Frodo or Sam?

TrackerOrc said:

Never been a huge fan of Sam, though of course I recognise his importance to the story.
His slavish devotion to Frodo is something which just sets my teeth on edge, though I may be a little unfair here as he needs to have a very close relationship.
It might come as no great surprise that his almost unrelenting hostility to Gollum isn't my favoutite part of his character either! I mean, seriously, he was going to tie Gollum up and leave him to starve to death!

Click to expand...

I respect your opinion, but I've never thought of Sams devotion to Frodo as slavish, as a slave has no say in the matter and Sam had every chance, even a direct command to leave Frodo. Servantlike feels more accurate. And it was Sam's love to Frodo that bound him to him more than Gandalf's command "don't you leave him Sam Gamgee". I think "master" was more a term of respect to one older and wiser than him, unlike with Sméagol who was literally bound by an oath. As for giving Frodo most of the food and water, Sam was merely being a true and selfless friend who recognised Frodo's need (it was harder for Frodo as he bore the Ring) and did the best he could to help him. And Frodo does not exploit this: true, most of the time he is too preocupied by the Ring to notice that Sam is giving him the greater share of the food, but when Sam offers to drink a spring in Mordor that might be poisoned first Frodo says that they will test their luck together.
Also, not to be picky, but I don't think that Sam really wanted to starve Gollum. He was trying to come up with a way to stop him following them and throttling them in their sleep and probably did not think of the fact that tying him up would starve Gollum. After all, Sam didn't suggest just killing Gollum straight up, and Sam isn't the kind who enjoys seeing others suffer, so why make the process prolonged?I think it quite likely that he didn't think the suggestion he made all the way through, and after Gollum mentions that that would kill him Sam drops the idea.
As to Sam's hostility towards Gollum, I do agree with you on that, although Sam had never felt the power of the Ring and didn't really understand what Gollum was going through. But when it came to it and Sam had already born the Ring he didn't kill Gollum when he had every chance and every right to do so.
However, when it comes to choosing between Frodo and Sam I do generally lean towards Frodo because of his mercy towards Sméagol and his long resistance to the Ring.

Idril Celebrindal said:

I respect your opinion, but I've never thought of Sams devotion to Frodo as slavish, as a slave has no say in the matter and Sam had every chance, even a direct command to leave Frodo. Servantlike feels more accurate. And it was Sam's love to Frodo that bound him to him more than Gandalf's command "don't you leave him Sam Gamgee". I think "master" was more a term of respect to one older and wiser than him, unlike with Sméagol who was literally bound by an oath. As for giving Frodo most of the food and water, Sam was merely being a true and selfless friend who recognised Frodo's need (it was harder for Frodo as he bore the Ring) and did the best he could to help him. And Frodo does not exploit this: true, most of the time he is too preocupied by the Ring to notice that Sam is giving him the greater share of the food, but when Sam offers to drink a spring in Mordor that might be poisoned first Frodo says that they will test their luck together.
Also, not to be picky, but I don't think that Sam really wanted to starve Gollum. He was trying to come up with a way to stop him following them and throttling them in their sleep and probably did not think of the fact that tying him up would starve Gollum. After all, Sam didn't suggest just killing Gollum straight up, and Sam isn't the kind who enjoys seeing others suffer, so why make the process prolonged?I think it quite likely that he didn't think the suggestion he made all the way through, and after Gollum mentions that that would kill him Sam drops the idea.
As to Sam's hostility towards Gollum, I do agree with you on that, although Sam had never felt the power of the Ring and didn't really understand what Gollum was going through. But when it came to it and Sam had already born the Ring he didn't kill Gollum when he had every chance and every right to do so.
However, when it comes to choosing between Frodo and Sam I do generally lean towards Frodo because of his mercy towards Sméagol and his long resistance to the Ring.

Click to expand...

Ah, my mistake here. I wasn't using 'slavish' in the literal sense of being a slave, but as you have it - servantlike. This still doesn't sit right with me to be honest.
Right at the end of the story he still can't call Frodo by his first name, but carries on calling him 'Master' or 'Mr Frodo'; after all they've been through together there is still this barrier between them which seems to me to make Sam still subservient, which is really odd. Probably stems from the world Tolkien himself grew up in, but it seems slightly jarring now.

You're probably correct about giving Sam the benefit of the doubt, and old Gollum did create rather a trying situation for everyone didn't he!

