Can’t bring myself to read LotR or Tolkien. (On Hero Worship)

[CirdanLinweilin]

I actually can’t stand The Lord of the Rings anymore. And it’s not because of Amazon. I can’t stand Sam anymore. He’s not the humble gardener i remember. The one that makes mistakes. People darn near worship Sam and that is the whole lie of the One Ring. That’s the seduction it gives. That’s the test of Galadriel. Elevating a being far beyond their station and stature. At the cost of the Main character.
to elevate Samwise Gamgee to freaking deity levels of heroism is to do the greatest disservice to him and to Tolkien.


He's a humble gardener. It was the very artifact of malice that lied to make himself more than that.


Be Sam to be humble, be humble to be Sam. Anything more is a lie from Sauron. Sam would be the first person to elevate "MR. FRODO" to a higher level than himself.


Hero worship can absolutely be twisted.


Have casual fans of the movies not read nor understood the book or forgotten it? I know Tolkien says Sam is the “chief hero” but *Never* at the cost of Frodo.


This is why I can’t stand the universe and can’t bring myself to indulge in it. We have done massive disservice to the characters and the author. I don’t mean everyone but it’s happened enough that when I hear his name I instantly conjure in my mind a “god among men.”


CL

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, CL. Can you expand a little? It sounds like you're letting your reaction to fan "hero-worship" affect your reading of the story Tolkien actually wrote. He said in several of his letters that, though Sam did act heroically, he had the limited and parochial vision and understanding typical of most Shire hobbits.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, CL. Can you expand a little? It sounds like you're letting your reaction to fan "hero-worship" affect your reading of the story Tolkien actually wrote. He said in several of his letters that, though Sam did act heroically, he had the limited and parochial vision and understanding typical of most Shire hobbits.

Hard to remember when all the voices of the fandom call Sam “the greatest hero in literature.”

I blame the movies.

CL

my point is people blatantly ignore him saying that. Hence, “casual fans”.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I blame the movies.

There you go. 😄

Anyway, I won't let fans, or fanfic of any kind -- including the movies -- influence or interfere with my appreciation of the books.

 

[Deimos]

Pax to @CirdanLinweilin , but

Sam is
1) my favorite character and yes, I do consider him a hero in the story. However, Heroes in the temporal realm are always "fallen" just like everyone else. They are heroes in a specific situation (or situations) because they act "heroically", and Sam does this.

2) flawed and Tolkien says as much in Letter 246 (excerpted below and my emphasis is added):

"Sam is meant to be lovable and laughable. Some readers he irritates and even infuriates. I can
well understand it. All hobbits at times affect me in the same way, though I remain very fond of
them. But Sam can be very 'trying'. He is a more representative hobbit than any others that we have
to see much of; and he has consequently a stronger ingredient 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
cocksureness, and a readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited experience, largely
enshrined in sententious traditional 'wisdom'. We only meet exceptional hobbits in close
companionship – those who had a grace or gift: a vision of beauty, and a reverence for things nobler
than themselves, at war with their rustic self-satisfaction. Imagine Sam without his education by
Bilbo and his fascination with things Elvish! Not difficult. The Cotton family and the Gaffer, when
the 'Travellers' return are a sufficient glimpse.
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 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 education to the nobility of service to the unlovable and of perception
of damaged good in the corrupt. He plainly did not fully 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. For me perhaps the most tragic
moment in the Tale comes in II 323 ff. when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's
tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing', said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!'. His repentance is blighted
and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense * ) wasted. Shelob's lair became inevitable.
This is due of course to the 'logic of the story'. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did
reach the point of pity at last (III 221-222)4 but for the good of Gollum too late.) If he had, what
could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount
Doom would have been different, and so would the ending."

3) per Tolkien letter 131
"... I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's)
character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty."

OK... having said and posted all that, I fully sympathize with your visceral reaction to the ubiquitous gushing, near fawning, worship we see/hear/read about Sam.🙄

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I think part of the problem stems from how weak and passive movie-Frodo is; contrast his defiance of the Nazgul at the Fords with the semi-comatose figure "rescued" by Arwen. Or the way he was portrayed in the Chamber of Marzarbul. And on and on. Compared to the PJ character, Sam comes off as the determined one -- even lecturing Frodo on the quest.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

I think part of the problem stems from how weak and passive movie-Frodo is; contrast his defiance of the Nazgul at the Fords with the semi-comatose figure "rescued" by Arwen. Or the way he was portrayed in the Chamber of Marzarbul. And on and on. Compared to the PJ character, Sam comes of as the determined one -- even lecturing Frodo on the quest.

