Sam

[Play Girl]

Am I a bit dim to just get this but once I had finished reading the entire book it was only then it dawned on me that Sam was the main character and not Frodo. He is present in nearly every scene that concerns his part of the journey and his experiance of the ring is describe - his fuzzy vision and sharp hearing - while Frodo just sort of puts it on and seesthe dark riders. And at the end he is given the book to finish off. Does he write any of it or is it just the very end lines he rights? Well I still think he is the best character and who cares if he doesn't get alot out of the quest, he comes home and has a ridiculously large amount of baby hobbits with Rosie!
Play Girl
xxx

[samwise of the shire]

Actually I think Sam got alot out of the quest, at first he was just going along because you know his master was going but at the end he KNEW the peril they were in and he relizied that he would die and yet he stuck in there, it's amazing how DIFFERENT Sam is from todays people. He's a servant he puts others before himself and yet he does'nt let people walk all over him, he's balanced I guess you could say.
But we're on the same boat Play Girl ;)
Sam

[IronParrot]

Actually, it's highly debatable who the main character of LOTR is, because of the parallel nature of the story in Books III-V. Sam's perspective becomes extremely important, because it's a window to how Frodo changes from Cirith Ungol to Oroduin. If this was done through Frodo's eyes, it would not have been so effective.

It's all about perspective. After all, Sam closes the book after Frodo's departure...

[Ñólendil]

Still, when you take the whole romance together, you can't say the main character is anyone but Frodo.

[Finmandos12]

But the hero is definitely Aragorn/Elessar.

[Darth Tater]

I dissagree, I think Sam's definately the hero

[Ghost of Tolkien]

Sorry folks, Tom Bombadil is the main character:)

Ghost of Tolkien

[Ñólendil]

I think the hero is definitely the curious fox in the Green Hill Country, so you're both wrong.

[Ghost of Tolkien]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
I think the hero is definitely the curious fox in the Green Hill Country, so you're both wrong.

Anyone that can wear the ONE and not be affected can certainly turn in to a fox when He wants to..

I agree with you Inoldonil

Ghost of Tolkien

[Ñólendil]

I was of course joking. I guess you are referring to Tom Bombadil, and that you think 'He' is God. Not so. See the Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, if you have it, Tolkien specifically says that Tom was not God.

[fireworks19]

That doesn't mean he wasnt THE coolest character! ;)
Has anyone seen that little book about Tom Bombadil? I forget what its called....

[KingElessar8]

IMO, it is possible to say that in LOTR there is a main character (Frodo) and a "hero" (Sam). I think it would be hard to argue that Frodo isnt the main character of the story - the entire Fellowship of the Ring revolves around him, and the rest of ths story - while it moves away from his perspective - is based around what he is doing. Sam reacts to what happens to Frodo - almost nothing happens to Sam as a character that doesnt relate to his master. Sam can probably be called the "hero" fairly easily however, albeit of an unconventional type. The Quest could not have achieved its goal without him. All (or almost all) of the actions that move the story forward from the point he and Frodo set off for Mordor are caused by him, inadvertently or otherwise. Frodo is more important but Sam is more active .
Of course, Tolkien complicates the debate even more by adding a conventional hero in opposition to Sam uncoventional heroic part - of course Im speaking of Aragorn.

[Ghost of Tolkien]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
I was of course joking. I guess you are referring to Tom Bombadil, and that you think 'He' is God. Not so. See the Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, if you have it, Tolkien specifically says that Tom was not God.

I referred to this on my maiden post: "I'm glad you enjoyed etc..."
Don't believe everything you read, including letters ;)


The joke part is just "foxism" :(

Ghost of Tolkien
:cool:

[Ñólendil]

Don't believe everything you read, including letters

Are you speaking under your tasteless persona as the ghost of JRR Tolkien, or do you really believe the man was being dishonest?

