Samwise Gamgee, simpleton or hero?

[ray gower]

We've seen the films, many of us have read the books, what is your take on one of the foremost of the characters?

Is he ignored because he is a servant?
Or perhaps because 'It was Frodo who had to complete the task'

Why stick with his master through so much?

[Tabitha]

Originally posted by ray gower

Is he ignored because he is a servant?
Or perhaps because 'It was Frodo who had to complete the task'

Why stick with his master through so much?

I always thought about the era Tolkien was writing in (or rather a little earlier) - obviously I wasn't around then, but my experience of this time through books and movies, tv shows etc, makes me thing that there were basically three main classes of people. There were the aristocracy, their servants and blue collar workers, and then the white collar workers inbetween.

I felt that Sam kind of fitted into the role of a manservant or loyal butler-type, but then when the four hobbits are altogether there doesn't seem to be much subservience, so it is a hard one to call.

I don't think Sam is really ignored so much though - at least not much more than the rest of the hobbits are in the company of other species. Or do you mean ignored by the narrative? As the burden is so squarely placed on Frodo's shoulders by Tolkien, even if Frodo doesn't have the strength to carry it?

[ray gower]

Social strata at the time of Tolkien, between and just after the war, was a lot less stratified than one might think. Between serf and nob there was a whole wheat field of others that made up the 'Middle Class', with enough money to have servants, but not enough to be squire. So Frodo drinking in the same pub as the others is not so strange (to me at least).
Besides when the story starts, Frodo was young, so class means even less. And afterwards, there were the events that he had witnessed with the others.

To me Sam was driven by a strong sense of, what is now regarded as outdated and mis-placed, loyalty. His actions and sacrifice, if not being ignored by others were perhaps not well as well noted as perhaps they should.
But then, I doubt he would have been capable of accepting the praise, like the end of TTT where he is rabbiting on about the songs of Frodo and the Ring that would be created.

[captaincarter]

I can't stand Sam, or Frodo for that matter!! I like to skip those parts with them in it, just watch the Gollum ones.:rolly2:

[Tabitha]

Originally posted by captaincarter
I can't stand Sam, or Frodo for that matter!! I like to skip those parts with them in it, just watch the Gollum ones.:rolly2:

How can you enjoy the Gollum scenes and hate the Sam and Frodo ones? They mostly happen at the same time!

I think that Sam is the undisputed hero of the third movie - perhaps all three. While his appearance in this story is almost accidental, he ends up playing arguably the most important role of all. He is able to recognise what the ring means, and what it can do to its bearer - and resist the temptation it arouses so murderously in Smeagol and Deagol - and in Frodo, Bilbo, and even in Aragorn's ill-fated ancestor.

But is he able to resist it because he is too stupid to know any better? I don't think so - I think Gollum's case illustrates this perfectly - he seemed to be someone similar to Sam, but obviously without the strength of will to resist his impulses. So I think that all in all, we are being told that Sam is the true hero of the piece. So there!

[ray gower]

I share Tabitha's surprise!

Whilst Frodo's part was largely reduced to deep haunted looks as he is pulled into the depths by the ring. The film(s) leave even less to sympathise with in the character of Smeagol than the book!

Don't think there is a lot of similarity between Sam and Smeagol either. He (Sam) appears to have been born into service and I think it is that that enabled him to resist the lure of the Ring. He knows he is inferior to his master, though this may not be the real truth.

[CrimsonBeasts]

in my personal opinion, sam is a ninja in disguise. instead of flipping out and killing people, he just helps frodo complete his daunting task. think about it, who else then a ninja could hide such copious amounts of food in his cute little backpack without stopping at the store to refuel?

[Raynor]

Tolkien did call Sam the "chief hero" of LotR; he also stated that the main structure of the narrative is the sanctification of the humble (I will provide the actual quotes once I am near again the letters).

There is also a quote by Tolkien that the most moving moment was when Sam carried Frodo on his back - but I can't remember where, for the life of me .

