![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was having a slightly annoying conversation about Sam Gamgee yesterday. Annoying mostly because I still get the feeling that the person I was talking to was dancing around what they really meant: that Sam was better than Frodo and should have been the ringbearer. I get so irritated by this interpretation of the story. Most Sam-fans (by which I mean people for whom Sam is the their favorite character here--I consider myself a big Sam-fan but my favorite character would obviously be Frodo) that I know don't see things this way. They love him without disliking Frodo, admire his gifts without resentfully looking for things he's denied. But there's always those few who, imo, completely distort the point of the story through their interpretation of Sam.
I think I'm more sensitive to seeing the minority Sam opinion, though, because it reminds me so much of Scullyists in X-files fandom. By the end of the show it seemed like there weren't many Philes who could love Scully without it being just a way to express contempt for Mulder. It occurs to me, though, that these two characters, perhaps because they fill the same role in their Quests, naturally attract this kind of thing.
Both Scully and Sam are assigned to assist people who don't request their help. Frodo and Mulder are both loners on a personal quest, not leaders, and are therefore both known to "ditch," as Scullyists call it. Scully is assigned to Mulder against his will. Sam, too, is "assigned" to Frodo. Both Scully and Sam then make a personal commitment to the person they are helping because they think the man/hobbit and his cause are good. I think it's implied that both Scully and Sam are drawn to the person they are helping--Mulder and Frodo. They are both, at heart, more drawn to individuals than ideals or concepts. Scully thinks the X-files are ridiculous; Mulder's passion is what makes her see things otherwise. Sam ultimately chooses Frodo over the quest itself (um, wrong answer if he was actually the ringbearer).
To me, this seems like a dignified, worthwhile thing that's the basis of their personalities. Not so to some of their fans, though. Both Scully and Sam both attract people (Scully more than Sam) who need the character to get credit not only for his/her own talents and abilities but other characters' as well. They slip in these subtle digs at Frodo and Mulder and their achievements. In X-files it was blatant: Mulder's abilties were just "hunches" or "intuition" that popped into his head and so why couldn't the writers just throw Scully some sometimes (presumably some week when she wasn't also being given messianic visions ::rolls eyes::)? I mean Mulder's great but he's basically immature and helpless without Scully and has no morals or professional abilities at all. He could never solve a single case without her. The implication, of course, being that of course Scully would do just fine without *him.* Nevermind that in Season 8 Mulder disappeared and Scully immediately became even more of a sidekick, this time to Doggett, because the character doesn't work in that role. I shudder to think what would have happened if the show tried to do the reverse--have Mulder do something scientific or get a vision from God! But then, it's right that Mulder shouldn't have those things. Mulder obviously had enough on his own, he didn't need to envy other characters' talents.
In this recent Sam conversation it was the same type thing. We were talking about whether PJ will have Sam carry the ring in ROTK. Everyone agreed it was important that he do so, but this person felt it was important because it was the scene that proved Sam was the "most pure" member of the Fellowship. "Most pure" is a vague term but it seemed pretty clear that it was the usual misunderstanding of the story: Sam rejects the ring's first temptation, therefore proving that he is The One and is immune to it through his humble goodness. This was followed by more little digs at Frodo's own achievements: yes, he managed to resist the ring "for a short time" but he ended up affected by it and Sam wasn't. Sam rejected the ring's offers of glory so and Frodo obviously didn't. Honestly, you do wonder exactly how people see Frodo. What dreams of glory does he fall for, exactly?