[arynetrek]

i see LotR as having 4 "main characters:" Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf, but instead of Tolkien giving us one main character to get overwhelmed with, he takes the pieces of Main Character-hood & divides them among the 4.

Frodo - Emotional Attachment. is there anyone here who DIDN'T, during their first reading, spend long hours worrying about the poor Hobbit? (shudders in memory of her first reading of Shelob's Lair)

Sam - Action. i've already written why he's so pivotal in two other threads, if you want me to repeat i will.

Aragorn - Traditional Hero. archetypal & pretty obvious, except Tolkien in his infinite authoring genius throws in a melancholy streak - as king of Gondor he won't be free to wander anymore & his character definitely changes from Strider to Aragorn in TT.

Gandalf - The Coolness Factor. again obvious. he also does a LOT of work holding the Fellowship together & later aiding the Gondorim (?) and Rohirrim in their battle. could also be The Leader, but that applies to Aragorn also.

This is of course a grotesque oversimplification. feel free to tear this to shreds.

aryne *

[ringbearer]

You are all wrong! The main character is Sauron! The book is even named after him!:D

[arynetrek]

sorry, i disagree.

he's not even the main Bad Guy - i'd say that the Ring's influence is the main antagonist and Sauron more of a plot device, but that's very arguable.

aryne *

[samwise of the shire]

The main charecters once you think about it are SAD, Frodo has no hope of returning and he KNOWS that even from the very beggining, Sam goes along quite happily but then as time goes on realizes that he probably wont see his loved ones again and he does'nt turn around and Galadriel was sooo beautiful and sad. :*(

[arynetrek]

ME is a beautiful place, but is steeped in sadness & has been from its beginning... so of course its people would reflect that.

aryne *

[Ghost of Tolkien]

Originally posted by Inoldonil


Are you speaking under your tasteless persona as the ghost of JRR Tolkien, or do you really believe the man was being dishonest?



I find it quite odd that once a great man says/writes/invents/performs some feat etc there springs up a number of acolytes who defend the 'new religion’ so to speak....

The 'tasteless' tag I think is a bit 'priggish' of you....:)

I believe many of great people of the past wouldn’t necessarily thank anyone for believing they are defending their reputation – There is something deviant about many of the creative figures of the past that often opposed the flow of popular sentiment and religious feeling…

Is JRR being dishonest?

Bearing in mind ME is a mythical world anyway ,this may be an absurd notion ;)
Perhaps the professor didn’t know that Mr Bombadil was Illuvator, in which case he couldn’t be dishonest !

Regards
Ghost of Tolkien
:cool:

[Ñólendil]

Bah, no one's defending a new religion here. If you want to study Tolkien's history, his people, etc., with a Secondary Belief you may find yourself relying on J. R. R. Tolkien as historian and translator. But at the same time it must be remembered that he did make a legendarium, and he will be the leading authority if you want to know anything about it's contents. Tolkien said that Tom Bombadil was not God. He could not have simply been mistaken, in this I am not looking at the Lord of the Rings as a translation of ancient texts, but literature.

Pretending to be J. R. R. Tolkien's ghost is tasteless, only the tasteless or the careless will say otherwise.

[Ghost of Tolkien]

Originally posted by Inoldonil

Pretending to be J. R. R. Tolkien's ghost is tasteless, only the tasteless or the careless will say otherwise.

You lack a sense of humour !
(and also a sense of reality if you think I think anyone would be daft enough to think I was actually the Spirit of you know who)


Besides, the board needs a 'nominally bad guy' ;)

Regards
Ghost of Tolkien
:cool:

[Darth Tater]

You're tasteless, your annoying, your, quite frankly, unnintelligent. The only reason I don't ban you is that it would be pointless to. You're making a fool out of yourself, why should I stop you?

[Ghost of Tolkien]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
You're tasteless, your annoying, your, quite frankly, unnintelligent. The only reason I don't ban you is that it would be pointless to. You're making a fool out of yourself, why should I stop you?

