Strider vs Samwise... FIGHT!

[vison]

I think the Quest WAS to return the King. It was a novel way to tell the tale - it was a novel, not "real myth". It is as if the Arthur tale included some peasants, and as if one of them was first to see the sword in the rock. "Look, look! There's a king's sword! Who could it be for? Where's that Art guy?"

Truthfully, I think the argument over the "real hero" is rather meaningless. In that, it doesn't matter. Does it?

There are days when I see Frodo as the most important and then other days when I see Sam or Aragorn as most important and there are good arguments for Gollum.

But none of the tale would have happened without Isuldur's folly, and as Isuldur's heir, Aragorn must be seen as the "real hero" in the sense of a "romantic hero". No peasant (and Frodo and Sam were peasants) is ever the hero of a myth. He's always a king-in-waiting, a king-in-secret. Brought up as a peasant, maybe, hidden from The Enemy in a woodcutter's hut - or known as a Prince and kept safe in an Eleven fastness.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

So the tale of Robin Hood, in which Richard the Lionheart is returned to his throne in spite of the machinations of his brother John doesn't have Robin as the hero, but Richard? And my example of Gawain and the Green Knight? This is part of the Arthurian cycle, therefore Gawain is not the Chief Protagonist, but Arthur?

All these quest tales you refer to, in which a King finds his throne; which tales? And they are universal? Cinderella was not a princess until the end; is she not the protagonist? I'm unsure the wealth of literature supports this sweeping statement, vison.

As for it mattering, of course it doesn't. But that doesn't mean I can't find some interest in the debate!

[vison]

So the tale of Robin Hood, in which Richard the Lionheart is returned to his throne in spite of the machinations of his brother John doesn't have Robin as the hero, but Richard? And my example of Gawain and the Green Knight? This is part of the Arthurian cycle, therefore Gawain is not the Chief Protagonist, but Arthur?

All these quest tales you refer to, in which a King finds his throne; which tales? And they are universal? Cinderella was not a princess until the end; is she not the protagonist? I'm unsure the wealth of literature supports this sweeping statement, vison.

As for it mattering, of course it doesn't. But that doesn't mean I can't find some interest in the debate!

Robin Hood? The tale of Robin Hood wasn't a "quest" story. Richard was already King and much of the story is not concerned with King Richard's throne, but with Robin's own adventures as "robbing from the rich to give to the poor". I'm not sure what to call the story of Robin Hood - but one thing for sure, Robin was not a peasant!

Cinderella doesn't "count". She was a woman, and women don't count in these things. Look at Éowyn . . .

As for Gawain, yes, he was the "protagonist" of his own tale - which happened to be part of the greater tale of King Arthur.

I think LOTR doesn have 3 "main characters" and Gandalf.

[yovargas]

Anyone who defends Sam gets my full vote and confidence.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

vison, I agree, my examples really were pretty dire. Rushed out, they were, without due consideration. However, I would recommend pondering on the "Jack" tales (Jack the Giant Killer, Jack and the Beanstalk, and others). These are the meat and drink of quest tales, in which the "peasant" is the hero, against a back-drop of kings and queens, witches and dragons, the whole panoply of Faerie. And I think that Sam is exactly just such a hero, and for all its depth and splendour, the Lord of the Rings is a "Jack" story, painted on a canvas of Romance. Good Sam, the Jack son of the sod who triumphs, is such an archetype!

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

And I now know a new word, deuteragonist which I shall endeavour to introduce into conversation whenever possible.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Deuteragonist! That was the word I was looking for! I knew writing "Chief Protagonist" was pretty much a tautology, and I knew that Sauron and Gollum were antagonists, but I couldn't figure out how to describe the secondary heroes. Deuteragonists. Thanks ToshoftheWuffingas, for so perfectly expanding my vocabulary.

[Pearly Di]

Yes, Sam is a Jack the Giantkiller figure.

But so is Frodo.

