# who do you think is the true hero of lotr?



## aDaHe

i feel that aragorn is because of his dedication in the story to the destroying of the ring he took (poo) from nearly every one that he kenw that did not know him and still he put life on that line to save their lives.


----------



## Ithrynluin

I was tempted to say "noone" but then I chose Frodo. He was the least capable of undertaking the hard task of destroying the ring and it took a lot of courage and pain to accomplish the task. Gandalf and Aragorn were better prepared for their missions (which were nonetheless horribly difficult!!!).
I wonder who YayGollum is going to vote for?


----------



## Popqueen62

I said Frodo, because even though he totally was gonna go crazy at the end, he still fufilled his task, and ME would be destroyed without him. But each character had an important roll in the book.


----------



## Anamatar IV

there were many heroes because there were many parts of the book that helped the west win. Aragorn, gandalf, sam, frodo, gollum, treebeard, merry, pippin, faramir, denethor, eowyn, eomer, boromir, elrond, even bombadil might be a hero! so i didnt vote on this thread.


----------



## Gothmog

I would say the the "True Hero" is Sam. I say this for many reasons, not the least of which is that he is even less likely than Frodo yet he was the one in the fellowship who grew the most from his start as Gardener to the Mayor of The Shire.


----------



## Aragorn12345

I think Aragorn is the true hero because he went on the paths of the dead to help out in the war brought hope to all when there was only despair. He is also in the line of Isildur so after the ring was destroyed noone knew what to do and Aragorn pulled everything together.


----------



## Lantarion

I really can't see how people think that Sam is the "true hero" of the LotR! Sure, he had an enormous impact on the happenings (indeed Frodo would not have made it without his support), but the story is not in any way based on his decisions or actions (and don't fling "The Choices of Master Samwise" at me!). 
Aragorn can be argued to be the main hero of the story (even though he did awfully little), because in the end it is his crowning and the reuniting of Gondor and Arnor, and many other places, that end the Third Age and establish an indefinite peace..
But I think it was Gandalf. He was the only one truly devoted to taking Sauron out; I mean he fought against the dark lord for over two thousand years, I think that's a pretty certain sign of devotion! And it was, basically, the purpose of his life; that was what he was placed on Middle-Earth for. It was his mission, his constant battle, which never ceased. And I at least can tell the ease and peace in Gandalf's manner after the Ring is destroyed, which is well-deserved indeed.

And besides, Gandalf roolz!


----------



## YayGollum

Yeah, I think the ithrynluin dude knew what I was going to say. Yay for Gollum the Hero! You people are always me wonder why I am his strongest supporter around here. I know that I'm not the only one to read the books. Okay, what was the goal? To destroy the One Ring. Okay, who destroyed the One Ring? Gollum. Thank you. He accomplished the goal even though he didn't mean to. He killed Sauron even though he was supposed to be his slave. He saved Middle Earth even though he only cared about himself. Yay for the Little Guy! Talk about an unlikely hero! Noone suspected that he would save the day! And it's just crazy that some people hate him so much that they try to deny it! oh well. Poor Smeagol. Yay for Middle Earth being saved by a schizo!  Was this too long? I tried to keep it short. I'll probably go on later.


----------



## Gothmog

Lantarion,
I consider Sam to be the 'True Hero' because of the way he changed through the story. I did not say that he was the most 'Heroic'


----------



## Nenya Evenstar

I do not think that a person should say that one character is more of a hero than any other character. Each and every one of the characters played their own specific roles in the story, and I think it unfair to label one person over another person as the hero. The Lord of the Rings does not only have one hero. It has many. Just because one person's actions were bigger or more involved than another person's actions does not mean anything. What matters is the fact that most of the characters stayed true to their paths, duties, and obligations. Certain characters lended their heroism in war, bravery, battles, and guiding, while other characters lended their heroism in comfort, aid, help, and friendship. These are but a few examples of the heroism that permeats throughout the books from different characters. To say that one character has more heroism than another is quite impossible! Just because Aragorn practically saved Gondor and did all the other acts for which he is known does not mean that he is above those who did smaller acts of heroism. It is not the size of the deed, but the place from which it comes that makes a hero - Frodo, Sam Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry, Pippin, Galadriel, Elrond, and the list goes on each were heroes in their own ways, and it is not possible to classify one person's work of heroism above the others.


----------



## tom_bombadil

I feel it is gollum he is in some peoples opinon a nasty little creep. but he is in my opinon a true hero without him frodo would of kept the ring and probably would have been taken by sauron. and poor little gollum got the ring and fell in the volcano i have to say that made me laugh a life of torment and finishing it with happenies with the ring then falling to his death


----------



## Thomas Baggins

I did vote for Arogorn cause he's my fav' character but I don't think he is the true one hero of lotr as far as that go's there prolly is no one hero, there's just to many main parts to tell though


----------



## gate7ole

I choose Sam, despite Lantarion's arguments against it.
Sam was the true hero because he was not a great wizard or a mighty heir of the throne. His motives were not to save the world, but the simple task of helping his master. He was not like Frodo whose destiny was attached to the future of ME. He had not got into trouble because of his adventurous spirit. He was just a gardener, but greatly loyal to his master. And after all he was the only one to have given the ring willingly and without the promptness of any one else. Finally I'll agree with Gothmog, he was mostly changed through this adventure.


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Gothmog _
> *Lantarion,
> I consider Sam to be the 'True Hero' because of the way he changed through the story. I did not say that he was the most 'Heroic' *


I totally agree Sam is the true hero.He keeps hope alive in every minute,he is ready to die for his master,he will always be with him and never leave him alone.


----------



## Thomas Baggins

I disagree cause although sam may be a true hero i think it's incorrect to title him as the true hero. There are so many heros in the story that i don't think you can just have someone be the true hero.


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Thomas Baggins _
> *I disagree cause although sam may be a true hero i think it's incorrect to title him as the true hero. There are so many heros in the story that i don't think you can just have someone be the true hero. *


Give us an example.


----------



## Thomas Baggins

how about Gandalf his life's purpose was to destroy Sauron wasn't it.
Even Arogorn I mean you figure the guy had to lead the party when gandalf fell and he also went through the paths of the dead.


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Thomas Baggins _
> *how about Gandalf his life's purpose was to destroy Sauron wasn't it.
> Even Arogorn I mean you figure the guy had to lead the party when gandalf fell and he also went through the paths of the dead. *


Well Gandalf is a Maia,just like Sauron.He has an enormous power but he is not allowed to use it.In fact he only helps people nothing more.You cannot say he is a hero cause he is a spirit in human body.
Aragorn was born king,he is doomed to become a leader,a king so all he does is expected from him.
At the same time Sam is quiet hobbit who has never left Hobbiton.He is a particular hobbit,that means he doesn't like travelling,he doesn't like any adventures etc.That's Sam at the beginning of the trip.
Later he encourages Frodo not to give up,while they are in Mordor.Sam is the one who is ready to die for his master,who never leaves Frodo.His development as a character is more than that of Aragorn or Gandalf.From quiet and peaceful hobbit he becomes fearless hobbit ready to do everyting ,to protect his master,to finish the mission,to die for Frodo.


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

I too believe that Sam is the true hero in the books. There are many heros in the books, and I would argue that in fact each character who makes a fights for the good side is a hero in his or her own way and some definately more than others. But it is my opinion that Sam truely is the ultimate hero. He follows after Frodo no matter what even though he only ever wanted to be a simple gardner with a nice little hobbit hole of his own. I don't believe he ever truly understood the power of the ring or the enemy and yet he almost blindly follows his master out of devotion to him. He is willing to sacrifice everything simply for the preservation of his best friend. I mean he starves himself for Frodo, he carries the ring after he thinks Frodo is dead and he has no clue as to where to go, and he carries Frodo on his back up a mountain. And then in the end when he and Frodo think they are gonna die, he still speaks words of comfort to his friend and tries to ease Frodo's suffering without a thought of self pity for himself. I think that makes Sam the real hero. All the other characters had some sort of obligation to do what they did. Aragorn was the heir of the king and it was his moral duty to defend his kingdom. Gandalf was sent to Middle-earth as a care taker. Frodo was given the ring in the first place and he felt it his moral obligation to get rid of it. Gollum got rid of the ring totally by accident so even though is role was important I don't think he was the hero. Sam did everything he did without moral obligation and never was he asked to keep going or do anything that he did. He did it because he loved Frodo and that was all and almost everything he did was entirely against his Hobbitish nature.

~Ariana


----------



## Lantarion

> _Originally posted by gate7ole_
> *I choose Sam, despite Lantarion's arguments against it.
> Sam was the true hero because he was not a great wizard or a mighty heir of the throne. His motives were not to save the world, but the simple task of helping his master. He was not like Frodo whose destiny was attached to the future of ME. He had not got into trouble because of his adventurous spirit. He was just a gardener, but greatly loyal to his master. And after all he was the only one to have given the ring willingly and without the promptness of any one else. Finally I'll agree with Gothmog, he was mostly changed through this adventure.*


Hmm, yes I suppose you have a point. And I most certainly agree that Sam is theone who changes the most throughout the whole book; but how does that make him the true hero of the LotR? Alright, if we're to talk about personal heroism (?) and what the characters do and accomplish, according to their stature, I would also vote for Sam. But Gandalf has the most impact on the fate of Sauron, save Frodo obviously, but as I pointed out it was Gandalf's task, the meaning of his life on Middle-Earth to destroy Sauron. That is what makes me feel that he deserves such a title.


----------



## Thomas Baggins

Hey I'm back again I do see your point Gil-Galad, I geuss I would have to agree with you. I jus' don't like calling any one the "one true hero" of the story. but thats just my personal veiw.


----------



## aDaHe

> _Originally posted by Thomas Baggins _
> *I jus' don't like calling any one the "one true hero" of the story. but thats just my personal veiw.  *



while i agree that there is not one hero of this story there are certain people that inside themselves grew imeansly. sam is a great eg of this. aragorn, gandalf and frodo also did very little change. we cannot forget gimli who is one of the first dwarfs that was able to get inside of galadriel. he started the journey as a direct enemy to the elfs(not an enemy but oppossed to them) and by the mid of lothlorein (spelling) he was a dear friend to all the elf people and the lady.


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *Hmm, yes I suppose you have a point. And I most certainly agree that Sam is theone who changes the most throughout the whole book; but how does that make him the true hero of the LotR? Alright, if we're to talk about personal heroism (?) and what the characters do and accomplish, according to their stature, I would also vote for Sam. But Gandalf has the most impact on the fate of Sauron, save Frodo obviously, but as I pointed out it was Gandalf's task, the meaning of his life on Middle-Earth to destroy Sauron. That is what makes me feel that he deserves such a title.
> *


Well,as everyone agrees Gandalf is obligated to destroy Sauron,while Sam ,just like Frodo,is not obligated to do anything,but he DOES!
Despite his hobbitish nature,he becomes part of this adventure.Sam develops features of his character which he hasn't thought he has.From a quiet hobbit he becomes real hero.
If we have to compare Gandalf heroism and that of Sam,we'll see that Sam is the true hero.Just think which is point has more heroism in it:to be obligated to do somethig and do it,or have the free will to do something and do it,although you're not obligated and you may even die.


----------



## Finduilas

I should say that I agree with you Gill-Galad.If heroism means to do something that nobody expects from you than all the middle-earth people are heros.My point is that hobbits,people and all other peoples do the history.And they are going to be spoken in praise and all the other creatures are going to remember their great-great-parents.
Doen't history remember only heroes?Then why should we limit ourselves in making heroes only Gandalf or Sam?


----------



## YayGollum

Woah! What is going on here? I thought that you people had read the books! Well, maybe you have and you just forgot what the goal was around the same time that Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas did. Let me remind you. The goal was to destroy the One Ring. Remember that crazy thing called the Fellowsship of the Ring? It was made to destroy the One Ring. Not to detroy the balrog, or to save Rohan, or Gondor, or anything else. The goal of Lord of the Rings was to destroy the One Ring. 
Sure, when the fellowship died, and people did other stuff, they got their own goals. Easier goals. Sure, the people that forgot about the main goal became heroes. Like many people have said before me, there was definitely more than one hero in Lord of the Rings. But we cannot forget what the main goal was. 
The only one who kept trying was Frodo. The evil sam just wanted to hang out with him, and didn't really care about the goal. Sure, he had his own goal, and he accomplished it, but he was still evil to the true hero of Lord of the Rings. 
Yay Gollum! He was the only one to accomplish the main goal in Lord of the Rings. Tell me if I'm missing something. Did someone push Gollum into the Crack of Doom? No. Frodo had gone crazy, and the evil sam had been knocked out. Gollum was the Hero! He destroyed the One Ring and Sauron, thereby saving Middle Earth. You cannot tell me that I am wrong! I don't see why you can think otherwise! 
The only reason people don't think that he is the Hero is because of one word. Fell. Argh! I hate that word. Very evil. Was it so hard for Tolkien to write jumped? oh well. Gollum still saved the day. There's no way you can say I'm wrong. 
You people just don't like to that it wasn't his intent. I say, who cares what his intent was? He still saved the day! Maybe you just care what his intent was because you don't want to accept that he was the Hero. You wanted Frodo or the evil sam to win, but Gollum did, and you didn't like him, so you decided to cling to the fact that Gollum's thoughts were not revealed in his last moments. 
I like to think that the inner debate between Smeagol and Gollum was still going on. Gollum is fighting with Frodo, he gets the Ring, he's happy, Smeagol's mad, he trips himself, and falls in. Yay for Gollum being the Hero! Will somone please tell me what is wrong with this way of thinking? I just can't see why someone can still think that Gollum wasn't the Hero! Ack! oh well. 
I came up with this last night: Sauron's last thought ---> Whoops! I shouldn't have had those floors waxed!


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Finduilas _
> *I should say that I agree with you Gill-Galad.If heroism means to do something that nobody expects from you than all the middle-earth people are heros.My point is that hobbits,people and all other peoples do the history.And they are going to be spoken in praise and all the other creatures are going to remember their great-great-parents.
> Doen't history remember only heroes?Then why should we limit ourselves in making heroes only Gandalf or Sam? *


You're right about the history of ME.I just compared Gandalf and Sam cause there is an obviouse difference between them in turms of heroism.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

The "true" hero of LOTR is Frodo. Gandalf is the greatest figure but as a maia, he can hardly be judged along with the rest of the folk - elf or mortal - who participated in the struggle. He had been sent from Valinor to do battle with Sauron as had his fellow Istari, so the term "hero" can hardly apply.

Aragorn was indeed a great hero. He did what was necessary to allow the Bearer to fulfill his quest even to placing his own life at naught before the Black Gates to purchase with his blood AND his kingly line (because he would have died childless) those few minutes that the Bearer might need to destroy the Ring. But Aragorn was born a King and despite the film, he was raised to know and honor his heritage. Therefore, to find in him that type of heroism is hardly unexpected.

All the others, Elves, men and dwarves who resist Sauron are heroes no matter how small their contribution simply because they chose to side with the good knowing that their hopes of victory were slim to none. It takes great heroism not to run and hide, hedge one's bets or join the winner when common sense declares this to be the only way to survive.

But the REAL heroes of LOTR are the hobbits, Frodo first, Sam a VERY close second and Merry and Pippin not too far behind. Tolkien's tale is told from the perspective of the hobbits; it is the tale of "Everyman" who does not come from the Olympian heights like Gandalf or even Aragorn, nor is a great warrior familiar with battle and death like Eomer, Theoden, Denethor, Boromir, the Dwarves (battle hardened as they were) or even the Elves. Rather, these "Everymen" are little people used to chickens and ponies, orchards and harvests, inns and firesides. To take such souls and immerse them in the milieu of fear, despair, death and horror that surrounds the Quest of the Ring - AND have them overcome all with nothing more than their inner courage, friendship, loyalty and good old hobbit common sense, is the REAL triumph of good over evil. 

Yes, they had help; they needed it and they accepted it, but it does not diminish what they did when they were on their own WITHOUT any help. Yes, Frodo succumbed in the end to the force of the Ring but he did so far later than almost anyone else in the story would have been overcome had that person possessed the Ring! I believe that Tolkien saw the hobbits as the true heroes of LOTR and who am I to disagree?


----------



## Gothmog

Mrs. Maggott,
I agree with you that the Hobbits are indeed the true heros of The Lord of the Rings. However, I will still put Sam before Frodo. The reason for this is that throughout the attempt to destroy the Ring where Frodo was there too was Sam supporting him. After the destruction of the Ring and the return to The Shire, Frodo dropped into the background and soon left the Shire (I do not blame him for this, it was part of his gift to the Hobbits).

At this point Sam went beyond Frodo as he changed from the support of One hobbit to the leader and support of a nation of Hobbits. And so because of this I still say that Sam is The True Hero of LotR because of the immence change that came about through the whole of the journey that started with listening in to a story about Elves and Rings one day in Bag End.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Frodo is the true hero in LOTR. Samwise Gamgee is a great hero, but to say that he is greater than Frodo because Frodo "disappears" from the story and Sam goes on to become a great name in the Shire, is beside the point. When Sam achieves "greatness" in the Shire, the LOTR is over; we are dealing with epilogue just as we do with the story of Aragorn and Arwen. The story of LOTR ends with the departure for Elvenhome from the Gray Havens; all that follows is epilogue.

Frodo's courage, suffering and sacrifice - coupled with the fact that without his efforts the Ring would never have been destroyed - make him the greatest hero of the story, without doubt.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *Frodo is the true hero in LOTR. Samwise Gamgee is a great hero, but to say that he is greater than Frodo because Frodo "disappears" from the story and Sam goes on to become a great name in the Shire, is beside the point. *



Excellent points Mrs. Maggott! Frodo is indeed THE hero of LOTR (if there is one at all).Yes Sam is a great hero,standing next to Frodo, but he never bore the terrible burden that Frodo had.


----------



## Sam_Gamgee

frodo is the ring bearer...........he is the hero. but every1 was a hero in thier own way. they all were heroic


----------



## Gothmog

> 'No, sir, of course not. 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. But that's a long tale, of course, and goes on past the happiness and into grief and beyond it -- and the Silmaril went on and came to Eärendil. *And why, sir, I never thought of that before! We've got -- you've got some of the light of it in that star-glass that the Lady gave you! Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?* '


 The Two Towers: Chapter 8: The Stairs of Cirith Ungol.


What is Story and what is "epilogue"????


----------



## Hume

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *...
> Frodo's courage, suffering and sacrifice - coupled with the fact that without his efforts the Ring would never have been destroyed - make him the greatest hero of the story, without doubt. *



Frodo did indeed show extreme courage, he did suffer greatly, and, yes, he sacrificed much, but in his ultimate purpose, he failed. After all, the entire mission had only only one goal: to destroy the One Ring, and Frodo couldn't do it. If Gollum hadn't intervened, the Ring would have survived and Middle-Earth would have conquered by Sauron. But Gollum clearly cannot be the hero of LotR. He did not base his actions on any grand visions of righteousness, nor did his acts indicate any great courage. Gollum was simply so twisted by the ring that he could not resist doing what he did. 
Having thus eliminated two candidates, we turn to Sam. Without his actions, Middle-Earth would have perished. Noone questions his bravery. He started out lower than even Frodo, and ended up as least as high as him. Sam is obviously the hero of the book: Frodo even says something to that effect, when talking about how Sam and his adventures might be told in the future-
"But you've left out one of the chief characters: Samwise the stouthearted... and Frodo wouldn't have got far without Sam, would he...?"
Sam, unlike Frodo, never failed.


----------



## YayGollum

I just love having my posts ignored.  If anyone had paid attention to it, they'd have to admit that Gollum was the Hero. No doubt about it. Who says that you have to be planning on doing something heroic to become a Hero? Ack! Should I just copy and paste the same thing I said before since you all missed it the last time?


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Hume _
> *Sam, unlike Frodo, never failed. *



But he never had to bear the full burden of the ring either. I still stand behind my choice that Frodo is the true hero.Noone could have succeeded going to Mordor,and I think there was much more behind the fact that Frodo was chosen to be a ring-bearer.
A warm welcome to the forums! Enjoy!


----------



## Hume

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *Who says that you have to be planning on doing something heroic to become a Hero? Ack! *



Um... The definition of "hero", at least according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is 
1. a name given to men of superhuman strength, courage, or ability
Gollum has none of these
2. a man distinguished by extraordinary valour, and martial achievements, one who does brave or noble deeds, an illustrious warrior
Gollum is certainly none of these
3. a man who exhibits extraordinary bravery, firmness, fortitude, or greatness of soul, in any course of action, or in connexion wit any pursuit, work, or enterprise, a man admired and venerated for achievements and noble qualities.
Definitely not.
4. The man who forms the subject of an epic,the chief male personage in a poem, play, or story, he in whom the interest of the story or plot is centred
And no.
I think you should respect the true definition of "hero" and not assign any false meaning to the word.


----------



## Hume

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *But he never had to bear the full burden of the ring either. I still stand behind my choice that Frodo is the true hero.
> *


Perhaps it is impossible to tell if Sam would have handled the ring better than Frodo, but I personally think he would. 


> Noone could have succeeded going to Mordor,and I think there was much more behind the fact that Frodo was chosen to be a ring-bearer.


As I recall, Frodo was chosen at the Council of Elrond to keep the ring mostly because he already had it, and the reason he had it is that his uncle gave it to him; hardly, I think, an excellent qualification.

Thanks for the warm greeting!


----------



## Oren

SAM!! Because (I hate explanation) he always helps Frodo out. Like with Aragorn and the Nazgul at the beggining of the movie. And without Sam, Frodo would have, never in his life, made it to Mordor!


----------



## YayGollum

Argh! I hate it when people bring up the definition of hero! From number two, he definitely did a brave or a noble deed. 
From number three, he's definitely admired and venerated for achievements, at least by me.  
From number four, he was definitely the one on whom the interest of the story or plot is centered, at least for me.  
See why I hate it when people bring up the definition of hero? Gollum always fits in there somewhere. There are too many different ways to look at it, and I happen to look at it so that Gollum is the Hero.  sorry about that. Should I copy and paste the proof that he's the Hero, or did you already read it and ignore it?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

As to "what is epilogue": LOTR is the story of the War of the Ring, the destruction of the Ring, the passing of Sauron and the ridding of Middle Earth of the very immediate (but not ALL of) the consequences of that struggle (which means Scouring of the Shire can and should be included in the story. Sam's eventual rise to "glory" within the Shire IS an "epilogue" to the story told in LOTR. 

As to Frodo "failing at the end", that is not true. Yes, the Ring finally conquers him at the end because of his failing physical reserves; starvaton, thirst, poison and fear have finally worn Frodo down to the point wherein the Ring - in its birthplace and therefore AT ITS STRONGEST - is able to overthrow his mind and will. Yes, it's true that Gollum is then able to wrest the Ring from Frodo and with it (accidentally) fall into the fire, but that does not change the fact that if it hadn't been for Frodo, THE RING WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN SAMMATH NAUR IN THE FIRST PLACE! It was Frodo's dogged determination in the face of overwhelming odds which brought the Ring to the place wherein it could be destroyed. That, in my opinion, constitutes a complete, utter and overwhelming victory against an opponent whom none other in Middle Earth could have engaged and defeated.


----------



## YayGollum

It is true that Frodo failed at the end. sorry about that. Like you said, it is able to overthrow his mind and will. That means that Frodo lost. Too bad.  
Yay Gollum! Who cares if it was an accident? Without Gollum being around to fall, Middle Earth would not have been saved. You say that if it hadn't been for Frodo, THE RING WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN SAMMATH NAUR IN THE FIRST PLACE! I say, well, the same thing goes for Gollum! If it hadn't been for him, Frodo would have gone right up to the front gate. 
"Oh, hi, Mouth of Sauron! Could you direct me to Mount Doom? I kind of need to get over there so I can destroy this One Ring of Sauron's. Oh, yeah, and would you mind not telling him we dropped by? It's going to be a surprise!" 
Thank you Gollum, for not letting that happen! Sure, it took Frodo, the evil sam, and Gollum to get the Ring there, but Gollum still destroyed it in the end.


----------



## aDaHe

i get really tried of reading about 'yaygollum' yak when he most definatly did not do a heroic thing. he beat the lights out of sam, bit frodo's finger off and then he slipped and fell in to the fire.
as you say an accident, but and accident is not heroic.

people like frodo, sam, aragorn, gandalf, pippin, merry, elrond, boromir, legolas, gimli, (the list is endless) are heros because they had the intent to do good in their hearts before they began/did the heroic deed.

aDaHe


----------



## YayGollum

So, you think that just because he didn't mean to save the day that he doesn't get to be called a Hero? Sure, all of the people you named are heroes in some way. The accomplished other goals. I'm just saying that Gollum is the main hero because he accomplished the main goal. You can't say I'm wrong. Even if he didn't mean to, he still saved the day. Automatic Heroship! Yay!


----------



## Gothmog

> which means Scouring of the Shire can and should be included in the story.


 Which includes the work done to put the Shire back as close as possible to Pre-Saruman times. Who did the most work in this part?


> 'Use all the wits and knowledge you have of your own, Sam,' said Frodo, 'and then use the gift to help your work and better it. And use it sparingly. There is not much here, and I expect every grain has a value.'
> So Sam planted saplings in all the places where specially beautiful or beloved trees had been destroyed, and he put a grain of the precious dust in the soil at the root of each. He went up and down the Shire in this labour; but if he paid special attention to Hobbiton and Bywater no one blamed him. And at the end he found that he still had a little of the dust left; so he went to the Three-Farthing Stone, which is as near the centre of the Shire as no matter, and cast it in the air with his blessing. The little silver nut he planted in the Party Field where the tree had once been; and he wondered what would come of it. All through the winter he remained as patient as he could, and tried to restrain himself from going round constantly to see if anything was happening.
> 
> Spring surpassed his wildest hopes. His trees began to sprout and grow, as if time was in a hurry and wished to make one year do for twenty. In the Party Field a beautiful young sapling leaped up: it had silver bark and long leaves and burst into golden flowers in April. It was indeed a mallorn, and it was the wonder of the neighbourhood. In after years, as it grew in grace and beauty, it was known far and wide and people would come long journeys to see it: the only mallorn west of the Mountains and east of the Sea, and one of the finest in the world.


 So This is part of the work of scouring the shire in that it is "ridding of Middle Earth of the very immediate (but not ALL of) the consequences of that struggle". This was much of Sam's doing. And it was Sam himself that said they were still in the story of Beren and Luthien. Not in the epilogue of it.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Certainly Sam worked very hard in restoring the Shire after Saruman's depredations but however "heroic" his efforts were, they cannot match the heroism of Frodo's astonishing quest. 

Furthermore, whatever Sam did, the same can be said for Merry and Pippin who were generally responsible for the more mundane resistance against Sharkey's men. That response paved the way for Sam's gardening, so therefore it could be said that Merry and Pippin were more heroic than Sam since their efforts were of a more dangerous nature. 

In every part of the story, one may find heroes at work, but, I'm sorry, none can match Frodo who, by the way, was not exactly idle during the Scouring of the Shire and in many ways, took a leadership role in the entire thing. So it cannot be said that Sam or Merry or Pippin were the only hobbits from the Fellowship who fought this, the last battle of the War of the Ring.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *Certainly Sam worked very hard in restoring the Shire after Saruman's depredations but however "heroic" his efforts were, they cannot match the heroism of Frodo's astonishing quest. *


 How much of that quest would have been achieved without the heroism of one Sam Gamgee??



> Furthermore, whatever Sam did, the same can be said for Merry and Pippin who were generally responsible for the more mundane resistance against Sharkey's men. That response paved the way for Sam's gardening, so therefore it could be said that Merry and Pippin were more heroic than Sam since their efforts were of a more dangerous nature.


 How much more dangerous than the stroll though the Emin Muil and Mordor??



> In every part of the story, one may find heroes at work, but, I'm sorry, none can match Frodo who, by the way, was not exactly idle during the Scouring of the Shire and in many ways, took a leadership role in the entire thing. So it cannot be said that Sam or Merry or Pippin were the only hobbits from the Fellowship who fought this, the last battle of the War of the Ring.


 despite your sorrow Sam can match Frodo. He went with Frodo through the whole of his journey and was the main reason that Frodo got to Orodruin. I have never said that Sam or any One Hobbit was the only one to fight in the War of the Ring. But in my oppinion it was Sam who did the most Throughout the whole of the fight. And dispite your view as to prologues, epilogues and the like, the story continues beyond the downfall of Sauron and includes the work done to combat the effects of Sauron and his minions (including Saruman). In this Sam had a leading role.


----------



## Elu Thingol

I think every member played a major part in the success of the mission (some more than others). However, Frodo played the largest part of all the members no hands down making him the true hero.



> _Posted by Gothmog_
> despite your sorrow Sam can match Frodo. He went with Frodo through the whole of his journey and was the main reason that Frodo got to Orodruin



Yes there is no denying it, Sam played a huge part in the success of the mission. However, you leave out the fact that while Sam went with Frodo throughout the journey he only had to bear the burden of the ring once, while Frodo had to carry it almost throughout the whole journey.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Sam's role in the Quest with Frodo was not what was being discussed, but, rather, Sam's role in the restoration of the Shire after it was despoiled by Saruman and his followers. If you use Sam's actions during that time as the reason why he is the real hero of the tale and then when it is pointed out that others were equally - and perhaps even more deeply - involved in defeating Sauruman's forces, you can't go back and say, well, yes, but they weren't in Mordor. That is changing the ground rules by which you wish your candidate to be judged.

Sam is probably the second greatest hero of the Quest BECAUSE of his courage, self-effacing loyalty and generosity of spirit (his use of Galadriel's gift for the benefit of ALL rather than just for himself is evidence of that). But Frodo is THE hero for the simple reason that he was an ordinary man (hobbit) with all of our ordinary frailties who when confronted with a dark and dangerous task, took it on and eventually - with the assistance of many good and heroic persons - triumphed. And that, I think, is in a nutshell, the MEANING of LOTR.


----------



## Elu Thingol

If you read the section I was responding to, my argument fits.


----------



## Hume

I think it is fairly obvious that everything in LotR after the defeat of Sauron has little effect on who is the hero.The great test was taken, and now they have to face a minor subplot, nothing serious compared to what the hobbits had already encountered. 



> Frodo played the largest part of all the members...



I have to agree with this.



> making him the true hero



I disagree with this conclusion however. I think the problem is simply that we're basing our opinions on different, though equally valid, definitions of hero. Elu Thingol is obviously using this definition-
"The man who forms the subject of an epic,the chief male personage in a poem, play, or story, he in whom the interest of the story or plot is centred" (from the OED, which I used before)

While I am using this one, which I think most people are using-
"a man who exhibits extraordinary bravery, firmness, fortitude, or greatness of soul, in any course of action, or in connexion wit any pursuit, work, or enterprise, a man admired and venerated for achievements and noble qualities."



> Frodo is THE hero for the simple reason that he was an ordinary man (hobbit) with all of our ordinary frailties who when confronted with a dark and dangerous task, took it on and eventually - with the assistance of many good and heroic persons - triumphed.



But Sam was an ordinary hobbit, he "confronted a dark and dangerous task", and (here is Sam's advantage over Frodo) he remained true to task, unlike Frodo, who didn't have quite enough willpower. Undoubtedly many will respond that "Frodo's mercy redeemed himself- if Frodo hadn't spared Gollum's life, then all would have been lost." But in that case, Bilbo, or Gandalf, or Aragorn, or the Wood-elves would all be the heroes, because they all spared Gollum at one time or another. Mercy is not enough to completely justify failure.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

If you are speaking of the Ring, Sam remained "true to his task" while he carried the burden, but he only carried the burden for a VERY SHORT time. He certainly remained true to Frodo, but there was nothing at war within him to do otherwise. On the other hand, Frodo had a CONSTANT war within himself, beset as he was by the Ring. This was not an EXTERNAL conflict, but an INTERNAL one. The Ring had penetrated his very mind and soul and its demand that he accede to ITS will over his own will became stronger and stronger as he became, physically and mentally, weaker and weaker. To say that he "failed" simply because at the end, in the place of its greatest power, the Ring was able to finally overthrow his will, is frankly, not only unrealistic but not a little uncharitable.

The Ring overthrew Boromir - a warrior with a will trained to self-denial, able to endure fear, pain and want - and he did not even POSSESS the Ring! Poor Frodo, a simple hobbit without any of the resources of the more powerful of Middle Earth managed not only to survive and bring the Ring to Mount Doom, but to do so WITHOUT Aragorn, WITHOUT Gandalf, WITHOUT Galadriel or Elrond or Boromir or Theoden or any other of the great and powerful of Middle Earth to guide and succor him. Yes, he had Sam, but remember, it was not SAM who saved the day at Sammath Naur, but GOLLUM - and his actions in the matter were all unwilling.

Sam is a great hero, but it was Frodo who took the Ring on as his burden; it was Frodo who chose to leave the Shire and venture into the unknown carrying the greatest burden of the Age; it was Frodo who endured not only the hardships of the road common to all in the Fellowship, but the special burden of the Ring as well. Finally, we must remember that had Frodo NOT done so, Sam would not have done so either. Therefore the Quest itself was Frodo's choice and none other and that alone makes him the greatest hero in LOTR.


----------



## Hume

When I said Sam remained true to his task, I was referring to his committment to the quest, that of destroying the one ring. Sam's dedication was every bit as strong as Frodo's, though for different reasons. (Frodo was acting upon his belief that the fate of the world was in the balance, while Sam was showing his dedication to Frodo and partly to the Council of the Wise. I'm not sure whether Sam fully understood the enormity of their mission.) And there certainly was much that would make an ordinary person turn back- his adventure with Shelob would have been enough alone. It might be slightly easier to follow than to lead, but on such a dangerous quest it takes a great deal of courage. Then Sam, after having been used to following for so long, is suddenly separated from Frodo and forced, in the very heart of Mordor. At least Frodo was gradually subjected to the pressures of leadership in the face of evil, while Sam can be compared to a threee year old being told to sink or swim.

I do not deny that it is uncharitable to say that Frodo failed, but I do deny that it is unrealistic. To compare LOTR to the real world, no one doubts that Hannibal failed in his mission, and yet one could certainly call the person who says this 'uncharitable'; how could anyone expect him to infinitely continue his successes against a nation whose army outnumbers his exponentially? 

The ring overthrew Borimir, but he was desperate for a weapon that could defeat the dark hordes that plagued Gondor. He was driven near insane by grief for his besieged country; Borimir was certainly not so capable as you describe him.

Your main point seems to be that "the Quest itself was Frodo's choice and none other and that alone makes him the greatest hero in LOTR." But Bilbo offered to take the ring, and he is not the greatest hero in LOTR. I doubt that if Frodo fully knew what he would have to endure, he would have accepted. More importantly, there was quite a lot of pressure on him to take the ring, though admittedly he 'could' have refused. Gandalf said,"But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right."

Sam is the character who has expanded the most nobly. He showed traits of valour and distinction which make him, though not the central, the greatest hero of the Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Bilbo offered to take it, but knew perfectly well that, gallant as it was, the offer would not be taken. He could no longer deal with the Ring and he knew that, still he could not just permit Frodo to be "stuck with it" without making some gesture to relieve his burden, however futile.

Yes, the Quest was Frodo's doing. That is a fact. No one else could or would take the Ring. He offered it to Gandalf who refused it. At that point, Frodo could have said, "Take the damned thing or I'll throw it out the window!" What then? Aragorn was offered it - "It belongs to you, then..." - at the Council but he, too, refuses the thing his ancestor permitted to exist. Frankly, he was the one who SHOULD have borne the Ring. He had already said when Gandalf asked him to help look for Gollum <itb>, of course, that it was "fitting for Isildur's heir to labor to repair Isildr's fault". But Frodo had not the heart to demand that Aragorn take the Ring although by rights, he could have done so. Elrond refuses to take the Ring even to hide, never mind destroy it. And so it goes. 

At that point, Frodo could have walked to the balcony overlooking the river and thrown the Ring in. True, he is already at least partially subject to the Ring's power and would not willingly throw it away. But had he been desperate enough or frightened enough, there was nothing stopping him from disposing of the Ring any way that he could in order not to be trapped into the Quest. But he didn't, the Quest went forward and in the end, was successful. And the reason it was successful, was Frodo Baggins. No matter what happened in Sammath Naur, the fact that the Quest even started would be enough to make him the hero of the story.


----------



## Hume

Bilbo in no way knew that his offer would be refused. In fact, he was resigned to the fact that it would be accepted. During the discussion of who should take the ring, Bilbo says-

"Very well... Say no more! It is plain enough what you are pointing at. When ought I to start?"

The respect with which the Council regards his offer certainly doesn't imply that Bilbo was not a possibility.

The fact that other people could have taken the ring but didn't has very little bearing on who is the actual 'hero' of the story. Despite what you say, Frodo had no right to force the ring upon Aragorn anymore than a person in our world has the right to kill a modern German whose grandfather committed horrible atrocities. You cannot condemn a person to death, or worse, which giving the ring to Aragorn almost certainly would have done, because his ancestor messed up.

You made a tiny error in thinking: 


> No matter what happened in Sammath Naur, the fact that the Quest even started would be enough to make him the hero of the story.


 Ha!
The decision Frodo made at the Council of Elrond was purely intellectual. He had no way of knowing what horrors he would have to face. The warnings given by Elrond and others could not come near to describing his perilous mission. The brave things done in Mordor by Sam, and Frodo as well, were much more courageous.


----------



## YayGollum

...while the really great thing that Gollum did saved Middle Earth!  You people are still ignoring me! Why do you keep going back to the stinky Frodo versus the evil sam debate? I can only guess it's because you can't deny that Gollum is the Hero, so you just ignore it.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

To begin with, Bilbo has every suspicion that his offer will be rejected. For one thing, he is too old to make such a journey and he knows it. In fact, he confides to Frodo "I was afraid of this..." meaning that he feared the (expected) rejection of his offer would lead to Frodo being stuck with the Ring.

Secondly, I am saying that if anyone SHOULD have borne the Ring by virtue of some connection therewith, it was Aragorn for obvious reasons. At the Council, Frodo acknowledges that Aragorn has a claim on the Ring but he certainly makes no effort to FORCE it on the man. On the other hand, Frodo has every right to REFUSE to continue as the Bearer since he had already fulfilled his agreed upon obligation to bring the Ring to Rivendell. NO ONE at the Council had the right to demand that Frodo continue with the Quest. It is HIS OWN DECISION to do so and no later failing can change that.

As for "not knowing" what would come. Frankly, NONE of them - not even Gandalf - knew what would come. But that does not make the decision to continue the Quest any less courageous. Indeed, going into the unknown is frequently far more frightening than facing something with which one is familiar even if it is horrible. There is an old saying, "better the devil you know, than the devil you DON'T know". 

Before the Fellowship departs, Elrond has them swear only that they will go on the Quest as far as they are able. He refuses to bind them to something that they might not be capable of doing. ONLY ON THE RINGBEARER does he lay the charge of the Quest: not to surrender the Ring to the enemy or to throw it away and to let NO ONE touch the Ring save members of the Fellowship and then only at great need. Therefore, Elrond makes a demand of Frodo that he makes of NO OTHER MEMBER OF THE FELLOWSHIP and that includes Gandalf and Aragorn. 

Furthermore, Frodo had ALREADY faced the Nine and suffered a wound that had almost brought him under their power. By the time he makes the choice to continue with the Quest, he is no longer a naive hobbit from the Shire, but someone who has undergone trials and terrors that many mighty men and elves of Middle Earth have never suffered. However, in spite of everything, he is willing to take the Ring. THAT indicates a courage which cannot be discounted simply because in the end, he suffers a fate to which many far stronger and more powerful individuals in Middle Earth would have succumbed a great deal sooner than Frodo the hobbit!


----------



## Theoden

> _Originally posted by Gothmog _
> *I would say the the "True Hero" is Sam. I say this for many reasons, not the least of which is that he is even less likely than Frodo yet he was the one in the fellowship who grew the most from his start as Gardener to the Mayor of The Shire. *



Amen!!!

-me


----------



## YayGollum

Oh, that's a good point? I didn't know. Well, it works even better for Gollum! Talk about an unlikely hero!


----------



## LadyGaladriel

> ...while the really great thing that Gollum did saved Middle Earth! You people are still ignoring me! Why do you keep going back to the stinky Frodo versus the evil sam debate? I can only guess it's because you can't deny that Gollum is the Hero, so you just ignore it.



Gollum is and always will be the hero of LOTR. he saved them all!!!!!! Without Gollum Frodo would be horrible and nasty and twisted up little hobbit who would have killed them all with his stupidity. 

Gollum is being undermimed by the other charatchers whereas Gollum is in Fact a Hero evenhough He didn't know it. Poor Smeagol.


----------



## Hume

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *To begin with, Bilbo has every suspicion that his offer will be rejected. For one thing, he is too old to make such a journey and he knows it. In fact, he confides to Frodo "I was afraid of this..." meaning that he feared the (expected) rejection of his offer would lead to Frodo being stuck with the Ring.
> *


With all due respect, you're making up Bilbo's supposed intentions out of thin air. Although I could not locate your exact quote, I did find this, said by Bilbo to Gandalf, Merry, and Pippin-
"Well, anyway, nothing was decided beyond choosing poor Frodo and Sam. I was afraid all along that it might come to that, IF I was let off." 
If this is in fact the quote you abbreviated, I don't see how this means that Bilbo knew his offer would be rejected. The IF implies exactly the opposite.

Paragraphs 2 and 4 are irrelevant to the main point; who is the greatest hero in LOTR? Paragraph 2 seems to say, basically, that Frodo chose the ring, while undeniably under its influence. I do not deny this, but I do not see its relevance. To reply to paragraph 4, Frodo had to swear to Elrond things that the other members of the Fellowship didn't AFTER he had already agreed. Obviously this does not effect the question of Frodo's courage.

Paragraph 3 is based on an entirely incorrrect precept; that the choice, made by Frodo, to go to Mount Doom to destroy the one ring was an act that took enough courage that one would be justified in saying that Frodo was THE hero, entirely upon this one act. This is despite, or even because he knows nothing of what he will face. You say "better the devil you know, than the devil you DON'T know", but the enormous pressure exerted on Frodo to take the ring by Elrond, Gandalf, and, of course, the fate of Middle-Earth was more than enough to equal Frodo's normal fear of the unknown. 

During the Council, Frodo was not the naive hobbit which he was at the start of the novel, but, as I'm sure you will agree, NO ONE could possibly imagine what they were getting themselves into. 

If you look back through this thread, you will find most of Sam's reasons for being chosen the greatest hero of LOTR unrefuted, while all of Frodo's reasons have been rejected. Sam's progression throughout the book give him that title. It seems obvious to me that I cannot persuade you to abandon your current viewpoint on this issue(or Yaygollum's completely misguided one), but I think that most readers of this thread agree with my stance.


----------



## YayGollum

Ack! 

It seems obvious to me that I cannot persuade you to abandon your current viewpoint on this issue(or Yaygollum's completely misguided one)

Well, you're right that you wouldn't be able to get me to abandon my viewpoint, but can't you tell me why you think it's misguided, rather than just ignoring it?


----------



## Hume

I have. Your definition of hero is wrong. The good deeds have to be done for noble purposes, and on purpose.


----------



## LadyGaladriel

actually someone can be a hero but an unwilling hero. 

Gollum is the hero in the sense that he doesn't mean to be. The ring corrupts even Frodo. Gollum is the hero of LOTR Simply because although he doesn' mean to save middlearth but he did. 


Was it not Aristophle who said that a hero was a man with a tragic flaw?


----------



## YayGollum

Well, I missed it. oh well. There must be something wrong with me. You know, open-mindedness on definitions of stuff.  Silly, huh?

Oh, yeah. Thanks, LadyGaladriel!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Bilbo knew full well his offer would be refused although he did not like to admit it because he felt guilty about Frodo having to bear the Ring which HE gave him. He had already noted that Elrond was afraid that the Enemy would find him "tottering about in the Wild". For goodness sake! He was 128 years old and probably wouldn't have been able to walk out of the valley! To say that he seriously believed that ANYONE would let him attempt to take the Ring to the Fire is to abandon reason.

Secondly: you say that Frodo was "pressured" into taking the Ring. No, he wasn't. The only "pressure" he felt was his own innate nature which had recognized probably from the beginning that he was going to have to bear the Ring to whatever end was decided upon. Just because someone doesn't want to do something does not in any way lessen the admiration that should be accorded to that person for doing it. Indeed, NOT wanting to do something - but doing it anyway - is cause for an INCREASE in admiration, not the opposite. 

As for Sam's heroism: there can be no doubt of it. But Sam would never have left the Shire had not Frodo borne the Ring. He went for Frodo - an heroic enough reason, surely - but he NEVER (except for the short time he bore the Ring after Frodo's "death") bore the full burden of the Quest as did Frodo virtually from the beginning. He worried about Frodo, but Frodo worried about the Quest. The latter was the far greater burden.


----------



## Elu Thingol

> _Posted by LadyGaladriel_
> Was it not Aristophle who said that a hero was a man with a tragic flaw?



I'd say Gollum has more wrong with him than just a tragic flaw


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Gollum's character is revealed in the way he took possession of the Ring. Long before it could pervert or corrupt him, he coldly murders what must have been his greatest friend - a person who cared enough for him to "spend more than he could afford" on a present for his birthday - simply because the gold looked so beautiful! Frankly, Smeagol's character was clearly almost past redemption when the Ring came his way! He hardly needed "corrupting" as he had already "arrived". I'm afraid Gollum is at least one example (and perhaps Grima Wormtongue is another) of someone who BEGINS evil and simply goes downhill from there.

But, Christian that he is, never forget that Tolkien offers both of these reprobates one final opportunity before the end to repent and be forgiven: Grima in the scene before the door of Bag End and Gollum when he comes upon the sleeping hobbits before the opening to Cirith Ungol. Interesting, isn't it, that both scenes take place before an opening leading to dark and evil places (Bag End has become evil through Saruman and the body of Lotho, possibly partially eaten, is still within, a horrible consequence of total depravity).


----------



## aDaHe

this first part of this is to 'yaygollum'.
you have a very valid point(yes and lady Galadriel), but you are putting just straight *hero* on gollum. i think that he is better fitted to *unlikely hero* as he did not intend to help but did end up doing the one thing that noone in ME could have. Yay for Gollum as he did *by accident* what no body could do.

but for the definition of * hero * we can say probley frodo because of two reasons.
1. frodo was *made* to be the hero so who is going to fight against JRRT in his own book.
2. frodo also set out as Mrs Maggot said to do a heroic thing from the start. can't fight with that sorry.

SAMWISE GAMGEE(spelling)
he how ever ends up becoming the hero thorghtout the book.
just a normal hobbit following his master he ends up a hero and his deeds can match frodos
his only flaw in this matchless record is that he did not set out to be a hero so his intent was not there which is sightly degrading on his part
this is all that i have to say on the matter.



-me too!!!


----------



## YayGollum

Woah! Crazy Maggott person! Nobody really knows if Smeagol killed Deagol! Where did we even get that idea? From Gandalf telling Frodo what Gollum told him while being tortured by fire! I never noticed that Gollum was the most honest dude around. It had also put a few hundred years since that happened. His guilt probably just teamed up with his imagination and made him say that since some scary wizard dude was hurting him. Poor Smeagol. Yay for characters that most people hate saving the day in the end! Gollum did it with the Ring, and Grima did it with Saruman! Looks like Tolkien hardly ever lets the popular characters win!  

Anyways, Yay for the aDaHe person! I like that! Gollum was definitely the most unlikeliest of all heroes! Still a Hero! Still saved the day! Noone else did! Sure, they helped out a lot, they did most of the work, but Gollum was the only one to save the day! Okay, so, while Gollum is the real hero, everyone else is a hero in different ways. Why not? Yay for compromise!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Gollum murdered his friend to obtain the Ring. He did it long before there could be any excuse that possession of the Ring corrupted him and therefore he was not truly responsible for his behavior. After he obtained the Ring, Gollum's true nature made him anathema among his own people and he was exiled. 

Gollum's lust for the Ring was not motivated by the Ring alone, but by his own selfish nature which did not permit him to reject any personal desire in the cause of any greater good. As far as Gollum was concerned, there is only ONE "good", himself. Gollum is NOT an example of a "good person" who has been corrupted by possession of the Ring, but by what happens when the Ring was possessed for 500 years by an EVIL person!

Finally, Gollum is NOT ANY KIND OF A HERO! All of his actions were motivated by selfish desire. He cared not one whit about ANYONE but himself. This fact alone removes him from any possiblity of being considered "a hero" in any way shape or form. Any "hero points" gained by the fact that he accidentally performed a great service must be given to Bilbo - who originally spared his life, and Frodo - who also spared his life at the hands of Faramir. It was their decency (against all self-interest) that resulted in Gollum's unintential "heroic deed." 

{P.S. If one has to choose as to whom to believe, I think Gandalf is the more credible source!}


----------



## nazgul_slayer

*Go Samwise*

I would have to say that samwise is the true hero of lord of the rings! Why? because lets face it, if it was not not for sam's dedication and love for his master the ring bearer would NEVER have made it to the crack's of mount doom. Altough Sam did not bear the burden himself (well he did for a while, but you know what i mean) He carried Frodo. He gave him his coat when he was cold, He sacrificed his own food and water so that frodo could eat and drink, he defended Frodo all the way and he even carried Frodo up Mount Doom, and for what? For frodo to betray him for the ring. When ever I read the book Sam's love for Frodo alway's fasinates me. Had it not been for sam the ring would have betrayed frodo. Round of applause for the little guy.


----------



## Maeglin

I will not say who I _think_ is the true hero, I will say who I _know_ is the true hero.

The true hero of the Lord of the Rings by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien (sorry I'm making it formal to annoy everyone ) is Glorfindel the Golden-haired. Let us think about this, if it were not for Glorfindel the ring would never have made it even as far as Rivendell. Frodo was about to fade into one of the wraiths, and if he didn't, he would have been captured by a wraith. But then Mr. Glorfindel comes along with his super fast horse, throws Frodo onto the horse, and sends it away, and even then Frodo just barely made it. So I think we all have Glorfindel to thank for saving Frodo, otherwise there would never have been a fellowship in the first place and the ring would be on the finger of Sauron.


----------



## YayGollum

Argh! What's with all of these people who think that the evil sam was the hero? It was Gollum! It's easy to figure out if you read the books! Gollum destroyed the One Ring, right? Right. Instant Heroship! There's no doubt about it! Yay Gollum!


----------



## YayGollum

Do I have to say it again? We don't really know if Smeagol killed Deagol. You evil people who hate him just love to point it out. oh well. Anyways, who cares if Gollum did a few bad things in his life? Who cares if he only thought of himself? He was schizophrenic, right? A good side and a bad side, right? Smeagol's good, right? Yay for Smeagol saving the day! Argh! No matter how intentional, he still saved the day when noone else could. No doubt about it, I thought. oh well. 

Yeah, sure, Glorfindel1187 person. Why not? But Gollum was the last hero!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Alas for you, repetition does not make an argument valid nor produce undisputable facts, nor make sense out of nonsense, nor make a hero of either Gollum or his not-all-that-much-better-half, Smeagol.


----------



## Maeglin

Excuse me yay-gollum person lol 

If it weren't for Glorfindel Gollum wouldn't be a hero at all, because he never would have had the opportunity to get the ring and be stupid and dance around with it and fall into a great crack in the earth filled with fire. If it weren't for Glorfindel the ring would have been with Sauron, and Gollum was terrified of him, he wasn't about to go after it.


----------



## aDaHe

excuse me mrs maggot!
when i said (and i belive this is wot yaygollum is saying) is that gollum is NOT the hero as we have all been saying and as the thread has suggested about each character. we CAN add a prefix and allow gollum the *unlikely* hero. even frodo who YOU seem to idolise said to sam to forgive him.

this is by frodo

Mt Doom pg 267-268
right down the bottom
'Yes,' said Frodo. 'But do you not remember Gandalf's words:_Even Gollum may have something yet to do?_ But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end. *So let us forgive him! For the quest as achieved ...!* 

Only Gollum Could have finished what Frodo (your idol) started.
so i give him the title of *Unlikely HERO!!!*


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *I believe that Tolkien saw the hobbits as the true heroes of LOTR and who am I to disagree?  *


 Let us take another look at how Tolkien himself looked at the hero.

From Tolkien Letter No. 131


> That is a long and yet bald resume. Many characters important to the tale are not even mentioned. Even some whole inventions like the remarkable Ents, oldest of living rational creatures. Shepherds of the Trees, are omitted. Since we now try to deal with 'ordinary life', springing up ever unquenched under the trample of world policies and events, there are love-stories touched in, or love in different modes, wholly absent from The Hobbit. But the highest love-story, that of Aragorn and Arwen Elrond's daughter is only alluded to as a known thing. It is told elsewhere in a short tale. Of Aragorn and Arwen Undómiel. *I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty*. But I will say no more, nor defend the theme of mistaken love seen in Eowyn and her first love for Aragorn.