Ironically, this conceit on Sam's behalf is the very thing the ring tempts him with: Oh, let him carry the ring. No one so humble could be in danger. His simple good-nature will protect him. It's not like they ever have to prove this. There's only one hobbit actually tested with the ring and that's Frodo. Persumably Sam's easy victory over it should just be assumed given the way he rejected the ring's offerings of things he'd never wanted. Any suggestion that Frodo has rejected any such thing is just brushed off, despite the fact that Frodo is the one carrying the damn thing all the way up the mountain. No, if Sam had been the ringbearer he just would have given it a firm talking to early on and after a few "Nowts" and "If you take my meanings" the ring would have been tamed like an unruly goat. As much as I like the aspects of Sam this calls upon, to think this would have had any effect on the ring rather diminishes the point of the story. All evidence that Sam clearly was effected by the ring--his hesitation before giving it back and his offering to carry it again later, something that he had never offered before being touched by it--were also dismissed. This isn't giving Sam his due, it's literally making him Super Hobbit. Score one for the ring.
I think some people prefer to see the story as a simple test, like The Holy Grail. Sam is "tested" once and "passes." He is therefore he is "better" than everyone else and due for some divine reward where he's elevated above them. There's complete denial over the fact that before and after Sam has his moments with the ring, one of which we hear about, there's this other hobbit slogging along for weeks. If it were as simple as turning down wild fantasies and flattery Pippin would have stood a pretty good chance as well. But once you see it as a test you can Frodo must have failed it in ways Sam did not--in ways, I suspect, the reader believes he himself would not. Bilbo and Gandalf may have thought Frodo was the best hobbit in the Shire but they probably just didn't notice he was fatally corrupted compared to our Sam.
Just to be clear, this is not meant to in any way imply that Frodo is better than Sam either. Frodo could not do what Sam did any more than Sam could do what Frodo did. Nobody could have gotten farther with the ring than Frodo did but could Sam have gotten as far? I'd say "The Choices of Master Samwise" says no, but this is not because Sam's character is flawed or less developed. It's just different; this is not his task.
Perhaps this feeling was so much more prevelent in X-files because it was encouraged by the show itself. Scully could literally act like the biggest idiot in any episode and some character would still wind things up by reminding Mulder how lucky he was to have her because he was so incompetent (Agua Mala anyone?). It became necessary for Scully's character to be understood to be "repressed" at all times, held back from her true abilities by Mulder...which is why the worst question you could ask was, "So why doesn't she quit?" Sacrilege! Scully can't be in charge of her own life! She must always be sacrificing! It's Mulder's fault she has no friends, no husband, no children! It's like this character who in Season 1 appeared to be a role model for professional women turned into a huge throwback, the ultimate example of "behind every successful man you'll find a woman" idea.
This always struck me as so strange because to me the single most courageous thing Scully did in her life was commit to Mulder because it was what she wanted. Mulder was, imo, just what Scully craved: a visionary with passion who gave her a part in something worthwhile and bigger than herself. The woman's nickname was Starbuck, for goodness sake! This is really not unlike Sam with Frodo. Frodo, too, gave Sam something he wanted himself: something precious to care for that made him feel connected to the feeling he would probably describe as elvish. I don't understand why anyone would want to take that away from Scully, turn her life into complete drudgery. Pretend, really, that this wasn't her life. In her real life she was married with children--Mulder just kept her from that.
I think there's a really failure of nerve in there somewhere. If Scully doesn't claim her life she can't be responsible for it. It's like, how dare you judge any of Scully's actions when she'd doing it all for Mulder? Hmmm...it's funny that Sam "conquers" the ring by knowing who he is, not seeing himself as more than he is. More important, perhaps, is Sam's not pretending to think he is less than he is.
I think I'm more sensitive to seeing the minority Sam opinion, though, because it reminds me so much of Scullyists in X-files fandom. By the end of the show it seemed like there weren't many Philes who could love Scully without it being just a way to express contempt for Mulder. It occurs to me, though, that these two characters, perhaps because they fill the same role in their Quests, naturally attract this kind of thing.
Both Scully and Sam are assigned to assist people who don't request their help. Frodo and Mulder are both loners on a personal quest, not leaders, and are therefore both known to "ditch," as Scullyists call it. Scully is assigned to Mulder against his will. Sam, too, is "assigned" to Frodo. Both Scully and Sam then make a personal commitment to the person they are helping because they think the man/hobbit and his cause are good. I think it's implied that both Scully and Sam are drawn to the person they are helping--Mulder and Frodo. They are both, at heart, more drawn to individuals than ideals or concepts. Scully thinks the X-files are ridiculous; Mulder's passion is what makes her see things otherwise. Sam ultimately chooses Frodo over the quest itself (um, wrong answer if he was actually the ringbearer).
