Strider vs Samwise... FIGHT!

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Please accept my honest contrition for the Murdochesque title of this topic, but it grew out of a difference of opinion regarding protagonists, and who is the chief one in Lord of the Rings. I lean towards Samwise Gamgee, for reasons that I hope to explore in discussion with others who might deign to contribute to this thread, but initially, I am most interested with Holbytla's statement that

I maintain that it is Aragorn who is the protagonist of the story, and that the hobbits (while important) are secondary characters. The story can be construed as a culmination of the Akallabêth.

And I suppose if you want to get right down to the roots, it is a final ending of the War of Wrath.

It seems to me that the hobbits are central to this act of the story, but not on the broader scope of it.

I understand there is a myriad of opinions regarding this subject. I have even heard that Gollum is, in fact, the primary mover and shaker of the narrative, although I am unsure whether that truly fits the remit of main protagonist. Most point to Frodo, but there is something about the growth and change of Sam throughout the novel that hints at a deeper exposition than Frodo's maintained stoicism.

Although much of what I envisage to be discussion will be "in book", to mean independent of factors external to the narrative as presented, such as HoME, the process of writing cannot be ignored, and should not. Neither can the world in which the author lived. The books, written in Britain, must have been influenced by WWII and the end of- and post-war Attlee Labour government. For the first time, a truly working class political agenda was demanded by the people. Churchill was rejected. The Welfare State and NHS were born. Suddenly, his batman that Tolkien had such respect for from his own military experience had ceased to be the object of disdain, but like Sam Gamgee as Mayor, was "king". And the fruits of his majesty were quite astonishing!

But there I spin off into mine own justification!

What do others (and I am certain with more wisdom than I) think?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The answer, of course, is Frodo.

[axordil]

There are three stories woven in: the broader, epic arc Holby refers to, of which Aragorn is the protagonist; the hagiography centered on Frodo; and the homecoming of Samwise, which echoes and fulfills the earlier homecoming of Bilbo in The Hobbit. The last two are tightly intertwined, inseparable even, but the paths of the two principals are ultimately divergent.

As to a chief protagonist. it's all in the definition, which means while it's not quite subjective, neither is it objectively possible to come up with a single answer satisfying everyone. For people who equate chief protagonist with "most face time" it's probably Sam, since Frodo disappears for a chapter from their shared narrative. For people who look at LOTR as the end piece in the larger story, Aragorn is much more of a contender. For those of us who judge characters by their growth, Sam is again the best choice. And there are other definitions, some of which point to Frodo, of course, as he is the theological center of the story, and LOTR is, as Tolkien himself said, a Catholic story.

I have now contributed many words and no direction to the discussion, and will happily wait for someone to reverse that trend.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

The answer, of course, is Frodo.

Well then, I so wasted my time asking the question!

I think it takes a superficial analysis to deem Frodo such, and I find Tolkien a far more subtle practitioner of the art of narrative than merely superficial.

edit

Thanks, axordil, I missed that contribution. Cross posting, I think it's called!

I feel that the Lord of the Rings is all about change. The change in Ages. The elves leaving. Even Sandyman and Saruman with the hints of mecanization. And most of all, this change is concentrated in the character of Samwise. Contrast him with Pippin, who is the same age as him. Pippin grows, but no character develops as Sam does. Why? Because he is the hero, as Tolkien understood in the writing as he viewed the world about him.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I was having a bit of fun, because of the way you phrased the question.

Actually, my personal opinion is that there is no protagonist in The Lord of the Rings, but instead several characters of roughly equal importance (I would include Gandalf along with Frodo, Sam, and Aragorn). Alternatively, I would say that Middle-earth itself is the most important character of the tale.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I was having a bit of fun, because of the way you phrased the question.

Actually, my personal opinion is that there is no protagonist in The Lord of the Rings, but instead several characters of roughly equal importance (I would include Gandalf along with Frodo, Sam, and Aragorn). Alternatively, I would say that Middle-earth itself is the most important character of the tale.

And the fun really was reciprocated. I hold no truck with absolutes!

But I think my last edit was lost in a cross post.

In a book the size and scope of LotR, there will be a myriad of protagonists, but I really do believe the gamgee book-ending is significant.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Aragorn is the culmination of a narrative started elsewhere but the essential story of the LOTR could exist without him. He is an incidental character in the main thrust of the story. But in no way could it exist without Frodo. Nor as the book says could he have done it without Sam. It was truly a joint effort both in terms of effort but also theologically in that both showed Pity at crucial times and both conquered Despair, the virtue and vice which are both pivotal in the Middle-earth moral universe.