That’s definitely part of my struggle here


CL

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Yeah, well, I've lost count of the Reddit posts I've seen that begin with something like "I'm a huge Tolkien fan; I've watched the movies many times, but never read the books, and was wondering--" 🙄

I usually don't bother reading those any more.

 

[d4rk3lf]

Well, Peter would not be Peter if he wouldn't bring down anything to retarded level.
I wanna puke whenever I encounter scenes where him and Frodo is crying in the movies.
But Peter like this soap drama moments... ehh... what you can do?
The more sad thing is that so many people fall for it... but then again... what you can do?

Don't loose your nerve friend... the books are still there, and there always be there... and so will the fans.

Btw, I like Sam in the book.
And translation in my mother language (serbian) is great, and he construct his sentences in funny way like people from countryside.
I love these kind of people... pureharted... and I have huge respect for them... and always like to have a beer with them.
I'd always help guy like Sam, to plant something, or cook something.

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

I actually can’t stand The Lord of the Rings anymore. And it’s not because of Amazon. I can’t stand Sam anymore. He’s not the humble gardener i remember. The one that makes mistakes. People darn near worship Sam and that is the whole lie of the One Ring. That’s the seduction it gives. That’s the test of Galadriel. Elevating a being far beyond their station and stature. At the cost of the Main character.
to elevate Samwise Gamgee to freaking deity levels of heroism is to do the greatest disservice to him and to Tolkien.


He's a humble gardener. It was the very artifact of malice that lied to make himself more than that.


Be Sam to be humble, be humble to be Sam. Anything more is a lie from Sauron. Sam would be the first person to elevate "MR. FRODO" to a higher level than himself.


Hero worship can absolutely be twisted.


Have casual fans of the movies not read nor understood the book or forgotten it? I know Tolkien says Sam is the “chief hero” but *Never* at the cost of Frodo.


This is why I can’t stand the universe and can’t bring myself to indulge in it. We have done massive disservice to the characters and the author. I don’t mean everyone but it’s happened enough that when I hear his name I instantly conjure in my mind a “god among men.”


CL

I don't really have anything to say about Sam (well, okay, I do, but it would take me hours to write it all out and I don't have that much screen time), but I would suggest taking a break from LotR if it's starting to bother you. Maybe just take a year where you don't watch the movies, don't read the books. That worked for me when I started getting sick of Harry Potter, I took a break from it and now I like it again (except for a few parts). But I don't know if that will work for other people.
(Okay, I am going to say something about Sam, I think he's sometimes kind of weird but he likes potatoes so I like him because of that.)

 

[Deimos]

...Maybe just take a year where you don't watch the movies, don't read the books. ...
(Okay, I am going to say something about Sam, I think he's sometimes kind of weird but he likes potatoes so I like him because of that.)

Good advice on taking a break. For a while I was reading LOTR once a year, and then suddenly that became too much...call it ME overload.
Now I read it about every other year or maybe every third year.
In fact every other year ( and not sooner) seems to be the norm for any books I like, from Austen to Zola.

OK, I have to ask this ....can you cite some situations where you think Sam is "kind of weird".

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

OK, I have to ask this ....can you cite some situations where you think Sam is "kind of weird".

I don't really have any exact quotes, but while I appreciate what Sam did for Frodo, I agree with CL, he went a bit too far sometimes (not all the time, but sometimes). And then there's the whole Sam-Gollum thing, I think Sam should have calmed down a bit with that. It's also kind of strange that while he was so devoted to Frodo, when he thought that Frodo was dead he was ready to leave Frodo's "body" out in the open and go on his way. He knew that there were orcs about, but he didn't even bother to hide Frodo. But he had the Ring to think of and was probably a bit mad with grief, so maybe I shouldn't be too hard on him for that. Not saying he's a bad character, but he has his flaws.
But he cooks rabbit soup, so I'm on his side. I side with whoever has the soup.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

To add to the point of my post. The reason Sam is so glorified is because Frodo is so sanitized and dare I say the victim of character castration. He was so much more gallant in the books. In that realm Sam isn’t as idol-centric as he is in the movies

CL

 

[Kiredor]

I actually can’t stand The Lord of the Rings anymore. And it’s not because of Amazon. I can’t stand Sam anymore. He’s not the humble gardener i remember. The one that makes mistakes. People darn near worship Sam and that is the whole lie of the One Ring. That’s the seduction it gives. That’s the test of Galadriel. Elevating a being far beyond their station and stature. At the cost of the Main character.
to elevate Samwise Gamgee to freaking deity levels of heroism is to do the greatest disservice to him and to Tolkien.


