Oh, I also remembered how often Frodo tries to leave Sam behind, then reconsiders when Sam makes it difficult, only to reconsider again later. I think this could show Frodo’s drive of Reconsider along with hinting at the RS Problem of Avoidance.
Also note, the relationship really does change, doesn’t it? They didn’t seem to know each other that well at the beginning; Sam was Bag End’s gardener so basically Frodo’s servant, right? So it goes from master/servant to best friends. What’s really interesting is how they end the story apart (after Frodo departs the Grey Havens) which lends an amazing bittersweet feeling to the otherwise Triumphant ending.
Both of those feel really strong to me. Actually especially your point about the RS – isn’t the whole relationship driven by the question of whether or not Sam will continue to follow Frodo, or if Frodo will Prevent him from doing so? Isn’t there an emotional scene where Sam says something like “I made a promise to stay with you to the end?”
I think so. I think you’d be hard pressed to argue any other relationship as the “emotional heart” of the story!
Story Cost of Subconscious also feels very strong to me here, which paired with the Dividend of the Future adds to the bittersweet feeling.
You mentioned this passage before but I was looking at it again as an example of the cycling Focus/Direction of Disbelief/Faith (my emphasis):
'We promises, yes I promise!’ said Gollum. ’I will serve the master of
the Precious. Good master, good Smjagol, gollum, gollum. Suddenly he began
to weep and bite at his ankle again.
’Take the rope off, Sam!’ said Frodo. [Faith]
Reluctantly Sam obeyed. …[Gollum] would cackle with
laughter and caper, if any jest was made, or even if Frodo spoke kindly to
him, and weep if Frodo rebuked him. Sam said little to him of any sort. He suspected him more deeply than ever, and if possible liked the new Gollum, the Smjagol, less than the old. [Disbelief]
Yes, that’s just because i switched the MC/IC. They are all pairs so the Support/Oppose and Hinder/Help can just be swapped.
The reason i went into these is to give alternative explanations for what are perceived to be important roles in the storyform, particularly Gollum and Sam.
Because the ring is a metaphor for temptation (or, more accurately, it’s effects are), so Frodo’s change represents a real change. I maintain the relevant storyform is only during the period Frodo has the ring in his possession, that this was the point Tolkien was trying to make. Its destruction shows God can still forgive you even if you falter, but even that is a separate point. It is a story within a tale (or a story followed by a tale).
Story: Giving in to temptation leads to disaster (and at the end of the storyform it was a disaster. Sauron could not be defeated - only the post-story intervention from god changed everything, which is really quite weak from a storytelling point of view, but Tolkien clearly had another message he wanted to convey:)
Tale: God can forgive our mistakes, especially when you tried hard not to fail
Lakis, this is similar to what you wrote in your last paragraph, though my view is that Frodo failed his test, but was still forgiven afterwards (and only after that self-enclosed storyform in terms of Dramatica), given that he tried very hard not to succumb, and that the trial was particularly arduous.
Because they are constantly considering what to do with the ring, with many different viewpoints and arguments. The reconsider response matches with why i thought the good guys have the reconsider motivation, that they are constantly beset by obstacles and reconsider their plans in response.
Perhaps the additional instances of temptation in the wider story are just examples of others standing in for the main character in a few scenes (which Tolkien may have done to show the relationship conflict from different perspectives, and with different characters since they are all separated).
I strongly disagree with this. They are friends start to finish. Frodo does not treat him as a servant in any way, and it is Gandalf who orders Sam to go with Frodo.
I really think Sam is just a Faith character, and there is not meaningful change in this relationship. In fact, i think he is one of the strongest examples there is of the faith motivation characteristic in a story.
But the relationship story doesn’t have to be a feelgood thing. I’ve heard the droids in Star Wars being referred to as its emotional heart, and they are deliberately used to draw the audience in, but they are just another example of a faith character. LotR is a re-telling of biblical stories with a message about the forces that tempt us to stray from God. Tolkien is renowned for this, and i think that simplifying it down to a story about a friendship is not the point of it at all.
