Strider vs Samwise... FIGHT!

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I would argue that more than perspective alone should account for the main character.

I don't actually understand what you mean by this, which I am pretty confident is a failing on my part rather than yours. Perhaps if you expanded on this, as I see it, cryptic pronouncement, I can make adequate response?

[Holbytla]

The story is told from a/the hobbits perspective in many places. That is how Tolkien chose to tell the story. That doesn't automatically qualify them as protagonists or main characters. The story was told from Pip's perspective a few times, but I don't hear anyone arguing that he was the protagonist.

So what then? Are the deeds of the character what constitute main character or protagonist?

This story in particular is written in such a way that protagonist is anything but cut and dried. The deeds that each character performed are such that no one character can be attributed status above all others. Frodo failed at the end. Without Gollum's interference, Sauron would have won.
Surely that doesn't negate his achievements and surely a good case can be made for him being the protagonist, but it isn't that simple and an argument can be made for other characters.

What are the necessary ingredients to be proclaimed protagonist?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Yes, I see your point. My response is that Sam never fails. He is the protagonist.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sam never fails? Wow, that's quite a statement. I can think of many times when Sam fails. He repeatedly fails in his dealings with Gollum, culminating in his ruining of Gollum's potential redemption on the steps of Cirith Ungol. Sam is, to quote Tolkien, "cocksure, and deep down a little conceited." His attitude is marred by his "pride and possessiveness" towards Frodo, which "prevented him from fully understanding the master that he loved, and from following him in his gradual education to the nobility of service to the unlovable and of perception of damaged good in the corrupt." I completely agree with Tolkien that " If he had understood better what was going on between Frodo and Gollum, things might have turned out differently in the end." Sam's failure is far more of a moral failure than Frodo's. If that is your standard, than there is certainly no question that Frodo is the real hero, not Sam.

[Holbytla]

Yeah Ghân of all the arguments you can make for Sam, that is the least in your favor. He resisted the temptation of the ring and remained a faithful servant/friend/member of the Fellowship, but he certainly failed. Certainly at the end Gollum got the best of him and he was relegated to stand by and watch while Frodo got his finger bitten off by Gollum.

He is a whiz with a brace of conies though.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Sam never fails? Wow, that's quite a statement. I can think of many times when Sam fails. He repeatedly fails in his dealings with Gollum, culminating in his ruining of Gollum's potential redemption on the steps of Cirith Ungol. Sam is, to quote Tolkien, "cocksure, and deep down a little conceited." His attitude is marred by his "pride and possessiveness" towards Frodo, which "prevented him from fully understanding the master that he loved, and from following him in his gradual education to the nobility of service to the unlovable and of perception of damaged good in the corrupt." I completely agree with Tolkien that " If he had understood better what was going on between Frodo and Gollum, things might have turned out differently in the end." Sam's failure is far more of a moral failure than Frodo's. If that is your standard, than there is certainly no question that Frodo is the real hero, not Sam.

I think that Sam's understanding of Gollum may be deeper than Tolkien's ( ). From the very start of Gollum's "redemption", Gollum was looking for the way out; how to nullify his pledge to Frodo. How to "protect the precious". Sam recognised, in his simple fashion, that deep down Sméagol was lost, and could only be trusted as far as a length of rope. Frodo naively believed that Gollum, corrupted by the ring, was redeemable, as if the ring's influence was but a plaything, mitigated by a little bit of kindness. If that is the case, then I feel Tolkien has built in such inconsistencies that his whole enterprise quivers. I wonder when Tolkien, who made many conflicting statements, proffered this assassination ( ) of Sam?
But that is a by-the-by. Within the novel, there is a consistency from Sam that maintains the quest. Frodo would have failed without him. Frodo did fail even with him, choosing not to throw the ring into the Cracks of Doom. Sam would have, I warrant, because, for all Tolkien's protestations (and I am not saying that a protagonist needs perfection), Sam is consistent in his choices. The choices of Master Samwise are the choices that fullfil the narrative. He is the hero.

Edit

I suppose, on reflection, my statement regarding Sam never failing is better expressed by the fact that Sam remains true to himself. Irrespective of circumstance, that nature of Sam that grows in Frodo's awareness is always there. If Frodo is the Christ figure (but Tolkien would never be so blasphemous, hence Frodo's fallibility), Sam is Cephas, the rock. And because Tolkien would have balked at a real Christ figure, the next in line became (perhaps) the focus for his deeply religious presentation. Sam/Peter was that entity.

