Tyelkormo the Fair
Elite
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2023
- Messages
- 4,985
I'm still surprised that you're still on Reddit...
Thanks; I’m just glad it resonated with you.
I believe this is an inevitable thing in any movie adaptation. Characters all have to become extreme something, or it becomes boring for the person watching. Frodo is the victim in this scenario, and Sam is the hero. Because based on their roles in the story this is the most likely scenario.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.
I agree that taking a brief respite from the LOTR can be refreshing. There is a wealth of other tales by Tolkien that provide well-earned moments of escapism, or indeed one might turn to an entirely different genre or author. I find writers such as Hitchcock, Poe, and Shelley each offer their own spellbinding journeys into the unknown.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.)
If you like those authors try M.R. James, Algernon Blackwood, Margaret Oliphant, Guy de Maupassant, Saki (H.H. Munro), Arthur Machen....(just to name a few)I agree that taking a brief respite from the LOTR can be refreshing. There is a wealth of other tales by Tolkien that provide well-earned moments of escapism, or indeed one might turn to an entirely different genre or author. I find writers such as Hitchcock, Poe, and Shelley each offer their own spellbinding journeys into the unknown.
The problem with humanity.hose who didn't read not only the Silmarillion but also Unfinished tales and the history of Middle Earth would take those a face value.
Sean Connery didn't... (make of that what you will. 😆)The problem with humanity.
The human always has only limited understanding, yet sets his/her/their/its feet upon the sand they have at hand, develop Opinion, call it Truth, and argue from a place of nearly complete ignorance.
This should not surprise us. It is the Norm of the species.
Study, research, reading, thinking, PONDERING, re-evaluation, and change are all anathema to the human.
"I have received it from someone else at some other time, from an unreliable source - therefore it IS as I know it to be. Shut up and agree with me..!!"
It never even occurs to them to question the purpose of a movie made from a book, and the purpose of the book to begin with... or the difference in the intent and purpose of the originators of each. Or the purpose of any movie, or any book, in and of itself. Certainly not the fundamental purposes of Tolkien's work into the bargain.
Thus they have no foundation upon which to judge either one.
It never occurs to the (general) human to question their position at all. Even that is too much effort, and they lack the awareness and personal resources to do so.
There is a reason the human is so easily herded in the direction it is desired they are to go, to be locked into the corrals they are contained in.
Tolkien himself knew this - which is why he said "most of my readers won't understand my work."
Harrumph... I make nothing of it.Sean Connery didn't... (make of that what you will. 😆)
You never heard the story of Sean Connery And LOTR?Harrumph... I make nothing of it.
Of Sean Connery I can say only this: "he had his rails and he ran upon them." (Playing off Sherlock Holmes' comment about his older brother Mycroft.)
But then... I would say the same about many. (Including sometimes, myself..!!)
Wasn't it the movie studio wanted him to play Gandalf because they wanted star power?You never heard the story of Sean Connery And LOTR?
Tolkien himself knew this - which is why he said "most of my readers won't understand my work."
Yes, that was the situation.... altho' I don't know anything about the matter of casting of Liv Tyler as Arwen, except it was a mistake that was overshadowed only by the casting of Elijah Wood as Frodo 😣.Wasn't it the movie studio wanted him to play Gandalf because they wanted star power?
Because SC said nah, they were happy to get Liv Tyler (sorry but I think she is a well known star but hardly someone that would attract masses of people). Anyway, that was the reason why she had to be given a bigger role, practically inventing a plot for her.
BTW I think SC would have made a great Gandalf, but I am not complaining about Ian McKellen
But he wasn't 33 (21) when he left Hobbiton, he was 50.I've seen that objection before. My response is always the same: hobbits had an average lifespan greater than that of "humans" -- recognized by the fact that they aren't considered "adults" until age 33, the equivalent of our 21.
I actually had no problem with any of the casting -- only the material they were given.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?