Bofur and Pigs and Frodo and Sam, etc.

[kzer_za]

ETA: At this point, I should probably do my own thread on Frodo.

This topic should probably be split off - we've Osgiliated the original Osgiliation now!

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

ETA: At this point, I should probably do my own thread on Frodo. ;)

This topic should probably be split off - we've Osgiliated the original Osgiliation now! ;)

But I just brought pigs back into play.

[axordil]

Bilbo was always more a more active protagonist, though, in the traditional mode of the Guile Hero. Frodo...isn't. Building up a passive protagonist doesn't make them any less passive.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't see Frodo as passive. Hobbits are determined, and Frodo is determined to crawl up Mount Doom to the bitter end. Like all Tolkien's good guys and gals, he does the right thing because it's the right thing to do....

"In the last need, Sméagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command."

That is not a passive character speaking, IMO.

Actually, I would say that's a passive character having a snit.

Seriously though, the fact that Frodo is determined doesn't make him active. Action implies a degree of self-directed agency which Frodo largely abandons in the act of taking on the Quest; this is what which makes him uniquely qualified to take on the Ring. He lacks even the paltry acquisitiveness of a Sméagol, so all the Ring has to work with is its own hollow needfulness. It's like being addicted to methadone, you don't even get the high.

[Passdagas the Brown]

OK, why?

Why don't I mind, you mean? Cuz, well, sorry to say to to a fangurl but I never found Frodo all that interesting. I'm one of those that generally agree with the criticism that most of LOTR's characters are kinda flat and dull and I lump Frodo in with those characters.

Please don't kill me now.

I respect your opinion, but I have to wonder if the films have colored your perception of the books. IMO, book Frodo is far more complex than Sam as a character, and has a wonderfully dry wit. Yes he is often painted as a cipher for "humility" (i.e. a "sacrificial lamb'), but in the books he is also riven by significant, though subtle, internal conflict.

Again, I don't doubt the sincerity of your opinion. But given that the films have even permeated my thick head, sometimes obscuring events to the point that I need to go back to the books to lift the veil, I often wonder how pure our perceptions of the books are anymore.

There's only one thing for it. Read the books again!

ETA: Oh, and pigs.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

ETA: At this point, I should probably do my own thread on Frodo.

This topic should probably be split off - we've Osgiliated the original Osgiliation now!

I instead just changed the name of the thread.

[yovargas]

It's a fair question and as I've said before, it's been about 10 years since last I read them. But I'd read them ~5 times up to that point and the only chars. that I recall sticking with me much as chars. were Sam, Gollum, and Gandalf (and maybe Éowyn? It's been so long....) I can't recall actually being interested in much anyone else.

[Passdagas the Brown]

A story where the purpose of the main character is to suffer has limited mainstream appeal, so any adaptation designed for commercial success has a Hobson's Choice: change the character to be less passive or allow the other characters around him to horn in on the protagonist's job enough to make it work.

I don't agree, Ax. There is an obvious third choice - beef up your protagonist!! PJ did it with Bilbo.

Bilbo was always more a more active protagonist, though, in the traditional mode of the Guile Hero. Frodo...isn't. Building up a passive protagonist doesn't make them any less passive.

Frodo wasn't passive at all, really. He's almost super-active in the sense of how driven he is to fulfill the destruction of the Ring. He would have been far more passive had he remained with the Fellowship, and if Gandalf and Aragorn had stayed with him to push him along to Mt. Doom. As the story goes, he made a hard choice to depart on his own to Hell and push himself to Mt. Doom. Highly active, really.

The problem is that he is almost single-mindedly pursuing one clearly-defined goal, which for some makes him uni-dimensional (or a "cipher"). He's actively committed to a one-note suicide mission.

But that's very different from passive, IMO. Unless one believes that the hand of God is pulling him inexorably toward the end, and that he really has no choice in the matter...

ETA: Oink.

[Primula Baggins]

Free will!

Predestination!

Free will!

Predestination!

There, I just wrote the next four posts for everyone.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Free will!

ETA: One for four so far, Prim!

ETA2: Though as many are likely to argue, there's a combination of free will and fate at play...Bilbo and Frodo, exercising free will, showed Gollum mercy. And Gollum destroyed the Ring. But the grand sweep of it all (not the fine details) was written in the Music...

Basically, it's like the difference between (and reconcilation of) quantum mechanics and gravity. It's all crazy and detailed and unpredictable under the surface (where free will comes in), but when you zoom waaaay back, it's all rather smooth and simple like gravity (which is where fate comes in)...

In other words, Tolkien was a string theorist. There, I said it.

[axordil]

Frodo does a lot of things, and has a lot of determination, but that doesn't make him active, it makes him busy. An active character has to have agency and use it to effect.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Frodo does a lot of things, and has a lot of determination, but that doesn't make him active, it makes him busy. An active character has to have agency and use it to effect.

In what sense does Frodo not have agency? Does he not lead, with the assistance of Sam and Gollum of course, his own expedition into Mordor? Sure, Sam gets him out of a scrap with Shelob and the orcs, and Gollum gets him out of his "claim the ring" failure, but the rest of the trip is all Frodo. Indeed, it's Frodo's mixture of intelligence and empathy that secures the assistance of Gollum, which ultimately gets them into Mordor, to Mt. Doom, and to the edge of the fire.