[axordil]

If you asked Joseph Campbell he'd say Frodo.

[Holbytla]

It does seem to come down to definitions and mincing of words to a point.
Certainly there is no one character that you can point to and say, "that is the main character" without any doubt. The story isn't written that way.

It is a hobbit-centric story to be sure. It is told mainly from their perspective.
And yes the manner in which it was written lends credence to one of the hobbits being the protagonist. Not the least of which is how and when Aragorn came about.

Still, as Tolkien himself stated, the story threw down roots and grew.

I have more to say and instances to support Aragorn that I will post soon, but for now I have to hit the hay. I'll try and post more thoughts tomorrow.

[narya]

One thing I'm struck by is all the situations where the main characters are in hopeless fights, and continue to fight anyway, then something comes out of left field (huorns, eagles, Bombadil, the army of the dead, Gollum in his last moments) to mop up. So maybe the main character, without which the book would never be concluded, is Providence, or perhaps Reliance on Providence.

I always found a slight comfort, when I was in my deepest depression, to say, like the characters of the book, "I have no hope, but I have confidence that soon, some day, I will have hope," and that was enough to get me through.

But that said, I'm a complete pushover for Frodo. When I was younger, I'd skip the Aragorn chapters completely in my yearly re-reads.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One thing I'm struck by is all the situations where the main characters are in hopeless fights, and continue to fight anyway, then something comes out of left field (huorns, eagles, Bombadil, the army of the dead, Gollum in his last moments) to mop up. So maybe the main character, without which the book would never be concluded, is Providence, or perhaps Reliance on Providence.

Which is another way of saying that the main character is Eru, or God.

[Alatar]

What a depressing thought!

[Pearly Di]

I know that Tolkien did not write LotR to be a modern novel but an Epic Romance.

Having said that, from a novelistic POV, Frodo is, in my opinion, the main protagonist. The main plot hinges entirely on Frodo's moral decision to carry the Ring to Mordor, and his subsequent spiritual struggles with the Ring. We don't get to see Aragorn's inner thoughts and feelings, but we do get to see Frodo's.

Yep ... Frodo Baggins is (for the most part) the main protagonist of LotR in the way that Lizzie Bennet is the main protagonist of Pride and Prejudice, or Pip the main protagonist of Great Expectations. Frodo's POV predominates in FotR ... even when the storylines divide, in TTT, the reader realises that the action in Rohan and Gondor all depend upon Frodo's actions in the East, as he and Sam journey towards Mordor.

Sam supplants Frodo as the central protagonist by the end of the book. We cease to see inside Frodo's thoughts and feelings after his ordeal in Cirith Ungol. The author lets us then be privy to Sam's inner thoughts and feelings, and Sam's heroic actions move the plot along!

Aragorn is an important character in the tale, of course: his story is an essential component of the events that take place, culminating in the renewal of Middle-earth and the start of a new Golden Age (under his and Arwen's reign). But he is not a central protagonist in the way that either Frodo or Sam are because of the deliberate hobbit-centric narrative.

... there is something about the growth and change of Sam throughout the novel that hints at a deeper exposition than Frodo's maintained stoicism.

Possibly. Sam's character arc is executed very well by Tolkien, no question about that. And in terms of what Sam's character arc might represent, as far as bigger themes go, it could be argued that this is 'deeper exposition'.

Possibly.

A friend of mine, many years ago, on another Tolkien board (not TORC) made a very persuasive argument that Frodo is the Tragic Hero (because he loses everything), Sam is the Fairytale Hero (because everything works out for him), and Aragorn is the Traditional Hero (warrior type). I've always loved her theory, and I agree.

One thing I won't countenance though ... any arguments that Sam is a 'deeper' character, or a braver one, than Frodo.

(I am somewhat obsessive in my defence of Frodo, as people here know well. ) See sig.

ETA: Wow, it's a very long time since I had the energy and inclination for a literary Tolkien discussion of this sort.

[axordil]

A friend of mine, many years ago, on another Tolkien board (not TORC) made a very persuasive argument that Frodo is the Tragic Hero (because he loses everything), Sam is the Fairytale Hero (because everything works out for him), and Aragorn is the Traditional Hero (warrior type). I've always loved her theory, and I agree.

Since that's another way of saying what I said earlier, I agree as well... although even Sam's fairy tale is full of loss, and very down-to-earth as fairy tales go.

My basic model for LOTR is that as the hobbits travel farther and farther from the Shire, the story shifts in tone, changing from one bordering the bucolic (and in Frye's terms, the low mimetic) to a romance. The romance comes in when Strider appears, carrying with him the a broken sword and ten thousand years of back story.

