Could Sam have done it?

[Mrs.Underhill]

Impenitent comes the closest to my own position.
Both Frodo and Sam were on the journey, on the personal journey, and both arrived to the same elevated state in the end (In the book! Sadly, the movie stripped Sam of his moral growth, made him static).

But Frodo started ahead on that journey, being forced to mature quickly, and Sam only caught up with him via his personal Golgotha in Choices of Master's Samwise (where he too was forced to mature in the harshest way possible). After that, after being in Gollum's and Frodo's shoes, he saw the wisdom of not throwing the first stone, he understood true Mercy. And yes, that's exactly why he spares Gollum on Mt.Doom, redressing his failure to pity Gollum on the Stairs, and saving the Quest by his pity here.

So I would put it like this: neither Frodo nor Sam could have destroyed the Ring by themselves - no one could, besides Eru himself! But Sam would go as far as Frodo, would bring it to the brink, because in the end he became equal to Frodo in greatness. And he too ended up in Aman, by the way.

But not to see Sam's moral limitations "on the page" is possible only by ignoring them, as Tolkien certainly put them there and made Sam's moral failure pivotal to the book.
Treatment of Gollum, battle for Gollum's soul, was the lithmus test for both hobbits and for whether their Quest was just and true, and Sam failed this test on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, the moment Tolkien called the most tragic in the book. If Sam didn't let his disgust of Gollum take over, if he saw and pitied Gollum at the moment, Gollum could have been redeemed, and guided them safely through Shelob, and probably would have taken the hit for Frodo in the end, jumping in with the Ring, as Tolkien suggested in his Letters. Frodo wouldn't go through Cirith Ungol, wouldn't succumb to the Ring and would probably recover from the Quest like Sam did and would live happily ever after in the Shire.

I guess to understand the importance of mercy and pity to Gollum in the book it's necessary to understand the importance of Gollum. He's not just the villain and murderer who's an annoying threat to the Hobbits. He's a conflicted and redeemable soul, a symbol of failure to temptation, but also a symbol of the hope of redemption. He's Frodo's reflection, in a way, he personifies Frodo's own temptation and hope to withstand it (and *that* part was great in the movie).
Hobbits' Quest is not just to take some object from A to B. It's to stay true and good on the road, to withstand temptation of any, even the smallest, evil. Killing Gollum without the imperative need would not only doom their Quest because they wouldn't have a guide, but because they would've failed morally and would never resist the Ring to the end.
Fight for Gollum's soul, for his hope for redemption, is the reflection of Hobbits' own fight to carry on the Quest.

Impenitent is absolutely right to point out that Frodo started at the same point as Sam vs. Gollum. In his talk with Gandalf in Shadow of the Past he was disgusted with Gollum, not only because of moral outrage over Gollum's crimes, but also because of darker undercurrent of conceit, of thinking himself higher and cleaner than Gollum. He started with the mentality of someone who could throw the first stone, who would want to squash Gollum like a nasty bug in order to squah his own inner fear that he might fall like him.

Frodo is forced to grow out of that, to see himself as fallible and extend it to others. But Sam spent much of the book in this mentality, which is more than pragmatism, which had the same dark undercurrent of conceit - towards Gollum.

On my latest reread I noticed an awesome thing in the Stairs chapter. Sam actually names Gollum a villain and thus makes him the one, irrevercibly.
When Sam talks to Frodo about books and tales, he says - maybe even a Gollum will be remembered in those tales, but would that be as a hero or a villain? And at that moment it's still in flux, as Gollum still may repent.
When he crawls back to the Hobbits he's having second thoughts, and he still can turn out either. But the first thing Sam says to him when he wakes up - "hey you, old villain!" And that's it. Gollum is the villain now, no going back. Just vow.

[yovargas]

I am not and would not argue that Sam's behavior was unhelpful, but I do argue that his behavior towards Gollum was not indicative of much of a real "flaw". What reason would Sam have to show mercy and pity to Gollum, a known traitor, thief, and murderer, when he is not asked or expected to show any to countless other baddies they fight and kill on their quest? What reason would Sam have of trusting Gollum any more than the orcs he kills without hesitation in Mordor? Yes, it was unhelpful that he was angry and hostile in this instance, when he was helpfully angry and hostile with the other obstacles they overcame in the story. Unless lacking psychic or mind-reading powers is considered a flaw, why is anti-Gollum hostility any more of a flaw than anti-orc/Nazgûl/spider/Sauron/ect hostility?

