Bilbo and Sam: the True Heroes

[Del Murder]

Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn are good and all but I think the true heroes of Lord of the Rings are Bilbo and Samwise.

Bilbo had a small part to play in the main plot of LoTR but it was significant. He is the only person in history to give up the ring after prolonged use. He had it for sixty years and was able to give it to Frodo freely. Consider that Frodo only had it for a few months and wouldn't give it up in the end. While they could have forced it away from him, the fact that he had the willpower to give it up shows how special he was and it was not a coincidence that he was the one to bring the ring out in the open to ignite the events of LoTR.

Sam pretty much kept Frodo alive for the last 2/3 of the story. Frodo would have been killed or turned into a servant of the ring probably in the first half of The Two Towers if it weren't for Sam keeping him going. Sam's love for Frodo is one of the strongest bonds in the entire series (if not the strongest) and without it none of it would been possible. Sam also held the ring for a little while and gave it back to Frodo freely, which is rare though not as significant as Bilbo's 60 years of use.

[Jinx]

I haven't read The Hobbit, so I can't make a full opinion on Bilbo. I do think he's catty and funny though, and just overall a great character in Fellowship.

Definitely agreed about Sam, though. He's my favorite Fellowship member after Merry (who is so much cooler in the book than in the movies).

I would have to say, though, that it's really hard to qualify who exactly was the most important member of the Fellowship. Of course secondary members like Merry, Pippin, Gimli, and Legolas probably aren't going to claim that title. That being said, they all played important parts in the war (Merry and Pippin especially) and I wouldn't call them unimportant. Even Boromir's involvement was important. I think the individual roles in this series are so closely intertwined with the events in the later books especially, that you can't really say that any of the characters could have been easily removed without changing huge chunks of series, and the ultimate outcome of the series itself.

[Psychotic]

Everyone's a hero in their own way, everyone's got villains they must face. They're not as cool as Aragorn's but folks you know it's fine to know your place.

[Shorty]

I found this today.


http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/70/7f/8b/707f8bd4f9d58e1e3a2ea7c616b4ca84.jpg

I do think that Sam is the most important person of the Fellowship. Without him Frodo's quest would have failed. Frodo relied upon a lot of people to see him to Mount Doom, but ultimately, Sam made the most impact in the journey. Frodo's quest would have failed had it not been for Sam; this applies not only once, but many, many times throughout the story.

Also, I am convinced that Sam is in love with Frodo. I am dead serious.

[Jinx]

Agreed about Sam being in love with Frodo. Not poking fun or anything, but there's definitely more there than friendship for him.

[Leigh]

I believe Tolkien himself referred to Samwise as the chief hero of the tale. I'd kill for friendships like those that exist within those four little hobbits. Too bad it's all fictional. :(

[Tavrobel]

Bilbo didn't kill Gollum. That's more than half of the reason why the Quest succeeds in the first place. With a dead Gollum, Aragorn and Gandalf don't learn any tactical information from him, Frodo and Sam don't make it into Mordor in the first place, and he doesn't do jumping jacks for joy straight into the lava when he does get the Ring.

Without Sam's extreme care for Frodo, Frodo winds up in many worse situations than what happened in LotR. It surprises me whenever people point out that Sam loves Frodo, like that's a particularly damning revelation or something. It's almost never in a positive light or people feel a need to apologize for noticing.

[Shorty]

Never in a positive light how? I think it's charming and wonderful, and I think it must have been a difficult thing for Tolkien to write and to conceal within the story for its time.

[Miriel]

Of course Sam loves Frodo, but not in a, "I want to smurf him" kind of way.

That's one of the best things about their relationship. That there is unabashed love there without it having to be a gay thing, even though people joke about that. I think that to turn that around and say that it was more than friendship diminishes how important friendships can be. You can love wholeheartedly people you are friends with, without wanting to get in their pants.

[Bubba]

Of course Sam loves Frodo, but not in a, "I want to smurf him" kind of way.

That's one of the best things about their relationship. That there is unabashed love there without it having to be a gay thing, even though people joke about that. I think that to turn that around and say that it was more than friendship diminishes how important friendships can be. You can love wholeheartedly people you are friends with, without wanting to get in their pants.

Exactly this.

[Forsaken Lover]

Sam was vital to Frodo but Frodo was the one carrying the source of pure evil and sin on his person the whole trip. No one can take away Sam's contribution to his master's - and all of Middle-earth's - salvation, but there's a reason Frodo is the first mortal ever invited to live in the Blessed Realm.

