The argument makes no sense to me. Gollum did try to kill them. More than once, really. If he had succeeded at any point, would Frodo's mercy really look that wise? Given that neither of them are psychics, given the option of "he might kill us or he might be a useful guide, what do you think?", that Sam thought the former and Frodo the latter doesn't strike me as anything but different but equally valid ways of looking at the world. Sam's pragmatism and Frodo's idealism were both necessary for completion of the quest and in this instead, I cannot see either choice as being wisdom or foolishness. You can only say which is which with the benefits of 20/20 hindsight.
What's more, if Sam was actually smug or even confident in his rightness - aka "I am certain he will try to kill us" - then he would have killed Gollum not in spite of loyalty to Frodo but because of it. Instead, we see the utter opposite of "smugness" - he defers to Frodo in an enormous act of humility, literally putting his life at stake because he trusts that Frodo (and Gandalf's) wisdom is far greater than his own. We call this cocksure?? We call this smug??
Could Sam have done it?
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Deferring to one's "betters" is part of the package. It's not an enormous act of humility, it's expected.
I think part of the issue here is that the meaning of the word "smug" for Americans in 2008 is colored in way it wasn't for JRRT in England in the 1940s. We think of Babbit and his descendants, while Tolkien I'm sure had in mind (and as much as says so somewhere) a whole class of English rural folks he had known at Sarehole and then in the trenches.
Yes, of course, Sam's practical nature is important to the success of the quest. But I do think it interesting that until he's faced with making Frodo-less decisions, his input is often problematic or counterproductive. AFTER he has to choose without guidance, he rapidly begins to assume a larger and larger share of the moral burden, just as Frodo's condition begins to go downhill, until by the time they get to the foothills of Mt. Doom, SAM is the one to let Gollum go...out of pity.
I think part of the issue here is that the meaning of the word "smug" for Americans in 2008 is colored in way it wasn't for JRRT in England in the 1940s. We think of Babbit and his descendants, while Tolkien I'm sure had in mind (and as much as says so somewhere) a whole class of English rural folks he had known at Sarehole and then in the trenches.
Yes, of course, Sam's practical nature is important to the success of the quest. But I do think it interesting that until he's faced with making Frodo-less decisions, his input is often problematic or counterproductive. AFTER he has to choose without guidance, he rapidly begins to assume a larger and larger share of the moral burden, just as Frodo's condition begins to go downhill, until by the time they get to the foothills of Mt. Doom, SAM is the one to let Gollum go...out of pity.
Would Sam really have killed Gollum, after they captured him in the Emyn Muil? What would Sam have done if Frodo had given him Sting and told him to do what he thought best?
Sam never actually came out and said Gollum needed to be killed. He did suggest tying him up, which obviously would have been a passive way of killing him. And Sam would gladly stand by while someone else shot Gollum dead, and he was very tempted to encourage it. But that's not the same thing as him doing it himself. I don't think Sam would kill Gollum unless in self-defense. This is admirable, I think, but it also highlights a moral failing --- he knows it is wrong, to the point where he wouldn't do it himself, but he would allow it to happen, even encourage it from the sideline. Sam would never be any kind of advocate for Gollum. Now, this is a very harsh judgement to make on poor Sam. I don't suppose most people would do any better. However, bearing the ring successfully is an even harsher test of character.
Frodo is an advocate for Gollum, even though he doesn't deserve it. Sam accepts Frodo's judgement, but he does not strive to understand it. There is a difference between obeying your master and learning from your master. Sam's attitude toward Gollum is proof of his provincialism and pride. He does not look beyond what he already knows to be true. Sam knows what Gollum means to do: he is as sure of himself here as he is that he will follow what Frodo says. Sam is more than just suspicious of Gollum; he is hostile, sometimes openly so, ruining any chance Gollum has of recovery. That is where Sam's smugness is on display, alas.
That is not meant as a condemnation of Sam. Of course not! He is still better than most people you will ever meet in the world. But he could not have borne the ring the way Frodo did.
Sam never actually came out and said Gollum needed to be killed. He did suggest tying him up, which obviously would have been a passive way of killing him. And Sam would gladly stand by while someone else shot Gollum dead, and he was very tempted to encourage it. But that's not the same thing as him doing it himself. I don't think Sam would kill Gollum unless in self-defense. This is admirable, I think, but it also highlights a moral failing --- he knows it is wrong, to the point where he wouldn't do it himself, but he would allow it to happen, even encourage it from the sideline. Sam would never be any kind of advocate for Gollum. Now, this is a very harsh judgement to make on poor Sam. I don't suppose most people would do any better. However, bearing the ring successfully is an even harsher test of character.
