frodo was both the weakest and strongest person in the Trilogy?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet and Kalessin--

I actually typed a post on this earlier today and the phone connection went dead and wiped away my words. How ironic that this should happen in my response on this particular subject!

My reply was similar to, although not identical with that, of Littlemanpoet.

Let me begin by saying I have strong feelings about this. I spent years and years earning a doctorate in medieval history. I ate a lot of spaghetti and beans and lived in a single room. It is part of me I prize, even though I was only able to use it on the job market for a few years. At first jobs were incredibly tight, 300-500 people applying for each position (not an exaggeration, I assure you.) Then, I did teach at a college for a bit and later chose to earn a degree in librarianship to gain more flexibility.

Anyways, I would not have put myself through this unless I believed that history has an amazing amount to teach us. Yet the modern world, certainly contemporary education, sadly sees little to value from the past.

There is no question that people in past ages were limited by their assumptions and values. But so too are we limited by our perspectives. I am a child of the 60s and, even if I live to be 111, I will look at many things that way. Ironically, this precious gift opens up vistas for me, but is also a set of blinders that limits the angles from which I can view things.

Tolkien was no different. His mind seems to have been fixed on the era before World War I. Other authors born at that time may have felt part of the post-war generation, but not Tolkien. And this is why the Shire and the hobbits are so attuned to the Edwardian age, and the same goes for Sam and Frodo's relationship.

Often, the Edwardian Shire seems to have been dropped into a world which was essentially one of ancient northern myths. Hobbits, even more than men, don't quite fit in. This is very true in the Hobbit, but it even holds to a large degree for LotR. How else can you explain fish and chips, express trains, umbrellas, handkerchiefs, and fireworks?

The Shire is like a half-way land beween Faerie and reality, and helps people like us who stand outside in the modern age to again have access to the time of legends. After all, if the crotchety, Edwardian Bilbo can turn into a writer of Elvish poems and history, then I am certain we too can share in this world.

I think two of the themes that tie the Edwardian Shire into the lands and people of northern myth are precisely those you have identified--a belief in duty and a hierarchical structure. Both the Edwardian age and the ancient epics could come together in appreciation of these tenets. Our own world--well, that's another story that's not,I believe, directly relvant here.

The question is not whether Tolkien should have used these themes, but how well he used them. And I would say he used them very, very well indeed.

Now, I will admit there are limits to this process in my mind. If Tolkien had written a book which implicitly advocated slavery or genocide, for example, I would not have been sympathetic, however wonderful his writing. But this is not what he did. He has shown us a noble society with very different assumptions, but one which is strangely alluring. And interestingly, this is a world where different races preserve their cultures and get along relatively well. (The problems of dwarves and Elves are nothing when compared with what out age has done and is still doing in this regard!)

It is quite clear that I, who am a female from a working class background, could not have done in his world what I have managed to do in mine. But then I am also sure that people from Middle-earth might stare at my own universe and shake their head in disbelief, perhaps mourning how we have managed to destroy so much beauty and make our lives increasingly impersonal, or set up death camps for each other.

So my feeling about hierarchies is perhaps different than yours. And I would also argue that these hierarchies were a bit less "rigid" than you imply. The Tory in Tolkien left room for paternalism (which I know you don't like), and this did bring about some change. How else did Sam get his education from Bilbo? And I do believe that the relationship between Frodo and Sam had gone far beyond master/servant by the end of the story. There is too much genuine feeling here.

Yes, Middle-earth took on certain forms reflective of the age in which Tolkien lived, but I would argue that his characters are a great deal more than the sum of these parts.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I don't believe there is an undercurrent of chronological snobbery in Kalessin's observation of the emphasis placed on duty and nobility by birth (..said Marileangorifurnimaluim, who is, by-the-way, on her 30th reading of the LotR and first read it 21 years ago, speaking of chronological snobbery [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] ). It is there, and consciously so, and no less valid for having been observed.