TrackerOrc said:

Probably stems from the world Tolkien himself grew up in, but it seems slightly jarring now.

Click to expand...

That's a perfect bullseye.
JRRT served as an officer in WW I, chosen for officer training as he had been at a university (in his case, even finishing his degree in 1915), His younger brother Hilary, had left school in 1910 at age 16 and became a simple soldier (bugler) when he volunteered in 1914.
JRRT describes Sam at the end of (draft) letter 187 from April 1956:

"My 'Sam Gamgee' is indeed, as you say, a reflection of the English Soldier, of the privates and batmen I knew in the 1914 war, and recognized as so far superior to myself."

A "batman" was a private assigned to an officer to relieve the latter of "housekeeping chores", and probably run errands, though not exclusively. Yes, it seems jarring now, over a century after WW I, but that was fought among monarchies prior the the US entry in 1917, and the Aristocracy was hugely over-represented in the officer corps of all participating monarchies.

Olorgando said:

That's a perfect bullseye.
JRRT served as an officer in WW I, chosen for officer training as he had been at a university (in his case, even finishing his degree in 1915), His younger brother Hilary, had left school in 1910 at age 16 and became a simple soldier (bugler) when he volunteered in 1914.
JRRT describes Sam at the end of (draft) letter 187 from April 1956:

"My 'Sam Gamgee' is indeed, as you say, a reflection of the English Soldier, of the privates and batmen I knew in the 1914 war, and recognized as so far superior to myself."

A "batman" was a private assigned to an officer to relieve the latter of "housekeeping chores", and probably run errands, though not exclusively. Yes, it seems jarring now, over a century after WW I, but that was fought among monarchies prior the the US entry in 1917, and the Aristocracy was hugely over-represented in the officer corps of all participating monarchies.

Click to expand...

A bit of an assist here with a "modern day" example.....
For those who have watched Downton Abbey (and I know you're out there 🤨 ) Bates was Robert's (Lord Grantham) batman in the Boer War (1899-1902)

Similar mutual loyalty.

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

Similar mutual loyalty.

Click to expand...

'Zaaaaactly

Also for anyone struggling with the "How could Tolkien have thought that way" try to remember that it is absolutely necessary (no exceptions) to analyse events on their own terms, meaning not to make judgments based upon today’s morals and standards.
Someone mentioned doing this (or not doing it) in an earlier post.

But the practice is so common, much more the rule than the exception. Folks not attuned to "history", and I mean any history, even, say, personal family history, judge prior events and people's convictions and actions by one's own, or society's, limited and often benighted knowledge of the past.

Correlative to this to this is the modern belief that the present is the result of the past's inexorable march of progress towards enlightenment.
That is, that human behavior is always getting better, more ethical, more humane. That current beliefs, ethics and morals are ipso facto superior to the standards, morals and ethics of one's past, whether personal history or a society's (or a nation's).

Deimos said:

Also for anyone struggling with the "How could Tolkien have thought that way" try to remember that it is absolutely necessary (no exceptions) to analyse events on their own terms, meaning not to make judgments based upon today’s morals and standards.
Someone mentioned doing this (or not doing it) in an earlier post.

But the practice is so common, much more the rule than the exception. Folks not attuned to "history", and I mean any history, even, say, personal family history, judge prior events and people's convictions and actions by one's own, or society's, limited and often benighted knowledge of the past.

Correlative to this to this is the modern belief that the present is the result of the past's inexorable march of progress towards enlightenment.
That is, that human behavior is always getting better, more ethical, more humane. That current beliefs, ethics and morals are ipso facto superior to the standards, morals and ethics of one's past, whether personal history or a society's (or a nation's).

Click to expand...

Agreed.
That's one of the two fallacies we are prone to:
"Everything new is better!"
The other one is:
"Everything old was better!"

Whenever some claims that something is better, we should always ask two questions:
"Why exactly is it better?"
and perhaps more importantly:
"For whom is it better?"

Getting honest answers is probably very difficult.

Olorgando said:

Agreed.
That's one of the two fallacies we are prone to:
"Everything new is better!"
The other one is:
"Everything old was better!"

Whenever some claims that something is better, we should always ask two questions:
"Why exactly is it better?"
and perhaps more importantly:
"For whom is it better?"

Getting honest answers is probably very difficult.

Click to expand...

