Does LoTR have a Central Character?

[TrackerOrc]

Not exactly a Hero (who by no means needs to be someone doing heroic things) but someone who you think the Book is all about?

I've always thought that the story was too big just to have one central character, and have narrowed my field of heroes/leading characters to the following, based on what they actually do in and for the story:

Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, and Gollum.

I just can't imagine the story working without these characters at all.

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

It's Sauron. No Lord of the Rings, no story. 🙂

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Agreed.

He's the Edison and Tyelpë is Tesla.

 

[Elwing the White]

Not exactly a Hero (who by no means needs to be someone doing heroic things) but someone who you think the Book is all about?

Hmm... I think that, all in all, there really is no central character. The plot revolves around the defeat of Sauron and the destruction of the Ring, but not really around one person (or group of people). You could argue that, the main character is Sauron, or that it is Frodo. My view? The Lord of the Rings works fine without one.

......

Okay, fine, my actual view?

The Ring is the central character.

 

[Radaghast]

The four Hobbits are central to the story of The Lord of the Rings (with Sam being described by Tolkien himself as the "chief hero"). Hardly anything happens in the story without the Hobbits being involved. Gollum, of course, plays a very important role, but he himself is a kind of hobbit or "proto" hobbit. The only chapters that don't directly involve hobbits involve the search for them, which leads to a meeting with Éomer, which sets off other important events. So, the Hobbits are central to pretty much everything in the story. Tolkien was asked to write a sequel about hobbits and he delivered.

Gandalf and Aragorn play supporting roles

 

[TrackerOrc]

It's Sauron. No Lord of the Rings, no story. 🙂

Definitely a huge character in the overall story arc, but in the actual book he takes something of a background role though doesn't he? We see terrifying glimpses of him through Gollum remembering being tortured by him, and we see what his acolytes are trying to do for him, but in the page by page narrative I've chosen characters who are front and centre throughout, so to speak.

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

Definitely a huge character in the overall story arc, but in the actual book he takes something of a background role though doesn't he? We see terrifying glimpses of him through Gollum remembering being tortured by him, and we see what his acolytes are trying to do for him, but in the page by page narrative I've chosen characters who are front and centre throughout, so to speak.

Well, what I meant was that had Sauron not existed, there would be no Ring. And thus no story at all.

someone who you think the Book is all about?

I would say the book is 'all about' him, as the very title is 'the Lord of the Rings'. Sauron may be in the background, but everything happens because of him and his intent to dominate others.

 

[TrackerOrc]

Well, what I meant was that had Sauron not existed, there would be no Ring. And thus no story at all.


I would say the book is 'all about' him, as the very title is 'the Lord of the Rings'. Sauron may be in the background, but everything happens because of him and his intent to dominate others.

I totally agree that Sauron is essential for the story (as you say, the clue is in the title!) but as you mention he stays in the background for much of the time. What I was getting at (probably poorly) was more who do we think are the central character(s) in the page-by-page narrative? Who do we think is essential for the plot to advance scene by scene?
I was actually thinking of the Ring as a central character but decided that it's more how the Ring interacts with different people (poor old Gollum especially) than it being a strong character in its own right.

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

What I was getting at (probably poorly) was more who do we think are the central character(s) in the page-by-page narrative?

In that case, I would say the hobbits, agreeing with what Radaghast said above.

 

[TrackerOrc]

In that case, I would say the hobbits, agreeing with what Radaghast said above.

I'd definitely say a hobbit, not the hobbits. Frodo, being the Ringbearer who agrees to take the ring to Mordor, is obviously one of the most important characters. Sam is essentially a sidekick (and is very rude to poor old Gollum!), whilst Merry and Pippin are not much more than Orc fodder at the beginning, though they do have important parts to play later on in the tale, which, however doesn't make them central characters in themselves. They may have a role as catalysts for events, but they have never seemed to me to be central to the events themselves.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

They all had their own parts to play. Frodo would have died without Sam by his side, and the armies would have suffered many great losses without Pippin and Merry. Frodo has all the characteristics of the hero in a fantasy story but what makes LoTR unique is how his friends aren't just his sidekicks.

 

[TrackerOrc]

They all had their own parts to play. Frodo would have died without Sam by his side, and the armies would have suffered many great losses without Pippin and Merry. Frodo has all the characteristics of the hero in a fantasy story but what makes LoTR unique is how his friends aren't just his sidekicks.

But if Frodo had listened to Sam and tied poor old Gollum up, they would have both wandered around the Emyn Muil and starved to death. It's only Frodo's interaction with Gollum, against the wishes of Sam, that carry the story forward.
Merry and Pippin seem to me to be 'baggage' for much of the story, with the odd serious event happening to them as much as because of them.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

But if Frodo had listened to Sam and tied poor old Gollum up, they would have both wandered around the Emyn Muil and starved to death. It's only Frodo's interaction with Gollum, against the wishes of Sam, that carry the story forward.
Merry and Pippin seem to me to be 'baggage' for much of the story, with the odd serious event happening to them as much as because of them.

As we have all come to understand, you have a unique perspective when it comes to LoTR. I would not dare say I get it for the most part.

 

[TrackerOrc]

As we have all come to understand, you have a unique perspective when it comes to LoTR. I would not dare say I get it for the most part.

I do seem to like the baddies don't I? I like to think that in my small way I'm carrying the torch for the wonderful YayGollum...

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

I do seem to like the baddies don't I? I like to think that in my small way I'm carrying the torch for the wonderful YayGollum...

As a Fëanorian fan I think I understand this. And Gollum was pretty okay in my eyes until I found out he ate babies.

 

[Elwing the White]

And Gollum was pretty okay in my eyes until I found out he ate babies.

"The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed trees to find nests, it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles."
Pretty sure this is just a rumor among the Woodmen. We don't really have any confirmation that Gollum did eat babies.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

"The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed trees to find nests, it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles."
Pretty sure this is just a rumor among the Woodmen. We don't really have any confirmation that Gollum did eat babies.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

All rumors are based on truths, and these descriptions all leads to Gollum.

 

[Elwing the White]

All rumors are based on truths, and these descriptions all leads to Gollum.

Oh, yes, I must have said this unclearly. I meant that it is true that the descriptions lead to Gollum, just the statement that he eats babies doesn't have much clarification.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Oh, yes, I must have said this unclearly. I meant that it is true that the descriptions lead to Gollum, just the statement that he eats babies doesn't have much clarification.

A lot of stuff Tolkien wrote were pretty vague, especially in Silm. Since the stories are practically books written by characters.

 

[TrackerOrc]

As a Fëanorian fan I think I understand this. And Gollum was pretty okay in my eyes until I found out he ate babies.

Elvish propaganda...