Chronological Snobbery does not have quite the lofty appeal it once did, as the LotR has held the popular imagination for fifty years, thus clearly can no longer be considered to be an example of an 'outmoded' ideal. Rather it has edged up in snob circles to 'romantic' idealism. Still sniffed at, of course. As the language and cultural framework that held the LotR begins to unwind, it will be interesting to see where it floats in hallowed ivory halls of such distinguished opinion. No doubt when it can no longer be read at all, save with a degree in ancient languages, it will be held in very high regard.

-Maril [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

I think a general point about chronological bias can be made (albeit as qualified by Maril), although I did at various times in my contribution try and stress the nobility and dignity with which Tolkien imbued Sam's role, and I think Sharon's analysis of his development illustrates that Tolkien created a valid and rounded character who epitomises many virtues, not least humility and generosity of spirit. My point was more about the relationship of Sam and Frodo, and the centrality of the romanticised master-servant aspect.

As I pointed out, the notion of duty or societal hierarchies IS one that we in the West tend to question - for example, it is perhaps difficult for a 21st century Western mind to feel comfortable with the nation of caste-restricted arranged marriages (although the British colonial powers often encouraged certain kinds of 'divide-and-rule' practices that might otherwise have died out). But I was not stating a personal opinion, or that this changing interpretation of duty is either a good or bad thing - but what I would say is that in Tolkien it is shown in its most heroic and noble sense.

My other point was that 'self-actualisation' (a part of Maslow's hierarchy of need), in effect the way in which Western society has become individuated and identity-centred, is in some ways antithetical to the conscientious fealty (which is a voluntary obligation well above run-of-the-mill patriotism or loyalty) which Sam, and more explicitly Pippin and Merry, exhibit in such a touching way.

A critique of Tolkien that highlighted the hierarchical aspect would, in my view, need to take into account the genuine friendship (and indeed love) between Merry and Theoden, and the subtlety of Frodo's status as 'master' - any sense of superiority is certainly not evident in his own actions or expectations, as the excellent insights by contributors above clearly show. He is a beautifully gentle and compassionate figure, whose humility becomes suffused by wisdom and, yes, the scars of his moral and physical struggle. I hope that here and earlier I have shown that in many ways the expressly political critique is at best tenuous given the actual narrative of the leading characters. But across Tolkien's works as a whole, perhaps there is a point to be made.

Littleman, you rightly suggest that I read Tolkien in the last few years - this is true (fortunately well before the film). In my teens I read avidly across many genres, and always with a love and empathy for both traditional myth, fantasy and science fiction - from Homer to Le Guin, Milton to Clarke, Beowulf to Solaris etc. I played Dungeons and Dragons at an early age, and wrote stories extensively. But incredibly, I rather disdained Tolkien ... for too many reasons (some of them good) to go into now [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] . However, I am really glad both to have re-discovered his work, and to have the opportunity on these boards to share, discuss and of course argue about them [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] . Naturally I defer to Maril's consummate steeping in Tolkienology ... (hmm - I'm not sure if being consummately steeped is quite right, it sounds a little decadent [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

Peace

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

My other point was that 'self-actualisation' (a part of Maslow's hierarchy of need), in effect the way in which Western society has become individuated and identity-centred, is in some ways antithetical to the conscientious fealty (which is a voluntary obligation well above run-of-the-mill patriotism or loyalty) which Sam, and more explicitly Pippin and Merry, exhibit in such a touching way.

Although one might argue that Merry and Pippin both enter into their service of their own free will, so that their fealty is ultimately a product of their inclinations; a concept entirely in keeping with a society that nominally values personal freedom. I say 'nominally' because the individual liberty that we value so highly has become so orthodox as to resemble a form of obligation in itself. The right to subject oneself to the service of another voluntarily is a personal freedom nonetheless, and one which is looked upon askance by our society.
I love paradoxes; don't you?