To me, this seems like a dignified, worthwhile thing that's the basis of their personalities. Not so to some of their fans, though. Both Scully and Sam both attract people (Scully more than Sam) who need the character to get credit not only for his/her own talents and abilities but other characters' as well. They slip in these subtle digs at Frodo and Mulder and their achievements. In X-files it was blatant: Mulder's abilties were just "hunches" or "intuition" that popped into his head and so why couldn't the writers just throw Scully some sometimes (presumably some week when she wasn't also being given messianic visions ::rolls eyes::)? I mean Mulder's great but he's basically immature and helpless without Scully and has no morals or professional abilities at all. He could never solve a single case without her. The implication, of course, being that of course Scully would do just fine without *him.* Nevermind that in Season 8 Mulder disappeared and Scully immediately became even more of a sidekick, this time to Doggett, because the character doesn't work in that role. I shudder to think what would have happened if the show tried to do the reverse--have Mulder do something scientific or get a vision from God! But then, it's right that Mulder shouldn't have those things. Mulder obviously had enough on his own, he didn't need to envy other characters' talents.
In this recent Sam conversation it was the same type thing. We were talking about whether PJ will have Sam carry the ring in ROTK. Everyone agreed it was important that he do so, but this person felt it was important because it was the scene that proved Sam was the "most pure" member of the Fellowship. "Most pure" is a vague term but it seemed pretty clear that it was the usual misunderstanding of the story: Sam rejects the ring's first temptation, therefore proving that he is The One and is immune to it through his humble goodness. This was followed by more little digs at Frodo's own achievements: yes, he managed to resist the ring "for a short time" but he ended up affected by it and Sam wasn't. Sam rejected the ring's offers of glory so and Frodo obviously didn't. Honestly, you do wonder exactly how people see Frodo. What dreams of glory does he fall for, exactly?
Ironically, this conceit on Sam's behalf is the very thing the ring tempts him with: Oh, let him carry the ring. No one so humble could be in danger. His simple good-nature will protect him. It's not like they ever have to prove this. There's only one hobbit actually tested with the ring and that's Frodo. Persumably Sam's easy victory over it should just be assumed given the way he rejected the ring's offerings of things he'd never wanted. Any suggestion that Frodo has rejected any such thing is just brushed off, despite the fact that Frodo is the one carrying the damn thing all the way up the mountain. No, if Sam had been the ringbearer he just would have given it a firm talking to early on and after a few "Nowts" and "If you take my meanings" the ring would have been tamed like an unruly goat. As much as I like the aspects of Sam this calls upon, to think this would have had any effect on the ring rather diminishes the point of the story. All evidence that Sam clearly was effected by the ring--his hesitation before giving it back and his offering to carry it again later, something that he had never offered before being touched by it--were also dismissed. This isn't giving Sam his due, it's literally making him Super Hobbit. Score one for the ring.
I think some people prefer to see the story as a simple test, like The Holy Grail. Sam is "tested" once and "passes." He is therefore he is "better" than everyone else and due for some divine reward where he's elevated above them. There's complete denial over the fact that before and after Sam has his moments with the ring, one of which we hear about, there's this other hobbit slogging along for weeks. If it were as simple as turning down wild fantasies and flattery Pippin would have stood a pretty good chance as well. But once you see it as a test you can Frodo must have failed it in ways Sam did not--in ways, I suspect, the reader believes he himself would not. Bilbo and Gandalf may have thought Frodo was the best hobbit in the Shire but they probably just didn't notice he was fatally corrupted compared to our Sam.
