What a wonderful post,
Faramond. Quite lovely. And yours too,
Tosh.
Thank you.
I read your post, Faramond, and decide that I shan't post the one I've been working on all afternoon after all ..... but that's silly. I came back for this.
*********************
What Tolkien thought about Sam.
I feel that we all pretty much seem to agree on the importance of Sam to the story and to ourselves and our basic understanding of what it means to go on in the face of hopelessness. So it occurred to me to find out what the author himself has to say about this
'bravest of Hobbits.”
Like most of you I have read
Letters. All of them. Only not for a couple of years and I think you'll agree that they are so stuffed with insight and information that unless one happens to be blessed with a photographic memory (eidetic memory) absolute recall is not likely. Still, I was positive that I remembered comments about Sam being the
'true hero' (I was right on that score) and loads of implications concerning his general worthiness. But, memory played me false. I took what I wanted to take and I heard what I wanted to hear and I, apparently, discarded what was actually written.
This one was quite an eye-opener.
Sam is meant to be lovable and laughable. Some readers he irritates or infuriates. I can well understand it …....... Sam can be very 'trying'. He is a more representative hobbit than any others that we shall have to see much of; and he has consequently stronger ingredients of that quality which even some hobbits found at times hard to bear; a vulgarity --- by which I do not mean a mere 'down-to-earthiness' --- a mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness (in varying degrees) and a cocksuredness, and a readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited experience, largely enshrined in sententious traditional 'wisdom'.
Here I am, in post after post , extolling Sam's virtues, believing to the depths of my secret soul that what I write is an heart-echo of the author's intent. I believe that I have found a Truth swirling around among the thoughts and actions of a simple hobbit. I have, I tell myself, discerned a profundity half-hidden away in the rustic prose of Sam Gamgee who hero-worships Master Frodo and feels an intuitive longing for Elves. In fact, I am sure of it; Sam is crept into my heart and the riches inside Lord of the Rings increase twofold.
And then I read ….. this:
a mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness”
Really!?! Does Tolkien insinuate that Sam's limitations are of a particularly small-minded, insular sort? Does this mean that Tolkien considers Sam to be narrow-minded rather than merely isolated?
And vulgarity!?! Where, when, how is Sam vulgar I ask myself? What do I miss? What myopia covers MY eyes? It must be very opaque because, for the life of me, I cannot fathom how Sam is mentally myopic. I do know that until he left for Rivendell he has lived the sheltered life of small town occupant. He is not cosmopolitan, no. Uneducated? well, yes, aside from Bilbo's sporadic lecturing on the old tales. Provincial? Oh yes. Limited? Perhaps. *If what is meant by limited means not being exposed to people, events outside of Hobbiton.
* Faramond reminds me that Sam is not very wise about Strider. And says he is right to be cautious. And so he is. Once again his initial caution is intrinsically connected to his concern for Frodo's safety. You will have to prove yourself before Sam will let down his guard. I do call that a sort of wisdom.
Smug?
Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation; self-righteously complacent
Ah, well, now here perhaps I am on safer ground: perhaps there are instances of smug behaviour.
(*tries furiously to think of examples*) (*fails*) Not in FotR in any event. Sam's attitude and actions are nothing short of stellar:
“Yes. Sir. I don't know how to say it, but after last night I feel different. I seem to see ahead, in a kind of way, I know we are going to take a very long road, into darkness; but I know I can't turn back. It isn't to see Elves now, nor dragons, nor mountains that I want --- I don't rightly know what I want: but I have something to do before the end, and it lies ahead, not in the Shire. I must see it through sire, if you understand me.”
A Short Cut to Mushrooms.
Is he more likely to be smug, or mentally myopic, in his treatment of Gollum? Sam's dislike of Gollum is palpable. He does not, for one single instant, ever even approach trust and never, ever relaxes his guard, nor does he ever forgive Gollum: only close to the very end do Pity and Mercy enter Sam's emotional 'Gollum lexicon.' (I'll touch on the missed opportunity later) I share in the distaste and the distrust, it is my opinion but Sam is both right and correct in those feelings. Gollum is not trustworthy. Not under any circumstance, and pragmatic Sam has a sworn duty and an innermost need to protect Frodo from any perceived harm. Sam cannot afford the luxury of forgiveness (that is in Frodo's province …. mercy is left to Frodo, who need not worry about the daily trivialities of survival because Sam has taken on that particular burden ) Sam cannot afford to forgive because to forgive Gollum entails risk. An enormous risk to the quest (not for the personal growth of the forgiver) The path of the quest is a straight and narrow one. It has to be.
“Stray but a little” …................ They must plod their weary way to Mordor one foot in front of the other without the emotional deviation required of Sam to forgive Gollum. Deviation is perilous. I do believe that the rigid mistrust Sam holds is a defensive armour; it is expedient, it is proper for it allows them the best chance of completing the task.
If Sam should relax his vigilance by contemplating 'pity' or 'mercy', or especially by following through, the awful risk of murder is increased, it becomes likely.
In any case, here's a hypothetical: say that Sam does repent earlier of his harsh treatment and even harsher thoughts, and say Gollum, in guise as Sméagol, drinks in the kindness like one dying of thirst, it's my unwavering (almost) belief the opportunity for redemption passed him by a long, long time ago. Long before he began tracking the hobbits in the wastes of Emyn Muil. By the time they meet and he is 'tamed', he is so inextricably entwined in the Ring that separation is impossible. Where does the Ring's evil end and where does Sméagol's lost soul begin? It is no more a complete entity. Instead it has been absorbed into the fabric of the Ring; swallowed whole, if you will.
