Does LoTR have a Central Character?

[Starbrow]

That logic takes us right back to Adam and Eve and then to God, if you think about it.

Which brings us right back to Tolkien; as he says in On Fairy Stories:
“Fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker.”

 

[Elwing the White]

Which brings us right back to Tolkien

And back to Eru, Sauron, the Ring....
So we're back where we started.

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

Like a circle (or a Ring), it keeps coming back to the beginning.

 

[Vorondil]

I'm pretty sure the Sentient Fox is the main character.
One Fox to rule them all.

 

[Methersgate]

There is no need for a central character. I was going to say that the San Guo (“The Romance of the Three Kingdoms”) doesn’t have a central character but if we exclude the Narrator neither does « À la recherche du temps perdu ».

Tolkien shifts the point of view very well.

 

[Ent]

Not to drive this off the rails, but to discuss a 'central character' is to miss the entire point of Tolkien's work.
It's not about 'characters' at all. Never has been, never will be.
Thus, we can pick no 'central character' because Tolkien's centrality is nowhere near a character. They're only 'representations' of the central point of his work.
If any "character" comes close to the 'central point' of his book, it is probably Tom Bombadil.
But he is not the 'central character' either.
There simply isn't one.
And all this is why Tolkien said "most people won't understand my work."

So talk about "things coming back to the beginning" look at my first sentence, then look at my last sentence above.
There's a big hint there.

 

[Maedhros_Nelyafinwë]

Not to drive this off the rails, but to discuss a 'central character' is to miss the entire point of Tolkien's work.
It's not about 'characters' at all. Never has been, never will be.
Thus, we can pick no 'central character' because Tolkien's centrality is nowhere near a character. They're only 'representations' of the central point of his work.
If any "character" comes close to the 'central point' of his book, it is probably Tom Bombadil.
But he is not the 'central character' either.
There simply isn't one.
And all this is why Tolkien said "most people won't understand my work."

So talk about "things coming back to the beginning" look at my first sentence, then look at my last sentence above.
There's a big hint there.

I love stories where basically any character could be the protagonist if you tell it from their POV. I don't much like stories revolving entirely around 1 central character, and if you remove that character, the story is destroyed. Every character should have their own rich story at least in the background, even if the narrative doesn't focus on it. Tolkien does this wonderfully.

 

[Elthir]

She is central to The Lord of the Rings and to the Legendarium.

 

[TrackerOrc]

Not to drive this off the rails, but to discuss a 'central character' is to miss the entire point of Tolkien's work.
It's not about 'characters' at all. Never has been, never will be.
Thus, we can pick no 'central character' because Tolkien's centrality is nowhere near a character. They're only 'representations' of the central point of his work.
If any "character" comes close to the 'central point' of his book, it is probably Tom Bombadil.
But he is not the 'central character' either.
There simply isn't one.
And all this is why Tolkien said "most people won't understand my work."

So talk about "things coming back to the beginning" look at my first sentence, then look at my last sentence above.
There's a big hint there.

Well I've always gone along with what Tolkien himself said was the prime mover of the book - which is the desire to tell a really long story which will delight the readers. Absolutely successful in that.
I believe that there are central characters who provide much of the narrative backbone of the book; it's really as simple as that to me.
So what do you believe the entire point of Tolkien's work to actually be?

 

[Methersgate]

Very cautiously, I think JRRT mentioned somewhere that, like Spenser, and indeed Milton’s abandoned project, he was taking a shot at an “Aeneid” type epic for the English speaking peoples. But more usually he just said he wanted to write a long story.

In a long enough story several characters can attract the interest and sympathy of the reader. We see the action through the eyes of the hobbits, but we can be swept up by the heroism and the wisdom of some other characters.

 

[Radaghast]

Very cautiously, I think JRRT mentioned somewhere that, like Spenser, and indeed Milton’s abandoned project, he was taking a shot at an “Aeneid” type epic for the English speaking peoples. But more usually he just said he wanted to write a long story.

In a long enough story several characters can attract the interest and sympathy of the reader. We see the action through the eyes of the hobbits, but we can be swept up by the heroism and the wisdom of some other characters.