Just to be clear, this is not meant to in any way imply that Frodo is better than Sam either. Frodo could not do what Sam did any more than Sam could do what Frodo did. Nobody could have gotten farther with the ring than Frodo did but could Sam have gotten as far? I'd say "The Choices of Master Samwise" says no, but this is not because Sam's character is flawed or less developed. It's just different; this is not his task.
Perhaps this feeling was so much more prevelent in X-files because it was encouraged by the show itself. Scully could literally act like the biggest idiot in any episode and some character would still wind things up by reminding Mulder how lucky he was to have her because he was so incompetent (Agua Mala anyone?). It became necessary for Scully's character to be understood to be "repressed" at all times, held back from her true abilities by Mulder...which is why the worst question you could ask was, "So why doesn't she quit?" Sacrilege! Scully can't be in charge of her own life! She must always be sacrificing! It's Mulder's fault she has no friends, no husband, no children! It's like this character who in Season 1 appeared to be a role model for professional women turned into a huge throwback, the ultimate example of "behind every successful man you'll find a woman" idea.
This always struck me as so strange because to me the single most courageous thing Scully did in her life was commit to Mulder because it was what she wanted. Mulder was, imo, just what Scully craved: a visionary with passion who gave her a part in something worthwhile and bigger than herself. The woman's nickname was Starbuck, for goodness sake! This is really not unlike Sam with Frodo. Frodo, too, gave Sam something he wanted himself: something precious to care for that made him feel connected to the feeling he would probably describe as elvish. I don't understand why anyone would want to take that away from Scully, turn her life into complete drudgery. Pretend, really, that this wasn't her life. In her real life she was married with children--Mulder just kept her from that.
I think there's a really failure of nerve in there somewhere. If Scully doesn't claim her life she can't be responsible for it. It's like, how dare you judge any of Scully's actions when she'd doing it all for Mulder? Hmmm...it's funny that Sam "conquers" the ring by knowing who he is, not seeing himself as more than he is. More important, perhaps, is Sam's not pretending to think he is less than he is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
more spoilers!
Part of it could be the hero-worship mentality that only the hero is any good and the people actually putting food on his plate are little robot peons. I, on the other hand, was damn impressed by that rabbit Sam got. I was like, hey, nobody ever talks about that! Superheroes don't need -food-! And so forth.
I would like to point out that the extreme of Sam, Tom Bombadil, was ruled out as a ringbearer as he would just throw away the Ring and it would come back, all Friday the Thirteenth-like. As you said, it was Frodo's appointed task to struggle *directly* against the Ring and hope he wouldn't end up like Bilbo. It's Sam's appointed task to support Frodo. Neither task is any more or less courageous in light of the whole grueling quest.
Being prone to producing ringbearing-type angst, the little conflicts fascinate me. Tolkien did a crafty thing by including both kinds. I can just picture him translating Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and thinking "But who changed the sheets?!"
I no more like Saint Scully than repressed Scully. But then, most of my ire was reserved for the writers who can't even let her have a near-death experience without her military-daughter mindset resurfacing... that obsessive need for order. *cough* Anyway! I adored her character for herself, though, as it was more Scully vs. her Job (and her I'm-Fines) than Scully vs. Mulder. Mulder, believe me, earned my ire all by himself, no tiny-feet-reaching-the-pedals required.
"The truth, or a white whale?" Scully couldn't have been unaware of Mulder's effect on her. She just couldn't have. I'm sorry, if my partner's stuck in a bug-infested house with a girl named Bambi, I'm going to clean my gun and watch a movie. The writers often drew little squiggly lines between her Faith and Mulder's Belief, and I dunno about Mulder, but I like to think she chose whatever she had faith in.
From:
Re: more spoilers!
I adored her character for herself, though, as it was more Scully vs. her Job (and her I'm-Fines) than Scully vs. Mulder. Mulder, believe me, earned my ire all by himself, no tiny-feet-reaching-the-pedals required.