He's a humble gardener. It was the very artifact of malice that lied to make himself more than that.


Be Sam to be humble, be humble to be Sam. Anything more is a lie from Sauron. Sam would be the first person to elevate "MR. FRODO" to a higher level than himself.


Hero worship can absolutely be twisted.


Have casual fans of the movies not read nor understood the book or forgotten it? I know Tolkien says Sam is the “chief hero” but *Never* at the cost of Frodo.


This is why I can’t stand the universe and can’t bring myself to indulge in it. We have done massive disservice to the characters and the author. I don’t mean everyone but it’s happened enough that when I hear his name I instantly conjure in my mind a “god among men.”


CL

I understand your frustration, especially with the films. However, I don't see it that way.

In a letter (Letter - 131 to Milton Waldman), Tolkien explicitly calls Sam “the chief hero” of the book, but immediately qualifies that by framing it around his humility and service, not dominance:
“Frodo was meant to be the hero, the one who carried the Ring to the Fire; but Sam is in the end the chief hero, the most lovable character, and the one who does not fade.”
Notice Tolkien does not say instead of Frodo. Frodo is still the Ring-bearer, the central figure. Sam is “chief” in the sense of representing the ordinary person rising to extraordinary faithfulness. Tolkien admired that deeply because it echoed the English “sturdy yeoman” class he loved.

Sam never claims greatness. Even in his moment of carrying the Ring, he thinks of himself as an unworthy substitute:
“Sam was plain Sam. He never had any adventures like Bilbo had.”
He imagines himself as a “Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age” — but it’s parody, a fleeting daydream that he laughs at and rejects. That moment shows the Ring’s temptation, but Sam resists it immediately.
After the Quest, he doesn’t cling to power. He returns home, tends his garden, raises a family, and later becomes Mayor of the Shire — but even that’s an extension of his service to his people, not a power-trip.

Frodo is the central tragic hero. He bears the Ring’s burden alone, experiences the slow destruction of his will, and ultimately sacrifices his peace for Middle-earth. His inability to destroy the Ring is not a failure but an inevitable consequence of bearing evil itself.
Sam never replaces Frodo. Even when Sam carries him, it’s literally in service to Frodo’s role. Frodo remains the “Ring-bearer” to the end, the one who suffers, the one who pays the greatest cost.

Tolkien’s narrative isn’t about one hero but a web of different kinds of heroism:
Frodo: endurance and sacrifice.
Sam: loyalty and humility.
Aragorn: nobility and kingship.
Gandalf: wisdom and guidance.
Merry & Pippin: unexpected courage.

To elevate any one of them to godlike stature distorts the balance Tolkien crafted. If casual fans treat Sam as “the” hero in a way that eclipses Frodo, then yes — they’ve missed the nuance. But that’s not Tolkien’s doing.
You’re right, the Ring’s power is to make someone think they’re greater than they really are. That’s why Galadriel refuses it, why Boromir falls to it, why it consumes Gollum; but it doesn’t lift Sam up like that. His great moment of resistance proves the opposite: he stays grounded, laughs at the idea of himself as a mighty hero, and keeps climbing up Mount Doom for Frodo.

So rather than Sam being an example of the Ring’s lie, I see it as he’s actually the best example of resisting it.
The overblown Sam-worship is more a fandom or pop-culture artifact. The Peter Jackson films, in particular, put strong emphasis on Sam’s loyalty, sometimes dialling it up to melodrama (“I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you!”). Beautiful moment, yes, but it helped create this aura of Sam as the pure paragon.
But if we return to the text, Sam is never elevated “to deity levels.” Tolkien grounds him at every step. He’s humble, limited, prone to mistakes (spying on Frodo, mistrusting Gollum, snapping in anger) — and that’s exactly why he shines.

So, the bottom line:
You’re right that idolising Sam to the exclusion of Frodo (or anyone else) is a distortion.
But Tolkien never does this. The text preserves Sam’s humility and Frodo’s centrality.
If Sam is “chief hero,” it’s because he embodies Tolkien’s ideal of the ordinary person elevated without losing humility — not because he displaces Frodo or succumbs to the Ring’s lie.

 

[CirdanLinweilin]

I understand your frustration, especially with the films. However, I don't see it that way.

