had Frodo stayed dead.

The task ahead for Sam and Gollum would be trickier; the story darker and more fraught with danger and death."
========================
I think it would have been quite interesting if Shelob
had killed Frodo and Sam had had to carry out the quest
with only Gollum as a hindrance/help/guide? On the one hand
he would have had the Ring a shorter time, and apparently
was not as quickly liable to its allure, but then again, he would
have been alone to contend with Gollum and had less of a
knowledge of the Ring. But I think some
rewriting of Frodo's death, to make it a bit more "noble"
might have been in order. (And it might have preempted some
critics complaints that the Fellowship all (E. Muir having forgotten
Boromir) survived.

And if Gandalf had not returned, why not have Aragorn or Imrahil
request the eagles to search for survivors and so save Sam?

[Mithalwen]

Well Frodo wasn't actually technically dead but I get your point. It is interesting. While Frodo could not have got to Orodruin without Sam I think, despite his greater physical strength, Sam needed Frodo to. I am not sure he would have been as good at getting himself to the fire and Gollum would have been much more agressive sooner to a lone, hated hobbit.

However I think that, if I were being hyper critical, Tolkien played the" seems dead/mortally wounded but isn't" card slightly too often - especially with Frodo.. btu that is something perhaps for a separate thread.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

However I think that, if I were being hyper critical, Tolkien played the Frodo" seems dead/mortally wounded but isn't" card slightly too often ...

That's a trick he learned from Peter Jackson ...

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Yes, it was much more noticible in the films.

[Firefoot]

Because Tolkien would have earned my undying spite if he had killed off Frodo...

Seriously, though, one thing that I have discovered as a writer is that there tends to be a "right" time and a "wrong" time to kill characters. You generally do not kill of characters when they have more to do and further to grow. It would have been easy to kill Frodo off, but it would not be right. If anything, I would kill him off at Mt. Doom, which might be more logically than the Eagles coming in from nowhere and rescuing him, but Frodo's journey was not complete, per se.

For example, with Boromir's death, it effectually "completes" his story. He did not have to die; Tolkien could have let him live and gone on with different plot wrinkles. But he had reached the point where he wanted to go with Boromir, so killing him worked. Likewise, there really wasn't anywhere more for Theoden to go when he died. He had been rid of Saruman, had led his people to battle, and was basically at peace. Tolkien could have had him go home to keep ruling, but his story was essentially finished. The third example I can think of is Denethor - his death was the logical and best way for his story to end. For him, it doesn't get better, it just gets worse, and his death is a culmination.

But not so with Frodo. Frodo is still growing and changing to the very end of the book; killing him off at Shelob's Lair or Mt. Doom is not the logical or right place for him to end.

[davem]

Can only agree with Firefoot. LotR is not the story of the destruction of the Ring, it is the story of the end of an epoch & Frodo's story is that greater story in microcosm. To kill off Frodo & just have Sam go on & destroy the Ring may have been interesting enough, but it would have been a different story & probably meant less.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

However I think that, if I were being hyper critical, Tolkien played the Frodo" seems dead/mortally wounded but isn't" card slightly too often - especially with Frodo..

I think its the same as the Gandalf case. Tolkien never intended Frodo to die at that point, but he did intend for Sam (we readers actually only by extension) to believe it too, because its the ideal way for him to lift Sam to the heroic level, which is necessary for the rest of the story. Up to that point Sam has basically been Sancho to Frodo's Quixote. From this point Sam will have increasingly to become the hero, as Frodo 'fades'.

Its in this episode that Sam finally becomes a three dimensional character in his own right as opposed to comic relief or handy crutch for Frodo to lean on. In the final chapters he must become more than that - he must carry the emotional weight of the story as Frodo becomes more & more distant.

Of course, Frodo will 'surface' again later & take up that burden himself once more. But the effect, the power of the Ring, is brought home to us by seeing its effect on Frodo on the trek through Mordor & we can only see that effect through another's eyes.

Or something like that..

[Folwren]

Funny, but the thought for such a topic entered my head not two days ago.

It's interesting to think about. It would have been heart breaking if Frodo had really died, but p'raps not so heart breaking as it ended up being anyway.

The questions that I see are-
Could Sam have made it to Mount Doom alone and with Gollum's opposition and fighting?

Could Sam have dropped the Ring into the Cracks of Mount Doom, or would have ended up as Frodo did and been unable to do it?

The answers to these questions go both ways. Say Sam reaches Mount Doom by himself. Gollum jumps on top of him and fights for the Ring on the slopes of the mountain. Sam now is not only fighting for his own life, but also for possession of the Ring. More likely than not, he won't have the pity he had on him in the book and he'll just kill him with his sword.

If Sam has pity on him, he runs away. . .

If Sam can't throw the ring into the fire, Gollum jumps up on top of him and bites his finger off and then leaps into the fire and everything ends all happy like.

If Sam killed Gollum earlier then clearly Gollum isn’t going to be there to steal the Ring from him and Sauron gets the ring and everything ends sadly and the bad guys win.

All that is even assuming Sam could make it across Mordor and survive.

The chances of the book ending successfully without Frodo are slim. And, what’s more, there was still a whole lot of character development to do. If Tolkien had gone ahead and bumped Frodo off, it would have detracted from the story a great deal, I think. It would have been hard and boring to write about Sam traveling alone over Gorgoroth. Can you imagine? It was probably challenging enough to write two characters, but with only one...!!

Frodo’s poisoning and coming back to ‘life’ added an interesting twist to the story, especially because he was picked up by orcs and Sam had to go save him. (Not to mention the fact that his mithril coat and other belongings were taken out and shown to Gandalf, Aragorn, and the others in front of the Black Gate.) I think it was definitely a good thing that he survived it and it would have not been as good if he had actually died and not come back.

– Folwren

[Letty]

Oh come oooooooooooooon!!!
I love Frodo!!!

[Lotrelf]

No. I do not think Frodo's death would have been good for anything or anyone. First off, no one else could have gotten that far. If we're dealing with Sam, he was new to the Ring and was not free from desires. His dislike for Gollum would have increased more and more after Frodo's death; and he'd have killed Gollum. It was impossible for anyone to destroy the Ring freely including Sauron. I think, then the events would have taken place the way Professor explains in Frodo's case: Sauron coming to claim the Ring and tormenting Sam et cetera. Where is the climax?
If the Ring was destroyed by any means and Sam came home successfully and alive, the story would seem too empty. This way we get the best ending of the book. Frodo sailing to the West and Sam returning to his family.