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I find the delicate balance between the master/servant role and personal friendship and need for each other particularly fascinating. I don't feel this master/servant role has become non-existent in the post-Edwardian world, rather it has reasserted itself in a different form, boss/secretary, president/staff. Status. No matter how many garbagemen we call maintenance engineers, equality escapes, and only really developes on an individual level.

One item we haven't touched on is the development of Frodo and Sam's friendship throughout the Lord of the Rings. Unlike the movie, initially Frodo and Sam were friendly, cordial and respectful, but not dear friends.

Frodo made few friends as a rule, and those late, and had a tendency even with them to be quite reserved, and probably only shared his mind completely with Bilbo, before he became friends Sam. It was clear that he chose his friends carefully, and gradually saw Sam as a worthwhile friend.

The development of the friendship between them began in after the meeting with Gildor. I think Frodo, from his position and 'breeding' was unconsciously condescending towards Sam, though kindly and protective - note his response to Pippin's "have you got the bathwater hot?" joke, jovially but firmly punishing Pippin for his prank on Sam. There's a slightly sharp unintentional undercurrent in that joke, reminding Sam that he was a servant among his betters.

While we got a glimpse of Sam's thoughtful side at the Green Dragon, talking of the elves sailing, sailing, Frodo had never seen that. He was surprised at Sam's observation of the nature of the elves "they seem quite above my likes and dislikes, so old and young, happy and sad.."

Afterwards he watched Sam, with a keen observation. "I've been learning a lot about Sam on this journey," he said outside Bree, was the only one not surprised by Sam's quoting the lay of Gil-Galad, and rightly guessed Sam made up the poem about the Troll. Very sharp, that Frodo, and his respect for Sam is clear, although at this point Sam had done nothing obviously remarkable. Yet Sam's clear sight, humility and hidden well-spring of talents, had measured up against a kind of inner standard Frodo held for those few he cautiously drew close. He not only picked up on Sam's hidden talents, but also his motivations. Oh yes, he'd been watching very carefully. He knew Sam was too humble to take credit, and it was to Frodo's credit that he took the opportunity to point out Sam's virtues to the others. Knowing Sam wouldn't. There is such respect in that, and kindness.

Sam's specific devotion to Frodo didn't really coallesce until Frodo's injury.

He was unaware of Frodo's observation until Frodo mentioned it, and didn't know Frodo well enough to know how rare this was. He kept a respectful distance, and admiration of Frodo. He considered the Bagginses to uncommonly kind and good, Frodo in particular, and increasingly so. But did not put himself on an equal enough footing to consider him something so ordinary as a 'friend.'

This admiration bloomed into a full-blown - I hate to use the word Crush, because I know the reaction it's going to get - but if you picture the kind of crush a little brother gets on his big brother, thinking everything he does is perfect and wonderful, you'll understand what I mean, and not Freak. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] It's not hero-worship, not so distant as that, because he also becomes so protective, after feeling helpless to do anything for Frodo on the journey in Rivendell. Rivendell and after he sticks to Frodo's side like glue, doing the little things like packing etc, not as just his job but with enthusiasm and to the best of his ability (took pride in packing little things Frodo left behind, which he could later triumphantly produce when called for..) but feeling rather inadequate. No surprise Sam is the first to react to the Watcher in Water. Must have been satisfying to finally be able to 'do' something.

Frodo was touched, and a little bemused, by Sam's sudden devotion to him. He accepted Sam's dogged following, but barely spoke with Sam in Hollin and Moria. In fact, he never did. Frodo had backed off, didn't want to encourage Sam putting him on a pedestal.

After Gandalf's fall you hear for the first time that perennial phrase 'Frodo and Sam,' almost immediately after. That shared loss sealed the bond of friendship between them.

It was in Lothlorien they spent all of their time together, and was where Sam learned much of Frodo's mind. Probably Frodo shared with Sam more about his own thoughts and fears than he ever had to anyone, other than Bilbo.

If the Fellowship had broken apart before Rivendell, Sam would not have guessed Frodo's plans.

The later development of their relationship has been covered very well in these previous posts.