In a letter (Letter - 131 to Milton Waldman), Tolkien explicitly calls Sam “the chief hero” of the book, but immediately qualifies that by framing it around his humility and service, not dominance:
“Frodo was meant to be the hero, the one who carried the Ring to the Fire; but Sam is in the end the chief hero, the most lovable character, and the one who does not fade.”
Notice Tolkien does not say instead of Frodo. Frodo is still the Ring-bearer, the central figure. Sam is “chief” in the sense of representing the ordinary person rising to extraordinary faithfulness. Tolkien admired that deeply because it echoed the English “sturdy yeoman” class he loved.

Sam never claims greatness. Even in his moment of carrying the Ring, he thinks of himself as an unworthy substitute:
“Sam was plain Sam. He never had any adventures like Bilbo had.”
He imagines himself as a “Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age” — but it’s parody, a fleeting daydream that he laughs at and rejects. That moment shows the Ring’s temptation, but Sam resists it immediately.
After the Quest, he doesn’t cling to power. He returns home, tends his garden, raises a family, and later becomes Mayor of the Shire — but even that’s an extension of his service to his people, not a power-trip.

Frodo is the central tragic hero. He bears the Ring’s burden alone, experiences the slow destruction of his will, and ultimately sacrifices his peace for Middle-earth. His inability to destroy the Ring is not a failure but an inevitable consequence of bearing evil itself.
Sam never replaces Frodo. Even when Sam carries him, it’s literally in service to Frodo’s role. Frodo remains the “Ring-bearer” to the end, the one who suffers, the one who pays the greatest cost.

Tolkien’s narrative isn’t about one hero but a web of different kinds of heroism:
Frodo: endurance and sacrifice.
Sam: loyalty and humility.
Aragorn: nobility and kingship.
Gandalf: wisdom and guidance.
Merry & Pippin: unexpected courage.

To elevate any one of them to godlike stature distorts the balance Tolkien crafted. If casual fans treat Sam as “the” hero in a way that eclipses Frodo, then yes — they’ve missed the nuance. But that’s not Tolkien’s doing.
You’re right, the Ring’s power is to make someone think they’re greater than they really are. That’s why Galadriel refuses it, why Boromir falls to it, why it consumes Gollum; but it doesn’t lift Sam up like that. His great moment of resistance proves the opposite: he stays grounded, laughs at the idea of himself as a mighty hero, and keeps climbing up Mount Doom for Frodo.

So rather than Sam being an example of the Ring’s lie, I see it as he’s actually the best example of resisting it.
The overblown Sam-worship is more a fandom or pop-culture artifact. The Peter Jackson films, in particular, put strong emphasis on Sam’s loyalty, sometimes dialling it up to melodrama (“I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you!”). Beautiful moment, yes, but it helped create this aura of Sam as the pure paragon.
But if we return to the text, Sam is never elevated “to deity levels.” Tolkien grounds him at every step. He’s humble, limited, prone to mistakes (spying on Frodo, mistrusting Gollum, snapping in anger) — and that’s exactly why he shines.

So, the bottom line:
You’re right that idolising Sam to the exclusion of Frodo (or anyone else) is a distortion.
But Tolkien never does this. The text preserves Sam’s humility and Frodo’s centrality.
If Sam is “chief hero,” it’s because he embodies Tolkien’s ideal of the ordinary person elevated without losing humility — not because he displaces Frodo or succumbs to the Ring’s lie.

Love this, and needed it. I get so frustrated as a fan, author, and writer to see people misunderstand a character and run with it.

CL

 

[Kiredor]

Love this, and needed it. I get so frustrated as a fan, author, and writer to see people misunderstand a character and run with it.

CL

You are most welcome.

 

[Deimos]

Frodo is still the Ring-bearer, the central figure. Sam is “chief” in the sense of representing the ordinary person rising to extraordinary faithfulness. Tolkien admired that deeply because it echoed the English “sturdy yeoman” class he loved.

.......
If Sam is “chief hero,” it’s because he embodies Tolkien’s ideal of the ordinary person elevated without losing humility — not because he displaces Frodo or succumbs to the Ring’s lie.

These two statements, I think, capture the essence of heroism; the average person, flawed in character (as are we all), in ordinary circumstances , thrust into an extraordinary situation, and rising to meet it.
His resultant success or failure is irrelevant; it is his rising to meet the challenge while holding fast to his principles that makes him heroic.

 

[Kiredor]

These two statements, I think, capture the essence of heroism; the average person, flawed in character (as are we all), in ordinary circumstances , thrust into an extraordinary situation, and rising to meet it.
His resultant success or failure is irrelevant; it is his rising to meet the challenge while holding fast to his principles that makes him heroic.

Very well put.

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

I understand your frustration, especially with the films. However, I don't see it that way.