Very like the Nazgûl. One senses that Gollum will soon become invisible and live only at the whim of Sauron's Ring.
Shudder.
Which leads me back straight into Sam's pragmatic, hard hobbity head: He refused to consider redemption for Gollum.
“he fails to notice the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect …......... Shelob's lair became inevitable.”
He could not notice! It might lead to a chink in the armour and Frodo must be protected by all means, at all costs, to whatever end ….. even if one of the ends was Shelob's lair.
Perhaps and even so, unless there is another one of those famous “deux ex machina” rescue moments (and this time it will need to be an internal rescue, a direct intervention, rather than an external 'The Eagles are Coming” moment) any change of heart felt by Gollum would be short-lived and temporary. He wanted the Ring more than he wanted salvation! The Ring IS his rescue and his salvation. I fear that Gollum is too far gone to accept, or act upon, the changes that spiritual redemption might bring because ….... according to the internal moral law of Arda, free will is the one constant and the Valar, acting on Eru's behalf, may not insist that redemption stick. On the other hand, Sauron feels no such moral compunction, and he might make very sure that his damnation does stick!
I just cannot find it within myself to place blame on Sam for either his failure to notice a softening of Gollum or his failure to feel pity. When he does finally reach that place within himself, it is supposed to be 'too little, too late' the opportunity having been passed by. Indeed. And what do we say of Gollum's refusal? Sam has offered from his heart and has been rejected. Is the argument one that says Gollum has been cheated (by Sam) of his one and only fleeting chance? Is it not more likely that there were several moments along the way; there were many times Frodo showed great patience and great empathy, did he not?
Why must Sam be weighted down with blame when really all Sam is guilty of is a willingness to protect and serve and save Mr. Frodo, to guide him as best he can with all of his heart, and all of his soul and all of his body? Saddling Sam with that responsibility is unfair, and I think, unwise. Place blame where it belongs …... on the emaciated shoulders of one malignant, bitter hobbit.
Whew.
Went off on a tangent there, didn't I?
Meanwhile; Returning to Letters:
“Sam was cocksure and deep down a little conceited; but his conceit had been transformed by his devotion to Frodo. He did not think of himself as heroic or even brave, or in any way admirable – except in his service and his loyalty to his master. That had an ingredient (probably inevitable) of pride and possessiveness: it is difficult to exclude it from the devotion of those who perform such service. In any case it prevented him from fully understanding the master that he loved and from following him in his gradual perception to the nobility of service to the unlovable and of perception of damaged goods in the corrupt” ….................
Um. Tolkien is the author and he wrote Sam. I suppose, because he says so here, that Sam is conceited, but I can't for the life of me find any real evidence of Sam's conceit. Unless I utterly misunderstand Tolkien's definition of 'conceit' but I admit, I'm puzzled. He does not think of himself as heroic. Yes, and that is true modesty: an admirable characteristic. Yet here, it is implied that Sam does not grow along with Frodo in the perception of nobility of service to the unlovable. I wonder. Sam's self-sacrifice is of a different sort than Frodo's, but is it no less worthy of admiration. Sam is not a saint. Never was. Never will be. Never could be. He is not 'transparent' or 'transformed' like Frodo and I don't suppose that his air was ever 'Elvish', but to my mind, his value is in the wonder of him representing Everyman. He represents Us, he is US with all of our struggles and in striving to do the right thing he lays bare the heart and shows what is best in us.
Continuing on:
“He plainly did not understand Frodo's motives or his distress in the incident of the Forbidden Pool.
If he had understood better what was going on between Frodo and Gollum, things might have turned out differently in the end.”
Well, he wouldn't understand the dynamic between Frodo and Gollum, now would he? He wasn't (yet) a ring-bearer and without that synergy his only concern would be Frodo's safety. Yes, all right. Sam thinks of murder but he does not give voice to his thoughts. Maybe I'm just dense but given Sam's intense dislike of
Stinker and intense distrust of
Slinker, I fail to see what could have been said or done differently. Sam is never going to do an about face and suddenly accept Gollum as misbegotten, woebegone or unfortunate. From what Sam knows Gollum brought all of his misery upon himself and Sam does not see one single redeeming spark within the miserable creature. He doesn't see one, because there isn't one! Sam only sees what is there. He doesn't speculate and he doesn't elaborate, there is no mystery inside of Gollum for Sam to see. His soul is black (what's left of it)and decency is an alien concept. Do we castigate Sam because he is so literal? I, for one, love his capacity for the concrete and the solidity of his grasp on the 'what is'. Gollum threatens Frodo's safety; that is what Sam reacts to.
You can't have it both ways. You can't admire him for his grasp of reality and then turn about and admonish his inability to grasp a speculative future. Any possible redemption to be had by Gollum is in the future. Sam doesn't care about Gollum's future. He only cares about getting Frodo safely from one place to the next ….. .
Suppose Sam did stop to ponder or to contemplate the metaphysical possibilities inherent within the journey …... would they even arrive at Mount Doom?
I think not.
edit: To add a title: because I think it's needed and because I want to.
![MrGreen :D](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)