The romance tone follows Aragorn all the way through the story. The lower, more comic (and more modern) tone pops up again when Merry and Pippin are abducted: their conversations with the orcs, and the arguments between the orcs, remind me of clown scenes in Shakespeare.

But Frodo and Sam's (and Gollum's) journey is the real departure. The setting is fantastic, but the bones of this part of the story are that of a modern psychological novel. Epic romance, as a rule, is indifferent to the changing emotional and spiritual state of its characters. The voyage from the Emyn Muil to Oroduin is much closer to early Graham Greene than to Chretien de Troyes or Mallory, where survival is the only prize.

So, in my view, when one asks who the chief protagonist of LOTR is, one is also asking what the "main" part of the story is.

[narya]

The other characters can do whatever they want to do, but if Frodo didn't pop the ring into the Crack of Doom, it wouldn't have mattered, in the end.

[axordil]

The other characters can do whatever they want to do, but if Frodo didn't pop the ring into the Crack of Doom, it wouldn't have mattered, in the end.

Sure. But a pivotal, even climactic act can be made by a supporting character...which in this case was in fact Gollum, not Frodo.

[Holbytla]

This is wayyyy long and verrry rambling, but it will have to do for now. There are indirect and maybe not so indirect references to Paul Kocher's Master of Middle-Earth contained within this tome. For reference purposes mainly as I don't totally buy what he has to say. Anyway....

To carry on with a few thoughts….

This is a complex issue for sure, and I have come to that conclusion based on how the “story” was written and the manner in which it was brought to the public.

My memory is vague on a lot of things dealing with the history of Tolkien’s writings and what was written when and how. I haven’t read all of HOME and haven’t read Letters for a number of years. If my memory is correct at all, then the story/stories were written according to the ages of Middle Earth. Meaning LOTR was written after the Silmarillion had its essential structure in place.

It also seems to me that Tolkien was asked by his publisher for another story dealing with hobbits, after publication of The Hobbit. Again if memory serves, they had little interest in the Silmarillion.

Given that, and the method in which Aragorn came into being, it isn’t any wonder that the “protagonist” is somewhat of a slippery fish.

How do we gain perspective? Are we to take the LOTR at its face value, and if so are we obliged to take into account the Tale of Years and the appendices? What about The Hobbit itself? Is it to be included as part of the story? Even with its history of revision? Is it ok to go with the “gut check”?

It is difficult for me to ignore the history behind the writing of the LOTR, but at the same time I do like to take things on face value or evidence presented. With few exceptions, the story is told from mainly a hobbits perspective. Be it Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Merry or Pippin there is no escaping that the story is presented from a hobbits viewpoint.
What is the reasoning for that? Was it due to the pressure of the publisher or was it a natural occurrence? Both maybe? Would there even be mention of hobbits beyond The Hobbit if it were not for the influence of the publisher?

I suspect the answer is yes to the question of hobbits involvement, but I wonder if they would have had the same impact in the story. I wonder if Aragorn maybe would have evolved differently had the publishers not had such a profound influence on the story at its outset.

Still at the end of the day we are left with the words published within the context of the LOTR. From A Long-Expected Party through to The Grey Havens and beyond to the appendices is essentially what we have to base our conclusions on regarding our protagonist. The Silmarillion as published was an unfinished work and it is difficult at best to assume that that is canon in any way.

Yet still again the story didn’t originate in a vacuum and some account should be taken for the genesis of the story. I guess some of this hinges on the idea that this is indeed a story with great roots and a beginning that goes back many years before the actual writing took place.

Of course this all means nothing to the casual reader and as far as they know, the story starts at either An Unexpected Party or A Long-Expected Party, and the history be damned.

All of us, at one time, were casual readers of the story. It isn’t any great stretch to guess that most of us thought Bilbo (The Hobbit) and Frodo (LOTR) were the protagonists of the story/stories. So maybe we should eschew the history of how the story came into being and try and regain that initial perspective.

Even if that were the case how do we ignore the myriad of references to the Eldar Days or the “roots” that occur within the pages? No matter if it was my first read or my 40th, I noticed, was intrigued or more likely taken in by the depth of the story. It felt like it had a place in time. It felt like Middle Earth was. The third age of Middle Earth was, the year 1420 Shire Reckoning was, and that was all due to the depth or roots of the story that were laid down along the way. Regardless of publishing dates, the story was fixed in time and had a history. That was no accident and certainly was part of the allure of the story.