In a letter (Letter - 131 to Milton Waldman), Tolkien explicitly calls Sam “the chief hero” of the book, but immediately qualifies that by framing it around his humility and service, not dominance:
“Frodo was meant to be the hero, the one who carried the Ring to the Fire; but Sam is in the end the chief hero, the most lovable character, and the one who does not fade.”
Notice Tolkien does not say instead of Frodo. Frodo is still the Ring-bearer, the central figure. Sam is “chief” in the sense of representing the ordinary person rising to extraordinary faithfulness. Tolkien admired that deeply because it echoed the English “sturdy yeoman” class he loved.

Sam never claims greatness. Even in his moment of carrying the Ring, he thinks of himself as an unworthy substitute:
“Sam was plain Sam. He never had any adventures like Bilbo had.”
He imagines himself as a “Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age” — but it’s parody, a fleeting daydream that he laughs at and rejects. That moment shows the Ring’s temptation, but Sam resists it immediately.
After the Quest, he doesn’t cling to power. He returns home, tends his garden, raises a family, and later becomes Mayor of the Shire — but even that’s an extension of his service to his people, not a power-trip.

Frodo is the central tragic hero. He bears the Ring’s burden alone, experiences the slow destruction of his will, and ultimately sacrifices his peace for Middle-earth. His inability to destroy the Ring is not a failure but an inevitable consequence of bearing evil itself.
Sam never replaces Frodo. Even when Sam carries him, it’s literally in service to Frodo’s role. Frodo remains the “Ring-bearer” to the end, the one who suffers, the one who pays the greatest cost.

Tolkien’s narrative isn’t about one hero but a web of different kinds of heroism:
Frodo: endurance and sacrifice.
Sam: loyalty and humility.
Aragorn: nobility and kingship.
Gandalf: wisdom and guidance.
Merry & Pippin: unexpected courage.

To elevate any one of them to godlike stature distorts the balance Tolkien crafted. If casual fans treat Sam as “the” hero in a way that eclipses Frodo, then yes — they’ve missed the nuance. But that’s not Tolkien’s doing.
You’re right, the Ring’s power is to make someone think they’re greater than they really are. That’s why Galadriel refuses it, why Boromir falls to it, why it consumes Gollum; but it doesn’t lift Sam up like that. His great moment of resistance proves the opposite: he stays grounded, laughs at the idea of himself as a mighty hero, and keeps climbing up Mount Doom for Frodo.

So rather than Sam being an example of the Ring’s lie, I see it as he’s actually the best example of resisting it.
The overblown Sam-worship is more a fandom or pop-culture artifact. The Peter Jackson films, in particular, put strong emphasis on Sam’s loyalty, sometimes dialling it up to melodrama (“I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you!”). Beautiful moment, yes, but it helped create this aura of Sam as the pure paragon.
But if we return to the text, Sam is never elevated “to deity levels.” Tolkien grounds him at every step. He’s humble, limited, prone to mistakes (spying on Frodo, mistrusting Gollum, snapping in anger) — and that’s exactly why he shines.

So, the bottom line:
You’re right that idolising Sam to the exclusion of Frodo (or anyone else) is a distortion.
But Tolkien never does this. The text preserves Sam’s humility and Frodo’s centrality.
If Sam is “chief hero,” it’s because he embodies Tolkien’s ideal of the ordinary person elevated without losing humility — not because he displaces Frodo or succumbs to the Ring’s lie.

This is probably the best thing regarding Frodo and Sam that I have ever read.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

As a Silm fan, I feel quite the same when I see views from other fans, incest content and stuff. But does that mean I don't love Silmarillion anymore, or I can't enjoy the characters and their stories as I used to?
Absolutely not.

I think if you are to react to anything you disagree with online to this level, you just can't enjoy anything anymore. Online communities are there to help expand our horizons, meet different views, etc... and you are going to meet different views. Wrong or right in your opinion, this is how they enjoy this certain topic. I would say to just move on and seek out content you like.

I'm not saying you're not allowed to feel like this. I've actually experienced something similar, and perhaps even harsher, and it was making it hard for me to interact with the fandom. But I just ended up stepping away from those people instead of trying to change how they think (which, frankly, I don't really have a right to even try to do so) and sought out people like minded to me. You're not entitled to or even responsible for showing people the right direction of thoughts. It's fiction. Engaging with it is supposed to be fun for everyone, and this view is only going to make you dislike the thing you used to love just like you do now.

Of course, it is your choice, but I personally like interacting with you around the forum, and I would like you to keep loving Tolkien because it is something that (I assume) makes you happy.