# What if Sam was a girl?



## Persephone (Jun 25, 2002)

I've asked this question before, but not in this forum I think. 

Well, what if Sam was a girl? How do you think it would go from there? Would Sam and Frodo fall in love? Would Sam be able to do his "job" till the end? Would Sam be able to stop Frodo from going to the Undying lands?

Well, what?? Please Broaden your perspectives ok. I know that it's a silly question to some (maybe many) but it intrigues me. I want to know other people's opinion.


----------



## Anarchist (Jun 25, 2002)

Well this is quite a big if. I guess Sam would still go with Frodo till the end. But it is difficult to say if they would fall in love. Sam as a male loved Frodo and Frodo loved Sam but of course as friends. Love with erotism is more complicated than that. I don't know and I can't say.


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Jun 25, 2002)

If Sam was a girl, he wouldn't have been Frodo's gardening servent. So, he probably wouldn't have known Frodo that well and wouldn't have been evesdropping on his conversations with Gandalf. Thus, no Sam to tag along on the trip to Mount Doom.


----------



## Tyaronumen (Jun 25, 2002)

He might've been Frodo's girlfriend Samantha instead, though.


----------



## Bombadillo (Jun 25, 2002)

while reading lotr i always thought that the 2 where really in love, there was such romance in the air of moria....
but really, it was to me that sam and Frodo haed deep passion about each other


----------



## ReadWryt (Jun 25, 2002)

It saddens me to think that in this day and age there is so little in the way of heartfelt regard and deep respect for each other that what was meant to be a healthy and supportive adoration born of respect is interpreted as a love interest because there is no frame of reference other then the cheesey romance and media invented "love" for the next generation to judge by...


----------



## Gil-Galad (Jun 25, 2002)

I think that Gamil Zirak is right.And at the same time I doubt that Tolkien would chose a female charecter to go with Frodo.I think so because there aren't much female characters in the book and they're not main characters but supporting.


----------



## aragil (Jun 25, 2002)

I'd say that we could all take a look back at Middle-Earth History to answer that one.

If she-Sam was in love with Frodo, would she have gone to Mt. Doom with Frodo. Why not? Sam was always comparing the Ring quest with Luthien and Beren's quest for the Silmaril. In fact, in many ways Sam played an analogous role to Luthien on the quest- saving Beren/Frodo's hide several times.

If she-Sam was not in love with Frodo, but loved Frodo like he-Sam did, would she have followed Frodo to Mordor? Absolutely. He-Sam did it, so why wouldn't she-Sam? Eowyn loved Theoden without being in love with him, and she was willing to give her life for her uncle. This was one of Tolkien's female characters in comraderie with a male character, of course it doesn't hurt that he was her uncle. Still, I think that it is easily within the realm of possibility that a woman in Middle-earth would show the same loyalty and devotion to a man that Sam showed Frodo, without there necessarily being any sort of relationship beyond friendship.

Could a she-Sam that only loved Frodo as a friend grow to love Frodo in a different way? That's a much tougher question to answer. I guess it happens all the time in real life, so why not? On the other hand, he-Sam fell in love with Rosie, who seemed to be more of the stay at home sort. Perhaps she-Sam would also be more drawn to a mate that stayed at home rather than one that saved the world. From another perspective I seriously doubt that Tolkien would write such a story. He was writing an epic mythology, and while such stories often have elements of romance, I think that a Sam-Frodo romance would have become too much of a dominant theme.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jun 25, 2002)

Here's what I think...
Sam and Frodo would NOT have fallen in love. I think the burden of carrying the ring was too much for Frodo, and after that wound from the Nazgul he was never really himself again. Even if Sam(antha?) and Frodo did spark a romance on the trip to Mordor, which is unlikely becuase Frodo's only focus was The Ring, then they wouldn't have lasted past the point where the ring was destroyed. Frodo was too psychologically and spiritually damaged after that...I suspect that's why he never married. The world held no joy for him anymore, and I believe that even Sam(antha?) would not have been able to provide it.

Besides, after all that how could Sam love 9-Fingered Frodo? *giggles*

But in more seriousness, it seems to me that the journey, while sexually charged because of the budding romance, would not have been much changed. Sam would still have been stumbling and saying stupid things. (So woman like...I know, I am one.) and Frodo still wouldn't have listened to Sam's cries to get him to not go to Mordor.

I think Frodo would've gone, watched Gollum destroy the ring, and then returned home...and I don't believe even girl-Sam's love for him could've saved him from his eventual journey to The Undying Lands.


----------



## Persephone (Jun 26, 2002)

Good Points, Guys!!!

Boy, I never thought there would be very serious replies to this question.

Keep them coming!!!


----------



## Merry (Jun 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ReadWryt _
> *It saddens me to think that in this day and age there is so little in the way of heartfelt regard and deep respect for each other that what was meant to be a healthy and supportive adoration born of respect is interpreted as a love interest because there is no frame of reference other then the cheesey romance and media invented "love" for the next generation to judge by... *



I know what you mean RW, genuine love between friends is often open to attack and can be viewed as sexual in this day and age, but I don't think Narya is misinterpreting Sams loyalty and genuine affection with a feeling of 'romantic' love. 

I suppose the question could be: which is stronger, romantic love between a male and female or the love of a best friend (same sex). I personally believe that my best friend would support me much longer than any romantic partner.

I guess that Frodo would not have taken a female anywhere near Mount Doom, not because she couldn't cope, but because of his intense love for her and regard for her safety.


----------



## Persephone (Jun 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Smeagol _
> *What if Sam was a girl?
> What if Frodo was gay?
> What if Gandalf was young?
> ...



What if Smeagol was smart?


----------



## Persephone (Jun 26, 2002)

To the others, Merry is right (like he read my mind!!) I didn't mean that I don't believe in love between friends, I understand it perfectly. This topic is just a big WHAT IF question. Ok? I just want you people to give me insights on what you think would have happened supposing there was a change in the characters. I chose Sam and Frodo's relationship because it was the one that was vividly described in the books, all three of it, and the one that was tragically cut short by Frodo's departure from Middle Earth. To me, the parting of Sam and Frodo was more beautiful and sad and meaningful than that of Arwen and Aragorn.

So it's just a big WHAT IF QUESTION. And if you think it's IDIOTIC, thanks as well. It's your opinion, I think it's funny Smeagol.


----------



## Persephone (Jun 26, 2002)

Look Smeagol, I am not trying to start a fight here, if you don't like the topic stop replying, I heard your opinion and I think you've heard mine, so I believe it's best if we leave it at that.

I never said Sam was a Girl, and I like Sam the way he is, that's why I've been saying that this is just a What if Question. Ok?


----------



## Persephone (Jun 26, 2002)

What's your problem?? Or is this your way of getting more post points??

What does the media have to do with this?? I never questioned Frodo's sexuality nor Sam's nor their relationship, if the media or whoever makes that assumption it's their opinion. It's a free country where I am from, I don't know about yours though.

If you don't like my topic get the hell out of here and don't come back if it annoys you that much. Geez!! Why are you being so immature about this?? It's just a thread!


----------



## Persephone (Jun 26, 2002)

Are you blind?? I just accepted your OPINION two posts ago.

besides your negative reactions are pointed at me for posting the topic, as if saying that this thread is bad, that's not the opinion I want nor is it the opinion I need. I want a BROAD PERSPECTIVE very much like the posts of the firsts ones. Ok? Your opinion was very dogmatic and insensitve.

Plus your first post was very insulting, so I just responded to your insult.


----------



## Beorn (Jun 26, 2002)

Calm down you two....


----------



## Gloer (Jun 26, 2002)

*If Sam was a girl*

If Sam was a she let's call her Sammy:
1. Sammy would not have been a member in the fellowship of the ring.
- it used to be like that during those days, it was like the rotary used to be a little while ago too - anyhow: women are better out of sight and mind when men concentrate their actions and thoughts to confront great challenges.

Well then if Sammy was with them:

2. Sammy could probaly not have carried Frodo in Mordor and they both would die.

3. And if Sammy could in fact carry Frodo Sammy would be a very masculine female and also a servant of Frodos so I think there could be hardly any reason for Frodo to fall in love.


----------



## aragil (Jun 26, 2002)

*Speculation?*

Geez, I liked this thread *because* it was speculative. Let me assure you, Smeagol, that


> "Speculation always harms the matter that is speculated about."


 is not a statement of fact but an opinion, and furthermore, as far as I can tell it is an opinion so far removed from any basis in reality that I must assume it is a speculative opinion. After all, has the matter of the stars ever been harmed by people speculating about their origins? What about the personality of Caesar? Or speculation on what would have happened if the US didn't use the atomic bomb on Japan? If this forum was nothing but members spewing facts back and forth to one another, then I know _I_ wouldn't be spending much time here.

As for whether or not a she-Sam (I call my male cousin Sammy, so that doesn't seem to fit) would be a member of the fellowship, I beg everyone to consider the case of Beren and Luthien. Not only was Luthien allowed to stay _in_ sight and mind when Beren was confronting great challenges, she actually did considerably better in those confrontations. IMO Luthien supported Beren far more than Sam did for Frodo, all this in spite of the 'handicap' of her being female. A female character penned by Tolkien could have done any of the things that his male characters did, if the tale of Beren and Luthien provides any insight.

I agree with WtS that no matter what level of relationship she-Sam had with Frodo, it would not have effected Frodo's eventual journey to the west. I think it would have, however, greatly accelerated she-Sam's journey, i.e. she would have gone with Frodo rather than waiting around another ~62 years.

I disagree with Merry that Frodo would not have allowed she-Sam to come. Frodo did not want any of the Fellowship to come with him because he did not want them to be harmed, yet when Sam caught up to him at the river he decided to take him along. And again we can look at Beren and Luthien- I can't imagine Frodo loving she-Sam any more than Beren loved Luthien, yet Beren allowed Luthien to accompany him to Angband.


----------



## Anarchist (Jun 27, 2002)

I think it is unfair to compair love btween friends (called friendship) and love between...errrr...lovers?(called romance) I don't think Samwisa  would fall in love with Frodo because their love was a friendship one. I know I am not very clear on this but I do believe in friendship between members of the opposite sexes. In our days this is a bit hard but it still exists. On the other hand, usually such friendships lead to romance, but I don't think Frodo's and Sam's relation would lead to romance. Just think if Rosie was a boy.


----------



## Persephone (Jun 28, 2002)

thank you ARAGIL!

At least there are still people in this forum who really UNDERSTAND a post before they answer.


----------



## Selkieschild64 (Jun 29, 2002)

*Sam as a girl*

First of all, hi, everyone (blushes). This is my first post, and I'm glad to be here. I'd like to say a couple of things about this subject, because it's something I've thought about quite a bit, because Sam is my favorite character, and because the relationship he has with Frodo is my favorite relationship in *any* book I've read.

When I raise the question "What if Sam were female", the question I'm asking may be different from the one others might ask. There has been a lot of naysaying about even the speculation that Sam and Frodo's relationship may have been something other than just "comrades in arms". The question I put to you is this: do you think that this opinion would be so hotly denounced by so many if, indeed, it were a question concerning members of opposite genders? If it were Samantha and Frodo on the quest, and someone asked, "gee, do you think they may have been in love?", do you think that there would be such a hot debate as there is in the actual situation of the characters both being male? I think there would be discussion, but not the anger or hostility I've seen in so many repetitions of this particular topic.

Professor Tolkien wrote a story, that is interpreted as the *reader* sees fit, as I think all books should be. These characters, although beloved (Sam is as much a part of my life as, perhaps, friends of my childhood or stories of my relatives...intangible, but in my heart nonetheless), are fictional. We weren't told about their inner thoughts about the many facets of love..we just saw that love manifest in the text. 
If Sam and Frodo were in love as well as dear friends, does that take away from the story? Does it belittle Sam and Frodo, make their quest and their devotion to each other less? Again I go back to "What if Sam were female?" and ask the same question. Would it demean the story for two devoted friends of the opposite sex to fall in love on a perilous journey? And, if the answer to my last question is "no", why would the answer be different because the gender of one hobbit was changed? 

Food for thought, I think. I'm glad I'm here, and I'm not flaming anyone...just wondering what the thoughts of others on this board might be.

Kelly


----------



## Bilbo Baggins57 (Jun 29, 2002)

Narya, don't listen 2 Smeagol. It's a good question & I was actually kinda wondering about it myself. Frodo & Sam's relationship is my favorite part in the books. I personally doubt it would turn into love if Sam was a girl. Just because you're friends w/ someone from the opposite sex, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be attracted 2 them in that way. I don't think their relationship would have been as special if it was a romantic one. I didn't feel any real emotion over Aragorn & Arwen, but I was really touched by Sam & Frodo's friendship.


----------



## ReadWryt (Jun 30, 2002)

Sam and Frodo's relationship, along with the Aragorn/Arwen thing, were VERY important to the story. Aside from the abiding adoration of mutual appreciation and comeraderie that is shared by Gimli and Legolas and generally amongst the members of the fellowship, it was quite important to demonstrate what real Love was so that it could be juxtaposed to the Avarice that one felt for the Ring. Just as the Orcs were corrupted Elves and Trolls corrupted Ents, the "love" one felt for the Ring was yet another example of Sauron's corrupting power and his mockery of all that was good...


----------



## Oren (Jun 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Gil-Galad _
> *I think that Gamil Zirak is right.And at the same time I doubt that Tolkien would chose a female charecter to go with Frodo.I think so because there aren't much female characters in the book... *



Which really sucks!


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Jul 1, 2002)

That doesn't suck. The US (and most other countries for that matter) do not send women to fight a war (they are in the military; just not on the front lines). No one wants to see a woman come home in a body bag. Plus, most men are physically stronger than women. You send your strongest and best fighters in to battle.


----------



## aragil (Jul 1, 2002)

*Are you kidding me?*

Come on GZ- Luthien could have kicked any guy's butt in Middle-earth (including Hurin's). Fighting isn't all physical strength, and the quest of the Ring wasn't about fighting anyway. Otherwise I doubt Hobbits would have been included in the Fellowship at all. I think it's telling that the most physically imposing member of the fellowship (Boromir edged out Aragorn on Caradhras) was also its biggest failure.

And, just to refresh my memory, who killed the Lord of the Nazgûl at the Pelannor fields? I'm not recalling any brutes filling in the role. In fact, as I recall it was specifically prophesized that big strong men didn't have what it took for the job.


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Jul 1, 2002)

I'm speaking from a military stand point. There was a reason Theodin didn't want Eowyn to fight. What would have happened if Eowyn had died or any other woman who went to war. It's bad enough to barry your son, but your daughter.


----------



## ReadWryt (Jul 1, 2002)

...so complain to the Elves for sending Legolas instead of a woman. Now, name me...in the Middle-earth history... a woman born of Men, Dwarves or Hobbits who could be an equal to Luthien or, for that matter, hold her own against several battalions of Uruks and we can talk about the "suckage" in this story having few women in the fighting. The Lord of the Rings actually has a good deal of story dealing with the oldest living female in Middle-earth and possibly the most powerful. Remember...Galadriel was a First Age Character...


----------



## aragil (Jul 1, 2002)

I can't tell RW, are you agreeing with me or GZ (or neither)? If it is me, then let us never speak of this strange occurrence again (must be some queer alignment of planets and stars).


----------



## Londier (Jul 2, 2002)

I think the story would have been better if Sam was a female. It would have been a nice love story, and yes they would have fallen in love because, well I can't explain why but that's just what happens when you're in Mordor with only one other person. Especially if you thought you were going to die.

I also would have liked it if Sam or Frodo, one of them, died. I don't know why...but none of this happened and the story is still great.


----------



## ReadWryt (Jul 2, 2002)

Wouldn't have happened. It was not seemly in that time in Middle-earth to send women off on such dangerous adventure. I'm not saying that it is right or wrong. I think this has as much to do with the era that Tolkien grew up in and the morals of a world that had just dealt with WWI as it does anything else, but none the less I think that society in the era the book was written in would not have accepted such a concept...this is of course my personal presumption. I know that many female characters did marvelous things and fought mightily in the earlier days of Middle-earth, but the relationship between Frodo and Sam was as much a reflection of the relationship that Tolkien, as an officer in WWI, had with the men who served under him. He was constantly amazed at how loyal the men were to him, a humble man who felt that the only reason he had been commissioned was because of his advanced education.

As for YOU Aragil, I'm not certain if we are in agreement...I am just stating that for whatever reason Elven women had apparently other things to do, like protect their realms from corruption and such, so the Elves sent no woman to act in the service of the Ring Bearer...

If you must, you can always look at it this way, The elders of the races so valued the incredible asset that the women were that they sent the more numerous and expendable MEN instead.

From a cultural aspect though, the fact is that ancient peoples knew all too well that it was much easier to repopulate a decimated race or tribe with a few men and many women then the other way around, and if you send off the best female fighters to war then you risk "breeding stock" that is very important to the survival of your society. Once again, I'm not endorsing or bemoaning this, it's just a societal fact.


----------



## aragil (Jul 3, 2002)

Whew, disagreement. All is right with the world then. Continuing with things that are right in the world, I'd like to take this opportunity to quote from HoME X, Morgoth's Ring (*sigh* HoME X, is there anything it can't do?):



> In all such thing, not concerned with the bringing forth of children, the _neri_ and _nissi_ (that is, the men and women) of the Eldar are equal - unless it be in this (as they themselves say) that for the _nissi_ the making of things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children, so that invention and chane is otherwise mostly brought about by the _neri_. There are, however, no maters which among the eldar only a _nér_ can think or do, or others with which only a _nìs_ is concerned. There are indeed some differences between the natural inclinations of _neri_ and _nissi_, and other differences that have been estalished by custom (varying in place and in time, and in the several races of the Eldar). For instance, the arts of healing, and all that touches on the care of the body, are among all Eldar most practised by the _nissi_; whereas it was the elven-men who bore arms at need. And the Eldar deemed that the dealing of death, even when lawful or under necessity, diminished the power of healing, and that the virtue of the _nissi_ in this matter was due rather to their abstaining from hunting or war than to any special power that went with their womanhood. Indeed in dire straits or desperate defence, the _nissi_ fought valiantly, and there was less difference in strength and speed between elven-men and elven-women that had not borne child than is seen among mortals. On the other hand many elven-men were great healers and skilled in the lore of living bodies, though such men abstained from hunting, and went not to war until the last need.
> 
> As for other matters, we may speak of the customs of the Noldor (of whom most is known in Middle-earth). Amon the Noldor it may be seen that the making of bread is done mostly by women; adn the making of the _lembas_ is by acnient law reserved to them. Yet the cooking and preparing of other food is generally a task and pleasure of the men. The _nissi_ are more often skilled in the tending of fields and gardens, in playing upon instruments of music, and in the spinning, weaving, fashioning, and adornment of all threads and cloths' and in matters of lore they love most the histories of the Eldar and of the houses of the Noldor; and all matters of kinshi and descent are held by them in memory. But the _neri_ are more skilled as smiths and wrights, aas carvers of wood and stone, and as jewellers. It is they for the most part who compose musics and make the instruments, or devise new ones; they are the chief poets and students of languages and inventors of words. Many of them delight in forestry and in the lore of the wild, seeking the friendship of all things that grow or live there in freedom. But all these things, and other matters of labour and play, or of deeper knowledge concerning being and the life of the World, may at different times be pursued by any among the Noldor, be they _neri_ or _nissi_.



Well, the bottom line I get from that is that the female Elves could do whatever they wanted, and they were in general as good as the men at it. Of course, they were less inclined to war and more inclined to healing, but inclination is hardly an absolute. I see absolutely nothing in this passage that indicates that a female elf couldn't have done something like accompany the fellowship. As for mortals, who knows? The knights of Rohan could hardly keep Eowyn back, why wouldn't Gandalf or Elrond trust in the friendship between a Man and a Woman? They let it slip for friendship between Merry, Pippin and Frodo, rather than trying to send along Glorfindel. I think Tolkien was more forward thinking regarding men/women than some would give him credit for.


----------



## Selkieschild64 (Jul 3, 2002)

> I think the story would have been better if Sam was a female. It would have been a nice love story, and yes they would have fallen in love because, well I can't explain why but that's just what happens when you're in Mordor with only one other person. Especially if you thought you were going to die.



This goes back to my question: Why could it have only been a love story if Sam were female? Either way, Frodo and Sam were each in Mordor with only one other person, and Frodo, at least, thought they were going to die. What difference is gender to love? 



Kelly


----------



## Persephone (Jul 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Londier _
> *I think the story would have been better if Sam was a female. It would have been a nice love story, and yes they would have fallen in love because, well I can't explain why but that's just what happens when you're in Mordor with only one other person. Especially if you thought you were going to die.
> 
> I also would have liked it if Sam or Frodo, one of them, died. I don't know why...but none of this happened and the story is still great. *



For an apprentice, you sound very smart. Actually I feel much the same way. Although the relationship between Sam and Frodo now, is without question priceless and very rare, still it would have been a nice twist if Sam was a girl and Frodo (or even Merry or Pippin) fell in love with her.

By the way, welcome to the forum!!! 

Please visit the weeping willow pub in the prancing pony forum - shameless self promotion


----------



## Xanaphia (Jul 5, 2002)

J.R.R. Tolkien most likely did not make Sam a girl as to avoid anyone getting the idea that LOTR was a mushy love story! And if Sam had been a girl after living through the whole ring ordeal with Frodo, I'd think he'd me a bit sick of him and wouldn't want to mary him or anything. Besides where would Rosie be wothout good old Sam!
But then again there could have been at least ONE girl in the Fellowship...


----------



## Merry (Jul 5, 2002)

I think Sam being a girl would take away so much from their relationship. Although it is a great 'what if', I adore their male relationship and their trust and love that made them closer than brothers. Love stories are nice but it is so rare to find male affection that is obviously different from sexual feelings.

I would hate to see the story changed in any way.


----------



## Camille (Jul 5, 2002)

When you said if Sam was a girl I imagine a very unique she-hobbit: lets call her Samantha.
They would be best friends, I do not think they would fall in love, Samantha has his boyfriend (Ros) but she was very decided to not letting go his friend alone to the dangerous road.

If she has to be allow to go with the Fellowship, has to be a very determinated hobbit and strong of course.

But in order to that thought being possible ME would have to be a place less .... how can I said? the ladies has to be more proactive, and the ME society would have to accept it.
but Tolkien did not imagine ME in that way, he let the women the virtues and the action to men


----------



## ReadWryt (Jul 6, 2002)

> Well, the bottom line I get from that is that the female Elves could do whatever they wanted, and they were in general as good as the men at it.



Did I miss something somewhere? I don't recall Sam being an elf...oh well, it wouldn't be the first time I was confused in a conversation I thought was based on the name of the thread...


----------



## aragil (Jul 6, 2002)

The conversation had evolved- I said that if Luthien could accompany Beren, then a female Sam could accompany Frodo. I thought the reply was that females, and female Elves in particular, could not accompany men into potentially violent situations because JRRT didn't think this was proper behavior for the fairer sex. I like the above quoted passage, as it seems to show the forward-thinking side of JRRT, so I jumped at the opportunity of posting it. I think the problem here is that we (myself included) are having a difficult time debating the topic because people don't seem to want to accept that Sam _could_ be a girl. I've been sidetracked by trying to show that Tolkien could write this sort of story, but that isn't really addressing the issue, now that I look back at it.

I guess my opinion is that if Sam were exactly the same, excepting that Sam was a female Samantha, then she would not fall in love during the quest- Male Sam seemed to be after the stay-at-home-type, as I said before. If Samantha was exactly the same (excepting the new gender), then she would be attracted to more of the stay-at-home-types as well, in my opinion.

However, if Sam was female _and slightly different in character_, then certainly she could fall in love with Frodo during the quest (or already be in love with Frodo before the quest). I still say the end result would be the same for Frodo- a quick trip West following his inability to adjust to a ring-less lifestyle. However, Samantha would have a greatly accelerated trip West, as she would not have the obligation of waiting around with the family tying her down.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins57 (Jul 8, 2002)

Same here, Merry. I don't think their relationship would have been as touching or special if it was a love story. It's very unusual 2 find same-sex friendships w/ that much loyalty & devotion. But I agree w/ u aragil. Even if Sam was a girl, Sam(antha)'s love 4 Frodo would still be that of friendship. Maybe Frodo just wouldn't be her type, or she just might not feel that way about him. Lots of people have friends from the opposite sex, but that doesn't necessarily mean their feelings of friendship 4 the person will turn into love.


----------



## ReadWryt (Jul 9, 2002)

...and if the story had been written by Robert Heinlein then Samatha would have been a buxom Red Head capable of wielding a sword in one hand while suckling a baby in the other...


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jul 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Merry _
> *I think Sam being a girl would take away so much from their relationship. Although it is a great 'what if', I adore their male relationship and their trust and love that made them closer than brothers. Love stories are nice but it is so rare to find male affection that is obviously different from sexual feelings.
> 
> I would hate to see the story changed in any way. *



I agree completely. I know that many friends of mine, mostly female...in fact...all female, have complained about the severe lack of any developed love story throughout the LotR. I always tell them that the LotR isn't mean to be about romance at all. As Merry said (Hail Merry) the strong male relationships are important...it wouldn't be the same without them.

The only thing I would change about the book would be Frodo's loss of finger...but that's another topic...

And RW, I LOVE ROBERT HEINLEIN...but gah...all his women are Barbie and yet Xena...and they all have a lot of sex...what's up with that?


----------



## Selkieschild64 (Jul 9, 2002)

> I always tell them that the LotR isn't mean to be about romance at all.



Gotta disagree here. I think that LOTR is High Romance, in the old sense of the word. To be romantic isn't all about falling in love, it's about love, truly, but not necessarily sexual love. I think that the story of Frodo and Sam is possibly the strongest, most romantic story I've ever experienced. Whether or not they were physically involved, or "in love", doesn't matter a hoot, IMO. The love and devotion between them, the willingness to sacrifice everything for each other is what all great love stories are about. Romantic? Yep. Love story? Sure. Makes me cry? Every time. <g> Read the first two paragraphs of "the Choices of Master Samwise" (Page 337,_The Two Towers_ ), and tell me if you don't get just a *little* teary as well...

Kelly


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Jul 9, 2002)

Re-read FoTR and you won't see love between Sam and Frodo. Sam wasn't even invited to stay with Frodo his last night at Bag End. It was Pippin, Merry, Fatty, and some other hobbit (something Boffer I think). Sam was Frodo's servent. A very devout servant at that. You've got to keep that in mind. Sam and Frodo were never best friends nor good friends for that matter. You can tell by the way Sam keeps calling him Master. Sam was just a dedicated servant. Just imagine the possibilities if every employee had the will and determination of him.


----------



## ReadWryt (Jul 9, 2002)

> And RW, I LOVE ROBERT HEINLEIN...but gah...all his women are Barbie and yet Xena...and they all have a lot of sex...what's up with that?



...heh, yeah...`ol Bob had a thing about that toward the end. By the time you get to "Number of the Beast" it's all about tough gorgeous babes getting laid. "Friday" was the worst for it...as for having lots of sex, is this a bit of jealousy I sense? Bahahahah! J/K


----------



## Rangerdave (Jul 10, 2002)

And Gandalf is Lazarus Long! Yes now it all makes sense!

Huzzah!

but does that mean that Bilbo is really Jubal Hurshaw? 

RD


----------



## Persephone (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Selkieschild64 _
> *
> 
> Gotta disagree here. I think that LOTR is High Romance, in the old sense of the word. To be romantic isn't all about falling in love, it's about love, truly, but not necessarily sexual love. I think that the story of Frodo and Sam is possibly the strongest, most romantic story I've ever experienced. Whether or not they were physically involved, or "in love", doesn't matter a hoot, IMO. The love and devotion between them, the willingness to sacrifice everything for each other is what all great love stories are about. Romantic? Yep. Love story? Sure. Makes me cry? Every time. <g> Read the first two paragraphs of "the Choices of Master Samwise" (Page 337,The Two Towers ), and tell me if you don't get just a *little* teary as well...
> ...



I like your answer Kelly, I think LOTR is also romantic in the old sense of the word. I understand you perfectly because I feel much the same way.


----------



## blacksword (Jul 10, 2002)

*tkang god, sam wasnt a girl*

This is is to aragil. i dont think i agree to your comments that luthien could take down any man in middle earth including the likes of hurin or turin. Just because she is said to be the greatest of the ME elves (which i highly doubt since she is half maiar) doesnt mean that she was the greatest in war. Who ever got the idea that luthien was a warrior anyway. even so, she was sitll half/maiar, and thus had great advantage over anyone. i cant see her taking down hurin or turin or even beren. remember she only got far cos of her love for beren, beren and ofcousre the most underrated warrior of them all, huan. Ofcourse one could say beren got only so far with her help. true. but no one messes with huan.
Now to sam being a girl, for the love of mike thank God, my good old Samwise was made a girl. Can you imagine? C'mon. And besides PJ will probably go screw up the movie even worse. i can imagine sam taking down the whole nazgul down, just cause mr "political PJ correct" wants so. Good lord, that Arwen at the Ford gives me shivers.
dont get me wrong, in fact get me wrong for all i care, the fellowship was great for not havig a woman. And dont lie to yourselves, LOTR is not a romance book. Want romance, go somewhere else. LOTR is a fanatay adventure comprising of many forms. You want to know why Aagorn and arwen love story gets no coverage? Because Tolkein could give a rat A*S about writing epic love stories. 
There is a reason why Eowyn is the most covered woman in LOTR (not galadriel that overrated elv of noldor). That is beacuse Eowyn fought in a war, and LOTR is comprised of many war situations. Besides Eowyn did not kill Angmar (lord of the nazgul), she had the help of merry (who doesnt seem to get enough credit). without merry, she would be dead by her father. 
And that concludes my first rant here at the boards.


----------



## ReadWryt (Jul 11, 2002)

...wow, there actually WERE 21 words in that about "What if Sam was a girl?".


----------



## aragil (Jul 11, 2002)

Thank you for that rant, Blacksword. But before I agree with you that Tolkien hates romance and that Luthien was over-rated, I'd like to point a few things out.

1) It's hard not to call the story of Beren and Luthien a Romance. By Tolkien's own pen the lay of Leithian comprises the centerpiece of the entire Silmarillion. I just don't see the professor as being opposed to Romance, although I'd agree that he never intended Lord of the Rings as just a love story (not the same as a Romance- see Selkieschild64's post above).

2) Call the Lord of the Rings a war story all you want. It was not just a war story, and I think one of the central themes was the supposedly meek Hobbits rising up and destroying the Supreme Dark Lord. Would a female Elf or female Human be considered to be physically weaker than the Hobbits, which were the main protagonists of the book? Not in my opinion, but we all know what opinions are like. Again I'd like to draw attention to Boromir's role in the Fellowship. He was unquestionably the most martial of the Fellowship (I don't know if he could beat Aragorn in physical combat, but anyway ..). He was also the Fellowship's biggest failure. Yet the Fellowship succeeded without him, proving that the Ring was not a matter for the strong, but rather for the meek.

3) Luthien bested Morgoth and Sauron. How did Hurin do vs. Morgoth? No, he didn't do too well, and neither did anyone else, from Feanor to Fingolfin to any other of the Children of Illuvatar. Being good with a sword wouldn't matter too much if she could beat you with a song- which is what I meant when I said "Luthien could have kicked any guy's butt in Middle-earth (including Hurin's)". This was a specific reply to people who were implying that women had no place in the Fellowship- which is of course total BS.


----------



## blacksword (Jul 11, 2002)

1. I didnt say that Sil wasnt a romance. I am talking about LOTR. And besides I said that it is comprised of many forms or genres. Not just war.

2.Againt LOTR is not just a war story. And even it is mostly about the war (especially the the last few chapters..hence titled war of the ring). So you are telling me in wars, you have never seen the meek rise up to the challenge against the strong. I thougtht that is one of the cause of wars. when the oppressed or gentle or kind can no longer stand the bulllies or oppressors.
And about Boromir, was he really a failure or was his purpose actually to show Frodo what temptaion, desperation of battles and wars can do to someone. 

3.Luthien only bested Morgoth beacuse he let himself lust after her. If noble warriors like hurin or even beren can withhold themselves, they have nothing to fear. The same goes to Sauron. Rememeber, her songs probably affect those that have evil and malice in thier heart. Heck if she was so good, why didnt she go after them and finish them once and for all. Why did she run away when morgoth woke up. Simple morgoth would have been enraged and slaughtered her. And as for sauron, she had the help of my good old boy huan.


----------



## aragil (Jul 11, 2002)

*Re: tkang god, sam wasnt a girl*

1) Many genres certainly gives it the ability to transcend a war story, so I think we agree here. What I objected to was this:


> _Originally posted by blacksword _
> *You want to know why Aagorn and arwen love story gets no coverage? Because Tolkein could give a rat A*S about writing epic love stories.*


The Silmarillion proves that there was room in Tolkien's epics for Romance. As this thread has already been declared speculative many times, I just don't think it is valid to say "Sam couldn't love Frodo because Tolkien didn't want to write it that way."

2) Again I'm not sure we're disagreeing here. I absolutely have seen the meek rise up against the strong- which is the point I was getting at- Sam as a female Hobbit helping to overthrow Sauron. I thought you were objecting to female characters taking prominent roles in adventure stories. You certainly seem to be against Sam being female, and I guess I'm just not sure why that is.

3) I'm looking at the bottom line here- Luthien *did* best Morgoth and Sauron, something no male in JRRT's stories can claim. No need to become a Morgoth apologist and offer excuses, the point is they were beaten. Again, you say noble warriors like Hurin and Beren had nothing to fear, and yet both were overcome by Morgoth and Sauron. Why are you belittling Luthien?


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Jul 11, 2002)

Luthien did not best Melkor with her sword, she did so with her beauty and song. How is that belittling her? That's just like saying if Melkor wasn't so strong, Feanor would have bested him as well. Luthien was the only one that could play into Melkor's weakness.


----------



## aragil (Jul 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by blacksword _
> *Why did she run away when morgoth woke up. Simple morgoth would have been enraged and slaughtered her. And as for sauron, she had the help of my good old boy huan. *



That IS belittling Luthien's accomplishment. Might as well say that Frodo and Gandalf only triumphed because Sauron was stupid. The point is that Frodo and Gandalf DID overcome Sauron. Should we put an asterisk next to the Victory as it wasn't accomplished through use of a sword?


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Jul 11, 2002)

Frodo and Gandalf worked together to defeat Sauron. Luthien tricked Morgoth and stole a Silmaril. Luthien didn't defeat Morgoth. He was still around (and really mad) when the Silmaril was stolen.


----------



## ReadWryt (Jul 11, 2002)

I suspect that Tolkien cared a great deal about Romance, else the Silmarillion would not have so much of it. If Beren and Luthien is not a Romance story I don't know WHAT it is...more to the point would be to say that Tolkien realized that a Romance would do nothing to advance the story, which is about defeating an ancient evil and the hardship and adventure involved in doing so. Now, can this thread get back to the subject it was started for?


----------



## elf boy (Jul 11, 2002)

I think that if Sam was a girl, then Frodo would of never agreed to take her. Sam (er Samantha...) would of probably been left by Frodo in Buckland, if Frodo even let her come that far.


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Jul 11, 2002)

True elf boy. If Sam was Samantha, she woujldn't have been Frodo's servant or gardener for that matter. So, she would have never heard what Gandalf was saying that morning.


----------



## aragil (Jul 11, 2002)

Neither Merry or Pippin were servants of Frodo, they were friends of his and they still accompanied Frodo. He didn't want either of them to come, yet they persisted. Frodo didn't want any of the Fellowship to accompany him from Amon Hen, because he cared too much for them. However, when Sam showed up and was insistent upon coming, then Frodo allowed him to come. I don't see how a little gender-bending would change this.


----------



## blacksword (Jul 11, 2002)

Got to respond to you aragil. I do not fully agree luthien bested morgoth. And what she did was not the same as frod vs sauron. frodo or gollum destroyed the ring thus sauron dies. luthien put morgoth to sleep. but he is still lives. i guess you have to define about what besting means. i say that fingolfin did more damage to morgoth than luthien even though he lost a silmaril. At least finglofin gave him a limp and severe injuries but still fell. i say agin, tricking your opponent is oen thing. defeating them is another. luthien did not defeat morgoth or even sauron, she deceived them. frodo and gandalf on the other hand tricked and defeated sauron. sauron did not come back, but morgoth still lived.
And as for sam being a girl (sorry readwryt for being offtopic), i do have an issue to sam being a girl. it would have turned otherwise a brillant male-bonding friendship to your average staple romance. i take samwise professing his love (and i dont mean your trpe of romantic love) to frodo, than frodo and sam arguing about thier relationship all the way to mt. doom.


----------



## aragil (Jul 11, 2002)

Blacksword- if your definition of defeating someone is beating on them with a sword, then fine, Luthien didn't best Morgoth. For that matter, neither did Aragorn, Gandalf, Gollum or Frodo 'best' Sauron. Sauron was defeated through a deception- Aragorn and Gandalf drew all of Sauron's reserves out of Mordor into a final confrontation at the Towers of the Teeth, allowing Sam, Frodo, and Gollum to slip in and destroy the Ring. Notice- nobody whacked Sauron with a sword. Similarly, Luthien did not whack Morgoth, but as far as I am concerned she beat him. True, he was not killed, but Sauron wasn't killed with the destruction of the Ring either, he was just unable to take physical form again. I think the point is that Luthien and Beren's goal was to get a Silmaril, Frodo's goal was to destroy the Ring. Both goals were accomplished, neither of them required swordplay. If you want to say that Luthien and Beren's quest was inferior, or that Luthien's victory was accomplished in a more 'girlish' way, fine. I'll take Sam's word for it:


> Beren now, he never thought he was going to get that Silmaril from the Iron Crown in Thangorodrim, and yet he did, and that was a worse place and a blacker danger than ours.


----------



## emopansy (Jul 12, 2002)

i think and i know how much you value my opion but i think that luthien did best him in her own write in power that is. and a half maiar doing that was an amazing feat. but also if sam was a girl i think id have to agree with blacksword. sure the are weon in the books that it could benifeit from but who would that be?in my opion the fellowship was the best choice in middle earth. if sam was female than i would geuss that shelob would have a better chance etc. im not saying girls are useless im smply saying that in middle earth they were not brought up to do anything but the tradional and steriotypical things. and in this tolkien works beatifully so lay of of samwise geting a midlife crisis sex change.