Frodo is an advocate for Gollum, even though he doesn't deserve it. Sam accepts Frodo's judgement, but he does not strive to understand it. There is a difference between obeying your master and learning from your master. Sam's attitude toward Gollum is proof of his provincialism and pride. He does not look beyond what he already knows to be true. Sam knows what Gollum means to do: he is as sure of himself here as he is that he will follow what Frodo says. Sam is more than just suspicious of Gollum; he is hostile, sometimes openly so, ruining any chance Gollum has of recovery. That is where Sam's smugness is on display, alas.
That is not meant as a condemnation of Sam. Of course not! He is still better than most people you will ever meet in the world. But he could not have borne the ring the way Frodo did.
Sam's hostility is what made it certain Gollum's recovery would end. It's what drove Gollum to decide on luring the Hobbits into Shelob's lair. Gollum didn't try to kill Frodo, after all. He tried to kill Sam. Gollum hated Sam, loathed him. Where did this hatred come from? It came from Sam's own hatred of Gollum.
Sméagol didn't hate Sam before the events at the Emyn Muil. Now, he might have killed Sam if it would help him get back the ring before then. Of course he might have. Sméagol was wicked. But he didn't start actively wanting to kill Sam until Sam turned his own hostility on him. Sam was hostile to Gollum before Gollum wanted to kill Sam, so it cannot be an excuse for Sam!
It is understandable that Sam hated Sméagol. But it was never right, and it never made anyone safer or enhanced the chances of the quest succeeding. On the contrary, it made things worse, more dangerous. Sam acted as if betrayal was all Sméagol was capable of, and in the end that was what he got. Of course Sam should have been vigilant. Yet hatred and hostility does not equal vigilance.
Frodo didn't hate Sméagol, though he surely had more cause than Sam, since Frodo was the one truly in danger, keeping the ring from Sméagol. This is another indication that Frodo could bear the ring to the end while Sam could not. Sam hated Sméagol because he loved Frodo. This was the dark side of his love for Frodo. Love does not excuse hatred.
Sam was satisfied with his own internal answers for a long time, his own fixed perspective. That is the smugness. The smugness disappeared later when he spared Gollum's life, when he used his imagination and his empathy.
Sméagol didn't hate Sam before the events at the Emyn Muil. Now, he might have killed Sam if it would help him get back the ring before then. Of course he might have. Sméagol was wicked. But he didn't start actively wanting to kill Sam until Sam turned his own hostility on him. Sam was hostile to Gollum before Gollum wanted to kill Sam, so it cannot be an excuse for Sam!
It is understandable that Sam hated Sméagol. But it was never right, and it never made anyone safer or enhanced the chances of the quest succeeding. On the contrary, it made things worse, more dangerous. Sam acted as if betrayal was all Sméagol was capable of, and in the end that was what he got. Of course Sam should have been vigilant. Yet hatred and hostility does not equal vigilance.
Frodo didn't hate Sméagol, though he surely had more cause than Sam, since Frodo was the one truly in danger, keeping the ring from Sméagol. This is another indication that Frodo could bear the ring to the end while Sam could not. Sam hated Sméagol because he loved Frodo. This was the dark side of his love for Frodo. Love does not excuse hatred.
Sam was satisfied with his own internal answers for a long time, his own fixed perspective. That is the smugness. The smugness disappeared later when he spared Gollum's life, when he used his imagination and his empathy.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46137
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
-
Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
Wait, wait, wait!!! 
Frodo: "What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!"
When did he change his mind? After getting a stern talking-to from Gandalf, and after the long, agonising experience of carrying the burden of the Ring and thereby gaining insight into Gollum's own tortuous life-time of enslavement.
Only after Frodo had walked a mile in Gollum's shoes was he able to say: "And yet, as you see, I will not touch the creature. For now that I see him, I do pity him."
And what of Sam? Out of fear for Frodo, and disgust for Gollum - the same disgust and fear with which Frodo began at the outset! - he wishes him gone, dead.
Sam did not have the benefit of Gandalf’s tutoring, please remember. Yet, at the end, on the very shoulder of Mount Doom, after Sam himself has carried the Ring so briefly, walked in Gollum's shoes for only a few steps, what is Sam's response? Let's read the whole passage, shall we?
I suggest that Tolkien's description of Sam is rather harsher than Sam as he appears on the page because of Tolkien's inner, private opinions on the nature of status and class. As a man, Tolkien was steeped in class consciousness and while he was both compassionate and aware of the importance of character and intelligence in the making of a man no matter what his class, he never entirely overcame his own class consciousness.