LotR may end with Sam, but it is Frodo's tragedy, and higher calling (to Elvenhome, where he will be purified) that I feel at the end of the tale, and which haunts Sam's heart - so much so that after he has lived a rich and productive life, he seeks the West, and reunion with his beloved Master.

The mythos, for me, does not end with Sam's "Well, I'm back.". (Although it's a good way to end the main narrative).

The mythos ends, for me, when Aragorn dies and then Arwen dies and Legolas and Gimli sail. The final farewell to the Fellowship in Middle-earth and the end of the Golden Age.

Sam is a hero, yes. And Tolkien switches from Frodo to Sam as the main protagonist at the end. But it is Frodo's bittersweet, haunting end, Frodo's sacrifice and the price he paid for it, that touches my heart most deeply.

Not Sam, much as I like and respect him.

Always Frodo first for me, always will be.

And I refute the notion that his mercy to Gollum was 'naive'.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Pearly Di, I think you have encapsulated many of the emotions I feel myself quite beautifully, and I really do agree with much of what you write. The tragedy of Frodo is heart-rending, for the reader as well as Sam. Does Sam also leave Middle Earth, as he was a ringbearer, if but briefly? His children thought so. And you are right, in my mind, with the mythos end, as Legolas and Gimli set sail. I find those brief tales of years in the appendix so very sad.

There is one little correction, but quite important. I do not think Frodo was naive in showing mercy to Gollum. Events prove otherwise. I think he was naive if he believed Gollum was redeemable. The ring had corrupted him too much, and his betrayal, which may have been accelerated by Sam's suspicions, would surely have happened eventually. The precious had too great a hold, and "good" Sméagol was in truth a brief interregnum.

[Holbytla]

I never thought this was truly an answerable question, mainly due to the style in which it was written. Partly because of the evolution of some characters.

I see a lot of blending of issues in this thread. Important deeds is very subjective, and rather like trying to determine which organs in the body are the most vital. You can't live without a brain or a heart (excepting with the aid of some mechanical device in its stead), so how do you place one above the other?

Had Gandalf not nudged Bilbo out the door (perhaps through divine intervention), then none of the story would have been as it was. Had Aragorn not confronted Sauron in the palantír then maybe Middle-Earth would have been left with a hollow victory. The list is nearly endless with regards to "vital" deeds.

Mossy cites that the person driving the story forward tends to be the protagonist, and I would agree with that at least in part. Again due to the style of writing we are left with a fractured story.

And maybe that is one of the beauties of the story. Maybe by design or luck Tolkien has managed to come across as having a story with a theme of unity and fellowship.

I will always wonder how the story would have played out if Tolkien were left to his own devices without any pressure from his publishers.

I won't bother to cite arguments or instances of worth regarding characters, because I am going to assume most of us have read the story countless times and it is rather redundant after all of these years.

It is easy to allow personal likes to attribute import to characters regardless of the actual text involved. Heck if you like Sam and in him you find meaning and that is in part what makes the story for you, then go with that I say.
If you try and be objective (as if and I never could be), then you can see the multitude of important deeds and the drivers of the story and see how it all ties in with the larger story.

I said I wasn't going to cite instances but I lied.

Guiding the wayward hobbits to Rivendell.
Guiding the Fellowship after Gandalf's fall.
Tracking Merry and Pippin.
Battle of Helms Deep.
Vying for palantír supremacy with Sauron.
Pafs of de ded. i.e. scrubbing bubbles.
Battle of the Pelennor.
Healing.
Battle at the Black Gate.
Reuniting the kingdom of Gondor and re-establishing the throne.
Third instance of inter-marrying between elves and men and a reuniting of the Beren/Lúthien line.

That is just off the top of my head.

And one last quote before I go.
From our dear Bilbo;

"Don't adventures ever end? I suppose not. Someone else has to carry on the story."

The hobbits were carrying on a story far older than themselves.

[vison]

Why can't we have Tritagonists? Jeez.

And I never for one minute believed that Sam left Middle Earth after Rosie died. Sam is buried beside Rosie in The Shire.