I've always believed the Shire to be Tolkien's vision of an idealised world (idealised but not ideal - he was careful to include Hobbits who didn't all behave well) and I honestly think there wouldn't be many better places overall. This is not to say that there aren't problems with the vision, and there are inequalities if you look deeply enough with a carefully modern eye, but all in all it would be a rather decent place to spend some time.
And I say this as someone who is definitely Team Orc!

TrackerOrc said:

I've always believed the Shire to be Tolkien's vision of an idealised world (idealised but not ideal - he was careful to include Hobbits who didn't all behave well) and I honestly think there wouldn't be many better places overall. This is not to say that there aren't problems with the vision, and there are inequalities if you look deeply enough with a carefully modern eye, but all in all it would be a rather decent place to spend some time.
And I say this as someone who is definitely Team Orc!

Click to expand...

Are all inequalities in a society unjust?

Deimos said:

Are all inequalities in a society unjust?

Click to expand...

All, no. Plenty of them, yes.
There's the "level playing field" theoretically giving everyone the same chance at the starting line - say in educational possibilities in school.
There's a nutcase train of thought that would like to have "equal outcomes" at the end of school - be it 8, 10, 12, 13 years ... which (should) determine access to higher education, college etc. I call it nutcase because it founders on the fact that every person is unique, in many things including talents (something that makes some bureaucrats break out in a cold sweat). And of course the playing field is anything but eve when children enter school ...
There's this quote that I remember The baseball analogy may not be clear to all):
"The dumb troll was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple."
It's dumb trolls born on third base (used to be huge swaths of the aristocracy) that annoy people everywhere; sometimes an 1789 event is the only sensible cleansing solution. Problem was and is, dumb trolls just don't die out.

Olorgando said:

All, no. Plenty of them, yes.
There's the "level playing field" theoretically giving everyone the same chance at the starting line - say in educational possibilities in school.
There's a nutcase train of thought that would like to have "equal outcomes" at the end of school - be it 8, 10, 12, 13 years ... which (should) determine access to higher education, college etc. I call it nutcase because it founders on the fact that every person is unique, in many things including talents (something that makes some bureaucrats break out in a cold sweat). And of course the playing field is anything but eve when children enter school ...
There's this quote that I remember The baseball analogy may not be clear to all):
"The dumb troll was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple."
It's dumb trolls born on third base (used to be huge swaths of the aristocracy) that annoy people everywhere; sometimes an 1789 event is the only sensible cleansing solution. Problem was and is, dumb trolls just don't die out.

Click to expand...

Yes, "equality of outcome" vs "equality of opportunity".

But perhaps I should have made my question more "Tolkien specific".

And my question is more asked of @TrackerOrc with respect to his "This is not to say that there aren't problems with the vision, and there are inequalities if you look deeply enough with a carefully modern eye..."

What would the modern eye see as inequalities in ME?

Deimos said:

But perhaps I should have made my question more "Tolkien specific".

Click to expand...

Yes, let's keep it about Tolkien.

Not to speak for TrackerOrc, but Shire society displays the class structure of Tolkien's England -- at least in his younger days.

T.A Shippey pointed out something I, as an American, had never noticed, when reading The Hobbit: that none of the characters sound particularly "English", until we meet Smaug -- and his speech, initially at least, is that of an upper-class English snob!

Deimos said:

What would the modern eye see as inequalities in ME?

Click to expand...

Whose "modern" eye? I would postulate that "modern" is one of those terms that's practically impossible to define so that more than a handful of people agree on the definition. And never mind that the term "postmodern" has been bandied about, for decades now, outside of the confines of architecture where (so I've read) it originated and has (may have) a precise (?) definition.

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

Not to speak for TrackerOrc, but Shire society displays the class structure of Tolkien's England -- at least in his younger days.
T.A Shippey pointed out something I, as an American, had never noticed, when reading The Hobbit: that none of the characters sound particularly "English", until we meet Smaug -- and his speech, initially at least, is that of an upper-class English snob!

Click to expand...