I sympathise with the 'annoying' tag....

The 'tasteless' tag may be a cultural 'USA/England clash' ......

But the 'unintelligent' tag is ridiculous. Try looking in the mirror ;)

Regards
Ghost of Tolkien:)

[Grendel]

Perhaps it would be more wise to wrangle one's angle than libel one's label. If you ignore the "ghost's" handle and concentrate on his main claim, I think you will find that he has a valid point.

It is common for an author to use a version of a character that is quite different from the original. At the time the LOtR was published, the Silmarillion was an ever-changing history or Middle Earth. It was being used as a depository for Tolkien's ideas. He wasn't sure if it would ever be published. Because of this, Tolkien constantly changed characters and concepts. He also re-used many character and place names, such as Glorfindel and Minas Tirith. Some of them remained the same while others became completely different.

Nobody is sure of exactly what Tom Bombadil is. He is the most controversial character in any of the books. Literary experts from around the world have agreed that nobody will ever know for sure what Tom is. To claim with certainty to know what Tom Bombadil is or is not is both vain and unsupportable. Pointing to a single letter that Tolkien wrote as absolute proof of the nature of Tom Bambadil is useless. As shown above, authors often change their characters. Just because Tolkien thought at the time of the letter that Tom was not a god does not mean that he still felt the same way after the book was completed.

Sometimes even the author doesn't know the nature of his characters for sure. For instance the writer of "The Usual Suspects" admitted that the exact identity of Kevin Spacey's character (the "cripple") was up for grabs. He may or nay not have been Keyzer Soze. Nobody knows, not even the writer.

Grendel

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Grendel
Sometimes even the author doesn't know the nature of his characters for sure. For instance the writer of "The Usual Suspects" admitted that the exact identity of Kevin Spacey's character (the "cripple") was up for grabs. He may or nay not have been Keyzer Soze. Nobody knows, not even the writer.

Grendel

Very unlikely this was the case with Bombadil/Tolkien! He is known to have presented Tom Bombadil as an enigma, but hardly to himself. IMHO.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Kirinki54


He is known to have presented Tom Bombadil as an enigma

Yes, and he remains exactly that, a complete mystery.


Originally posted by Kirinki54


but hardly to himself. IMHO.

How can you possibly know that? We do not know what Tolkien was thinking. Perhaps Tolkien knew exactly what Bombadil was and perhaps he never made a final decision on the matter. We'll never know. If you knew Tolkien personally and he imparted to you some special knowledge that he neglected to tell his closest friends and family, then I apologize. If not, I find it pointless to guess at what was going on in his mind more than half a century ago.

Grendel

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Grendel
Yes, and he remains exactly that, a complete mystery.

There is a vast difference between an enigma and a complete mystery.

Originally posted by Grendel
If not, I find it pointless to guess at what was going on in his mind more than half a century ago.

If so, why are you posting?

As for myself I said 'IMHO'.
The latter means In My Humble Opinion.
As for what 'humble' means, perhaps you can find a dictionary.

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

Getting back to the topic here:

I think it's the fellowship. There is never a single scene (I think) that does not involve at least one member of the fellowship. For main, main characters I'd say Frodo, Sam, Strider and Gandalf, although my personal fav. is Gimli.

[Wayfarer]

*/thinks the lurker has a Good point.

[Comic Book Guy]

Well there is the Eowyn and Faramir scenes.

[Wayfarer]

True. True. But wasn't merry int he houses of healing at that time? I htought that was from his point of view.

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

Good point Comic Guy....although like Wayfarer pointed out, it would be argued that it was from Merry's point of view. Or maybe it's an exception....can anybody think of another scene that doesn't show a member of the fellowship?

[Comic Book Guy]

The Black riders chasing Fatty Bolger at Crickhollow.

[Wayfarer]

But fatty was a member of the original conspiracy. And that was before hte fellowship was fromed.