Well said, and welcome to the forum.

 

[Ent]

Frodo has the key role

Yes, that could well be said. Though of course others would disagree.

But as far as a "character" and a "central or key role" only Frodo becomes the possesser of the ring, the bearer of the ring, the owner of the ring claiming it for his own, and the loser of the ring. Not unlike the unfurtunate owner of Anduril who possessed it prior to he, but unfortunately died at its loss. None other fulfills all those functions in LoTR.

The Ring itself is, in my view, the central "thing" in LoTR. Sauron's contant pursuit of it. Gandalf's protection of it. Sauron's lust for it. The obsession of all "the great" with it. The entire work is focused on "the ring."

But here's the thing... is it really 'the ring' they're focused on?
Or is it something else. Something the Ring only represents.
And something Frodo, and Gandalf, and the Free Peoples, and Melkor, and Sauron, and the Orcs, and Sauron, and Lobelia Sackville-Baggins only represent.

Yes, Tolkien said at one point "he really just wanted to write a really long story." He also said "he wanted to create a mythology for his country, something other countries had, but England didn't." He also said in one interview "the central pin of his story - in fact of all good stories - is death, isn't it?" And, he said it was "primarily a religions and Christian work."

Tolkien said, at different times, very different things about his work.
Why? I believe it's because his work was bigger than himself, and in the end even he didn't quite know how to relate to it fully, any more. 'Tis why Bombadil is in there. Bombadil was a very important element in Tolkien's "understanding of all things." And frankly, the existence of a Bombadil serves as a foundation - an underpinning - for all he ever did.

So we can find, and hold different opinions, over "key characters", "key things", "key scenes", "pivotal points", "meanings", etc. ad infinitum. And we will always have differences, and even our own thinking will change from season to season.

Because Tolkien's work comes closer to "Truth" than any other story ever written.
And while "The Truth is out there" - none of us really know what that "truth" is. Nor can we, in this life.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

The Ring itself is, in my view, the central "thing" in LoTR.

Sure -- just as Hawthorne's scarlet letter, Melville's Moby Dick, or Woolf's lighthouse are central "things" -- but none of them are characters.

But here's the thing... is it really 'the ring' they're focused on?
Or is it something else. Something the Ring only represents.

Of course -- the Ring can be seen as a symbol, as can the other "things" I cited, and worthy of discussion as such. But that's a subject for another thread.

 

[Methersgate]

Sure -- just as Hawthorne's scarlet letter, Melville's Moby Dick, or Woolf's lighthouse are central "things" -- but none of them are characters.

Of course -- the Ring can be seen as a symbol, as can the other "things" I cited, and worthy of discussion as such. But that's a subject for another thread.

The Ring can be a symbol, but it’s creator “cordially detested” allegory, so it must not be “Power”, “The Atomic Bomb, or anything like that!

 

[TrackerOrc]

Yes, that could well be said. Though of course others would disagree.

But as far as a "character" and a "central or key role" only Frodo becomes the possesser of the ring, the bearer of the ring, the owner of the ring claiming it for his own, and the loser of the ring. Not unlike the unfurtunate owner of Anduril who possessed it prior to he, but unfortunately died at its loss. None other fulfills all those functions in LoTR.

The Ring itself is, in my view, the central "thing" in LoTR. Sauron's contant pursuit of it. Gandalf's protection of it. Sauron's lust for it. The obsession of all "the great" with it. The entire work is focused on "the ring."

But here's the thing... is it really 'the ring' they're focused on?
Or is it something else. Something the Ring only represents.
And something Frodo, and Gandalf, and the Free Peoples, and Melkor, and Sauron, and the Orcs, and Sauron, and Lobelia Sackville-Baggins only represent.

Yes, Tolkien said at one point "he really just wanted to write a really long story." He also said "he wanted to create a mythology for his country, something other countries had, but England didn't." He also said in one interview "the central pin of his story - in fact of all good stories - is death, isn't it?" And, he said it was "primarily a religions and Christian work."