Yes, JRRT repeatedly pointed out that LotR is an English book, with (at least in parts) an English setting. Part of his annoyance with the first two translations, the Dutch and Swedish ones, was that he saw attempts by the translators to "naturalize" it to their own countries.
But even if we leave aside the issues with translation, not all English native speakers will be able to follow JRRT's subtleties. Australians and New Zealanders, and anglophone Canadians, may be "closer to home", having been British dominions until fairly recently, and still have the Que ... dang, the King as head of state, while Canada's southern neighbor had a well-documented falling-out with the mother country almost 250 years ago. As far as my own native speaking goes, I'd have to count myself among US Americans. Actually, a north-easterner. Even more precisely, a New Yorker from Queens and Nassau counties.
You can play this game for other regions, states counties towns for the rest of the US, very likely for the three former dominions. Heck, you can play this game for England (never mind the UK), what with Midlands, Yorkshire, Cornwall, London, etc. etc. etc.
Unless one has JRRT's deep knowledge of the English language, one is always going to miss something. Especially as he had so much knowledge of older forms going back all the way to the Anglo-Saxon of Beowulf.
JRRT was not a "modern writer" of the period in which he worked on TH and LotR (though in some subtle ways he very definitely was, as Tom Shippey and for this particular topic especially Verlyn Flieger has pointed out) in the 1930's to 1950's. He felt himself to something of a late Victorian to Edwardian. So his writing was "old-fashioned" even those about 70 to 90 years ago.
J.K. Rowling and G.R.R. Martin both write differently from JRRT, Rowling even in a modern setting (thus vaguely similar to C.S. Lewis's Narnia). But are you expecting JRRT to write like Rowling (or Martin)? That may be the common fault of many of the posts in @Radaghast 's amusing-to-infuriating thread

Deimos said:

Are all inequalities in a society unjust?

Click to expand...

Like a lot of things I think it's a matter of degree.
Extreme inequality is of course unjust, whereas it's a little more complicated if we lessen the temperature.
A slave-owning society would probably be seen as the epitome of inequality (at the least!), whereas a society with haves and have-nots is much less of a problem overall (but could still be greatly improved, and it would be the degree of difference between those who have and those who have not which would be the crucial point).

Olorgando said:

All, no. Plenty of them, yes.
There's the "level playing field" theoretically giving everyone the same chance at the starting line - say in educational possibilities in school.
There's a nutcase train of thought that would like to have "equal outcomes" at the end of school - be it 8, 10, 12, 13 years ... which (should) determine access to higher education, college etc. I call it nutcase because it founders on the fact that every person is unique, in many things including talents (something that makes some bureaucrats break out in a cold sweat). And of course the playing field is anything but eve when children enter school ...
There's this quote that I remember The baseball analogy may not be clear to all):
"The dumb troll was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple."
It's dumb trolls born on third base (used to be huge swaths of the aristocracy) that annoy people everywhere; sometimes an 1789 event is the only sensible cleansing solution. Problem was and is, dumb trolls just don't die out.

Click to expand...

Yep, the baseball analogy has me puzzled.
Am I right in thinking that you're referring to someone with a rather inflated opinion of themselves, possibly allied with a huge sense of entitlement?

Deimos said:

Yes, "equality of outcome" vs "equality of opportunity".

But perhaps I should have made my question more "Tolkien specific".

And my question is more asked of @TrackerOrc with respect to his "This is not to say that there aren't problems with the vision, and there are inequalities if you look deeply enough with a carefully modern eye..."

What would the modern eye see as inequalities in ME?

Click to expand...

Well I think we could see the Shire as an idealised Edwardian Squireocracy. There are well-off Hobbits (from the landed gentry of the Tooks and Brandybucks down to prosperous merchants) there are less well-to do Hobbits (actually there are 'poorer hobbits'), and the society seems to be fairly hierarchical and traditional. Could we imagine there ever being a female Mayor?

TrackerOrc said:

Yep, the baseball analogy has me puzzled.
Am I right in thinking that you're referring to someone with a rather inflated opinion of themselves, possibly allied with a huge sense of entitlement?

Click to expand...