I do like Sam; in the early variants of the story ending, it is he who either throws Gollum in the fires of Mount Doom - or throws himself with him, in order to complete the quest. True hero indeed...

[Sibeling]

Of course, he is a hero.
After Shelob attacked Frodo, and Sam thought he was all alone in Mordor, what did he do? Start crying like a baby and run away back home?
No, he understood that the task must be completed, and he was ready to do it all by himself. Can you actually imagine the horror of the situation - thousands of hungry Orcs around, equally hungry Gollum, nobody knows what other dangers beside Shelob in the mountains, and he must decide what to all by himself, because Frodo, who was sort of the leader of the company, is presumably dead.
And he is not really that much like a servant - he was just a gardener, and was treated more like a friend.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Of course it would be quite possible for him to be both ... simpleton AND hero. You might call him the typical fairy tale younger son, the one everyone thinks a fool, but who goes out and gets whatever needs doing done. Sometimes, highly intelligent or more sophisticated people can over-think things, or make them too complicated. There is a kind of wisdom in being able to simplify things, to look past all the distractions and get straight to the heart of the matter.

In that sense, I think Sam was simple.

He was also the sort of man of principle who did what he thought was right, whether or not he was going to be the hero or get any credit. To be given credit embarrassed him, because in his eyes that was not the point.

[Crisspin]

Sam was a simpleton in many ways, but I always felt he represented Loyalty. He also, like many of the hobbits, represented that the common man, the uneducated and unworldly were somehow greater than those who studied and learnt.

It was the simple people, with no training who succeed simply due to loyalty, persistance and a belief that they were doing greater good. In this way he epitimizes the hero in the story, as Frodo feels he has no choice but to go on the journey, while Sam has a real choice .. does not have to go, but chooses loyalty over all else, even his life.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Crisspin

Frodo feels he has no choice but to go on the journey, while Sam has a real choice .. does not have to go, but chooses loyalty over all else, even his life.

You may have condensed the whole question down to the essentials there. Frodo did have a feeling that he was fulfilling some predestined role -- that if he didn't do it, no one would -- but everywhere along the way Sam was making his own choices.

[dustinzgirl]

I have a theory on this. Sam's heart is far to open, where Frodo's is more calculating--even in the beginning, when he found the ring and his uncle, the boy knew something was amiss. Sam is different, a believer and lover--of Frodo and of life---therefore, because Sam loved too much, he could not have turned his back on the power of the ring. Frodo could, because he did not share the open heart--his was clouded by suspicion and logic. Yet, without Sam's love to protect him and show him the way, Frodo could never have completed his task, because he did not share that same enthusiasm for love and life.

[Raynor]

In letter #93, Tolkien also notes that "cert. Sam is the most closely drawn character, the successor to Bilbo of the first book, the genuine hobbit"

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

Sam is different, a believer and lover--of Frodo and of life---therefore, because Sam loved too much, he could not have turned his back on the power of the ring. Frodo could, because he did not share the open heart--his was clouded by suspicion and logic

I disagree; Sam was far more resistant to the rings power. He even gave the ring back to Frodo!

About their hearts being opened, Sam is far less empathic towards Gollum, not sensing his transformation - and this destroys Gollum's chance of repentance (cf letter #96) - perhaps the only real chance he had.

[Crisspin]

Originally Posted by Raynor

In letter #93, Tolkien also notes that "cert. Sam is the most closely drawn character, the successor to Bilbo of the first book, the genuine hobbit"

I disagree; Sam was far more resistant to the rings power. He even gave the ring back to Frodo!

About their hearts being opened, Sam is far less empathic towards Gollum, not sensing his transformation - and this destroys Gollum's chance of repentance (cf letter #96) - perhaps the only real chance he had.

I'm not sure I would say Sam is far more resistant to the ring. He does give it back, but only after having it a short time. Frodo has the ring for much longer, so measuring Sam's giving the ring back would have to be measured against Frodo's actions with the ring in the very early days of his possessing it.

Good point on Sam's reaction to Gollum, not very sympathetic he.