Sam is of the servant class; in Tolkien's mind that necessarily equated with a certain vulgarity, a smugness associated with parochialism- yet his sympathy with the character he created overcame these constraints. Tolkien may have begun with a vulgar servant in mind, but Sam evolved in accordance with the storyteller's affections. No, Sam did not become Frodo - and thank goodness for that, or two lifeless hobbit bodies would never have been recovered from the wilderness!
My little rant, btw, has nothing to do with the larger question of the thread - whether Sam could have done it. I believe he could not have done it. I believe no one could have done it, other than Gollum.
But Sam was not so smug, so narrow, so conceited, so small as some of the posts above appeared to imply to my mind. I had to stand up for him.
EDIT: we saw typos, yess, we did, preciousss...
Frodo: "What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!"
When did he change his mind? After getting a stern talking-to from Gandalf, and after the long, agonising experience of carrying the burden of the Ring and thereby gaining insight into Gollum's own tortuous life-time of enslavement.
Only after Frodo had walked a mile in Gollum's shoes was he able to say: "And yet, as you see, I will not touch the creature. For now that I see him, I do pity him."
And what of Sam? Out of fear for Frodo, and disgust for Gollum - the same disgust and fear with which Frodo began at the outset! - he wishes him gone, dead.
Sam did not have the benefit of Gandalf’s tutoring, please remember. Yet, at the end, on the very shoulder of Mount Doom, after Sam himself has carried the Ring so briefly, walked in Gollum's shoes for only a few steps, what is Sam's response? Let's read the whole passage, shall we?
Frodo's pity for Gollum was born of experience; Sam's pity was born of the SAME experience!‘Don’t kill us,’ he wept. ‘Don’t hurt us with nassty cruel steel! Let us live, yes, live just a little longer. Lost, lost! We’re lost. And when Precious goes we’ll die, yes, die into the dust.’ He clawed up the ashes of the path with his long fleshless fingers. ‘Dusst!’ he hissed.
Sam’s hand wavered. His mind was hot with wrath and the memory of evil. It would be just to slay this treacherous, murderous creature, just and many times deserved; and also it seemed the only safe thing to do. But deep in his heart there was something that restrained him: he could not strike this thing lying in the dust, forlorn, ruinous, utterly wretched. He himself, though only for a little while, had borne the Ring, and now dimly he guessed the agony of Gollum’s shrivelled mind and body, enslaved to that Ring, unable to find peace or relief ever in life again. But Sam had no words to express what he felt.
‘Oh, curse you, you stinking thing!’ he said. ‘Go away! Be off! I don’t trust you, not as far as I could kick you; but be off. Or I shall hurt you, yes, with nasty cruel steel.’
I suggest that Tolkien's description of Sam is rather harsher than Sam as he appears on the page because of Tolkien's inner, private opinions on the nature of status and class. As a man, Tolkien was steeped in class consciousness and while he was both compassionate and aware of the importance of character and intelligence in the making of a man no matter what his class, he never entirely overcame his own class consciousness.
Sam is of the servant class; in Tolkien's mind that necessarily equated with a certain vulgarity, a smugness associated with parochialism- yet his sympathy with the character he created overcame these constraints. Tolkien may have begun with a vulgar servant in mind, but Sam evolved in accordance with the storyteller's affections. No, Sam did not become Frodo - and thank goodness for that, or two lifeless hobbit bodies would never have been recovered from the wilderness!
My little rant, btw, has nothing to do with the larger question of the thread - whether Sam could have done it. I believe he could not have done it. I believe no one could have done it, other than Gollum.
But Sam was not so smug, so narrow, so conceited, so small as some of the posts above appeared to imply to my mind. I had to stand up for him.
EDIT: we saw typos, yess, we did, preciousss...
Last edited by Impenitent on Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mornings wouldn't suck so badly if they came later in the day.
-
Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
Let's compare apples with apples, shall we.
At Emyn Muil Sam had not yet carried the Ring. He's in the same place, in terms of his development, as Frodo when he thought it a pity Bilbo had not killed him when he had the chance.
Only when burned themselves did they gain insight into the torture Gollum had suffered.
At Emyn Muil Sam had not yet carried the Ring. He's in the same place, in terms of his development, as Frodo when he thought it a pity Bilbo had not killed him when he had the chance.
Only when burned themselves did they gain insight into the torture Gollum had suffered.
Mornings wouldn't suck so badly if they came later in the day.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46137
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Impy speaks for me, too! (Yes, I know that is somewhat contradictory, but that never bothered me.)