[Holbytla]

My question of what constitutes a protagonist (especially with regards to this story and its fragmented viewpoints) remains unanswered.

Sam did grow from a simple minded farmer to a stouthearted and defiant do-gooder, but to elevate him to the status of protagonist, even in this fragmented story is thin. Again, what constitutes a protagonist?

Safeguarding the ring because you thought Frodo was dead and then subsequently carrying the aforementioned and ring inflicted "master" up the slopes of Mt Doom to stand by and watch him be overcome by the one nemesis that you should have been wary of since day one? Or because he made choices and had perspective for a chapter or so?

Within the contents of the trilogy lies far mor evidence supporting Aragorn as protagonist than it does Sam. A case could may be made for Frodo in lieu of Sam, but not Sam in lieu of either Aragorn or Frodo. Not unless you want to redefine protagonist.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

My question of what constitutes a protagonist (especially with regards to this story and its fragmented viewpoints) remains unanswered.

Sam did grow from a simple minded farmer to a stouthearted and defiant do-gooder, but to elevate him to the status of protagonist, even in this fragmented story is thin. Again, what constitutes a protagonist?

Safeguarding the ring because you thought Frodo was dead and then subsequently carrying the aforementioned and ring inflicted "master" up the slopes of Mt Doom to stand by and watch him be overcome by the one nemesis that you should have been wary of since day one? Or because he made choices and had perspective for a chapter or so?

Within the contents of the trilogy lies far mor evidence supporting Aragorn as protagonist than it does Sam. A case could may be made for Frodo in lieu of Sam, but not Sam in lieu of either Aragorn or Frodo. Not unless you want to redefine protagonist.

I believe you underplay Sam, and overplay both Aragorn and Frodo, and furthermore, your request to "redefine" protagonist appears almost needy. I think you mistake "simple" for simplistic. Sam was uneducated; there is a tendency to confuse that with stupid. Gandalf recognised otherwise, as did Frodo. Galadriel also, perhaps. To reach Mount Doom,, Frodo had given up. Sam hadn't. He took the burden, of both the ring and his "master". He mastered both. Yes, Gollum, managed to overcome him, but Frodo overcame himself. Aragorn? He was engaged in nothing but a diversion, to keep the attention of the Dark Lord away from the real struggle. How a diversion can be held up as the fulcrum is beyond my understanding.
And after the ring had been destroyed? Sam still existed, carrying Frodo away to be rescued by the eagles. Gollum extinguished. Frodo defeated. Sam... continuing. Oh yes, he was the hero. Unbowed in the face of apparently unsurmountable odds. Right up to the end, Sam, the coda.
"Well, I'm back."
Aragorn? Merely an appendix.

[narya]

I agree.

Frodo naively believed that Gollum, corrupted by the ring, was redeemable, as if the ring's influence was but a plaything, mitigated by a little bit of kindness.

Frodo wanted to believe that Gollum could survive the Ring, because that would mean that Frodo could survive the Ring.

Soooo.... I went to the source of all wisdom:

Protagonist
A protagonist (from the Greek πρωταγωνιστής protagonistes, "one who plays the first part, chief actor"[1]) is the main character (the central or primary personal figure) of a literary, theatrical, cinematic, or musical narrative, around whom the events of the narrative's plot revolve and with whom the audience is intended to share the most empathy. In the theatre of Ancient Greece, three actors played all of the main dramatic roles in a tragedy; the leading role was played by the protagonist, while the other roles were played by deuteragonist and the tritagonist.

The terms protagonist, main character and hero are variously defined and, depending on the source, may denote different concepts. In fiction, the story of the protagonist may be told from the perspective of a different character (who may also, but not necessarily, be the narrator). An example would be a narrator who relates the fate of several protagonists, perhaps as prominent figures recalled in a biographical perspective. Often, the protagonist in a narrative is also the same person as the focal character, though the two terms are distinct. Excitement and intrigue alone is what the audience feels toward a focal character, while a sense of empathy about his/her objectives and emotions is what the audience feels toward the protagonist. He/she is often referred to as the "good guy." However, it is entirely possible for a story's protagonist to clearly be the villain, or antihero, of the piece, as is evident with characters like Vic Mackey (from The Shield), Tony Soprano (The Sopranos), Walter White (Breaking Bad), ZIM (Invader ZIM), Fox Mulder and Dana Scully (The X-Files), and Gregory House (House).