Merry, Pippin, Legolas and Gimli are "busy" in the sense you imply. They walk around following the orders, direction and agency of Aragorn, Gandalf, Éowyn, Théoden and Denethor. Frodo is fulfilling a quest that was sanctioned by the Council of Elrond, but after the fellowship breaks, he gets himself to Mordor because of his own wits and direction. He directs Sam, and he directs Gollum, with only a few exceptions. The film diminished this agency, but it's still there.

[Frelga]

Ax, following that logic, one could say that Sam abandons agency because his only purpose is to help and protect Frodo. Gandalf does not have agency because he is on a Mission from Glod. No other members of Fellowship have agency because, as PtB said, they just follow Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn.

Éowyn may have some agency under your definition, but that's about it.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Right. Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn are the main agents driving the story forward. The rest are mainly hanging on their coattails!

ETA: Though Boromir, in his defiance of the fellowship's mission, Denethor, in defiance of Gandalf's pressure, and Saruman, in trying to carve out his own power-base, have quite a bit of agency. They're just not effective, and they run counter to the thrust of the protagonists. Éowyn also has a lot of agency...as does Faramir, to a certain degree. And of course, Sauron has a lot of agency, and makes a big impression...

ETA2: And to clarify, I am not a "Frodo" fan in the sense that my fondness for him overwhelms my critical faculties. From a purely technical narrative standpoint, he has a lot of agency. I think it's very hard to argue with that...

[narya]

In other words, Tolkien was a string theorist. There, I said it.

Of course - the world is created out of music.

I'd say Pippin and Merry each showed agency and free will when they made the choice to offer themselves into service. But the rest of the time, they did often end up as baggage. Frodo made an act of will to take the Ring to Mordor, and Sam chose to be his batman, because they could see it was the Right Thing To Do, but then they both served, in their own way, under that choice.

Aren't we all like that? Most of us are lucky enough to choose a school or job or nation but then we deliberately make ourselves subservient in order to be a functional part of a whole.

Can we just change this to "The Thread of Boffo Characters ... and Some Pig!"

[Passdagas the Brown]

Something tells me Tolkien might have been intrigued by string theory, had he been alive to watch its development...

Re: your question. I wouldn't say "all of us" are like that. Some of us are agents of change that shape our environments and societies on different scales...Others generally conform (by choice or otherwise). Our species contains multitudes.

But I agree. Sam chose to be Frodo's batman, and made some strong choices in that role. But without Frodo's determination, wisdom and pragmatism, they would have all ended up either dead in the Emyn Muil, or captured at the Black Gate. He drives that whole plot forward.

[Frelga]

Boromir doesn't have agency, per Ax, because he is driven by the need to protect Gondor. Denethor, ditto, and preserve his Stewardship. Faramir, arguably, no, because his high moral character doesn't leave him much leaway. Éomer, yes, because the Rohirrim are just cool like that.

So... predestination. 2 of 4, Prim.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Right. Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn are the main agents driving the story forward. The rest are mainly hanging on their coattails!

ETA: Though Boromir, in his defiance of the fellowship's mission, Denethor, in defiance of Gandalf's pressure, and Saruman, in trying to carve out his own power-base, have quite a bit of agency. They're just not effective, and they run counter to the thrust of the protagonists. Éowyn also has a lot of agency...as does Faramir, to a certain degree. And of course, Sauron has a lot of agency, and makes a big impression...

ETA2: And to clarify, I am not a "Frodo" fan in the sense that my fondness for him overwhelms my critical faculties. From a purely technical narrative standpoint, he has a lot of agency. I think it's very hard to argue with that...

I have long held that Míriel is the most important character, even though she doesn't actually appear in the book.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Boromir doesn't have agency, per Ax, because he is driven by the need to protect Gondor. Denethor, ditto, and preserve his Stewardship. Faramir, arguably, no, because his high moral character doesn't leave him much leaway. Éomer, yes, because the Rohirrim are just cool like that.

So... predestination. 2 of 4, Prim.

Then that's an odd definition of agency! As I understand it, "agency" simply means that a character makes meaningful decisions, and does significant things that affect outcomes. The degree to which those decisions are made by a character, and outcomes are affected by that character, gives you a sense of how much agency that character has in a story. Agency has little to do with what drives a character - loyalty, greed, power, duty or whatnot (which is moral agency, a different concept) - and everything to do with what that character actually does.

For example, Bilbo doesn't have any agency in getting the dwarves out of the troll jam. Gandalf, in that case, hogs all of it.

ETA: And in the context of getting themselves to Mount Doom, Frodo has heaps of agency. He does nearly all of the deciding, figuring out, compelling, leading, cajoling, persuading and threatening to get to Mount Doom. Meaningful decisions and effective actions...

[Frelga]

Well, yes, I agree. That's my point - just because a character is given an imperative does not mean that he is stripped of agency, as Ax seems to suggest, as long as that character acts on that imperative.

I was going to write more, but autocorrect keeps changing Frodo to Crocodile, and I just can't cope.

[Primula Baggins]

I didn't mean to trivialize the point here, really. I've discussed this before (I'm a Free Willer, TBH), and would be happy to discuss it again. New people in any discussion means a different discussion, and this is not a point on which I feel any conclusion is necessarily final or correct, or any disagreement lacking in potential illumination.

Though, Free Will. I mean. What kind of god would want programmed obedience when—

Okay, I'll shut up. For now.