Tolkien also calls Sam a "Jewel among Hobbits" and in several places (including a letter to one "Sam Gamgee") he refers to Sam's "heroic character" and even in one place refers to him as the "chief hero". So Tolkien isn't totally down on poor Samwise, just realistic about his limitations.[/quote]
Tolkien also calls Sam a "Jewel among Hobbits" and in several places (including a letter to one "Sam Gamgee") he refers to Sam's "heroic character" and even in one place refers to him as the "chief hero". So Tolkien isn't totally down on poor Samwise, just realistic about his limitations.[/quote]
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Do I contradict myself? Then I contradict myself.
I am Voronwë the Faithful, and I contain multitudes.
Or something. I forget.
Impy, thanks for that.
I am Voronwë the Faithful, and I contain multitudes.
Or something. I forget.
Impy, thanks for that.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46137
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
All old friends to me.
But I've always most liked posting with Voronwë.
As for Sam and his transformation over the course of the book—it's complicated, and I don't think of it the same way every time I read the book. Perhaps because I'm not the same person every time I read it, either.
But I've always most liked posting with Voronwë.
As for Sam and his transformation over the course of the book—it's complicated, and I don't think of it the same way every time I read the book. Perhaps because I'm not the same person every time I read it, either.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
I agree with Impish.
And yes, as Impish said when Sam truly saw Gollum he did pity him. He just wasn't as eloquent, as self-aware about it as Frodo.
As for the other question, I think the hatred came in large part from Gollum's twisted love for Frodo, which he experienced as jealousy of Sam. There are a few humorous exchanges between the two where they bicker as if competing for a master's favor.[/quote]
P.S.: Chief Jolly! That's it! For some reason, I thought it was Compa_Mighty, and I suspected him/her of being you for a while. I guess he/she/it is not you, is it?
And also, let's recall, after he saw Bilbo grub for the Ring in Rivendell, and after he saw Boromir, a noble man, fall to the Ring. I posted elsewhere how significant I thought that Frodo's words after his near-attack on Sam in the Tower of Cirith Ungol were the same as Boromir's. "What have I said! What have I done!"Impenitent wrote:Wait, wait, wait!!!
Frodo: "What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!"
When did he change his mind? After getting a stern talking-to from Gandalf, and after the long, agonising experience of carrying the burden of the Ring and thereby gaining insight into Gollum's own tortuous life-time of enslavement.
And yes, as Impish said when Sam truly saw Gollum he did pity him. He just wasn't as eloquent, as self-aware about it as Frodo.
That is very significant, IMO.But Sam had no words to express what he felt.
If you are talking about the Stairs (which, I suspect, is not the only scene you have in mind), that took place after Gollum have already betrayed the hobbits to Shelob.Faramond wrote:Sam's hostility is what made it certain Gollum's recovery would end. It's what drove Gollum to decide on luring the Hobbits into Shelob's lair. Gollum didn't try to kill Frodo, after all. He tried to kill Sam. Gollum hated Sam, loathed him. Where did this hatred come from? It came from Sam's own hatred of Gollum.
As for the other question, I think the hatred came in large part from Gollum's twisted love for Frodo, which he experienced as jealousy of Sam. There are a few humorous exchanges between the two where they bicker as if competing for a master's favor.[/quote]
P.S.: Chief Jolly! That's it! For some reason, I thought it was Compa_Mighty, and I suspected him/her of being you for a while. I guess he/she/it is not you, is it?
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
-
superwizard
- Ingólemo
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:21 am
Wow I'm delighted in the way this thread has evolved Its always so refreshing to see so many insightful opinions and such an interesting topic too!
Honestly before I voice my own opinion I need to reread the Lord of the Rings again (which I sadly have not done in 2 years now) for I vaguely remember being more annoyed at Sam back then. Naturally as time passes only the good memories of the character remain (Sam at Mount Doom, Sam rescuing Frodo...) while the not so pleasant (Sam's disdain for Gollum, his harsh words to Aragorn when they first met) have sort of faded away...
Its always so refreshing to see so many insightful opinions and such an interesting topic too! Honestly before I voice my own opinion I need to reread the Lord of the Rings again (which I sadly have not done in 2 years now) for I vaguely remember being more annoyed at Sam back then. Naturally as time passes only the good memories of the character remain (Sam at Mount Doom, Sam rescuing Frodo...) while the not so pleasant (Sam's disdain for Gollum, his harsh words to Aragorn when they first met) have sort of faded away...