Tolkien said, at different times, very different things about his work.
Why? I believe it's because his work was bigger than himself, and in the end even he didn't quite know how to relate to it fully, any more. 'Tis why Bombadil is in there. Bombadil was a very important element in Tolkien's "understanding of all things." And frankly, the existence of a Bombadil serves as a foundation - an underpinning - for all he ever did.

So we can find, and hold different opinions, over "key characters", "key things", "key scenes", "pivotal points", "meanings", etc. ad infinitum. And we will always have differences, and even our own thinking will change from season to season.

Because Tolkien's work comes closer to "Truth" than any other story ever written.
And while "The Truth is out there" - none of us really know what that "truth" is. Nor can we, in this life.

But doesn't Gollum go one better than Frodo - he becomes the possessor, he bears it (for a lot longer than anyone apart from Sauron), he claims it for his own, and loses it - but then gets it back right at the end?

Of all the things you quote Tolkien as saying, only one is shown in the text (LoTR) itself; as such, I'd say this was canon and must bear more weight than any of the other commetns he made, no matter how interesting they are. So, to me, the point (s?) of the story is the length and depth of the story itself.

I'm afraid I'm still at a complete loss as to how Bombadil can be seen as a foundation for all Tolkien ever did. Within the text I just can't see any evidence for taking such a stance.

 

[Elwing the White]

But doesn't Gollum go one better than Frodo - he becomes the possessor, he bears it (for a lot longer than anyone apart from Sauron), he claims it for his own, and loses it - but then gets it back right at the end?

Frodo is probably considered more main than Gollum because he is on a quest to destroy the Ring, which is the entire reason LotR exists, and the obstacles and travels that he goes through are central to the story. Frodo's willingness to bear the One Ring demonstrates his bravery, and the sacrifice he makes is the one of the parts of the tale that makes the book worth reading. Along with this, his struggle to resist the Ring (and failure to do so) also shows that even the best people can be corrupted by power. As previously mentioned, The Lord of the Rings is told either mostly through the perspective of the hobbits, or in things relating to the hobbits, with events in relation to Frodo possibly being the most spoken of. Basically, the books are structured around Frodo's journey to destroy the Ring.

I'm afraid I'm still at a complete loss as to how Bombadil can be seen as a foundation for all Tolkien ever did.

Bombadil is definitely not central to the story. Despite the fact that he has a lot of pages in the book, he doesn't really do anything that the story absolutely revolves around.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

I'm pretty sure the Sentient Fox is the main character.
One Fox to rule them all.

See? Very demure. Very mindful.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

 

[CCC]

Bombadil is definitely not central to the story. Despite the fact that he has a lot of pages in the book, he doesn't really do anything that the story absolutely revolves around.

Bombadil is essential as without him we wouldn't have Goldberry. And without the River-Daughter the story as intended couldn't run backwards, as all rivers do 🐡🐠🐟 in Middle Earth.

 

[TrackerOrc]

Frodo is probably considered more main than Gollum because he is on a quest to destroy the Ring, which is the entire reason LotR exists, and the obstacles and travels that he goes through are central to the story. Frodo's willingness to bear the One Ring demonstrates his bravery, and the sacrifice he makes is the one of the parts of the tale that makes the book worth reading. Along with this, his struggle to resist the Ring (and failure to do so) also shows that even the best people can be corrupted by power. As previously mentioned, The Lord of the Rings is told either mostly through the perspective of the hobbits, or in things relating to the hobbits, with events in relation to Frodo possibly being the most spoken of. Basically, the books are structured around Frodo's journey to destroy the Ring.

Bombadil is definitely not central to the story. Despite the fact that he has a lot of pages in the book, he doesn't really do anything that the story absolutely revolves around.

Yes, the story of the Ring (and its journey to the fire) is the absolute core, and Frodo plays his part, but I'd say the story is too big for any one character to dominate completely, which is why I've always thought that more than one character is crucial - my picks being Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf, and Gollum: I can't see the story making any real coherent sense without all the interactions these people have with the story of the Ring.

And as a great fan of poor old wretched Gollum, and him being the Ur-hobbit (Lord Father of hobbits?) as it were, I'm happy to see the story being told from the hobbit point of view for much (but not all) of the time.