Skip to main content

Did Tolkien really explicitly consider Sam the true hero of The Lord of the Rings?


Quoting from Crouching Moron Hidden Badass: Literature on TVTropes (TVTropes link alert!!! Don't tell me I didn't warn you!):



Perhaps even more aptly: Samwise Gamgee. His name roughly translates to "halfwit", and it applies. He's overweight, easily frightened, and not very bright. He also beat a man-eating giant spider demi-god in single combat, single-handedly stormed a tower full of hostile orcs to save his friend's life, was the only Ringbearer to steadfastly resist the temptation of the One Ring, and literally carried another man up the side of a volcano for the fate of the world while starving and suffering from dehydration. There's a reason Tolkien considered him the true hero of the story.



I am wondering if there is an actual direct confirmation (in-Universe or out-of-Universe quote from Tolkien) that the statement "There's a reason Tolkien considered him the true hero of the story" is true.


Please note that I'm not looking for a logical proof, e.g. not something based on general "this is a work about common folk defending themselves etc. etc. etc.." general chain of reasoning.




Answer



In a letter to Milton Waldman (so-called Letter 131), Tolkien makes mention of Sam being the "chief hero" of the story [1]:



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.



He also makes mention of Sam's heroic nature in a reply to a real-life Sam Gamgee (so-called Letter 184):



It was very kind of you to write. You can imagine my astonishment, when I saw your signature! I can only say, for your comfort I hope, that the 'Sam Gamgee' of my story is a most heroic character, now widely beloved by many readers, even though his origins are rustic.



Elsewhere, in a letter to his son Christopher (so-called Letter 91), he begins:




Here is a small consignment of 'The Ring': the last two chapters that have been written, and the end of the Fourth Book of that great Romance, in which you will see that, as is all too easy, I have got the hero into such a fix that not even an author will be able to extricate him without labour and difficulty. Lewis was moved almost to tears by the last chapter. All the same, I chiefly want to hear what you think, as for a long time now I have written with you most in mind.



The last two chapters of the "Fourth Book" refer to the end of The Two Towers [2]: in the last two chapters—"Shelob's Lair" and "The Choices of Master Samwise"—only two characters are present: Frodo and Sam. The latter chapter, aptly named, is told exclusively through the narrative of Sam.




Notes


Note 1 In the comments, user8114 mentions that it's Aragorn to whom Tolkien is referring to as "the chief hero" in the excerpt above. And indeed, Aragorn is mentioned prominently in the paragraph that surrounds the excerpt. But the context does not support this hypothesis.


Letter 131 is an attempt to justify the themes and motifs to his friend and potential publisher, Milton Waldman, against comments regarding the marketability of The Lord of the Rings. The excerpt above regarding Sam, his Rosie, and "the chief hero's character" is in the middle of a long paragraph on the love stories present in the work:



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 UndĂłmiel. 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. I do not feel much can now be done to heal the faults of this large and much-embracing tale – or to make it 'publishable', if it is not so now.




Here, Tolkien enumerates three love stories:



  1. Aragorn and Arwen

  2. Sam and Rosie

  3. Eowyn's unrequited love for Aragorn


The first story he points out is only mentioned and left alone for another story. The second he emphasizes as being important to understanding the chief hero's story. The third he intentionally takes off the table for discussion.


Looking at the specific sentence mentioning Sam, there are two uses of the pronoun "his": first to "his Rosie" and then, 9 words later, to "his character". Tolkien, being a scholar of the English language, would not first refer to Sam, then—in mid-sentence—change the referent to Aragorn for five words, then back to Sam to describe his qualities as exemplars of the "ordinary life".


Additionally, if Aragorn were the chief hero, it seems reasonable he would've made one of the two love stories involving him essential to understanding his character, instead of brushing them aside in favor of Sam's love story with Rosie.



And, given his repeated and consistent emphasis on Hobbits, not Men or Elves or Dwarves or Ents, being the heroes of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Aragorn is not a fit: he's merely someone by which to compare the plights of the Hobbits, much like Gimli and Legolas.


It should also be noted, as the redditor richlaw pointed out, Christopher Tolkien himself believed his father meant Sam was the chief hero, not Aragorn. Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull—creators of the index for the published Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien—addressed this concern on the Lord of the Rings Fanatics Forum, where they explained they wrote to Christopher Tolkien asking for clarification regarding the passage in Letter 131:



To this Christopher replied, very succinctly, that he was certain that 'the chief hero' referred to Sam.





Note 2 The Lord of the Rings was published in three volumes with two books each; The Two Towers contains books 3 and 4. Later in the same letter, Tolkien discusses how to get out of the hole he dug himself in books 5 and 6 (i.e., The Return of the King).


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...