My word, we had a flame war about this on another site!!!!

I wrote a heart-rending fanfic on this very subject and if I can find it I'll post it in The Red Book thread.

Is that a threat or a promise?

So, I did. If anyone wants to read it, it's in the Red Book thread.

I wrote it in 2004, I think. I still like it.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

When Rosie died, Sam rode West to the Tower Hills and gave the Red Book to Elanor, then departed out of knowledge. Not buried with Rose, I'm afraid. I'd like to read the fanfic, mind.

Holbytla, I would never say that Aragorn's role was minor, simply that, in the end, Sam's is greater. All those sacrifices would have come to naught if Sam had not carried Frodo, and the Ring, to Mount Doom.

[vison]

When Rosie died, Sam rode West to the Tower Hills and gave the Red Book to Elanor, then departed out of knowledge. Not buried with Rose, I'm afraid. I'd like to read the fanfic, mind.

Holbytla, I would never say that Aragorn's role was minor, simply that, in the end, Sam's is greater. All those sacrifices would have come to naught if Sam had not carried Frodo, and the Ring, to Mount Doom.

Oh, that's what it says in the appendix! But I know the real story.

The Red Book version is the Red Book version, for publication, you know? But the family always knew.

So I posted it!

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Yes, I think I like your story more.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

This is not the first time I have said this nor is it likely to be the last but I consider the pivotal moment in the story is when Sam, helpless and at journeys end in Cirith Ungol rejects despair. It is the moment when Denethor has embraced it and the Lord of the Nazgûl is before the gate of Minas Tirith. It is also the moment when the wind turns and speeds the boats of the Dúnedain and brings sunlight on to the battle field.
I believe that song redeemed Sam's lack of pity toward Sméagol in the ascent to Shelob's lair and granted the possibility of the Quest succeeding.
The final success was due to the crowning act of grace with Sam's pity and mercy to Sméagol on the slopes of Orodruin.
If people protest that that puts too much power in the story to Eru I think Tolkien had a good handle on how mythology is used as symbol for innate human qualities but that perhaps needs another discussion. I guess TORC has done it somewhere.

[vison]

Yes, I think I like your story more.

Thank you. I liked it, too.

It seemed "truer" to me, knowing Sam as I do.

[Pearly Di]

Vison, your fanfic is beautifully written, but for me it is very much Alternative Universe. . As all fanfic is, of course, but I see Canon Sam's ultimate fate very differently.

I believe that he DID sail, and that he'd earned his passage on that ship, because Frodo promised him that was the case.

Obviously Tolkien leaves it somewhat ambiguous, in the Appendices, but I am powerfully persuaded by two things: Sam's love for Frodo and his love for the Elves. These two things come full circle, if Sam sails West. And if Legolas and Gimli made it West, so can Sam (although he sailed before they did).

I'm fine with Sam marrying Rose and having thirteen kids. And a long and happy life. But the sound of the waves on the shore never left him. According to my personal interpretation, of course.

Personally, I just find that a more satisfying, and haunting, conclusion.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Me too.

[vison]

Well, so do I, some of the time.
But that's because I wish there was a Heaven, for Sam and for me.

I believe that he DID sail, and that he'd earned his passage on that ship, because Frodo promised him that was the case.

I guess this is what bothers me about the idea of Sam sailing to the Uttermost West: "he'd earned his passage". By chance (if it was chance) Sam was a Ringbearer and this accident of chance gave him his ticket to paradise. It seems wrong to me. It seems to erase, in some fashion, his essential 'hobbitness" or rather, his ordinariness, his humanity, and puts him with the Elves - who have never seemed earthly to me.

There may have been dozens of Hobbits, maybe even Merry or Pippin, who could have done what Sam did. And yet they never got passage on that ship. They never had the chance.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Because, while Merry and Pippin loved Frodo, their love for him was not like Sam's. Even Sam's love for Rosie was not like his love for Frodo.