Without Sam, Frodo would be dead!

Bump <3

BUMP!<3	100.0%	[ 44 ]
Total Votes:			[ 44 ]

[fhdjfgiurviubvdkljvb]

As homosexual as Sam appears to me and weak and annoying in the movies (especially the third), he is a key part to Frodo's success in destroying the ring. It would be very unique if Sam hadn't been along and I'm not saying Frodo would be dead or hadn't made it because he totally could have. Sam's inclusion in the books is symbolic just like everything else in the trilogy. I believe that JRR Tolkien included Sam as the "layman" of the church. Frodo had to take the ring AKA Christ had to carry the cross, Frodo freed Middle Earth, but before doing so, he had disciples along the way that he built up and who aided him in ministry, so Sam is a disciple, an aid, he helps takes the burden off Frodo's shoulder. He was the continuation of the Fellowship. Frodo might have lived, but would have he succeeded? Tough question, I say yes he would have but the symbolism and the meaning would have been totally different.

[Captain of the Clouds]

You're right! But I hate Sam he grosses me out and talks really whiny. whee My favorite character is Legolas, because he's an elf and lotr elves are soo majestic. Plus Legolas was so brave, skillful, chill and strong! And cute. :3

[here-comes-datte-boyo]

Biki En Ashanie

Agree. Sam was the stronger one morally between the two.

While I certainly agree that Frodo never would have made it without Sam, as far as being morally stronger, you must take into account that Frodo was being corrupted by the ring...

[here-comes-datte-boyo]

fhdjfgiurviubvdkljvb

As homosexual as Sam appears to me and weak and annoying in the movies (especially the third), he is a key part to Frodo's success in destroying the ring. It would be very unique if Sam hadn't been along and I'm not saying Frodo would be dead or hadn't made it because he totally could have. Sam's inclusion in the books is symbolic just like everything else in the trilogy. I believe that JRR Tolkien included Sam as the "layman" of the church. Frodo had to take the ring AKA Christ had to carry the cross, Frodo freed Middle Earth, but before doing so, he had disciples along the way that he built up and who aided him in ministry, so Sam is a disciple, an aid, he helps takes the burden off Frodo's shoulder. He was the continuation of the Fellowship. Frodo might have lived, but would have he succeeded? Tough question, I say yes he would have but the symbolism and the meaning would have been totally different.

this post made me throw up a little...

[umaranjum]

BrittleBone

ReiaVasilis

BrittleBone

yeah but without golem they would be lost. so the fact that sam protected frodo from golem and golem leading them the way is just a mess when it comes to frodo needing help
eek

This is very true if it weren't for Faramir and his men Smegol might have stayed loyal to Frodo and thus the ring might never have been destroyed.

*thinks it over....head pops!!!* burning_eyes

True its cracking already sad

[Fabadozer]

He definitely saved him a few times, especially in the 3rd with the cave and the orcs.

[Rudhe]

fhdjfgiurviubvdkljvb

As homosexual as Sam appears to me and weak and annoying in the movies (especially the third), he is a key part to Frodo's success in destroying the ring. It would be very unique if Sam hadn't been along and I'm not saying Frodo would be dead or hadn't made it because he totally could have. Sam's inclusion in the books is symbolic just like everything else in the trilogy. I believe that JRR Tolkien included Sam as the "layman" of the church. Frodo had to take the ring AKA Christ had to carry the cross, Frodo freed Middle Earth, but before doing so, he had disciples along the way that he built up and who aided him in ministry, so Sam is a disciple, an aid, he helps takes the burden off Frodo's shoulder. He was the continuation of the Fellowship. Frodo might have lived, but would have he succeeded? Tough question, I say yes he would have but the symbolism and the meaning would have been totally different.

I cannot see how your sexual preference contributes to characterisation of Sam.

Based on Sam's actions in the books he was...
Loyal: Followed Frodo through to the end
Protective: Tried to show Gollum's treacherous nature to Frodo
Brave: Fought of the orcs to reach Frodo when he realised Frodo was still alive
Humble: He was willing to serve someone younger then him
A ringbearer (Even though it was only a short time)
Unlike Frodo, he got the girl in the end and had many children xD

In the end, Samwise role in the story closer to a classic hero, while Frodo was the sacrifice. I believe the links that you have mentioned from Bible to LOTR are laboured metaphor. According to Tolkien, Lord of the rings was "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." The biblical influences are written in the form of themes such as self-sacrifice and fellowship. Frodo was a simple hobbit. He did not teach/train disciples, perform miracles or die for humanity. All he did was carry the ring.

[edit] I believe without Sam, he would be dead.

[SailorHoneyMoon]

I adore their bromance!