I'm sorry the movie portrays them as friends from the start, it robs us the fun of watching the subtle shifts and growth in their relationship, though I understand why PJ did it.

I'd still like to hear whether other people react to Sam and Frodo the way I talked about a few postings back: a close personal identification leaning towards one or the other characters, not just based on the book, but stemming from their own personal values and feelings about life, i.e., the man of our world who serves man (Sam) versus the man of spirit who serves a dream (Frodo).

I identify most with Frodo, but I think I see in Sam what Frodo saw, that in serving 'man' he approached unintentionally an ideal. And was somehow ennobled by the very fact that he approached this ideal unknowingly, without the pride of comparison that comes in considering oneself an idealist. I think Frodo viewed Sam as ultimately better than himself (true or not) because of that, coming closer to Frodo's own ideals in his actions than Frodo himself. Or so Frodo would have thought. (Prof. Tolkien mentioned in his letters Frodo's lingering guilt over having claimed the ring.) The difference between these two is slight, one of motivation alone.

Hey, you think this post is long enough?

[Nar]

What a lovely and insightful analysis, Maril. Your discussion of the gradations of Sam and Frodo's relationship from Rivendell to Lothlorian rang absolutely true, from's Sam's shift to Frodo's withdrawal. I missed most of that, and after rereading the books many times in the past 25 years! Thank you. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I agree with you about Frodo's assessment of Sam relative to himself, but what I most loved about your post was this:

... in serving 'man' he approached unintentionally an ideal. And was somehow ennobled by the very fact that he approached this ideal unknowingly, without the pride of comparison that comes in considering oneself an idealist.

Very true, very good, very deep. [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Meril--

This is such a beautiful and insightful analysis. I had noticed from the book that Sam and Frodo's relationship changed throughout the course of the quest, but I have never followed through so carefully as this. Thanks so much for this way of looking at things. I will pay closer attention to this idea the next time I reread these sections.

The movie, of course, is wonderful, but PJ does not capture these nuances of the master/servant relationship, or how the two gain insight into each other's souls and gradually become closer.

Again, many thanks.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Thank you both, Nar and Sharon. I really love the relationship between Frodo and Sam as much as I love the characters themselves. Sometimes I wish there were pages and pages more about them, regardless of whether it drove the story or not. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I think largely why they come across so well to us is that Tolkien liked these two as much as we.

[mark12_30]

Sometimes I wish there were pages and pages more about them, regardless of whether it drove the story or not.

...Heave, ho, splash, plump, Up they go, up they bump.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by the_master_of_puppets

I feel that Frodo was both the strongest and weakest members of the books.

I feel he was the weakest because i couldnt bring himself to kill, even when defending his beloved Shire, and he always seems to have given up but goes on simply because he just can and that it. He doesnt have hope or any real will to acclumplish anything, and in one way he doesnt in the end anyway (aclumlish anything).

On the other hand he was the strongest because no other could bear it as far as he with it having little affect on him. It would be wrong to suggest it doesnt affect Frodo at all, because we see him harsher with Gollum than we would expect in TTT, and in TROTK we see him snap at sam 4 example because it is eating away at him. It is a sad fact Gollum was needed to get the ring into the mountain, but i think if he hadnt been around Sam would have got it off Frodo somehow even if he had to throw himself in to protect Frodo an everyone else...

Which leads me on to saying Sam is a stronger person, personality wise, and he is one of the true heros of the book. In many ways Frodo is not the hero at all, and tho he perhaps doesnt get enough credit, he doesnt deserve as much as his friends who fought and risked their lives for everyone else. Which even at the end, Frodo proves he will not do.

Whats everone think of my ramblings?!

People are actually way too harsh on Frodo for not being able to destroy the Ring. And they think he's "weak" and that he got corrupted. Both the terms when talking about this Hobbit are ridiculous. Others are visibily stronger than Frodo, but people don't "get" the burden of the Ring. Others have said a lot. I feel nothing is there to add more.