There's plenty of things about the man to drive you crazy than his not fulfilling the other characters' needs, it seems to me. Really, the show needed them to be constantly not doing that for each other. The idea of making either of them the victim of the other was just nonsense. They were set up to be in conflict so how could conflict be bad?
It's like...I was always surprised at some people's reactions to "Never Again." I always thought Scully's line at the end that everything isn't about Mulder was perfectly honest. I thought the episode was about Scully looking at herself and things she did and ways she sort of allowed herself to be treated--or even had needed herself to be treated. But a lot of other people seemed to think it was just all about Mulder.
I think that's why I thought Season 8 was such a step back for her in so many ways. It's like they gave her back a Daddy figure.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Sam and Frodo seem different. They were almost always cooperative. Sam was understood to be Frodo's servant. And yeah, he was superSam when it came to taking care of Frodo and finding the food and tending the camp. He did put on the ring for a little while. I remember he was sort of tempted by it... had thoughts of smiting down all the orcs and finding Frodo and turning the world into a big beautiful garden. And he shrugged it off pretty easily. It wasn't for him. Partly it was his servant's mind that did it--I've no business messing in that sort of thing. But I think most of the reason why he was able to ignore it was that he didn't have it for very long. The ring seems to be something that slowly grinds away at you. (Well, if you're a hobbit and not inclined to power. Humans aren't so slow.) Frodo failed in the end because he'd become wedded to it. It destroyed him.
I'm not sure how someone could consider Sam the 'real' ringbearer--though I enjoyed how he was considered to be one of the ringbearers in the very end. To me he still was _a_ ringbearer. And in some ways, I'd agree that he was the hero of the books. Not because I'm attributing Frodo's strengths to him and ignoring them in Frodo, but because of his own strengths. Frodo got the ring there because he was determined and stubborn. He accepted the quest. Sam got him through it because he loved Frodo. That, too, is a strength. Does it make him 'better' than Frodo? Hell, I don't know. That question doesn't even make sense to me. It sure makes him better off than Frodo, though.
I think Peter Jackson would have to have Sam carry the ring for a bit. It means quite a lot and it's a huge chunk of the plotline. Otherwise he'd have to skip Frodo's near death, capture, and rescue. That's a hell of a lot of the book and it's almost the biggest emotional arc in the whole story.
I remember when I was being confused about Sam and Frodo and Frodo's eventual failure to give up the ring and Sam's love (I'm still quite confused about it, actually, and I see with the 3rd movie I'm going to sink into it all over again), I read a collection of Tolkien's letters. One lengthy one spoke of Frodo and Sam. By sheer improbability I have it with me.
Oh dear, now I have to resist typing the whole thing in. :) Let me try to sum up. Frodo did fail as a hero in a simplistic way. But to Tolkien, there was no way he could have resisted the power of the ring to the end. "I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been--say, by being strangled by Gollum, or crushed by a falling rock." (Whether or not he failed as a Hero depends whatcha mean by "hero"--I could rant about that for hours.)
(oh dear.. managed to rant for too long and exceed the post limit--oh well. Continued in another one).
From:
no subject
Tolkien said this about Frodo (filtering out the religious language): that Frodo did not fail because he had pitied Gollum and treated him as a friend. This pity, this mercy, was part of his overall story. It was his noblest deed on the quest. This is what set events up to go as they went--with Gollum there in the end to take the ring from him by violence when he refused to throw it away. It kind of depends on a lot of coincidence and luck, but it was quite a beautiful way to work the story. The trio of Frodo, Gollum, and Sam got the ring destroyed. All were necessary.
Now Sam. Tolkien said some interesting things about Sam. Sam was pure hobbit, with all their good qualities and bad qualities. So he was quite lovable, and pragmatic, and down-to-earth, yet also he had (I think I'll just have to copy Tolkien's lines) "a mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness and cocksureness, and a readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited experience, largely enshrined in sententious traditional 'wisdom'." I think I know what he means, but I'm not sure how to translate.. it's more evident in some minor character hobbits in the shire, especially in the books. Sam deosn't have it quite as much because he dreams of other things, like elves.