First of all, I agree with those who say that on the page, Sam isn't the person described in the letters. Secondly, I disagree with the idea that Sam's willingness to be rid of Gollum is smugness. Sam isn't the most imaginative individual, so wanting Gollum dead could be just as much a simple solution for a simple mind instead of some unrecognized arrogance.
Consider this: how many of you truly would be completely free of such "smug" feelings if one of your children, siblings, parents or best friends began a constant and personal relationship with an acknowledged murderer who has a long track record of very anti-social behavior and betrayal. I have looked into the eyes of killers and sociopaths, and while I will never commit murder, there isn't an ounce of trust to be offered them, no matter how much of a facade of change they display.
There was no rehabilitation for Gollum. Sméagol was an open display of a survival mechanism. Gollum adapted to the situation until an opportunity arose to his advantage and he could drop the facade. Sam didn't know what it felt like to bear the ring until later, but he instinctively knew Sméagol was a lie, and his harsh behavior was an unimaginative, simple and protective reaction to that instinctive knowledge.
Consider this: how many of you truly would be completely free of such "smug" feelings if one of your children, siblings, parents or best friends began a constant and personal relationship with an acknowledged murderer who has a long track record of very anti-social behavior and betrayal. I have looked into the eyes of killers and sociopaths, and while I will never commit murder, there isn't an ounce of trust to be offered them, no matter how much of a facade of change they display.
There was no rehabilitation for Gollum. Sméagol was an open display of a survival mechanism. Gollum adapted to the situation until an opportunity arose to his advantage and he could drop the facade. Sam didn't know what it felt like to bear the ring until later, but he instinctively knew Sméagol was a lie, and his harsh behavior was an unimaginative, simple and protective reaction to that instinctive knowledge.
"Ut Prosim"
"There are some things that it is better to begin than refuse, even though the end may be dark" Aragorn
"Those who commit honorable acts need no forgiveness"
http://killology.com/sheep_dog.htm
"There are some things that it is better to begin than refuse, even though the end may be dark" Aragorn
"Those who commit honorable acts need no forgiveness"
http://killology.com/sheep_dog.htm
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46137
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
No? No chance of rehabilitation? Not even on the stairs of Cirith Ungol?Folca wrote:There was no rehabilitation for Gollum.
[ot]Frelga, Compa_Mighty? Really? He's a perfectly nice person, but he's nothing like me.[/ot]
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
-
narya
- chocolate bearer
- Posts: 4904
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:27 am
- Location: Wishing I could be beachcombing, or hiking, or dragon boating
- Contact:
I don't think Sam could have done it for two reasons:Sam’s hand wavered. His mind was hot with wrath and the memory of evil. It would be just to slay this treacherous, murderous creature, just and many times deserved; and also it seemed the only safe thing to do. But deep in his heart there was something that restrained him: he could not strike this thing lying in the dust, forlorn, ruinous, utterly wretched. He himself, though only for a little while, had borne the Ring, and now dimly he guessed the agony of Gollum’s shrivelled mind and body, enslaved to that Ring, unable to find peace or relief ever in life again. But Sam had no words to express what he felt.
1. Tolkien didn't think he could do it. Sam was a stereotypical lower class person, lacking the noblesse oblige of the (more capable) ruling class. Ruling class people were capable because they were in the ruling class because they were capable. A circularity that Tolkien believed at a gut level. The same way he believed that a scruffy woodsman should be king because he had kingly ancestors. IMHO.
2. I wouldn't say Sam was smug. I would say he was sure of himself in certain ways. Sam was something of a fundamentalist. He took comfort in "knowing" what to do in black and white situations and not having to fret over them. But Gollum was definitely a gray area that he lacked the preparation and self-knowledge to deal with.
But I also agree with Impy and Yov. And I feel very outclassed in this thread.
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer. ~ Albert Camus
-
solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
That's rather a caricature.1. Tolkien didn't think he could do it. Sam was a stereotypical lower class person, lacking the noblesse oblige of the (more capable) ruling class. Ruling class people were capable because they were in the ruling class because they were capable. A circularity that Tolkien believed at a gut level. The same way he believed that a scruffy woodsman should be king because he had kingly ancestors. IMHO.
Tolkien didn't think Sam could have done it because NOBODY could have done it. Not even Frodo, of course. Aragorn would never have made it so far without succumbing to temptation, as did Isildur. After all, look at the 'aristocrats' who fell into evil: Boromir, Denethor, Ar-Pharazôn, the Witch-King. Not to mention Saruman! And Fëanor and his sons, and Thingol, and Húrin in Brethil.....
Throughout Tolkien, the worst evils are committed by the high-born.