The principal opponent of the protagonist is a character known as the antagonist, who represents or creates obstacles that the protagonist(s) must overcome. As with protagonists, there may be more than one antagonist in a story. Also the antagonist can sometimes actually be the hero, such as The Shield's Internal Affairs officers, and FBI agents, police officers from The Sopranos and Dib (Invader ZIM)

Sometimes, a work will offer a particular character as the protagonist, only to dispose of that character unexpectedly, as a dramatic device. Such a character is called a false protagonist. Marion in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) is a famous example.

When the work contains subplots, these may have different protagonists from the main plot. In some novels, the protagonists may be impossible to identify, because multiple plots in the novel do not permit clear identification of one as the main plot, such as in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The First Circle, depicting a variety of characters imprisoned and living in a gulag camp, or in Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, depicting 15 major characters involved in or affected by a war.

In psychodrama, the "protagonist" is the person (group member, patient or client) who decides to enact some significant aspect of his life, experiences or relationships on stage with the help of the psychodrama director and other group members, taking supplementary roles as auxiliary egos.

Sometimes, antagonists and protagonists may overlap, depending on what their ultimate objectives are considered to be.

So I still nominate Frodo, and add Sam. I empathize with both (and don't empathize with Aragorn) and they are the main reason the War of the Ring was won, after all.

Edited to correct quote attribute

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

I understood the protagonist to be the most active character, the one who moved the story along. In this case, I would argue that LOTR switches protagonists part way through. In the first two books, it is Frodo. Frodo is the one who must leave the Shire, the one who actively chooses to take on the Quest, the one who chooses to abandon the company and take on Mordor by himself, and the one who accepts Gollum as guide. Sam is mostly following Frodo in all of these events. He does make active choices, such as going with Frodo to Mordor, but he is not the one driving the action. However, as Frodo's will flags, Sam takes over. Sam is the one who rescues Frodo from Minas Morgul, the one who finds their path through Mordor, and the one who literally carried Frodo to the Crack of Doom. Thus, it is Sam who finishes out the story. Frodo and Sam also have more arc. They both evolve as characters in dramatic ways. They are changed by what they endure. Aragorn is merely following through on who he already is. Strider isn't a substantially different person than Elessar. The Frodo and Sam of the Shire and the Frodo and Sam who were snatched from Mount Doom are leagues apart.

Aragorn is important, and it may be the story of Aragorn's return to Gondor and the renewal of the line of kings, but Aragorn is almost never the one driving the story, especially given that the overall story is not about Gondor but about the War of the Ring. Aragorn is important historically, but to the plot his actions are secondary. If the whole trilogy were called The Return of the King, I would be more inclined to call him the protagonist, but it's not. It's the Lord of the Rings, the defeat of Sauron, and that story belongs to Frodo and to Sam.

Frodo wanted to believe that Gollum could survive the Ring, because that would mean that Frodo could survive the Ring.

Although I think that's probably true, that's far from being all of it. Mercy is a key theme in LOTR; hasn't that been established in about fifty threads? One of the reasons mercy is important is because it means the possibility of redemption. If Gollum were truly gone, would mercy have any meaning for him? Frodo has experienced the ring - not for the duration that Gollum has, but still. I find it hard to believe that Tolkien would write about the possibility of redemption as an illusory hope.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Frodo naively believed that Gollum, corrupted by the ring, was redeemable, as if the ring's influence was but a plaything, mitigated by a little bit of kindness.

I never said anything like that, and I never would say anything like that. Please don't attribute things to me that I didn't say.

Frodo wanted to believe that Gollum could survive the Ring, because that would mean that Frodo could survive the Ring.

That's certainly what the filmmakers portrayed, but I don't believe that is what the story that Tolkien was telling meant.

[narya]

Sorry about that, V, I meant to say GBG and have fixed the quote.

It did seem very out of character for you.

Frodo wanted to believe that Gollum could survive the Ring, because that would mean that Frodo could survive the Ring.

That's certainly what the filmmakers portrayed, but that is not at all what the story that Tolkien was telling meant.

Well, that's what I thought Tolkien was saying in the book. Guess I read it wrong.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks!

[axordil]

I do think it's premature to throw Aragorn on the ash pile of history. The problem with that is: there are long stretches of TTT and ROTK without a glimpse of Frodo and Sam, specifically books three and five. That's roughly a third of the story without a protagonist, if it's just Frodo and Sam.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I do think it's premature to throw Aragorn on the ash pile of history. The problem with that is: there are long stretches of TTT and ROTK without a glimpse of Frodo and Sam, specifically books three and five. That's roughly a third of the story without a protagonist, if it's just Frodo and Sam.

Oh, I wouldn't condone flinging Strider on any ash pile. He is far too important a supporting actor to be condemned to that fate.

In Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, the protagonist is Viola, yet there, too, are there long stretches without her presence. Such is often the case with narrative (or theatre).

[vison]

If he had understood better what was going on between Frodo and Gollum, things might have turned out differently in the end."

You guys keep talking about this as a "novel". It's "History". Things happened as they did.

I don't see Sam's actions as "failures" anywhere, to be honest. His mission was to protect Frodo and he did that. When it came to the final moment, when he "watched" Frodo and the unseen Gollum struggling on the lip of the pit, it was the one and only time he "failed" - but what good would it have been if HE had been fighting with Gollum while Frodo stood by clutching the Ring? What would have happened next, if Sam had thrown Gollum into the Fire and then turned to Frodo?

That would have been "turning out differently in the end", wouldn't it? I know this all hinges on the redemptability of Gollum, but I never believed he could be redeemed - not at the time in his life when he met Frodo and Sam, anyway.

I agree with the point of view that there are 3 protagonists: Aragorn, Sam, and Frodo. And that trinity seems appropriate, considering everything.

[axordil]

In Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, the protagonist is Viola, yet there, too, are there long stretches without her presence. Such is often the case with narrative (or theatre).

True enough, but they don't go on for hundreds of pages. Besides, two of those stretches are for costume changes.

I would not argue for Aragorn being the chief protagonist; I would argue that there is no single chief protagonist, at least not from a functional point of view. That's because when the plot separates into "eastern" and "western" threads, the conflicts separate as well. The conflict in the western thread is primarily external, the conflict in the eastern thread primarily psychological. The monsters Aragorn faces in the flesh parallel the monster Frodo struggles with in his own soul...and in the twisted mirror of that soul that is Gollum.

For the duration of the plot split--books three, four, five and the start of six--the function of protagonist is split as well.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

In Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, the protagonist is Viola, yet there, too, are there long stretches without her presence. Such is often the case with narrative (or theatre).

True enough, but they don't go on for hundreds of pages. Besides, two of those stretches are for costume changes.

Ah well, girls will be boys!

I would not argue for Aragorn being the chief protagonist; I would argue that there is no single chief protagonist, at least not from a functional point of view. That's because when the plot separates into "eastern" and "western" threads, the conflicts separate as well. The conflict in the western thread is primarily external, the conflict in the eastern thread primarily psychological. The monsters Aragorn faces in the flesh parallel the monster Frodo struggles with in his own soul...and in the twisted mirror of that soul that is Gollum.

For the duration of the plot split--books three, four, five and the start of six--the function of protagonist is split as well.

I think you highlight a split, of East and West, that actually undermines any claim for Aragorn to be other than an important supporting character. When the Fellowship fragments, the tale of Frodo and Sam has Sam there always, but there is no corresponding singular character in the West. Merry's and Pippin's adventures with Treebeard, Aragorn at Helm's Deep, Merry with Théoden, Pippin with Denethor; there is a multitude of interdependent, yet separate narratives, that come together in Minas Tirith. There is no such fracture in the East, except for when Sam believes Frodo is dead, and it is Sam who proves his heroic stature with his rescue of Frodo from the Tower of Cirith Ungol. From this point onward, Sam ceases to be led and becomes leader. He reaches his maturity and majesty from this moment, the conqueror of Shelob. His is a true hero's tale, and for me proves his right to be named as Chief Protagonist.

[axordil]

I agree the western thread is fractured! And it would be an easier case if we didn't have three clusters of characters to follow: Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli/Merry and the Rohirrim/Pippin and Gandalf.

Let's look at it another way: within the western thread, is there a character whose absence would make that part of the plot impossible? The action and primary theme rotate around Aragorn. He is the axle around which the theme of lordship, good and bad, pivots, as well as the reason for moving the action to Minas Tirith.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Gandalf?

I do understand your reasoning, axordil, and I readily concede that Aragorn is one of the most important characters in the novel, but his is a supporting character. If the quest was to return the King, then I would be much more sympathetic to claims for Aragorn as the chief protagonist, but that is not the case. Sauron isn't defeated for the purpose of the restitution of the monarchy; the monarchy is restored as a consequence of Sauron's defeat, accomplished through the actions of Frodo, Gollum and Sam. All else, including the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, is merely diversion from the hero's quest, and that hero, who initially appears to be Frodo, is, I think, shown to be Sam by the end.

Which is why the true narrative (absent those scene setting paragraphs) begins with a Gamgee, and ends with a Gamgee.