Hmm. I'm not sure I really agree with Tolkien here, but it's something to think about. Sam was devoted to Frodo, and utterly sacrificing, yet also possessive. Sam sees nothing in Gollum. He can't even comprehend Gollum having an inner emotional life. In the end, I guess, he was right--only that may have been a situation that he created. Sam's view of the world didn't end up changing very much. He didn't learn a huge amount. Ironically, that's how he survived. That's why he could go home and have a wife and kids, while Frodo could never really go home. Sam brought his strengths in and brought them back out again. And they were necessary, and admirable, and sweet. The quest would not have worked without him.
But he couldn't have replaced Frodo. He wasn't more pure or more noble than Frodo. I suppose one could value his strengths and personality more than Frodo's. There's some argument for that. But I adore Frodo. My heart breaks for Frodo. Sam's doing better, but in the end I understand him less.
From:
no subject
With Sam and Frodo it's not so much two opposing forces that find balance but just two halves of a whole with Sam identifying himself as the servant or helper throughout. Even when Sam's totally in charge at the end he still sees himself as serving, which is definitely part of how he probably managed to get through everything as unchanged as he was. He could just concentrate on details about Frodo. If Frodo was okay, Sam was doing things right. Frodo was just...lost in the wilderness.
The person I was talking to at one point compared Sam to--gulp--Forrest Gump, which I think shows a totally different character than Tolkien was intending. Tolkien, in the things you've quoted, is clearly describing Sam as a certain kind of adult. Not an innocent or an angel.
I am kind of apprehensive about how the movies handle the whole end of the Quest. Everything the actors have said makes me trust they get it but it's such a hard thing to present, with Frodo "failing" but only in the most superficial sense of the word.
From:
no subject
Here's what I think will change, though: we already know the shire won't be destroyed. So there won't be that horrible time where they have to save the shire and rebuild it. (They end up rebuilding it pretty perfectly, so I"m not exactly sure what the point of the whole thing was except an extra slap in the face for the exhausted characters.) I don't think they'll have Frodo wasting away in the shire for years and years, unable to participate or be with anyone other than Sam. I think he'll move on to the elvish lands pretty quickly.
Comparing Sam to Forrest Gump is... interesting. I'm not sure I'm making it even work out in my brain. The comparison kinda works. But then I don't see Forrest Gump as an innocent or an angel. But no, Sam wasn't as simpleminded and wasn't as childlike.
I'm still not exactly reminded of X-files, but probably because I haven't pondered X-files in a while. I know that when I was really trying to sort out Frodo and Sam, I saw similar relationships everywhere 'cause I was obsessed. Van Diesel's character in The Kockaround Guys reminded me greatly of Sam, but that's probably because I was insane. :)
From:
no subject
Following these lines of argument completely ignores the very clear point that Frodo was destined to be the Ringbearer. Plus Tolkien’s reliance on the epic devices of destiny, fate, eucatastophe… and not forgetting the themes being explored – the ennoblement of the hobbits, the good vs evil thing, and so on and so forth.
But it’s epic with a heartbeat. Tolkien gave us a glimpse of the workings of the Ring when we Sam rejecting the temptation of the Ring, why do some people find it so hard to apply that, in human terms, to Frodo’s struggle? Is it just because it’s not explicitly described, agonising moment by agonising moment? How do they miss the direct clues, eg the wheel of fire speech? What do they think caused Frodo so much damage?
It’s why Sam’s choices are so special. Yes he has his appointed task within the scheme of things, but his choices come straight from the heart, not the head. And he is a walking reminder to Frodo (and us) of the Shire, of the earthy good sense of hobbits, of the reason why they are struggling like this.
The point you make about some readers needing to identify with one *or* the other character is interesting. It seems really self-defeating to me, to impose an arbitrary limit of one hero per story, or one ‘me’ character. I adore Frodo. I don’t necessarily understand him, and sometimes I’m afraid to fully imagine how he must have suffered. I possibly understand Sam a little more, perhaps because I’m more ‘like’ him (in the sense I’d be the one that makes the stew, or finds the blankets.)