 Note the section in *Bold* and within that the part Underlined.

Take a bow Samwise Gamgee


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

But the highest love-story, that of Aragorn and Arwen Elrond's daughter is only alluded to as a known thing. It is told elsewhere in a short tale. Of Aragorn and Arwen Undómiel. I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty. But I will say no more, nor defend the theme of mistaken love seen in Eowyn and her first love for Aragorn. (quote taken from previous posting)

Here, you are comparing apples to oranges. Tolkien is speaking of the love stories that exist within the tale, NOT of who he considered to be the chief hero in the tale. 

As for "forgiving" Gollum, again this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. I never said that Gollum had not made a great contribution to the Quest. Indeed, he made the ULTIMATE contribution in that he destroyed (however unintentionally) the Ring. But that does NOT make him "the hero" of the tale.

As to "unlikely" hero, since he is NOT a hero, he cannot even be an unlikely one - unless, of course, you are using the term as a comment upon the tale itself; that is, that when the Ring was destroyed, the "unlikely hero" of the deed was Gollum. But that is a reference made to a character who achieves something diametric to his actual intentions. To then equate that with actual heroism is too great a stretch to make given the character. 

You might have said the same thing about Wormtongue if he had managed to brain Saruman with the palantir instead of simply damaging the railing. But I don't suppose anyone would have then extrapolated the deed into an heroic one simply because one of the villains managed to achieve something worthwhile. In fact, in the case of Grima Wormtongue, since he actually had a DESIRE to brain Saruman, he would be a far worthier candidate for "unlikely hero" than Gollum who had absolutely NO intention of destroying the Ring!


----------



## aDaHe

> Here, you are comparing apples to oranges


Mrs Maggot, you are in you judgements doing what you told others to do or as the case maybe not to do. you cannot deny gollum the unlikely hero title just because he did not intend to, indeed gandalf himself said that even thought he had basiclly turned to evil and that he had almost zero control of his own destiny after the ring had done with him he was not complety evil. he had not faded into shadow which represents that he has become a servent of evil. bak to the apple vs orange gollum being a skizo you cannot judge him on the same scale as you jugde wormtonge. wormtonge knew and had full power over himself and so he could chose right and wrong, but gollum had not this power. the good in him still shone thru and he still did evil things yes, but you have to put him on a different scale say a old guys scale (80+ years) having greater knowleadge but having neither the ablilty to judge the better or worse of his choices or the power to implement that judement.

ps why do you write so much!!]
i get really tried trying to read it all


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Because I am patiently trying to address your points. 

Gollum was evil in the beginning. Despite YeaGollum's denials, the fact is that he murdered his friend (NOT an enemy or even a stranger) to acquire the Ring. This was NOT the Ring's doing for it had not had the time to corrupt Gollum. Of course, with the Ring, Gollum simply became even worse and the longer he had the Ring, the worse he became. 

As for the "fading" issue, even Gandalf did not hazard a guess as to why Gollum never "faded". Perhaps he had not worn the Ring all that much once he was in the dark places under the mountains. Bilbo didn't "fade" either and Frodo only was in danger of "fading" after the attack on Weathertop.

A "hero" is not simply someone who does something good but someone who SETS OUT to do something good. A hero may even fail (Frodo and Boromir were both "heroes" although both in a way, failed). By that definition, Gollum CANNOT BE a hero, no matter what unintentional good he accomplished. 

If this is "a judgment" of the character, then so be it. When a question has been asked, then "a judgment" has to be made or the question cannot be answered.


----------



## YayGollum

Yikes! Lots to catch up on! In order from what happened after my last post:
You're right, scary Maggott person! I'd rather not have to repeat myself, but you seem to forget the point I'm making that just happens to be impossible to prove wrong. I don't see why you don't think that I'm producing undisputable facts. Did Gollum destroy the One Ring? Yes. Was the main goal LOTR to destroy the One Ring? Yes. Yay Gollum! 
Ack! Crazy Glorfindel1187 person (I don't know why I call people that. 
 )! If we keep going backwards like you, Eru will be the hero! I think that Gollum was the last.
Yay for the aDaHe person again! I'm very content with the title of unlikely Hero being thrown at Gollum.
To the scay Gothmog dude ---> Yikes! Well, that looks like Tolkien's opinion. I don't know. Gollum saved the day. He's the Hero.

Yay for this quote from the scary Maggott person! ---> Indeed, he made the ULTIMATE contribution in that he destroyed (however unintentionally) the Ring. How can you think that he's not the Hero if you belive that? Makes no sense! You know what the goal was. Anyways, no, Grima was just a regular hero. He saved the nasssty hobbitses. Didn't accomplish the main goal like Gollum.
The only thing I can say to the aDaHe person's last post is, sorry this is long.
The only thing I can say to the last post is Yikes! You don't get that we have a different opinion on the definition of hero? I say it's whoever saves the day. Yay Gollum!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

To suggest that because Gollum UNINTENTIONALLY destroyed the Ring - and "unintentionally" is the key here - he becomes a hero, is plain nonsense. If a rock had fallen from the ceiling of Sammath Naur, hit Frodo on the head and he had pitched into the fire wearing the Ring, would you then say that the ROCK was the hero of the tale? 

Gollum functions here almost as a force of nature; that is, something that "exists" but acts without sentience. In a way, by the time the hobbits (and Gollum) reach the Mountain, Gollum is no longer "thinking", only reacting. His desire for the Ring has removed from him all other normal life functions: he isn't interested in eating or sleeping or in any way maintaining or preserving his life. He is like a magnet being drawn to the Ring. Only death could stop his progress towards that end. If Sauron himself had been standing in Sammath Naur wielding the Ring, Gollum would have tried - against all normal desire for self-preservation - to wrest the Ring from him. In short, Gollum isn't very much different from that inanimate rock except that he has the power of independent movement.

When one is acting under the influence of drugs or hypnosis or, in Gollum's case, the Ring, then one's actions cannot be said to be the result of conscious thought. That individual can no longer be judged as good or evil, right or wrong and all that occurs is simply blind action commited by someone who could not stop himself even to save his life. If you look at any definition of the word hero, it will certainly NOT refer to someone who is acting under the influence of some external force - as was Gollum. 

However, if it floats your boat to consider him a hero, that is your prerogative. But in so doing, be aware that you are changing the definition of the word and hence the meaning of the question. In short, you are no longer responding to the thread as it has been presented.


----------



## Hume

Well said! But probably, somewhere amid the masses of "eccentric" Tolkien fans, there is a person called YayHypotheticalRock, rejecting all statements that only people or things with free will can be heroes.

To switch subjects, you said-"If you look at any definition of the word hero, it will certainly NOT refer to someone who is acting under the influence of some external force"

When Frodo made most of his decisions, for example when he chose to continue his mission at the Council of Elrond, he was being pressured by the most important people at the meeting: Gandalf and Elrond. Sam was acting only on his own sense of honor when he makes his decisions.

Finally, you have previously claimed that Bilbo suspected his offer to carry the ring would be refused. This is based on nothing in LOTR. Perhaps you should reread that chapter if you want to continue to submit that opinion. In any case, I agree with everything you have said about Gollum.


----------



## YayGollum

Yikes! In that made up story about Frodo and the rock, I would have thought that Frodo was the hero! I would have to say, Yay for Frodo standing in that one place so that the rock could hit him! Good thing that didn't happen! Yay for Gollum being there so he could accidentally save the day! 
There's two ways to look at it. One way is that sure, Gollum didn't know what he was doing, he was a force of nature or whatever, he gets the Ring, he destroys it. Instant Heroship. Or at least it makes it so that noone destroyed the Ring, if you don't want to count nature. I don't really like that version. 
Then there's the other version, that I'm sure you'd all hate, but makes sense to me.  The inner debate between Smeagol and Gollum is still going on. He obviously wasn't brainless. Smeagol tries one last time to ask Frodo to give him his security blanket back. He has no idea why Frodo would want to destroy it. He's just an innocent old hobbit wanting to feel safe again. Frodo is evil to him. He runs away. The Gollum half pops up again and knocks the evil sam out. Gollum takes the Ring, he's happy, Smeagol hates the Ring by now (we can tell from The Hobbit, where it talks about how he always used to take it everywhere with him, then he started hating it and only used it to get food), especially after all of the grief it's put him through, so he trips himself and saves the world. Instant Heroship in this version, too. 
Yay for it being intentional in that version, but you would just dismiss it. oh well. The definition of hero will always be whoever saves the day. Maybe there's something wrong with me.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

You know, there is an old axiom: all ants are insects, but not all insects are ants. Yes, a hero may "save the day", but not everyone who "saves the day" is a hero, especially if he did not INTEND to "save the day". 

Furthermore, there are many heroes who NEVER "save the day", but are heroes nonetheless. In WWII, there were five brothers who died when their ship was torpedoed and sunk by a U-boat. One was in sick bay and the others went back for him. The Sullivan family lost ALL FIVE of their sons! (After that, the armed forces refused to post siblings together.) Yet, these young men were heroes even though they did nothing but die for their country and certainly never "saved the day". 

You have the wrong definition of "hero" and because of that, you are reaching the wrong conclusion. In fact, your definition cheapens the meaning of "hero" and given our present culture's fixation on "anti-heroes", it has been cheapened quite enough, thank you. You may rest assured that Tolkien made use of the classic definition in his works and, therefore, he would NEVER have considered Gollum a hero no matter how the circumstances of his death redounded to the benefit of the Quest.


----------



## YayGollum

Not everyone who saves the day is a hero? Why not? That's sad. In another debate about whether Gollum was the hero or not, somebody said that some drunk who's stumbling around and accidentally knocks over some little kid who's about to be run over by a truck isn't a hero. That makes no sense to me. Maybe it does to you. I would say that it's obvious that the drunk was a hero. He saved the kid even though he didn't mean to. Yay! Same thing with Gollum. He saved the day. Thanks for admitting it. Except that now, you're saying that even if someone saves the day, they don't get to be a hero. What makes him a hero, then? Just his intent? So, you didn't like my second version of the story, I guess.  Yay for anti-heroes!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Finally, you have previously claimed that Bilbo suspected his offer to carry the ring would be refused. This is based on nothing in LOTR. <quote>

It had certainly crossed the old hobbit's mind when he tells Frodo that he was "afraid" that he, Frodo, would be stuck with bearing the Ring if he, Bilbo, were "let off". But please, the author hardly has to define EVERYTHING! Bilbo has already conceded his circumstanes prevailing when he humorously declares that Elrond feared for his life if the Enemy caught him "tottering about in the Wild". What does that say of Bilbo's own understanding of his extremely diminished physical capacities? 

Bilbo is 128 years old. He falls asleep while the other hobbits are speaking to him and they then wait for him to awake before they resume the conversation. And while he may be old, he is certainly NOT senile. Although he makes his offer to bear the Ring in all good faith, Bilbo recognizes in his heart that he CANNOT take the Ring. The Ring has grown, as Elrond says, while he has diminished. Age alone would prevent him from even JOINING the Quest, never mind bearing the Ring. Perhaps if he could go directly from Rivendell to the Fire, a case could be made that he believed his offer might be accepted, but as that was NOT the case, the evidence clearly suggests that he knew he would not be chosen.

Admittedly, Tolkien does not SAY that Bilbo knows his offer will be rejected, but I think he gives us enough circumstantial evidence to understand that such was the case.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

To Yea Gollum:

Let me give you a scenario in which Gollum would truly BE a hero (albeit, not the greatest hero in the tale). Let us suppose that when he has gained possession of the Ring, the "Smeagol" part suddenly appears, overcoming the Gollum "side" of the character, if you will. He looks sadly at the Ring and the bleeding finger within it and says, "I realize now, how truly terrible this thing is! I can no longer allow it to remain in the world, but neither can I live without it! Farewell!" and with that, steps into the fire! Now, THAT, my dear Yea Gollum, would be TRULY HEROIC! Gollum realizes at last what the Ring is and wants to destroy it, but knows that he cannot bring himself to do it any other way than by ending his own life in the process. So in an act of HEROIC SELF-SACRIFICE, he throws himself AND the Ring, into the fire.  

Now, I ask you to consider that scenario in relationship to Gollum's actual actions upon regaining the Ring! It is only by accident in his mad dance of glee that he falls into the fire. Furthermore, he has so lost touch with reality that he does not even consider that his possession of the Ring will last only until the Ringwraiths manage to reach Sammath Naur. At that time, not only will they take the Ring from him, but probably throw him into the fire as well! So although Gollum's misstep in fact destroys the Ring, he has by trying to keep it "safe" in his possession (which at least Frodo did not INTEND to do), put it within the reach of the Enemy. Hardly heroic, don't you think?


----------



## Galadhwen

Yay Gollum?! He tried to kill nice master! Remember Sheoleb? As much as I pity Gollum he was no hero! Yay Frodo and Sam! Joint heroes of the West!


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *Not everyone who saves the day is a hero? Why not? That's sad. In another debate about whether Gollum was the hero or not, somebody said that some drunk who's stumbling around and accidentally knocks over some little kid who's about to be run over by a truck isn't a hero. That makes no sense to me. Maybe it does to you. I would say that it's obvious that the drunk was a hero. He saved the kid even though he didn't mean to. Yay! Same thing with Gollum. He saved the day. Thanks for admitting it. Except that now, you're saying that even if someone saves the day, they don't get to be a hero. What makes him a hero, then? Just his intent? So, you didn't like my second version of the story, I guess.  Yay for anti-heroes! *


You cannot be the true hero because you have saved the day.There are required some more complex things.Let's take for example Sam.His feelings,his hope,his thrust in his master,his braveness in Mordor,his cleverness.These are features you don't have,do you?
But,don't be sad,I like Gollum and I don't agree everybody is attacking you.


----------



## Finduilas

I'll try to explain my opinion and argue you that it may be true.

First of all,let's define the world 'hero'-it means a person who does heroism.
Let's look up in bulgarian history or more corectly-folklor(bulgarian legends and national songs).Heroism was an act of showing your personal power and how mighty you can be.But people wouldn't define strong people as heros if they didn't help them in some way.And that's the important definition of 'hero' in the past-a person who helped slaves live better.
Then let's turn back to Gullam.Didn't he destroy the One Ring and so Sauron?
Didn't he make people happy and calm again?
No matter how he did it and why we should accept that probably he is the true hero of LOTR.


----------



## FREEDOM!

I think Aragorn is the real hero!!!!


----------



## Maeglin

wow I missed a lot and you people posted wayyy too many really long posts for me to read them all. But to all the people saying that Gollum was the "unlikely hero" or not a hero at all, I have to disagree with both. Gollum is a hero, he is a *Tragic Hero*, to be a tragic hero there are several components. 1. you must bring about your own downfall, gollum's is his dancing around and falling into the fire. 2. you must have a tragic flaw, Gollum's was his lust for the ring 3. at the end there must be a glimmer of hope for the community, gollum's death and destruction of the ring is hope for Middle-Earth. there are other components, such as being a good/great person, but I don't know how gollum is good or great. And there must be positive traits, but I can't think of any for gollum.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *
> Here, you are comparing apples to oranges. Tolkien is speaking of the love stories that exist within the tale, NOT of who he considered to be the chief hero in the tale.
> *


 Not so. Let us look once more at the words of Toklien.


> But the highest love-story, that of Aragorn and Arwen Elrond's daughter is only alluded to as a known thing. It is told elsewhere in a short tale. Of Aragorn and Arwen Undómiel. I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (*the chief hero's*) character, *and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life* (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty. But I will say no more, nor defend the theme of mistaken love seen in Eowyn and her first love for Aragorn.


 Tolkien states that the love of Sam and Rosie is needed to study the Character of the the *chief hero* Samwise Gamgee.

I am in fact comparing words with their meanings, since Tolkien refers to Sam as the 'Chief Hero' over Aragorn, I take it that he means just that.


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Finduilas _
> *I'll try to explain my opinion and argue you that it may be true.
> 
> First of all,let's define the world 'hero'-it means a person who does heroism.
> Let's look up in bulgarian history or more corectly-folklor(bulgarian legends and national songs).Heroism was an act of showing your personal power and how mighty you can be.But people wouldn't define strong people as heros if they didn't help them in some way.And that's the important definition of 'hero' in the past-a person who helped slaves live better.
> Then let's turn back to Gullam.Didn't he destroy the One Ring and so Sauron?
> Didn't he make people happy and calm again?
> No matter how he did it and why we should accept that probably he is the true hero of LOTR. *


You try to define the heroism,but is the heroism only an act of showing personal power and how mighty you can be?No.Heroism is also about spiritual strenght(you have taken for exmaple the bulgarian legends and I'll give you them as example:how many women have died between 15th and 19th century because they have refused to change their religious believes,they have refused to become moslem?Isn't this heroism?Yes it is.It's not physical,but spiritual heroism).
And about Gollum.Gollum's act is a single one and it's a luck he falls with the ring.Do you think he would take the One from Frodo and destroy it.No.As a whole Gollum is just a hero of the moment.


----------



## Finduilas

Those women had sacrificed not because they wanted to stay in the history as heros they hadn't even thought about that.They had just wanted to keep the only thing that can't be taken away from them their nationality and love of their country.
Later,people started to speak in praise of them in songs and poems and even books but had those women realized that what they do will be remembered by history?I don't think so. They did because they needed to protect their 'precious' thing.
Gullam wouldn't have enough power to throw the ring as Frodo didn't but he was luckier then the hobbits because he had the chance and used it to destroy the One.Actually,Gullam had realized what was happening with him and how dependent of the ring he had become.Anyway,he is a living creature.He has feelings even though they are very very deep in his south.He wanted to be the same,independent of nothing except life and that he was lucky and only he could destroy the ring doesn't mean that he didn't want it subconsciously.


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Finduilas _
> *Those women had sacrificed not because they wanted to stay in the history as heros they hadn't even thought about that.They had just wanted to keep the only thing that can't be taken away from them their nationality and love of their country.
> Later,people started to speak in praise of them in songs and poems and even books but had those women realized that what they do will be remembered by history?I don't think so. They did because they needed to protect their 'precious' thing.
> Gullam wouldn't have enough power to throw the ring as Frodo didn't but he was luckier then the hobbits because he had the chance and used it to destroy the One.Actually,Gullam had realized what was happening with him and how dependent of the ring he had become.Anyway,he is a living creature.He has feelings even though they are very very deep in his south.He wanted to be the same,independent of nothing except life and that he was lucky and only he could destroy the ring doesn't mean that he didn't want it subconsciously. *


In fact Frodo didn't have enough power to throw the ring too.....
About the heroism:I nowhere said these women will stay in history.The die for their religion and they show their spirutal heroism.But anyway .That's another story.
p.s. It's GOLLUM not Gullam


----------



## Finduilas

Ok then.
Maybe this is the relation between those women and GOLLUM .
They WANTED to die because of their religion and so did Gollum because he realized he didn't have enough power.
Tolkien created a personality which can be easy influenced by evil but he wanted to shaw people (us) that every person has qualities and will no matter if it is strong or weak.
So my point is that Gollum is the spiritual hero of this book.


----------



## Maeglin

> _Originally posted by Finduilas _
> *Ok then.
> Maybe this is the relation between those women and GOLLUM .
> They WANTED to die because of their religion and so did Gollum because he realized he didn't have enough power.
> Tolkien created a personality which can be easy influenced by evil but he wanted to shaw people (us) that every person has qualities and will no matter if it is strong or weak.
> So my point is that Gollum is the spiritual hero of this book. *



gollum didn't _want_ to die, where does it ever say that?


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Glorfindel1187 _
> *gollum didn't want to die, where does it ever say that? *


I totally agree with you. 
In my view Gollu is the material hero of the book.He wants only one think -the Ring.


----------



## Finduilas

He wanted it but subconsciously.
See,Even Bilbo wished he had never seen the ring and admitted his life is over.In the same position is Gollum,too.He sees what his life had turned into and surely doesn't like it .So tell me who will wish a life like this?


----------



## Gil-Galad

GOLLUM.He is corrupted so much by the One that he is the only creature who would want to live in a such way.


----------



## Finduilas

How you said let's leave this subject.

P.S.However,nobody would want or deserves such life.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Gollum suffers from the consequences of his own life choices. He murders his friend (sorry, Yea Gollum, but that's the truth) in order to secure the Ring. Once he has it, he uses it for all manner of hurtful and hateful purposes and is driven from his home as a result. Because of his own character, he falls rapidly under the influence of the Ring and begins to hate all things associated with "good" - sunlight etc. - and decides to seek "the secrets" that his perverted mind believes lie under the mountains. Once there, he finds himself trapped. He cannot leave because he has created his own prison. He fears and hates the orcs, he fears and hates everything and everyone but most of all, he fears and hates the Ring which has become a parasite, draining his life force. 

Only after he LOSES the Ring is Gollum able to leave his mountain prison and venture once more into the world but by then, he is so deformed, so crippled, so perverted by a combination of his own personality and the Ring, that his life is one of constant evil and horror. Yet, he has been able to survive his long imprisonment to the Ring and wants nothing but to recover it since doubtless without its influence, he feels "incomplete". 

Who would want to live Gollum's life? Obviously Gollum did since, until the end, he made every effort to preserve his life. Who deserves that kind of life? Gollum did because he made choices that led to that very life and even after he had an opportunity to "recover" (when he was in the hands of the wood elves), he worked in concert with orcs to escape and return to that same wicked life. Can we feel sorry for Gollum? Certainly. Was he an "innocent victim" of the Ring? Certainly not! Did he deserve his fate? In a way, he received a kinder fate than he actually deserved because he died at his moment of triumph. Had he lived longer, the Wraiths would have taken the Ring from him (yet again!) and he would have probably perished miserably in the dungeons of the Dark Lord or of thirst and want in the deserts of Mordor.


----------



## Húrin Thalion

I agree with Mrs. Maggot at all points but for one, Gollum did not deserv that kind of life even though he certainly was not innocent. My argument is that everyone can and should be healed no matter what crime he/she has commited. I agree with Gandalf the Grey!!!

Elen


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

I most assuredly agree that Gollum should have been healed and forgiven. But the problem is that one must SEEK healing and forgiveness. It cannot be bestowed upon the unwilling. That is something that we seem to forget today. We think that by saying to someone, "I forgive you!" that all is made "better". Well, it isn't. If Gollum when he comes upon the two sleeping hobbits before they enter Shelob's tunnel, had been able to retain that demeanor wherein he appears to regret and repent of his plans to destroy them, then all might well have been VERY different. Instead, when challenged by Sam, he returns to his former intractable evil self - and the story proceeds as written. 

It is part of Tolkien's Christian moral ethic that evil beings (with the exception of Morgoth and Sauron who like Lucifer and his demons are incapable of repentence) are given the opportunity to repent and receive forgiveness and healing. Saruman has that opportunity in his confrontation with Gandalf and Theoden. Grima has it in the Shire. Gollum has it in those moments with Frodo and Sam when he is furthest away from his evil persona and certainly, at that time in the mountain pass, he is most open to what is necessary for forgiveness and healing. 

For to be forgiven and to receive healing requires REPENTENCE. Repentence is more than just saying, "sorry about that!". It requires a clear and unflinching inner "inspection" of one's life without all those "excuses" we manage to use to deceive ourselves regarding our blame for what has transpired. This is NOT an easy thing to do, but it must be done. The guilty person (and we are ALL "guilty" of some failing in one way or another), must not only admit guilt, but must request forgiveness of the injured party(ies) and meekly accept whatever judgment is forthcoming. On the other hand, the injured party must accept this request for forgiveness ("forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESSPASS AGAINST US" The Lord's Prayer) and grant it unconditionally. ONLY THEN are BOTH parties healed and the evil committed entirely mitigated. 

Gollum does not seek forgiveness and, in fact, like so many wicked people, he blames all about him for his circumstances. Thus, like the alcoholic who refuses to believe that he has a problem with drink, Gollum CANNOT be "forgiven" OR "healed". Frodo and Sam "forgive" him in Sammath Naur, but that is more for their OWN "healing process" than for Gollum who is past all possibility of or need for their forgiveness.


----------



## Húrin Thalion

I'm having a similar disussion about guilt in the Political forum and I'll do my best to answer you. Firstly what I was opposed to was that you said that Gollum deserved his life whiv he doesn't. SEcondly there are few criminals that seek healing before any wholehearted attempt is made. The wood elves were not eager to help him but did so because Gandalf told them to. Frodo's attempts were unfortunately to mixed with threat, fear and the dark menace of the ring to be effectful.

Elen


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

But you see, the point is that the effort to seek forgiveness and to repent is the obligation of the GUILTY party. There is nothing in Christian theology that demands conditions be made absolutely perfect for that person to come to repentence. In fact, the responsibility belongs to that person no matter in WHAT situation he (or she) finds himself!

The fact that the woodelves did not make Gollum feel like one of them and therefore, he was not inclined to repent, is putting the responsiblity in the wrong place. The elves could have killed him! That he was still not only allowed to live, but permitted to have a certain amount of freedom (something NOT offered to the dwarves, if you remember), shows that the elves were compassionate keepers. Furthermore, the fact that Frodo's involvement with Gollum came during a period of dark fear and danger does not mitigate Gollum's obligation to seek forgiveness and to repent. That is NOT how it works! 

In fact, frequently, the penitent must arrive at the acknowledgement of guilt and acceptance of fault under the most dire of circumstances. God is not obligated to provide sinners with a perfect setting in which to repent. All that He has obligated HIMSELF to do is accept sincere repentence and bestow perfect forgiveness. Other than that, ALL of the responsibility and obligation devolves upon the guilty party and no one else.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *It is part of Tolkien's Christian moral ethic that evil beings (with the exception of Morgoth and Sauron who like Lucifer and his demons are incapable of repentence) are given the opportunity to repent and receive forgiveness and healing. Saruman has that opportunity in his confrontation with Gandalf and Theoden. Grima has it in the Shire. Gollum has it in those moments with Frodo and Sam when he is furthest away from his evil persona and certainly, at that time in the mountain pass, he is most open to what is necessary for forgiveness and healing.
> 
> *


 While I totaly agree with you about Tolkien's moral ethics, you are not quite correct in saying '*with the exception of Morgoth and Sauron*'. Morgoth was given his first such oppotunity within the lines of the story when Iluvatar showed the vision of the Music to the Ainur and again when he was released from Mandos. Sauron had his chance after the War of Wrath when Eonwe told him to return to Valinor to abide the judgement of the Valar. So even such as Morgoth and Sauron had to have these chances. Which I think shows that Tolkien made No exceptions in his beliefs.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

It would not have been an "exception" to Tolkien's belief. The Catholic Church (and the Eastern Orthodox) have always taught that the reason demons - including Satan - could not be "saved" was that because of their "makeup", once they had rebelled against God, they were simply incapable of repentence. This was to counter what a heresy which was put forth that said that in the end, NO ONE would be damned; that God in His goodness would save EVERYONE, even Satan. 

Although Tolkien provides an apparent opportunity for Morgoth and Sauron to "repent" in the story, it is obvious that they did not do so even though Morgoth, at least, misled his fellow Valar into believing that he had mended his ways.


----------



## Flame of Anor

well, first off, I chose other cuz i think that without Sam the entire thing would have failed. But the other characters that you mentioned were also very instrumental in the destruction of the Ring. Gandalf for instance "rallied the troops," and Aragorn brought the pride back into Gondor.

-Flame

P.S. Sorry I just posted without reading the entire thread.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Sam is certainly a great hero but I put Frodo before him for the simple reason that Sam's reason for going on the quest was Frodo whereas, Frodo's reason for going on the Quest was the Ring. 

Sam felt responsible for Frodo's welfare - a very great responsiblity, no doubt - but Frodo felt responsible for EVERYONE'S welfare that that's much greater burden to bear. If Sam failed, he could comfort himself with the hope that his Master would survive and triumph. In Frodo's case - especially after he and Sam left the Fellowship - if he were to fail, there was no comforting thought to fall back on, only the vision of all that he loved enslaved to Sauron made invincible by the Ring.

Everyone in the Fellowship could carry on in the hope that the Ringbearer would succeed even if he were no longer with him. ONLY Frodo actually knew how desperate the situation was, because he bore the ULTIMATE responsibility for the Quest - and that burden simply cannot be underestimated.


----------



## YayGollum

Blah, blah, blah. Why are we talking about repentance and forgiveness and boring stuff like that?  Who cares what stuff Gollum might have done while he was alive? Doesn't matter in the end. He saved Middle Earth. There's no doubt about it. There's no way you can say I'm wrong. You people just don't like Gollum. 
He was definitely some kind of hero. I like the idea that he was the tragic hero. I'm sure that everyone would admit that Gollum is a very tragic character. You just don't see that by saving Middle Earth, he's a hero. Still doesn't make sense to me. If a popular character had tripped and destroyed the One Ring, would you call him a hero? Probably. Just because you would assume that he would be thinking that he'd be helping Middle Earth while he died. We don't know what Gollum was thinking. Even if we did, and he was saying, "Whoops!" he'd still be a hero. Intent doesn't matter in the long run. I don't see why you people think it does. Probably only so you don't have to admit that Gollum's the hero.  
What's with this from the Maggott person? ---> 
"Furthermore, he has so lost touch with reality that he does not even consider that his possession of the Ring will last only until the Ringwraiths manage to reach Sammath Naur." 
Having fun making up what he was or wasn't thinking at the time? Yeah, so do I, but I tend to think of more positive stuffs like Smeagol saying, "Yay!" when he destroyed the Ring. You don't think that he despised it? Craziness! oh well. 
What's with this from the Gil-Galad person? ---> 
"You cannot be the true hero because you have saved the day.There are required some more complex things.Let's take for example Sam.His feelings,his hope,his thrust in his master,his braveness in Mordor,his cleverness.These are features you don't have,do you?
But,don't be sad,I like Gollum and I don't agree everybody is attacking you."
First of all, thanks for giving your opinion. That's all it really is. I missed the part where the evil sam was clever. Yeah, thanks a lot, evil sam, for being evil to Gollum so so many people would hate him (oh, but not you, of course)!  Also, I'm not Gollum. I go by YayGollum. Sheesh! I could never live up to the coolness of Tolkien's greatest character!  Anyways, how can you say this later? ---> 
"As a whole Gollum is just a hero of the moment."
Isn't that helping me out? oh well. Thanks, dude!
Here's a bunch of crazy stuff by the Maggott person that I'm refuting ---> 
"He murders his friend (sorry, Yea Gollum, but that's the truth) in order to secure the Ring." 
I have to say again that noone really knows that Smeagol killed Deagol. If you think I'm wrong, give me some proof. Anyways, that doesn't matter in the end, does it?  
"Once he has it, he uses it for all manner of hurtful and hateful purposes and is driven from his home as a result." 
He didn't use the Ring for hurtful and hateful purposes. The book says he was mischieveous. That's not that bad! His grandmother was just evil and strict when she threw him out! Very tragic! 
"Because of his own character, he falls rapidly under the influence of the Ring and begins to hate all things associated with "good" - sunlight etc."
He never begins to hate good things. The One Ring has created Gollum, who just can't stand good things. Like orcs. It's more of a biological thing. 
"Who would want to live Gollum's life? Obviously Gollum did since, until the end, he made every effort to preserve his life."
Again, are you having fun deciding what he does and doesn't think? We never get to see him thinking to himself, "Oh, I just love my life! Yay for everyone hating me and always wanting to catch me and torture me!" He's just another average joe who's into self-preservation. That doesn't mean he loved to live his particular life. That just means he didn't really want the pain of dying. Ack!
"Who deserves that kind of life? Gollum did because he made choices that led to that very life and even after he had an opportunity to "recover" (when he was in the hands of the wood elves), he worked in concert with orcs to escape and return to that same wicked life."
I really didn't like that part of her post. Well, she likes to use Bible verses. I believe that there's one that goes something like, "Judge not that ye be not judged." I just love that part!  Anyways, he wasn't working in concert with any orcs! He took advantage of their presence to get away! oh well.
"Can we feel sorry for Gollum? Certainly. Was he an "innocent victim" of the Ring? Certainly not! Did he deserve his fate? In a way, he received a kinder fate than he actually deserved because he died at his moment of triumph."
Yikes! You seem pretty contradictory! You say that you feel sorry for Gollum, then you go on to talk about, "Oh, he got a death that he didn't even deserve!" Scary! And then you talk about his triumph! Yay for Gollum having that triumph! I always thought so, too! oh well.
"Had he lived longer, the Wraiths would have taken the Ring from him (yet again!)"
I just didn't understand that part. When did the Ringwraiths take the Ring from Gollum before?  oh well. I just love arguing about Gollum!  Yikes! This is long! Thanks for helping out Finduilas, Elen Carne, and Glorfindel people!


----------



## FREEDOM!

I have to agree with Yaygollum because if gollum hadn't of found the ring bilbo would have never ended up with it and neither would Frodo.


----------



## YayGollum

Ummm...sure. You could look at it like that. I just looked at it from the part where Gollum destroyed the Ring in the end. That was a little more useful, but yeah, either way works, I guess.


----------



## aDaHe

you can really type yaygollum, whent to sleep 2 before i got though it.
anyway, like someone said in the last couple of pages, you dont have to intent to do something heroic to be a hero. (i think that is that drunk guy that yayG was talking about) so i still say that gollum desurves some title of heroship, but i still say that either aragorn or sam are the true hero. 
aragorn because this frist 90 odd years of his life was devoted to the destruction of the enemy
sam because with out him frodo would not have made it. and you cant say that sam is less heroic because he set out to help his master, he knew that he was flying into danger when he left and so he still left trusting in his master to keep him safe and in turn to do all he can to save frodo.


----------



## YayGollum

sorry for the length. I'm too into this debate!  Anyways, no, neither Aragorn nor the evil sam can be called the true hero since neither of them destroyed the One Ring. The main goal of LOTR was to destroy the One Ring. Yes, they did become heroes, but not the biggest and bestest of all of the heroes in LOTR. oh well.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

"I have to agree with Yaygollum because if gollum hadn't of found the ring bilbo would have never ended up with it and neither would Frodo." <quote>

That's one of the points that has been made rather frequently on this site, namely that Gollum did NOT "find" the Ring! His friend Deagol found it and Smeagol/Gollum MURDERED him and then stole it! So, let's not pretend that Gollum "found" the Ring, because that would be like saying that Jesse James "found" all that money on those trains!


----------



## Flame of Anor

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *"I have to agree with Yaygollum because if gollum hadn't of found the ring bilbo would have never ended up with it and neither would Frodo." <quote>*


I don't like this notion either. For if you say that Gollum was the hero for finding the ring, which was of course Deagol as Mrs. Maggot pointed out, that would be the same as saying Sauron was the hero. Because if Sauron had not made the ring in the first place it never would have come to gollum, bilbo, or frodo. That is all.

-Flame


----------



## YayGollum

Sure. I don't really think that Gollum is the Hero just because he had the Ring so that Bilbo could get it later. I only said that before because I just have to agree with people who are acting pro-Gollum.  sorry about that. No, Gollum isn't the Hero for that reason. He's the Hero for the more recent reason that I keep pointing out. You know, destroying the One Ring. Yay Gollum!  Anyways, crazy Maggott person, do we have to keep bringing up Deagol? There's no way that you can prove that Smeagol killed him. Just as there's no way that I can prove that he didn't kill him. It's a mystery that will never be solved. One that doesn't really matter in this debate anyway.


----------



## Flame of Anor

I do agree with you to a small extent. To the point that without Gollum biting off Frodo's finger and then falling into the Cracks of Doom. The Ring might not have been destroyed.

-Flame


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

1. Gollum killed the finder of the Ring, Smeagol. That is what the author wrote. To deny that, is to redefine EVERYTHING in the books simply because the author presents the information in the form of dialogue among the characters. If you do that, then, of course, there is no basis for debate or even dialogue as there is no objective foundation from which to proceed.  

2. Because Gollum managed to trip over his own feet and fall in the fire, hardly makes him deserving of the appellation, HERO. Again, I must allude to the rock falling off the roof of Sammath Naur that hits Frodo (or Gollum, for that matter) in the head and sends him into the fire. With that type of reasoning, we then must conclude that the ROCK is the "hero" of the tale - and that's just silly.  

3. I am neither "scary" nor "crazy" and if I am perceived as such by someone, it is very telling about that person's ability to deal with reason and logic. Calling good evil and evil good is NOT a wise way to deal with reality.


----------



## YayGollum

To the F_o_A person ---> Ummm...might not have been destroyed? Oh, well, I guess the good guys could have another chance in a few thousand years.  

Anyways, I'm guessing you meant to say that Gollum killed Deagol in that #1 of your's, Maggott person. But no, Tolkien never said that Smeagol killed Deagol. He said that Gollum told Gandalf that Smeagol killed Deagol while he was being tortured by the evil wizard. Do you really think that Gollum was a very truthful guy? Especially when being interrogated by some scary wizard? Well, I don't, but probably just because I like Gollum a little more than you.   
Why do you think that if Smeagol didn't kill Deagol, that it would redefine EVERYTHING? It obviously doesn't matter that much. Especially (as I have said before) because it has nothing to do with the part where Gollum destroys the Ring. Why do we keep talking about this? Oh, maybe I'll find out when you answer my question about why you think that it would redefine EVERYTHING.
Your #2 thingy just looks like a big opinion. Your crazy definition of the word hero again. Your crazy idea that a rock could be a hero.  I already said that the guy under the rock would be the hero since he had the luck (probably bad, though) to be at the right place at the right time. 
And Yikes! I call everybody scary and crazy over here! It's an off-hand, "Hey there, crazy dude!" kind of term of endearment! oh well. No offense. Yay for calling good evil and evil good!  Nah. We just have a difference of opinion. You haven't noticed?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Yea Gollum: Whatever...


----------



## YayGollum

Oo! *falls over* Nice comeback! *grabs an imaginary wound in his side* You got me good! I don't know what I can say to that!  *realizes that nothing really happened* Oh, does this mean I won? My stubbornness helped me out again?


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

I am sorry, but I simply cannot say that Gollum is at all the hero. But then how do you define a hero? Who are truly heros? I just recently had this discuss in my humanities class forum. 

In my opinion those people who are heros are those who perform acts of selflessness in order for a greater good and not for personal gain. That is why I cannot call Gollum a hero. He destroyed the ringing purely by accident after he SELFISHLY bit the ring from Frodo's hand. He did indeed ultimately cause the ring's destruction. To say that he is the hero or a hero in the book is to say that the end's justify the means. THEY DON'T! 

~Ariana


----------



## Flame of Anor

In my defense, meant that without Gollum falling into the Cracks of Doom the ring might not have been destroyed because of the way Frodo was acting. btw, the extent of my agreement with YayGollum is about how close these letters are together ll 

-Flame


----------



## YayGollum

Well, that's good, then! Yay for support! Anyways, it looks like we will never agree on the answer to this question. I'm very stubborn. I know I'm right. I've read the books. You Gollum haters must also be stubborn. You must think you're right, too. I can only guess that you've read the books, but you just love the fact that Gollum's thoughts are not revealed in his last moments. We will never agree on the definition of hero. You will always bring in official definitions from dictionaries. I will always say that intent doesn't matter. oh well. This is the ultimate LOTR debate! It's so much fun, huh? Too bad you'll never give up and come to the Gollum side!


----------



## Beowulf

Tolkien said in letter #181 (p. 234) concerning Gollum:

"Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable."

Interestingly however, Tolkien does speculate in letter #246 (p. 330)that Gollum may have been able to redeem himself had the story played out differently.


----------



## Elbereth

I believe that the true hero of the War of the Rings was not any one character, rather it was the combined efforts of them all...For they all helped each other get where they were to save the day.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

This is also noted by the author through the character of Aragorn. When he is crowned, he has Frodo bring the crown and Gandalf place it on his head. Aragorn then declares that he has come to his throne "through the efforts of many". Thus Tolkien declares that there has been no single hero in the tale, but by the efforts of many working together in many different places, the victory is won.


----------



## aDaHe

hurray for mrs maggot who has now had two post that are under 500 words.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

I'm glad you weren't there to critique LOTR when it was submitted for publication. Doubtless, you would have considered it "too wordy".


----------



## aDaHe

maybe, but being a 15 year old i hate essays and (no offense) your post are longer than the 700 worder that i had to write 2 weeks ago.

but i do read them as long as it may take and you points are very vaild, i still do not tink taht gollum should be shunned as a bad guy thougt


----------



## Beowulf

Based on Letter #246, I think Tolkien intended for Frodo to be the true hero of the story. Note both the sections dealing with Frodo, and those dealing with Sam.

http://www.americanidea.org/handouts/06240110.htm

Furthermore, he states in Letter #192:

"Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far."


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

I do not "shun" Gollum as wicked (although he was, you know). I merely pointed out that he was no hero despite what he accidentally accomplished.

Secondly, the problem with "bumper sticker responses" is that it is very hard to frame a reasoned, intelligent answer in a few words! It is easy to ask a question in a few words, but ANSWERING that question may take ten times as many words as it took to ask it in the first place, especially if you are trying to seriously respond and not just fool around!

I hope this explains my "long posts"!


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

> Well, that's good, then! Yay for support! Anyways, it looks like we will never agree on the answer to this question. I'm very stubborn. I know I'm right. I've read the books. You Gollum haters must also be stubborn. You must think you're right, too. I can only guess that you've read the books, but you just love the fact that Gollum's thoughts are not revealed in his last moments. We will never agree on the definition of hero. You will always bring in official definitions from dictionaries. I will always say that intent doesn't matter. oh well. This is the ultimate LOTR debate! It's so much fun, huh? Too bad you'll never give up and come to the Gollum side!



Actually, I don't hate Gollum at all. I just don't see how he can be considered the hero. He played a part in story and in the destruction of the ring, but that doesn't make him a hero. He was an instrument, but not by his own choice. If he had had a choice, he would never have destroyed the ring. I also agree with Mrs. Maggot and Elbereth that if we were to truly as who is the hero of LOTR and who really saves the day? we would have to agree that it was a combination of sacrifices on the part of many - Gandalf, Sam, Aragorn, Theoden, Treebeard, Eowyn, Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Tom Bombadil, Barrliman Butterbur, Faramir, Boromir, Legolas, Gimli, the eagles, and so on and so forth. The list is quite long. And no, I will never give up and go to the side that proclaims one of the wicked and evil characters in the book as the hero. 

~Ariana


----------



## Flame of Anor

Nicely put Ariana. I agree with you.

-Flame


----------



## YayGollum

Argh! I hate it when people bring up the quote that the Beowulf person first brought up. oh well. That quote just sounds like another opinion given to us by Tolkien. He talks about Gollum having more courage and and endurance than Frodo or the evil sam, and I doubt that most people would agree with that. Aren't courage and endurance good things?  oh well. 
Tolkien must have wanted to give me more of a challenge to bring people to the Gollum side when he decided to make the evil sam be evil to Gollum. You know, Beowulf dude? You're no fun. I was winning this debate.   
The letters are nice and everything. Sure, Yay Tolkien for making the greatest and most thought provoking character (Gollum), but they're all just his opinions. If he wanted to say that Frodo was the definite hero, he would have, but no, he let us come up with our own ideas. The letters are just his opinions. oh well. I guess Tolkien just liked Frodo and the evil sam more than Gollum. 
Yikes! Scary Ariana person! Having fun with heaping heroship on everyone but Gollum? You say that you don't get why Gollum could be called a hero. I'm defiitely not the smartest person around, but I think it's pretty easy to figure it out. 
When I read the book the first time, and I saw that the One Ring could not have been destroyed without Gollum biting Frodo's finger off, I was like, "Yay! Gollum is the Hero, just like I wanted!" I thought what Frodo said at the end was nice. Something about "Oh, let's forgive Gollum. Gandalf was right. Blah, blah, blah..." 
I thought it was evil that Gollum was never talked about after that. Gandalf talks to Frodo, and Frodo never tells him what happened. Frodo and the evil sam get praised with great praise and they never say, "Well, Gollum was the one who really saved the day in the end." Nooo, they were having fun with all of that attention! oh well. Poor Smeagol. People were even evil to him when he wasn't around.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

My dear Yay Gollum:

You say that the Ring would not have been destroyed if Gollum had not bitten off Frodo's finger (with the Ring attached) and then fallen into the fire. I assume you say this because Frodo had succumbed to the Ring and claimed it as his own and therefore did not INTEND to throw it into the fire. 

However, certainly one of the reasons that Frodo succumbed to the Ring after carrying it for eighteen years or so, was that he had been considerably weakened by Shelob's poison during the attack at Cirith Ungol. And, he was weakened even further by his imprisonment and torture by the orcs in the tower that guarded the pass. When these events are coupled with all the other wounds and trials that Frodo was forced to undergo, no doubt THESE LAST TWO were the proverbial "straw that broke the hobbit's back", so to speak.

Now since it is a fair deduction that Shelob's poisoning of Frodo (followed by his ordeal at the hands of the orcs) were the deciding factors that weakened him to the point wherein he no longer could resist the Ring, the question that then must be asked: WHO WAS REPONSIBLE??? I think if you are honest, you must admit that GOLLUM was responsible. Therefore, any "good" that he accomplished by falling into the fire with the Ring, was neutralized, nullified and brought to naught by the fact that if he hadn't betrayed Frodo to Shelob, FRODO might well have been able to throw the Ring into the fire - and Gollum's "heroics" would not have been necessary! 

So there!


----------



## LadyGaladriel

I never thought of that Yay Gollum.
But dont they say something about smeagol finding rest?
Maggot (I sound like someone out of slipknot) u are saying that because Frodo was in pretty bad shape he couldn't have thrown it in? 
Even when Frodo was in the fellowship he was doubting if he could do it. 
Frodo is one of the heros but I think Gollum is the hero simply because he destroyed the ring. If Gollum hadn't of been there Sauron would have prevailed. Gollum was a hero in the sense that he unwillingly did it. Gollum wasn't all bad , remeber he had a good side Of Smeagol. I sometimes think that it was partly because of his good side that he did it.


----------



## YayGollum

Right. Thank you, LadyGaladriel person. 
This Maggott person is just coming up with some crazy hypothetical situation. What would have happened if Frodo hadn't been messed with by Shelob and some orcs? You have decided that Frodo would have been able to throw the One Ring into the Crack of Doom voluntarily. 
I doubt it. Doesn't it say somewhere that Mount Doom was the most evillest place on Middle Earth? That Sauron had the most power there? That no other power could work there? Something like that. I can get you a quote later. I doubt that anyone could have resisted the One Ring in Mount Doom. 
The only way that Gollum was able to do it was by accident and because he was really messed up in the brain anyways. So, I'm positive that only Gollum could have destroyed it. I'll probably have to repeat myself later, though.


----------



## Ramagna

*Sam*

I voted for him, cause he's the least hero in shape and behaviour, but the true one in his heart...

He would give all up, just to rescue Frodo, he is the one, that can truly be relied on...


----------



## Bizno

I think too that Samwise was the true hero


----------



## YayGollum

Argh! Gollum never tried to kill Frodo. He bit his finger off. That's it. It didn't come close to killing him. He did try to kill the evil sam, but he deserved it. Yeah, I remember Shelob. She was that spider that Gollum asked to put Frodo and the evil sam to sleep so he could get his preciousss back and feel safe again. 
What crazy ideas? Me, scare people away? Nah. I just love the Gollum debate! Yay for a round of applause for Gollum the Hero, who is also a Little Guy.  You're right that without the evil sam, Sauron would have won, but the same thing goes for Gollum. So, Ha!  
And sure, hi crazy nazgul_slayer and Bizno. Ever read Return of the King?


----------



## DGoeij

Welcome to the Forum, Nazgul_Slayer and Bizno. Personally I think the one who brewed 1420 was the true hero. 

Anyway, there a lots of threads concerning who was the true hero of LotR. Yay' being one of the people supporting the Gollum-theory. Have fun here on the TolkienForum.


----------



## YayGollum

Hmmm...Yikes! 
Okay, how's about I say that Gollum was the least hero in shape and behavior (definitely more than the evil sam! Who here suspected that Gollum would be the hero?), but the true one in the end... 
He would give all up, just to keep the Ring from Sauron, he is the one, that was obviously the best to rely on...


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

I disagree that Gollum would have been able to keep the Ring from Sauron. As noted, it had "mastered" him years before. Since the Ring wished to return to its Master, Gollum would have been held immobile until it was retrieved even if he could not have given it freely himself. 

Furthermore, had Gollum truly been able to keep the Ring from Sauron, do you believe that the Dark Lord would have then sent him forth from Mordor to search for the Ring? I think not. Most probably, he would have been done to death when he was captured. But since he was the Ring's pawn, he was sent to discover its whereabouts.


----------



## Bizno

Of course i've read The Return of The King


----------



## YayGollum

Ummm...why do you disagree when Gollum ended up keeping the Ring from Sauron? oh well. You don't really think that he would give all up, just to keep the Ring from Sauron? Yay for him having the same goal as the popular people!  But then, he'd want to keep it from anyone.


----------



## YayGollum

Thanks for the introduction. Yay Dutch!  Anyways, Yay for this Bizno person reading Return of the King! If you've read it, then why don't you think that Gollum is the hero? It says in that book that Gollum destroyed the Ring. oh well.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

What I am saying is that the Ring abandoned Gollum when it sensed its Master's awakening. At that time it was found by Bilbo, not the orc it obviously hoped to ensnare.

At the time Gollum regained the Ring, he had been horribly weakend by his own ordeal and the Ring was in its place of utmost power. Had he not fallen into the fire, the Ring would doubtless have rendered him incapable of movement until the arrival of the Wraiths.


----------



## YayGollum

Good thing he was so happy to finally have his security blanket back that he had to do a little dance, then!


----------



## LadyGaladriel

hehehee. 
Poor smegol but he was happy in the end.


----------



## Lantarion

> _Originally posted by LadyGaladriel_
> *Poor smegol but he was happy in the end.*


Well, as happy as one can be when falling into the yawning and boiling and burning caverns of the Sammath Naur..


----------



## YayGollum

Hm? Oh, I'm sorry. You must have meant to say that the Gollum half was happy to finally have the One Ring back (for no matter how long), and the Smeagol half was happy to finally be free of the One Ring. Sure, it probably hurt, but still, he was happy. Woah! Wait a minute! Am I trying to make up what he was thinking in his last moments just like the evil people? Well, I guess it doesn't really matter. They just come up with evil stuffs.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Yes, Yea Gollum, you have spoken very profoundly - perhaps more than you know - when you say that his evil half had joy in the possession of the Ring even if only for a matter of moments, while his better half would have found release and joy at the freedom he received with the destruction of the Ring. For the spirit lives on after the body and perhaps, Gollum's last action - though it does not make of him a hero - might have been sufficient to redeem him in the end.


----------



## Grond

As to Gollum being able to keep the Ring from Sauron.... JRRT in his Letters made it clear that no one would have ultimately been able to keep the Ring from Sauron... it was Sauron's Ring. They might have temporarily been able to "master" Sauron but ultimately the Ring would pervert them into the persona of Sauron and he would have simply taken over. 

I am at work now and can't site the Letter on my computer here... but when I get home tonight, I will post the appropriate quotes from the Letters. 

Have a nice day!!!!


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by DGoeij _
> *Welcome to the Forum, Nazgul_Slayer and Bizno. Personally I think the one who brewed 1420 was the true hero.
> *


 And so we have another vote for Sam. It was his use of the gift of Galadriel that was behind the bounties in food and drink for that year.


----------



## aDaHe

whether or not it was sam that caused the 1420 or not that is debatable. for all we know it could be the exit of sauron that caused such a good year.(thats wot i thought)


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by aDaHe _
> *whether or not it was sam that caused the 1420 or not that is debatable. for all we know it could be the exit of sauron that caused such a good year.(thats wot i thought) *[/Q
> A very good year in fact.Everything was perfect and happiness were everywhere!
> I'm just wondering why we are still arguinig whether Gollum is the true hero.


----------



## YayGollum

We're still arguing because people are still acting crazy. You'd think that by now, it would be obvious that Gollum was the hero. There is no doubt in my mind. The only reason you people don't agree is because Tolkien doesn't tell us what Gollum was thinking at the time.


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

YayGollum, in all seriousness do you really look at Gollum as the good guy and do you really look at Sam as evil? Or is all this just a little fad of yours that you have to defend the evil and put down the good?

