I'd hesitate in saying that either Sam or Frodo is more or less heroic/wise/the saviour than the other.
In terms of the story as it is, I agree. If we look at the characters separately, as a exercise in speculation - I can imagine the story existing without Sam, but not without Frodo. Sam wouldn't have taken the Ring back in the Shire - or at Rivendell - even if someone had thought of giving it to him; or if he might have taken it, it would only be because Frodo gave it to him, which is more or less what actually happens when he does take it, thinking Frodo is dead and can't continue. So Sam can't initiate the heroic action of the Ring Quest, and yet his role is crucial. I wonder how George Clark's argument goes.
"Symbiosis" works for me. Sam couldn't be a hero without Frodo in his role, but Frodo wouldn't survive as hero without Sam.
I'm sure that Gollum as a fallen creature who becomes the agent of fate in restoring the world has some sort of historical parallels too, but I can't offhand think of them!
no subject
Date: 2003-11-12 12:46 pm (UTC)In terms of the story as it is, I agree. If we look at the characters separately, as a exercise in speculation - I can imagine the story existing without Sam, but not without Frodo. Sam wouldn't have taken the Ring back in the Shire - or at Rivendell - even if someone had thought of giving it to him; or if he might have taken it, it would only be because Frodo gave it to him, which is more or less what actually happens when he does take it, thinking Frodo is dead and can't continue. So Sam can't initiate the heroic action of the Ring Quest, and yet his role is crucial. I wonder how George Clark's argument goes.
"Symbiosis" works for me. Sam couldn't be a hero without Frodo in his role, but Frodo wouldn't survive as hero without Sam.
I'm sure that Gollum as a fallen creature who becomes the agent of fate in restoring the world has some sort of historical parallels too, but I can't offhand think of them!