They’re complementary. That’s the word I’m after.
(I’m not really adding anything here, just agreeing with everything you – and the others up there - have already said!)
..it's funny that Sam "conquers" the ring by knowing who he is, not seeing himself as more than he is. More important, perhaps, is Sam's pretending to think he is less than he is.
Do you really think he was pretending?
I can’t compare Sam to Scully, except in the most simplistic way. While I loved X files for the first few series, the increasing distortions of character and plot led me to stop following it all that closely.
From:
no subject
How do they miss the direct clues, eg the wheel of fire speech? What do they think caused Frodo so much damage?
It's really amazing. You've got three books of Frodo having the ring and suffering but we don't know exactly how. For a few hours Sam carries the ring and he's almost like the reader getting a small taste of it, feeling how surprisingly heavy it is and realizing that it fills his head with these wild thoughts. That's pretty scary. I mean, it's not like the ring's literally talking to him as one person to another, I don't think. It's filling his own mind with these thoughts so he's naturally going to first thing he's just thinking them himself. You'd have to keep a constant watch over what you were thinking. So it's just amazing the way people seem to apply those moments exactly the wrong way when it comes to Frodo.
The whole "pure" thing was very strange. Especially since it does bring up these religious connotations which wouldn't be foreign to Tolkien. I wouldn't say Frodo was completely pure either, of course, but I don't think it's by accident that Frodo lives the most monk-like existance in the book. He doesn't have sex that we hear about and, more importantly, he doesn't kill. He's the pacifist. This doesn't reflect badly on Sam--where would they be if he hadn't killed to save them? But I wouldn't say that was a purifying experience...
From:
no subject
ah why can't us real people feel for the characters in the same way that the characters feel for each other
another reason why i like fiction better than reality.
as for mulder & scully -- if only the writers had been able to get rid of cc think what a glorious series txf might have been -- there was a pair of characters who deserved better than they got
From:
no subject
Well, there's a big question! And I think it's part of why I'm even more surprised to see this kind of attitude in Tolkien, though it's not as pronounced.
But then at least Sam and Frodo did get what they deserved, basically. No love children for them. *retch*
Oh btw, I came across a post today that revealed that there was an underground interest in Mulder/Fowley fanfic. Who woulda thought?
From:
no subject
Few days back, I saw a list of seven characters from LotR who 'resisted' the temptation of the Ring. After finishing the reading, I was laughing at myself for starting reading it.
On seventh position, the list maker kept Saruman. (I haven't read the Hobbit and didn't want to see spoilers). But I'd have kept Boromir, for he resisted the Ring for weeks and after falling he repented what he had done, unlike Saruman who didn't come out of it until the end--in fact never.
Next was Gandalf. I'd agree with the list maker on this. He was around the Ring longer than Boromir, and didn't let the Ring take him.
Then, Galadriel. Yes, she lets herself be tempted and then pulls herself out of it. 5th position was good for her.
Then? None other than our FRODO. (I was expecting either Sam or Bilbo to be on no. 1 position. And from Frodo, the list from who-resisted the-ring-most became who-gave-up-the ring-willingly) . This guy argued that Frodo didn't give up the willingly(do I need to explain more here?).
Then, was Bilbo. Again, because he gave it up despite keeping it with him for SIXTY YEARS. Dude we all know, he wasn't resisting the Ring actively.
Then, Boromir. I already explained that.
Then, on no. 1, Sam. He said, "Sam gave up the Ring without a second thought." It is easy to miss the temptation that Sam faces, but not impossible unless you are blindly believing your own perspective instead of trying to go deeper.
This is what I have seen most of the time. And I see no hope of people coming out of their illusion.
PS. Ring having no affect on Sam, in my opinion, would make Valar and Eru "petty," 'cause there was someone else who was more resilient to the Ring, but they "appointed" the task for someone else.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject