Could Sam have done it?

[River]

But Frodo was something of a sidekick to Bilbo.

Really? I've always thought of Frodo as more of an heir to Bilbo (and not just because he was named as such) than a sidekick. He followed in his uncle's footsteps. He did not walk with him. And then he went and did was his uncle could not have done.

Or make that partner. In the cold light of day, partner is a better word. Sam and Frodo were partners. Individual sets of strengths and weaknesses that combined into a greater whole. Of course, part of a successful partnership is recognizing the strengths of your partner and your own weaknesses - something the arrogant are inherently incapable of doing. And Tolkien's baddies do have a tendency towards arrogance.

Honestly, of all the partnerships in Tolkien's work, I think Beren and Lúthien were the epitome. To the point where you hardly talk about one without the other. To the point where you really couldn't call one the hero and the other the helper (as Athrabeth already mentioned). Beren cut the Silmaril from Morgoth's crown, yes, but he only got into Morgoth's throne room because Lúthien sang a nice lullaby. If anything, they're both the hero and Huan gets the sidekick designation.

[narya]

I realize now I have to define "sidekick" before I can put people into that category.

When I think of the old cartoons and adventure series I saw on TV or heard on the radio, I think of the Lone Ranger's Tonto or Batman's Robin. The sidekicks were foils. People who couldn't stand up by themselves, but were a useful addition to the hero - by pointing out the obvious, listening to the hero's elaborate plans, or helping out. They tended to be unintentional comic relief. Sidekicks are not servants, employees, little brothers, sons, lovers, syncophant, groupie, proteges or friends. In real life, I can't think of a hero-sidekick relationship. I don't see any "classic" sidekicks in LOTR. Not even Legolas or Gimli quite fit, because they are too smart and independent.

I don't see Sam as a sidekick, because he is such a strong character in his own right. You'd never see a classic sidekick taking up the mission and soldiering on if the hero was (apparently) dead. I'm not sure what to call the relationship between Sam and Frodo. But when someone said the roles between Frodo and Sam could not be reversed, I spoke up because I thought Frodo's role in relationship to Bilbo, when Bilbo first took the young Frodo under his wing, was a little like Sam's relationship to Frodo.

[axordil]

I spoke up because I thought Frodo's role in relationship to Bilbo, when Bilbo first took the young Frodo under his wing, was a little like Sam's relationship to Frodo.

What little we see of it might be...to a point. Frodo was being groomed for something by proximate intent, Sam only through happenstance or fate.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Sam only through happenstance or fate.

Thanks yet again ax for making me think.

When was Sam chosen? When he was discovered by Gandalf spying for Merry, Pippin and Fatty. How much did Gandalf read in Sam at that moment? Did he even learn about the conspiracy of friends too? Was that the revelation to Gandalf that Frodo, this unlikely hobbit, might indeed be the instrument of salvation?

[solicitr]

Was that the revelation to Gandalf that Frodo, this unlikely hobbit, might indeed be the instrument of salvation?

Well, Gandalf's observation that Bilbo, and then Frodo, were 'meant to have' the Ring came before Sam's 'capture.' But I do think Gandalf perceived Sam's underlying core loyalty; and, as he would later say to Elrond re Merry and Pippin, love could prove more important than valor.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I was thinking more of Gandalf's puzzled reply to Frodo's question of why he was chosen.
'Such questions cannot be answered... You may be sure it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom at any rate.'

It may be that looking into Sam at that moment with his insight into minds, another little piece fell into place for him.

[solicitr]

That's probably true. Gandalf certainly understood that Sam's 'treason' stemmed from no self-interest at all, but a fundamental concern for Frodo's well-being. And Gandalf may possibly have felt that Sam's eavesdropping at that moment was not mere chance, but 'meant.'

Perhaps an additional factor was Sam's un-hobbitish interest in the Wide World, the same attribute which led Gandalf originally to pick Bilbo.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In a letter to Christopher during the course of the writing of the book (24 Dec. 1944), Tolkien made the point that Sam was Bilbo's true successor:

Cer. Sam is the most closely drawn character, the succesor to Bilbo of the first book, the genuine hobbit. Frodo is not so interesting, because he has to be highminded, and has (as it were) a vocation. The book will prob. end up with Sam. Frodo will naturally become too ennobled and rearefied by the achievement of the great Quest, and will pass West with allthe great figures; but S. will settle down to the Shire and gardens and inns.

[solicitr]

Good catch, Vor: and, like Bilbo, Sam doesn't come into his own until late, as their respective companions run up against their own limitations. Hobbit parochialism wearing away to reveal hobbit toughness, as well as that Something Else.

I note that what first attracted Gandalf to the Shire-folk was their resilience and especially their care for one another during the Long Winter and ensuing famine. "But that was the time to see their courage, and their pity for one another. It was by their pity as much as by their tough uncomplaining courage that they survived."

While Sam isn't perhaps as decisively effective as Bilbo became, Thorin was no Frodo!

[anthriel]

What, the Sam who took the Ring only when he thought his master dead, who rejected the false visions on the edge of Mordor, who gave up the Ring to his master and wept, who saw hope above the broils of Mordor far up in the heavens, who surrendered his vengeance on Gollum and extended pity though he could find no words for it, who gave his water to Frodo even though in extremis himself, who carried Frodo on his back up the volcano slope when he had at last collapsed?
I think that he might have done.