[Shorty]

Of course Sam loves Frodo, but not in a, "I want to smurf him" kind of way.

That's one of the best things about their relationship. That there is unabashed love there without it having to be a gay thing, even though people joke about that. I think that to turn that around and say that it was more than friendship diminishes how important friendships can be. You can love wholeheartedly people you are friends with, without wanting to get in their pants.

I don't consider anyone feeling a "I want to smurf [person]" sort of feeling as love, not at all. I don't interpret it as a sexual-based feeling, I think that Sam has intimate feelings for Frodo that extend beyond that of friendship, which are not to be confused with marking him as homosexual or that he just wants to smurf Frodo or "get into his pants". Such a thing doesn't take away from or change their friendship at all.

I read something specifically on the relationship between Sam and Frodo that has helped convey my thoughts:


There can be such a thing as a deep, deep love between people (and not always sexual although intimate) that could be cast as romantic or not but it is something I think Frodo/Sam share - that they are essentially soulmates and that while not sexual at all in the books and even though there ar intimate moments, it is something deep and true. Something that not even Rosie will get from Sam.

If anyone has read the epilogue Tolkien wrote for LotR (but wasn't published with it) it is very obvious that Sam is still torn in two despite Frodo's "sacrifice" and while very pleased with is life and his wife, still longs greatly for the sea and to see Frodo again.

I know that many just want it to be a "friendship" and not "gay" but then I think that it is a dishonor to their relationship to simplify it to that kind of argument. It is obviously love, it is obviously friendship but it is also so much more.

That's about as plain as it gets for me. Not about hobbits wanting to smurf eachother and not about rampant homosexuality in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Just about love from one person to another that extends beyond friendship and not quite to sexual. And I do believe that Sam loved Frodo more than vice versa.

Ultimately, I believe it's up to the readers to determine how the deeper stories of the characters flow in Lord of the Rings. Whether we want to interpret that as friendship or borderline unrequited love, Tolkien left it for us to decide.

[Psychotic]

In terms of Frodo and Bilbo's difference in resisting the Ring, remember that Bilbo spent his possession of the Ring getting fat in Bag End. Frodo endured starvation and exhaustion, and was actually in Mordor. The closer you are to Mordor - and indeed the more powerful Sauron is - the greater power the Ring has.

Still, Frodo definitely failed his quest. Not out of a lack of trying. He was in over his head and he knew that from the start.

[Ergroilnin]

I like to this of the love between Frodo and Sam kind of the same kind a Father has to his Son. He loves him absolutely and would do basically anything for him.

[Miriel]

There can be such a thing as a deep, deep love between people (and not always sexual although intimate) that could be cast as romantic or not but it is something I think Frodo/Sam share - that they are essentially soulmates and that while not sexual at all in the books and even though there ar intimate moments, it is something deep and true. Something that not even Rosie will get from Sam.

If anyone has read the epilogue Tolkien wrote for LotR (but wasn't published with it) it is very obvious that Sam is still torn in two despite Frodo's "sacrifice" and while very pleased with is life and his wife, still longs greatly for the sea and to see Frodo again.

I know that many just want it to be a "friendship" and not "gay" but then I think that it is a dishonor to their relationship to simplify it to that kind of argument. It is obviously love, it is obviously friendship but it is also so much more.

That's about as plain as it gets for me. Not about hobbits wanting to smurf eachother and not about rampant homosexuality in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Just about love from one person to another that extends beyond friendship and not quite to sexual. And I do believe that Sam loved Frodo more than vice versa.

Ultimately, I believe it's up to the readers to determine how the deeper stories of the characters flow in Lord of the Rings. Whether we want to interpret that as friendship or borderline unrequited love, Tolkien left it for us to decide.

So it may be arguing semantics but WHY does that go beyond friendship? Why can't friendship include deep intimacy and devotion? Why doesn't having a love for someone who you are NOT romantically interested in count as friendship of the very best kind?

Their relationship also has an interesting master/servant element to it as well, which is now anachronistic and the reason why I think their relationship inspires such confusion today. Tolkien himself said very clearly that the Frodo/Sam relationship was inspired by the batman (ie: personal aide) and the officier roles in the British military:

"My Sam Gamgee is indeed a reflexion of the English soldier, of the privates and batmen I knew in the 1914 war, and recognized as so far superior to myself" - from the Letters of Tolkien

So if anything, they have a band of brothers, we went through war together and I would die for you, type relationship. Which again, for me at least, circles back to a deep friendship and bond. But also tinged with a bit of dutifulness that existed because of Sam's role as Frodo's servant.