[vison]

I am not and would not argue that Sam's behavior was unhelpful, but I do argue that his behavior towards Gollum was not indicative of much of a real "flaw". What reason would Sam have to show mercy and pity to Gollum, a known traitor, thief, and murderer, when he is not asked or expected to show any to countless other baddies they fight and kill on their quest? What reason would Sam have of trusting Gollum any more than the orcs he kills without hesitation in Mordor? Yes, it was unhelpful that he was angry and hostile in this instance, when he was helpfully angry and hostile with the other obstacles they overcame in the story. Unless lacking psychic or mind-reading powers is considered a flaw, why is anti-Gollum hostility any more of a flaw than anti-orc/Nazgûl/spider/Sauron/ect hostility?

iawy

[Impenitent]

No, Sam could not have done it; only Gollum could have done it, inadvertently, and in the same stroke redeeming himself in the only way possible.

Now, I would like to remind you of a passage which hints that Frodo could have killed Gollum, if pushed a little further. And in the same passage, we see that Sam, even in the heat of anger, resisted much earlier in the story:

Things would have gone ill with Sam, if he had been alone. But Frodo sprang up, and drew Sting from its sheath. With his left hand he drew back Gollum's head by his thin lank hair, stretching his long neck, and forcing his pale venomous eyes to stare up at the sky.

`Let go! Gollum,' he said. `This is Sting. You have seen it before once upon a time. Let go, or you'll feel it this time! I'll cut your throat.'

Gollum collapsed and went as loose as wet string. Sam got up, fingering his shoulder. His eyes smouldered with anger, but he could not avenge himself: his miserable enemy lay grovelling on the stones whimpering.

And just a few pages later:

He stood over Gollum, while Sam tied the knot. The result surprised them both. Gollum began to scream, a thin, tearing sound, very horrible to hear. He writhed, and tried to get his mouth to his ankle and bite the rope. He kept on screaming.
At last Frodo was convinced that he really was in pain; but it could not be from the knot. He examined it and found that it was not too tight, indeed hardly tight enough. Sam was gentler than his words.

In both passages I've emphasised the relevant lines.

Frodo could be ruthless, could have killed Gollum at that time if pushed just a little more.

And Sam, despite his tough talk, demonstrated a merciful impulse: he treated Gollum gently.

My point is that both characters are complex (as if we didn't know that already!).

(I've not read anything on the third page yet. I'll regret posting this immediately after I've completed reading the thread, I'm sure of it, but I'v found if I don't post in the heat of the moment, my misdoubts prevent posting at all, so you're going to have to put up with some of my irrelevancies, I'm afraid.)

[vison]

Gollum was not "redeemed". Gollum was killed by his lust for the Ring. Or the Ring killed him, whichever way you look at it.

I can't think of Gollum as having been "redeemed". I think of him as being punished - and properly so. In what sense was he redeemed? Did he repent as he fell? I think not. I think he was happy for a few seconds there, but that fire was awfully hot.

He got what he had coming, AFAIC.

It was also the working out of Frodo's "curse". Frodo promised/cursed Gollum that if Gollum ever tried to take the Ring from him again, he, Gollum, would be cast into the fire. Gollum did, and Gollum was.

[Faramond]

yova, what do you want, for Sam to be canonized?

Frodo was the saint. Sam wasn't. That's why Sam is often so much more popular, isn't it? He's more human, he's got more of the passions, good and bad. Of course it is having a very high standard to criticize Sam's treatment of Gollum. I know this word "smug" is really rubbing some the wrong way. Well, tough. Isn't that part of what makes Sam so lovable? He's a narrow minded low-born gardener who also happens to be a very decent guy, down to earth and sensible and loyal and in the end he transcends whatever his origins were to become the hero. He obliterates any theory of class in the end. I just think to truly appreciate Sam his flaws have to be acknowledged.

The thing is no orc was ever taken into their party. No orc ever showed them the way. When they encounter orcs the orcs are trying to kill them. Gollum was NOT trying to kill them, not until later, after much water under the bridge. Yes, it's a good guess that he would have tried to kill them somewhere, when they captured him at the bottom of that cliff. But it was only a guess. They didn't meet Gollum on the field of battle, swords drawn, life against life. They ambushed him, and yes, they had cause, they really needed to do it, but the encounter with Gollum is nothing like any encounter with orcs they ever had. If the hobbits had taken an orc into their party, with a meaningful oath sworn by the ring, and the orc had helped them, then they would have owed that orc more than the point of their swords, more than hostility.

[yovargas]

Sam was gentler than his words.

That's my Sam.

yova, what do you want, for Sam to be canonized?

Having been in love with him since my pre-teens I'll readily admit my bias on this matter. But the flaws he has aren't those being talked about. Hot-headed? Probably. Short-sighted? Sometimes. Simple-mined? Pretty clearly. But proud or cocky? Not a chance.

[Impenitent]

I know it's a twisting of the word 'redemption', vison, but the fact that his inadvertent action - a slip of the foot - led directly to the destruction of the Ring (which otherwise would not have been destroyed) was really the only form of redemption left for him.

Yes, I agree - it was proper punishment, it was the fulfilment of Frodo's curse, it was justice, but it also meant that a higher purpose was served by his death. In a sense, the quest was also Gollum's - a quest for a final purpose to his long, miserable, mispent, wasted life.

[Folca]

There was no rehabilitation for Gollum.

No? No chance of rehabilitation? Not even on the stairs of Cirith Ungol?

[ot]Frelga, Compa_Mighty? Really? He's a perfectly nice person, but he's nothing like me.[/ot]

One thing you learn fast in dealing with criminals: they will find an opportunity to do nice things for you when you aren't dealing with them in a law enforcement capacity. The intent is to build a sense of "you owe me something" no matter how small. When I was working in the jail, I saw other staff members burned by such interactions. No one ever did me any favors unless they wore the same uniform I did, and I didn't get burned by a percieved debt. I won't allow anyone I have dealt with in a law enforcement situation do me any favors, ever. Not only is it extremely unethical in my mind, but I understand the ulterior motive and refuse to cater to such manipulative behavior.

I would equate all of Sméagol's actions as a manipulative attempt to gain such similar deposits in the emotional bank account to draw upon later, as he does when he successfully manipulates the incident that splits Samwise and Frodo apart long enough for Frodo to be betrayed and victimized yet again.

[ArathornJax]

I had an interesting thought on Sam and Gollum based on Letter 246.

Tolkien did propose in Letter 246, his views that had Sam showed pity to Gollum and had understood better what was going on between Frodo and Gollum, the ending would have had to have been different to the book.

Tolkien states that IF Sam had acted differently, had showed pity to Gollum when he woke up with Frodo still asleep on him, the story of the entry into Mordor would have been different, as would the ending of the story of the Ring. Instead of a focus on Frodo and Sam, the focus would have been on Gollum and what he was going to do, to choose between his love of his new Master or his love of the ring. Tolkien does not believe that the love of Frodo would have won over Gollum's love of the ring, but as he says "I think in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both." Gollum would have either stolen the Ring or taken it by force as he does in the actual tale. Once having the ring, Tolkien felt that Gollum "would have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake, and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss." Gollum would realize that he could not keep the Ring from Sauron, and in a way then, to protect Frodo and to deny and hurt Sauron, he would have sacrificed himself.

Thus we would have been talking about Gollum as a torn, but redeemed savior to the quest. So in the letter, I do believe that Tolkien hinted that the redemption of Gollum would have been possible IF different choices had been made by another, Sam.

The point that I believe Tolkien is making with Sam is the very qualities that so many admire in him, his loyalty and love for Frodo, and his service to Frodo that results, have with them the qualities of pride and possessiveness. For someone to truly have a blind loyalty as Sam does with Frodo does take pride. I think we see this with Farmer Maggott, with Strider in Bree, with Gollum and with Faramir. Sam's pride and possessiveness may sound bad, but it is not. It is placed in Frodo and is from serving Frodo, but it does limit Sam.

These two qualities, pride and possessiveness (that go with his loyalty and his love) blind Sam from "understanding his master that he loved and from following him in his gradual education to the nobility of service to the unloveable and of perception of damaged good in the corrupt." This stops Gollum from being able to repent when the chance is given and seals "the fate of the book."

So, Sam is what he is, a hobbit and he embodies what a ordinary, typical hobbit is. He has plenty of wonderful qualities as we do, and he also has qualities that limit him in his growth as we do. To make him more than this, does a disservice to the character, and to make him appear less than this also does a disservice to the character. After awakening and accusing Gollum, Sam's fate in a way was sealed. Gollum would lead them to Shelob, the attack would happen, and in a way, Sam by his choices and by who he was, sealed the attack by Shelob and the final confrontation between Frodo, Gollum and himself at Mt. Doom.

Bad guy? Definitely not. Good guy, in many ways. More like you and me who have both wonderful characteristics and also some characteristics that are not so wonderful, and that can cause heartache for ourselves and those we love? Yep. That, I believe is why so many love Sam. Subconsciously or consciously he reminds us, of us.

[Alatar]

Interestingly, thats the approach taken in the Musical. Gollum grabs the ring, and topples backwards into the crack of doom, his last words are "Master is Free."

[vison]

"Master is free"!!!!

Here is Gollum, enslaved for hundreds of years by the most powerful inanimate force for Evil in Middle Earth, and yet, in a few weeks of trudging around in the wilderness with the Hobbit who has his Precious, he falls in love with that Hobbit to the extent that he's torn between his love for Frodo and his longing for the Ring?

I don't buy it.

First, and maybe foremost, I hate that word "Master". Because Frodo wasn't Gollum's "master" he was the Ring's master. I think Folco is at least partly right about what Gollum was up to -- he was "working on" Frodo. Gollum is portrayed as being almost an animal part of the time and part of the time he's shrewd and calculating. His character flops from one to the other, and I regard it as a weakness in the story. Not a huge thing, but irritating nonetheless. He was consumed by desire, all right, but not to the point that he had lost all his marbles. He was smart. Smart enough to play stupid. Don't forget that when we first learn of Gollum and his search for the Ring, we are told that he sneaks through windows and takes babies from cradles. Why do you suppose he was taking those babies? Sure he was pathetic, any person so wretchedly "evil" is pathetic, removed from humanity and any hope of joy in life. But Evil, just the same. Did he begin as Evil? Well, he was pretty quick to strangle Déagol, was he not? The Ring recognized a fellow baddie.

Second, I hate the notion of Gollum being a Divine Instrument. Why the blazes didn't Eru or Illuvatar or whatever name God goes by in this universe, why didn't that God just nuke the Ring himself? More to the point, what's the use of an omnipotent and omniscient God if things are going to keep going wonky because that's the way God made things? (Another argument for another thread, I know, but JEEZ it bugs me.) I don't want to get into this "things worked as they were meant to" because it means, in fact, that suffering and pain are "meant to be" in order to teach a lesson to a creature who is made to sin . . . .argghh. . . .

Third, I agree with AJ that Sam is Everyman. Sure he is. But Tolkien didn't so much show Sam's growth - or not entirely, anyway - he seems to have changed Sam's actual character, as if when he got to a certain point in the book he realized that Sam as first created isn't going to be good enough so he reinvents Sam. Sam's character arc is somewhat unsatisfactory to me, rather in the way that his unmentioned love for Rosie Cotton just pops up as Tolkien is tying up the loose ends there on the slopes of Mt. Doom.

Third, the "class" thing. Well, we democrats here are all opposed to the "class" thing. It's part of Tolkien's world and it got into Middle Earth, too. But even in Tolkien's real life world, men of distinction and accomplishment (and/or vast wealth) could raise their family from Low to High - it's hard to think now that the Guiness family, for instance, were once jumped up tradespeople marrying their children into the Old Families and altogether rising above their ordained station in life. Sam's daughter married "up" and the name Gamgee faded away. No aristocrat would keep the name Gamgee. Jeez. So Tolkien gave Sam and his descendants the best reward he could imagine: gentility.

Jeez again.

[Folca]

Bingo! No one who lives hundreds of years as evil rehabilitates in a few short weeks. Some actual people can't seem to clean their act up after being problematic over the course of a couple of years and get squared away. The class argument could be a whole other thread, but considering how politicians and celebrities are treated, especially when performing criminal or unethical acts, it is quite obvious a class system still exists.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I'll run this quote again.