I've thought a lot about this. (This is all in my humble opinion, of course. I've not read all the background that many of you have! But I have thought about this a lot. )

Sam was incredibly strong. His was the strength that both hobbits leaned on, time and again. His was the strength that got that threesome to the edge of the fiery pit, and, if the day was won, it was won through Sam. Frodo wouldn't have made it without Sam. Frodo wouldn't have had the strength, alone.

But would Sam have been able to accomplish the task without Frodo? That's the question, right? Would Sam have been able to "do" it?

No. No way. And not just because no one could. It's because Sam would not have been Sam without Frodo.


---


I've thought about this a lot. Sam's strength is enormous. But where does it come from?

Firstly, he is "just" a hobbit. I suppose there will always be some disdain amongst those whose thoughts are always complicated for those whose thoughts generally aren't, but the hobbits were STRONG in their "smugness". The very attributes that make hobbits in general a bit humorous-- their focus on food, comfort, food, familiar stories, their distrust of anything unusual, and their love of food-- are also the backbone of their incredible strength. Things ARE a bit black and white to a hobbit, and so the incredibly angsty greyness of more complicated beings just didn't register all that well. Sam had a mission; protect Mr. Frodo. Bring Mr. Frodo home. His black and white "fundamentalism" in that task was what kept the hobbits going, and what kept them sane.

Plus, he loved Mr. Frodo. Snapping into a protective mode has given me, personally, the biggest rushes of strength I've ever known. I've never felt more focused, more sure of myself, more "smug", more "fundamental", than when I feel that one of my kids is being threatened. Or one of my animals. Or anyone that I love.

Sam was protecting Frodo, throughout that whole journey. Protecting his friend, his poor, brave, tortured, beloved friend, and Sam's strength was enormous. But I think it was enormous BECAUSE he was protecting Frodo.

Would Sam have killed Gollum, just as "Sam"? I dunno. Would he have killed Gollum because he felt that Gollum threatened Frodo? Probably.

Would he have done any of this, associated himself with the affairs of Elves and Wizards, had Frodo not been there to protect?

I think not.

Remember in Harry Potter, when Voldemort talks about an "old magic"? I think the incredible Momma Bear strength of being the protector and defender of someone you love is old magic. It's very strong. And hard to combat.

The Sam of the Journey of the Ring, Hero Sam, was defined by that kind of strength.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What a great post, Anth! One of the best descriptions of Sam that I have ever read. And I've read a lot of 'em.

[Holbytla]

Disagree.

The Powers realized their mistake in letting Sauron escape when they seized Morgoth and "manipulated" the situation ever after. Yes, maybe no one being could destroy the ring ultimately, but apparently the destruction could have been accomplished by a group effort.

It was no mistake that each and every interaction with the ring from the time of Isildur onward was by some form of halfling or other. Something inherent in their being made them less susceptible to the powers of the ring, or conversely in Gollum's case, made them desire or lust with a fervor moreso than other beings: i.e. mushrooms and hobbits.

Essentially what the Powers did, was to concoct a mixture of halflings that had a chance to destroy the ring. And seeing how they were privy to the Music, probably a lot more than a chance.

I suppose the 4 halflings that were directly interacting with the ring may have had the best chance according to the Powers, but I don't see them as the only. Nor do I think Sam would have failed his part had it not been for Frodo.

I agree that Frodo is his biggest superficial stimulus, and probably one of his biggest internal stimuli, but I think Sam is a bit deeper than that.

I'll reference some things said or done in the story.

Rosie Cotton, the Gaffer, the Shire, the elves, poetry, the story he is in and his realization of it, his realization that some things are beyond the reach of evil, and most of all, his hardcore flowing through his veins and in every fiber of his being sense of right and wrong.

I don't see Sam wilting like a flower without Frodo to motivate him. And probably the bravest thing he did and best proof that he could go on without Frodo, was when he took the ring and left Frodo behind.

No that doesn't guarantee success, but it does guarantee and effort at the least. He had as much chance as anyone to destroy the ring and probably more. Probably more of a chance than Frodo ever did.

Sam was closer to the ground and further removed from the gray areas of life than Frodo was. He was the embodiment of the "black and white" attitude the hobbits had and his lack of deep education kept his senses uncluttered.

Sam didn't need any other reason than it was the right thing to do.

And regardless of what Tolkien wrote in his letters, his story says otherwise. If there were truly no one that had the ability to destroy the ring, then the Powers knowingly left Middle Earth doomed. Whatever ills Fëanor et al created were cleaned up by the Powers and Sauron was not born of their disregard. Tolkien's intentions may have been otherwise, but I can only see two choices.

The Powers left Middle Earth to die or someone/someones had the ability to destroy the ring.

Born of his love for so many things, including Frodo and his down to earth selflessness and honesty, Sam had as good a chance as any to accomplish the task. Not that it was ever anything but a fool's hope to begin with but that you can blame on the Valor.

[Impenitent]

*hugs Holby*

More strength to you! All of my posts have been "no"; your post is the first and only that opens the alternative perspective to me as a real possibility.