~Ariana


----------



## YayGollum

In all seriousness, I really think that Gollum was the Hero. I never said that Gollum wasn't evil. Remember that Gollum was schizophrenic? The Gollum half was evil. The Smeagol half was good. I just usually use the name Gollum because it takes less time to type.  Sure, Smeagol wasn't the greatest guy in the world either, but he was definitely better than Gollum. It doesn't really matter how evil Gollum or Smeagol was. It just matters that he saved the day in the end. He is the hero. No doubt about it. 
I only call sam evil because he was always mean to Gollum. Would you like a character who was mean to your favorite character every chance they got? Anyways, Frodo was nice to him. I hate characters that are just so perfect and so faithful and trustworthy and stuff like that. Ick. Yay for Gollum being a little more complex than that! Yay for Gollum being fun to defend! Yay for the most unlikely of characters becoming the Hero! Yay for me being so stubborn!  
Yeah, I guess it is a fad of mine to defend the evil and put down the good. But then, I think of the evil as the misunderstood and the good as the boring. oh well. Yay Melkor! Yay Ungoliant! I'll defend them all! Boo Elrond! Boo Bilbo! Boo for the evil sam! It's fun being different from the crowd!


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

Who would you rather have for a friend? A person who is faithful and loyal and caring or a person who you can never trust and whom you can never turn your back on for fear of being stabbed in the back? I mean honestly.

~Ariana


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *In all seriousness, I really think that Gollum was the Hero. I never said that Gollum wasn't evil. Remember that Gollum was schizophrenic? The Gollum half was evil. The Smeagol half was good. I just usually use the name Gollum because it takes less time to type.  Sure, Smeagol wasn't the greatest guy in the world either, but he was definitely better than Gollum. It doesn't really matter how evil Gollum or Smeagol was. It just matters that he saved the day in the end. He is the hero. No doubt about it. *



Oh, dear. Actions certainly matter, but intentions also matter and in certain situations they matter more. They matter not so much in the overall scheme of things since they may, like Gollum's action, actually accomplish something good, but they matter with regard to any judgment of the character. 

To say that Gollum was evil is to admit he CANNOT be the hero within the meaning of that word. If you change the meaning of the word so that an evil person CAN be the hero, then you are no longer dealing with the same question. And, yes, an evil person CAN be a hero, but ONLY if that person has a change of heart, repents and does what he does as a GOOD person.

The Gollum half was very evil; the Smeagol half was also evil, just not as much so as the Gollum half. That's not a very good "jumping off" place for making a hero. It doesn't even give you Dr. Jekel and Mr. Hyde but Mr. Hyde and Evil Incarnate. It is Smeagol (not Gollum) who murders Deagol (and, yes, I know you don't believe it - or SAY you don't - but it is obvious that the AUTHOR did!). It is Smeagol whose miserable and wicked acts cause him to be driven from his home ("Gollum" had not yet appeared because the Ring has not yet completely overthrown Smeagol's persona). 

The sad thing is that Gollum had an opportunity to really BE a hero, but was not able to overcome not only his "really evil persona" Gollum, but his "not very much better persona" of Smeagol.


----------



## Flame of Anor

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *To say that Gollum was evil is to admit he CANNOT be the hero within the meaning of that word. If you change the meaning of the word so that an evil person CAN be the hero, then you are no longer dealing with the same question. And, yes, an evil person CAN be a hero, but ONLY if that person has a change of heart, repents and does what he does as a GOOD person.*


The Gollum/Smeagol character did not have a change of heart. He did not fall into the Cracks as a voluntary act. He fell he did not jump. Falling does not constitute couragous act that a hero would do. He tripped and fell, he did not jump. To have jumped would have meant that he wanted to destroy the ring. But by biting off Frodo's finger meant that he wanted to keep the ring for himself. He was selfish and conniving and everything else that would not make a hero. To me he was the exact opposite of a hero.

BTW, Mrs. M, I am not trying to disagree with you. I am just making sure that YayGollum gets the point that there is not conceivable way that Gollum/Smeagol could be a hero.

-Flame of Anor


----------



## YayGollum

Yes, I would rather have someone who is faithful and loyal and caring as a friend. Why not? But I would much rather have a person who you can never trust and whom you can never turn your back on for fear of being stabbed in the back as a hero. It's more fun. It's more original.  
Does it really matter if intent makes you a hero in this arguement? There's no way to know what Gollum and Smeagol's intents were at the time. Tolkien doesn't say what they are. We have to figure out if he was a hero according to his actions. I say that he was a hero because he accomplished the main goal of LOTR. You can't say I'm wrong about that, can you? No. 
You say that he couldn't be a hero because you're making up what his intent was and because he fell and didn't jump. Since the intent thing doesn't matter, I can only argue about the falling and not jumping thing. Okay, Gollum definitely did not mean to kill himself and destroy the Ring. We can all agree on that, right? Right. We can also agree that Gollum did accidentally kill himself and destroy the Ring. Since intent doesn't matter, and you say that actions do, then, *heroic music in the background* Gollum is the Hero! Yay Gollum!  
Anyways, blah, blah, blah. Change of heart craziness. You don't know if he had a change of heart and I don't know, but I hope so. You couldn't care less. You say, "Oh, he bit off Frodo's finger! He was selfish!" 
I say, "He was a poor old sad hobbit who only wanted to feel safe. Nothing ever happened to him when he had the Ring. He was very safe in the Misty Mountains. He wanted to feel safe again. You wouldn't begrudge him that, would you? Probably. You hate that he hurt some boring character that you love. I hate that the evil sam was mean to my favorite character every chance he got. Does it really matter how anybody acted? Doesn't LOTR come right down to that scene? If the only characters there were Aragorn, Frodo, and the evil sam, and Frodo went crazy, Aragorn would bite (or probably would have just pulled) the Ring off of Frodo and jump (or tripped, doesn't matter) into the Crack of Doom. You'd say that Aragorn was the hero. Only because you know lots of Aragorn's thoughts. How many of Gollum's thoughts do you know? Not too many." Stuff like that. Poor Smeagol.


----------



## Finduilas

Let's see ,if we discuss it as a matter of braveness Gollum wasn't definetely the hero.But ,yes,BUT what was the main idea -TO DESTROY THE ONE!And who did it-GOLLUM.
Who is the hero now,a?GOLLUM.
Yes,some people might not like it but not always the truth is pleasant.


----------



## YayGollum

Yay for the Finduilas person! That's what I should have said! That's my problem. Not keeping it simple. I'm probably just getting to be like these evil people who write too much. oh well. Whoops!


----------



## Gil-Galad

Obviously Finduilas cannot understand what heroism means.
It's not just a single action,it's not even a great deed.
It's a mixture of action and features.
Gollum does everything because of his materialism of his desire for the One.
Sam does everything because he believes in something.He is not in power of anything,and he does everything because he wants so.
Is Gollum ready to die for anyone?For Frodo?
Hmmmmmmm
First try to crearify what heroism means,in fact.


----------



## Finduilas

I can completely understand what heroism means but are you sure there is only one meaning...?Think again.
If you check in the dictionary you willl find the meaning of braveness and great responsobility for an action or person and also the greatness and mafiesty of a person who has made an act of honour.
But now forget this and try to look it in another aspect-history.Who is more important for the history-the act or the person?
Well,there is no doubt-the act.That's why a lot of people have been forgotten and in real life.
But I complicate it a lot.I will only ask one question which I think makes everything clear-what would people after 100-200 or even400 years say:Oh,I'm glad that that unknown hero has destroyed the ring(because I doubt someone will remember Gollum or who else) or maybe Oh,that little Gollum ,I hate him for destroying the ring,he's not a hero?
Think carefully and then answer because I really want to show you that Gollum is the hero.


----------



## Gil-Galad

Ok.But does Gollum do anything for the others?His act of "heroism" is because of his egoistic purposes of possesing the ring .How can anyone be a hero when he does things which have negative effects on the other people.In Gollum's case it's a luck that he destroys the ring.But tell me why he destroys it.Because he wants it for himself,he doesn't intend to destroy it.So answer this question:Is an action caused of egoistic intention an action of heroism?


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

Do the results of an action make a person a hero? I can't say yes. I mean if I were to say yes then I would have to say that the Roman soldiers who crucified Christ on the cross were heros because in the end they helped to fulfill God's plan of redeeming the world. Those soldiers were not heros. They were instruments in a greater plan. They did what they did because they were obeying orders and in the mean time they tortured and killed an innocent man. Just as Gollum is not a hero beause he bit the ring off of Frodo's finger and then fell with it into the cracks of Doom therefore destroying the ring. He didn't do it on purpose. He had no good intentions. He wanted to have the ring for himself. Had he succeeded in putting the ring on and getting out of the cavern, the ringwraiths would have seized and slain him and taken the ring to Sauron thus bringing doom to Middle Earth. This didn't happen and fortunately due to fate he fell and was lost with the ring. This final step destroyed the ring. BUT THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS! So I cannot consider Gollum the hero.

~Ariana


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel _
> *Do the results of an action make a person a hero? I can't say yes. I mean if I were to say yes then I would have to say that the Roman soldiers who crucified Christ on the cross were heros because in the end they helped to fulfill God's plan of redeeming the world. Those soldiers were not heros. They were instruments in a greater plan. They did what they did because they were obeying orders and in the mean time they tortured and killed an innocent man. Just as Gollum is not a hero beause he bit the ring off of Frodo's finger and then fell with it into the cracks of Doom therefore destroying the ring. He didn't do it on purpose. He had no good intentions. He wanted to have the ring for himself. Had he succeeded in putting the ring on and getting out of the cavern, the ringwraiths would have seized and slain him and taken the ring to Sauron thus bringing doom to Middle Earth. This didn't happen and fortunately due to fate he fell and was lost with the ring. This final step destroyed the ring. BUT THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS! So I cannot consider Gollum the hero.
> 
> ~Ariana *


Exactly!!!!


----------



## Finduilas

That's the point -Gollum had no bad influance with his act.Actually,he saved everyone.No matter what he wanted to do or was about to do Gollum DESTROYED(again no matter how)The One.
He may be an egoist but that doesn't make him less hero.

ok.If you all can't agree with this kind of saying the truth,well answer me-
Did Gollum save Middle Earth from Sauron?


----------



## Gil-Galad

It's just a luck,nothing else.It's not a result of a great intention,like Frodo and Sam's mission.It's a LUCKY result of egoistic purposes,which in the context of the moment is of great importance for ME.


----------



## YayGollum

Okay, so luck is the hero. Sure, I can go with that. But still, it was luck in the form of Gollum falling into the Crack of Doom with the One Ring. Without Gollum, the Ring wouldn't have been destroyed. Frodo wouldn't have luckily fallen off. The evil sam wouldn't have been able to find the invisible Frodo to luckily fall off. So, Yay for Gollum's bad luck, I guess.  Or should we say that Gollum's dance instructor was the hero?


----------



## Finduilas

Exactly!  
Yay for the luck!


----------



## Gil-Galad

I have the feeling I'm talking to a small children who cannot assimilate any information.
We cannot claim an action of cruel intention and a lucky result an example of heroism.A hero cannot be a person with such intentions.


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

I quite agree with you Gil-Galad. It does feel like we are talking to children who refuse to listen to reason.

~Ariana


----------



## YayGollum

Yay for small children who cannot assimilate any information! Oh, wait. That's bad. I mean, Hey! That's mean! Oh, yeah? Well, you're a stupid stupid head!  Pay no attention to me. I'm just evil and stubborn, I guess.
Anyways, there you go again. Assuming that you know what Gollum was thinking. Are you saying that you think that Gollum was thinking, "Hey, I will bite this dude's finger off, just because it's a mean and evil thing to do!" I'm assuming that you're just not worrying about what Smeagol was thinking. 
I think that Gollum was thinking, "Hey, I will bite this dude's finger off so I can finally feel safe again! This Morrrdorrr place is scary! There are all kinds of evil things after me, and these nasssty hobbitses aren't much better!" while Smeagol was thinking, "Oh, great! Gollum is going after that one hobbit who wasn't that bad to me. Nothing I can do about it. Argh! He's trying to get the Ring back! I hate that thing! Very evil! Good thing Gollum doesn't know that I can't dance!"  
Anyways, why can't luck come into play? Do you know how many times and in how many different stories a more popular character had help from luck? I don't, either. Many times, I'm sure. But then, you'd say that the hero also had good intent at the time. oh well. Can't we all just get along? Can't we all agree that Gollum destroyed the Ring and that helped? I don't see why not. Gollum saved the day. That's good! He didn't save the day in a heroic way, but he still saved the day. That's what a hero would do. He wasn't the classical kind of hero. Yay for Gollum's originality!


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

I think that Gollum was probably thinking something along the lines of "It's my precious. It belongs to me. We wants it we wants it." Very self centered if you ask me.

And why can't luck come into play? For a very simple reason. There is no such thing as luck. 

~Ariana


----------



## YayGollum

Okay, fine. I didn't know what you people were thinking about what Gollum was thinking. But I was pretty close. They're both saying evil stuffs about Gollum. Which isn't bad. I'm just wondering why you crazy people forget about Smeagol. Haven't we agreed that he's schizophrenic? oh well. 
Anyways, Yay for the spewing of opinions! I believe in luck! Why not? It's fun. I heard you say something about fate. Sure. Whichever word you chose. Doesn't really matter. The luck or the fate or whatever was only around because of Gollum. Can't we all just get along? Can't we all agree that Gollum destroyed the Ring and that helped? I don't see why not. Gollum saved the day. That's good! He didn't save the day in a heroic way, but he still saved the day. That's what a hero would do. He wasn't the classical kind of hero. Yay for Gollum's originality!


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *Okay, fine. I didn't know what you people were thinking about what Gollum was thinking. But I was pretty close. They're both saying evil stuffs about Gollum. Which isn't bad. I'm just wondering why you crazy people forget about Smeagol. Haven't we agreed that he's schizophrenic? oh well.
> Anyways, Yay for the spewing of opinions! I believe in luck! Why not? It's fun. I heard you say something about fate. Sure. Whichever word you chose. Doesn't really matter. The luck or the fate or whatever was only around because of Gollum. Can't we all just get along? Can't we all agree that Gollum destroyed the Ring and that helped? I don't see why not. Gollum saved the day. That's good! He didn't save the day in a heroic way, but he still saved the day. That's what a hero would do. He wasn't the classical kind of hero. Yay for Gollum's originality! *


I'm not saying I hate Gollum I just prove my statement that Gollum is not the true hero.
Ok you say that Gollum saves the day.Then he is the hero of the day,but not the true hero.He cannot be the true hero because of his intentions.


----------



## YayGollum

So now it's true hero versus hero? Got it. You're still admitting that Gollum is any kind of hero. I definitely agree with you that Gollum is not your usual hero, but that he's definitely some kind of way distorted version of a hero. I just think that he should be the main hero of LOTR because he accomplished the main goal of LOTR. I don't really know what you mean by true hero. Do you mean that he can't really be considered a hero because you don't think his intent was to destroy the Ring? Well, we don't know what his intent was. If we did, everyone would be in agreement about Gollum. Too bad we don't know what he was thinking. We only know what he did. That's enough for me. Doing something that saved the day. It's not enough for you people, who just can't accept that a despicable character won.


----------



## Gil-Galad

I said Gollum is the hero of the day but nothing more,because I have wanted to find an agreement.But now you want more and more.Tz.My final opinion is that the true hero is Sam or anybody who does anything not because of his egoism and cruel intention,but because he is devoted to his mission.
I say it again,you're like a child(small baby Gollum )who thinks he is right and all the others are wrong.But like a small Gollum you're not right.


----------



## YayGollum

Okay, so evil and insulting Gollum haters don't like to answer questions. Got it. I'll try not to ask for you to clarify stuffs anymore. 
So, it sounds like you never really thought that Gollum was any kind of hero now. Yikes! I'm guessing that this is your final answer! I could be wrong! 
Why do you keep saying that Gollum only wanted the Ring because of egoism? Isn't that kind of a negative way to say that he's just looking out for number one? I think of it as Gollum, this poor and sad little hobbit, just wanting to have his security blanket back. He has no idea why they want to keep it from him. They never told him that they were going to destroy it when he agreed that he would guide them through Morrrdorrr. When they're at Mount Doom, he's like, "Woah! That's evil! I gots to get that thing back! I have no idea why they'd want to get rid of it!" He doesn't know that if he destroys it, Sauron dies. If he knew that, he might have wanted to destroy the One Ring. oh well. 
I say again, Yay for children, who think they're right and all the others are wrong! Yay for stubbornness! Very fun! Yay for the ultimate LOTR debate! Keep it up! I can go on for forever! But right now, I gots to go! Have fun insulting me and other Gollum Fans while I'm gone!


----------



## entbabe

*Oi! who's the lord ere then?*

ahem...i think you've all missed the v.important point that the true hero is actually SAURON. he is the 'lord of the rings' after all, the main man (or maia as the case may be) of the title. without him, all your 'heros' would still be sitting in a hole, or in a cave or wandering around middle earth wishing something exciting would happen. teehee...only joking!


----------



## aDaHe

i think that yaygollum is doing the unique thing of taking a personallity and staying to it the whole time.
and no i thought that a while back we arrived at the conclusion that gollum was not the true hero, but he was a "type" of "hero" that has yet to be classified. (so long as Mrs Maggot doesn't take more than 4mb of data transfer *in one post* to explain why he is not)(again)
-aDaHe


----------



## LadyGaladriel

> _Originally posted by aDaHe _
> *i think that yaygollum is doing the unique thing of taking a personallity and staying to it the whole time.
> and no i thought that a while back we arrived at the conclusion that gollum was not the true hero, but he was a "type" of "hero" that has yet to be classified. (so long as Mrs Maggot doesn't take more than 4mb of data transfer in one post to explain why he is not)(again)
> -aDaHe *



Gollum is a hero only not in the traditional sense. although He didn't have the correct intentions for doing this deed, he did do it. Gollum is not bad or evil. He was beyond help by the time Bilbo found him. He was like Yay said a poor sad little hobbit thingy.


----------



## aDaHe

i am beinging to feel like yaygollum, he is a "hero" but we have to classify him.
(we could even start a knew thread to vote on what kind of hero gollum was.)


----------



## LadyGaladriel

> _Originally posted by aDaHe _
> *i am beinging to feel like yaygollum, he is a "hero" but we have to classify him.
> (we could even start a knew thread to vote on what kind of hero gollum was.) *


Yay more threads about Gollum the better. Slowly they will take over the forum......


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Well, we certainly don't want to tax anyone's brain by making a long post in an attempt to impart sense to the discussion at hand, so I will just quote a very wise - and a very WICKED - man who once said, "tell a big enough lie often enough and it becomes the truth!" Yea whatever!


----------



## Grond

Sorry YayGollum, but I'll just let the words of the author speak to what type of a hero Smeagol/Gollum was.


> _from The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, Letter 181 To Michael Straight [drafts]
> [Before writing a review of The Lord of the Rings, Michael Straight, the editor of New Republic, wrote to Tolkien asking a number of questions: first, whether there was a 'meaning' in Gollum's rôle in the story and in Frodo's moral failure at the climax; second, whether the 'Scouring of the Shire' chapter was directed especially to contemporary England; and third, why the other voyagers should depart from the Grey Havens with Frodo at the end of the book – 'Is it for the same reason that there are those who gain in the victory but cannot enjoy it?']
> [Not dated; probably January or February 1956.]_
> 
> Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean son of thief before it crossed his path. Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths? A kind of answer cd. be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different! By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Smeagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

My dear Grond:

Excellent post, but alas, Gollum supporters will say that it was too long to be relevant and, besides, it isn't what they want to believe no matter WHO said it, YEA! End of discussion!

One cannot argue with that kind of "reasoning", so why try?


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

Loud applause for Mrs. Maggot!

~Ariana


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *...One cannot argue with that kind of "reasoning", so why try?  *


I know. I am always quite amazed when the Gollum supporters purport to know more about the character than the writer of the story... but kids will be kids.


----------



## YayGollum

Yay for the aDaHe and LadyGaladriel people! Ummm...Hi, entbabe!  
Anyways, I think that I've just been insulted (again). I must have missed the part where I insulted you crazy people. oh well. You must be having fun. I would think that a Mod would know not to insult people. I seem to remember some rule about that. No, I must be crazy. A Mod can do no wrong!  Grond's post was not that long. I've read longer ones. I've made longer ones! Or did you people just bleap over the one on this thread? Probably. It would be insulting your intelligence, right?  
To the scary Grond person's post, I don't see how that's such a hard thing to argue against. Like quotes that we've seen from Tolkien's letters before, it's just an opinion. If he wanted us all to think the way he did, he would have written the story differenty. Even though he made the evil sam be evil so that Gollum wouldn't throw the Ring in voluntarily, he did decide to let us come up with our own opinions on who the hero was. You people just agree with Tolkien's opinion. I came up with something else because it's fun to be original. Maybe I'm just crazy. You obviously think so. I'm a little kid, right?


----------



## Grond

Yay, how on earth do you construe what I posted as a personal attack. I only mentioned you by name when I said, "Hey YayGollum...". That is, unless you actually believe that YOU ARE GOLLUM. If that is the case, the good Professor is attacking you personally and not I.


----------



## LadyGaladriel

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *Yay, how on earth do you construe what I posted as a personal attack. I only mentioned you by name when I said, "Hey YayGollum...". That is, unless you actually believe that YOU ARE GOLLUM. If that is the case, the good Professor is attacking you personally and not I. *



I have to say that you implied that all the people who surpored poor Gollum on this crusade of "who Is the Hero" was just kids which is quite offensive.


----------



## Grond

My apologies but, to me, Yay is a kid. At my age, anyone under 30 is a kid and Yay certainly falls into that category and I meant kids, in believing that Gollum is a hero to the contradiction of the author's own words. Stating that Gollum is a hero is an indefensible position as the author so ably points out himself.

Yay, when Tolkien speaks of the world of Middle-earth, especially the character he created... I would not think he was giving an opinion. I would consider it fact.

LadyGaladriel, if only I could be called a kid again.


----------



## LadyGaladriel

well Im not sure that yay would agree with being called a kid because no one here has got a childs mentallty.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

It is to be hoped that those who are calling evil good and good evil are being "childlike" or even "childish" in their reasoning and are only doing to to get a "rise" out of those who disagree. But if, in fact, they are presenting their position as something "rational" and mature, if they actually BELIEVE what they are saying then their situation is no longer either "cute" or mischievious, but a serious perversion and should be considered so. Evil IS evil; it is NEVER good no matter what positive results may arise from an evil act. 

There is such a thing as objective evil just as there is such a thing as objective good. These are NOT subjective matters which depend upon one's "point of view" or subject to "revisionist" thinking based upon some exalted P.C. point of view. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you or is himself deceived - and you should be mindful of that before you "buy into" that mindset.


----------



## YayGollum

Yes, I can see why someone could believe that they're not being offensive when they call someone a kid in a debate. I'm probably just crazy when I think that it's just dismissing me as someone who's trying to get a rise out of smarter people. oh well. Like I said, a Mod can do no wrong. 
Anyways, I don't see why Tolkien's opinion should be considered to be a fact. I would think that if he wanted everyone to think like him, he'd have been able to write his book that way. oh well. Maybe I'm just crazy for thinking that we're allowed to have other opinions. 
I really don't see why my arguement could be thought of as cute, mischieveous, or a serious perversion. Yes, evil is evil and good is good. So what? That has nothing to do with poor Smeagol. He is a combination of both. Why would you people want to stick him into one or the other group? Do you really think he has no complexity? 
My arguement makes more sense than anything you people have brought up. I'm talking about Gollum being the only one to accomplish the goal that the fellowship had. You people are talking about crazy stuffs like Gollum's intent and what kind of morality he has. Makes no sense. Doesn't matter. Gollum saved the day. Poor Unsung Hero.
sorry that I'm still having fun.


----------



## aDaHe

yes mrs maggot i am proud that every one has keep their post under the size of my hard disk. but i believe that as to gollum actually trying to be skizo/ aka gollum...who knows? 

the topic of gollum being hero cannot be decided by a simple letter by some git to JRRT. i do not mock JRRT, but i am looking at gollums "heroship" from a moral point of view. i believe that a while ago yaygollum said something about a drunk that saves someone from being run over is a hero. there is no author that had to be wirttin to, to see if he was a hero. simple morals tell us that he is because he saved the day.

so i say yay for gollum a *hero* or tlotr


----------



## Flame of Anor

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *My apologies but, to me, Yay is a kid. At my age, anyone under 30 is a kid and Yay certainly falls into that category and I meant kids, in believing that Gollum is a hero to the contradiction of the author's own words. Stating that Gollum is a hero is an indefensible position as the author so ably points out himself.
> 
> Yay, when Tolkien speaks of the world of Middle-earth, especially the character he created... I would not think he was giving an opinion. I would consider it fact.
> 
> LadyGaladriel, if only I could be called a kid again.  *


I would have to agree with Grond on this one (Tolkien's opinion being fact) because he was the creator of the Gollum/Smeagol character. He would know every aspect of gollum. and would also know the intentions of the character. Tolkien stated it himself. *Gollum is not the hero!!!!!* that is all.

-Flame


----------



## aDaHe

*A*hero

even the men that died on the fields of pelnor(spelling sorry)
are heros because they did something right. even thougth they died because of it.

(i'm begining to feel like yaygollum in a fencing match aganist 4 foes.)


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

Loud applause and cheers for Flame! 

~Ariana


----------



## aDaHe

how rude!:insultedface:.
i really dont see why morally gollum cant be a hero!

my cousin was a hero because he thought that his boat was at the right fishing spot and it turned out that he saved his friends life that had falled overboard.

now he did not even have the slightest intention of being a hero but ended up doing something that saved a life.


----------



## Grond

> _Originally posted by aDaHe _
> *how rude!:insultedface:.
> i really dont see why morally gollum cant be a hero!
> 
> my cousin was a hero because he thought that his boat was at the right fishing spot and it turned out that he saved his friends life that had falled overboard.
> 
> now he did not even have the slightest intention of being a hero but ended up doing something that saved a life. *


Before Gollum was ever corrupted by the Ring, he strangled his cousin Deagol to gain possession of it. You could argue that the Ring itself did this... but you would be contradicting the author. After 7 years, he completely alienates himself from his clan and is ousted by the family Matriarch. For the next 472 years, Smeagol transforms into Gollum, until, in the end, he is nothing more than a shadow of his former self. He lives for the Ring and to eat. That is all. After he loses the Ring to Bilbo, his life is consumed with two things. Recovering the Ring and to eat. He makes his way to Mordor and reveals to whom the Ring was lost. All he knows are hints of where the Ring might be... Baggins and Shire. Sauron releases a manhunt for the Ring yet releases Gollum. Gollum leaves Mordor heading back towards the West. He has two things in mind... the Ring and to eat.

Now, Gollum reenters our story. He relentless and ruthlessly tracks Frodo and Company for one reason.... to recover the Ring. He is captured by Frodo and Samwise and he comes up with another plan to recover the Ring. Offer them up to Shelob. Maybe when the meal is over and Shelob leaves the bones..... we will find it... and then we will makes her pay. Then that fails. He continues to follow Frodo and Samwise through Mordor and finally catches up with them on Mount Doom. Samwise fights off the first attack but can't bring himself to kill Gollum.... the reverse would not be true. Surely Gollum would have killed Samwise had he been able to. Then, finally, at the Cracks of Doom, Gollum wrests the Ring from Frodo with his teeth no less and while gloating..."My Precious, My Precious.........." falls into the abyss. Every single action up to that defining moment was motivated by one thing and one thing only. EVIL!!!
The desire to recover the Ring and kill whoever had it. A hero is someone who in my book, knowingly risks himself to save someone or for some cause. 

aDaHe, your cousin was a hero because he knowingly risked himself to save someone else. It didn't matter what fishing spot he was at. Let's look at your cousin from a different perspective. Say your cousin really wanted his friend's ring. He saw that his friend was drowning but he didn't care about that... he really wanted his friend's ring. So, he saved his friend so that he could rob him. As he pulled his friend in the boat, he wrested the Ring off of his finger but fell into the water and drowned. Would your cousin still be a hero. He was in the act of committing a robbery when he was doing the heroic act. He was no hero... he was a plan and simple thief. I'm all analogied out. If you can't see that Gollum fits the mold of the typical anti-hero then you are simply wanting to be different and not really understanding the morals of the story. 

And, Yay, I am wrong all the time... and I freely admit when I'm wrong. My moderator status has nothing to do with this. I just don't happen to be wrong on this issue.


----------



## YayGollum

Thanks again, aDaHe dude. Why not? Yay for us defending Gollum from these crazy people that make no sense!
Okay, to the crazy Grond person's post, I would love to debate against you about almost every sentence you wrote about Gollum's past, but I, a small child who knows next to nothing, can stick to the topic of this debate. 
The scene where Gollum saves Middle Earth seems to me to be the only one we should be worried about. I guess you could say that overanalyzing every little thing about Gollum's past helps you to decide what kind of person he really is. To that, I would say that his past doesn't matter. Not even what he was thinking in the end matters. That he saved Middle Earth matters. That without him, Sauron would have won matters. 
You are way too biased. I am, too. We need someone who has only read that one scene and nothing else.  
Why do you think that every single action up to that defining moment was motivated by EVIL!!!? I kind of thought that he was motivated by hobbit sense. Wanting to be safe. Wanting to be left alone. Stuff like that. I think that his life wasn't so bad in the Misty Mountains. I can only guess that you think Gollum could be content in any situation, just as long as he had his ring. 
Why do you think that he only had the desire to recover the Ring and kill whoever had it? I'd agree that he wanted his ring back (the hobbit sense reason), but I see no evidence that he'd want to kill anyone who had it. Gollum wasn't bloodthirsty or anything. He didn't delight in killing people. He didn't even think that it was superly necessary to kill anybody. 
Yay for simply wanting to be different! I didn't know that that was bad. You sure told me, wise elder!  
When you say 'and not really understanding the morals of the story,' I think of the word overanalyze again. Maybe I'm just crazy for only wanting to have fun when I read a book. For not feeling the urge to know every little moral law that's being broken. For actually admiring the characters that aren't perfect. oh well. It's fun. 
Are you people having fun trying to disenchant me with LOTR? Trying to tell me that every little thing Tolkien says goes? That he is God and I shouldn't have a difference of opinion? Sure, he made Gollum and Smeagol up. Sure, he would definitely know everything about them. I just don't see why the author's opinion convinces all of you that Gollum isn't the hero. He saved the day. There's no doubt about it. If the author wanted us all to agree with him, why don't I? No, I'm not just trying to shock you all with a radical idea. It's something that's achingly obvious to me.


----------



## Grond

> _from The Fellowship of the Ring, The Shadow of the Past_
> 'The Wood-elves tracked him first, an easy task for them, for his trail
> was still fresh then. Through Mirkwood and back again it led them, though they never caught him. The wood was full of the rumour of him, dreadful tales even among beasts and birds. The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood. It climbed trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles.


YayGollum.... there you have it. The description of a true hero in every sense of the word.


----------



## YayGollum

Do you really think so? I could swear you're trying to be sarcastic!  
I would look at that quote as something that makes us feel even more sorry for poor Smeagol. Look at what he is reduced to! Stealing babies! Yikes! Most people would be appalled by that, right? It only makes me feel more sorry for Gollum. When he had his security blanket (what I like to call the One Ring), he could easily catch fish or goblins. Noone here minds that he ate those things, do they? I doubt it. Does Tolkien ever say that he feels bad about eating the babies? Or the goblins? No, he doesn't, but I doubt that Gollum minded it very much. Poor Smeagol takes what he can get. Besides, it's not like they were hobbits or anything. oh well. 
I missed the part where this has anything to do with the part where Gollum becomes a hero. Maybe I'm just crazy.


----------



## Grond

You and a few others are putting forward the theory/opinion that Gollum was the true hero of the Lord of the Rings.... I and a few others are disagreeing with you and giving our reasons for doing so.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

My Dear Yea Gollum:

Might I suggest that you start a thread: "Is Gollum a tragic figure?" Now THERE'S a topic that makes sense in relationship to the character. Is Gollum's behavior at least partially excused by the tragic nature of his plight? There you would have a much greater scope for your obviously intelligent and well thought out responses. 

If you REALLY WANT Gollum's character to be explored SERIOUSLY, then this is the topic you should pursue!


----------



## YayGollum

Yikes! So, one of the crazy reasons you have for why Gollum wasn't the hero is that he ate babies? What do eating habits have to do with Gollum saving Middle Earth? I must have missed something important.  
Anyways, no, I'd rather not make a new thread right now. I try to make original topics. I made a place called the Gollum Fan Club for people to rant and rave about anything having to do with Gollum. It was deleted when people kept on spamming in it. Very sad. I wouldn't want that to happen again. oh well. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I like this debate. Whenever you people give up, or for some reason, all of the threads about Gollum dissappear, then I might make another thread about him. Yay for me, a small child, being intelligent, though!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

It's a shame because figures of tragedy - good and evil - are worthy of consideration. For instance, many figures who have been labeled as "evil", when the tragic nature of their circumstances are revealed are frequently given a more compassionate viewing by those who before had simply dismissed them as "rotters". 

There is great scope in any discussion related to tragedy - far more, in fact, than discussions related to heroism. Heroes may be tragic, but villains may ALSO be tragic - and with tragedy comes a measure of understanding that is not present when the figure involved is merely "evil". 

You really should consider developing a SERIOUS thread about the tragedy of Gollum's life AND death. No doubt he was responsible in large part for both, but there were other circumstances that contributed heavily to his condition that should be reviewed and discussed.


----------



## YayGollum

Yes, ma'am! I'll get right on it!  The Gollum Fan Club also came about at other people's insistence. Probably just to stop me from ranting about Gollum everywhere where I first showed up.  I remember making a thread called Misunderstood Characters one time. But then, I did put it in the Stuff and Bother section just because that place is fun. I'll put this in the Hall of Fire. What should I call it? 
Wait a minute. It was your idea. Why don't you start it? It doesn't just have to be about Gollum. I'd love to rant about Mim and Eol and Ungoliant and Grima Wormtongue and lots of others, too!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Done.


----------



## YayGollum

Yay! And it seems that you disagree with me about Morgoth and Ungoliant. oh well. I can't win them all!  Now, how's about we continue with the Gollum debate? Since none of the other characters are as thought provoking.  Or did I win already?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

The problem with defending either Morgoth or Ungoliant through the argument of tragedy is that both are presented as evil without any mitigating circumstances. 

Melkor begins as holy and beautiful, but chooses - without any possible excuse - to reject that holiness and beauty. 

In the case of Ungoliant, we are just introduced to her as being evil incarnate; she has absolutely NO "saving graces" and therefore no argument can be made for her along the line of tragedy. Of course, the same thing can be said for ALL the spiders including those in Mirkwood. But it seems that they are simply "created" to act in this way. Indeed, one wonders how this happened since Eru has not created ANYTHING intrinsically evil and yet the spiders seem to be that way virtually from the beginning. 

Perhaps they, like the dragons, were a product of Morgoth's machinations - but then, where did Ungoliant come from? There are so many questions that don't seem to have clear answers, especially about the villains!


----------



## YayGollum

Maybe I'm just crazy, but I see no problem with defending Mel and Ungoliant. 
I read something somewhere that Mel was in love with Varda, but she decided that she liked Manwe better. I could go on a rant right there about the evil Manwe, but I won't. I'm already not talking about Gollum!  Your thread asked for parts in people's lives where, if something happened differently, the bad dudes wouldn't have turned out so bad. If Varda hadn't been so evil to Mel, he wouldn't have turned out so bad. If anybody had walked up to him and said, "Hey, dude. Let's sing about Fastitocalon!" he wouldn't have turned out so bad. There's this one sentence that I think is very sad. Something about Mel just being alone. Poor guy. He decided that if nobody wanted to be his friend, he'd just make them all sorry. Or something like that. oh well. It's sad. 
On defending Ungoliant, I would say, Do what? Why do you think that Ungoliant was evil from the beginning? She was neutral! She started out with Mel, but she got bored and hung out in her own place. He shows up one day and offers her lots of food. She's getting kind of hungry. She helps him out, but he tricks her and doesn't give her all of the food he promised. She's mad. She could've killed him at that point, I think. Maybe I'm just crazy. She would have been called a hero. But of course, the balrogs show up and she gets driven off, still hungry. She finally ends up eating herself. Very sad. oh well. Anyways, I don't know what she really is. I would guess another Valar type thing. Why would Mel be afraid of something not as powerful as he was? oh well. just a crazy thought. 
Now can we talk about Gollum? I didn't clutter up your new thread with the above craziness.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

It's not crazy; if what you have said (especially regarding Melkor) is true, then document your assumptions - chapter and verse - and build from there. Certainly, more needs to be said about Ungoliant who was called 'evil' in a spider form, but where did she come from if Eru did not create evil? And as Morgoth could not create, what then? 

Don't stop your hypotheses, but document, document so that you cannot be "dismissed" offhand! That's what I put that thread up there for!


----------



## Grond

I want to insert here to YayGollum and anyone else that I might have offended with my "kids" comment was not meant to be offensive. If it was taken so, please accept my heartfelt apologies. 

As for your defenses of Melkor and Ungoliant... I have one word for you.... very interesting.... make that two words.


----------



## YayGollum

Ah. Got it. I'm being turned into another one of those crazy people who run around with their books everywhere they go so they can quote someone else into oblivion!  oh well. Yes, ma'am. I'll try to find some real quotes for you in that thread. 
But I don't need anything for this thread! I read LOTR! I know that Gollum is the hero! You people come in here with your quotes saying, "Oh, but Gollum ate babies!" or, "Oh, but Tolkien didn't like Gollum, either!" Blah, blah, blah. Doesn't matter. Gollum saved the day. He is the hero. No doubt about it. Yay for stubbornness! Yay for pigheadedness! Very fun! Do I really need to quote the scene that we all know? Oooh! Maybe you don't know the scene! Maybe I do need to quote it! I gotcha. I'll bring a book tomorrow. 

Whoops! I didn't see the Grond person's post. I don't need any apologies! I'm sure that I seem like a very crazy person to you people. Gasp! Ideas that are so different from your own must be very scary!  oh well. Yay for my Mel and Ungoliant points being interesting! I guess.


----------



## aDaHe

he is the dead guy,
hes dumb. o my!
hes yaygollum a git,
hes proved wrong but he dont get it!!
(poetry if you like!)

i still feel that gollum is a hero in a moral sense of the story, if not in the authors point of view. and not amount of quotes can deter me!!!


----------



## Gil-Galad

YayGollum,
I read the last posts and now I think you believe Gollunm is the true hero,because obvious he is your favourite character.
I think you shouldn't be so much in power of your feelings toward Gollum.Try to be more ojective.


----------



## aDaHe

its not that i like him, its that morally he is a from of a hero...
no matter what anyone else can say!!!


----------



## Isengrin

*Frodo all the way*

I'd tempt to answer " Gandald " , he did the most stuff and blablabla

but he s not a heroe

He s the shepherd. 

The Heroe is Frodo

His quest was the hope of Middle Earth

He decide to take the Ring to the Flames or Oroduin,even if he didnt know how

He was without hope, being sure to die at the end

But he did it, transporting the most dangerous object of all Middle Earth with him all the long way

He s couragous

And a true heroe is humble

He wasnt seeking for glory

And he was happy to live in peace at Bag End when all was finish

People always forget about Frodo... saying he was the weak guy, always complaining , and doing bad things,being a fool

Transporting the Ring is the strongest action in all ME

...A lot of people even say that they hate books 4 & 6 cuz they say its "Secondary story"

Its the Main

HURRAY FOR FRODO THE HOBBIT !!

HURRAY |||!!!|||!!!


----------



## YayGollum

Uh, huh. I never liked Frodo. Sure, he wasn't as bad as the evil sam, but he's definitely not as fun as Gollum. Let me see here. I'll change all of those little things you said for Frodo to fit Gollum.

The hero is Gollum.

Gollum was the one who actually concluded the quest that was the hope of Middle Earth.

Frodo would never have gotten that far if Gollum hadn't guided him. 

He was without hope, being sure to die at the end. Same for both of them, but Gollum's scenario turned out worse.

Ummm...sure. Ick. He moved a ring from point A to point B. Couldn't take action when he should have, though.

He's not courageous. I like that. Boo for classic heroes!

Gollum was humble as far as I know, too. I don't remember him bragging all time or anything.

He wasn't seeking for glory, either.

You don't think that Gollum was a peace lover? Craziness!

People always forget about poor Smeagol... saying he was the weak guy, always complaining , and doing bad things,being a fool. Well, maybe they don't say that he was a fool, but they definitely like him less than Frodo.

Woah! If transporting it was so hard, think how lucky everyone was that Gollum was around to destroy it!

Yikes! You've seen people saying that they didn't like the One Ring part of the story? I think that the rest of it was a waste of time! The main goal in LOTR was to destroy the Ring. Gollum did that. All of the craziness that those other characters did was pretty boring to me.

YAY FOR GOLLUM THE HOBBIT !!

YAY |||!!!|||!!!


----------



## Wonko The Sane

I know that Yay will get on me mega for this, but I don't feel Gollum was the hero.
I've argued for him in the past but I have to take a stand against him this time.
He is largely responsible for The Ring's destruction but he did not do it out of any heroic or even good intentions. It was a complete accident.
He deserves honorable mention, maybe even a purple heart, and you could say he is A hero, but not THE hero.

And Sam, again, though he did a lot could be said to be A hero, but not THE hero.

As much as I despised Frodo's weakness in the end, I'd have to cheerlead for him in this case.

He was so challenged by the undertaking of carrying The Ring to Mordor, and I don't think anyone else could have done it. Sam was too weakminded to cope with The Ring for long in my opinion, and Merry and Pippin too flighty.
The others also just weren't suited. Aragorn had a war to lead, and I don't think anyone would even think of asking Gimli, Legolas, or Boromir to carry the ring.
Same with Gandalf, he had his place in the war.

I think that the point of Frodo carrying the ring was that sometimes it's the smallest that have the strongest will, and he certainly had a strong will.
Without him I believe their quest would have been doomed.


----------



## Aragorn12345

Gollum won't like this post but Frodo is the hero the only reason the ring was destroyed is because frodo went as far as he could, but then Gollum helped only because of evil intentions.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

I would still argue that Gollum was, at least partly, A hero though.

He DID in a way save the day.


----------



## Goro Shimura

If Gollum was a hero... then so was Saruman.

After all... what would have happened if Saruman hadn't kidnapped Merry and Pippin??


----------



## Wonko The Sane

No no no no...
That's not the same thing.
That's an indirect responsibility for something.
Gollum was directly responsible for the ring being destroyed by biting Frodo's finger off!


----------



## YayGollum

Ack! I don't understand all of you crazy people who keep going back in time to find a hero. Oh, Frodo is the hero because he got the Ring to Mount Doom. Oh, the evil sam is the hero because Frodo couldn't have gotten there without him. Oh, Saruman is the hero. Oh, Sauron is the hero. Oh, Eru is the hero. Oh, J.R.R. Tolkien is the hero. Oh, J.R.R. Tolkien's mommy and daddy are the heroes. 
No. That's just craziness. In the end, Gollum was the hero. Intent doesn't matter. I still don't see how you have any arguement against Gollum. The only thing we can really argue about is the definition of hero. And we'll always disagree.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

I do not disagree that Gollum wasn't A hero..just he wasn't THE hero.

I don't go back in time any farther than Frodo and I don't see anything wrong with doing so in Frodo's case.
He was directly responsible for getting the ring to Mount Doom.


----------



## YayGollum

Gollum was also directly responsible for getting the ring to Mount Doom. Frodo would have died a long time ago if it hadn't been for Gollum. Anyways, Gollum was THE hero because he destroyed THE Ring. He completed THE quest. I always thought that the Gollum, Frodo, and evil sam part of the story was the most important. The main goal was to destroy the Ring. That's why the books all have that stinky rhyme about it in the front. That's why one of the books was called the Fellowship of the Ring. The Ring is what the main goal is about. Gollum accomplished THE goal. He saved Middle Earth in THE end. Noone else. Case closed.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

You're right, he was directly responsible for getting Frodo to Mt. Doom.
I DO concede Gollum was A hero...but I can't delcare him THE hero because his intentions weren't honorable.


----------



## YayGollum

Ick. Getting into intent again. Boring! It's the only thing you people can use against me, and it still doesn't work. Tolkien doesn't say what Gollum or Smeagol was thinking at the time. Of course you people would assume the worst.


----------



## aDaHe

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane _
> *I would still argue that Gollum was, at least partly, A hero though.
> 
> He DID in a way save the day. *



being a hero can also be defined as doing good for all...


----------



## Wonko The Sane

True..and he did what was good for all.
He is A hero! I give you that!

Just not THE hero! Do I stutter?


----------



## Grond

Let's again not forget the importance of Arwen. The quest would have failed early on but for her intervention at the Fords of Bruinene. She rescued Frodo from the evil Ringwraiths and then breathed life back into him, thus allowing him to continue his quest. She was also the main motivator of Aragorn. 

Arwen was the true hero of The Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

*turns to glare at Grond*

You know what..I may be grinning at reading that...but it was SOO not funny! 

Ok..it was...that was hilarious! But it SOO doesn't help our SERIOUS arguments about the TRUE hero here!


----------



## aDaHe

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane _
> *True..and he did what was good for all.
> He is A hero! I give you that!
> 
> Just not THE hero! Do I stutter?  *



no you aren't and if you listen to me i say * a * hero

personally i think that aragorn is the true hero!!


----------



## YayGollum

Will everyone please take note that I am not acting juvenile, unlike this Grond person? Maybe just this once? oh well. Sure, I'll ignore him and won't critisize him like he would to me. Anyways, crazy Wonko, why do you still think that Gollum was not THE hero? He completed THE quest. Or are you just sticking to the crazy intent thing that's all just a bunch of guesses?


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Sorry aDaHe...I guess I needed to read a little closer.

But I was caught in the heat of battle!

Yay: I say he isn't THE hero not from just intent, although that plays a part in it, but because his destruction of the ring was complete accident, whille Frodo purposefully dragged himself up Mount Doom.


----------



## aDaHe

read my post!
he was a hero but the intent to do good from the start was not with him so he can not be the true hero!!


----------



## YayGollum

Right. Stinky Frodo purposefully dragged himself up Mount Doom. Blah...blah...blah...classic hero stuffs. Ick. Yay for different kinds of heroes! So what if Gollum didn't mean to save the day? He still saved the day. I like to think that Smeagol tripped himself, but noone would pay any attention to that.  
Woah! What's all this about? ---> the intent to do good from the start was not with him so he can not be the true hero!!
That's just craziness. What's the beginning you're talking about? His life, or in LOTR? I have no idea.


----------



## aDaHe

the start of that quest!!!


----------



## YayGollum

Got it. Anyways, sure, I don't think he was ever intending to do something nice for everybody in Middle Earth. But then, he was never planning on doing anything evil, either. He just wanted his security blanket back. He was nice and safe on his little island in his little cave in the Misty Mountains. The Ring made it easier to get food and not get caught. Look at all the crazy stuffs that happened to him after he lost his security blanket! Poor guy! He wasn't trying to be evil or good. He was trying to feel safe. Oh, and you know what? Gollum was the hero. sorry about that.


----------



## Galaad

*The One Ring As A Hero*

> To me, the real hero of LOTR is the One RING.Of course, I can hear from here that an object cannot be a hero:Yes, but the problem is that the One Ring has its own will.It lives! And besides, everythings depends on what we understand by "Hero".
1. If we agree to say that the One Ring is alive, we may say that It is one of the central characters of novel, as well as Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn, and even Sauron (less present)
2. It is one of the rare characters "who" appears from the very beginning of the novel, and who was already there in the book of foundation of the whole mythology: "The Hobbit", just like Bilbo and Gandalf were.
3. But if we agree with 2, we may notice that only Gandalf keeps an important part to play since Bilbo gets too old to be involved into any kind of adventure in LOTR, and even Gandalf disappears after his fight agnst the Balrog.
4. About this, the One Ring is the only "character" who is present from the very beginning to the very end of LOTR.
5. Those who know how it ends, also know that if Gollum is the victim of the "power of the ring", and if Frodo fails into throwing it into the Mountdoom, it also means that the One Ring, which has its own will, may have sacrificed itself.(this can be discussed)
6. As a classical hero, the One Ring is definitely perfect.The image of the perfect circle, for example.
7. As many modern heroes, The One Ring disappears in the end (U may object that if it had survived, the pessimistic end wud have made him a hero too!) 
8. According to me, only a hero can be so powerful that it cannot be destroyed unless it was thrown exactly where It/He appeared.

Still, of course, if we translate the word "hero" into sthg more modern, the One Ring is not this kinda hero.But I wonder wether Tolkien didn't invent a new type of hero, actually.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

It is true that the Ring possesses a sort of "sentience". I have said this all along. HOWEVER, it is necessary to recognize that the Ring's "sentience" is nothing more than the will and power of Sauron which has been placed into his creation by the Dark Lord. This sentience does not and has never "existed" external to its creator.

This is ENTIRELY different from the sentience of the rest of the characters in the tale who exist external to anyone (or anything) else. If the Ring is to be considered "the hero" simply because it is omnipresent within the story (except where the secondary plot theme develops when the Fellowship is broken), AND is being thus considered because it possesses sentience, then the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that SAURON is the "hero" of the story - which is patently absurd! 

The Ring does not function as did Aule's dwarves who, after their creation, were granted automony of will by virtue of GOD's will. The Ring HAS no autonomy; it is solely and completely Sauron's as was clearly pointed out in both the book AND the film (one place where both were of a single mind, I might point out!). Therefore, unless one is willing to consider the Ring within that context - that is, as part of the Dark Lord - one CANNOT consider the Ring as "possessing" anything more than a material form which acts as it does by virtue of something entirely beyond its control. That being the case, it certainly cannot be considered as having ANY "heroic" properties, not even a "heroism" of evil which in and of itself is oxymoronic.


----------



## Lantarion

Welcome to the forum, Galaad! 
I'm afraid I have to disagree: as such an object cannot be a hero, of any kind, because an object is inert and incapable of either movement or thought (and don't start talking about magically enchanted objects, that's just far-fetched  ). And another point which contradicts your hero-theory is that the Ring really didn't do anything that could constitute as a heroic act during the books. It can obviously be argued that the Ring had a 'mind of its own' in a sense; I personally believe that the dark forces within the Ring were naturally taking routes towards its master; but even so, all it did was manipulate the senses of greed, power and good will in individuals to get these people to transport it towards its goal! This is hardly heroic, more like an anti-hero!


----------



## elf boy

Gandalf was my favorite character, but as for the hero... I think that one of the beautiful things about these books was that this question is actually as far as I'm concerned, unanswerable. Without Gandalf, the whole thing would of never gotten started, and the ring would of been taken in the Shire, without Aragorn they would of never made it Rivendell, or even past Bree for that matter. Without Sam, the ring would be in Gollum's hands due to Shelob (although my guess is Gollum would of gotten killed shortly after he took the ring, by either Shelob or one of Sauron's minions). If it wasn't for Frodo, who knows what would of happened? There are just so many people that do so many important things. There is no stand alone hero.


----------



## FREEDOM!

I'd have to say that Arwen could've been the hero but (unfortunately) she's not!!

I think that noone person was the hero because without even one person nothing would've been done.


----------



## Galaad

> Thank you Lantarion !
First, I wud like to give you the definition of a Hero taken from my dictionnary (Cambridge-2000):
"A person who is admired for having done sthg very brave or having achieved sthg great (Like JRR  ), or the main character in a book, film or play, especially one who is admired for their good qualities."
So, reading this, I have to admit that the One Ring does not correspond to this definition, since It hasn't made done anything brave, or admirable, and since it is not a person.
But I must say that I was hesitating with Gandalf; I can't remember the user name of the one who said that he cudn't really say that Gandalf was the hero of LOTR, but if you look at the definition, it fits him very precisely!
He finds the true nature of Bilbo's ring, He achieves Heroic things, and I think that one thing is sure:
If He hadn't fought agnst the Balrog, the whole fellowship wud've been totally crashed.It seems to be the most terrible creature in the Tolkienian mythology, coming right froùm the foundation of the Earth.
Moreover, I think he is known by everyone on the territory, even in Mordor.
This may be an answer.About Arwen, I don't agree even if I entirely respect the admiration of that anyone can feel towards her, and towards any other character actually.I think that she's got a part that is too small, to me.Even the famous scene with the river that transforms into a rush of horses seems to be hoax to me, since I think it was the act of Gandalf, if I trust my memories.But perhaps it was just my own bad reading of the novel.


----------



## Finduilas

The scene with Arwen and the horses was nothing more than an PJ's imagination.Actually there is only one difference between the book and this scene:it wasn't Arwen but Glorfindel-an elf prince.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Um...Finduilas, I think that whoever originally posted that Arwen was the hero was joking.
We know that it was Glorfindel who came to the rescue at the crossing of the Bruinen.


----------



## Finduilas

Although I've argued a lot about Gollum being the hero,I've considered it again and I should admit there is no hero after all.
Gollum did the act everyone wanted or at least someone had to do so in some way he is the 'final hero' but his actions did only harm and no good to anyone.He didn't even think of helping a person or a friend(if he had one).He was usurped of the one so we shouldn't blame him(after all he had spent a lot of time with that ring) but we shouldn't try to find any special qualities of his personality that would make him a hero.
So Gollum is out and so is everybody else.Fellowship means a lot of peaple who have one common aim or in other words -destroying the one is the most important thing for them and which gathers them.But not only the fellowship helped.How can we forget Gandalf,Galadriel,Keleborn and so many others?They are all heroes of their time and history of Middle Earth.
So don't you even think that the person who can be definited as the only hero...isTolkien himself-THE CREATOR OF Iluvitar.


----------



## Finduilas

Hey,very funny...
Everyone can get a little confused,can't he?


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Most certainly! I just wanted to make sure you got the joke cos it's really funny if you think about it.

(When reading the previous statement "really" should be read as "almost".  Thank you.)

In regards to Gollum being the hero, I know that I can never convince Yay otherwise so I won't even bother to try.

But I'd also have to agree that really there is no hero.
I chose Frodo because he bore the burden of the ring all the way to Mt. Doom, but in reality he really couldn't have done it without any number of the rest of the Fellowship, and furthermore so many things went into the waging of that war and so many people sacraficed so much that really no one person can be credited with saving the day.

So I'd agree. There is no one hero. But nearly every character could probably be argued to be a hero in some way at some point in the story.


----------



## Finduilas

Thanks...after all.We finally reached an agreement about jokes,didn't we?


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *Let's again not forget the importance of Arwen. The quest would have failed early on but for her intervention at the Fords of Bruinene. She rescued Frodo from the evil Ringwraiths and then breathed life back into him, thus allowing him to continue his quest. She was also the main motivator of Aragorn.
> 
> Arwen was the true hero of The Lord of the Rings.
> 
> *


According to the movie you are right in a way.But what would you say about that:Elrond is the true hero.He saves Frodo's life in Rivendell


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Finduilas _
> *Although I've argued a lot about Gollum being the hero,I've considered it again and I should admit there is no hero after all.
> Gollum did the act everyone wanted or at least someone had to do so in some way he is the 'final hero' but his actions did only harm and no good to anyone.He didn't even think of helping a person or a friend(if he had one).He was usurped of the one so we shouldn't blame him(after all he had spent a lot of time with that ring) but we shouldn't try to find any special qualities of his personality that would make him a hero.
> So Gollum is out and so is everybody else.Fellowship means a lot of peaple who have one common aim or in other words -destroying the one is the most important thing for them and which gathers them.But not only the fellowship helped.How can we forget Gandalf,Galadriel,Keleborn and so many others?They are all heroes of their time and history of Middle Earth.
> So don't you even think that the person who can be definited as the only hero...isTolkien himself-THE CREATOR OF Iluvitar. *


Hmmm....I see our long discussion some time ago,while we were on a walk with our dogs,had a result.You reealized that Gollum could be the hero of the day,but not the true hero.


----------



## aDaHe

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *Got it. Anyways, sure, I don't think he was ever intending to do something nice for everybody in Middle Earth. But then, he was never planning on doing anything evil, either. He just wanted his security blanket back. He was nice and safe on his little island in his little cave in the Misty Mountains. The Ring made it easier to get food and not get caught. Look at all the crazy stuffs that happened to him after he lost his security blanket! Poor guy! He wasn't trying to be evil or good. He was trying to feel safe. Oh, and you know what? Gollum was the hero. sorry about that. *



but to get that security blanket back he was willing to do all kinds of evil!!!!!

this totally takes away nearly all of his points!!!!


----------



## YayGollum

That sounds like an opinion to me. Maybe I'm just crazy. I don't know of any list of rules on how to be a hero. I had no idea that if there was a list, one of the rules said that if you become a hero only be doing something that even one person thinks is evil, you're not a hero anymore. sorry. You have obviously read that list. Why does it matter if Gollum did anything evil to get his security blanket back? He still saved the day when he got it. 
Argh! Now you crazy people are deciding that you can't pigeonhole the title of ultimate hero of LOTR on one person again! Why? Isn't this thread for deciding who was the closest to being the ultimate hero since so many of you think that there couldn't be just one? 
Maybe I'm just crazy. I definitely don't agree that you have to give up and say that there couldn't be one hero for the whole book because it's sooo obvious that Gollum was the ultimate hero. It's so crazy that you people keep on bringing up all of these crazy people who helped out in different ways throughout the book, but never actually accomplished the goal. 
Gollum was the one who accomplished the goal. Somebody said something about not forgetting the people who weren't in the fellowship. I superly agree. Gollum was the hero. 
Come on, dudes! Don't give up just because there are so many different heroic characters! Agree with me and have the whole thing over with! You know that Gollum accomplished the main goal as soon as you read that Mount Doom chapter! And if you didn't, then I just told you! Gollum saved the day! sorry you didn't like him!


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Um...Yay, I respect your opinion, and while I agree with you to a point I disagree in other ways as well for reasons I've already posted.

I'm not really posting to dispute your arguments, because they've been made and disputed before, but I am disputing your approach to presenting your argument. You can't just say "Agree with me!" because everyone's entitled to their opinion.

I know you just want people to see it your way and to appreciate Gollum, and I want you to know that I appreciate him immensely! Not as much as you do but far more than most. I have a soft spot in my heart for him, and I really don't look at him as being truly evil as so many do.

But the thing is, I don't seem him as THE hero though he is A hero, and you have to respect that just like I respect that you believe him to be the hero.  You can't force us to agree with you, silly!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Gollum (Smeagol) does not _start out_ as an evil person. However, he _does_ start out as selfish and acquisitive (greedy). He does not value his friendship with Deagol - which is priceless - nearly as much as he values the bright and beautiful gold of the Ring.

True, the Ring's lure is _more_ than mere beauty and immediately it begins to work upon Smeagol's mind (he was, after all, a _much_ more suitable bearer than Deagol who was probably far less inclined to wickedness), but to descend almost immediately into murder in order to gain the Ring certainly displays an already warped personality.

Indeed, Gollum is an example to us all that the relatively small sins and weaknesses to which we are all heir, can - if allowed - mature into true wickedness and lead inevitably to our destruction.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

I do believe that Gollum probably had some sort of predilection for misdeeds from the beginning, but to me, even throughout his posession of the ring, he is not an evil creature.


----------



## YayGollum

Yay for the crazy Wonko person! I wasn't trying to force anybody to agree with me. I was strongly suggesting.  oh well. Do people come into a debate with the intent to not get people to agree with your side? Maybe not. Whoops!
Ack! sorry you weren't around to recommend a non-violent way to get the Ring from Deagol.  Anyways, what does all of this crazy character analyzing stuff have to with whether Smeagol was or was not the hero? I don't see the point. The appeal of someone's character has nothing to do with their ability to be a hero. Which he was, by the way.


----------



## Galaad

> I don't wanna pester anyone with that subject (but that's what I'm gonna do anyway  ), but I have a question to ask you:
Do you think of the hero as a top-pyramidal character in the LOTR, being over every other character for several reasons, or do you have an other approach? Because to me (maybe I'm wrong), the hero is also the main character of the plot, in Literature.I found something interesting in the Unfinished Tales, 3rd Age, Chap. 4, but I don't have it in English, so I have to translate it myself (Be indulgent please ):
-Except Death, nothing could defeat him [Gollum], as Sauron had guessed it, first because he was a "halfling" by nature, and also for another reason Sauron couldn't fully understand as he was consumed with desire for the ring himself-
I would be grateful to anyone could give me the right quotation.
This sounded very interesting to me because, when I read the LOTR, I didn't think at any moment that Sauron was finally under the dependence of the Ring as he tried to get it all along the novel.So it means that even if the Dark Lord is the most powerful character of the evil forces over the One Ring, He is nothing without It.He needs it.So, on the side of the Evil, it seems that it's not Sauron who is at the top of the pyramide of power, but the One Ring itself !
And as I said before, everything depends on the definition you give to the word "hero".The question of this thread is "Who do you think is the true hero of the LOTR ?" :
Do you consider the words LOTR mean the novel LOTR?The mythology LOTR?The story LOTR (close to the novel)?
Because to me (I know I'm gonna make new friends !!!), even if I do agree with the fact that an object, all the more when it's an Evil object, can't achieve great things, or heroic things, an object like the One Ring can be the hero of a novel, meaning the central character.Mrs M. told that it would mean that Sauron is the hero of the LOTR, but what if Sauron is not over the Ring and if it's the contrary.And don't you think that the end of the novel is a bit pessimistic ? I mean, Gollum was freed, Okay, but Frodo failed, as any other character, in destroying the Ring.In my opinion, the optimism is in the friendship and the defense of Middle-Earth.Everything is a matter of interpretation of the question .


----------



## YayGollum

Well, of course I don't think of a hero as a dude who's on the top of some pyramid. But then, while the definition of hero is different to many people, the view of who's on top of pyramids is also different. Isn't LOTR about this one hobbit who only wanted his security blanket and had to deal with all kinds of evil and nasssty people to get it back and save the world? That's what I always thought. oh well. No, my definition of hero has nothing to do with pyramids or popularity. A hero is the dude who saves the day, and it's always better when the hero is someone you'd never expect. I loved how everybody thought that one of the nasssty hobbitses from the Shire would be a hero, but in the end it was an even nassstier one. What a great plot twist!  No heroship for the Ring here, dude. sorry.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

*Yeah...I know we've had dictionary quotes before!*

he·ro ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hîr)
n. pl. he·roes 
1) In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods. 
2) A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war. 
3)A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See Synonyms at celebrity. 
4)The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation. 
Chiefly New York City. See submarine. See Regional Note at submarine. 


A few arguments for why Gollum could be said to be the hero. I don't think he's THE hero, but I can see Yay's side, and I like to argue for Gollum every now and then.

First of all we ALL know Frodo was incapable of destroying the ring himself. He couldn't do it, he'd carried it too long and it had too much control over him.
We say Gollum was evil for killing Deagol over the ring, but I believe that if it came down to it Frodo, in his desperation and Ring Lust, would've killed Sam rather than let his friend take the ring and cast it into the volcano.
Try to disagree with me, you can't do it. We all know he would. 
Anyway, so as far as the official definition of hero goes Gollum is a hero by the second definition in that he sacraficed his life. Granted he didn't do it on PURPOSE, but he paid the ultimate price fighting for what he loved.
And in so doing he saved a whole lot of people and made the world a better place.
And you really can't argue with that as all I said is true. 
*Now SHE is trying to force this opinion*

See, I can see how Gollum could be the hero.


----------



## Goro Shimura

Tolkien:

"Frodo deserved all the honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. _The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'_ (as one critic has said). (Letter #192 to Amy Ronald)

Frodo is the Hero. It is God that intervened and caused Gollum and the Ring to be cast into Mt Doom.


----------



## Froggum

I'd have to go with Sam. Definitely Sam. And I know most people wil argue with me on this, but I really think Sam made it all happen. Wh saved Frodo from the tower anyway? He certainly wasn't capable of saving himself. Frodo never would have made it without him.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

> _Originally posted by Goroshimura _
> *Tolkien:
> 
> "Frodo deserved all the honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said). (Letter #192 to Amy Ronald)
> 
> Frodo is the Hero. It is God that intervened and caused Gollum and the Ring to be cast into Mt Doo. *



I agree, just thought I'd support Yay for a bit.


----------



## Calimehtar

I think Sam was the hero. He stayed by Frodo during the whole thing. He even stayed with him when he was captured in Mordor. So... that is why I think Sam is the hero of the day.


----------



## YayGollum

Argh! Crazy people! You think that someone can be the main hero of LOTR just for their nice personality traits? Oh, the evil sam is loyal! Oh, Frodo had so much strength to get the Ring that far! Ick. Oh, please. The main goal of LOTR was only accomplished because of Gollum. Gollum was the hero.


----------



## Ariana Undomiel

Ariana rolls eyes at YayGollum and leaves the thread for good. 

- Ariana


----------



## Wonko The Sane

You shouldn't leave just because you don't agree with him.

He's entitled to his opinions just as you are!


----------



## aDaHe

OOOOOooooooo!!!!!!!!!
i found this qoute that i will put in here to gollums defence as a type of hero.

pg 95 of rotk

Let us remeber that a Traitor my betray himself and do good that he does not intend.

i dont care if anyone has already wrote this i want to!!!!!


----------



## Finduilas

YayGollum:
Argh! Crazy people! You think that someone can be the main hero of LOTR just for their nice personality traits? Oh, the evil sam is loyal! Oh, Frodo had so much strength to get the Ring that far! Ick. Oh, please. The main goal of LOTR was only accomplished because of Gollum. Gollum was the hero.

Come on,Yay,argument your opinion.Don't just say it is obvious because I don't find it so.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Beloved Forum Friends:

Methinks the gleam we see in our favorite Yea Gollum's eyes is _not_ the gleam of hunger but of mischief! I really do believe that he is pulling more chains on this thread than Marley's ghost! 

Well, my dear Yea Gollum, whether you actually believe Gollum is a hero or not, _you_ certainly deserve a prize for your tenacious defense of him! Perhaps if he had possessed more friends like you, he might have ended his days in his own home among his children and grandchildren enjoying a quiet pipe in front of the fire!

A blessed Holiday season to all!


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Finduilas _
> * Oh, the evil sam is loyal! Oh, *


Hm...... I cannot accept the statement that Sam is evil only because he has negative opinion about Gollum.He just knows the true nature of Gollum.He feels that Gollum is totaly corrupted by the ring and that Gollum is able to do everything to posess The One again(didn't he try to kill Frodo?)
At the same time Sam is the character with the most pure soul.He does everything not because he is obliged to do it ,but because he wants to protect his master,to help his master.He is doing all this only because of his love.Of his pure heart which tells him what do to.Just ask yourself how many times Sam sacrifices himself to save Frodo?
OO let me guess Gollum sacrifeces himself and jumps into Mount Doom,because realizes he is the only one who can save ME?a?


----------



## Finduilas

> Hm...... I cannot accept the statement



Gil-Galad,I wanted to quete Yay but I didn't know how to do it in the beginning so I wrote it all over again.
But in the beginning i wrote that Yay had said that.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Now I know how to quote so it won't happen again.


----------



## YayGollum

Yes, I called the evil sam evil. It's very fun. I just call him evil because I don't like his character. Sure, Gandalf, Aragorn, and Sauron are pretty evil, too. Yeah, the evil sam is superly loyal and admirable and stinky stuffs like that, but that's why I don't like him. I usually just like the weaselly characters. Way more fun to read about. You always know what someone like the evil sam will do. oh well. 
When did Gollum try to kill Frodo? I have no idea. I just know that the evil sam only hates Gollum because of what Bilbo told him. I don't know of too many other parts where the evil sam could learn anything else about him. I never thought that Gollum was evil from The Hobbit. oh well. 
Anyways, Ack! Crazy Finduilas person! Why is what I'm saying not obvious? You've read LOTR, right? You know that Gollum destroyed the Ring. You know that the main goal of LOTR was to destroy the Ring. Put one and two together, and you can conclude that since Gollum accomplished the goal, he is the hero. Yay Gollum! 
Also, yes, crazy Maggott person, I am having fun saying that Gollum is the hero, but I also believe it. It's the most obvious thing! *hides*


----------



## Wonko The Sane

I just plain hate Sam, so you can call him evil all you want.


----------



## Finduilas

> Crazy Finduilas person! Why is what I'm saying not obvious? You've read LOTR, right? You know that Gollum destroyed the Ring. You know that the main goal of LOTR was to destroy the Ring. Put one and two together, and you can conclude that since Gollum accomplished the goal, he is the hero.



First,yes,I've read LOTR and I know what the main idea is.This is why I have said Gollum was the hero of the book in its historical point of view but not in its moral one.He didn't actually have any special qualities that made him hero except of course the GREAT luck in Mount Doom.So yes Gollum is a hero but not a complete one and don't ,please ,sya again it's obvious but say what is obvious-that Gollum was hero(I've already shared my opinion)or that you believe in his complete heroism because believe me there is difference.



> I just plain hate Sam, so you can call him evil all you want.



I don't like sam too but I should admit that he had many good qualities.Yes,he had them indeed(my arguments are the LOTR ).


----------



## YayGollum

Yay Wonko!  
Oh, yeah. sorry about that. I forgot what you said before, crazy Finduilas person. I know, I'm such an evil person. You think he's the hero in every way except the moral kind. Got it. I say, Argh! Why are there so many different ways you can go about deciding who gets to be a hero? If the dude fits one of the requirements for being a hero, he is a hero. He doesn't have to be a hero in every single sense of the word. There are many kinds of heroes. Gollum is one. I don't see why people say, "Okay, I'll admit that he was a kind of hero, but see, he's not this other kind of hero at the same time! I win!" oh well.


----------



## Finduilas

> Oh, yeah. sorry about that. I forgot what you said before, crazy Finduilas person. I know, I'm such an evil person. You think he's the hero in every way except the moral kind. Got it. I say, Argh! Why are there so many different ways you can go about deciding who gets to be a hero? If the dude fits one of the requirements for being a hero, he is a hero. He doesn't have to be a hero in every single sense of the word. There are many kinds of heroes. Gollum is one. I don't see why people say, "Okay, I'll admit that he was a kind of hero, but see, he's not this other kind of hero at the same time! I win!" oh well.



Ok,I admit and shaw not argue anymore as you have your own STRONG opinion and I can't make you change it.


----------



## YayGollum

Yikes! I keep scaring people away! Not trying to, dudes. Or maybe I'm just too evil and stubborn for my own good. Well, yeah, I gots my own ideas about stuff. I'm not going to let people change my mind if I'm superly sure about something. That's no reason to run away. Okay, maybe it is.  It is a debate. You can see that I'll never change my mind. I'm just here to change your minds. Looks like I'm annoying people more often. *hides*


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

*Frodo*

Frodo was the true hero of LotR and everyone knows that. Tolkien intended it to be that way, and Frodo is the main character and is the hero, as he intended it to be. Whoever may not agree is just blinded by their love for their favorite characters (IMO, no offense intended). If I wanted to I could say Eowyn was the hero or Gimli was, because of one thing that they may have done to help fulfill the quest. Gollum definitly was NOT the hero because he didn't intend to destroy the Ring or help the hobbits at all. Sam had no mind for the Ring, he just wanted to be with Frodo and make sure HE was safe, not the Ring. Frodo was the only one who went the entire book thinking and caring about the fate of the Ring, and it was his main purpose to destroy it. Even if he failed at the Cracks of Doom to throw it in, he got the Ring there for one purpose: TO DESTROY IT! That makes Frodo the main hero, not Sam or Gollum, as they had other reasons for being involved in the quest. Frodo IS the true hero, no one else.


----------



## YayGollum

Here we go! Yay new people! I superly dissagree. sorry about that. Yes, Frodo did get the Ring all the way to Mount Doom. Yes, destroying the Ring was mostly his goal. I just don't see how he can be the true hero of LOTR if he failed in the end. Pretty much anybody would agree that he failed. His goal was to destroy the Ring. He didn't. I'm disregarding everything he went through to get it there because he didn't accomplish the goal. Gollum did. You don't know what his intent was, but sure, I can see why you'd say that he didn't mean to destroy the Ring. The point is that he did. The goal was to destroy the Ring. Frodo failed. Gollum didn't. Gollum is the hero. It seems simple to me. sorry.


----------



## Mablung

I would say that Gandalf is rather a foil for both Aragorn and Frodo (meaning he brings out characteristics that were hidden before) and that Frodo and Aragorn are both the heros since for most of the story they follow seperate yet equally important plot lines.


----------



## Finduilas

> Yikes! I keep scaring people away! Not trying to, dudes. Or maybe I'm just too evil and stubborn for my own good. Well, yeah, I gots my own ideas about stuff. I'm not going to let people change my mind if I'm superly sure about something. That's no reason to run away. Okay, maybe it is. It is a debate. You can see that I'll never change my mind. I'm just here to change your minds. Looks like I'm annoying people more often. *hides*



Yay,I didn't run away neither I'm doing it now.I just can't find any sense in argueing with person who doesn't give me no arguments except that it is OBVIOUS.
Don't forget that even the most obvious things have an explanation and should be defended.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

*YayGollum...*

You don't make sense. Gollum did not willfully fulfill the quest, nor did he want to!!! HIS quest was to get the Ring back, that is all. He led the Hobbits into Shelob's lair, tricked them, and accidently fell in to a giant bowl of lava at the end. What kind of hero is that? That's like saying a criminal accidently killed himself while trying to steal a bag of money from the bank. Gollum is not a hero!!! He is twisted and a criminal, even if he destroyed the Ring, which he didn't want to. Frodo on the other hand got the Ring to Mt. Doom and got it destroyed, even if it wasn't the way it was "supposed to be." FRODO = HERO, 
GOLLUM = CRIMINAL!!!


----------



## Finduilas

> Frodo was the true hero of LotR and everyone knows that. Tolkien intended it to be that way, and Frodo is the main character and is the hero, as he intended it to be. Whoever may not agree is just blinded by their love for their favorite characters (IMO, no offense intended). If I wanted to I could say Eowyn was the hero or Gimli was, because of one thing that they may have done to help fulfill the quest. Gollum definitly was NOT the hero because he didn't intend to destroy the Ring or help the hobbits at all. Sam had no mind for the Ring, he just wanted to be with Frodo and make sure HE was safe, not the Ring. Frodo was the only one who went the entire book thinking and caring about the fate of the Ring, and it was his main purpose to destroy it. Even if he failed at the Cracks of Doom to throw it in, he got the Ring there for one purpose: TO DESTROY IT! That makes Frodo the main hero, not Sam or Gollum, as they had other reasons for being involved in the quest. Frodo IS the true hero, no one else.[/QUOTE ]
> 
> Just ask yourself - Where would Frodo go if the fellowship didn't help him and not only they but so many characters that shouldn't be forgotten and deserve to be called heroes as well.
> I'm not blinded as you may think because I don't have a fixed favourite character but I think Tolkien didn't create so many characters only to be more realistic in his novel ,he did it in purpose and I think he wanted to show us how dependent we are on every person and how history is based on everyone's own life.That's why it is called history because it includes many related lives though there are still many heroes who did a lot about a cause.
> To sum up,I think Frodo did a lot about destroying the ring but he can't be called hero as well as Gollum because he wasn't the only one.


----------



## Finduilas

Sorry about the quote.It was too long,wasn't it?Well,I'll know next time.


----------



## YayGollum

Hey, Mablung! You're not stressed out, are you?  You say that Frodo and Aragorn are the heroes since there were two different stories going on. Got it. I'm just going for the one hero for the whole trilogy. I'm thinking that the main goal was to destroy the Ring. There was a whole book named after destroying the Ring, so I think I'm right. oh well. 
Now, this crazy Finduilas person is telling me that I should defend the arguement I already gave. I have no idea what more I can say. I can only keep shooting down other people's arguements because mine is the only one that makes sense to me. I just superly cannot understand the other viewpoints. I must be crazy, huh?
Okay, Dain, you're fun. I agree that Gollum's quest was to get the Ring back. I just have to point out that okay, he didn't get to fulfull his quest, and are you forgetting poor Smeagol? This dude is schizophrenic. Tolkien hardly ever says what this guy is thinking. We're always paying attention to Gollum. I just usually say that Gollum was the hero because it takes less time than poor Smeagol. Smeagol fulfilled Frodo's quest. That means that Frodo did not accomplish his goal. Smeagol did it for him. He is the hero. How can Frodo be the hero if he didn't save the day, and Gollum did? oh well. Gots to go.


----------



## Finduilas

I've checked in the dictionary and let me quote one of the explanations which refers to our discussion.



> In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.



How about this one,crazy Yay person?


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

*Thank you for that definition*

As clearly stated in the DICTIONARY a HERO is someone who is bold and full of courage, etc. Gollum definitely was not at all. He is cowardly, sneaky, and evil. Gollum is not a good character, Smeagol is good but he allows himself to be ruled by Gollum. So, whatever Smeagol may have done does'nt matter because he was neither brave nor bold nor full of courage. There is NO way Gollum could be the hero of LotR. He could have killed Sauron and he still wouldn't be a hero, because his character is evil and cowardly.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

*Oh, and Findulias-*

You have a good point, but even though Frodo certainly would have failed without the Fellowship, or Gollum, or Bombadil, or whoever... they only HELPED him. Just because they helped him continue his quest, it doesnt mean that he cant be the true hero. Sure all those others were heroes and heroines, but Frodo was the true hero of them all. He was the only one who couldve gotten the Ring that far, even if he wasnt the strongest, wisest, smartest person of them all. Frodo was the true hero of LotR, end of story, but by saying that I'm not denying that there weren't other heroes in the story as well. It's just that Frodo was the main one, and that was what Tolkien intended, along with other people helping him along his journey.


----------



## YayGollum

Do what? You're saying that Smeagol cannot be the hero just because he didn't act like a classical hero? Ick. The dude who gave the definition only gave one of the many definitions. Do you really think that the only way you can get to be a hero is to have the qualifications in that one definition? That's just craziness. You can't stick that word onto just one definition. oh well. Even though he doesn't fit the stinky classical hero qualifications, he's still a hero. He saved the day. You can't deny it.


----------



## Mablung

*Re: Thank you for that definition*



> _Originally posted by Dáin Ironfoot I _
> *As clearly stated in the DICTIONARY a HERO is someone who is bold and full of courage, etc. Gollum definitely was not at all. He is cowardly, sneaky, and evil. Gollum is not a good character, Smeagol is good but he allows himself to be ruled by Gollum. So, whatever Smeagol may have done does'nt matter because he was neither brave nor bold nor full of courage. There is NO way Gollum could be the hero of LotR. He could have killed Sauron and he still wouldn't be a hero, because his character is evil and cowardly.*



The Dictionary definition of a hero isn't always correct though. Many other types of heros exist in literature such as the Byronic Hero. Though obviously none of LOTRs characters fit that particular mold Im simply saying another type of hero may have been used.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

Yes Yay, I can deny it, I have been for the last few posts  !!! So have you... I guess we're both too stubborn to give in. However... true there are many defintions of a hero, but I don't think there is any that have to do with "accidental hero" (*cough* GOLLUM *cough*)


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

According to Yea Gollum's "theory" of "heroship", if Frodo had been struck on the head with a falling rock and as a result, pitched headlong into the Fire, then the hero of LOTR would have been a rock since _it_ would have been the causative agent of the destruction of the Ring!

True, there are many kinds of heroes, but I think the closest Gollum can come is to be defined as an "anti-hero"; that is, someone who exhibits all the traits which would "_dis_qualify that person from being a hero!


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

*Thank you Mrs. Maggot!*

Finally... SOMEONE who understands what I am getting at!


----------



## YayGollum

Thank you, Mablung! You is cool! 
Dain person, you is crazy. I don't see why you're denying it. You've read the book. You know that Gollum destroyed the Ring. You know that the main goal was to destroy the Ring. If Frodo had tripped into the Crack of Doom, you'd say that he was the hero. You just don't want to admit that Gollum was the hero because you don't like him. You're so set with the idea of a classical hero that you don't want to think of the original type I'm talking about. 
What's all of this craziness with the rock? I would say that Frodo would be the hero if the rock hit him. I don't know of too many nonsentient heroes, so I'd have to go with the next best thing. Frodo was under the rock. It was his decision to go under the rock, just like it was Gollum's decision to start dancing.


----------



## Athelas

*Sam*

because he is the closest thing to the common man. Just an everday Joe Hobbit. Also, his loyalty, love and devotion for Frodo remind me of Hanuman's service to Ram.


----------



## Mablung

Gollum was certainly a type of hero whether the main hero or not I would say no, as for which type of hero he is you would have to decide if he stepped into the pit willingly or not. I always thought it was an accident that he stepped off that way, and if you agree on that point then he is an "Accidental Hero" but any other scenario would qualify him differently.


----------



## YayGollum

I'm content with thinking of him as an accidental hero. Whatever gets him the title. But he's definitely the main hero of the entire trilogy because he accomplished the main goal of the entire trilogy. Ack! Athelas dude! Don't attack me that way! You're telling me that the evil sam was the hero because he was an average joe! I love average joes! Don't make me think of the evil sam as one of them! *runs away* Still, just being an average joe who happened to be present when another guy accomplishes your goal doesn't make you a hero.


----------



## Mablung

Depends on your definition of main hero my definition is the hero the story follows for most of the plot line. Thats why I would not classify Gollum as the main hero but again it is a matter of definition.


----------



## YayGollum

Got it. That makes sense to me. Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again ---> We will never agree on who the hero is. There are too many different views on what a hero is. Sure, if we made a thread saying, "Who do you think the main hero is if you only use this one definition of the word hero?" we could get a definitive answer, but it obviously wouldn't please everybody. oh well.


----------



## Mablung

It's still an interesting debate frankly I never even considered Gollum to be any kind of hero until I started reading this new viewpoints are always interesting.


----------



## YayGollum

Yay for new viewpoints! Very fun! Yay for keeping on debating even though we're all superly stubborn and will never give up! This is one of the biggest and coolest and most fun debates around! Yay! That Dain person was pretty stubborn. Everyone else gave up.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

We are at how many pages in this thread? and the same debate continues despite all manner of intellectual identification of "hero". Perhaps we are not looking at the _question_ properly. As I read it, it says, "Who(m) do _you_ (emphasis mine) think is the true hero of LOTR?" The question wasn't, " Who _IS_ the 'true hero' of LOTR?", but rather a subjective opinion of the individual posting. In that case, no answer can be wrong since it is the _individual's_ choice to make! I believe it is Frodo as I have said. I further believe from what I have read myself and what others have also posted as having read, that the author had that same opinion. However, that doesn't make the answer "correct" or "incorrect" with respect to the question posted.

Under the circumstances, I would suggest that further argument on this thread is not only pointless, but _erroneous_ since everyone has answered the question correctly from his or her point of view. Therefore, let me congratulate all those who posted on a thread which has achieved an unheard of 100% accuracy rate!


----------



## YayGollum

Yeah, I noticed the question when I first showed up, but it's always fun to make a debate out of things. Not too many people have objected. People can still come in and say who they think is the hero. I'd just feel like trying to change their minds. sorry about that.


----------



## Finduilas

> I'd just feel like trying to change their minds. sorry about that.



Oh,Yay ,you can't change my mind. But you can continue to debate,can't you?  
Well,you don't waste your time ,don't you?You tried to persuade a lot of people here.
But ,unfortunately Finduilas is back.Sorry about that.

Let me see,I don't think Gollum is the true hero of the Lotr but he certainly is a hero.And an accident hero is the best definition,I guess.
And as you are on the same opinion, I think we finally reached some kind of agreement.   Very happy for that.

As far as for Frodo,I shall not define him as the true and main hero because although he was strong-willed and even couragous,he was quite pliable to the influance of the One.And I should say he was rather pliable to the darkness of Sauron's will.


----------



## G.T.Grey

Well it's matter of opinion but my hero is Gandalf, because:

* He volunteered to come to Middle Earth to oppose Sauron, even though he feared him and felt that he was too weak for the task.
* He stayed true to his mission.
* He went, twice, alone into Saurons stronghold, discovering his identity and alerting the free world.
* He was the friend of all free peoples, forsaking arrogance and pride, walking among them to help them in need.
* He alone of the wise foresaw the potential of the hobbits, and included them in the plans of the free peoples. Through him, bilbo embarked upon his adventures, and thus the One was found.
* He discovered the truth about the One, and of course initiated Frodo's quest.
* He was Aragorns friend and tutor. Through Gandalf, Aragorn learned wisdom, humility and compassion.
* He was driven by compassion for others, for the weak and the defenceless.
* Gandalf discovered Saruman's treachery.
* He foresaw Gollums importance, and also urged pity. This later influenced Frodo.
* Gandalf alone defied the balrog of Moria, and sacrificed himself to save his friends. the extent of this sacrifice cannot be over stated.
* Sent back as the White, he turned the tide of events, meeting with Aragorn and Co, appraising them of events, advising them of a strategy that could hope to succeed.
* He then healed Theoden, freeing him from Grima's spell.
* He brought the Huorns to Theodens aid, thus saving Rohan and ensuring Saruman's downfall.
* He confronted Saruman, cast him out of the order and won the Palantir, which enabled Aragorn to employ effective tactics.
* He went to Minas Tirith, bolstered the beseiged city, saved Faramir (twice), and confronted the Witch King.
* He led the way at the final counsel, and went himself to the gates of Mordor with the Captains of the West.

Gandalf, chief strategist of the free peoples, led from the front, at great risk to himself, and to great effect. More than any other, he was responsible for the redemption of the peoples of Middle earth. He had nothing to gain personally; his only motivation was that he loved the free peoples, and pitied them.


----------



## Finduilas

Good arguments but lets think logically.Gandalf was Maia and he was stronger(as a meaning of powerful),wiser and stronger-willed than most of the characters.Then is it fair to judje people who are not equal?
I admit Gandalf did many fateful things but he could feel them because of his own skills and nature.He was Mitrandir after all.
But even if except him as equal to everybody else than we should consider the fact that he couldn't destroy or even accept to catty the One.Only to compare Frodo and Sam ,for example,could take it although that cost a lot to Frodo.He said it himself while he refused the ring.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Can we say "impasse"? C'mon...say it with me now....


----------



## Finduilas

> Can we say "impasse"? C'mon...say it with me now....



Impasse... 
Come on let us have some fun.
That's why it is discussion,isn't it?


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Right...ok. Have fun I guess.

Only the discussion's been going on for SOO long! And nobody's ever going to change anyone's mind.

We're really not saying anything that hasn't been said 6 times already...which is why I thought maybe this thread might be done.

Unless something can come up with something new and original to say on the subject.


----------



## YayGollum

No, not me. I'm just here to tell people the truth.  That they should have known already.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

*me again....*

Everyone knows who I think is the true hero of LotR is, but I think the only one who agrees with me is Mrs. Maggot. O well. Just wanted to let you know that I give up arguing because I cant change anyones opinions. Plus, I ran out of ideas. 

BTW, Frodo IS the true hero!!!


----------



## Killabee3

Yep, i just went through this HUGE thread and i've had a long thought about it and decided frodo is the one true hero.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

WOO HOO!!! Someone else agrees with me! Maybe you can be successful in trying to sway Yay's opinions. Oh wait-- thats impossible


----------



## Finduilas

Yes,I also agree that we should stop somewhere and let it be here.
No more ideas?
Well,that's really the end.
Nevertheless,I wanted to change someone's opinion,that's impossible because nobody believes in anything but the OBVIOUS one.


----------



## YayGollum

Thank you. It is very obvious. Too bad that Ironfooted dude gave up so easily. oh well. I guess I can only wait for new people to show up.


----------



## Finduilas

We'll wait them together.
You know I'm right behind you,don't you?


----------



## YayGollum

Right.  To push me into a Crack of Doom, huh?


----------



## Eithne

All of the characters are equally true and heroic, but, if pressed to pick a single one, I'd say Frodo. Sam was his support system to the end, yes, but what did Sam lose? He didn't 'save his land for others and not himself'. He was able to stay and build a life for himself, as were the other characters (with the exception of Gandalf). Frodo was the single character with the most to sacrifice, and he lost everything.


----------



## Finduilas

> All of the characters are equally true and heroic, but, if pressed to pick a single one, I'd say Frodo. Sam was his support system to the end, yes, but what did Sam lose? He didn't 'save his land for others and not himself'. He was able to stay and build a life for himself, as were the other characters (with the exception of Gandalf). Frodo was the single character with the most to sacrifice, and he lost everything.



Here we go again. 
I agree that all the characters are equally heroic and who ever presses me I can't choose one because they are one whole-a 'fellowship'(I don't mean only the real one)which sacrifies for the 'cure' and safety of Middle-earth.
They can't be separated into two or even more groups,for example:

not so heroes heroes THE hero
... ... ...

That's ridiculous,isn't it?


----------



## YayGollum

What was that about Frodo losing everything? Not really. Look at poor Smeagol! He died saving Middle Earth. Both Frodo and poor Smeagol were going through the same stuffs the whole time. Poor Smeagol's fight with the Ring was probably worse than Frodo's. Oh, yeah. And he died saving Middle Earth.  Frodo got to go to paradise without having to die, and he did less than poor Smeagol. No fair.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

Yay, give it up. 

You are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Sure I may have ran out of ideas, but at least I used different ideas when arguing. All you say is how Gollum is this "accidental hero" and completed this quest he never meant to.

Well, Yay, sorry to break it to you, but GOLLUM DIDNT MEAN TO COMPLETE THAT QUEST!!! His last desire was to destroy that ring. So answer me this: You think Gollum is the Hero of LotR because he destroyed the Ring by accident, right? Well, according to your belief, then you would think that if Sauron accidently kicked Frodo with the ring on into the fire, then Sauron is the hero of LotR. That is exactly like Gollum because niether wanted to destroy the Ring. So by saying Gollum is the hero, then you are saying Sauron, the ENEMY of all free peoples of ME was the hero.

Well surely, Sauron was not the hero of LotR, but Im sure you will find some way to argue that.


----------



## Finduilas

Here are some reasons why Frodo and Gollum can't be the heroes:

LOTR,Book 6,ch. 3-Mount Doom:



> Then suddenly,as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil,Sam saw these two rivels with other vision.A crouching shape,scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing,a creature now wholly ruined and defeated,yet filled with a hideous lust and rage;and before it stood stern,untouchable now by pity,a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire.Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.'Begone,and trouble me no more!If you touch me ever again,you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'



It seems that Sauron has copletely taken over Frodo's mind,toughts.So how can a person or hobitt ,I mean,be a hero if he doesn't decide or better judje on his own.It's exactly the same as your post-Sauron talked through Frodo and should we consider Sauron as a hero?Ridiculous!

LOTR,Book 6,ch. 3,Mount Doom:



> But Gollum,dancing like a mad thing,held aloft the ring,a finger still thrust within its circle.It shone now as if verily it was wrought of living fire.'Precious,precious,precious!'Gollum cried.'My Precious!O my Precious!'And with that ,even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize,he stepped too far,toppled,wavered for a moment on the brink,and then with a shriek he fell.Out of the depths came his last wail Precious,and he was gone.



Well,what can I say more?Tolkien himself called Gollum 'mad'.And how can a mad person be a hero?


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

I agree that Gollum cannot be the hero, but Frodo himself was not directly and fully under Sauron's control. True, he did not dispose of the Ring but that was because of the Ring's power. If Sauron had controlled Frodo, Frodo never would have gotten that far at all. You would be more correct in saying that Frodo was being controlled by his own will to keep the Ring safe, or by the Ring itself, not Sauron. Remember, as soon as Frodo put on the Ring at the end, Sauron knew what was going on, and he was VERY startled. So startled that he called all of his Nazgul to get it. So if Sauron was in "control" of Frodo, which he WASNT, then he wouldve known of this plan to destroy this Ring.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Frankly, Tolkien could not _permit_ Frodo to destroy the Ring in Sammath Naur, it's place of greatest power. Had he been able to do so, it would have meant that the hobbit was stronger than all other powers of Middle Earth except Gandalf and Sauron. Indeed, only Gandalf had the strength to destroy the Ring - and only then in his "empowered" self, Gandalf the White. Had he been still Gandalf the Grey, the Ring would have overpowered him as well. Why anyone would be surprised that Frodo could not withstand this amount of power sort of boggles the mind!

Remember, in Sammath Naur the Ring is at its most powerful (as we are told) and therefore, most like its maker. No one supposes that Frodo - or indeed _any_ of the Fellowship save Gandalf in his "new, improved" persona - could have withstood a direct assault by the Dark Lord. Aragorn just barely - and with much pain and suffering - is able to wrest the palantir from Sauron, but, remember, the palantir is by rights _Aragorn's_ and _not_ Sauron's. That gives him an "edge", so to speak, in his attempt to reclaim it. Had it been a device of the Dark Lord, most probably he would have failed in any attempt to secure it's power. 

In fact, the _only way_ that the Ring _could_ be destroyed (short of Gandalf throwing it in the Fire), was by _accident_ as, in fact, happened in the story. There is nothing subversive or "incomplete" in the quest ending as it did. In fact, it is the only thing that makes sense and, perhaps, Gandalf himself understood that fact - and that is why he was so protective of Gollum, the only possible agent by which the Ring could meet its doom, albeit, not intentionally.


----------



## Finduilas

> In fact, the only way that the Ring could be destroyed (short of Gandalf throwing it in the Fire), was by accident as, in fact, happened in the story.



I couldn't agree more.And this rationalizes the idea of the accident hero.
And ,actually,if there is no heroism in the act of destroying the ring,how it really happened,then we can't consider anyone as a hero of the whole book.


----------



## YayGollum

Nah. I'd say that poor Smeagol was a hero because he did a heroic deed. Yay for it being superly unintential! That's way more original than, "Oh, look at me! I am the greatest, most purest, and nicest all around dude, so I will now throw this Ring into that fire, thereby superly selflessly saving Middle Earth! Yay!" Ick. Good thing that Gandalf dude wasn't around! 
sorry if I keep saying the same thing. It's just that there isn't much to say when we're only dealing with this one scene. 
Anyways, what was all of that about Sauron kicking Frodo into the Crack of Doom place? Ummm...that never happened, and even if it did, the situation is completely different from Gollum's. Gollum's superly heroic deed was unintential, while stupidly kicking someone would be intentional, but sure, still heroic. 
There was something over here asking how a mad person could be a hero. No problem at all when unintentional type stuffs are allowed. Yay Gollum! Yay for rationalizing the idea of the accidental hero! 
I love this thing that the Dain person said, too ---> His last desire was to destroy that ring. I've always thought so, too!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

It is far too limiting to identify the "hero" of LOTR simply as that person who destroyed the Ring. There is so much more to it than that. Just for starters, Gollum could have done nothing about destroying the Ring had it not been in the chamber of Sammath Naur. How did it get there? Through the efforts not only of Frodo and Sam, but of all the other members of the Fellowship together with Bilbo (who originally found it), Elrond, Galadriel, etc., etc., etc. It might even be said that the orc who drove Frodo and Sam toward the Black Gate - so that they could escape the area of the Tower - also played a part.

The term "hero" in this instance is being used to describe that person whose efforts were most influential in bringing about the Ring's destruction and there can be no doubt that Frodo was the prime mover in the matter even when he was passively allowing himself to be led by the likes of Gandalf and Aragorn. Sometimes the best thing that one can do is to defer to the judgment of those who _know more_ and are therefore better equipped to lead. Frodo permitted himself to be led until he found himself alone (with Sam) and then he did a pretty good job of completing his obligations even _without_ Gandalf!


----------



## YayGollum

But we still know that he failed in the end. Yay Gollum!  So if he failed, he can't be the hero. Sure, plenty of people helped out along the way. Sure, without their help, the Ring would have never gotten to the point where Gollum could be the hero. But still, even though all of those people did all of those things, the Ring would have never been destroyed if it hadn't been for poor Smeagol. When you come right down to it, there's that last scene in Mount Doom. I'm only guessing that you knew that this part of the book is supposed to be the climax. We know that Frodo failed. We know that the evil sam definitely failed. He wasn't even trying. Gollum didn't fail. Yay Gollum for being the Hero!


----------



## Finduilas

> We know that Frodo failed. We know that the evil sam definitely failed. He wasn't even trying. Gollum didn't fail.



Fail in what-destroying the One?
Everybody did.Nobody destroyed it except the destiny and an accident.


----------



## YayGollum

Right. Failed in destroying poor Smeagol's security blanket. No, Gollum didn't fail. You crazy? He destroyed the evil thing, remember? Yeah, it was an accident, but it was an accident that only came about because Stoor hobbitses can't dance.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

Dude...give it up!

Mrs. Maggot is right, we are wrong. YOU especially. Deal with it. Gollum is not the hero, and never will be. You know that deep down but you are so obsessed with that little creature that you wont admit it.


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Dáin Ironfoot I _
> *Dude...give it up!
> 
> Mrs. Maggot is right, we are wrong. YOU especially. Deal with it. Gollum is not the hero, and never will be. You know that deep down but you are so obsessed with that little creature that you wont admit it. *


I totally agree.But YaYGollum obviously cannot understand it.It's boring to write different things to prove your ideas and never to be heard.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

True that brotha!  All in good fun Yay.

Youre just wrong, thats all.

WRONG!


----------



## YayGollum

Hey, I have no problem saying that I'm obsessed. Very fun!  Anyways, yeah, I got it. You think I'm wrong. Okay. I don't see you coming up with any good evidence for anything other than how poor Smeagol is the hero. My answer to the question about who the true hero is makes all kinds of sense. Where's your sense? I haven't seen it. Most people just say, "Ack! What's wrong with you, YayGollum?" Why don't you try to give me a reason to think otherwise? If you think you already have, I'm sorry if I missed anything convincing.


----------



## Finduilas

> Youre just wrong, thats all.



Ya,tell them,D6in!



> Why don't you try to give me a reason to think otherwise? If you think you already have, I'm sorry if I missed anything convincing.



Come on,Yay.Don't you READ this thread or what?
I think we have said much more than you.


----------



## YayGollum

Yeah, you crazy people have definitely said all kinds of crazy things. If you think there's something convincing around here, tell me where to look. I have no idea. I'm probably just crazy.


----------



## Finduilas

First read the last ten pages and then come to talk again,a?


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

> I have no idea. I'm probably just crazy.



Yes, Yay. You are crazy. Very much so. There is plenty of points in this thread on why Gollum isnt the hero. Also, look at the poll and notice that many dont think Gollum is the hero at all, so obviously no one agrees with your absurd ideas.



> First read the last ten pages and then come to talk again,a?



Follow that advice.


----------



## YayGollum

Okay, here's what I learned from you crazy people ---> 
aDaHe ---> Aragorn because of his dedication in the story to the destroying of the ring (even though he went off and did something else?)

ithrynluin ---> Frodo, because he was the least capable of undertaking the hard task of destroying the ring and it took a lot of courage and pain to accomplish the task (even though he didn't?)
Popqueen62 ---> Frodo, because even though he totally was gonna go crazy at the end, he still fulfilled his task (no, he didn't)

Gothmog ---> the evil sam is even less likely than Frodo yet he was the one in the fellowship who grew the most from his start as Gardener to the Mayor of The Shire (so, growing during the book makes you a hero? Okay, that's a different definition) And ---> I will still put the evil sam before Frodo. The reason for this is that throughout the attempt to destroy the Ring where Frodo was there too was the evil sam supporting him. After the destruction of the Ring and the return to The Shire, Frodo dropped into the background and soon left the Shire (Okay, why talk about after the big scene? Anyways, Smeagol was there, too, supporting Middle Earth in a big way.) At this point Sam went beyond Frodo as he changed from the support of One hobbit to the leader and support of a nation of Hobbits. And so because of this I still say that Sam is The True Hero of LotR because of the immence change that came about through the whole of the journey that started with listening in to a story about Elves and Rings one day in Bag End. (Oh, I got it. He's saying that since the evil sam went from being some stinky gardener to a mayor, he's heroic. sorry, but I think that's crazy. Gollum saved the day, not the evil sam.)

Aragorn12345 ---> Aragorn, because he went on the paths of the dead to help out in the war brought hope to all when there was only despair. He is also in the line of Isildur so after the ring was destroyed noone knew what to do and Aragorn pulled everything together (So what? The first thing has nothing to do with the Ring, and the second thing just makes him a nice guy)

Lantarion ---> He was the only one truly devoted to taking Sauron out; I mean he fought against the dark lord for over two thousand years, I think that's a pretty certain sign of devotion! And it was, basically, the purpose of his life; that was what he was placed on Middle-Earth for. It was his mission, his constant battle, which never ceased. (okay, well, Gollum had a mission that he never ceased, either, and he got to save the day in the end because of it. Yay!) And ---> Gandalf has the most impact on the fate of Sauron, save Frodo obviously, but as I pointed out it was Gandalf's task, the meaning of his life on Middle-Earth to destroy Sauron. That is what makes me feel that he deserves such a title. (I just didn't like the part where it says, "save Frodo obviously" I think Gollum should be there. oh well. So what if Gandalf's task was to destroy Sauron? Sure, he did a lot to make it happen, but he never actually did it. He failed. Gollum won.)

gate7ole ---> The evil sam was the true hero because he was not a great wizard or a mighty heir of the throne. His motives were not to save the world, but the simple task of helping his master. He was not like Frodo whose destiny was attached to the future of ME. He had not got into trouble because of his adventurous spirit. He was just a gardener, but greatly loyal to his master. And after all he was the only one to have given the ring willingly and without the promptness of any one else. Finally I'll agree with Gothmog, he was mostly changed through this adventure. (Okay, Gollum wasn't a wizard or heir to a throne, either. He had a simple task, too.  Lots of people think that Gollum getting to be the hero has to do with destiny. I'm guessing this person doesn't like that kind of thing. I don't know. What does changing in a story have to do with being a hero? I'm guessing that it's just a different definition.)

Gil-Galad ---> The evil sam keeps hope alive in every minute,he is ready to die for his master,he will always be with him and never leave him alone. (Or Gollum, either. That's evil, not heroic. oh well. Got it. The evil sam is supposed to be a hero because he's hopeful, selfless, and annoying. Ick. I like my theory where Gollum actually takes action against the Ring.) And ---> He is a particular hobbit,that means he doesn't like travelling,he doesn't like any adventures etc. (So, if you don't like adventures, you're heroic?) And ---> while the evil sam ,just like Frodo,is not obligated to do anything,but he DOES! Despite his hobbitish nature,he becomes part of this adventure. The evil sam develops features of his character which he hasn't thought he has.From a quiet hobbit he becomes real hero. If we have to compare Gandalf heroism and that of the evil sam,we'll see that the evil sam is the true hero.Just think which is point has more heroism in it:to be obligated to do somethig and do it,or have the free will to do something and do it,although you're not obligated and you may even die. (I like that quote. Works for Gollum, too. He wasn't forced to go to Mount Doom!)

Ariana Undomiel ---> He follows after Frodo no matter what even though he only ever wanted to be a simple gardner with a nice little hobbit hole of his own. I don't believe he ever truly understood the power of the ring or the enemy and yet he almost blindly follows his master out of devotion to him. He is willing to sacrifice everything simply for the preservation of his best friend. I mean he starves himself for Frodo, he carries the ring after he thinks Frodo is dead and he has no clue as to where to go, and he carries Frodo on his back up a mountain. And then in the end when he and Frodo think they are gonna die, he still speaks words of comfort to his friend and tries to ease Frodo's suffering without a thought of self pity for himself. And ---> The evil sam did everything he did without moral obligation and never was he asked to keep going or do anything that he did. He did it because he loved Frodo and that was all and almost everything he did was entirely against his Hobbitish nature. (Okay, sure, I can see why someone would find these things appealling in a character, but he still doesn't save the day in the end.)

Mrs. Maggott ---> But the REAL heroes of LOTR are the hobbits (well, I'd say the hobbit, Smeagol, namely.), Frodo first, Sam a VERY close second and Merry and Pippin not too far behind. Tolkien's tale is told from the perspective of the hobbits (so only the average joes can be the heroes since the story is supposed to be from their perspectives? Craziness.); it is the tale of "Everyman" who does not come from the Olympian heights like Gandalf or even Aragorn, nor is a great warrior familiar with battle and death like Eomer, Theoden, Denethor, Boromir, the Dwarves (battle hardened as they were) or even the Elves. Rather,these "Everymen" are little people used to chickens and ponies, orchards and harvests, inns and firesides. To take such souls and immerse them in the milieu of fear, despair, death and horror that surrounds the Quest of the Ring - AND have them overcome all with nothing more than their inner courage, friendship, loyalty and good old hobbit common sense, is the REAL triumph of good over evil. Yes, they had help; they needed it and they accepted it, but it does not diminish what they did when they were on their own WITHOUT any help. Yes, Frodo succumbed in the end to the force of the Ring but he did so far later than almost anyone else in the story would have been overcome had that person possessed the Ring! I believe that Tolkien saw the hobbits as the true heroes of LOTR and who am I to disagree? (sure, those nasssty hobbitses did a lot, but Smeagol went through the same stuffs and still saved the day in the end. Also, I guess she's saying that since Frodo did a lot before he failed, he's still a hero. Ick. Makes no sense. That she's taking what someone else thinks is crazy, too.) And ---> Frodo's courage, suffering and sacrifice - coupled with the fact that without his efforts the Ring would never have been destroyed - make him the greatest hero of the story, without doubt. (What's this? Without his efforts, the Ring would never have been destroyed? If it weren't for Smeagol, Frodo would have gotten everyone killed! Ack!)
Sam_Gamgee (it was hard to capitalize that name!) ---> frodo is the ring bearer...........he is the hero. (Smeagol was a Ring bearing dude, too.)

Ack! No time! I only got to the third page! I haven't learned anything yet!


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

Yay, you are impossibly retarded.


----------



## Finduilas

Ok,and here is what i learnt from you,crazy Yay.-->
YayGollum: Yay for Gollum because...it is OBVIOUS.And you can't say anything against this because who destroyed the One-Gollum,who ended the case-Gollum.Isn't it obvious.Come on,you crazy people,You can't deny that Gollum is the hero of the day because...it is obvious!

Sory if I had used the word 'obvious 'too much but you didn't give us any other proovements.And,Yay,I can deny that Gollum is the hero and I truely can deny obvious things-think for a second,if you meet in the street Santa Clause will you believe in his existence or will you deny and continue to live your life normally without any ilussions?Well,you are quite crazy and would maybe prefer the first option but remember that that could be only imagination.
Oh,about saying anyhting against Gollum-what do you think I have been doing here?


----------



## Lanaela

*gandalf*

I think that Gandalf is, in the first one he protects everyone from the Belgrog so if he hadn't they may be dead!


----------



## YayGollum

Got it. I'm fine with people thinking that I'm crazy. I just don't see any arguement as good as mine.  I looked. Should I go and do the other pages now?  Or maybe you should tell me why you don't think Gollum is the hero? just because of your definition of hero? I forgot. 

Oh, sorry, Lanaela dude. I missed it. Why Gandalf? Gollum saved the day in the end. oh well.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

Yay, whether you know it or not (which you obviously DONT!) youre arguments are the worst ones.

You always say Gollum saved the day in the end. Unimaginitive, uncreative, un-understandable.

Just because one saves the day at the end BY ACCIDENT doing the last thing he wanted to do in all ME, doesnt make him a hero! That doesnt make sense!!! He has no courage, no bravery, no NOTHING!!! Gollum isnt a hero, end of story.

Your arguments were acceptable, but only for the first post. Then they got repeptive, stubborn, and plain crappy and unimaginative.

You say no one has answered your argument with a satisfactory one, so thats why you post the same one over and over again. But thats wrong too, there have been PAGES of good arguments but you cant comprehend that.

So, if you REALLY think Gollum is the hero, come up with a better argument to prove it. Otherwise, you just look ignorant.


----------



## Finduilas

Uh,I couldn't say it better.  
Sorry ,Yay,but that's the truth and you'd better read D6in's post more than once so that you can rationalize it.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Now, I will say something in defense of Gollum (!) and it is _not_ that he is the "hero" of LOTR (which on its face is ludicrous), however, neither did Tolkien create him as a "one-dimensional" character. Gollum at times makes really heroic efforts to assist the hobbits in their journey to Mordor. True, his motives are selfish - if Sauron gets the Ring, that's the end of any hope _he_ has of gaining it! - but that does _not_ make any less heroic his efforts in getting them through the Dead Marshes and to the Pass at Cirith Ungol. Tolkien admits as much in the book.

Furthermore, Gollum fights some rather heroic _internal_ battles as well. That he does not win them again does not invalidate his struggle. He could just as easily have made no effort to overcome his "worse" nature, but Tolkien gives us a portrait of a tortured, lonely soul for whom at the end, one can only feel sorrow. 

No, Gollum is not the hero of LOTR, but that does not mean that he is not worthy of some mention in the pantheon of those who brought about the destruction of the Ring and the fall of Sauron.


----------



## Finduilas

> No, Gollum is not the hero of LOTR, but that does not mean that he is not worthy of some mention in the pantheon of those who brought about the destruction of the Ring and the fall of Sauron.



Gollum really is a hero in this battle and so are many many other creatures.That's what I have wanted to explain all the time(but OBVIOUSLY nobody heard me)-there is no complete,true,perfect,one and only hero,no,there are individual people,elfs,hobbits and whole peoples as well who do own souls and their opinoins.That's why you can call every person a hero for his ability to be different and not imitate anybody.Individualism is very important,it has been ,it is and it will be.That's what Tolkien was probably looking for in creating his characters and that explains his adore for everyone of them.
There are truely some stronger-willed and hearted creatures but they are not definetely more heroic than anybody else.Though in ME there are people and elfs and hobbits as well that deserve honour but there is and never will be a person who can be thought as the most dominative and heroic.

All those heroes who fought for the independence of the ME formed the true hero but only when they are together as a 'fellowship' of friends and 'brothers in arms'.


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by Finduilas _
> *Gollum really is a hero in this battle and so are many many other creatures.That's what I have wanted to explain all the time(but OBVIOUSLY nobody heard me)-there is no complete,true,perfect,one and only hero,no,there are individual people,elfs,hobbits and whole peoples as well who do own souls and their opinoins.That's why you can call every person a hero for his ability to be different and not imitate anybody.Individualism is very important,it has been ,it is and it will be.That's what Tolkien was probably looking for in creating his characters and that explains his adore for everyone of them.
> There are truely some stronger-willed and hearted creatures but they are not definetely more heroic than anybody else.Though in ME there are people and elfs and hobbits as well that deserve honour but there is and never will be a person who can be thought as the most dominative and heroic.
> 
> All those heroes who fought for the independence of the ME formed the true hero but only when they are together as a 'fellowship' of friends and 'brothers in arms'. *


Very good thoughts,I think.I remember you argued with me that Gollum is the true hero,but now I see there is a development in your understanding of "heroism".


----------



## lightingstrike

*Aragorn is the coolest*

I think that Aragorn plays the "Hero" part in the series. Especially in the secound book because he really shows character and courage when he decides to take on the role as King of the Race of Men. He could have easily backed off and just done his minimum in the Fellowship. I think he starts acting like a leader in the ealy part of the book when he, Legolas, and Gimili are searching for Pippin and Merry. Also at Helm's Deep. Please tell me if you guys think that I am totally out of my mind and think Aragorn is stupid.


----------



## Finduilas

> Very good thoughts,I think.I remember you argued with me that Gollum is the true hero,but now I see there is a development in your understanding of "heroism".



Yes,you did change my mind and opinion of some subjects and I recommand you to start dealing with Yay.
He is impossible!


----------



## Finduilas

> . Please tell me if you guys think that I am totally out of my mind and think Aragorn is stupid.



Of course,Aragorn isn't stupid.Neither is any other character .We can never call them stupid at least in respect to Tolkien.
But I think Aragorn can't be the TRUE hero because there isn't such a person.He is,undoubtfully,a hero but not THE hero.


----------



## Gil-Galad

*Re: Aragorn is the coolest*



> _Originally posted by lightingstrike _
> *I think that Aragorn plays the "Hero" part in the series. Especially in the secound book because he really shows character and courage when he decides to take on the role as King of the Race of Men. He could have easily backed off and just done his minimum in the Fellowship. I think he starts acting like a leader in the ealy part of the book when he, Legolas, and Gimili are searching for Pippin and Merry. Also at Helm's Deep. Please tell me if you guys think that I am totally out of my mind and think Aragorn is stupid. *


Actually he plays the hero with mopst physical abilities.I mean he is a great warrior,great man,king...etc....
Welcome,lightingstrike!!!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

*Re: Re: Aragorn is the coolest*

The LOTR is a great tapestry and like any piece of fabric, it is made up of various threads any one of which by its absence would diminish or destroy the whole. Aragorn is a great Hero in the truest meaning of that word but even he knows that he cannot do everything or be everything for everyone. Had the Fellowship remained intact (no orc attack at Parth Galen) and had he chosen to follow Frodo when he decided to go East or had Frodo continued to rely upon his leadership, then he and Gimli would have gone East and Boromire, Legolas and the two hobbits would have gone to Minas Tirith. 

In light of the relative importance of the Quest (that is, to destroy the Ring), it would seem to have been the right decision. Indeed, it is only the orc attack that prevents Aragorn from doing just that. However, whatever help he might have been to Frodo in his journey, consider what would have happened to the situation as a whole had Aragorn followed his original plan! It would have been a disaster and even if the Ring had been destroyed, there wouldn't have been very much left to come home to. 

Furthermore, on the journey East, he might well have perished protecting the hobbits from Shelob and he certainly couldn't have pretended - as did the hobbits - that he was an orc when they were pressed into the march to the Black Gates! Finally, in the end, _all_ of them would perished when the Ring went into the Fire as no eagles would have been around to rescue them. So, obviously, Aragorn's actions were proven correct even though it did appear that he abandoned Frodo and the Quest. He made a hard choice in a difficult place - hardly a sign of stupidity - and for his pains is one - if not THE - great hero of LOTR.


----------



## Éowyn2

Éowyn is the true hero! And Sam, because if it wasn't for him, the Ring would never have been destroyed. 

And that means that I voted for "Other".


----------



## Finduilas

> Éowyn is the true hero! And Sam, because if it wasn't for him, the Ring would never have been destroyed.



You must be kidding.
Do you know that almost everyone in that book made something without which th ring wouldn't have been destroyed?


----------



## Lossengondiel

I think Frodo is the true hero of the story because the hope of middle earth rests in his hands


----------



## YayGollum

to the crazy Dáin Ironfoot I person ---> How can my intelligent Gollum arguement seem unimaginitive and uncreative if noone's used it before? How is it un-understandable? It's very simple. You should have figured it out the first time you read the book. He destroys the One Ring. Wasn't that the goal? oh well. 
What's wrong with saying the same thing over and over again? My arguement is so good that I don't need anything more. It's just so obvious that I'm right. When I give the reason why Gollum was the hero, what else is there to say? You only need one reason. I keep repeating myself because you obviously don't get it. Which makes no sense to me. 
to the offensive Finduilas person ---> I read it more than once. It was fun. I got to pick the evil thing apart. It's just so much fun to be insulted, isn't it?  
to the crazy Maggott lady ---> That was defending Gollum? Well, I guess it was a little bit. The way you talk about him helping out in the Dead Marshes and Cirith Ungol, and the internal battle thing just equates him to the other characters. You're talking about the lesser things he does. I'm talking about when he because the true hero of LOTR.
to the crazy Finduilas person's second post ---> Thank you! That was better! I like the idea that there wasn't just one hero. I just can't accept it because Gollum finally accomplishes the goal in the end. oh well. Your opinion would be my second one. 
No time for the rest of you!


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

Look Im not crazy and Mrs Maggott is definitly not a crazy Maggott lady. If you havent figured it out yet, Gollum is not the hero and you cant understand that. There is no way for him to be the main hero as I and Mrs M have previously posted.

However, I do change my opinion in that Gollum is indeed heroic (actually Smeagol). After reading TTT for the third time I realized Smeagol indeed led Frodo to his goal and resisted GOllum the whole time. Unfortunately, Smeagol was taken over after the whole Faramir business, but up until then I will give Smeagol credit for being heroic. But once Gollum took over is when Smeagol was no longer a hero. 

See, the possession of Gollum was Smeagol's undoing, and he failed his own personal quest, that he was doomed to lose in the long run. You said Frodo failed in destroying the Ring too (his quest), so he cannot be the hero. You have a point, but if you say that, then you must realize that Smeagol was no longer a hero when he was taken by Gollum in his devestated brain.

I do feel a great pity for Gollum/Smeagol however and I no longer think as bad of him as I previously did. Unfortunately though, the Ring turned out to be the stronger Foe and Gollum lost. Rereading the book does wonders for changing ones opinions. ALso, as much as yall give PJ crap for his movies, listen to the demo song of Gollums theme and it invokes a sense of pity for the poor soul. I think you can get it off the official site.

I still retain my opinion that Gollum is not the hero but am not so sure that Frodo was anymore, although he is certainly one of the candidates to be the main hero; Gollum is not.


----------



## elf boy

I don't remember if I already posted here or not and i'm not taking the time to look through all these pages to find out, but... As of right now, my opinion is that there ISN'T one true hero of LOTR. To many people played to many parts to have one true hero. Especially being as half of the story went on west of the Anduin and half of the story happened east of the Anduin.


----------



## Finduilas

> I think Frodo is the true hero of the story because the hope of middle earth rests in his hands



Lossengondiel,there are many ways to express thoughts and facts as well;many beautiful and effectiv ways and you did it so but it does not give us any provement of your statement.On the contrary,it turns out that you prove he isn't the hero.The hope of Middle-earth rests in his hands?Then isn't it a pity that he didn't justify its hopes or even betrayed their confidence and belief in him.
So even though he was trusted it is worth justifying their faith in his success.



> What's wrong with saying the same thing over and over again?



You know what's wrong with it?I'll tell you.
This is a debate,isn't it,but have you heard of a discussion where you give only one reason for your stetement,one provement?Is there another discussion thread even where people stick to their 1-million-repeated statement and (1 as well) provement and do nothing but postinging it over and over again and calling the other members 'crazy'?
On the one hand ,yeas ,it is insulting.On the other hand it is boring and uneducated in a way.This repeatative post stop the development of new adeas on this problem and unless you accept other provements or think them out yourself ,you haven't solved the problem for yourself and don't have the answer you think you have.But if we look it in another concept,your stubbborn and even silly behaviour allow us not to have success with our endeavours to make you walk on the right road.


----------



## Gil-Galad

Yeah..and sometimes I feel some of us are like real old grandmothers who argue and argue without trying to understand what the person in front of us is trying to tell us.


----------



## Gloer

*The conquering hero*

The true winner of this war is not

Gandalf - he merely finished his job.
Frodo - he never managed to recover and had to fade with the elves
Aragorn - he establishes the kingdom of men, he is the hero, but he did not win the enemy
Gollum - now, gollum would be the hero if he only had repented and merely sacrificed himself withring he so needed, but he didn't, he tried and failed and because of his failure the evil is destryed by blind, furious but ah so sloppy greed.


So who is the hero?
Who remains almost unharmed, untouched and consistently growing in omnipotent righteousness? It is the humble Sam.

Sam overcomes the desire to keep the ring, frodo does not. Sam returns it back to Frodo.

Sam is the one who has life and future after the war. Sam and the humble and simple values he represents.

Sam's the hero!


----------



## Gloer

*Three heros -*

I just read through the posts.

Seems like it is a threefold battle of the ringbearers.
 

I could say that the ring was cleaverly contained in Frodo and carried and pushed forward by Sam. 

Sam took the ring and Frodo to mt.Doom.

And Frodo contained the will of the ring which made them both (ring and Frodo) stuck in a deadlock. And in the end he fails to do it. Damn says Sam. If he had been there it would not have happened!

Luckily Gollum was there and evil deeds turn into good results.


----------



## Legolas254

My favorite is obviouly Legolas but the hero is definatley Frodo and Sam. They were brave enough to even take the ring to Mordor, but to destroy it. Sam showed great courage protecting Frodo, fighting Shelob, rescuing Frodo from Cirith Ungol, and leaving his friend when he thought he was dead. Sam is the true hero!


----------



## BlackCaptain

Perhaps we are all asking the wrong questions...

Well we all know that the Lord of the Nazgul is the hero, but besides that (I was just kidding)... The key word below is NEED. you should understand what need is before you read this:

Lets see who we could have gone without:

Aragorn - He fought battles and was made a king: We didnt need him

Frodo - He's not the only one that could've carried the ring!: We didnt need him

Gollum - Without him, Frodo and Sam would've never gotten into Mordor: We DID need him

Sam - Without sam, the orcs of Cirith Ungol would have the ring: We DID need sam

Gandalf - He almost singlehandedly won Helm's Deep, took Isengard and Sauraman out of the picture, and was stopped the Balrog from killing the fellowship. And much much more. He was the Stage Crew of a News show to middle earth: We DID need him. 

So you have to ask yourself: Who out of Gandalf, Gollum, and Sam was needed the most, and how much did they influence the turnout?

Gollum - He not only ***SPOILER*** destroyed the ring, but also got the ring into Mordor. But he did both on accident... Gollum is ruled out

Sam - If sam had not been in the adventure, Frodo would have never made it to Mt. Doom. But even if Frodo did make it, Sam would've been useless, cuz Frodo was already past Sam when gollum took the ring in the cracks of Doom. Gollum burried sam's chances of being the hero. Sam is ruled out

Gandalf - Lets face it. Gandalf couldve done the quest by himself. Never was he saved by anyone, exept the Elves of Lorien, and they only made him feel better. Gandalf was the person who always made up for other peoples mistakes, and saved every one. Theres about what, 50 thousand men in middle earth? And only 5 Istari. That says something... Gandalf=10,000 men. He couldve won the battle of Helm's Deep by himself!
Gandalf is our hero.


----------



## Finduilas

> Lets see who we could have gone without:



Hey,what is this?You are telling us that we DON'T need someone-a character of Tolkien's epic story?Isn't that ridiculous?
If we say we don't need someone ,we say he is needless,but need=use => HE IS USELESS!!!? 
How can Aragorn and Frodo be useless?How can anybody be useless?Hey,they are main characters,we DO need them,it's for the good of the book,or for the existance of the book itsself.
And even if we look it in another point of view,we mostly NEED Gollum because he destroyed the ring and that was the point itsself but I don't aprove this thing with the need because we need all of them to have a book.
Let's see now:
an author->inspired->an act of the book->characters->main characters->details->thoughts of the book->the BOOK
This is some kind of plan of a book,you see the charactres are the heart of the book and we do read it because we like someone or want to know what will happen with him.Then they are very,VERY important and useful.



> Gandalf - Lets face it. Gandalf couldve done the quest by himself. Never was he saved by anyone, exept the Elves of Lorien, and they only made him feel better. Gandalf was the person who always made up for other peoples mistakes, and saved every one. Theres about what, 50 thousand men in middle earth? And only 5 Istari. That says something... Gandalf=10,000 men. He couldve won the battle of Helm's Deep by himself!



Do you think power is the most important part of a hero?I don't.There are qualities we shouldn't ignore and forget.Gandalf was a hero indeed but not the hero.Nobody was.Can't you understand nobody can be a hero of everyone ,of us and our imagination,of Tolkien and Tolkien's imagination as well?Can somebody can fascinate us with his strong figure or power.Maybe at first site but people care about other abilities as well,for example,honour,good temper and love.The thing we mostly appreciate and of course-life.But these are things everyone have,doesn't that mean that we are all heroes,not ones in bright armour and withargent sword but people,elves by heart,with beautiful souls and minds and hearts.
So there might have been another character who we don't know,but who was the most powerful and the strongest person in Middle-earth.Then he is the unknown hero.But we don't know if there is such a person or elf and it is not our job to judge people whose idea wasn't to be crowned but to be respected.
It turns out the hero is the one we respect,but tell me who we don't respect?Nobody because everyone is a part of and epic story without which we would have never met.


----------



## Finduilas

Oh,I nearly forgot 
Welcome MorgulKing!


----------



## The lidless Eye

Frodo, Sam and Smeagol are the ones who, together destroys the ring. Smeagol is the last one with the ring, but he means to keep it. Aragorn is the king of men and without him, the story is quite different, so he is a hero. Gandalf is the one of makes it possible for all to become heros. But The Hero cannot be said, because all the characters are heros. Gandalf has the power to destroy all ME, but he is not allowed to use his true powers. If he could, he alone could do the task, but he dares not carry the ring. Frodo cannot complete the quest, he fails. Sam is not able to as Seagol knock him out. And Smeagol, although he saves the day, has no intetion of even trying to destroy the ring. But in the end he is the one who destroys the ring... YaY Gollum... All the characters are needed, Gandalf most of all. But The Hero is not for us to decide. Tolkien did not mean for his readers to argue over who the true hero is, but rather who we like the best...
My personal hero is Gandalf, only becasue of his origin...


----------



## Aragorns_girl00

*ArAgOrN!!!*

ARAGORN, DEFINENTLY!!!! he is like the king of all and he knows what to do in every situation. he is very calm and a good fighter.


----------



## Gil-Galad

*Re: ArAgOrN!!!*



> _Originally posted by Aragorns_girl00 _
> *ARAGORN, DEFINENTLY!!!! he is like the king of all and he knows what to do in every situation. he is very calm and a good fighter. *


...and let me add another reason for your decision.........he is probably your favourite character......


----------



## Gil-Galad

*Re: ArAgOrN!!!*



> _Originally posted by Aragorns_girl00 _
> *ARAGORN, DEFINENTLY!!!! he is like the king of all and he knows what to do in every situation. he is very calm and a good fighter. *


...and let me add another reason for your decision.........he is probably your favourite character......


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

Hroooom, the lidless eye, you may have a point, but it doesn't make much sense to me...

But then again, you are very small.


----------



## YayGollum

Evil holidays keeping me from what's important!  

After reading the scary Dain person's post, I gots to say, Yay for PJ's movie helping out with the negative views of poor Smeagol! Also, Ack! I thought I already said that when I say things like crazy, scary, and evil, I don't mean anything. It's just a fun adjective to stick in there. sorry about that. oh well. 

I'd have to agree with the elf boy dude if I didn't know for definite surely that poor Smeagol was the hero.

Anyways, sorry crazy Finduilas dude. I didn't know that this was a debate. I thought it was just a thread asking who we thought was the true hero. I must be crazy, huh?  

Hey, Gloer dude, who are you saying is the hero? It looked like you said both Gollum (which would be correct) and the evil sam. oh well.

Legolas254 dude, you think that the evil sam was the hero just because of the little things he did along the way? Makes no sense. If that's the only kind of thing that makes you the main hero, there should be way more options on this poll! oh well.

Yay for the crazy MorgulKing dude's way of eliminating characters! Except poor Smeagol. He was the accidental hero. oh well. You're saying that Gandalf was the hero just because he could've done the quest or won the battle of Helm's Deep alone? But what about the fact that he didn't? oh well.


----------



## chrome_rocknave

After reading through this thread I feel inclined to say that Sam was the hero. Even after reading the books, I feel like Tolkien wanted Sam to be the hero. However, to me at least, Frodo is and will always be the true hero of LOTR.

Reasons:

1. I think if their roles were reversed...and Sam had to carry the ring to Mordor, he would have succumbed in the end as well. Frodo's courage did not fail at the end, but his mind gave way. I daresay if anyone was standing in Mount Doom WITH the ring of power--ANYONE--Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel, Faramir, or even Sam would have given in. The fact is that Frodo had an immense burden to bear, and he bore it to Mount Doom. Frodo was ready to leave from Amon Sul on his own...he was going to complete (or at least try to complete) his task without Sam. 

2. Frodo had been through alot even before he got to Mount Doom! He had been stabbed by the Nazgul--might I add that Sam was never mortally wounded by a Morgul blade..... Frodo's mind was already severely weakened, but nevertheless he took on the perilous task.

3. Sam becoming Mayor has NOTHING to do with being a hero. So what if he attended town meetings and done paperwork...blah blah blah. He had a family....who cares! Frodo cared enough to give Sam Bag End! Frodo was not being a coward by fading from the story and going into the Grey Havens. Frodo was--in a way--being rewarded by having his pain erased in the undying lands.

Therefore---my list of heros goes as such:

#1- Frodo
#2- Sam
#3- Eowyn

Yes, it seems that everyone here has forgotten about Eowyn....the unlikeliest hero of all! She showed all the male macho sword wielders that she could save the day too.
She killed the Witch-King, a thing that Aragorn certainly could not have done. Personally, I think that instead of placing Aragorn, Gollum, and Gandalf on this poll....Eowyn should be on the list. 
Gandalf and Aragorn had people who looked up to them, who needed them, who gave them the courage to go on. Eoywn didn't. She did more than any of them, given that no one ever believed in her.


----------



## YayGollum

Woah! This, from one of the old Gollum Fans! oh well. 
After your #1, I'd have to say, so what? Sure, he went through a lot to get there, but he failed in the end. 
After your #2, I'd say, so what? Gollum went through more than Frodo. 
After your #3, I'd say, Yay for helping me against the evil sam!  
Anyways, about Eowyn, do you really think that she was a more unlikely hero than Gollum? We all knew that Eowyn was heroic, but who would have thought that this crazy messed up hobbit would accidentally save the day? oh well.


----------



## chrome_rocknave

*To YayGollum:*

Don't get me wrong...I'm not ignoring your posts---I actually skim through them sometimes  I think Gollum was AN Unlikely Hero. Without Gollum...ME would have been destroyed and alas...there would be no Frodo or Sam. BUT---given the definition of heroism....he cannot be considered THE Hero. Eowyn was THE Unlikeliest Hero because no one expected her to be capable of killing the Witch-King.


Therefore--

Yay Frodo
Yay Sam
Yay Eoywn
and...
Yay Gollum


----------



## YayGollum

Well, again, we're talking about a difference in opinion on the definition of the word hero. oh well. 
I would definitely call Eowyn a hero. Not an unlikely hero, but oh well. Maybe unlikely to other characters in the book, but not to the reader. oh well. Even though Eowyn is heroic, she definitely isn't the true hero of the entire book. oh well. Did I say oh well enough times? Whoops!


----------



## chrome_rocknave

Yeah, thats what I mean. Obviously the reader is like "wow she could really kick butt!" But the other characters: Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Eomer, Theoden, everyone else in Rohan, etc. see her as yet another beautiful but boring and for the most-part useless woman. The men thought they could save the day on their own....but nope! They couldn't....surprise surprise...UNLIKELY woman hero Eowyn to the rescue 


oh well....


----------



## YayGollum

Okay, I got it. For a minute there, I thought you were saying both Frodo and Eowyn were the main heroes. oh well. 
Nope. It was Gollum. Everyone would agree that Frodo failed in the end. Everyone would agree that the main goal was to destroy the One Ring. Everyone would agree that Gollum destroyed it. Instant Heroship. Yay Gollum! Or have I said that before? oh well. I'm just trying to convince this chrome_rocknavel dude.


----------



## chrome_rocknave

Hey now...I need no convincing in some respects...
I know that the quest would have failed if not for Gollum.
I know that Frodo and Sam would have died along with the rest of ME if not for Gollum.

BUT....we're back to the definition of heroism which I found to be:

A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

*Frodo* was willing to sacrifice his life...in fact he suspected/expected that his life would be lost during his quest....but he did it anyways. He also showed courage to his purpose...voila!

Gollum: was showing greed...not courage or nobility or purpose...He did lose his life though...but not SACRIFICE it.

P.S> Thats freaky that you call me chrome_rocknavel with an "l" on the end...cause it doesnt show up that way here....because my name had too many letters....freakyyy


----------



## YayGollum

It's not that freaky. I just remember you mentioning that at the old Gollum Fan Club. *sniff* oh well. 
Anyways, you're right that the definition you gave doesn't fit Gollum. But then, there's more than one definition for the word. Gollum fits into some of them. Yay! You only need to fit into one of the definitions to be a hero! Gollum does. sorry I don't have a dictionary. I just like to keep things simple. I'm saying that Gollum is the hero because he saved the day. He was the Accidental Hero! oh well.


----------



## Aragorns_girl00

*Re: Re: ArAgOrN!!!*



> _Originally posted by Gil-Galad _
> *...and let me add another reason for your decision.........he is probably your favourite character......  *




hmmmmm........... how'd u guess???? j/k


----------



## chrome_rocknave

Ok...I give in...Gollum was THE Accidental Hero 

But Frodo was THE Hero and Eowyn was THE Unlikeliest Hero....

So many heros...hehe


----------



## Aragorns_girl00

aragorn and eowyn are the best male/female heros in my opinion.


----------



## quickbeam

*why Gandalf? why not Eru himself?*

Why is a Maia sent to destroy Sauron? Why doesn't Eru/Iluvatar, the supreme God? Or one of the Valar, the lesser Gods?


----------



## quickbeam

To the person who said that Gandalf is the only one who doesn't need to be saved at any point in the story... he is saved by an eagle several times.

To the people who are saying that Sam is the true hero because he was the only one who was able to bear the ring and give it up easily... that is because he was only a ring bearer very briefly. The ring didn't have time to develop a hold over him.


----------



## Finduilas

First,Aragorns_girl00:
It is obvious why you think Aragorn is the hero-as Gil-Galad said,he is your favourite character,but why don't you try to forget that,read or even just consider the book more carefully and understand what the word hero is suposed to mean.Try to be more objective and then post again expressing your 'real' oppinion for a hero.

As for Eowyn,I admitt I haven't consider her as a hero but even when I did it later I don't find it nessessary.Why would she be a hero of the whole book?What part has she got in destroying the ring?Undoubtfully,she is a hero as everyone else ,but not THE hero.I'm sorry but I'll have to say again that there is no ONE hero.

And ,of course,Gollum!What more can I say about him?He is the accident hero indeed but not the hero of the book.Imagine that a woman is standing in the street and has stuck her shoe in the shaft and a car is driving fast right towards her.Then when it seems that there is no exit(because the driver is drunk or hasn't seen her)a man or a woman sees the one in the street and saves her.This is a current situation and we can say there is a hero-obviously ,the man or woman-because he/she saved the woman on his/her own and nobody else took part in that action.
But imagine we have a lot of such heroic actions,can we say that there is a hero who has saved someone more?
That's ridiculous.Indeed Gollum,Sam and Frodo had done alot for the existance of Middle-earth or better the 'good' exostance,but we can't glorify one of them because they wouldn't have cleared up the mission if they were separated.


----------



## chrome_rocknave

I didn't say she was the hero of the entire book. In my opinion I think she is the supreme hero in the Gondor-battles part of the story.


----------



## Aragorn12345

I think perhaps the true hero of this story is Bilbo, because if Bilbo hadn't given Frodo the Ring, then Frodo would have never gone on his quest, and eventually ME would be destroyed. So give a cheer to Bilbo!


----------



## Finduilas

In this logic it turns out that Gandalf is the hero because without him Bilbo wouldn't have given Frodo the One.


----------



## chrome_rocknave

Hmmm...and who sent Gandalf to ME? Was it Eru? I'm not sure...but then whoever it was would be the hero...


----------



## Finduilas

Well,he was a Maia and Eru sent him so it turns out he is the hero but who has sent Eru to life?
Who ever he/she is,he/she is the hero.


----------



## Donyai

*Which Hobbit is your favourite and why?*

Personally my favourite is Pippin for the fact that he is a source of releaf and comfort,he is always finding the brighter side of the dark.And another one that is runner up in this to me is Sam because he is loyal and true to his friends and he never gives up hope in those have already given it up in themselves...good ol' Sam......


----------



## Finduilas

> Personally my favourite is Pippin for the fact that he is a source of releaf and comfort,he is always finding the brighter side of the dark.And another one that is runner up in this to me is Sam because he is loyal and true to his friends and he never gives up hope in those have already given it up in themselves...good ol' Sam



Yay,welcome,Donyai! 
I think you mixed up the threads ,a?


----------



## gandalfthegreat

*Gandalf is the hero...*

I believe Gandalf is the over all hero in LoTR. He is the one who frantically travels around back and forth to get the one ring destroyed and the end of Sauron. He is also the one who took it upon himself to find out that Bilbo's ring that Frodo had inherited the one ring .

-*Gandalf*-


----------



## Thomas Baggins

*yay for Gandalf!*

I think all of you who voted for Gandalf have finally one me over. I suppose he really is the true hero of lotr.


----------



## chrome_rocknave

Come on people! Frodo is the hero even though he doesnt destroy the ring. I heard part of a song on the radio (I have no clue what song) that made me think of why Frodo wasn't able to destroy the ring at the end. It went something like..."part of me is fighting this, but part of me is gone". Don't blame the poor hobbit! He wasn't all there!


----------



## YayGollum

Okay, crazy Finduilas person, what you're saying about, "Oh, you can't stick one of those three Ringbearers into the slot of the true hero of Middle Earth because they were all needed." makes no sense. We all know that the evil sam was not needed. If the evil sam wasn't around, Gollum would have become good and taken his place. Okay, Frodo was needed, but we all agree that he failed in the end. How can a dude who's quest is to destroy the One Ring not destroy the One Ring and still be called a hero? What, you just like to dole out titles for effort? Craziness! Gollum destroyed it. He wins. Noone else.


----------



## Finduilas

> We all know that the evil sam was not needed. If the evil sam wasn't around, Gollum would have become good and taken his place



Oh,yay?Then tell me where was Gollum when Frodo was captured-was he near to him even just to keep him close?NO.He didn't care for Frodo.Do you think Gollum would and has he ever helped Frodo because of his devotion to him not because of the ring?NO.Sam is ten times heroer than Gollum,and you can't call him needless only because of your prejudice.



> Okay, Frodo was needed, but we all agree that he failed in the end. How can a dude who's quest is to destroy the One Ring not destroy the One Ring and still be called a hero?



Yes,he can because he acts and behaves like a hero not like a coward.He is twenty times heroer than Gollum.And if Frodo can be called a hero because of his nature,Gollum can be called a hero because of his accidental action and part in the history.



> Okay, crazy Finduilas person, what you're saying about, "Oh, you can't stick one of those three Ringbearers into the slot of the true hero of Middle Earth because they were all needed." makes no sense



Oh,really?Try to rewrite the book without the characters you think are useless. 



> Craziness! Gollum destroyed it. He wins. Noone else.



You know,my little cousin behaves just like you.He has an opinion but has only one proof for it-his wish that it is true-and then becomes so stubborn and annoying.I guess this makes children childish.


----------



## YayGollum

Dude, I'm just saying that if the evil sam wasn't around, Smeagol would've gotten rid of Gollum and taken the evil sam's place. Tolkien says somewhere that if the evil sam wasn't so evil to poor Smeagol, poor Smeagol would've thrown the Ring into that crack of doom thing voluntarily. I'm assuming that you know that Smeagol was a fan of Frodo's. oh well. Maybe not. I wish I could rewrite the book without the evil sam. Noone would like it. 
Yay for the stubbornity of children who know they're right! Boo for the stubbornity of the people who are just superly conditioned to think a certain way!


----------



## Gloer

*Sauron is the hero*

he is the strongest

Lets face it Sauron is the one who started the whole thing with the ring. withour sauron there would have been no elves, Rivendell, Lothlorien no mordor, nothing.

He is the Lord of the rings. So what if he wanted to bully everyone! He had all the right to do so, he was the strongest, stronger than gandalf and the istari together!


----------



## lossenandunewen

i think the true comic relief comes from legolas and gimli


they are the true heroes, keeping their humour in tact during such a serious time

everyone is a hero because they all chose to stand and fight for their world, when well if all of us were told that we will all die unless we face almost certain death, would we go help? Most of humanity would probably fill the last of their days with their little pleasures while those few who truly value the world will continue on and try to save what they love.

everyone who embarked upon the journey is a hero in their own true right, they will all be remembered as the fellowship that aided the ring bearer, even if frodo failed his task. they got it there, if frodo and sam didn't get the ring to mordor, would gollum have bitten it off and fell into the fire?? if merry and pippen weren't taken by the orcs, would they have aided in the downfall of isengard? if legolas and gimli weren't friends, would they have seemed so funny? ok ok that last one makes no actual value towards my arguments, but still

they are all heroes, each and everyone. just like everyone on this board is a hero to someone, i think maybe saying hero is a bit to far, but maybe who was the best icon for true bravery would be more politically correct.

either way i still cheer for legolas and gimli. you have to love them


----------



## Finduilas

> Tolkien says somewhere that if the evil sam wasn't so evil to poor Smeagol, poor Smeagol would've thrown the Ring into that crack of doom thing voluntarily.



Can you find the difference-you are not objective and although I'm sure you realize Sam is A hero you continue calling him 'evil'.If you want to develop consider it in a more objective way.



> Lets face it Sauron is the one who started the whole thing with the ring. withour sauron there would have been no elves, Rivendell, Lothlorien no mordor, nothing.



Do you know what does 'hero' mean?I know there are many definitions but certainly not everyTHING can be called a hero ,and I'm not speaking about THE Hero.Thing about that-what has Sauron done for the Middle -earth or its inhabitans(except the evil actions),what were his thoughts,who was his 'teacher' and master,what was his aim in life and can we call his desires dreams,because every normal creature and hero has dreams.
Oh,and there would have been elves,Rivendell,Lothlorien and as for Mordor -tell me who except Sauron needed and used it?I mean elves were created and they existed and they would continue existing better if it WASN'T Sauron.



> He is the Lord of the rings. So what if he wanted to bully everyone! He had all the right to do so, he was the strongest, stronger than gandalf and the istari together!



Then why didn't he do it,a?It's simple-because he wasn't strong enough to 'bully' the Children of Iluvatar,or at least not yet.After all,he was just a Maia nad Valar take after their master's 'children'.Moreover,that was their aim on Arda.So Sauron would have probably become stronger that the Elves,men,dwarves together but he would have never become stronger than the Valar.
And you are not right he had the right to do so.He had the least right because he had never creayed something for the good of Arda and for that has no rights on it.You know what,I would even think that Gollum had more right to destroy something on Earth because he at least had suffered while Sauron can't do even this but only think about his destiny.



> they are all heroes, each and everyone. just like everyone on this board is a hero to someone, i think maybe saying hero is a bit to far, but maybe who was the best icon for true bravery would be more politically correct.



Finally,a person who agrees with me. Welcome,Iossenandunewen.Be sure that I do like the characters of Gimli and Legolas as well.


----------



## Wulf of Dunland

*Frodo*

Together with Sam he took the ring all the way from the Shire to Mount Doom. 
He's a hero.


----------



## YayGollum

I'm hoping that you were talking about Gollum there. oh well. Yay for naming people heroes because they're funny! Gollum was funnier than Gimli and Legolas and destroyed the Ring! So, Ha!  Anyways, what should I be developing and considering in different ways? I missed it. Whoops!


----------



## Finduilas

> ? I missed it. Whoops


So did I.
What do you say -that he is a hero because he took the ring to Mount Doom together with Frodo?
Oh,a very weak point.What would you say if Sauron himself had helped Frodo to take the ring to Mordor?


----------



## L.O.T.R. Gal

*Hero of the LOTR*

I picked other because I believe every one of those choices and others not listed were the heros of the story. Without every member of the fellowship(what about Legolas, Gimli, Boromir?), Elrond, Galladrial, and every single little charactor the great mission would have failed! From Tom Bombadil down to Butterbur at the Prancing Pony Frodo and sam would not have made it in my opinion. It is impossible for me to choose a hero, it is filled with heros.


----------



## Finduilas

> I picked other because I believe every one of those choices and others not listed were the heros of the story. Without every member of the fellowship(what about Legolas, Gimli, Boromir?), Elrond, Galladrial, and every single little charactor the great mission would have failed! From Tom Bombadil down to Butterbur at the Prancing Pony Frodo and sam would not have made it in my opinion. It is impossible for me to choose a hero, it is filled with heros.



       
Yay for L.O.T.R. Gal!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gil-Galad

*Re: Hero of the LOTR*



> _Originally posted by L.O.T.R. Gal _
> *I picked other because I believe every one of those choices and others not listed were the heros of the story. Without every member of the fellowship(what about Legolas, Gimli, Boromir?), Elrond, Galladrial, and every single little charactor the great mission would have failed! From Tom Bombadil down to Butterbur at the Prancing Pony Frodo and sam would not have made it in my opinion. It is impossible for me to choose a hero, it is filled with heros. *


Actually I don't know why you think Tom and Butterbur are of importance to Frodo successful mission.They are just part of his journey,but nothing more,theya are far far away from the main plot.


----------



## JMacEye

Without Frodo, nothing could have been done...and all would have been lost. When the Ring was found to be the One Ring, only Frodo was capable of picking it up and carrying it to Mordor....no one else. The other Hobbits only went along because of their love for Frodo. Gandalf could not have taken it and there was no one else. It took the unlikeliest creature of all to have the strength and courage and simple honestly and humility to even take on the task he was given.

No one suffered as much as Frodo, no one.

The torture of bearing the Ring on into Mordor, step by step with the horrible Eye of Sauron beating upon him was almost unbelievably difficult...yet he went on.

Sam never truly appreciated the danger...he was only there to protect Frodo and it was a noble deed....but Frodo knew at the end....but kept going...

Even if at the end it was _impossible_ (which it was, of course) for him to throw the Ring into the Fire, every step of the way he intended accomplish the task that was placed before him...regardless of the cost.

No, it was Frodo.... on one else.


----------



## Gilraen

I don't think that there is _a_ hero of lotr. Frodo lugs the ring to Orodruin, Gollum starts a scuffle and knocks it into the flame, the Ents destroy the environs of Orthanc and chew on the Orcs-helping out the Eodred, and so on. One of the messages of lotr is that there are no HEROes i think, even Gollum had part to play in the end.


----------



## Finduilas

> Sam never truly appreciated the danger...



Do you think so?
Then lets think about this-why did Sam went with Frodo and why didn't he want to leave him?
Of course,the answer is to protect him.Gandalf himself had asked him to.So do you think that the word 'protection' has one definition?Definetely not.Imagine you have a friend and he/she is depressed because she is in a horrible situation.You want to protect and calm her down.Would you start telling her how serious the situation is and horrible of course when she knows it on her own,indeed?Well,at least you shouldn't depress her more.
It is the same in the LOtr.Sam realizes the dangerous situation but he sees Frodo is in a terrible 'condition' and he doesn't need to hear the truth when he knows it heimself.San tries to cheer up Frodo and from my point of view he did it perfectly.


----------



## JMacEye

I do not think that Sam was capable of appreciating the danger; he was just too, well, innocent and single minded. It had nothing to do with his bravery or his role. I think Frodo, at the end, fully understood it. I also think that if Frodo had said "Let's turn around and go home", Sam would have done so without a second thought...


----------



## Lantarion

I think pretty much anybody would jump at the chance to go home from Mordor.. 
But really, towards the end of the LotR Sam does seem to realize that the Ring, although he himself does not comprehend and much less cares about the strength and destructive power it has within it, is a very evil thing indeed that must be destroyed at all costs. This realization very probably came from the fact that his own simple world, the things that he had gotten used to calling his own and even taking for granted, were threatened by the existence of the Ring; this is a rather self-centered/selfish motive, but it did the trick, didn't it?


----------



## Finduilas

> I do not think that Sam was capable of appreciating the danger; he was just too, well, innocent and single minded. It had nothing to do with his bravery or his role. I think Frodo, at the end, fully understood it. I also think that if Frodo had said "Let's turn around and go home", Sam would have done so without a second thought...



I do not agree.The ring was an incredible danger which even Gollum realized couldn't go on Sauron's hands(eye )!
I am sure Sam wouldn't have gone home before the mission had ended.Moreover,he could see what the ring was doing to Frodo.


----------



## JMacEye

There is no way, in my mind, that Sam would have let Frodo turn around and go back by himself...and in fact he proves what his choice would be...

In the book, Sam thinks it is his duty (for a brief moment) to go on without Frodo...but in the end, he cannot do it and stays with Frodo, even though he thinks Frodo is dead, and even though he knows (or thinks he knows) the mission will fail if he does that.


----------



## Thomas Baggins

Well like I said many pages back, I still believe there is no one true hero of lotr, just wanted to let you all know I still think the same. 

P.S. I couldn't help noticing that you're from NH JMacEye, thats so cool so am I.


----------



## JMacEye

Hello, Thomas Baggins of New Hampshire....if Jackson had not picked New Zealand, he could just as well have come to New Hampshire to film wouldn't you say?

Anyway:

Do not misunderstand; I do not think that Frodo accomplished his deed alone. As is usual in dangerous covert missions, many people must work together to make it all happen. 

But, to me, if Frodo had been unwilling to begin the journey, there really was no one else who could have. I do not think any of the other Hobbits could have, either because they were not of Frodo's caliber or because of physical limitations (Bilbo).

And Frodo was the only one of the Fellowship without the slightest experience in such matters. The Elves had been fighting amongst themselves and against Sauron for ages, the Dwarves were no strangers to war, Men of course were not as well, and Gandalf's entire mission in Middle Earth (more or less) was to see Sauron defeated.

No one would have been surprised if a Dwarf or an Elf or a Wizard or a King of Men found the courage to face their dealiest foe. For some, it was simply their duty and reason to exist, if you will.

If one must rise far, far above themselves and dig incredibly deep and reach inside for a courage that they, and no one else, thought they had....then face the horror that was Mordor....this is the true Hero in my mind.


----------



## lossenandunewen

i don't think frodo could have been the hero alone. Many times has he come close to death, and many times has someone saved him (aragorn with the kingsfoil, Sam against shelob, Sam once again in the torture chamber, Sam letting gollum go, the horse, i can't remember who gave him the horse to get to Rivendell fast, but he saved him aswell.) Frodo needed these people or he woul dnever have made it even close to where he did.. oh yea, and sam to carry him up most the mountain


----------



## Finduilas

I am so happy to see that you all understand this!


----------



## Thomas Baggins

Well I do definitly agree that NH is a great potential ME location, JMacEye. 

Also if I had to say that there was one true hero I would probobly say either Frodo or maybe Samwise. Either that or Aragorn, just cause he's my favorite though, I don't think that he could really be the hero because he was basically just doing his duty.


----------



## JMacEye

From Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letter 123:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway I myself saw the value of Hobbits, in putting earth under the feet of 'romance', and in providing subjects for 'ennoblement' and heroes more praiseworthy than the professionals: nolo heroizari is of course as good a start for a hero, as nolo episcopari for a bishop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a quote placed on another forum that, at least, gives us a clue to what Tolkien's idea of a hero was and is the point I was trying to make.

Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas and Gimli were professionals, so to speak.....Frodo was not.


----------



## YayGollum

Yay! Neither was Gollum! Yay Gollum!


----------



## JMacEye

Well, I would have a bit of a hard time with Gollum as a hero, since his entire being was completely self-centered from Day 1. Even before he had the Ring, Tolkien does NOT describe him as an innocent...in fact he was already devious and spiteful. 

And the point of the power of the Ring as it concerns the Hobbits was their inherent hard to corrupt nature...The Ring had little to work with. It was much easier with Gollum... Not as easy as some others, no doubt, but the Ring had much more to work with.

Yes, the Ring destroyed Gollum fully in the end, but he fell into Mount Doom after a violent attack on Frodo, not because he was trying to help anyone but himself. 

Frodo may not have been able to throw the Ring in, as he admitted, but every step of the way, he was thinking about everyone BUT himself.


----------



## YayGollum

Uh, huh. So? Heroes have to be good guys? I didn't know that. I thought that poor Smeagol was the hero just because he saved the day and there was no possible way that anyone else could. Whoops! I must be crazy. I guess people get to be heroes even though they don't finish what they started.


----------



## JMacEye

Pardon me...I do not see any reason for sarcasm. Your arguments would be much stronger without them.

But, to answer your question. Yes, Heroes have to be good guys thinking about someone besides themselves....You could find another label for him, perhaps, that would recognise that it was a good thing he was around, but Hero?...no that is not the right word.


----------



## YayGollum

They would? I had no idea. sorry about that. Sarcasm is just so much fun!  Augh! I can't help it!  oh well.  
Yikes! I guess we just have different definitions of the word hero. Do you know how many times the crazy people in this thread have brought up definitions of the word hero and I twisted them around so they'd fit poor Smeagol? Too many. oh well. 
I just think that it's obvious that poor Smeagol was the hero because he was the closest one to it in the book. Even if he wasn't the most admirable dude around. The goal of LOTR was to destroy the One Ring. Who destroyed the One Ring? Oh, yeah! It was poor Smeagol! *heroic music in the background* He is the hero! Noone else destroyed it!


----------



## JMacEye

Well, certainly that is one way of looking at it...


----------



## YayGollum

Thank you! I guess I'd just have to pout if somebody ever came along with a poll to see what everyone's favorite definition of the word hero was!


----------



## Tatem

Gandalf, he worked so hard, without him Middle Earth would be darkness now. The effort he put into uniting men was spectacular.


----------



## Thomas Baggins

YAY FOR GOLLUM YAY FOR GOLLUM YAY FOR GOLLUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well I think it's time someone else put in a word for Gollum, I mean he's really just a great guy you know.LOL. 

Smeagol Rocks!!

P.S. I believe Gandalf was just doing his job, he was sent to ME to battle the evil of Sauron.


----------



## Finduilas

> Gandalf, he worked so hard, without him Middle Earth would be darkness now. The effort he put into uniting men was spectacular.



As well Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, the Ents, etc.



> Well I think it's time someone else put in a word for Gollum, I mean he's really just a great guy you know.LOL.



Legolas is a great guy as well but he is not the hero.


----------



## BlackCaptain

> _Originally posted by Tatem _
> *Gandalf, he worked so hard, without him Middle Earth would be darkness now. The effort he put into uniting men was spectacular. *



I couldnt agree more. Well actually, i could. Without Gandalf, ME would be gone. 

-Withougt Gollum, Deagol wouldve done the job.

-Without Frodo, Bilbo wouldve found another heir

-Without Aragorn, Arathorn wouldve had another son

-Without Legolas, Thranduil wouldve had another son

-Without Sam... well, Sam and Gandalf are the true hero's of LOTR, but Gandalf had a bigger role.

*all my opinion*


----------



## YayGollum

Woah! Dangerous thinking you've got there! Without Smeagol, Deagol would've done the job? You crazy? If Deagol had gotten the Ring, he wouldn't have hidden in the Misty Mountains. The craziest thing I'm seeing is that the evil sam was indispensable. Makes no sense at all. Everything would have been better if the evil sam wasn't around. Gollum would've willingly tossed the Ring into Mount Doom. That would make everybody like Gollum a lot more. Yay!


----------



## Samweis

I think this depends totally on the definition of hero.


----------



## Finduilas

Hey, MorgulKing, do you need any of the characters at all?


----------



## aDaHe

> _Originally posted by MorgulKing _
> *I couldnt agree more. Well actually, i could. Without Gandalf, ME would be gone.
> 
> -Withougt Gollum, Deagol wouldve done the job.
> 
> -Without Frodo, Bilbo wouldve found another heir
> 
> -Without Aragorn, Arathorn wouldve had another son
> 
> -Without Legolas, Thranduil wouldve had another son
> 
> -Without Sam... well, Sam and Gandalf are the true hero's of LOTR, but Gandalf had a bigger role.
> 
> *all my opinion* *



how many times did you say that you had read lotr (all three)?

when you are finished i will ask you this, how many times have you read and understood what you read????!?!?!?!?!?

Deagol was different to gollum and most definatly not have got the job done on its own.

bilbo might have found another heir, but not like frodo....frodo was the only one that could have done what he did.

aragorn...anything less or more that what you have in him would've either killed him or let him grow to an old man and die in rivendell like most of his ansetors.

sam had loyalty so you cant get another sam.

you need to start understanding what you are reading before you state what is most definatly not right. tolkien would have had you shot if he were alive!!!!!


----------



## Mirabella

Sam is my hero! Frodo would never have made it to Mt. Doom without his Sam.


----------



## aDaHe

but like i said, if you had anyone but frodo sam would not have caried a bit and left with the first sign of trouble...


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Frodo took the initiative to volunteer to take the ring to Mt Doom.

He did it of his own volition. It was his choice. Sam wouldn't have gone with anyone else but Frodo just as balrog says.

The point is that Frodo made the ultimate commitment to the cause...Sam made a commitment to his master...but it wasn't to destroy the ring, it was to help his friend.

I think Frodo is the most heroic in that he was the most dedicated to saving the world.

But as far as the most heroic friendship Sam would win.


----------



## YayGollum

Argh! Yes, all of the people on the poll are heroic in some way. Why not? But still. You gots to remember what the goal was. The goal was not to be the most loyal and sickeningly innocent character. The goal was not to walk for a really long time through a very dangerous country. No matter how heroic those things may be, the goal was always to destroy the One Ring. Gollum did that even though he didn't really mean to. Sure, it's a technicality, but I love technicalities!


----------



## BlackCaptain

> _Originally posted by Finduilas _
> *Hey, MorgulKing, do you need any of the characters at all? *



Yes, but my point is that without Gandalf, how far do you think anyone wouldve gotten? Honestly. Gandalf completely saved everyone from Helms Deep by fetching Erkenbrand, saved Theoden, got rid of the threat of Sauruman, stopped the Witch-King from entering Minas Tirith, saved the company from the Balrog, ... the list goes on.

Gandalf is 100% essential. Someone else COULD HAVE taken the ring to Mt. Doom. Legolas and Gimli weren't very essential, but rather were builders of the plot. Merry and Pippin were esential, but did not have as big of roles as Gandalf. Sam is the only person (i think) that could claim this title, besides Gandalf. And Aragorn, dont get me wrong, is VERY important. But not as crucial as Gandalf in the entire plot.

Ive read, and understood the trilogy twice now Adahe.

Are you saying that Sam is the only person in ME that has loyalty?

The ring would have also corrupted Deagol if he had kept it, and he would have been banished eventualy from his little Stoor residence.

Frodo WAS important, yes. But where would Frodo be without Gandalf? 

I understand what i read, and Tolkien wouldn't have shot me if he were alive. Just because I'm saying that Gandalf is more important than the others, does NOT give anyone, no matter how great, the right to shoot me, nor a reason. This is an OPINIONATED thread. Would Tolkien shoot me for giving my opinion Adahe?

And I also agree with Wonko the Sane. Frodo gave the most commitment, and without Frodo, the world would proably be complete darkness. But same goes for Gandalf, and i THINK that Gandalf had the bigger impact


I am not downsizing anybody's importance to the plot, rather upsizing Gandalf's. In the end, everyone is essential. But thats not the question.


----------



## jimmyboy

> the goal was always to destroy the One Ring


YayGollum, yes, that was the bottom line, but that bottom line wasn't to whole point to reading (or writing) such a story. In this story we meet and get to know many different characters. We go through good times and bad times with them all, and hence we come to know and love (or despise) them for their various qualities. This is why we can say that so-and-so was the most heroic, or whatever. 

Why "Argh!"??? If the only thing important in the story was the destruction of the ring, then it would only be one page long, with only one sentence written on it: "There was a hobbit named Frodo who, along with Sam his companion, took a very evil ring a long long ways away and got rid of it. The end." Kinda like that guy in _The Gods Must Be Crazy_ who took the Coke bottle to the edge of the world and threw it off.


----------



## YayGollum

Woah! Scary MorgulKing person! Sure, those people you're talking about helped out a lot, but there still is the fact that Gollum destroyed the Ring. Sure, Yay for people who helped him get there, people who without whom, poor Smeagol would never have gotten to Mount Doom, but still, those people didn't accomplish the goal. Without Gollum, Sauron would have gotten the Ring back and won. No doubt about it.

Yikes! Scary jimmyboy person! Are you saying that you should vote for whichever character you liked the most? Looks like it when you talk about coming to love or despise certain characters and that's why we vote for them. Ick. Even though Gollum is my favorite character, I only vote for him because I know he's the true hero of LOTR. If I knew he wasn't, I would never have shown up at this thread.  Anyways, I never said that the only important thing in LOTR was to see who destroys the Ring. People read books for plenty of reasons, crazy person! I'm just talking about Gollum being the true hero because that's what this thread is about. sorry about that.


----------



## Finduilas

> Yes, but my point is that without Gandalf, how far do you think anyone wouldve gotten? Honestly. Gandalf completely saved everyone from Helms Deep by fetching Erkenbrand, saved Theoden, got rid of the threat of Sauruman, stopped the Witch-King from entering Minas Tirith, saved the company from the Balrog, ... the list goes on.
> Gandalf is 100% essential. Someone else COULD HAVE taken the ring to Mt. Doom. Legolas and Gimli weren't very essential, but rather were builders of the plot. Merry and Pippin were esential, but did not have as big of roles as Gandalf. Sam is the only person (i think) that could claim this title, besides Gandalf. And Aragorn, dont get me wrong, is VERY important. But not as crucial as Gandalf in the entire plot.



I completely disagree with you! How can we separate characters into essential and not essential, even if it is not so essential. It would be a kind of thuth if they are some kind of extras who do nothing but make the plot and 'scene' look more interesting but in a book like LOTR it is impossible ( and in every book I mean). So I continue claim that everybody's VERY essential and there is no most essential.



> I am not downsizing anybody's importance to the plot, rather upsizing Gandalf's. In the end, everyone is essential. But thats not the question.



No actally, I suppose that's the question: a hero doesn't necessary mean ONE and ONLY but SOMETHING, even if it is an entire 'range' of heroes.

---------------------------------------
Ei, Yay, although I do not share your oppinion, I love how you 'prove' your theses. I do not enjoy anything more than reading your posts.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

First of all you're right: The goal was not to be the most loyal or the most heroic.
It was simply to destroy the ring.
If you leave out honour and intention then there is the plain fact: Gollum saved the day. Without him Frodo would not have had the strength to throw the ring into the mountain. And had Sam tried to force him to "do the right thing" Sam would probably have died and yes, Frodo most likely would've then led Sauron straight to the ring.
See, the point is that Gollum didn't mean to save the day...but neither did Frodo really.
He brought the ring there with every intention of throwing it into the mountain but then he couldn't do that.
At some point his INTENTION became to keep the ring and kill anyone who got in his way.
He most likely would've killed Sam.
This certainly isn't heroic. 
Frodo didn't MEAN to be a hero anymore than Gollum did.

Gollum saved the day, intentions aside, by facilitating the ring's destruction.
He is the hero in that sense.
But he is not the hero in the sense that he set out with the intention to save something.


----------



## Finduilas

> Gollum saved the day, intentions aside, by facilitating the ring's destruction.
> He is the hero in that sense.
> But he is not the hero in the sense that he set out with the intention to save something.



The word 'hero' indeed has many meanings and as so we can not define anyone as THE hero because (I think) there is no such person. However, If we 'combine' them (all characters) all we can achieve the hero.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

So then basically everyone's the hero, and the novel is heroic...and so is the fellowship...and indeed those not even IN the fellowship...

And the argument is over, no?


----------



## Finduilas

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane _
> *So then basically everyone's the hero, and the novel is heroic...and so is the fellowship...and indeed those not even IN the fellowship...
> 
> And the argument is over, no?  *



Actually, I think that the argument will never be over since we all have different oppinions.


----------



## Legolas3363

I think its Gandalf because if u think about it if he hadnt figured out that that was the one ring then frodo would have been found and killed like right away.


----------



## YayGollum

Yay for people who like reading my posts just because they're so crazy while they make perfect sense!  Anyways, Ick. Combining the characters? What would a combination of Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, the evil sam, Gollum the Hero, and whoever else you want to throw in be like? Sounds like the scariest book I've ever read!


----------



## Wonko The Sane

I'm not combining the characters!
Just saying that they're all the heroes in some sense or another.

But I do agree with you Yay, in that Frodo is no more of a hero than Gollum is as far as destroying the ring and "saving the day" goes.


----------



## YayGollum

Thank you, crazy lady. Anyways, I thought I was making fun of the Finduilas person when I was talking about combining the characters since he was the dude that brought it up. oh well. *hides*


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Oh...well I kind of supported him in saying that all the characters combined were heroes.


----------



## Frodorocks

As much as I would love to say Frodo (because Frodo rocks as you all know. ) I would have to say Sam. If it wasn't for Sam, Frodo would probably never have escaped from the tower.


----------



## YayGollum

Sure, but look at the scene that actually matters. That Mount Doom scene. What's the evil sam doing then? Getting knocked out by the hero because he was superly evil to him through the whole book. The hero goes on to take the Ring from the crazed Frodo and kill Sauron. Yes, I'm talking about Gollum.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Yay..I do agree with you.
When it's down to the wire it really is Gollum who ends up saving the day.

But up until that last moment someone else was the hero.


----------



## Finduilas

> Oh...well I kind of supported HER in saying that all the characters combined were heroes.



That's better, right?


----------



## lotrobsession4

There's another thread like this somewhere... I said there that I think Frodo, Sam, Gollum, Gandalf, Aragorn and a few others were all heroes because without any of them the task couldn't have been completed. Without Gandalf the whole thing wouldn't have started and Frodo would've been found in the Shire and the ring taken. Without Frodo the ring wouldn't have got to Mt Doom. Without Sam, Frodo wouldn't have made it past when they hid under the tree in the Shire. Frodo would've put the ring on and the Nazgul would've taken it (sam slapped his hand away). Without Aragorn the Hobbits would've died at Weathertop. And without Gollum the ring wouldn't have got away from Frodo and into the fire. They are all essential to the quest so I say they're all heroes!!


----------



## SarumanTheWhite

Gandalf; Because he saved Frodo from the Nazgûl at the Shire, otherwise Sauron would get the Ring, and because he died only to save the others


----------



## Daniel

I voted for other since I don't really think that any one of them is _the_ true here. They all worked together to achieve the destruction of the Ring, and I think that they all deserve that recognition. Frodo was the ring bearer, but he couldn't have done it without Sam (although Sam couldn't have done it alone), and Aragorn and Gandalf both played a major role in the story (For example, destracting Sauron, and protecting Rohan and Gondor). So really, it was them all working together that got the Ring destroyed. I don't think there was one true hero.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Yes, sorry Fin!! I knew you were female too...  I'm sorry! Total brain malfunction!!!


----------



## MacAddict

The real hero of LOTR is of course Your Mom!    .





~MacAddict


----------



## BlackCaptain

*MY* opinion:

1. Gandalf
2. Gollum
3. Sam

Ask yourselves, all of you who disagree with me. Would the Ring have even gotten out of the Shire if it wasnt for Gandalf? Would the fellowship have made it through Moria if it wasnt for Gandalf? Would Rohan have survived if it wasnt for Gandalf?

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS PERSON OR THAT PERSON IS NOT ESSENTIAL. I AM SAYING... no asking, where would Middle Earth be if Gandalf wasnt there? Sure, Frodo, Sam, Gollum, Aragorn, everyone was essential. *I*am saying that Gandalf was the most crucial to the quest of the Ring.


----------



## Grond

Errr??? Ummm??? Was Gandalf carrying the Ring with him?? NO!

Was Gandalf afraid to bear the Ring?? YES!

Hero = Frodo and then Sam

Frodo for bearing it as far as he did and Sam for having the perseverence to aid his master in the completion of the quest.


----------



## nollaig

i went for Sam but they all contributed to the quest. Were it not for sam, frodo would not have succeeded,same with gollum. It was all linked so how is it possible to pick the true hero?


----------



## Niniel

Just today I was reading the Letters of JRRT and it said (Letter 131, at the end):


> I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character.


Before I read this I thought the real hero might be Aragorn, Frodo or Sam, but clearly JRRT thought it was Sam. And since he wrote it, he must know


----------



## Finduilas

> _Originally posted by Niniel _
> *Just today I was reading the Letters of JRRT and it said (Letter 131, at the end):
> Before I read this I thought the real hero might be Aragorn, Frodo or Sam, but clearly JRRT thought it was Sam. And since he wrote it, he must know *



I agree that this might be considered as a proof to your statement. However, since it (the quote) is written in a paragraph concerning love and love-relationships ( for example the one about Aragorn and Arwen) I feel it in a fairly different way.
I mean it ( the chief hero's ) might refer to love experience or devotion, or probably something related with love. I do not immediately accept it as a proof that Tolkien has had a true hero. Moreover, I think a person can not have one out of numeruos characters since he has had created them all and they are a kind of 'children' to him.


----------



## YayGollum

lotrobsession4 person ---> Yes, they are all heroes in some way. I'm just trying to prove that Gollum was the main hero of the entire thing because he accomplished the main goal.

SarumanTheWhite, MorgulKing, and Grond people ---> All of the people that you think of the heroes can't be. Sure, they do superly necessary things, but they don't save the day in the end. Sure, they might have done many more heroic things than Gollum, but Gollum did save the day in the end. He is the main hero of the book. No doubt about it. If you want to talk about appreciating characters for the little things they did to get the Ring where it had to be, make another thread. This is just to talk about the guy that destroyed the Ring, isn't it?

I love this Daniel person's answer, but I love sticking up for Gollum more.  

I don't get this MacAddict person. oh well. Probably his intention.

nollaig person ---> It's easy for me. The goal was to destroy the Ring. Sure, the evil sam helped out along the way, but he didn't destroy the Ring like Gollum.


----------



## nollaig

Ok, Gollum ultimately destroyed the ring but he did not mean too. He tried to steal the ring, that is not the actions of a hero.


----------



## Theoden_king

Not the real hero but I don't think the ring would even had made it to Mordor, if it wasn't for the army of Gondor. They kept Sauron's forces at bay allowing everyone else a bit more time to decide what to do with the ring, not the real hero's but deserve to be given credit for the destruction of the ring though it was indirectly


----------



## aDaHe

sam

ordinary guy that did great things and returned to his home ordinary.


----------



## YayGollum

nollaig person ---> You're thinking of the classical type of hero. If Gollum was the classical type of hero, he'd say some really noble type thing, then toss the Ring in with no fuss. Gollum is just a different kind of hero. There are plenty of different definitions. The goal was to destroy the One Ring. Gollum did that, no matter how intentional. Besides, he's schizophrenic and we have no idea what he was thinking at the time. I like to think that Gollum was having all kinds of fun with having the Ring back, while poor Smeagol was saying ---> "Yay! Good thing I never learned how to dance!"


----------



## BlackCaptain

I totaly agree. haha... Gollum obviously cant dance if his life depended on it... literaly


----------



## MrsElijahWood

*Return of the King (A message to YayGollum)*

I have ALMOST finished with return of the king, not yet tho, im on the part where the hobbits are leaving Edoras to return to the shire. Anyway, after reading about the end in the cracks of doom, Yaygollum, i must say this, you are right about gollum destroying the ring, but a hero??? he would have kept the ring if he were not a clumsy idiot and fell off the edge after RIPPING FRODO'S FINGER OFF!! So technically he is not a hero but an oaf, also how can you say Sam was mean to Smeagol when he felt pity for him, when even Frodo didn't and let him live even though he had him on his knees??? I think that's pretty merciful of him, now dont you?[/


----------



## YayGollum

Well, Yikes! I'm in someone else's title! I am honored! Well, kinda. oh well. 

I happen to know that Gollum is the hero because he destroyed the One Ring. That was the main goal of the story. Remember that thing called the Fellowship Of The Ring? A whole book named after the group of people whose mission it was to destroy the One Ring. Gollum ended up destroying it and killing Sauron and saving Middle Earth. Noone else. That makes Gollum the hero. No matter how intentionally. 

Besides, LOTR doesn't say what either of his personalities were thinking at the time. It could very well be that Gollum was superly happy with getting his preciousss back, but that Smeagol was saying, "I'm glad I never took those dancing lessons!" I think that it would be obvious for anyone reading LOTR to see things my way. It seems to me to be that most people are just too conditioned to think of a character as despicable as poor Smeagol could be the hero. No matter how obvious. oh well. Tolkien did a good job with surprising and confusing people, I guess. Too bad. 

Anyways, I think that you can tell that the evil sam was evil to poor Smeagol. He calls him names. He never trusts him. He makes his food inedible. But the main thing that is superly and achingly evil is that he was evil to him in that part where poor Smeagol looked like an old and sad little hobbit. *sniff* I don't get why you wouldn't think that the evil sam wasn't being evil then. Care to explain it to me? Sure, I can admit that the evil sam wasn't being so evil to poor Smeagol over at Mount Doom, but you gots to admit that he was plenty evil before. 

I voted for Celeborn because I'm sure that he'll be the least popular.


----------



## redline2200

I didn't believe before, but that was well said............


----------



## BlackCaptain

AND... 

If it wasnt for Gollum, Frodo and Sam would have foolishly tried to get through the Moranon, and have been captured by orcs. Gollum was a hero, hands down.
And what does that poll have to do with anything? You knowyou don't HAVE to post a poll...


----------



## YayGollum

Oh, have I converted this redline2200 person? I would hope so! Anyways, yes, sure, Gollum was the hero. Why wouldn't you agree? Maybe this person wanted to ask all of the questions in one place?


----------



## MrsElijahWood

yes, yes I know I dont HAVE to have a poll, I just wanted one Is that OKAY with your royal highness?!?! Jeez It's MY thread! Anyway Yaygollum you Do have some very good points, Gollum is not really my favorite character, but whatever floats ur boat!


----------



## YayGollum

Got it. Cool. Glad I could help. Any other burning questions you feel like asking me?


----------



## nollaig

the way i see it is that gollum is a hero but not the hero. u get me? Nearly all of the characters were heroes in their own way, all played their part in the destruction of the ring.


----------



## aDaHe

yes i remeber the long and somewhat really repetitive aruguement on the subject of "the" hero...

in the poll you the heck put your mum! in there??????

i know i didn't....
mods give me a hand on this subject...


----------



## YayGollum

Aha! Sounds like a job for... *heroic music in the background*... one of those council of nine type people! I will find out what evil moderator did that to your poll!  Anyways, why isn't it obvious that Gollum was the main hero? sorry to sound repetitive, but that's my claim to fame. Wasn't the main goal to destroy the One Ring? Or am I reading a different version of LOTR?


----------



## Gil-Galad

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *Oh, have I converted this redline2200 person? I would hope so! Anyways, yes, sure, Gollum was the hero. Why wouldn't you agree? Maybe this person wanted to ask all of the questions in one place? *


YAY,after months you still think you are the hero.You are such a stubborn person.


----------



## kohaku

> Or am I reading a different version of LOTR?



you must be


----------



## Thomas Baggins

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> * Or am I reading a different version of LOTR? *




Your not, Gollum is a hero, go you!!!


----------



## YayGollum

Gil-Galad person ---> No, I don't think that I'm the hero. sorry for not saying that Gollum is the hero clearly enough.

kohaku person ---> You crazy. The main goal of LOTR was to destroy the One Ring. What else could it be? Besides entertain readers. Listen to this Thomas Baggins person, that is obviously full of wisdom.


----------



## Ulmo321

Frodo is the obvious choice, but he had the main burden and after the end of the Fellowship it didn't matter what the others did, it was all up to Frodo and if he failed they all failed, if he succeded they all succeded.


----------



## YayGollum

Um, that's not right, Ulmo321 person. Frodo did fail and Gollum still saved the day.    sorry about that. *hides*


----------



## Thomas Baggins

--->Hey YayGollum person, not sure I've ever mentioned it before, but you're hilarious, Despit the constant harsh words you always suport Gollum, who by-the-way definitly would have to be the hero of LOTR if the main goal was to destroy the ring.............which it was, so therfore Gollum would have to be the hero, an undenialble point.

--->Ulmo231 person tke everything with a grain of salt. lol.

Aravorn


----------



## laurelindorenan

Frodo is, you know, the main man in this film, but you have to admit, that Gollum was the one who actually destroyed the one ring. In the end, that was the whole point, wasn't it?

Aragorn rocks though.


----------



## Ulmo321

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *Um, that's not right, Ulmo321 person. Frodo did fail and Gollum still saved the day.    sorry about that. *hides* *



Very true, in a sensehe did fail and thanks to Gollum the ring was destroyed. So I guess you deserve all the credit.

BTW, YAYGollum, I must admit you play your character quite well.


----------



## YayGollum

Sure thing, Thomas Baggins person. I'm here to make people happy. But then, I still believe everything I'm talking about. oh well. 

Anyways, Yay me for converting someone else! But then, what part am I playing?


----------



## aDaHe

everyone that is new to ttf or this thread must understand that yaygollum has a fixation and the only way to shut him up is to join him - btw i believe too...



> if you cant beat 'em, join 'em!!!



ooo well

btw who put your momma in the poll!!!!!
i didn't and i want to know who did!!!!!


----------



## ShootingStar

Sam is the hero! Frodo couldn't have done it or even survived without him. I think everyone was a hero (somewhat) in the story, but sam was the biggest hero, I think. He would have done anything for Frodo and he would have taken the ring to Mordor by himself if he had to. He also had the biggest transformation from beginning to end. In the beginning his biggest goal in life was to marry Rosie, but by the end he was a hero! I LOVE SAM!!!!


----------



## YayGollum

Sure, the evil sam did do the stuff you're talking about, but I don't get how that makes him the main hero. Wasn't the main goal to destroy the One Ring? That's what Gollum did. Or am I reading a different version of LOTR?


----------



## aDaHe

but that is kind of biased there SStar...the whole damn story is about sam and in the end he is telling it so of course he is going to be the hero by the end...the real question i have is whether or not the Sams uncles brothers son in law's third wife's grandmothers sisters baby is indeed as i have always maintained - Jack the Ripper...i feel the ring was too much for sam and it afected his family - marrying that took for instance...


----------



## laurelindorenan

Hey, when I read the book, I thought Gollum was a slimey, smelly little creep (soz YayGollum) but listening to some people on this forum ( ok, basically YayGollum) made me change my mind. It was him in the end who really destroyed the ring. He made the ultimate sacrifice so you might as well admit it! 
Who said Sam was the hero anyway!? He helped Frodo along, but in the end he just went back to his hobbit hole and lived happily ever after.
Aragorn is the greatest! Sorry, just had to say that.


----------



## baragund

Sorry Yay, but I can't buy Gollum being the hero. His motives all along were completely self-serving and the only reason he wound up destroying the Ring was he happened to be dancing too close to the Cracks of Doom in his delirious celebration after biting it off of Frodo's hand. His destruction of the Ring was purely accidental (unless you prefer the notion that Eru provided some divine intervention and helped Gollum go too close to the edge).

I have to go with the conventional thinking here and vote for Frodo. He was the keeper of the Ring for quite a few years before he began the quest for Mt. Doom, and withstood the temptation of it quite nicely. He bore it all the way to the Cracks of Doom with the noblest intentions and very few slips in his will along the way. One can hardly fault him for failing in his will at the very end; the White Council and Aragorn wouldn't even touch the Ring for fear that they would immediately succumb to it's temptation.

Both Frodo and Gollum were both tough little buggers but Frodo was doing it all for the right reasons.


----------



## YayGollum

What's 'soz' mean? Anyways, Yay for me helping out this laurelindorenan person!

To the baragund person ---> What does motive have to do with grabbing the title of hero? Is there no such thing as an accidental hero? And why would you decide that Frodo is the hero if you know that he failed in the end? Sure, I'd say that he's heroic. There are plenty of heroic characters in LOTR. Gollum was just the guy that ended up doing what all of them wanted to. Destroying the One Ring, killing Sauron, and saving Middle Earth. He was the unlikeliest of heroes.


----------



## baragund

Well, Yay, motive has everything to do with being a hero. Websters defines "hero" as "A man noted for courageous acts or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his life." 

Websters also defines "hero" as "A large sandwich consisting of a long, split roll having a variety of fillings, as meats, cheeses, lettuce, tomatoes, and onions", but I don't think that definition applies here. 

Frodo's conduct throughout the quest to destroy the Ring can certainly be characterized as courageous and noble of purpose. As I said before, Gollum's conduct can only be described as self-serving.

You're right about there being plenty of heroic characters in LOTR. In a serendipitous sort of way, Gollum's acts of leading Frodo and Sam into Mordor and his accidental falling into the Cracks of Doom with the Ring could be considered heroic, but he could not be the *true* hero as the question asks.


----------



## Elendil3119

Ah, I'm glad to find someone else who is of the exact same opinion as me on the issue of Gollum being THE hero.  However, baragund, I would have to disagree with you on one point.

Why is Frodo the true hero any more than Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn etc.? Without them, he would have got nowhere. Besides, Frodo actually _failed_ at the end! I don't think that he - or any other character, for that matter - can be considered THE hero of LotR. If we want to ask who was the most _heroic_, I would have to say Sam. He stuck with Frodo the whole way; he never despared, and was always encouraging. Even when he saw his master fall, he was courageous enough, and had the will-power to press on, taking a huge burden upon himself. However, I don't think he can be considered the one and only hero. IMO, Sam is the most heroic, but no more the TRUE hero than the others in the grand scheme of the story.


----------



## baragund

Elendil, you have a good point when you say that Frodo could not be the TRUE hero of LOTR because his will failed at the Cracks of Doom. A TRUE hero would have carried the Ring all the way and cast it willingly into the volcano. 

On the other hand, I maintain the Frodo had the heaviest burden to bear out of all of the heroic characters. Sam and the others were heroic in their own right but they were all subordinate to Frodo. As the saying goes, "it is lonely at the top", and Frodo had to carry the burden by himself. It is much easier to assist somebody who has a difficult task than it is to have the task yourself.

Nevertheless, because Frodo did fail at the end, perhaps it would be more accurate to say Frodo was the TRUEST hero of LOTR.


----------



## aDaHe

motive - lets discuss this for a while, because although we talked about it for a while i dont think that yaygollum got the point of it(thus we reallyhasn't got the point that his endless tireaid for gollum is for nauht)

motive is the thing that will convict or save a person...motive.

a robber breaks into a house and hurts himself while trying to steal something ( on a knife) now the way that yaygollum is justifying gollum is that the act was made and in this case the injury was done. the resisdent lost that case and had to pay 10000 us$ to the robber because he said that he had been injured by the resisdents carlessness action of leaving a knife where she did and he was on his job...my point is that gollum is not a hero, but a villan that did a "good" thing and save the world...sam however is the hero because he is a normal guy that did extraordinary things and survived unscathed (personality wise)
jm2cat


----------



## Elendil3119

_From Letter 246_


> Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted.





> I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum – impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.


Frodo did indeed have a very large burden to bear. Its _really_ tough to draw the line between characters like Frodo and Sam, because they were both very heroic; but Frodo's heroism was a different kind of heroism than Sam's. I think that this is one of the hardest questions to find an answer for. 

I believe I've found some information to support my view that there is no single hero of LotR:

_From Letter 131_ 


> But through Hobbits, not Men so-called, because the last Tale is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world polities' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, forgotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless.


Also, it appears that Tolkien considered Sam to be the true hero of LotR:

_From Letter 131_ 


> I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character...


That's a tough quote to reconcile with the one above. Sam's part in the story was essential, but so were all the other characters...Ah, but I repeat myself.  I nominate this as "Unanswerable Question #1"!


----------



## YayGollum

What does that dictionary quote have to say about motives? I must have missed it. oh well. Doobedoobeoo... I don't get how that robber scenario is anything like Gollum. oh well. Let me see here. You people are talking about how noone can be called the true hero because Frodo failed in the end and everyone else just helped him out. Did you miss the part of LOTR that said that Gollum didn't fail? Also, you people keep forgetting that you don't know what poor Smeagol was thinking at the time.


----------



## baragund

Elendil, I really do need to read Tolkien's Letters one of these days When one can quote JRRT's words, there isn't a whole lot of use in arguing against it. I can see how Sam could be considered the TRUEST hero because his faith was the purest through the entire quest (that is, if you can forgive the brief delusion of grandeur when he had the Ring and he had visions of all of Middle Earth transformed into gardens under his direction). Still, I maintain that Sam's burden was nowhere near as difficult as Frodo's. How would Sam have fared if he kept the Ring all those years that Frodo had it?

Yay, Webster's identifies "nobility of purpose" in it's definition, right before the discussion on delicious sandwiches. That pretty clearly addresses the motive thing. As for Smeagol's motives, it is pretty clear from the whole arc of the story that he just wanted it for himself, he murdered, stole and endured unspeakable hardships for it but it was pure self-serving in the end.


----------



## YayGollum

Yikes, baragund person! The way you're talking about how Frodo was more of a hero than the evil sam makes me wonder why you don't agree with me. Gollum went through more than Frodo and he actually ended up saving the day. oh well. Anyways, Woah! Where do you come up with all of that craziness for poor Smeagol's motives? Sure, I'd agree that poor Smeagol liked having the One Ring around as a security blanket, but did you miss the parts that show how much he isn't a fan of the thing? just wondering. I wouldn't doubt that he liked the fact that the thing was destroyed. Also, Ack! Who did poor Smeagol ever murder for the thing?


----------



## Elendil3119

Gollum went through way much more than Frodo? Examples please? 


> 'Where iss it, where iss it: my Precious, my Precious? It's ours, it is, and we wants it. The thieves, the thieves, the filthy little thieves. Where are they with my Precious? Curse them! We hates them.'


There are more examples, but that sure sounds like greed to me. He was also not "a fan of the thing" because the Ring had consumed him. BTW Smeagol murdered Deagol to obtain the Ring in the first place. Haven't you ever read that part?


----------



## YayGollum

Well, you asked for it. Answers to your questions ---> He was banished by his own grandma. The one he taught how to suck eggses. He had to learn how to live without any help from anybody. He mutated a little. He lost whatever friends he might have had as a hobbit, plus the funny little friends he got in the Misty Mountains. just when he was learning how to deal with the One Ring, the evil thief Bilbo Baggins took the thing, which let Gollum show up again. Smeagol and Gollum aren't good friends and then Smeagol had to deal with that guy again. Gollum was the one talking in that little quote you tossed at me. just like he was the one talking to the evil torturer Gandalf while he was being evilly tortured. How honest do you really think Gollum is? Or do you just love believing him in that case just because he looks bad? Anyways, after Gollum's personality showed up again, he had to deal with his crazy obssession and miss a lot of meals. These two are always arguing and Gollum always wins. Poor guy. He gets grabbed and tortured by Sauron. He gets grabbed by Aragorn, then tortured by the evil torturer Gandalf. He gets imprisoned by a bunch of evil elves. Their kind of things always hurt the guy thanks to the One Ring, but they helped Smeagol get stronger. He ends up in Moria where he's always afraid of all of the crazy things around him. He runs into Frodo and the evil sam. You think that was very fun for him? Smeagol gets stronger thanks to the lembas and the rope. Poor guy has a conscience again. Too bad. More arguements. The nasssty hobbitses are evil to him and Gollum's always coming up with crazy ideas. He almost gets killed by an orc arrow. He asks Frodo superly civilly one last time to help him out by giving him his security blanket back, but the guy acts crazy and Gollum takes over. You think poor Smeagol's having fun right about now? How much did he love biting Frodo? Or having to die thanks to Gollum's obssession? Not much, I'd say. Or do you just like to forget about all of the sad stuff that happened to him and only pay attention to Gollum?


----------



## laurelindorenan

Hey YayGollum! 'soz' means sorry. Soz this is a bit late.
You are so right man! You have converted me! I now have a million more times respect for Gollum. If I could have voted for you, I would have.
By the way, Im not a person, I am a being. A higher life form, if you will. Or maybe a ball of dark matter, a speck on the face of the earth... eh. you get me?


----------



## baragund

Yay, where to start... where to start...

Gollum's / Smeagol's relationship with the Ring is very similar to that of a junkie and his heroin. He is addicted to it, he can't live without it and he will go to whatever means necessary to get it. This is the heart of his motivation, hardly heroic. 

He fell so quickly and so completely for the temptation of the Ring that he murdered Deagol for it within moments of encountering it. Frodo, by contrast, bore the Ring for years without having such violent reactions. As far as Gollum / Smeagol "learning how to deal with The One Ring" while he was in the Misty Mountains, I would characterize that more like he was wallowing in his addiction just like a junkie in an opium den. There was no dealing with the Ring on any level and the addiction was 100% in control. He lost his fix when Bilbo picked up the Ring, and that made him go through unspeakable hardships to get it back. 

As for the effect of the elves, he got stronger when he was imprisoned by Thranduil only because he was fed and not tortured. When he was with Frodo and Sam, Gollum violently recoiled when he was touched by the elven rope and he was totally grossed out when he was offered lembas so I don't think those items did anything to strengthen the Smeagol side. The only cause I could see for the conflict between Slinker and Stinker was that Frodo acted civilly toward him and, most importantly, he made Slinker / Stinker swear on the Ring to aid Frodo.

Don't get me wrong, Yay. I have developed quite a lot of respect for the little creep. I would strongly argue that nobody in LOTR and maybe even the entire history of ME through the end of the Third Age suffered more than him. But just like the junkie who eventually dies of an overdose, Gollum's part can best be described as a pathetic tragedy.


----------



## aDaHe

> _Originally posted by YayGollum _
> *Did you miss the part of LOTR that said that Gollum didn't fail? Also, you people keep forgetting that you don't know what poor Smeagol was thinking at the time. *



yes we do know what he was thinking because he was going on about his precious and had just bitten it off frodos finger...anyway Smeagol was basically non exhistant by this stage, no personal skitzo thingys going on in his head just *[evil]Gollum[/evil]*

his motive was always to get the ring from frodo. so you are right. he did not fail in his idea of trying to get the ring. he did how ever not succed in his goal because he did not keep it long enough to do any thing with it.

frodo may not have succeded in his quest but he did not fail either. he faultered and claimed it but did not fail because the ring still was destroyed.


----------



## Elendil3119

_From Letter 246:_ 


> For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes in II 323 ff. when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing', said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!'. His repentance is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense ) wasted. Shelob's lair became inevitable.


Pop goes Smeagol! It was Gollum for the rest of the way. What follows is one of the most interesting sections from the Letters that I've ever read.


> This is due of course to the 'logic of the story'. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last (III 221-222)4 but for the good of Gollum too late.) If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some q-u-e-e-r twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.
> I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together – and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo. Frodo in the tale actually takes the Ring and claims it, and certainly he too would have had a clear vision – but he was not given any time: he was immediately attacked by Gollum. When Sauron was aware of the seizure of the Ring his one hope was in its power: that the claimant would be unable to relinquish it until Sauron had time to deal with him. Frodo too would then probably, if not attacked, have had to take the same way: cast himself with the Ring into the abyss. If not he would of course have completely failed. It is an interesting problem: how Sauron would have acted or the claimant have resisted.


That's some food for thought.  If any of you have the Letters, I would encourage you to read letter 246 in full.


----------



## YayGollum

Got it. Thanks, laurelindorenan uh, being. How is soz supposed to be short for sorry? Where'd the z come from? oh well.

baragund person ---> You keep talking about crazy people addicted to crazy things. Sure, I can see how Gollum might remind you of that, but he is *gasp!* different in some ways. He has two personalities. They are very different. Gollum = the superly evil type of person you're talking about. Smeagol = the superly sad type of person you're talking about. He's very heroic in that he continues to resist the thing and ends up beating it. 

Anyways, how much of my post did you read? There's no proof that Smeagol killed Deagol and got messed with by the One Ring that easily. That was a crazy story Gollum told the evil torturer Gandalf while being evilly tortured. You people just love to believe it. 

How many years did the superly boring Frodo have the One Ring on his finger? oh well. Not a big deal. 

I was only talking about the elf stuff helping poor Smeagol out because I read that in one of those History Of Middle Earth books. oh well. That doesn't have much to do with the one scene I'm trying to talk about. 

aDaHe person ---> Woah! How do you know that Smeagol wasn't around to be thinking how cool it was that he got to save the day? Anyways, the goal I was talking about that Smeagol ended up achieving was the main goal of LOTR. Not that other craziness. But then, since the guy has two personalities, he got to work with both goals. Yay! Also, Frodo didn't destroy the One Ring. It seems to me to be that everyone agrees that he failed. oh well.

Elendil3119 person ---> I see no proof that Smeagol's personality was gone for good. I actually see that it showed up at Mount Doom. oh well. Yay for the second quote, though! It shows how evil the evil sam is!


----------



## laurelindorenan

Hey, I didn't make it up! Deal with it. 
Sorry about that last bit, went a bit mad.
I agree that Frodo was a bit of a bimbo with that ring, and should have just given it to someone more intelligent in the first place. Bilbo should not have taken it anyway.
That whole Smeagol-Gollum thing? Must have given him a constant headache...


----------



## Night Wing

Certainly Gollum is one of the most complex characters in LOTR. He is crafty, tenatious, hideous, lustful and pathetic. The power of his evilness(over Smeagol) wins as it was bound to and I don't think Tolkein showed any affinity for this character except maybe pity for the suffering Gollum endured. The actions of every main character are deeply interwoven into the final resolution. Yes, the Hobbits are not dynamic warriors like Aragorn or possessing mystical powers like the Elves or Gandalf but they are the only ones we can identify with or hope to emulate. In the beginning Sam made a promise to look out for his master and he kept it to the end, even when the others in the fellowship decided that it was appropriate that Frodo (and Sam) go the rest of way(to Mordor) alone. Poor Frodo would not have survived the telling of this tale if it hadn't been for Sam. Sam is the greatest hero, resolute with astounding fortitude and generosity. In the end, Sam says to himself "I'll get there,(to the Crack of Doom) If I leave everything but my bones behind...And I'll carry Mr. Frodo up myself, if it breaks my back and heart." Frodo might have broken Sam's heart had not Gollum bitten off Frodo's finger for the ring and then in a frenzy at retrieving his "precious" fallen into the fire.


----------



## YayGollum

I never said that the evil sam wasn't sickeningly admirable all the time. He is. That's not a good thing and it doesn't make him the hero. How is helping out and being achingly loyal make him the real hero when the real goal is to destroy the One Ring? Which Gollum did.


----------



## Night Wing

Yes, Gollum was in possession of the ring when it was destroyed, but its destruction was not purposeful or heroic, it was accidental. Do we agree that goal of the fellowship was to cast the ring into the Crack of Doom? There is no intent on Gollum's part to accomplish this, only to have his" precious"back. A heroic deed implies a mindful action and cannot happen by a chance mishap.

Well, I guess Gollum needs fans too. YayGollum, why to you call Sam, "evil Sam"?


----------



## Elendil3119

From Letter 181:



> "Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honorable."


----------



## Thomas Baggins

Night Wing, Course Gollum needs fans!!! I'm a big Aragorn fan, but after all Gollum did detroy the ring right? 

Hey YayGollum person, these people will never understand will they, always coming up with great arguments, but never seeing Gollum as the true hero.


----------



## YayGollum

There we go. Yay for this Thomas Baggins person! 

Anyways, Night Wing person, we've had people bring in the definition of hero about 27,000 times and it always turns out that Gollum happens to be one. He gets to be the true hero because the true goal was to destroy the One Ring, kill Sauron, and save Middle Earth. People haven't been able to explain why intent has to do with it. Even though they don't know what Smeagol's intent was at the time. oh well. Whoops! I forgot. I call the evil sam the evil sam because he's always evil to poor Smeagol. He doesn't deserve capitalization.

Also, Oo! Thanks for that quote, Elendil3119 person! I've been looking for that one.


----------



## Night Wing

YahGollum, I feel like we were both eye witnesses to the same accident but when called to testify in court our accounts were totally different and no amount of argument would ever change their respective stories. I guess that is why attorneys would rather have evidence, even if circumstantial, than a couple of people who "know what they saw".


----------



## YayGollum

Got it. The evidence that Gollum destroyed the One Ring, killed Sauron, and saved Middle Earth isn't enough to make you think that he's the real hero of LOTR. What other crazy evidence could make you think otherwise? just wondering. sorry for the confusion. I'm just an achingly stubborn person that happens to know he's right.


----------



## Night Wing

Friend of Gollum, It seems that a lot of evidence has been presented in opposition to your choice of hero. I can't argue with your last sentence and I commend your unwavering resistance to reason.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

The true hero of LotR is Tom Bombadil.

If he hadn't shown up they would've all died within days of leaving the Shire.



Or Treebeard could be said to be the Hero, because without taking Isengard they would never have succeeded.


----------



## baragund

> I can't argue with your last sentence and I commend your unwavering resistance to reason.



LOL... Two points, game, set and match to Night Wing!!


----------



## YayGollum

Got it. No answering of questions. Always helpful. Anyways, have you run into any evidence that sounds as great as the stuff I already wrote down for you? Maybe my evil stubbornity is getting in the way. Or I just think that I'm proving people wrong and they just happen to disagree. I forget. oh well. 

The Tom Bombadil slash Treebeard slash Glorfindel slash evil torturer Gandalf slash anyone else that might have helped the nasssty hobbitses get to where they had to be along the way idea doesn't work because they didn't actually save the day. They helped.

Also, do what? How did the Night Wing person win? oh well.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

I know they didn't save the day.  It was a joke because I knew you'd disagree.


----------



## Ardamir the Blessed

In addition to *Elendil3119's* quotes on page 35 I give these (they might have appeared before in this thread):


Letter #93:


> Sam is the most closely drawn character, the successor to Bilbo of the first book, the genuine hobbit. Frodo is not so interesting, because he has to be highminded, and has (as it were) a vocation.


Letter #192:


> Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said).


'The Steward and the King':


> Then to the wonder of many Aragorn did not put the crown upon his head, but gave it back to Faramir, and said: ‘By the labour and valour of many I have come into my inheritance. In token of this I would have the Ring-bearer bring the crown to me, and let Mithrandir set it upon my head, if he will; for he has been the mover of all that has been accomplished, and this is his victory.’


_The Silmarillion_, _Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age_:


> There at the last they looked upon death and defeat, and all their valour was in vain; for Sauron was too strong. Yet in that hour was put to the proof that which Mithrandir had spoken, and help came from the hands of the weak when the Wise faltered. For, as many songs have since sung, it was the Periannath, the Little People, dwellers in hillsides and meadows, that brought them deliverance.





> Now all these things were achieved for the most part by the counsel and vigilance of Mithrandir


----------



## YayGollum

Uh, huh. Why would those quotes make anyone who has actually read the books think that anyone besides Gollum could be called the main hero? Sure, I read them and understand them, but the part of that Return Of The King book where Gollum saves the day seems achingly black and white to me.


----------



## Thomas Baggins

C'mon Yay, will you ever give up? Iay-yia-yiay..........but Gollum still is the hero................so............


----------



## YayGollum

What's all of that about? ---> Iay-yia-yiay

Anyways, no, I see no reason to stop defending poor Smeagol. Not many other people will do it. *sniff*


----------



## BlackCaptain

I will. 

The point of LotR is based around the quest to destroy the Ring. Gollum destroys the Ring when no one else would. That's the bottom line. Sure everyone else contributed, but not to the bottom line as directly as Gollum did


----------



## Thomas Baggins

Oh, well don't get me wrong, I'm still a loyal Gollum defender if it ever comes into court or something. I just had to make it sound like I wasn't completly Gollum crazy, so I could keep my middle of the road position, you know.


----------



## King Aragorn

I think that Frodo is the hero because he still moves on, even though he has been stabbed, injected with spider poison, and other things.


----------



## HelplessModAddi

You people are all nuts.





There is no hero.
Don't you get it?


----------



## YayGollum

Sure, I get the crazy idea thought up by some crazy people that there's more than one hero. That pretty much everyone is the hero. Doesn't make any sense. Especially after you read the book. You know. The book that talks about Gollum saving the day and completed the goal all of the boring characters tried to get to. Or were you talking about something else, HelplessModAddi person? oh well. 

Anyways, King Aragorn person, do you consider the superly boring Frodo character to be the real hero just because he ran into all kinds of trouble? Craziness. Gollum ran into a lot more trouble.


----------



## King Aragorn

YayGollum person, if Gollum didn't fall into Mt. Doom in the Return of the King, he would have kept the ring and probably Sauron would have gotten hold of it again. Personally, I don't think that Gollum is the true hero of LOTR.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Tip oh young one:
do not try to disagree with Yay when he's tlaking about how great Gollum is... it will get you no where


----------



## YayGollum

King Aragorn person, you must have missed the question I asked you. Here it is again ---> Do you consider the superly boring Frodo to be the real hero just because he ran into all kinds of trouble?

I have no problem with replying to you, though. Do you think that Gollum can't be the real hero just because of what you think might have happened if things didn't turn out the way they did? Sounds crazy to me. Why not pay attention to the things that actually happened and base opinions on that? oh well. just wondering.

Is this King Aragorn person especially or obviously young in some way? I did not know that. Whoops.


----------



## Arebeth

I'd say Aragorn... He's the one who stays till death. He accepts his fate (charge, love,...). And, well, he's the King. He kind of saves Middle-Earth by his come-back, just like Frodo do by destroying the Ring. He's the strongest one.
But there are a lot of point of views. It depends of the people and personally I think I write that because of my own ambition...



> I come from a land wich theoretically doesn't exist.
> I come from a land whose History is a burden and whose daily life doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Feanorian

> I'd say Aragorn... He's the one who stays till death. He accepts his fate (charge, love,...). And, well, he's the King. He kind of saves Middle-Earth by his come-back, just like Frodo do by destroying the Ring. He's the strongest one.



I greatly admire Aragorn but I do not think he is the true hero, his biggest contribution (I think) was distracting Sauron when Frodo was in Mordor, with the whole march thing. Aragorn was a helping force but not the main one. That is kinda like saying Elrond is the true hero because he set up the Fellowship .


----------



## YayGollum

Um, also, the superly boring Frodo never destroyed that One Ring thing. That was Gollum, the real hero. sorry about that.


----------



## meneldor

samwise gamgee has always stuck out in my mind has one of the biggest heroes in the book. heres a guy that goes through this whole ordeal knowing he'll likely perish, all for his best friend. sam basically wills their way through mordor, even wearing the ring himself for a short while, rescuing frodo, and carrying him up mount doom. while his deeds were not on the field of battle as others were, none the less courageous and heroic.


----------



## YayGollum

I'll just skim over all of the niceness tossed at the evil character. Why would feel like calling the evil sam more of a hero than Gollum? Well, I'm assuming that you know the goal of the story. You know. The one that Gollum ended up achieving? No need to mention the boring types who have to do with battles. The battles were nowhere near the only place the One Ring could be destroyed.


----------



## baragund

Yay, I've come to realize that arguing with you over this matter is akin to wrestling a pig in a mud pit. First, you get nowhere and second, the more you do it, the more the pig likes it. 

But this will warm your heart... I rented TTT over the weekend and watched it with my 9 year old. He _loves_ Gollum! I also asked him if he thought he was a good guy or a bad guy, and he told me a *good* guy, definitely.


----------



## Tolkien Adictee

Although Gollum is my favourite, I still must say that I think Gandalf is "The True Hero" He died saving the company, he came back and fought in battles, he escaped saruman, he saved ARAGORN for crying out loud! He saved FRODO! HE SAVED THEM ALL! And what thanks did he get? He got a little boat ride.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Yeah... I think that Gandalf was too, but for different reasons. The Ring would have never even made it to Rivendell had it been for Gandalf. He was sort of the leader of the quest, and told everyone how it had to be done. luckily it worked. Frodo just did what he was told IMO


----------



## aragornlover

*True Hero*

Aragorn is obviously the true hero caus look what he did: he captured Gollum, laboured for over 100yrs in the cause against the Dark Lord, he took the paths of the dead to save middle-earth, although no-one else would dare to, he was the only one who could guide the Company from rivendell to lorien (he would have guided them to mt doom if necessary) he was the king of gondor and arnor in the end which he couldn't have been if he hadn't of saved middle earth
so every one helped a bit but aragorn was sooo the best!!!!!!!!

Merged


----------



## Lúthien Séregon

It's true that Aragorn was a hero, but in Lord of the Rings every character in their own way was heroic. I'm not even sure there was really a true hero.

If I had to say there was a true hero in the books, I think it would be Sam. He was nowhere near as capable as the warriors like Aragorn or Boromir, and wasn't wise like Gandalf, yet because of his stalwart courage, friendship and devotion for his master, he made just as big a contribution in that the quest would have failed if it was not for his determination.


----------



## YayGollum

Of course I like arguing about poor Smeagol! Anyways, Yay for nine year old kidses! Don't poison his mind and tell him that Gollum isn't the hero! oh well. Ick. How can the evil torturer Gandalf ever be called the main hero? Insanity. I am constantly being amazed. You sound like you've read the bookses sometimes, but when you toss insane ideas like that around, I gots to wonder. The goal was to destroy the One Ring. Gollum did that. Not confusing at all.


----------



## YayGollum

Do what? The evil Aragorn is thought of as the true hero because he did a lot of heroic type things? Twenty-seven thousand characters in this story did heroic type things. The evil sam (doesn't deserve capitalization) is thought of as the true hero because he helped out in much smaller ways? Insanity. Have you people read this story the whole way through? If so, please tell me what the goal was. *gives time for an answer* If you said ---> "Destroy the One Ring!" you are right. Now, how's about you spout out the name of the guy who did that. *gives a little more time, then points to his name* It was Gollum. Why would you call anyone else the true hero?


----------



## Tolkien Adictee

Aye, but If it hadn't been for Ganalf, gollum would have been killed! Remember when he sid "Even Gollum may yet play a part". Otherwise Frodo or Sam, or Faramir, or somebody else would have killed poor Smeagol. Besides, when Gollum destroyed the ring, he did it by accident. He may be my favourite, and he may be good deep down, but he did NOT want to destroy the ring.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Well... technically Yay is right. The true hero of *LotR*. Lord of the Rings is a novel about the Quest of the Ring, with the War of the Ring put in because its so important aside from the main quest. The Main Quest was to destroy the Ring. Gollum destroyed the Ring. So TECHNICALLY Yay is right, but Gollum WOULD be dead if it weren't for Gandalf. You have to give credit to others Yay, even the evil sam


----------



## robbie

I voted other because i believe that there is no true hero of LOTR,the reason being is because you cant put any one character on a pedistal. Plus it totaly goes against the reasons for the founding of the Fellowship in the first place. Every one of the members of the Fellowship played just as key a role in the destruction of the ring,even if they didnt go all the way to mount doom with frodo.


----------



## Feanorian

> I voted other because i believe that there is no true hero of LOTR,the reason being is because you cant put any one character on a pedistal. Plus it totaly goes against the reasons for the founding of the Fellowship in the first place. Every one of the members of the Fellowship played just as key a role in the destruction of the ring,even if they didnt go all the way to mount doom with frodo.



I cant see the logic. Can you give credit to Boromir? Maybe a little but no more then you can give to a peasant living in Rohan who responded to Theoden's call to arms. This question is who is the true hero? and who is singular. If you give it to one person how can it not be Gollum? Do you think the Ring would have even made it to Mt. Doom had it not been for Gollum?! Who led Frodo and sam to Mordor? Certainly not Gandalf or any of the Fellowship, it was Gollum.


----------



## robbie

well as for boromir,i get the feeling that you dont like him as hero only because he tried to take the ring by force,but he was a key factor too,if he hadnt it is likely that more than just frodo and sam would have gone to mordor,and therfore more would be in danger. The fact remains,everyone played a key part.


----------



## YayGollum

Yes, I remember that part, Tolkien Adictee person. I don't see why it would make someone think of the evil torturer Gandalf as more of a hero than Gollum, though. Twenty-seven thousand characters save other characters in ways that make it possible for the One Ring to get destroyed in the end. just because one seems more notable to you at the time doesn't mean that he was more useful than Gollum. The one who actually saved the day. 

Also, the book doesn't say what Gollum (or Smeagol) was thinking at the time. Sure, it makes sense to think that at least Gollum wasn't planning on doing that, but who knows about poor Smeagol? Anyways, I don't see why intent should matter. The ends justify the means, right?  

Oo! I like that comparing Boromir to some peasant type in that Rohan place! Makes all kinds of sense. Except that it was posted twice in a row. *runs away*


----------



## Feanorian

> Oo! I like that comparing Boromir to some peasant type in that Rohan place! Makes all kinds of sense. Except that it was posted twice in a row. *runs away*



Blast!


----------



## Roilya

I say gollum beacuse if it wasnt for him the ring wouldnt have been destroyed. but on the other hand everybody played a major role in the destruction of the ring.


----------



## King Aragorn

YayGollum, haven't you ever read the books?! Yes, Gollum may be good deep down, but the bad part of him comes out more often than the good. He wants the ring for himself, and if he came out of Mt. Doom with the ring, most likely Sauron would have gotten hold of it again. I personally don't see how Gollum could be the true hero of LOTR. And don't call my young because I'm not!


----------



## Kahmûl

I think Sam is the true hero of LOTR


----------



## YayGollum

Yes, I have read the books and no, I don't think that he's the hero because he might seem good deep down or at any other depth. This subject has nothing do with how often you seem to think he does bad things or how much he might want some ring or how likely anything might have been if the book ended differently. It should be achingly obvious to readers of this story that Gollum is the hero just because he destroyed the One Ring, killed Sauron, and saved Middle Earth. Sounds like a good reason to me.


----------



## robbie

so you say that golloum,who destroyed the ring,BY CHANCE,by pure luck only. Is the true hero of LOTR because he just slipped off the ledge. You dont consider who helped the ringbearer reach mount doom in the first place, to be important? Lets face it if frodo was the ONLY one to go on the quest,do you think he would have survived? No. It took everyone to destroy the ring.


----------



## YayGollum

What, you don't like the idea of an accidental hero even though that's what poor Smeagol obviously was? So sad. Also, the book never said what the guy was thinking. There were two personalities in there at the time. Anyways, where did I mention how important I thought that other characters were? Even though I don't see how important that is in a thread about who the hero was. Those are two different subjects.


----------



## robbie

I am not degrading gollum from being the "accidental hero" its true he was. What the importance of the other characters has to do with this is that their deeds more than well set themselves up to be heroes as well,so there is no "main hero" in LOTR.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

*Clears throat* "All members of TTF who are not affiliated with YayGollum, note this: He doesn't budge. You have to have an extremely strong point, or no point at all."

Now, YayGollum... You know what? Gollum was not the Hero. Isildur was more of a Hero than Gollum, simply because he cut the Ring of Sauron's hand. If that hadn't happened, none of the future events would have taken place, and no Company of the Ring would have ever been formed. In fact, in all likelyness, poor old Smeagol wouldn't have even existed, because Sauron's dominion would have continued, and would have spread across all of Middle-Earth.

Or how about Deagol? You know, the poor little Hobbit _your_ precious little Smeagol mercilessly murdered. He found the Ring, and thus sent all the future events in motion.

Ooh, and what of Gandalf? Yes, cruel, evil torturer Gandalf. If not for him, poor, lonely Gollum would have remained in his hole for countless ages more. If not for Gandalf, Bilbo would have never left the Shire and gone to the Misty Mountains, where he would then find the Ring.

And YayGollum, you might have noticed a little gap. _"What about poor old Smeagol? He kept the Ring safe and hidden for all those years, while it slowly corrupted his peaceful, kind-hearted soul. What credit does he get for sitting in the dark for countless long years, eating nothing but boney fish and an occasional Goblin? None. If not for him, the servants of the enemy would have found the Ring long ago, and all would be over."_ Well, I have an answer for you. That's right. Smeagol did have an important role in the destruction of the Ring for keeping safe for all those years. But, you know what happened when Bilbo came, they talked and Bilbo tried to leave? Gollum tried to kill Bilbo. _"Oh yes, indeed, precious. Make the filthy, stealing Hobitses dead."_ And where would that have gotten the Ring? Nowhere. It would have stayed in the dark until Sauron took over all of Middle-Earth and eventually dug up Smeagol, all alone in his sad little hole. And, YayGollum, this you can't deny: Smeagol did want to kill Bilbo. He was talking to himself about it, in the tunnel, while Biblo sat and listened. Smeagol genuenly despised and hated him. Had he the chance, he would have killed poor old Bilbo, and the Ring would never have gotten to Frodo. 

Moving on, had it not been for Aragorn, Gandalf would have never caught Gollum and learned what he did, thus affecting the decision of what to be done. And, you might say _"Of course evil torturer Gandalf needs poor Smeagol. Smeagol always helps. Always does what is needed. Good, helpful Smeagol."_ But what about how Smeagol got captured by Sauron and told him all that he knew? _"Not his fault. The Black hand forced him to. Poor, hungry Smeagol, being tortured by everybody for no reason. Poor, sad, lonely Smeagol."_ Well, sometimes torture is the only way to get what's needed done. What's more, you might say _"And what about the evil Elf? Cruel Legolas person. He only went to the Elrond home place because Smeagol escaped. So if Smeagol wasn't there, he couldn't have escaped, and evil Legolas person would have never gone to the Elrond council thing."_ True and legitemit.

Now, YayGollum, I could go on for hours if necessary, but I'd rather not. Smeagol did play many parts, big and small. However, he didn't even come close to many of the others involved with the Ring. And also, about the Boromir-Peasant thing... Boromir did more than Gollum did, and by a lot. _"Sure, he tried to take the Ring from Frodo, and it accomplished good. Gollum did things good for bad reasons, too, plus a lot more."_ Well, that is true, but not the whole truth. Boromir helped to protect the Ring while fighting the Werewolves outside Moria, fighting the Orcs inside Moria, fighting the Orcs on Amon Hen, and then dying in the process. Gollum lurked in the shadows, did nothing nearly so brave. And you could even say, _"Gollum did lots of brave things, just not with weaopns and attacking and stuff. Do you think it was easy for Gollum to travel day by day in the evil sun? Do you think it didn't take immeasurable bravery to even go near Mordor?"_ Yes, it did, but it still doesn't compare.


----------



## robbie

a well thought out insight Khôr’nagan. I agree.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

_"Thank you, thank you, thank you very much."_ *Fails at an Elvis Presley impression*


----------



## Valdarmyr

A person could say in a strictly literal sense that Gollum was the hero because it was by his hand--or bad footing--that the Ring was destroyed. But it was not because of any heroism that Gollum destroyed the Ring. It was more like chance or luck. Bad luck for Gollum and good luck for the rest of Middle Earth. He could be called an accidental hero. It certainly seemed in the book that Smeagol was not prevailing over Gollum once he had taken the Ring from Frodo, and even if he had, it would probably still have been too late.

In a non-literal sense, I believe there is no one true hero of LOTR. It took all the key players, plus the participation of many, many others besides to allow the Ring to get to Mount Doom. If it hadn't gotten that far, even if Frodo and Sam were just a few feet further away from the Crack of Doom, Gollum might not have slipped.


----------



## robbie

A well thought out thought too Valdarmyr,that is how i see things,it took everyone to get the ring to mount doom.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Yes, it morst certainly did.Each and every thing that happened happened in a certain way, and if even one small thing went differently, it might have changed everything, and the Ring might not have been destroyed.


----------



## YayGollum

Crazy people. Person in charge of that evil guild, since you seem to know that I don't budge and that only extremely strong or nonexistant points make any sense to me (I don't know where you came up with the nonexistant one, but I'd like to add original), why are you even trying? Where are all of those people who made me think? oh well. I've seen all of these points before.

Sure, other characters helped out a lot. Sure, other characters did things that were needed to get the One Ring to where it had to be. But then, the main goal of the story was accomplished by poor Smeagol. I assume that you people have read the book. Why would you disagree? Or do you think that the main goal was something completely different? I didn't count every little helpful type thing that every character did in the story to find out who the main hero was. This way should be achingly obvious. What's the goal? Destroy the One Ring, kill Sauron, and save Middle Earth. Who did that? Poor and little and misunderstood and tragic and underappreciated Smeagol. Of course. Why worry about the less heroic things he's done in the past? It doesn't affect the fact that he saved the day in the end.

Yay for the strictly literal way of thinking! I'm surprised that I'm the only one to notice it!


----------



## robbie

you fail to see the point,if not for the other characters deeds then poor,unappreciated smeagol would never have had a chance to accidenlt fall off the ledge with the ring,becaus the ring would never have gotten that far. You sometimes have to look at the broader picture.


----------



## Iarwain

It seems the general view of a "Hero" is a person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his life for the good of others.

Gollum in no way fits the definition of "Hero" as mentioned by previous posters. He never meant to destroy the ring and he wouldn't have got the chance to destroy the ring if it wasn't for Frodo's pity in sparing him.

Even if you considered him to be a "Hero" or "Tragic Hero" or "Unlikely Hero" because of his important role in destroying the ring that still wouldn't make him the "True Hero" it would make him a main character. 

While there are many hero's in LOTR I prefer Sam because he never failed or gave up and without him Frodo couldn't have made it. Frodo is a close second and Aragorn third. 

Sorry YayGollum i like Smeagol he's one of my favorite characters but i just can't think of him as a hero.


----------



## YayGollum

just because I disagree with a point doesn't mean that I don't understand it, robbie person. I'm not a huge fan of having my intelligence insulted. I understand that other characters did useful type things. Didn't I mention that in my last post? *checks* Yes, I did. How'd you get confused? oh well. I've mentioned that I understand your point. Do you understand mine? The idea that if Gollum ended up saving the day, he should be called the hero?

Anyways, Iarwain person, please forgive me for being original. It's just so much fun. I'm not a fan of sticking to the general idea of a term that most people have. That that 'hero' term, for instance. About twenty-seven thousand definitions have been tossed at me. I've been able to twist those definitions to fit poor Smeagol pretty easily. He's definitely some kind of hero. Ah. I gots to know a few things ---> How do you know what Gollum meant to do? And ---> Where did Gollum give up on what he was trying to do?


----------



## robbie

im NOT insulting your intellegence,yes i do understand your point,but what im trying to tell you is that in the big picture of things Gollum would not be the ideal hero.

Oh and please just call me robbie,thanks


----------



## Iarwain

> How do you know what Gollum meant to do?



I don't but Tolkein certainly stated that Gollum unintentionaly stumbled in. If you want to imagine that Gollum destroy the ring on purpose, fine. You obviously have your own interpretation of the word Hero and Gollum's character. That's cool though keep being original. 





> Where did Gollum give up on what he was trying to do?



He didn 't give up but his intentions certainly were not noble.

I think of Gollum as a unlikely savior more than a hero.


----------



## Estella Bolger

Frodo is the hero for me because of all he has to go through and he chose to do it. He could have given up but he didn't.


----------



## YayGollum

sorry, but there's something wrong with me. I can't call people by whatever names they've chosen to go by over here. Those might not be their real names! *gasp!* Like this Iarwain person. I have a hard time believing that some parent called their kid that. oh well. Let me see here. Is this thread about the ideal hero? No, I thought this was all about who the real hero was. You know. The guy who saved the day in the end. But then, Gollum was definitely the idea hero for me.  

Iarwain person, sure, the book did say that Gollum fell. Argh! If only Tolkien had changed that one word to jumped! oh well. Gollum was dancing around and slipped. Yay for Smeagol never getting around to taking dancing lessons? Yay for the fact that there were two personalities in that body and one most likely took control of his left foot to make him slip?  

Anyways, what makes you think that his intentions weren't noble? Well, sure, maybe some of them throughout the book might not be thought of by all as especially noble, but I'm just talking about the scene where Gollum becomes the hero. The superly boring Frodo just went crazy. Gollum promised not to let Sauron get it. Looks like he did a pretty noble thing to me.

Also, Estella Bolger person, all of those points can be tossed at poor Smeagol, too. It seems to me to be that the first point works a lot better for Gollum than it does for the superly boring Frodo, though.


----------



## ely

Well, I think I'm finally ready to say out loud what I think of this. Actually I've been thinking about it for quite a long time, and the word "true" as true hero has always stopped me from answering this question. 

Now I came to a conclusion that it could pretty much be a heroless story, or a story with many heros. Yes, Gollum did save the day, he did destroy the ring, but only because Frodo took the ring to Mt. Doom. If he hadn't done it then Gollum wouldn't have destroyed it (I can believe that maybe the good side of Gollum made him slip and destroy the ring on purpose, but I never believe that Gollum would have destroyed the ring if he had got it earlier). But Frodo wouldn't have been able to take the ring to Mordor if Sam hadn't helped him or if Aragorn hadn't been there to take them to Rivendell or if Gandalf hadn't been there at the first place to declare the ring evil. So as you see - they all have their role in destroying the ring and that's why it's hard or even impossible to say who was the true hero. I guess they all were, or at least they all were at some point.

Though there is one thing that I admire about Frodo. He was just a hobbit, living peacefully in a quiet neighbourhood, and then boom! the ideal life is gone, some bad creatures are trying to kill you and the fate of the world lies in your hands. And then when he had been wounded, had seen the evil, and thought that it was all over, that he can return to his peaceful life - he volunteered to take the ring to mordor. He had seen the ringwraiths, he new their evil and could imagine (at least to some extent) the dangers of the journey, and he still did it. You may say that it wasn't so bad, because he wes destined to be the ringbearer, but think about it: he had a peaceful life, he loved his home, and he still gave it all up and went to Mordor. This is either extreme courage or extreme stupidity or extreme something else that I can't really name. But that's the main thing I admire him for. I'm not saying that he is the true hero, but I guess he might be a true hero just because of that one decision.


----------



## robbie

yaygollum-what i meant by that was that gollum was not the ideal character to be called The hero of LOTR.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Oh, believe me, robbie... He knows that's what you meant. So many people don't give him enough credit, but he sees things pretty well. He just has different ideas about what he sees than the ideas that many others do. But since people don't give him credit, their arguments are based upon the assumption that he doesn't understand. He is, therefore, unmoved in his position by that argument. The trick is to strike as hard as you can at the absolute lowest level of his argument. If he says Gollum tripped, talk about the history of those rocks ebing brittle and weak, or something like that. If he says one of the halves of Gollum's mind made him trip, give him a session about the details of multiple personality disorder. Everyone's ideas are based on something else which is also based on something that is, itself, also based on somthing, and so on. Thus there is a tower of facts upon which stands an idea. What you have to do is attack the foundations of that tower methodically and brutally, as hard as you possibly can, but also as efficient as you can. That way, you take away the bases for his argument, and he's left with thin air.

However, since J.R.R. Tolkien is dead, and we can't very well call up Christopher Tolkien and ask him about it, we're kind of in a rough spot. Because though YayGollum's tower is of poor material, so are our weapons. It's like trying to take out a wooden column with a handful of firecrackers. So, what you've got to do is to study the physics of that column to determine the most effective method of destroying it. Know what I mean? Like if there's a hole going from one side of the column to the other, stick them in the hole. Look for the weak points and exploit them to the fullest possible extent.


----------



## robbie

ah yes good point again. I shall be on the watch for that. Thanks


----------



## Khôr’nagan

No problem. Just remember:

_*If you underestimate
Ill shall be your ending fate.*_


----------



## YayGollum

Did you really say all of that out loud, ely person?  Anyways, sure, that makes all kinds of sense, but I just love to dwell on the fact that Gollum saved the day in the end and he's an even more unlikely hero than the superly boring Frodo. Who expected that? Yay Tolkien! 

Also, sure, yes, I understand what everyone means. Why not? But then, what about me writing that Gollum was my ideal hero made you think that I didn't understand? I was just tossing my opinion around. oh well. Doobedoobedoo... toss firecrackers at me. Sounds like fun. I don't need any kind of tower to keep ranting about my insane ideas.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

If I didn't know better, YayGollum, I'd say you didn't understand me 

But anyway, just making an analagy. No need to take it literally


----------



## YayGollum

And I was just messing with your analogy to make it fit my personality better. oh well. Doobedoobedoo... it has been pointed out that this thread is craziness. sorry about that. I wouldn't keep posting in it if there weren't so many people to help out.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Craziness indeed. I think, however, that you are the source of this crazyness. Oh well. Not like it matters...

_*Gollum lá ná i callo.*_ (Q)

_*Gollum i úthalion.*_ (S)

_*Gollum virum est haud.*_ (L)

Well, that's all I have to say.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Well, for those of you who don't understand YayGollum's position on Smeagol/Gollum, this passage may help.


> * And so Gollum found them hours later, when he returned, crawling and creeping down the path out of the gloom ahead. Sam sat propped against the stone, his head drooping sideways and his breathing heavy. In his lap lay Frodo’s head, drowned deep in sleep; upon his white forehead lay one of Sam’s brown hands, and the other lay upon his master’s breast. Peace was in both their faces.
> 
> Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and gray, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo’s knee—but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.
> 
> But at that touch Frodo stirred and cried out softly in his sleep, and immediately Sam was wide awake. The first thing he saw was Gollum—‘pawing at master,’ as he thought.
> 
> ‘Hey you!’ he said roughly. “What are you up to?’
> 
> ‘Nothing, nothing,’ said Gollum softly. ‘Nice Master!’
> 
> ‘I daresay,’ said Sam. ‘But where have you been to—sneaking off and sneaking back, you old villain?’
> 
> Gollum withdrew himself, and a green glint flickered under his heavy lids. Almost spider-like he looked now, crouched back on his bent limbs, with his protruding eyes. The fleeting moment had passed, beyond recall.*


_* - The Two Towers "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol," page 411*_

YayGollum believes this side... the 'Smeagol' side... of Gollum to be the dominant one, and that this is who Gollum is at heart, (and rightfully so, as that aspect of Gollum is what is at heart). It also shows why YayGollum treats everyone else (in the books) the way he does, because they treat him like a disgusting vermin when he is, at heart, a poor, weary, and overall misunderstood little hobbit. (Though I don't think he considers Gollum a hobbit... Perhaps he can shed some light on that when he sees this).

Well, I just thought I'd give you all as much insight into YayGollum as I can.

*EDIT:*

I just thought I'd add this previous post by YayGollum.


> *I'm a fan of some types of evil. Mostly the misunderstood types. I don't delight in evil. I try to knock sense into people to show them why they should feel sorry for the evil types. *hides**


Perhaps this will shed some more light on his position.


----------



## robbie

yes i agree with that,he looks at the smeagol side of gollum,which from the very end of TTT (the book) onward,does not win out over his evil half. Which right there can disqualify him from being the saviour (or hero). Yes he fell through the fire,did he intend it to happen? No he did not. We need to take the character that gollum was from the end of TTT on and apply that even more and it discredits him,he is pure evil at that point.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

For one thing, I don't agree with that, and for another thing, that won't get you very far. You can't expect to win (easily) just by assaulting what he believes... You have to destroy the support for what he believes, first. You have to twist what he says to your own liking, just like he does to others. But, actually... I am afraid I must now change my colors. After re-reading the passage, I have come to agree with YayGollum.


> *'Yes,' said Frodo. 'But do you remember Gandalf's words: Even Gollum may have something yet to do? But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end. So let us forgive him! For the quest is achieved, and now all is over..."*


_* - The Return of the King "Mount Doom," page 277*_

Thus Frodo himself names Gollum as the hero, even though he did not use the word. Even though I had agreed with YayGollum's point from the beginning, I have now decided to give up arguing for the other side. Gollum is, in the bitter end, the true hero of The Lord of the Rings. And so I must now change my sentences:

_*Gollum ná i callo.*_ (Q)
_*Gollum i thalion.*_ (S)
_*Gollum virum est.*_ (L)

Now all is as it should be. Oh, and YayGollum... _Don't be so nasty to torcherer Gandalf person... He makes our point for us in the end. O yes, preciouss, he does... Cruel master Frodo person does, too._


----------



## robbie

In that passage frodo says to FORGIVE gollum,to forgive him of his evil deeds,that does not necessarly mean that he is idolized as hero. It simply means that frodo has forgiven goluum for his evil doings,mostly out of pity. If you remember it is agreed that gollum deserved nothing less than death,but bilbo,gandalf,and now frodo have seen him and pitied him,but its not the same as calling him hero.


----------



## Thuringwethil

Like some people have stated, there is about a legion of heroes and heroines in tLotR, and everybody is needed. (You know, there's Sauron in the other corner, and it takes more than a few protagonist to knock *Him* out. Ask Barahir, Celeborn, Elendil or Gil-Galad.. )

But the _true_ hero.. What does it even mean? Greatest deeds or something, I guess.. I'll start with the Ring. It's the main thing, greatest enemy (Sauron doesn't appear on stage), unbearable burden and impossible task. Carrying it is walking into Hell, deeper and deeper. It is the ultimate challenge Tolkien represents. No Ring, no title of True Hero.

So, there are Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and Smeagol in the finals. (No, Gandalf&Bombadil, touching does not equal taking.)

First, I drop Bilbo, because he is the hero in 'the Hobbit', but in tLotR he's more problem than solution. And even if Hobbit is counted, the Ring isn't that bad there yet, so Bilbo had it the easier way.

Second, I drop Sam. He is a great hero too, and he takes the third place, mind you. But he doesn't carry the Ring for long, and he doesn't pay very much for it, whereas Frodo is permanently wounded and can't find rest in this world. Smeagol ends up dead, how's that for a price.. And in my opinion, one must pay to be a hero.

I'd propably divide the Gold Medal in two. Frodo is the main hero who makes the impossible trip to Sammath Naur, and the book concentrates very much in him. But Smeagol is the final hero, managing to perform even more impossible (what a word) task of destroying the Ring. Accidentally of course, because (in my opinion) it was fundamentally impossible for anyone to just drop the trinket into hole. At Sammath Naur the Ring is fighting for its existence, and on its home-field.

Everybody is needed, but the big thing is to carry the Ring to Sammath Naur and cast it in. Frodo and Smeagol. And third place to Sam for assistance.

But funny thing is, neither Frodo nor Smeagol is a 'classical hero', not even close. Frodo is a 'tragic hero', succeeding in gigantic task but fails at the end. Smeagol is the opposite; he is villain, but finally saves the day. Quite typical 'anti-hero'. Sam is more 'classical', succeeding fairly well in his tasks and being rewarded afterwards. No reward to Frodo or Smeagol, except the title of True Heroes.

This is only my vote, of course, not waterproof theory. In different cultures there are different kind of heroes, so objectivity flew out of the window before the first comment. But speculations and argumenting are fun sometimes.


----------



## YayGollum

I'm not the source of the craziness in here. Whoever started the thread would be. Or maybe just that Tolkien person. oh well. I'm just here to shed light on common sense. Anyways, didn't some book say that poor Smeagol was part of a race of ancestors of the Stoor type of hobbits? That's what I thought. But then, I'd call him a hobbit just to simplify things. 

Also, I'm not evil to the superly boring Frodo. I just call him superly boring. The evil torturer Gandalf may have said that one little nice thing about poor Smeagol, but I wouldn't call that an adequate amout of payment for torturing the poor guy.

Why would what some characters in the story say mess with your opinion of poor Smeagol, robbie person? Make decisions for yourself. Who cares if none of the characters in the story toss a certain word at poor Smeagol? Doesn't matter. Read the story and use common sense. It's obvious that he's the hero. You don't know what his intent was, and even if you did, it wouldn't change the fact that he saved the day in the end. It's obvious to me that Gollum is the more dominant personality. 

Also, also, why do you think that poor Smeagol didn't show up to do anything later in the story? That wasn't him trying to talk some sense into the superly boring Frodo just before he went into that Mount Doom place? 

Yay for the Thuringwethil person! You are very close! just don't pay any more attention to the superly boring Frodo person. You're probably just doing that because he's more of a main character, but oh well.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

He's paying attention to Frodo because Frodo went through so much and suffered such incredible pain and sickness. He was wounded, starved, depressed, and carrying a burden greater than any could possibly imagine. Not even Gollum ever had to carry a burden so great as it was to Frodo. And even though Gollum went through almost all the same things as Frodo did on the journey, Gollum still didn't have to carry the Ring.

Anyway, robbie, the part of the passage from RotK I was referring to was this:


> *But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end.*


 So, I was not talking about the forgiveness part. I was just setting the context of Frodo's words as much as I could.

In that passage, Frodo says that the Quest succeeded because of Gollum. He named Gollum as the savior, as the hero, even if he didn't use the exact words.

And, as for my side-change, I was waiting for stronger evidence to appear before supporting this side, because before it was weaker. That passage, however, strengthens the argument for Gollum being the Hero, so I decided to switch with its appearance. I typically only support a cause when there is strong reason (for me) to do so, or just no one else to do it.

Thus, I get to torcherer Gandalf... Gandalf did a lot, and even spared Gollum when he had the chance to do otherwise. He did torcher Gollum, but only because he was uncooperative. Gandalf needed answers, and fast. He had no choice.

Frodo may be boring, but he still contributed a lot to the destruction or the Ring, even if Gollum gave the final blow. Therefore, although I put Gollum first, I put Gandalf second, Frodo third, Sam fourth, and Aragorn fifth.


----------



## robbie

Ok Yaygollum you say that i do not know fully smeagols intentions,yet it is so clear once he set shelob on the hobbits,what his intentions were. He wanted the ring and nothing else from that point on he is the worst version of himself seen throught the entire trilogy. So how can it be that you dont really know his intentions?

also about that passage there,yes i mis read that. but it still dosent get over the fact with me the gollum was evil at that point.


----------



## YayGollum

Well, I just like going for the side that I happen to think is the most fun. Saying that Gollum is the hero is original even if some people think that I don't have much evidence. Which makes no sense, if you read the story. 

Anyways, at least you understand why I'm not a huge fan of the evil torturer Gandalf. The evil torturer Gandalf and Saruman are about equal in evility for me. sorry about that. 

Also, I figure the worth of a character by how much fun they are to read about, not by what good they do in the story. Which is why I'm not such a huge fan of the superly boring Frodo. Who I would say went through less than poor Smeagol. 

So what if the superly boring Frodo had to carry the One Ring for a while? Poor Smeagol carried it a lot longer and was just starting to get over the addiction when the evil thief Bilbo Baggins stole it. He was also tortured by the evil torturer Gandalf and Sauron. I doubt that the pains the superly boring Frodo went through could compare to all of that. 

To the robbie person ---> Where does the story say that poor Smeagol wanted nothing but the One Ring from a certain point? I must have missed it. Since I haven't noticed anything like that, I like to think that poor Smeagol was still around to help out.


----------



## robbie

I did not say that the story said so,but it is decisvely implied from that point on through his actions.

I can see now that you think just because smeagol is the most interesting character for you,that that qualifies him as hero. Unfortuntaley this i cannot agree with,you say smeagol is the most interesting character,but it may not be for someone else. There is only one objective,academic answer to the question of who is hero,and it is the entire fellowship,through the teamwork it took to get the ring to mount doom. You cant base your answer on who your favorite character is,because it just wouldnt work.


----------



## YayGollum

Whoops. I wasn't trying to write that I thought that poor Smeagol was the hero just because he's my favorite. I thought that I already explained why I thought he was the hero. Because he saved the day. That fellowship thing achingly obviously did not. 

Anyways, got it. You seem to think that it's implied that poor Smeagol's personality doesn't show up to help out anymore. Didn't I point out the scene just outside of that Mount Doom place where poor Smeagol tried to be nice and reasonable to the superly boring Frodo? Well, I meant to.


----------



## robbie

sorry,i did not catch that,ok so he was nice for a second,WOW! So because of the fact that he was nice for that one moment prior to biting off poor frodo's finger along with accidentaly slipping of the ledge makes him a hero? Im sorry,but it stil dosent cloud the events prior to mount doom,you focus on just the events of mount doom,but it took more courage to get there than to accidentaly slip off a ledge. I beleieve that a definiton of a hero includes being couragous,and smeagol does NOT show that in many ways. He's afraid of the sun,he is fearful of going far into mordor with the ring,afraid that sauron will reclaim it. Hes afraid in many ways. That is his weakness in being a hero.


----------



## YayGollum

And who says that heroes have to be perfect? Ick. Those are the most boring types of heroes. oh well. Let me see here. Again, my reason for writing that poor Smeagol is the hero is because he saved the day in the end, not because he wasn't being evil in the example I just showed. I only tossed that example at you because you were saying that poor Smeagol was evil ever after that Shelob scene. Maybe I should have just ignored that point of yours? It didn't have much to do with how he was the hero. oh well. I was just defending poor Smeagol. sorry about that. 

I could work for a while and find a quote that's already in here to show you what Tolkien has to say about poor Smeagol's courage. He says that he quite possibly has more than anyone else in the story. Very nice. The character being afraid of the sun and Sauron and things are just common sense, not something that makes him any less courageous. It was achingly courageous to stick around so long and resist the One Ring for so long and things, but oh well. 

Yes, it's good for me to stick to the scene at that Mount Doom place since that's the place where he becomes the hero. Why not? The goal was to destroy the One Ring, kill Sauron, and save Middle Earth. That's what he did even if it was just because he's not the greatest dancer around.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Man, this is really getting out of hand. 

First thing's first. YayGollum, when Gollum had the Ring, he was under a mountain and far away from Sauron, let alone the focus of all his strength and power. When Bilbo--Okay, I'll give it to you--_stole_ the Ring, Gollum was being consumed by it at an ever increasing rate. Just because Gollum wasn't wearing the Ring as much doesn't mean that it didn't still have the same control on him. The Ring was always close by, always, and it affected Gollum the same as when he had the Ring on. So, Gollum lost it... His precious, the thing that was consuming his soul, was lost. Stolen by a Hobbit from the Shire named Bilbo Baggins. Gollum was so consumed by it that he couldn't bear to be away from it, so he left his refuge to search.And yes, he was captured by Sauron, torchered, and when released was immediately captured by Aragorn, who brought him to Gandalf, who then proceded to torcher him as well. And, though the pain was great, the Burden of the One Ring was far greater than any pain. A person can endure through pain, ignore it, and keep going on. But the Ring was such a burden that no one could stand against its will.

Unlike Gollum, when Frodo was bearing the Ring, he was the focus of all Sauron's strength and power. His will was bent upon Frodo entirely, and it made the journey for Frodo unbearable. Frodo was standing alone against an enemy older than the world itself, an enemy that had endured ages upon ages of the world and yet prevailed against all odds. Sauron lived, free, when doing so was miraculous. Sauron's will was stronger than the combined wills of a hundred Men, his strength greater than a dozen Dwarf Lords, his skill in battle greater than the greatest of the Elven Kings. To stand alone against him was certain death to any Man, Elf, or Dwarf, no matter how great. And yet, here was a single Hobbit, alone in a void of pain, suffering, and darkness. He bore the One Ring created by Sauron, and when bearing it, the bearer was pitted against the full strength of Sauron of old, completed upon the bearer by the Ring. To stand against Sauron wearing this Ring was death, and yet Frodo survived. He even went into the heart of Mordor, to the very fires of Orodruin, where Sauron's power was greatest. And yet he escaped, with little more than a missing finger. ( I will be posting a continuation shortly)


----------



## YayGollum

Uh, huh. Not impressive. That part where you wrote that poor Smeagol was somehow getting consumed by his security blanket when the evil thief Bilbo Baggins showed up is wrong. That The Hobbit book says that he was almost done with having nothing more to do with the evil One Ring. When the evil thief Bilbo Baggins stole it, that got him wanting the thing all over again. Very sad when he was so close. 

Anyways, where is it written that the capitalized burden of the One Ring was so especially scary that poor Smeagol had the ability to ignore pain being tossed at him by two achingly evil Maiar type things? I don't remember that part. Where does it say that Sauron looking especially vigilantly for his One Ring while the superly boring Frodo had it was worse than being tortured by the guy? It sounds a lot less unbearable to me.


----------



## robbie

you say that being the ringbearer is a lot better than being tortured,well then this is where the psychology of it all is,if someone gave you a plain gold ring with lots of power that could prolong your life Would you not want to give it up so easily? No,because the ring corrupts,you dont know its power unless you are the one holding it,so its easier said than done to say what you just said.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Too true, too true.

I do not remember The Hobbit ever saying that Gollum was 'getting over' the Ring. It only said that he wore it less, keeping it on his little isle. I do not have the book with me now, but I recall a line to the effect of "He was tiring of it, and wore it less and less," or something like that. The point is that the Ring was having such a strong hold over Gollum that he couldn't bear to have it with him always. I quote pages 273-274 from Unfinished Tales:


> *"Atarinya," he (Elendur) said, "what of the power that would cow these foul creatures and command them to obey you? Is it then of no avail?" (Isildur responds) "Alas, it is not, senya. I cannot use it. I dread the pain of touching it..."*


 In this passage, Isildur tells of his inability to use the Ring, as well as saying that he dreaded the pain of touching it. It caused him pain, physical pain. It may also be applied to Smeagol/Gollum that around the time of The Hobbit, the Ring began to cause Smeagol physical pain, so he wore it less and less. It still had just as much power over him, however, and he continued corrupting until Bilbo stole it. Then, after two years, the corruption reached a point where he was severely mentally pained to be without it, and I believe that this is when the two sides of Smeagol's mind formed. Without the Ring, a part of him started to heal. But the other part had become one with the Ring, a perminent copy of the Ring's will in Gollum's mind. Thus they split apart. That is, however, only a theory. It is true that, even away fromt the Ring, it has a hold over you, _especially_ when close to Orodruin. Gollum recieved significant mental damage as a result of losing the Ring, and still it continued to corrupt him. Were the Ring destroyed and Gollum alive, Gollum would lose his 'Gollumish' aspect entirely, and would be left as Smeagol. Granted, Smeagol was, himself, seriously corrupted, but was still altogether good. He would then, and only then, cease to continue being corrupted. But, after such a long time possessing the One Ring, no distance and no amount of time could change the fact that Gollum and the Ring would always be connected, and Gollum would continue to be corrupted until him or the Ring were destroyed. Isildur might have had a chance at 'getting over' the Ring, but even though Gollum's resistance was higher, the sheer amount of time was so great that Gollum would never be without the Ring as long as it existed. Regardless of my belief that Smeagol was good and kind and funny and all that at heart, there is no way that he could have gotten over the Ring. It's like starvation; if you are slowly fed less and less food, you will be accustomed to it, but your body would be weakening the whole while. When you get to the point that your barely fed anything, you want more food, and it hurts not to have it. But, if you were suddenly fed a feast, it would most likely kill you. Gollum was with the Ring so long that it slowly etched away at him, until it actually hurt to hold the RIng. But, when he was completely deprived of it, it was a devastating loss to say the least. Having a feast after a long period of starvation would only hurt your body more, so much that it would be a miracle if you even survived, let alone without perminent damage done. If completely deprived of starvation and reintroduced into a healthy amount of eating (gradually), you would be able to heal and get better again. But for Gollum that starvation- the Ring- was always there. He could not get better as long as it existed, and he could only get worse.

Well, moving along... robbie, just because Gollum feared that Sauron would reclaim the Ring, afraid of Sauron in general, and fearful about going into Mordor does not mean that he is, in any way, evil. Quite the opposite, in fact. And why he fears the Sun? Well, that's simple; He hasn't seen the sun for hundreds of years, in fact he hasn't seen anything brighter than a small flame (if even that). You know when you're used to the dark and then suddenly it's bright, and how it hurts you eyes? Well, Gollum's been in the darkness for so long that it became perminent, and with those big eyes, any large amount of light can cause an overload of his vision censors, causing him pain. If your pupils became the size of a quarter, so much light would be coming in that you would go blind instantly, and your eyes would feel on fire. Indeed, with the refraction going on in them and all that light, they just might light on fire. Imagine that pain, that horrible, horrible pain. The nerves in your eyes are so sensitive that something that causes pain on your skin would cause several times more pain in your eyes. The pain would be unimaginable. And, though Gollum didn't go blind or anything, chances are that even his skin was sensitive to the brightness of the Sun. You really do need to think your statements through before posting.

Next, about Orodruin and all. Now, Gollum was trying to keep Frodo from making a totally stupid mistake (or so from his point of view). It was out of genuine fear, surprise, and kindness. It was not an act of trying to kill them, not at all. As for inside the Sammath Naur, Gollum had to do anything and everything that he could to stop Frodo, because after Frodo declared himself, they could all feel the Eye shift upon them. Gollum knew that if he didn't do something, he would come and take away the Ring. So he jumped Frodo, and strugled with him for the Ring. When he got his chance, the only thing he could do was to bite off Frodo's finger. It worked, and Gollum had succeeded in saving the Ring (in his mind). Thus he rejoiced, but he slipped and fell into the chasm. His last word, called aloud in the turmoil of the Sammath Naur, was "Preciousss!" Then he was consumed by the fire, along with the Ring, and both were gone forever. Towers collapsed and mountains fell, the entire land of Mordor was turned into a perilous death-trap. Gollum had saved the day. But not only that, he was happy in the end. He had his precious back. The Black Hand wouldn't get it. It was his. And thus he died better than any could have imagined, because it was with his precious, and that was all that mattered.

As for courage, how much courage do you think it took to leave what had been his home for over a thousand years into a cruel and hostile world where hope was futile and he insignificant. How much courage do you think it took to lead Sam and Frodo to the very Morannon, the very Black Gates of Mordor? How much courage did it take for Gollum to go into Mordor and even to the very foot of Orodruin, from whence the Ring came? How much courage do you think it took for Gollum to go up the slope to the very Sammath Naur, the Chambers of Fire? How much courage did it take to pit himself against an invisible enemy while being watched by Sauron himself and having himself hanging over the edge of the cliff? How much courage did it take for Gollum to even keep going, to live, to continue on in the harsh, cruel world full of torchering Maiar? How much courage did it take to climb a tree in Mirkwood. when he had been living far beloe the Earth for hundreds of years? How much courage did it take for Gollum to follow the Fellowship so far, through so many perils? How much courage did it take for him to face the Sun and the Moon and (in his mind) defy them, traveling by day and night, and under each of them? Gollum has done so many couragious things that it is almost impossible to count. How can you say he did nothing couragious? How can you say that he didn't save the day, that he's not the Hero of LotR? Even Frodo said that Gollum had saved them all. Frodo named Gollum as the Hero, and that's good enough for me, let alone all the other heroic things he's done. Don't even try to say that he wasn't a hero, whether accidental or not, ideal or not, good or evil. He was still the Hero, and the True Hero of The Lord of the Rings.


----------



## robbie

Ah you misunderstand me,i did not say that because gollum was fearful of all those things that that made him evil,no,i meant that as part of the courage factor there.

I can basically see that now there might not be a objective answer as to hero. That it depends on one's own view of the story and how they identify with it.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

*EXACTLY!!!*

That's the whole point of all of this. Every person has there own perspective, and depending on this is how they see the characters in the book.


----------



## robbie

well i still stick with my original vote,the entire fellowship is the hero itself.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Well, each is to his/her own. But, like I've said: _*Gollum est vir!*_ (L)


----------



## YayGollum

Okay, sure, Yay for people defending views. I just gots to defend my own really quick. The thing about that part of The Hobbit and that holding the One Ring was worse than being tortured by two especially evil and powerful and magical types. Maybe I can get that quote on the weekend. If I remember. oh well. I'm thinking that if poor Smeagol had the One Ring with him for I think it was only hundreds of years, he'd always be able to grab the thing and use it since he's especially addicted and corrupted as so many people like to think. Craziness. That The Hobbit book says that he had been using it less and less and hardly ever decided to look at it. Sounds like he's developing an immunity. Anyways, maybe I'm just crazy for not understand why you people think that second thing. What was so bad about the superly boring Frodo carrying the One Ring around? Sauron was looking at him? How is that worse than being tortured?


----------



## robbie

it is worse than being tortured by the mere fact that Saurons eye is always watching,so it is very hard to hide from him,and the corrupting power of the ring cannot be stopped,and every step you take closer to mordor the ring becomes heavier (literally) So That to me is just as bad (if not worse) than torture.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Oh, it's more than that... Far more.

Carrying the ring is like being slowly deprived of air. First you can handle it, but eventually the air is so thin that you can't breathe right, and your lungs start to hurt. That pain in your lungs isn't your body forming an immunity to lack of oxygen, it's you _dying_. Water, too. When don't drink anything for a while and you get thirsty, that doesn't mean that your body is starting to cope with the lack of water. It means that your body is telling you that your dying, and you need water. Because, when you are even thirsty and not dehydrated too badly, you're still dying. That's what happens when you go without water... Your body slowly starts to dry up, and eventually it becomes too dry to do anything and shuts down. Thus, when Gollum and Isildur began to become truly corrupted by the Ring, when they were about to start fading, the Ring became a physical pain to them. This pain was their goodness being destroyed, their innocence being taken away, their very souls slowly being left bare and they fade. With people like Isildur an Gollum, however, they were such good people that they were both resisting the Ring. Isildur, having a natural predisposition to being open to the Ring's power, had no hope of lasting as long as Gollum. After two years the Ring was fading him, though most men could be faded in months, if not weeks. Gollum was even less receptive that Elves or even Gandalf or anyone. In fact, the Hobbits might just be the strongest against the will of the Ring. And that is because that Hobbits have far too much natural goodness, a wholesome spirit that is unlike that of Men, Elves, Dwarves, or any of the Ainur. Anyone can be turned by the Ring, but since the Ring uses your own powers against you, the more powerful you are, the quicker the Ring can gain control. Because the Ring enhances things that are already present and uses them against the person (unless it be Sauron), but since the Hobbits's powers are of good-nature, happiness, enthusiasm, and an overall wholesome soul, the Ring cannot use those things against them very easily, and can only do so when the bearer does something wrong or bad, and the Ring amplifies the guilt or sadness and turns it against you, increasing its hold over them. And, the fact is, Gollum was being transformed faster than a normal Hobbit would be. That is because that Gollum killed his best friend over it, and the Ring quickly took advantage of that to gain control swiftly. Over Bilbo, he had pity for Gollum, and thus the Ring never really had a hold over him. It didn't make him do things, be less merry and joyful (much), and was more or less completely powerless. With Frodo it was the same, until frodo recieved the information that the Ring was The One Ring, and that he had to leave the Shire and bring it to the Elves. But, soon after, Sauron got a fix on Frodo (more or less) and caused the Ring to react by amplifying its effect on Frodo. Thus, over a shorter amount of time than even Gollum, the RIng began getting control over Frodo. The arrival of the Nazgul made it far worse, and the Ring began increasing in its power many times greater than before. By the time Frodo was stabbed, he was already being corrupted by the Ring. The wound didn't help Frodo much, but rather enhanced the Ring even more. And ever after, Frodo was predisposed towards the power of the Ring, Nazgul, and Sauron. Therefore, over the gradual process of the journey to Orodruin, the Ring was effecting Frodo countless times faster than a normal Hobbit would be effected, and the power of it over Frodo grew day by day. As time went on, Frodo began to fall into the will of the Ring. The fact that his own will was failing made the Ring's job easier, as it didn't have as strong an opponent for control. Thus Frodo's mind was being corrupted more and more, his heart failing, his body tiring, his will wavering, and his soul fading. The toll it took on Frodo was very great, and would have been greater than Gollum's were the Quest to last another few years. Frodo had no strength left, and was only going on because of Sam, but also because the Ring wanted to be closer to its Master, closer to its birth-place, where it was the strongest. It gave Frodo enough strength to go on, because it knew that Frodo could not destroy it and Frodo would be captured by the Nazgul and the Ring be returned to its Master at long, long last. Gollum's little act was all that saved the world, was all that stood between total victory and absolut defeat. But, if the Ring had not wanted to go to Orodruin, Frodo wouldn't have been able to. Their wills were, in that, the same, and so the Ring let Frodo continue with that while it took more control over Frodo. Frodo was, during this time, being corrupted bit by bit, piece by piece. It was driving Frodo mad, just like it did Gollum. Pretty much, think about all of the pain and suffering of Gollum's entire life and stick it all into a one year period. That's what it was like for Frodo. Pain hurt more, thirst burned more, hunger stung more, anger flared more, fatigue slowed more, and depression spread more. His own weight seamed to increase even as he thinned, his muscles weaken even as they healed. Sleep was plagued by countless nightmares, and Frodo was in constant fear and despair. The feeling of this is not even comparible to antything else, it is so great. The Ring begins to weigh ever more, until it was a great effort to even try and lift his head. The urge to wear it was unbearable, stopped only by his utter lack of interest and by his weakness. Heat was twice as hot, cold was twice as cold, and it was never just warm or cool. Food lost its flavor, skin lost its color, eyes lost their happy look, memories were balnked away, and all the while he just kept going. His sufferings and sacrifices were great beyond imagination, and he deserves at least some recolection for being great, even if he's not the best.


----------



## robbie

very well thought out  so you see Yatgollum just how much like torture carrying the ring was,it was a burden beyond measure.


----------



## stumpy1

one small thing to add, neither Bilbo nor Frodo had the even the
smallest lust for POWER. All they ever wanted was to go home.
This had to work in their favor while bearing the ring. They had no wish for the ring to begin with. No wish for power. Like the saying go's, Power corrupt's, Absolute power corrupt's absolutly.
Part of the very makeup of the ring was Sauron's mad lust for
dominion over ALL. This lust for power was the reason Gandolf
feared even touching the ring. Same for Elrond. Only the unassuming hobbit could bear the ring for any extended period of
time. In the end the power lust was to much even for poor Frodo,
who at Oridruin tryed to claim the power for himself. Lucky thing
that Gollum had that same lust, and was willing to fight for it.
stump


----------



## robbie

that is also a very good point too.


----------



## YayGollum

Woah! Person in charge of the evil guild, where are the facts for pretty much all of that? just wondering. Sure, it sounds nice, but oh well. Except for that part about poor Smeagol killing Deagol. There is no proof for that, either. Anyways, nope, I'll go with torture from two Maiar types being worse than just carrying the One Ring around. I don't know much about the evil torturer Gandalf's experience with torture, but Sauron definitely knew what he was doing.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Indeed yes, a very good point, stumpy1. Something I myself had let slip my mind. Just goes to show, every brain's got its limitations. Well, now I might as well hit this one as well.

So, Sauron made the Ring and poured into it his power, malice, and will to have dominion over all. He then loses the Ring to Isildur, and Isildur refuses to destroy it. He is then overcome by the power of the Ring, the he holds out relatively long and hard. But then he loses the Ring, and is slain. Years later Smeagol gets it and hides under the mountain, where he is slowly consumed by the Ring. Over 500 years past when Bilbo accidently finds and takes the Ring. He barely escapes Gollum with his life, and then barely manages to escape the Orcs, but still he succeeded. However, when he was going to kill Gollum, he suddenly felt pity for him, and thus he had no incredible lust for power that the Ring would normally cause. Throughout his years, though he treasured the Ring greatly, Bilbo was not obsessed with total domination, not by a long shot. When the Ring passes to Frodo, he does not wish for anything like that, either. But when he learns the truth about the Ring, he is afraid, and tries to give it to Gandalf. In fact, tries is the wrong word for it... Frodo was giving the Ring to Gandalf, but Gandalf wouldn't let him. After 17 years, Frodo would have given up the Ring, just like that. Then when he had to go to Rivendell, all he wanted to do was be rid of the Ring. And, aven when he was mortally wounded by a Morgul Blade, Frodo still wished only to be free of his burden. He did not fade when any other Man would have, even Aragorn. Being pierced by a Morgul Blade is not something just anybody can survive. Indeed, without treatment, no one would (other than Elves, Maiar, and Valar, that is). Frodo lasted longer than Aragorn would have (IMO), and then he went on to be almost completely cured, pretty much as cured as you can get. He then subjected the Ring, his precious, to the judgement of the Council of Elrond. And then, even when he would have been rid of it, Frodo volunteered to take the Ring to Orodruin to be destroyed. He thus went on his merry way and managed to get all the way to Lorien before he offers up the Ring yet again. It is once again refused, this time by Galadriel, and the Fellowship gets to Amon Hen before the Ring dominates Boromir. Then, when Aragorn finds him, Frodo offers up the Ring for his third and last time, to Aragorn, who then, like the others, refuses it. Aragorn then lets Frodo go, and Sam only just catched up in time to go with him. However, all this time Gollum had been following, following, waiting for an opportunity to take back his Preciousss. But, even Gollum was not lusting for total domination. That's the funny thing about all this; everyone who wants the Ring for power and dominion just can't get it. There's Sauron, Denethor, Saruman, Grishnakh, Boromir, and countless others that are trying to get the Ring so they can have Dominion over all. But luckily, none of those people get it, and only the people that want the Ring for their own personal uses are the one's who actually get to fight over it. Sam was shown a vision of himself as the Lord of the Ring, causing plants to grow in all the desolate places and for everything to be green and perfect, but Same refuses the Ring. Not refusing to take the Ring, but rather refusing to claim it. Gollum's only kniwn vision is him back in his little cave and is island and his raw and wriggling fish. Frodo's only known vision is wanting to go home, but no doubt the Ring showed him something that tempted him. And so it was that, in the end, the lust for the Ring caused its destruction, and those who desired it for themselves to obtain total dominion acted in a way that allowed for the Quest to succeed. Therefore, in the end, it was the Ring's effect of people to lust for the Ring and to lust for total dominion that caused it to fall.


----------



## robbie

Yaygollum,i am very suprised that you think that torture is worse than carrying the ring around,of which carrying the ring is more like haveing a very bad disease with a lot of miserable symptoms.Whereas torture can kill you quick,carrying the ring can slowly suck the life right out of you,its a slow,more painful way to die.


----------



## ely

Torture don't kill you quick, that's the whole point of it. 

About comparing carrying the Ring and being tortured, I think that if someone had had that ring for a long, long time then the biggest torture of all is to not have the ring and see someone else having/using it. On the other hand physical torture may be less painful that having your soul slowly but steadily taken away from you, but then, how should I know?


----------



## stumpy1

good point, the true torture for gollum was seeing frodo have the ring. the ultimate torture would have been to be bound to the ring
with sauron possesing it. there can be no doubt that they would be compelled to come to the ring, only to know they could never
have it. torture for eternity with sauron as the grand inquisitor.
i think i would willingly undergo any kind of torture as compared
to being bound to that cursed ring. frodo carried the effect's with
him even after the ring was destroyed, even to the point that his
beloved shire had lost it's gleam so to speak. no joy in life. burnt
out of him by his burden. talk about a hero, sure in the end he rides off in to sunset, but he dosent enjoy it. 
stump


----------



## robbie

What i meant was torture kills you faster than carrying the ring does,carrying the ring is a slower,more painful death,having the soul sucked out of you is probably one of the worse ways to die.


----------



## ely

> _Originally posted by robbie _
> *What i meant was torture kills you faster than carrying the ring does,carrying the ring is a slower,more painful death,having the soul sucked out of you is probably one of the worse ways to die. *



Yes, but when one is already that bound to the ring then to him the greater torture is not to have it and see others using it. When he has the ring he has at least some kind of comfort, he has his preciouss. And though it tears his soul slowly away he still "loves and hates the ring, just as he loves and hates himself". So being without the ring would be probably better for him, he could be cured to some extent at least, but it's also greater torture to him than having the ring. I guess it's something like smoking: it kills you slowly, but it's so hard to give it up, but when you still succeed in doing it, in the end it pays off. But with the ring it's different because then you don't really have free will, so you can't really decide to give it up for greater good afterwards. 

And if you meant physical torture then I'm sure it could be done the way that you don't die quickly. But when we come to Sauron and Gollum, then Sauron probably understood that the greatest torture for (poor) Gollum was to see him use the ring, so he would have tortured him that way, or better to say - that way too.


----------



## robbie

yes indeed,a very good point there too.


----------



## Garwen

*true Hero*

All of them were heros, but Ithink Sam was the biggest hero. Yes he did grow, but so did al the hobbits in one way. But Sam wore the Ring and he decided on his own to take it off with out promting from anyone. I have always admired him for that. his love for his friend was greater then the power of the Ring. A wonderful quallity that I wish that I had.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

aDaHe said:


> i feel that aragorn is because of his dedication in the story to the destroying of the ring he took (poo) from nearly every one that he kenw that did not know him and still he put life on that line to save their lives.



I believe Gandalf is the true Prime Hero of the story, because without him, none of what went into play would have happened. Aragorn said as much at his coronation: "...I would have the Ring-bearer bring the crown to me, and let Mithrandir set it upon my head, if he will; for he has been the mover of all that has been accomplished, and this is his victory." 

Not even Frodo's role was as important as Gandalf's, as Tolkien clearly indicated in the way he wrote the passage.

Lotho


----------



## Greenwood

I was forced to vote "other" because I feel Sam is the ultimate hero of the story. He is not as "flashy" and obviously "heroic" as the others. He is more of an "everyman" than the others, but the quest would have failed long before Mount Doom without him. In another thread I posted a quote from Tolkien to his son Christopher in which he talks about Sam.


----------



## Fechin

I think Gandalf is.

Even though you can't just choose one since each did there part in the mission to destroy the ring.


----------



## earlofdoncaster

In case of LOTR, deciding who the hero is rather difficult. Its readers will realize that all the events are intricately entwined and are dependent on each other. So are the characters. Frodo would never go to mount doom without the persuasion of Gandalf. The hobbit would not have reached Imladris without Aragorn. The fellowship could not have passed the mines of moria without Gandalf's guidance. The ents would not have been aroused but for Saruman. This is just the tip of the iceberg. However, it is obvious that Gandalf is the mover of all that is done, and that the destruction of the ring is his victory. Nevertheless the true quest does lie with Frodo. Also I think a lot of people tend to forget the part of Gollum. Yes we all hate the miserable trickster, but it his through gollum that we can best understand the horrible power of the ring. In short, any of the main characters would be suitable for candidacy of the hero.


----------



## Aglarband

I said Gollum for the following reasons:

1. He found the Ring and without him Bilbo would NEVER have gotten it.

2. He lead Sam and Frodo to Mordor. Without Gollum Sam and Frodo would be dead.

3. He essentially is the reason the Ring was destroyed, if Gollum had not taken the Ring and enraged Frodo or bitten it off for that matter, the Ring may have never been destroyed.

4. No other character bore the Ring so long, he needs some award for that.


----------



## Popo Foxburr

I voted for Gandalf because throughout the story, it is Gandalf who coordinates almost every aspect of the eventual destruction of the ring and Sauron.


----------



## Maerbenn

Aglarband said:


> 4. No other character bore the Ring so long, he needs some award for that.


Sauron the Dark Lord bore it for the last 1841 years of the Second Age...


----------



## Andolian

Way to go, Maerbenn! Quite a funny notion, 'tis. Although, I _don't_ think that Sauron would be considered the hero (heh-heh), I do think that he deserves credit.


----------



## spirit

*Sam and Frodo*

I'm not a fan of Frodo, but I think he was the hero and Sam, because it was actually those two who actually had to be near the ring all the time, and that must have been hard.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Take away Gandalf, and the Quest crashes into utter ruin.

Barley.

"Talent develops in tranquillity, character in the full current of human life." —Goethe 217


----------



## 33Peregrin

*Re: Sam and Frodo*

I will always say Frodo, but I will agree that everyone was needed for just what they did.



spirit said:


> I'm not a fan of Frodo, but I think he was the hero and Sam, because it was actually those two who actually had to be near the ring all the time, and that must have been hard.



I'm sorry, but I have to ask. What's not right about Frodo?


----------



## Inderjit S

> Take away Gandalf, and the Quest crashes into utter ruin.



Yes, well take away Boromir and the quest again crashes into utter ruin. And he wasn't exactly the greatest hero of the book, was he?

And is that Goethe you are quoting? If so, what on earth is 217?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Inderjit S said:


> Yes, well take away Boromir and the quest again crashes into utter ruin. And he wasn't exactly the greatest hero of the book, was he?
> 
> And is that Goethe you are quoting? If so, what on earth is 217?



Well, we're both merely expressing our opinions...nothing to get excited about. I'm sure there are others who would choose neither Gandalf nor Aragorn. 

The "217" is just a catalog number used for getting back to a particular quote. I use a little Mac program called NetSignature for storing quotes, which are generated at random.

Barley

"When a habit begins to cost money, it's called a hobby." —Anon. 504


----------



## spirit

> I'm sorry, but I have to ask. What's not right about Frodo?


In the book he is an excellent character towards the beginning but then latter on he annoys me. I don't exactly know why...

In the movie, he just annoys after the part where he gets stabbed with the morgul blade. He is whiny in the movie, and that really annoys me.


----------



## Ravenna

Just to stir this up a bit. As I have not read through the entire thread, has anyone pointed out the Tolkien himself on at least one occasion referred to Sam as the chief hero of the book (Letters No 131)

Who am I to argue with the author, especially when his decision is so clearly echoed in my own opinion.


----------



## Gildor

Great heroes can fail and still be great heroes. Frodo is the true hero because he alone of the Hobbits had enough knowledge to glimpse the immense danger of the task although he knew little about the details of what lay in store. As he approached Mount Doom he knew he would likely perish whether he succeeded or not, but he pressed on regardless. He reached the very last step of his quest before succombing to the Ring, and arguably no one else could have done better or resisted so long. Afterwards he did not exhault in his deeds, and in fact fell into uncomplaining obscurity even in his own lands which he had suffered so much for.