When people say things like, "more than friendship" or "unrequited love" there is the obvious implication that there is a sexual element there and I really don't think that there is.

[Shorty]

There can be such a thing as a deep, deep love between people (and not always sexual although intimate) that could be cast as romantic or not but it is something I think Frodo/Sam share - that they are essentially soulmates and that while not sexual at all in the books and even though there ar intimate moments, it is something deep and true. Something that not even Rosie will get from Sam.

If anyone has read the epilogue Tolkien wrote for LotR (but wasn't published with it) it is very obvious that Sam is still torn in two despite Frodo's "sacrifice" and while very pleased with is life and his wife, still longs greatly for the sea and to see Frodo again.

I know that many just want it to be a "friendship" and not "gay" but then I think that it is a dishonor to their relationship to simplify it to that kind of argument. It is obviously love, it is obviously friendship but it is also so much more.

That's about as plain as it gets for me. Not about hobbits wanting to smurf eachother and not about rampant homosexuality in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Just about love from one person to another that extends beyond friendship and not quite to sexual. And I do believe that Sam loved Frodo more than vice versa.

Ultimately, I believe it's up to the readers to determine how the deeper stories of the characters flow in Lord of the Rings. Whether we want to interpret that as friendship or borderline unrequited love, Tolkien left it for us to decide.

So it may be arguing semantics but WHY does that go beyond friendship? Why can't friendship include deep intimacy and devotion? Why doesn't having a love for someone who you are NOT romantically interested in count as friendship of the very best kind?

Their relationship also has an interesting master/servant element to it as well, which is now anachronistic and the reason why I think their relationship inspires such confusion today. Tolkien himself said very clearly that the Frodo/Sam relationship was inspired by the batman (ie: personal aide) and the officier roles in the British military:

"My Sam Gamgee is indeed a reflexion of the English soldier, of the privates and batmen I knew in the 1914 war, and recognized as so far superior to myself" - from the Letters of Tolkien

So if anything, they have a band of brothers, we went through war together and I would die for you, type relationship. Which again, for me at least, circles back to a deep friendship and bond. But also tinged with a bit of dutifulness that existed because of Sam's role as Frodo's servant.

When people say things like, "more than friendship" or "unrequited love" there is the obvious implication that there is a sexual element there and I really don't think that there is.

I'm not saying it can't include deep intimacy and devotion; absolutely, friendship includes those things. I am saying that my interpretation of Sam and Frodo's relationship is deeper than friendship and extends into a weird realm of feelings, and that's all it is: my own interpretation.

I can assure you I definitely did not intend to imply a sexual element to their story as there is no room for that in my Middle Earth. :shobon:

[Slothy]

So it may be arguing semantics but WHY does that go beyond friendship? Why can't friendship include deep intimacy and devotion? Why doesn't having a love for someone who you are NOT romantically interested in count as friendship of the very best kind?

Like Shorty said, it depends on personal definitions and interpretations of what friendship is and of their relationship.

For me, personally, I have lot's of friends. I like them, they like me, we'll hang out and help each other out if asked, but that about describes the relationship. I don't feel any deep emotional attachment to them, I just enjoy their company from time to time.

But the person who could be classified as my best friend is much more than that. With the exception of my wife there is no one else in the world that I feel comfortable talking about anything and everything with, or for whom I would do absolutely anything. In his case, I find the term friendship inadequate because I care for most of the people I call friends orders of magnitude less. If this guy came to me and told me I needed to kill someone no questions asked, I very well might do it. The closest term I can find to describe our relationship is that of brothers, but I find even that slightly inadequate since a brother is someone you're related to by happenstance of birth and it in no way guarantees emotional closeness. There simply isn't a word I know of that describes it well enough. So I consider our relationship to be something beyond friendship, even though most people would consider us extremely close friends.

So I disagree that saying Sam and Frodo's relationship goes beyond friendship implies a sexual element (the unrequited love suggestions do though if you ask me). Because I love this friend of mine, but it's not sexual. It's understanding, knowing and commitment to that person. Christ, soul mate might even be the most applicable term now that I think about it, even though I find the usual implications of that term in the way many apply it to be absurd.