No, I mean the offspring of "aristocracy" however you define it.
In baseball, as in cricket, teams alternate between opportunities to score runs, aka offense, while the other team takes the field and tries to prevent the other team whose turn it is at offense from scoring. In both sports, a batter (wielding differently shaped bats in the two sports) has to try and hit a ball thrown by the defensive team's main protagonist, the pitcher in baseball, the bowler in cricket.
Baseball has four "bases" arranged in a square standing on one point (called diamond, I believe) The batter starts out at the bottom, where he tries to hit the ball. To score a run, a player must reach and touch all of the bases on the other three corners of the diamond. in a counter-clockwise fashion. First base is to the right, second base next, then third base, and finally the start-off and scoring point, home plate.
A "triple" is a hit that allows a batter to reach third base, and is the rarest of hits (the other three being "single", "double" and "home run", which is an automatic score). What I meant with "born on third base" is the advantage children of "aristocrats" enjoy from birth, a position which others can only reach with a huge effort (if at all). They have an advantage that has absolutely nothing to do with their own abilities, but think themselves equal to those who have reached a similar position through strenuous effort, which is usually a load of solid droppings.
The closest thing in LotR might be the positions of Sam and Pippin at the beginning of the book. Sam definitely belongs to the agricultural working class (though he has been taught to read - something Sam'd dad the gaffer is not sure is a good thing!), while Pippin is the heir to the Thain, the closest thing to aristocracy in the Shire (landed aristocracy at that). Both take part in the quest, but Sam has the far tougher job.
After they return, Pippin inherits the title of Thain from his father, while Sam is elected mayor of the Shire seven times, thus serving for 49 years. But Pippin's son Faramir marries Sam and Rose's third daughter (and sixth child), so by that time they are basically on equal footing. But Pippin had a big head start.

TrackerOrc said:

Right at the end of the story he still can't call Frodo by his first name, but carries on calling him 'Master' or 'Mr Frodo'; after all they've been through together there is still this barrier between them which seems to me to make Sam still subservient, which is really odd. Probably stems from the world Tolkien himself grew up in, but it seems slightly jarring now.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think that there can be different kinds of friendships. For instance, Aragorn and Éomer were good friends, and yet they still called each other "Lord". But then Meradioc and Peregrin just call each other "Merry" and "Pip". And yet both of these friendships are good.
If you will permit me to draw an example from a book that Tolkien hated, then in Dune Gurney Halleck is a very close friend to Duke Leto Atreides, despite the fact that Halleck is also his servant. And yet Gurney continues to call Leto "my lord". I haven't come under the impression that this hampers their friendship.
Or, for instance, in 451 Farenhieght Guy Montag is friends with Faber while also respecting him as one much older than himself.
Also, I think that Sam thought of Frodo more as of an older brother or a father than as of a friend, and yet this does not neccisarilly hinder their friendship. In fact, I think that it is a crucial part of it, just as it is unimaginable for Gurney and Leto Atreides to be friends without Gurney calling Leto "Lord" and having proper respect for him.

Olorgando said:

No, I mean the offspring of "aristocracy" however you define it.
In baseball, as in cricket, teams alternate between opportunities to score runs, aka offense, while the other team takes the field and tries to prevent the other team whose turn it is at offense from scoring. In both sports, a batter (wielding differently shaped bats in the two sports) has to try and hit a ball thrown by the defensive team's main protagonist, the pitcher in baseball, the bowler in cricket.
Baseball has four "bases" arranged in a square standing on one point (called diamond, I believe) The batter starts out at the bottom, where he tries to hit the ball. To score a run, a player must reach and touch all of the bases on the other three corners of the diamond. in a counter-clockwise fashion. First base is to the right, second base next, then third base, and finally the start-off and scoring point, home plate.
A "triple" is a hit that allows a batter to reach third base, and is the rarest of hits (the other three being "single", "double" and "home run", which is an automatic score). What I meant with "born on third base" is the advantage children of "aristocrats" enjoy from birth, a position which others can only reach with a huge effort (if at all). They have an advantage that has absolutely nothing to do with their own abilities, but think themselves equal to those who have reached a similar position through strenuous effort, which is usually a load of solid droppings.
The closest thing in LotR might be the positions of Sam and Pippin at the beginning of the book. Sam definitely belongs to the agricultural working class (though he has been taught to read - something Sam'd dad the gaffer is not sure is a good thing!), while Pippin is the heir to the Thain, the closest thing to aristocracy in the Shire (landed aristocracy at that). Both take part in the quest, but Sam has the far tougher job.
After they return, Pippin inherits the title of Thain from his father, while Sam is elected mayor of the Shire seven times, thus serving for 49 years. But Pippin's son Faramir marries Sam and Rose's third daughter (and sixth child), so by that time they are basically on equal footing. But Pippin had a big head start.

Click to expand...

I get it now; they think they have earned being on third through hitting the triple whilst they were actually born there and have put zero effort into their position.
A Brit would say that people like that were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.