----------



## aragil (Jul 12, 2002)

Eek, by gender-bending I didn't mean that Sam would become Samantha during the course of the narrative. I meant that if Sam was originally (i.e. born) female, then she could still share the same friendship with Frodo that we see with the male version in the books. Male bonding is great, but I don't see it being exclusive to males or even to friends of the same sex. I think a male/female friendship between Sam and Frodo was perfectly possible, and that Frodo would not have treated Sam differently. That is 100% opinion, based on my experiences in life and what I've read of Tolkien. Frodo's character is very different from my own, so I'm not trying to suggest that my opinion carries any great amount of weight here. Then again, the thread is just asking for opinions, so I think I'm fine.

Regarding Shelob- I don't think of Sam (or any of the Hobbits for that matter) as truly war-like. Tolkien repeatedly implies that they get tought when they're in a pinch. Pippin with Denethor, Frodo with the Barrow-Wight, Merry with the Witch-King, and Sam with Shelob are all super-Hobbit feats, all carried out when things look bleakest. However, I don't think Hobbits would be capable of actively seeking out danger and thriving, that's just not their way. Now, we've all heard stories about women (mothers especially) doing similar super-human feats in a pinch, lifting the back ends of automobiles to save their babies, etc. Again in my opinion, Samantha could get the super-Hobbit strength to save Frodo in exactly the same way, and in fact the male Sam did get the strength in that way. Look back at my four super-Hobbit examples, all four are accomplished through love for others who are in danger. Pippin is saving Faramir (he also later slays a troll to save Beregond), Frodo is saving Merry, Sam, and Pippin, Merry is saving Eowyn and avenging Theoden, and Sam is of course saving Frodo. In fact, if I recall correctly, Tolkien himself even parallels Sam's protection of Frodo with some sort of beast protecting it's mate.


----------



## Selkieschild64 (Jul 13, 2002)

> I meant that if Sam was originally (i.e. born) female, then she could still share the same friendship with Frodo that we see with the male version in the books. Male bonding is great, but I don't see it being exclusive to males or even to friends of the same sex.



I agree. I've had friends all my life who were very close and very male (I'm female <g>). Sam and Frodo's close friendship wouldn't have to change if Sam (or Frodo) were a hobbit-lass. 

Conversely, the fact that they are of the same gender does not (IMO, of course) preclude a romantic (small "r") relationship, nor would such a relationship take away from the selfless _philos_ kind of love. The two are not mutually exclusive.



> In fact, if I recall correctly, Tolkien himself even parallels Sam's protection of Frodo with some sort of beast protecting it's mate.



True dat. See p.337, second paragraph, of _The Two Towers_.

Kelly


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Sep 26, 2002)

Guess what? Sam's NOT a girl...shouldn't we stop this thread?


----------



## gate7ole (Sep 26, 2002)

I didn't have the patience to read all posts in this thread, but isn't it too streched to start such discussions about if Boromir was this and Frodo was that? I mean there are so many other interesting questions. This one is just for chatting


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Sep 26, 2002)

Ah, but this is a Tolkien forum where we discuss all things Tolkien. These include Legelos is so hot, the movie stinks, Balrogs and their wings, and even gender changing of the characters. That's the beauty of a discussion forum. You discuss.

Oh, and it might help to read all of the posts of a thread before posting. It keeps people from posting things that have already been posted or are irrelivant.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Sep 26, 2002)

Can't we end the thread? It's sooo pointless!


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Sep 26, 2002)

But it did end Wonko the Lovely, I mean Sane. There hadn't been a post in here for over two months.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Sep 26, 2002)

Yay! I'm lovely!


----------



## Confusticated (Oct 2, 2010)

Excellent thread.

A lot of good speculation, especially impressed with Aragil's points. Though I disagree on one point: That if the she-Sam were like he-Sam and attracted to stay at home types this means she-Sam wouldn't fall in love with Frodo. The point of disagreement is the whole idea of "types". I can't see a person being so set in his or her type that he or she would be incapable of falling for someone not of the type. Also, "types" can change as we mature can't they?

Additionally, Rosie may have been Sam's type based on looks, interests or personality, even mannerisms... it may have been unrelated to her not being an adventurer.

But mainly, excellent thread... giving it some attention.


----------



## Starflower (Oct 4, 2010)

Can't believe I missed this first time round...

I think that if Sam had been a girl, she probably would have followed Frodo to Mt Doom - though the journey would have been wrought with difficulties. Imagine bathtime at Crickhollow, the Barrowright-incident, sleeping arrangements at Bree (let alone on the road) and so on. 
The basic problem I have with the scenario of a she-Sam is that hobbits were quite traditional in their gender roles, females as a rule did not tend to go off 'adventuring', so I cannot imagine she-Sam ever getting permission to follow Frodo, but it would not have been in her (his?) nature to disobey her (his?) family and just take off without permission. 
But if Narya simply wants us to debate whether Sam-the-female would have been as loyal as Sam-as-we-know-him, I would say yes - most likely.


----------



## luna Y (Nov 20, 2010)

Well, they may have some kind of relationship more than just brotherhood...when I see the movie "The Return of the King", I feel "oh, they are so close to each other in the hardship, but all will turns normal when peace returns" :*)


----------



## Parsifal (Nov 20, 2010)

Gamil Zirak said:


> Just imagine the possibilities if every employee had the will and determination of him.


 
Just imagine the possibilities of every FEMALE employee had that devotion :*D

Just kidding. In fact, I don't even have employees, as I am one myself :*(


----------



## Uminya (Nov 20, 2010)

Considering the relationship between Frodo and Sam was essentially just like the relationships created by soldiers on the battlefield, I think it would be interesting to look into how those sorts of relationships might form between male and female soldiers.

I am inclined to draw on personal experience and say that the adventures of she-Sam would have been little to no different at all, as the bonds of that sort of camaraderie can ignore the labels of gender.


----------

