-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
I am not sure, but wondering what's your opinion
- Thread starter Crystal
- Start date
VTChEwbecca
kickbox
I think the ring just had such a huge impact on Frodo...I mean, it became a part of him and its whole desire was to live on, a desire which it placed on Frodo. Sam had not had the contact with the ring, so he was unburdened by the power that existed. Its fairly obvious that without Sam, Frodo would not have been able to get so far and ultimately destroy the ring (which he still didn't exactly do).
And I think that Sam's wish to return to the Shire and live a simple life increased his bravery. For Frodo, the shire was forever lost, but Sam could go back to the green fields and his love. While the ring consumed Frodo, hope consumed Sam.
And I think that Sam's wish to return to the Shire and live a simple life increased his bravery. For Frodo, the shire was forever lost, but Sam could go back to the green fields and his love. While the ring consumed Frodo, hope consumed Sam.
Litany
Active Member
I never managed to make it all the way through the books, but based on the films ( 
), Frodo never really had the option to be brave. He wasn't given much choice. He was the only one who could be trusted to carry the ring, so he had to do it. Sam didn't have to go, but he chose to, to be with his friend and to help him. To put yourself in an unneccessary (sp 
) position of danger simply because you don't want to see someone you care about get hurt is far braver than surviving through a dangerous situation you had no choice but to be in.
So yes, I do think Sam was braver. And I agree that carrying the ring killed something inside of Frodo, while Sam was still left with a certain amount of hope for the future.
), Frodo never really had the option to be brave. He wasn't given much choice. He was the only one who could be trusted to carry the ring, so he had to do it. Sam didn't have to go, but he chose to, to be with his friend and to help him. To put yourself in an unneccessary (sp ) position of danger simply because you don't want to see someone you care about get hurt is far braver than surviving through a dangerous situation you had no choice but to be in.So yes, I do think Sam was braver. And I agree that carrying the ring killed something inside of Frodo, while Sam was still left with a certain amount of hope for the future.
kasuta
New Member
Hmm, I have a couple thoughts to think out loud here. To really figure out who was more brave, what do you think would have happened if their roles were reversed? Is there some difference between Frodo and Sam that causes them to change the way they do, or is the only factor the ring's influence? Sam does seem a bit more simple than Frodo, even at the beginning of the series.
Would the ring have corrupted anyone who had to bear it? The men of Gondor, noble as they are, don't have a very good track record with it. Even Aragorn seems to fear the influence it will have on him. Certainly Galadriel doesn't want the temptation, nor does Gandalf. I have always thought the simple folk of the Shire are the only ones in Middle Earth who could possibly do the deed. I have not read all the literature outside of the trilogy, perhaps there is information of which I am not aware.
My point it only this, perhaps the bravery exhibited by Sam would have also been exhibited by Frodo if the roles were reversed. Perhaps it was only the corruption of the ring, which no one could withstand, which caused Frodo to change as he did. But I feel that Frodo and Sam were different from the start.
Why the heck couldn't Tom Bombadil have just taken it from the start? HAHA I'm just rambling here.
Would the ring have corrupted anyone who had to bear it? The men of Gondor, noble as they are, don't have a very good track record with it. Even Aragorn seems to fear the influence it will have on him. Certainly Galadriel doesn't want the temptation, nor does Gandalf. I have always thought the simple folk of the Shire are the only ones in Middle Earth who could possibly do the deed. I have not read all the literature outside of the trilogy, perhaps there is information of which I am not aware.
My point it only this, perhaps the bravery exhibited by Sam would have also been exhibited by Frodo if the roles were reversed. Perhaps it was only the corruption of the ring, which no one could withstand, which caused Frodo to change as he did. But I feel that Frodo and Sam were different from the start.
Why the heck couldn't Tom Bombadil have just taken it from the start? HAHA I'm just rambling here.
piedro
New Member
even if Tom Bombadil kept it there was no long term solution as the ring HAD to be destroyed. the orcs would have kept coming again and again and again and finally Gondor would have fallen.
and Bombadil wasnt invincible, they would have taken the ring from him. (hey even i started rambling..)
i think Chewbecca gave a very intelligent reply
and Bombadil wasnt invincible, they would have taken the ring from him. (hey even i started rambling..
)i think Chewbecca gave a very intelligent reply
A couple of thoughts from me too
I think that the ring bearing is a good metaphor. There is great power and responsibility in carrying the ring. Power currupts and absolute power currupts absolutely. I think Tolkien was trying to show this. No matter how well intentioned you maybe, power will still currupt. Even the lust for that power currupts the good and wize white wizard.
Regards
SillyWabbit
I think that the ring bearing is a good metaphor. There is great power and responsibility in carrying the ring. Power currupts and absolute power currupts absolutely. I think Tolkien was trying to show this. No matter how well intentioned you maybe, power will still currupt. Even the lust for that power currupts the good and wize white wizard.
Regards
SillyWabbit
The ring is full of great power, but nobody can use that power but for it's master. Frodo, and anybody else, can't access the power. That's why he can only turn invisible. Remember the ring is a living thing. The rings aim is to use people to get back to it's master. It's power, as said before, is give the user great powers to dominate all the races. It never really goes into what specific powers are granted.
Regards
SillyWabbit
Regards
SillyWabbit
Stella Leanna
Member
watercrystal said:Wondering what you guys think about him?
I think he's gay.
LOL just joking, that was a bad thing to say. But that's the impression I got from the MOVIE, not the book. Too much lovey dovey for hobbit dudes. =P