To me, perspective is what drives the question of who was the protagonist. Others will feel differently depending on their perspective, or simply because of how the story relates to them. I certainly would never even attempt to try tell anyone what the story meant to them, or who was what where when and how. That is up to the individual reader. All I can do is to express my own views.


So where does that leave us with Aragorn as the protagonist as opposed to Frodo or even Sam? Well Tolkien as the founder of the story is responsible of course as to how it all played out. I don’t need to point out the difficulties in the story line or the incongruence of the narrative to the people here. The fact that Tolkien had introduced a character into the story and had little idea of who he was as late as Bree of course leads to many problems with regards to character importance.

Let’s look at the word protagonist according to Dictionary.com.

pro•tag•o•nist
   proʊˈtæg ə nɪstShow Spelled[proh-tag-uh-nist] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work.
2.
a proponent for or advocate of a political cause, social program, etc.
3.
the leader or principal person in a movement, cause, etc.
4.
the first actor in ancient Greek drama, who played not only the main role, but also other roles when the main character was offstage. Compare deuteragonist, tritagonist.
5.
Physiology . agonist.




Origin:
1665–75; < Gk prōtagōnistḗs actor who plays the first part, lit., first combatant, equiv. to prôt ( os ) first + agōnistḗs one who contends for a prize, combatant, actor. See proto-, antagonist


While the character Aragorn could be seen as a hero, I don’t think he qualifies for definition number 1. You could maybe argue that he qualified for number for, but certainly he qualifies for numbers 2 and 3. I’ve no idea what number 5 is referring to.

On the other hand, Frodo qualifies for number 1, but I am far less sure about 2 and 3. Essentially he inherited the One Ring and was thrust into a situation that he excelled at up until the end. Even so, LOTR being a hobbit-centric story still leaves lots of room for Frodo being the ace character or protagonist. This again is mainly due to writing style on Tolkien’s part.

There is no doubt about the quality of Frodo’s character and his ultimate sacrifice for the common good even if he were unwittingly thrust into this situation. Nor is there any doubt regarding Sam’s loyalty, honesty and plain hobbit sense. Certainly there is also their perspective which we see through Tolkien’s writing.

But what of Aragorn? His father died at the hand of orcs. His mother brought him to Rivendell to live in anonymity before moving away to be with her “people” and declared "I gave Hope to the Dúnedain, I have kept no hope for myself.." His life was relegated to wandering, fighting with various armies, watching over the boarders of the Shire, being the inheritor of a title that he cannot claim, being in love with a Lúthien-esque character which had little hope of fruition, and being relegated to a “Strider”. His sacrifices speak for themselves. The part he played in the LOTR speaks for itself. From leading the company to vying with Sauron in the palantír to the battle at the gates of Mordor certainly has to be on par with Frodo or Sam and their sacrifices or deeds. His journey was to reunite a kingdom and stem the tide of evil regardless the cost. His journey was to eradicate the mistakes of his forbears. His part was not the destruction of the ring it is true, but that is well as it should have been. He would have failed as well as Frodo did, perhaps more.
Does it all come down to how the story was written or the deeds of the characters? Does it come down to sacrifice? Is it the history that is replete throughout the tale?

The story could have survived without Aragorn, but at the same token, Odo could have been the ringbearer. Or whomever from the Shire. Aragorn’s character is what gives the story depth and is what is written from the depths of the story. Frodo had no kingdom to regain. No great cause for Middle Earth that was handed down through the ages.

Heck why not Gandalf and his divine mission as the protagonist? Aragorn’s story, despite the shortcommings on how he unfolded had far more to lose, much more depth, and makes much more sense than a stray cleft-chinned hobbit from the Shire.

Of course that is the attraction as well. The underdog no name from out of nowhere coming on scene to shake the counsels of the wise. There is no denying the importance of the hobbits throughout the story, but at the same time given how the story was written and how it evolved, it is difficult to overlook Aragorn's character and importance to the overall narrative.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is wayyyy long and verrry rambling, but it will have to do for now. There are indirect and maybe not so indirect references to Paul Kocher's Master of Middle-Earth contained within this tome. For reference purposes mainly as I don't totally buy what he has to say.

I don't either, not totally, but I still think that his is still probably the best discussion of Aragorn that I have seen in a scholarly work, 35 years after he wrote it.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Holbytla, would you also argue that King Arthur is the main protagonist in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight?

I would challenge the notion that a character who is more important outside a specific narrative can be deemed the main protagonist inside that specific narrative purely on the grounds of that, external, importance.

[Holbytla]

I would argue that more than perspective alone should account for the main character.