Sam was gentler than his words.

One factor in Sam's character is his upbringing. I expect he heard harsh belittling words all his childhood. Small wonder that some rubbed off on him. Coupled with the scene on Mount Doom where he coulld not name his better feelings, his inarticulacy makes him out to be rougher than he really was. Nor had he travelled at all within the Shire unlike the other three hobbits.
Compare also the failings of the provincial vision articulated by someone with a better education, Meriadoc Brandybuck.

(Pippin): '...Dear me! We Tooks and Brandybucks, we can't live long on the heights.'
No,' said Merry. 'I can't. Not yet, at any rate. But at least, Pippin, we can see them now and honour them. ...... Still there are things deeper and higher; and not a gaffer could tend his garden in what he calls peace but for them, whether he knows about them or not.'.

I think Tolkien's delineation of Sam is wonderful; perceptive, sympathetic and respectful. I also think a lot of guff is talked about class in the story. It is a background coloration it is true but it does not drive action. Sam's humbleness is internal not imposed from outside

[Pearly Di]

Gollum was not "redeemed". Gollum was killed by his lust for the Ring. Or the Ring killed him, whichever way you look at it.

I can't think of Gollum as having been "redeemed". I think of him as being punished - and properly so. In what sense was he redeemed? Did he repent as he fell? I think not. I think he was happy for a few seconds there, but that fire was awfully hot.

He got what he had coming, AFAIC.

I've never been able to judge Gollum that harshly. Simply because he is so very pitiable.

I think Tolkien's delineation of Sam is wonderful; perceptive, sympathetic and respectful. I also think a lot of guff is talked about class in the story. It is a background coloration it is true but it does not drive action. Sam's humbleness is internal not imposed from outside

I totally agree.

And I love Sam's earthiness. He's a wonderful foil to Frodo. They make a good team.

As for the original question: could Sam have destroyed the Ring, my answer is a resounding NO, he could not, because nobody could destroy the Ring, when push came to shove. It overcame them. It was simply too strong: it had the essence of Sauron, arch-seducer and arch-power-grabber, in it. Frodo's hobbit-like humility, his wisdom and his spiritual sensitivity was no match, in the end, for It. But it was his mercy (born of his spiritual wisdom, which he gains through his quest) towards Gollum that made it possible for the Quest to be achieved.

Sam wasn't wiser, or better than Frodo (IMO). I think both hobbits were astoundingly brave and selfless, prepared to sacrifice all in their Quest to destroy a terrible evil. Once again,

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I have split off the discussion of Gollum and the Orcsto a separate thread. If there were posts that were moved that should not have been, let me know and I'll move em back.

[Faramond]

Could Sam have done it?

Would you ask Sam to do it?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No. Absolutely not.

[Faramond]

Is it fair to ask anyone to do the thing? I suppose it might not be, as it would seem to be beyond the endurance of anyone. And of course no one ever directly asked Frodo to take it.

There are times when some people will be asked to do things that must seem beyond themselves. Fairness cannot be put into practice except by God. If one were to choose who to ask to bear the ring, wouldn't it be Frodo?

But that idea of choosing who to bear the ring is all wrong. Frodo was not chosen by anyone, by any character in the book. He was chosen by fate, I suppose, and he did not turn away. His companions were chosen, though. With the idea that they might need to pick up the ring and become a new bearer if Frodo fell. Or if Frodo proved too weak for the task, perhaps --- that being Boromir's idea of things at one time.

But many of the nine chose themselves, rather than being chosen by the wise. They went with Frodo. I think the reason Sam chose himself is the reason he was able to bear the ring in his short time as well as he did.

A lot of choosing is illusory. The choice does not happen when it seems like it happened. The moment of the apparent choice is often when in fact underlying character is revealed. I think I might consider Sam an acceptable choice of ringbearer if he had been the ringbearer, if he had taken all those steps carrying the thing. Was Sam incapable of unexpected insight and empathy? He was capable. He did not have the experience that Frodo had. Who knows what would happen if things were really different? Frodo and Sam are both worthy in their own ways. To really ask if Sam could have done it, I think entire histories and character paths need to be changed.

[vison]

Excellent post, Faramond.