The true mark of a hero is to know the risks and push on despite them, giving your all in a selfless effort no matter how strong or weak you may be; not for praise or for the sake of the deed itself, but for someone or something else that may never even know of your sacrifice.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Ravenna said:


> Just to stir this up a bit. As I have not read through the entire thread, has anyone pointed out the Tolkien himself on at least one occasion referred to Sam as the chief hero of the book (Letters No 131)
> 
> Who am I to argue with the author, especially when his decision is so clearly echoed in my own opinion.



No wonder I never spotted this — that letter's nineteen pages long, and I never got to the end of it! (And now that I give it full attention, I see that it's one of the most important primary research pieces that we have from the master's hand, as it is virtually a synopsis of the entire Hobbit/LOTR saga!)

Here is the quote in question, coming at the end of a long disquisition, and seemingly only in passing, and in the context of the rest of the love stories that occured in LOTR:

"I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is _absolutely essential_ to the study of his (the chief hero's) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves,' and sheer beauty."

If Tolkien believes that it was Sam who was the chief hero, then it is in very large measure because of the absolute incorruptibility of his character. It was Sam and Sam alone, for instance, who was able to take the ring and give it up again without a second's thought (the episode concerning Frodo's rescue in the tower). Not even Bilbo was able to do that. (And if by chance someone reading this has only seen the movie — PJ's version — and believes that Sam had trouble with giving up the ring, by all means read the book and get the real story.)

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S

Also, it certainly was not Pippin.



> If any one of the hobbits is slain, it must be the cowardly Pippin doing something brave


  

(Quote from HoME 7: Treason of Isengard)


----------



## Gothmog

> Originally Posted by Ravenna
> Just to stir this up a bit. As I have not read through the entire thread, has anyone pointed out the Tolkien himself on at least one occasion referred to Sam as the chief hero of the book (Letters No 131)


Yes it has been pointed out, by myself. However, this was very early in this thread. So it is about time that it was brought to light again 



> Originally Posted by Barliman Butterbur
> No wonder I never spotted this — that letter's nineteen pages long, and I never got to the end of it! (And now that I give it full attention, I see that it's one of the most important primary research pieces that we have from the master's hand, as it is virtually a synopsis of the entire Hobbit/LOTR saga!)
> 
> Here is the quote in question, coming at the end of a long disquisition, and seemingly only in passing, and in the context of the rest of he love stories that occured in LOTR:


Indeed, almost as long as this thread . Thanks for reminding everybody of the exact quote.


----------



## gamgee

*What is a real "hero"?*

That's a rather long and interesting discussion.
Well, a lot of the characters are for one part heroes or real heroes (Beregond for example) and still they aren't. Most of them succeed by failing.
For me the "hero" is Sam. It's his personality, not his deeds, that is important. His quest is to help and protect his master. He does it as good as it is possible for his simple (and after all not simple) mind.
The reasen why he is the "hero" is because a lot of my friends say that my personality is like his. And I'm proud of that!!!
Anyway who is the hero? I think (I never read more than "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings") that it wasn't Tolkiens idea to make one REAL "hero". I couldn't find a part in those two books where I could see that this character is the REAL hero.
And you can't become a "real hero" when you do succeed without failing on your way to it.


----------



## Ingwë

I think Gandalf the Grey is the true hero of LOTR, because he found the ring. He escaped from Orthanc and Saruman and he help the men in the Battle of Pellenor. He takes part of everyhig in the Middle earth.


----------



## treebeardgarden

I feel like a lot of people that Samwise is the true hero. Without his continued optimism I doubt Frodo would have reached Mount Doom. He continualy shows Frodo that there is still hope as long as they go on. Like most true hero's he is often in the background plodding on and doing an amazing job all the time.

Just to stir it a bit I also think Gollum has an outside chance. Without him how would Frodo or Sam have entered the Dark Kingdom undiscovered?


----------



## Ravenna

> And you can't become a "real hero" when you do succeed without failing on your way to it.



Oh but you can. Or why would there be all the tales of the 'heroic last stands' in which everybody dies, including the main character?  

A hero can be defined as someone with 'noble' or 'worthy' characteristics - Sam has those right from the start, loyalty; honesty (as defined by his own standards whilst doing his best for Frodo); courage; compassion and last but not least the capacity to love unreservedly, to willingly give up his life for a friend, (which in a way Sam does right at the start of the book when he gives up his settled, safe life, to go adventuring with Frodo.]

The other thing about Sam, is the fact that he is probably the only character in the book who does these heroic things with *no expectation of reward!* 
Even Frodo knows that he will get huge kudos if he succeeds, and whilst I would never say that this is the reason that he takes on the task, he is obviously no glory hunter; you will not convince me that he was not aware of the fact. So too with just about all of the other overtly heroic characters.
Sam meanwhile, just does what he does in order to keep Frodo safe and well and support him in all ways possible, the only time the thought of reward comes to him is when he wears the Ring and his mind is being influenced by it.

Whilst I would be the first to agree that there are many 'heroic' characters in the book, I have yet to see a really convincing argument in favour of someone else.


----------



## Palando

In my opinion, LOTR was full of heroes. I think that was one of the main points of the story.


----------



## Bill

Sam is the ultimate hero, on many occasions. frodo bears the ring and thus the burden, but Sam constantly watches out for him. If you look at everything that went on in the story, Sam is the only character that, had he not been there nor done the things he did to help Frodo, would have made the task fail (if Aragorn, Gandalf, Gimly, Theoden, Legolas, Pippin or Merry had died after the falls of Rauros battle, I still think they could have completed the mission. The only problem would have been on the plains of Gorgoroth, but being the hero he is, Sam would have found a way to carry the dead weight called Frodo (I'm just joking btw, I love Frodo...). Damn this story! I want to be in it! I just walk in the streets, look out on the horizon and wait for something magical to happen, but it never does. Only buses and cars cross my path instead of huge eagles and elves...Oh well.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Bill said:


> Sam is the ultimate hero, on many occasions.



See post #661 in this thread.

Barley


----------



## Maggot

definately Frodo all though Eowen is really a fantastic character who is really brave also Merry and Pippin mature from being jokers to warriors.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Maggot said:


> definately Frodo all though Eowen is really a fantastic character who is really brave also Merry and Pippin mature from being jokers to warriors.



Welcome aboard, Maggot! Good to have you here! (By the way, Prof. Tolkien thought that Sam was the real hero of the story (see my post #661 in this thread). This is what he said:

"I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves,' and sheer beauty."

So Sam was just an ordinary guy in the best sense: he lived an ordinary life in the best way, with all the good qualities and solid values.

Barley


----------



## Princess Joy

I think Aragorn is the LOTR hero, because of his humility and talent fof leadership.


----------



## scotsboyuk

I suppose it all depends on what we mean by the word 'hero'. Certainly one can describe Aragorn as a hero when beats back the Nazgul on Weathertop. One can describe Eowyn a hero for her courage in battle. Gnadalf can be described as a hero for battling the Balrog. Each person has their own individual part to play, that is what I took from LOTR. The eventual triumph of good over evil could not have been accomplished without everyone playing their part, so for me they all all 'the hero'.

If I have to single out one particular character above the others though, then my vote goes to Sam. Tolkien actually demonstrated something, which is extremely powerful through the simplest of mediums. Sam's heroism goes beyond that of any other character in my view, he alone never loses faith in what he believes in; he alone never thinks of giving up. Perhaps that is the lesson, that those we think of as heroes are merely people propelled to greatness by the actions of true heroes at their sides.


----------



## Greenwood

scotsboyuk,

I posted my vote for Sam on this thread about a year ago (I believe with quotes from Tolkien's Letters that he also thought of Sam as the true hero of the story), but I must say I am certain I was not as eloquent as you. Well said.


----------



## scotsboyuk

@Greenwood

High praise indeed!  Thank you very much.

My favourite character in LOTR is Gandalf, but Sam holds a special place for me above any of the characters. He is the most pure and heroic character in the story and his motivation for doing what he does is also the most pure and inspiring, love. Love for Frodo and love for the Shire and his friends.

The other characters may be guided by a desire to defeat Sauron or even to return home, but Sam is guided and propelled by that, which is most basic amongst comrades in arms, a desire to help one's friends. Tolkien lost many of his friends fighting a war, in which the leaders and heroes talked of lofty motivational forces, but one sees the soldier in the trench with his friend, wanting to protect him, wanting to make sure his friend survives.

All Sam wanted to do was make sure Mr Frodo was safe. I think we can all relate to that simple wish.


----------



## Turambar

it has to be Sam because he defeated Shelob. that was the toughest battle in TLOTR.


----------



## scotsboyuk

Turambar said:


> it has to be Sam because he defeated Shelob. that was the toughest battle in TLOTR.



Personally I thought the toughest battle was when I had to fight to contain myself when I needed to go to the lavatory the first time I saw ROTK. I really didn't want to miss any of it!


----------



## OldTomBombadil

Did you know that Tom Bombadil was once a candidate to be the hero for the sequel to _The Hobbit_?

From a letter dated to Stanley Unwin dated 16 December 1937:


> Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?


 
As far as THE hero of _The Lord of the Rings_ I can't say that there is only one clear-cut hero or, if you prefer, a hero among heroes. Certainly there were many heroes. 

Sauron could not have been defeated without the efforts of *Gandalf*, who worked over many years to discover the identity of the Ring that Bilbo owned, then once it was discovered planned and helped carry out the quest to destroy it. His efforts were also instrumental in preventing Minas Tirith from falling.

*Frodo*, naturally, is one of the chief heroes for he was the primary Ring-bearer that carried the Ring from Bag End in the Shire to the fires of Mt. Doom in Mordor. During that journey he escaped death many times. The toll that journey took and the lingering after effects of the Ring left him broken in body and spirit. The Elves recognized this, and gave him passage to the Undying Lands where he could find healing.

*Aragorn*, the heir of Isildur, was another of the most heroic. He lived many difficult years in the wilds, traveling throughout Middle-earth before finally returning to become the King of the reunited kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor, the first king Gondor had had in 1000 years. Aragorn recognized Gandalf's and Frodo's contributions by having Frodo carry the crown from Faramir, the steward, to Gandalf who set the crown on his head. 

Besides guiding the four hobbits from Bree to Rivendell despite the thread of the Black Riders, he led the Fellowship after Gandalf fell in Moria. Aragorn's efforts aided the Rohirrim in their battle against Saruman's forces, he waged a war of the mind with Sauron by daring to use the palantir, he braved the dangers of the Paths of the Dead to lead the spectral armor over a victory of the Corsairs, thus allowing many who might have been drawn off to participate in the battle to save Minas Tirith. He also fought a crucial battle at the Black Gates, and brought back Faramir, Éowyn, and Merry from the shadow of the Black Breath.

So after all of that who, if anyone, was the true hero of _The Lord of the Rings_? Samwise son of Hamfast Gamgee of course!  

"Well, I'm back."


----------



## Findulias

sam was, of corse, the hero. Frodo NEVER would have even made it to Mordor without taking the ring for himself if it weren't for sam! it's likely that Frodo would have been killed by gollum when they first met if sam wasn't there! also,
Sam didn't really have to go all the way with Frodo, he made a choice to go to the worst place on middle-earth for his master, so, i think its obvious that sam was the hero


----------



## ASLAN THE GREAT

gandalf the is true hero to me


----------



## scotsboyuk

@Aslan

I actually see Gandalf as being more akin to Aslan in the Narnia chronicles. Gandalf acts as more of a guide and helper to Men, his involvement is only ever really direct when the situation desperately calls for it. Just as Aslan acts on behalf of the Emperor so too Gandalf acts on behalf of the Valar.

Gandalf's role, in my eyes, is to help and prompt the other characters in the story. Gandalf does accomplish great deeds and the quest would surely have failed without him, but ultimately he isn't the most crucial figure once the quest has begun.

Sam is the one who keeps the mission to destroy the One Ring on track and it is through his courage and hope that goodness eventually triumphs.


----------



## Tatarica

I feel that Frodo&Sam (you know, they're together in everything  ) are the heroes, counting everything they did, from the beggining to the very destruction of the ring.
What they did was bravery, not many had been where Frodo&Sam were in their journey.

No matter what everyone says, taking a (not so) simple hobbit to save the world is indeed something that Frodo, and Sam need to be remembered as, the true heroes of Lord Of The Rings.

But thats just my opinion


----------



## Rangerdave

One of the nearly universal constants of epic and mythic literature is the hero. In the legends of Middle-Earth, the Lord of the Rings is the cardinal heroic epic. There are three primary heroes in this tale: Aragorn “Strider” El-Essar, Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee. The first of these heroes, Aragorn, is a complex and complicated character. Tolkien goes to great lengths to reveal his history and lineage as the tale progresses. The reader’s first encounters Strider in the Fellowship of the Ring slipping over the wall in Bree in a decidedly suspicious manner; by the opening lines of the Return of the King, the reader fully accepts Aragorn as the rightful heir to the throne of half the known world. Of Tolkien’s three major heroes, Aragorn is most representative of the traditional hero. Unlike Frodo and Sam, Aragorn is on a quest to achieve a kingdom rather than destroy one. The closest literary equivalence to Aragorn is the British legend of Arthur. The similarities between Aragorn and Arthur are both striking and numerous. For example, both are the direct descendants of the last true king albeit Arthur is only one generation removed whereas Aragorn is seventeen distant. Arthur and Aragorn are both raised in secret in a noble house to protect them from the enemy. Both carry enchanted weaponry. Arthur’s sword Excalibur and Aragorn’s Anduril both denote the King’s authority. Also, the scabbards of these weapons were magical; Aragorn’s insured that no sword carried in it would fail in battle, while Arthur’s protected it’s wearer by preventing him from shedding blood despite the severity of the wound. The list of similarities is long indeed, but the most striking is in the role of the King’s teacher and counselor. Anyone even passingly familiar with the Arthurian legends will find shades of Merlin in Gandalf. However, this role of divine or semi-divine advisor is almost universal in mythic literature. Aragorn’s relation to Gandalf is a new twist on the relations of Arthur and Merlin, Ulysses and Athena, Dante and Virgil and even Luke Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi. 

Another of Tolkien’s major heroes is the hobbit Frodo Baggins. Frodo is an unlikely choice of hero; at first glance, he is the complete opposite of Aragorn. Frodo is small, provincial, unassuming and untrained whereas Aragorn is prepared from birth for his destiny. Frodo is the quintessential _Everyman_. As such, Frodo is more evocative of faerie stories than mythic literature. However, this is the true majesty of the Lord of the Rings. Not only is this the epic tale of the restoration of the kingdom of Gondor: it is also the transition from a world of rings, wizards, elves and magic to the world of man. This is why Tolkien chooses Frodo to attempt his anti-quest. The traditional model of quest legends is the search and eventual acquisition of a magical token or element to insure the triumph of good. For Frodo, this quest is inverted. His quest is to destroy the One Ring to avert the triumph of evil. Frodo’s mission is to undo the One Ring, and whether he succeeds or fails the world he knew must come to an end. To choose a supernatural character¾ Elrond or Galadriel perhaps¾ would defeat the central message of the tale. With the destruction of the ring, Hobbits (and Man in general) can no longer rely on the power of magic and must take charge of their own world. This is best evidenced by Gandalf’s farewell to the Hobbits outside of Bree. 
“I am with you at the present, but soon I shall not be. I am not coming to the Shire. You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things right, nor to help folk to do so. And as for you my dear friends, you are grown up now […] and I have no fear at all for any of you.”

Although Frodo begins his journey as one of the common folk, his dealings with mystical powers grant him a sympathetic awareness of the supernatural elements that end with the ring. This insures that Frodo can never remain in the world that he helped to create. His journey with the last of the High Elves into the hidden west marks the close of the Third Age. 

The most understandable and yet most overlooked hero of the Lord of the Rings is Samwise Gamgee. Sam starts his journey as somewhat of a clown. Most readers and critics are either unable or unwilling to recognize the transformation of Sam into a hero in his own right. For the majority of the story, Sam’s closest literary counterpart is Sir Bedwyr of the Arthurian legends. As Bedwyr follows Arthur, so Sam follows his master through peril not out of official obligation but rather through his love and devotion for Frodo. Sam’s courage first arises when he, for a short time, becomes the Ringbearer in Mordor. However, Sam’s true heroism shines in the return to the Shire. Here Sam ceases to be Frodo’s underling and rises to become his equal. Like Aragorn, Sam becomes the leader of his people: unlike Aragorn, Sam is a leader of a new age. The reunited kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor are founded in the remembrance of lost Númenor. The Shire is, in contrast, fully a land of ordinary men (or Hobbits as the case may be). Under the guidance and leadership of Samwise Gamgee, the Shire remembers the past world of Elves and magic, but is not dependent on it. If Aragorn is symbolic of a heroic past and Frodo is symbolic of the nobility of _Everyman_, then surly Sam is the promise of a bright and virtuous future. Although this conclusion is not directly expressed in the text, Sam is the last hero of the Lord of the Rings. 





RD


----------



## scotsboyuk

@Rangerdave

A most interesting set of anaologies and I, for the most part, agree with your assessment.

I would like to add my own two pence worth if I may.

The Second World War is an inscapable analogy for LOTR in my opinion an done that offers both insight and understanding if used properly.

Frodo and Sam's quest to destroy the One Ring can be likened to Britain during WWII. I very much agree with your argument that in seeking to destroy the One Ring they were seeking to stop evil from triumphing, but at the price of ending their own magical world to be replaced by a new 'mundane' world.

Britain wasn't fighting Germany to gain more territory or resources, but to stop Nazism from triumphing. In doing so Britain was also struggling towards the end of the Colonial world. The past world of kings, emperors, vast empires and ancient tradition was coming to an end one way or another, either through Allied victory and freedom or Nazi victory and slavery.

Frodo and Sam best represent that British struggle and victory in that they are small, unassuming and given little chance of completing their task.

It is interesting to find analogy in different sources, the most obvious being Anglo-Saxon tales and Scaldic verse, but we can also find analogy in every day life too, which is perhaps more succient in that it has a greater pertinence.


----------



## BlackCaptain

The Hero of the War of the Ring was Aragorn. The Hero of the Third Age was Gandalf. The Hero of the Quest of the Ring is Frodo. It's kind of hard to generalize the 'Lord of the Rings' into one giant thing.


----------



## Barahir

*The hero of The Lord of the Rings...*

is in my eyes several. "Wow Barahir, that's original!"  But I think maybe that was Tolkien's idea anyway. Many think Sam; cuz he carried Frodo trough Mordor and up Orodruin. Others mean Frodo; he carried the Ring, a heavier burden than imaginable. Some say Gandalf and Aragorn; we all know what they did too. 
But as I see it, and I bet many of you do too, there's no "main hero" to the story, there's several. Frodo has of course, the heaviest personal burden. His faith of the world is on his shoulders. If he loses it, it will eventually end up in Sauron's hands (or someone else, in time becoming maybe as powerful as Sauron) and the world will be lost. 
Sam stays by Frodo's side through the hole thing. He carries him, and also, he is a witness (and what will happen if the fail, is maybe clearer to him than Frodo, cuz Frodo has given up in his heart) to Frodo's misery.
Gandalf is of course one of the biggest heros trough the newer history of Middle-earth. He's more a messenger than a warrior, and his messages to kings and armies desides faiths that eventually desides the faith of Middle-earth itself. We see that in TLotR. His words are even more powerful than his powers as a member of the Istari order. 
Aragorn is the promised king of Men and he carries the faith of mankind. His sword and his fightingskills, as well as his courage, is of course important. Without him, the War of the Ring would not be won. Even though Gandalf came back. 

So, I think there are several heroes to the story, and I think Tolkien meant that too. Merry and Pippin, Theoden, Threebeard, Gwhaihir, Eomer, Eowyn, Faramir, Boromir, Gollum, Legolas, Gimli and several more are also heroes of course, and that's what I'm trying to say. Even Fatty Bolger is a hero, he plays Frodo in front of the most terrifying characters in the story, except Sauron himself. Brave Fatty! 

I know this thread has been discussed a dousin of times before, but I simply want to tell you what I feel, and many my agree and even more disagree. That's how it should be. And people, sorry for my English. I'm just an ignorant Norwegian Middle-earthling. 

So, who's your hero?


----------



## ingolmo

BlackCaptain said:


> The Hero of the War of the Ring was Aragorn. The Hero of the Third Age was Gandalf. The Hero of the Quest of the Ring is Frodo. It's kind of hard to generalize the 'Lord of the Rings' into one giant thing.


Absolutely correct!
Ingolmo


----------



## Thorondor_

"Gandalf is more a messenger than a warrior"
What human or elf could win a fight with a balrog? And what army could defeat a balrog?

"Without him, the War of the Ring would not be won"
Hm, why? Because he is a ruler of the dunedains? Or?

I believe the true hero is Frodo. And he was rewarded with one of the greatest possible gifts: a ticket to Valinor


----------



## Helcaraxë

I think it's a mistake to try to pin one character down as the "hero." Often with LotR, we have to consider who is the hero of a particular group or a particular sequence.


----------



## Greenwood

Thorondor said:


> I believe the true hero is Frodo. And he was rewarded with one of the greatest possible gifts: a ticket to Valinor


But, according to the Appendices, Sam, Legolas and Gimli also went into the West.


----------



## Thorondor_

Correct, but only that fact, in itself, isn't a sign of their greatness, nor of any of them being the real hero


----------



## Wraithguard

Like so many other people I gotta say no one is the true hero. Each played an incredible role in the WR and without one the others would probably have fallen. Let's put this into perspective. Without Gandalf Helms Deep would have been lost. Without Aragorn Pellenor Fields would have been lost. Without Pippin Gandalf would have been at least wounded at Minas Tirith. Without Merry the Witch King would have slain Eowyn. Without Sam, Frodo would have never made it to Amon Amarth. I could keep going onto Boromir saving Merry and Pippin and Legolas and Gimli but there is no point. Even non fellowship members played a part in the destruction.

Overall I have to say there isn't a ONE TRUE hero.


----------



## Thorondor_

Wraithguard said:


> Like so many other people I gotta say no one is the true hero. Each played an incredible role in the WR and without one the others would probably have fallen. Let's put this into perspective. Without Gandalf Helms Deep would have been lost. Without Aragorn Pellenor Fields would have been lost. Without Pippin Gandalf would have been at least wounded at Minas Tirith. Without Merry the Witch King would have slain Eowyn. Without Sam, Frodo would have never made it to Amon Amarth. I could keep going onto Boromir saving Merry and Pippin and Legolas and Gimli but there is no point. Even non fellowship members played a part in the destruction.




_The_ hero shouldn't cover all the necessary aspects of the quest, so I disagree with this logic. 
[To a more extreme point, the japanese legendarium has alot of heroes which fail in their quest. Even if they achieve rather nothing, they still are celebrated as heroes.]


----------



## Wraithguard

No, no. I am saying that none of them are more important than the other in terms of heroism.


----------



## ingolmo

Like someone said earlier, we can't pick one hero out of the entire legendarium. It has to be classified. Which part of the LotR are you talking about?
The Quest of the Ring? It would be Frodo.
The War of the Ring? It would be Aragorn.
Or the entire third age, and the events related to the LotR in it? Then it'd be Gandalf.


----------



## Thorondor_

Wraithguard said:


> No, no. I am saying that none of them are more important than the other in terms of heroism.


 
I don't know if this necessarily contradicts your statement, but this is what Tolkien said:

"it is the *heroism of obedience and love* not of pride or willfulness that is the most heroic and the most moving".


----------



## Wraithguard

You guys just like lighting fires under my ass don't you. First off, you cannot call Mithrandir the hero for the enitre Third Age. Second I was referring simply to the course that played out in the War of the Ring. No one can take full credit because simply that everyone from the lowest Snaga in the Orcish forces to Aragorn cannot be removed from this and have the same exact result. It is the way our destinies play out in the end, and how everything is intertwined.


----------



## Wraithguard

Thorondor_ said:


> [To a more extreme point, the japanese legendarium has alot of heroes which fail in their quest. Even if they achieve rather nothing, they still are celebrated as heroes.]


 
This reinforces my point. I am NOT saying someone ISN'T a hero. I am saying that they are ALL the heroes.


----------



## Hammersmith

Wraithguard said:


> This reinforces my point. I am NOT saying someone ISN'T a hero. I am saying that they are ALL the heroes.


 
That's cheating! That's like saying we're *all* special and unique. I don't buy it. Some characters are more heroic than others. We can have different opinions on which characters, but that's as far as it goes. I don't want to hear any more about this "everyone's a hero" nonsense


----------



## Wraithguard

*Runs away crying*


----------



## ingolmo

I didn't mean to contradict your views, Wraithguard, I just meant to share mine. I think you're trying to say that all the people who played a part fighting for justive should be called a hero, and that if all the people had a chance to fight for good, they would. I guess many would, but then no one in the Council of Elrond volunteered to take the Ring except for Frodo. And would you call Barliman Butterbur a hero for delivering the letter so late to Frodo?


----------



## Wraithguard

Myea... I can tell that I'm being ganged up on here. I'll drop my comments because I seem to be on the wrong end of this conversation.


----------



## Thorondor_

If you have any valid/valuable comments, you shouldn't hold back. It's a debate forum, after all.


----------



## ingolmo

And even if it does seem as if we are together ganging up on you to you, we aren't. Even all of us don't have the same opinion as each other. It's just that our views are relatively more similar to each other than they are with yours. It's not as if we're PMing each other and discussing our plans to oppose you.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Does anyone ever wonder by what definition others are using the word hero?

YayGollum! is obviously using some definition of hero that most have never heard before. 

Some people think the hero is the one who does and accomplishes the most.

Some people think that hero is more in the attitude and the mindset, and that somebody who sets out to do a great deed can still be a hero even if they fail.

Think of those that die in war trying to save a fallen friend...are they any less heroic because they fail?

To me being a hero is being afraid to do something and doing it anyway for the greater good, or at great personal risk, or self-sacrificially. Even if they seem cowardly. And in that sense they are all heroes, though that is a cop-out answer, because everyone wants you to pick just one. Each character had their flaws, but they were all heroes in some way.
Even Gollum lead Frodo and Sam to Mordor though he did not want to and was afraid of the Great Eye and of losing the ring to him. I don't think his destruction of the ring was heroic. It was just an accident. But his leading Frodo and Sam on the dangerous road to Mordor was heroic, even if he didn't intend it to be, even if he was acting in his own best interest, as he did it at great personal risk.

Does that make sense to anyone but me?


----------



## YayGollum

Don't even worry about it, crazy Wonko The Sane person. I understand what you happen to be writing about. I understand the strange ways that most of you people twist your logic to show that one character is more of a hero than another. Or that one type of hero is more heroic than another type. I could probably twist logic to make anyone look like the greatest or the most obvious, the most worthy of praise, the most complete, or the most humble hero in the story. Only some of those descriptions matter to the participants of this discussion. Everybody feels like clinging to some aspect of heroism and calling it the most heroic. Sorry, but it looks like your aspect was the wrong one, too. Mine is that Gollum is the most entertaining hero. Or maybe the most surprising and most fitting. Sure, maybe he was an accidental hero. I still win.


----------



## Pantalaimon

Gil-Galad said:


> I totally agree Sam is the true hero.He keeps hope alive in every minute,he is ready to die for his master,he will always be with him and never leave him alone.


We would like to be added to those who believe that Samwise Gamgee is the real hero of the story. Because of all of them in the story, he was the only one who had a choice of not being there, or not do the things he did. He did all those out of love.


----------



## Noldor_returned

I say Gandalf because he was the one who orchestrated the entire thing, by getting the Ring to Frodo, encouraging Treebeard and helping Aragorn and Theoden. Then there was that whole thing where he sacrificed himself to help the Fellowship escape.


----------



## Sangahyando

Mithrandir all the way!!! Without him to mastermind the discovery of the Ring from Bilbo, near leadership to lead the White Council, wits to drive the Necromancer from Dol Guldur, strength to bring down a balrog, wisdom to defend Rohan and Gondor and last but one not least not best either, was the fact that because he was a figurehead at the Battle of the Five Armies, Erebor and Dale survived to defend the Mountain or else they would have been taken and probably the Woodland realms too.


----------



## Ravenna

I think much depends upon how strictly you define the word 'hero'. 

Used in a literary sense as the main character or protagonist of the story, then I would agree that there is no one character in LoTR who qualifies, or rather there are too many to list easily.

Again, there are many characters who display 'heroic' qualities.

I would go with Sam as the true hero of the story though. Many of the others have their own agenda alongside the main goal of defeating Sauron; ie Aragorn gets his crown and his wife, Eowyn gets her adventure and renown, Gandalf gets to fulfil his mission and go home to name but a few. This is not to cast aspersions upon their heroism, just that there is an element of self interest. 

With Sam, there is none of that, he goes along, against his own desires, purely to serve Frodo, everything he does is to serve and protect others with no thought of reward for himself, (apart from, the inevitably quoted fantasies in 'The choices of Master Samwise) except to go back to the Shire and have a bit of a garden for himself and maybe a happy marriage. Hardly a major ambition! He grows more mentally than any other character too.

Perhaps not the only hero in the book but certainly Tolkien himself appeared to have considered him the main one.



> I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character.


(Letters No131)


What Thorondor quoted earlier in the thread about the heroism of obedience and love is Sam through and through.


----------



## Elvenstar

I think, it's Gandalf, because he kept everything under his control - he found out whom to give the Ring to (before the Council in Rivendell), he knew much more than others and all the secret paths and all that stuff.
Of course, I'm not saying that Aragorn and Frodo and others are not heroes, and in the beginning i even was in a doubt between Frodo and Aragorn. But IMHO - they are heroes "more-less equally".
But Gandalf - it's something misterious...


----------



## Master of maps

I agree with yaygollum on this one, because though gollum wasnt meant to be the true hero, and h surely didnt want to be, he is the one who ended up accomplishing the end goal.


----------



## Echo

I am one of those who believes that Sam Gamgee is the real hero of The Lord of the Rings. I think I even read somewhere that Tolkien regarded him as the true hero, because he never wavers in his love for Frodo and keeps his true nature throughout the book.


----------



## _postman

I disagree with Sam being the real hero. There is a difference between loyalty and utter servility: Yes, Mr Frodo, sir, No Mr Frodo, sir, Three Bags four Mr Frodo, sir. 

I think Shelob is the real hero(ine) because she serves nobody.

Postman


----------



## Sidhe

All of them bar Gollum, it was hardly a single action of anyone. Gandalf had worked tirelessly in Middle Earth to bring about the chances the Hobbits had, were it not for his and the other Istari's efforts then the party would have been much more clueless and stood far less of a chance. Aragorn was of course the king in exile, almost unwilling and fearful of adopting his rightful reign, for fear of the corruption of Isildur that he felt still ran true in him. And lets not forget he was hardly sitting about waiting for the fellowship to happen, he was a Dunadan man and had been around for a century or so before the story takes place IIRC. That said though Gollum is an anti hero, but sympathy for him is pronounced in the book, as he was only ever a pawn of the ring, a curse that he bore for too long and it twisted him in ways that are quite horrible. Not the same as the others though. 

As to Sam it's true to say without his companionship Frodo may not of had the courage to continue on, but that doesn't lesson his heroic efforts, or the fact that he was probably the only bearer of the ring in history to not be corrupted to any great extent by the ring, although at the end without Gollum then even Frodo would have taken the same choice Isildur did and refused to destroy the ring; power corrupts and power with that level of will, malevolence and magnitude corrupts greatly, even the purest of heart. Suffice to say it was always a team effort, and the final result although unlikely without Gollum precludes him being considered as a hero I think. I voted other, as there were too many Valuable Players (VP) to distinguish any one as MVP.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread and I'm sure all this has been mentioned already, but that's why I think what I think.


----------



## lorkar

aragorn is my fav character but the main 3 heros are aragorn frodo and gandalf


----------



## baragund

But if you had to pick one, who would it be and why?


----------



## Bucky

Frodo?

No Sam, no Frodo. 

Remember that....

How many times did Sam get water, force it down Frodo's throat, rescue him, even carry him up the mountain?

There are many heroes, not one.

No point in trying to pick one, even though Aragorn does say at his coronation of Gandalf "'...he has been the mover of all that has been accomplished, and this is his victory."

I guess that's like saying Derek Jeter has won 5 World Series rings, but you notice that he never won any when his team's pitching wasn't any good?

In other words, Jeter is the (hated) Yankee's leader, but he still needs good 'teammates' to motivate, as did Gandalf


----------



## ltnjmy

It is true, Gandalf was the coordinator of the opposition to Sauron in the Third Age of Middle Earth - but Sam - in my opinion - was the true hero.

He overcame the temptation to use the ring
He stuck by Frodo when many would have left during the course of such a difficult journey
His battle with Shelob was cool - Beren himself could not have done better


----------



## Rock

Ariana Undomiel said:


> I quite agree with you Gil-Galad. It does feel like we are talking to children who refuse to listen to reason.
> 
> ~Ariana


 

Oh, stop it. YayGollum has his/her own opinion, and just becuase you disagree with Yay's opinion doesn't make him an ignorant kid. (or any Gollum fans/supports, for that matter).


----------



## Bucky

Rock said:


> Oh, stop it. YayGollum has his/her own opinion, and just becuase you disagree with Yay's opinion doesn't make him an ignorant kid. (or any Gollum fans/supports, for that matter).


 
*Yes, Yay is like beer: an acquired taste......

Quite intersting, but reading his posts in general is like watching a Three Stooges 'movie' (at least a Curlie or Shemp episode): 

Seen one; seen 'em all.

That, however doesn't mean they still aren't funny every time. 

It's when he gets serious that we're in trouble. 

*


----------



## FeyFeaofFeanor

ltnjmy said:


> It is true, Gandalf was the coordinator of the opposition to Sauron in the Third Age of Middle Earth - but Sam - in my opinion - was the true hero.
> 
> He overcame the temptation to use the ring
> He stuck by Frodo when many would have left during the course of such a difficult journey
> His battle with Shelob was cool - Beren himself could not have done better


 
I concur. Sam had many admirable qualities that make him a 'hero'.


----------



## host of eldar

In my opinion gandalf has the greatest necessity for the purpose. he helped the members of fellowship many times whether he was with them or not. he could help from miles away and save lifes and carry the mission on. that's I think his difference and great importance..


----------



## Mimzy

I actually think _Sam_ is the real hero of LOTR. Sam loved Frodo unconditionally, and without him the Quest would have been impossible. Sam even forgave Gollum in the end, but by then it was too late.


----------



## adpirtle

Like a lot of folks, I gotta go with Samwise Gamgee. He's the character who goes through the greatest transformation, in my opinion, and it is his courage and stubbornly set will that saves Frodo and the quest over and over again. Plus, Tolkien himself called Sam the chief hero of the book.


----------



## Gil-Galad

Almost nine years later and this thread is still open ! 

Amazing !

And I am happy to see that the overall opinion of Sam being the true here remains the dominating one


----------



## IAmNoMan

I believe that all of these characters and many more all played their part in the saving if Middle Earth, and that it would be unfair to credit one above the others. I have, however, chosen Sam, not because I believe he is the only 'true hero', but because he is the one who immediately came to mind. Sure, Frodo was the Ring Bearer, and sure the quest probably wouldn't have succeeded without him, but if Frodo hadn't had Sam, he would undoubtedly have failed. Therefore I vote Samwise the Brave!
:*):*):*)


----------



## Bucky

I vote for....

JRR TOLKIEN!

No Tolkien; no TLOR, lol!


----------



## Prissy_Hobbit

I think Frodo is the true hero of LOTR. Frodo goes on a mission that no one really wants, he leaves everything behind to save everyone. He struggles heroically and with the help of Gollum (unintentionally of course) the ring is destroyed. 
I think they are all hero's in ways, but the biggest hero to me would have to be Frodo because he decided to take the ring. The biggest task along all the other little tasks.:*)


----------



## Prince of Cats

I think I originally voted Gandalf but now I say Tom Bombadil. He is the one unwavered by the shadow, the heart of the wild in Arda :*) the eldest inspiration, the ideal role model


----------



## Sulimo

I said none of the above, because I believe there are four heroes Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. In each of their individual stories we witness their individual valor, and how the downfall of Sauron, and the overwhelming success of good was made possible through these four characters actions. Its gotta be the collective hobbit group.


----------



## spirit

Sulimo said:


> I said none of the above, because I believe there are four heroes Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. In each of their individual stories we witness their individual valor, and how the downfall of Sauron, and the overwhelming success of good was made possible through these four characters actions. Its gotta be the collective hobbit group.


 
Although I would not have voted for them, I do like your explanation you gave for the Hobbits. :*up


----------



## Zenith

Okay listen, there are several heroes in the Lord of the Rings. Gandalf, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, Frodo, Sam, Elrond, Glorfindel, etc..... But in my mind Gandalf is the true hero. Let us not forget he battled against Sauron for thousands of years. He was setting many things into motion, channeling all the events to formulate the defeat of Sauron. To name a few recent events, he caused the destruction of Smaug, pushed the White Council to overthrow the Necromancer in Mirkwood, chased down Gollum to discover the secret of the Ring (with the help of Aragorn), actually learned that Frodo's ring was the One Ring (an important part I think), and there are many other events. And he was guiding and protecting Frodo and the Ring constantly. All the other characters have a long list of important feats as well, but Gandalf's were much more pivotal. But for me, the most compelling piece of evidence came from the mouth of Aragorn, when he said in The End of the Third Age, "By the labour and valour of many I have come into this inheritance. In token of this I would have the Ring-bearer bring the crown to me, and let Mithrandir set it upon my head, if he will. For he has been the mover of *all* that has been accomplished, and this is his victory."


----------



## Bard the Bowman

I think there are two true heroes. One on the Quest side, one on the battle side. Sam is clearly the hero of the Quest. Gandalf is the hero as far as battles go and fashioning victory. He could also be the hero of the Quest just as easily. In the Fellowship, Gandalf is riding far and wide to gain information of the Ring, and he formulates the Fellowship. But Sam is indeed the most strong willed, as he is able to give the Ring back to Frodo (something that confused me. I'm going to post another thread) and he saves him and the Ring from Shelob. Sam is the only, and I repeat the only reason Frodo reaches Mount Doom.


----------



## Turin's Friend

Sam because if he had not carried Frodo in to mount doom Gollum could not have bitten off his finger and fell in the crack.


----------



## Parsifal

Well, as the LOTR is full of narrow escapes, every character plays a vital role.

Frodo obviously for carrying and resisting the Ring for so long, even if he fails at the end (Tolkien pretty much makes clear that no one would have done better there).
Bilbo for finding the Ring and getting it into the hands of the "good guys".
Sam for his heroics in Mordor.
Aragorn mainly for his role between Bree and Rivendell, and distracting Sauron.
Gandalf obviously for setting the plans in motion.
Even Boromir for driving Frodo to Mordor instead of Gondor, and Gollum for his role at the Black Gate and Mount Doom.
The only characters that seem to be there mainly for flavor are Pippin, Mery, Gimli and Legolas, though Pippin and Merry serve as distraction for the Uruk Hai, who would have otherwise kept searching for Hobbits.

But IMO the main good guy is definately Gandalf, who pretty much plays a private game of chess with Sauron in the last 500 years of the Third Age.


----------



## NimwenAelin

Sam, cause he was Frodo's life coach.
-that's of course my point of view...-


----------



## Sir Gawain d'Orchany

Arth...I mean Aragorn. He resists the one ring and leads the remaining men and elves against Mordor. And Mer...I mean Gandalf crowns Aragorn as King of Gondor.


----------



## 2DUECES

Frodo couldn’t cast the ring into the fire and chose to keep it. Gollum turned out to be the reason it was destroyed so isn’t Gollum in a round about way the real hero of LOTR?


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

2DUECES said:


> Frodo couldn’t cast the ring into the fire and chose to keep it. Gollum turned out to be the reason it was destroyed so isn’t Gollum in a round about way the real hero of LOTR?


I always assumed Eru was the hero. Tolkien, in letter 192, basically says that He took over once Frodo got to Mt. Doom:



> Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that
> was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others
> of his time, would have got so far. *The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by
> which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'**
> (as one critic has said). See Vol. I p. 65.2 A third (the only other) commentator on the point some
> months ago reviled Frodo as a scoundrel (who should have been hung and not honoured), and me
> too. It seems sad and strange that, in this evil time when daily people of good will are tortured,
> 'brainwashed', and broken, anyone could be so fiercely simpleminded and self righteous.
> 
> * Actually referred to as 'the One' in App. A III p. 317 1. 20. The Númenóreans (and Elves) were absolute
> monotheists.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

2DUECES said:


> Frodo couldn’t cast the ring into the fire and chose to keep it. Gollum turned out to be the reason it was destroyed so isn’t Gollum in a round about way the real hero of LOTR?


If you didn't see it, Yay certainly agrees. 😄

Post in thread 'who do you think is the true hero of lotr?' https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/who-do-you-think-is-the-true-hero-of-lotr.6710/post-170582

And welcome to the forum, 2DUECES! If you'd like to introduce yourself to the membership "formally", and say something about your particular interests, don't forget our New Members forum:









New Members


Meet and greet the newest TTF members. -- [ One thread per new member only! ] --




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Radaghast

Gothmog said:


> Let us take another look at how Tolkien himself looked at the hero.





> "That is a long and yet bald resume. Many characters important to the tale are not even mentioned. Even some whole inventions like the remarkable Ents, oldest of living rational creatures. Shepherds of the Trees, are omitted. Since we now try to deal with 'ordinary life', springing up ever unquenched under the trample of world policies and events, there are love-stories touched in, or love in different modes, wholly absent from The Hobbit. But the highest love-story, that of Aragorn and Arwen Elrond's daughter is only alluded to as a known thing. It is told elsewhere in a short tale. Of Aragorn and Arwen Undómiel. *I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating, working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty*. But I will say no more, nor defend the theme of mistaken love seen in Eowyn and her first love for Aragorn."





Gothmog said:


> From Tolkien Letter No. 131 Note the section in *Bold* and within that the part Underlined.
> 
> Take a bow Samwise Gamgee


Just quoting this because it's the first post (that I noticed) that quotes the pertinent words by the Professor himself.


----------



## ZehnWaters

All are heroic after a fashion. Tolkien doesn't have any issue with Frodo "failing" at the end as he had exhausted himself, body and soul, to perform his task. He and Sam would be my vote, though Aragorn is likewise a hero as he takes up a mantle that is very heavy.


----------



## 🍀Yavanna Kementári🍀

ZehnWaters said:


> Tolkien doesn't have any issue with Frodo "failing" at the end as he had exhausted himself, body and soul, to perform his task.


Near the end of the entire journey, it would have been almost surprising to see him not fail. Hobbits may be resistant, but they are not immune to the Power of the One Ring.


----------



## ZehnWaters

Vilisse said:


> Near the end of the entire journey, it would have been almost surprising to see him not fail. Hobbits may be resistant, but they are not immune to the Power of the One Ring.


As far as we can tell there is only one who IS immune: Tom Bombadil. The fact that Frodo held it as long as he did, all while a demigod (after a fashion) was exerting his total power is rather remarkable.


----------



## 🍀Yavanna Kementári🍀

ZehnWaters said:


> As far as we can tell there is only one who IS immune: Tom Bombadil. The fact that Frodo held it as long as he did, all while a demigod (after a fashion) was exerting his total power is rather remarkable.


Exactly. Frodo must have had the Grace of the Valar aiding him...


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Maybe. 
Or maybe not. Remember Gandalf's words to Frodo about Gollum:


> My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many----yours not least.


As in so many instances, Tolkien leaves it ambiguous.


----------



## Sean Koury

Its Frodo, obviously.


----------



## Deimos

According to Tolkien Sam is the _chief hero_. He says it quite plainly in Letter 131.
But in using the phrase "chief hero" he is also implying that other characters are heroic , too.
(Just not as heroic as Sam 😉)

Also, it's not just that Frodo failed. Boromir failed too.
If you read Tolkien's Letters, but also comprehend that he was a committed Christian (Catholic actually) he always believed that men (as in 'people' whether Elves or Drarves or Ents or Men , that is, any creature endowed with free will) who attempt to achieve virtue _solely_ by their own efforts are, finally, doomed to fail.


----------



## 1stvermont

Sam, Tolkien himself said so.


----------



## Radaghast

1stvermont said:


> Sam, Tolkien himself said so.


This is indeed the correct answer. Sam should have occupied a space on this poll.

Perhaps it's a topic for another thread but I would perhaps rank the Fellowship's importance in the following order:

Sam
Frodo
Gandalf
Aragorn
Merry
Pippin
Boromir
Gimli
Legolas


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

You left out Gollum. 😄


----------



## ZehnWaters

Deimos said:


> Also, it's not just that Frodo failed. Boromir failed too.


Frodo failed after a manner, but was ultimately successful in rendering the destruction possible as he brought the Ring to a place it COULD be destroyed. He doesn't criticize Frodo at all as it would have been impossible for ANYONE to resist it after everything he'd been through: exhausted, starved, demoralized, and facing the Ring at the height of its temptation.


Deimos said:


> According to Tolkien Sam is the _chief hero_.


Which I find interesting as he also blames Sam for Gollum's relapse, stating if Sam had had Frodo's level of understanding and pity that Gollum would have stayed true. I also found his revised conclusion interesting. Basically Gollum would have still taken the Ring from Frodo but, upon exiting Sammath Naur, would have realized there was no keeping the Ring from Sauron and, driven by his spite against Sauron and his loyalty to Frodo, would have willingly thrown himself into the fire.


----------



## Radaghast

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> You left out Gollum. 😄


Is he the "10th man"? 😆


----------



## ZehnWaters

Radaghast said:


> Is he the "10th man"? 😆


Moreso than any other character. He actively joins the crew with Frodo and Sam. Everyone else just intersects.


----------



## Radaghast

ZehnWaters said:


> Frodo failed after a manner, but was ultimately successful in rendering the destruction possible as he brought the Ring to a place it COULD be destroyed. He doesn't criticize Frodo at all as it would have been impossible for ANYONE to resist it after everything he'd been through: exhausted, starved, demoralized, and facing the Ring at the height of its temptation.
> 
> Which I find interesting as he also blames Sam for Gollum's relapse, stating if Sam had had Frodo's level of understanding and pity that Gollum would have stayed true. I also found his revised conclusion interesting. Basically Gollum would have still taken the Ring from Frodo but, upon exiting Sammath Naur, would have realized there was no keeping the Ring from Sauron and, driven by his spite against Sauron and his loyalty to Frodo, would have willingly thrown himself into the fire.


I think he blamed Gollum's disposition more than Sam's reflexive action, which he said was justified. He said Gollum's "dawning love" was "too easily withered." As if he wanted the slightest excuse to turn to the dark side.



ZehnWaters said:


> Moreso than any other character. He actively joins the crew with Frodo and Sam. Everyone else just intersects.


Well, Frodo commands him to, but I guess it amounts to the same thing.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Radaghast said:


> This is indeed the correct answer. Sam should have occupied a space on this poll.


Kinda late to be adding to a 20-year-old poll, but done. 🙂


----------



## Radaghast

Better late than never


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Eru would be a hero too then, no? I've always assumed the "Other Power" was him. From letter 192:



> Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever present Person who is never absent and never named'* (as one critic has said).


----------



## ZehnWaters

Radaghast said:


> I think he blamed Gollum's disposition more than Sam's reflexive action, which he said was justified. He said Gollum's "dawning love" was "too easily withered." As if he wanted the slightest excuse to turn to the dark side.


Yes. Everyone has agency. Gollum allowed himself to relapse, but it was in the face of Sam's returned, aggressive dislike. There's always complex interplay when it comes to people's actions. Yes, I don't think Tolkien really BLAMED Sam for his reaction, just pointed out that it lead to Gollum having an excuse to relapse and Gollum wouldn't have if Sam had been "nicer".


Radaghast said:


> Well, Frodo commands him to, but I guess it amounts to the same thing.


lol True. I didn't say WHY he actively joined, only that he did.


----------



## Radaghast

Eru is all-powerful; not sure f you can ascribe that quality to an omnipotent being. Also, he's never mentioned by name in the book.


----------



## ZehnWaters

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Eru would be a hero too then, no? I've always assumed the "Other Power" was him. From letter 192:


Yep.


----------



## Deimos

ZehnWaters said:


> Frodo failed after a manner, but was ultimately successful in rendering the destruction possible as he brought the Ring to a place it COULD be destroyed. He doesn't criticize Frodo at all as it would have been impossible for ANYONE to resist it after everything he'd been through: exhausted, starved, demoralized, and facing the Ring at the height of its temptation.
> 
> Which I find interesting as he also blames Sam for Gollum's relapse, stating if Sam had had Frodo's level of understanding and pity that Gollum would have stayed true. I also found his revised conclusion interesting. Basically Gollum would have still taken the Ring from Frodo but, upon exiting Sammath Naur, would have realized there was no keeping the Ring from Sauron and, driven by his spite against Sauron and his loyalty to Frodo, would have willingly thrown himself into the fire.


Ahhh, but "hero" or "heroic" in no way implies flawlessness or perfection. Sam had his faults, for sure. 
All men are doomed to fail if they rely solely on themselves because all men are flawed.
To fully understand this you must have more than a passing familiarity with the doctrine of Original Sin. 
Tolkien not only was familiar with it, he most deeply believed in it. And that knowledge thoroughly permeates every aspect of his Middle Earth Stories.


----------



## Shadow

It’s a cop out answer but all of them play their part, and all of them were needed. That’s why it’s such a good story. If I really had to choose I’d go with Sam, though.


----------



## Sons of the Woodland King

Radaghast said:


> This is indeed the correct answer. Sam should have occupied a space on this poll.
> 
> Perhaps it's a topic for another thread but I would perhaps rank the Fellowship's importance in the following order:
> 
> Sam
> Frodo
> Gandalf
> Aragorn
> Merry
> Pippin
> Boromir
> Gimli
> Legolas


Although I think I can glean your reasoning for it, I *gasp* at the travesty of Legolas being at the bottom of this list!  Come on man--at LEAST put him ahead of Gimli. Y'all can be haters, but no one's picking Pippin over Legolas to have their back in an orc fight! 🤪🤣

That being said, I too voted for Sam because I only wished I could have a friend that loyal and brave (not counting my husband).


----------



## Bellerophon

Frodo is the hero of the story. Sam is the faithful friend who’s good cheer in adversity restores his resolve when he most needs it. Gandalf is the wise councillor who tells him what he must do. In the end the power of the ring proves too much and Gollum fortuitously and unintentionally saves the day. But the mission is Frodo’s.

Strider is introduced as someone who ‘knows our business and can help us’ , again a support to the hero. When the Fellowship breaks Frodo proceeds with the mission while Aragorn inspires others to a series of diversionary manoeuvres.

By the end of the book both Aragorn and Gandalf have emerged as more impressive characters but that’s because of the way the story grew in the telling.


----------



## Radaghast

Sons of the Woodland King said:


> Although I think I can glean your reasoning for it, I *gasp* at the travesty of Legolas being at the bottom of this list!  Come on man--at LEAST put him ahead of Gimli. Y'all can be haters, but no one's picking Pippin over Legolas to have their back in an orc fight! 🤪🤣
> 
> That being said, I too voted for Sam because I only wished I could have a friend that loyal and brave (not counting my husband).


I believe Tolkien himself considered Legolas the least important member of the Fellowship, as suggested by _Unfinished Tales_, which says "Legolas probably achieved least of the Nine Walkers." 

I think Gimli is considered higher in importance for his aid to Gandalf in navigating the Mines of Moria. Pippin, of course, is instrumental in saving Faramir's life.


----------



## Ent

This is a very difficult question, because each of them is "heroic" in their own way... even Gollum.
For me the story at first revolved around the characters, but as I grew in it I realized there's more of the reality and interaction of character and personality types contained within than just the characters themselves.
(Someone remarked about a 'cop out' answer, so I guess this is mine.)

The difference in the triadic Sam-Gollum-Frodo interplay is one of the most classic representations of ongoing results bred from character expressed through personality by action existing in literature anywhere.

There are many others I could inject here, but it's redundant.

It's what makes Tolkien's work so plausible, and thus so well accepted by so many.

In all his work Tolkien consistently references the "burden" we carry in various ways. Such a study is quite instructive.

Of Frodo's burden, Elrond said:
‘But it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you. But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right; and though all the mighty Elf-friends of old, Hador, and Húrin, and Túrin, and Beren himself were assembled together, your seat should be among them.’

Yet each member of the party and each character in the Tale carried multiple burdens - both personal and corporate - they needed to deal with.

And who is the "hero"? Is it the one who is able to carry many burdens successfully? Or is it the one who is able to overcome just one overpowering burden to them, however small that burden may seem to others.

I am thankful I am not in need of making such determinations in this life, but only need to decide what to do with the time that is given me..!


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda

Well spoken, Enting.


----------