[Ñólendil]

So all scenes from Book I should be regarded as invalid?

[Wayfarer]

Invalid for what?

While the rest of the books were about the fellowship, book one was about a conspiracy. You could say tha the conspiracy was in a way the infant fellowship.

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

Ok, how's this? The book was written by the hobbits, right? Biblo wrote There and Back Again, Frodo wrote part of LOTR and then gave it to Sam to finish. Sam, or Frodo could have asked Fatty about what happened. Bilbo might have told Frodo about his conversations with Gandalf. I think it says someone that Legolas, Gimli and I think Aragorn visited Pippin and Merry, so they could have gotten stuff from them.

Can anybody think of something that doesn't work with that?

[Ñólendil]

Wayfarer, the center of this mild debate/discussion was that no scene from the Lord of the Rings is without a member of the Fellowship. Comic Book Guy points out the parts in Strider (I think that was chapter) where F. Bolger escapes the Ringwraiths, and you say it doesn't count because that was before the Felllowship was formed. The Fellowship as you know well was formed in the beginning of Book II. Therefore, no scenes from Book I count. That's what you're saying, isn't it?

[Wayfarer]

Yeah... You're right.

I guess I would have to say that the first book is about the conspiracy, but after that the focus shifts to teh fellowship.

Or you could say it's all about the ring.

[Ñólendil]

Okay, this question is going to sound very ... hmm ... well, dumb. Just remember, there are no dumb questions, just .. on second thought, there are dumb questions.

Are the Nine Walkers ever actually called the Fellowship in narrative? More often they are called the Company of the Ring, I don't recall a time when 'Fellowship' is used. Was 'Fellowship' used, then, because it might apply to the 'fellowship of the Ring' in Book I? This would be Frodo, Pippin and Sam before Crickhollow, and afterwards Merry would be a part, and the only permanent companions to Rivendell after that would be Aragorn and Glorfindel.

I think the Lord of the Rings must be about the Lord of the Rings. Sauron, the Dark Lord. Because the romance is not called The Rings of the Lord, or The Rings of the Dark Lord, but the Lord of the Rings. Funny that, a 2000 + page story about a character who we never see in narrative -- except his spirit, once, briefly. If the Lord of the Rings is about Sauron, then maybe the Silmarillion ought to be about Melkor. Should the Quenta Silmarillion be called the Dark Enemy? He exists throughout the Quenta Silmarillion, unlike the Silmarilli themselves. Or maybe the book could be called The Enemy and the Jewels.

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
of the Rings. Sauron, the Dark Lord. Because the romance is not called The Rings of the Lord, or The Rings of the Dark Lord, but the Lord of the Rings. Funny that, a 2000 + page story about a character who we never see in narrative -- except his spirit, once, briefly.

Suppose the title refers to whom would in the end BECOME the Lord of the Rings, that is the final holder of the One of course? There were some different possibilities in the books. Like the Hobbits, Saruman, Boromir....

Or is this a DUMB suggestion...
:)

[Wayfarer]

No... that makes sense.

[Play Girl]

Isn't Frodo called Lord of the Ring in the First book at Rivendell?
Play Girl
xxx

[Wayfarer]

Yes. I believe it was pippen that said that. Right before gandalf flamed him.

[Ñólendil]

And Gandalf told Frodo at that point that Sauron was the Lord of the Ring, not Frodo. It's not a dumb suggestion, but no one else became the Lord of the Ring or the Lord of the Rings. It was Sauron, and then it was nobody (when the Ring was destroyed).

[Niphredoodah]

Are the Nine Walkers ever actually called the Fellowship in narrative? More often they are called the Company of the Ring, I don't recall a time when 'Fellowship' is used.

Does Aragorn say at Rauros, "What shall now become of our fellowship that has travelled so far together?"? Or is it " ... our company that has travelled so far in fellowship"? I'd have to look it up.