Hmm. This seems like a very roundabout explanation, leading to a muddled message from Tolkien!
In the storyform that you posit – the complete one – what is the goal? If it’s the destruction of the ring, then the story ends in Success. Then what Is the Judgment? How is achieving the OS Solution connected to the MC Solution to create the narrative argument that Tolkien is trying to make?
But why is that a separate point? You use the word “falter” which is different from “fall” or “fail”. Steadfast characters falter all the time. On the question of resolve, you have to look at the beginning and the end of the story to see where the resolve is. Cutting off the story at the moment of Frodo’s failure (or just to when the ring id destroyed?) seems arbitrary and actually contrary to broader point Tolkien is trying to make, especially as we never get a story judgement from that.
Doesn’t it make more sense that Tolkien was suggesting that at the moment of ultimate temptation we will no longer be able to rely only on ourselves, but that providence will carry us through, as long as we have been as Steadfast and Faithful for as long as humanly possible?
This sounds like storytelling to me rather than the source of conflict.
The question is, what is the source of conflict? What is the problem that affects every character throughout the story, that continually comes up to create conflict and make things worse for all the characters? Why does Gandalf refuse to take the ring? Why are they all forced to rely on this little, physically weak Hobbit rather than a stronger, more heroic type to carry the ring? Why does the Fellowship of the Ring fall apart (with Boromir’s betrayal)? Temptation.
Quote from Wikipedia:
"The relationship between Frodo and Sam closely reflects the hierarchy of an officer and his servant [in the First World War]. Officers had a university education and a middle-class background. Working-class men stayed at the rank of private or at best sergeant. A social gulf divides the literate, leisured Frodo from his former gardener, now responsible for wake-up calls, cooking and packing… Tolkien maps the gradual breakdown of restraint [through prolonged peril] until Sam can take Frodo in his arms and call him “Mr Frodo, my dear.”
I would suggest that the transformation here signifies the IC change as much as it does growth in the RS.
I’m using “emotional heart” in the Dramatica sense, as a way of describing the RS. It has nothing to do with “feelgood” per se. The emotional heart of Lolita is between Humbert and Lolita (and that’s not feelgood in my opinion!). The emotional heart of the first Star Wars movie is the relationship between Luke and Ben.
Agree!
No, it’s definitely not the point by itself. However, it makes up a crucial part of the overall argument as the RS throughline.
How many people read the books the first time through thinking “for God’s sake, just kill that stupid Smeagol already!”? Or even “things are looking really dark, maybe Gandalf or Aragorn or Boromir should take the Ring!” or “they’ll never make it to Mt Doom, they should have just taken the easy route and tossed it in the ocean”.
But by persevering and refusing to take the easy way out, and at the end staying their hands against killing Gollum, (Faith & Conscience), they succeed. It’s actually brilliant that Tolkien shows us (as readers) how wrong we were. And brilliant that he had Frodo put the Ring on in the end, because it gave their earlier acts of conscience meaning.
You’ve got a quote about the books when before you mentioned you were considering the movies. In the movies they are friends from the start. Even if you change your mind in that, the fact that it has been “changed” in the movies means either it isn’t important to the storyform of movie and book (if they are the same), or Peter Jackson ended up with a different story form (based on you saying that servant to friends is the relationship throughline).
Yeah as i said it’s the destruction of the ring, and the judgement is bad. This isn’t contradictory. It’s linked because Frodo was also trying to destroy the ring and failed.
That was my exact point. That the deus ex machina is weak storytelling, but for Tolkien it was more important to include all the messages he wanted.
Resolve is strong at the start, falters throughout, and fails at the end. A clear progression to me. It’s not an arbitrary cut - it’s the point immediately before the storytelling point to include an intervention from god which resets much of the conflict from before.
I don’t think so. That seems like quite a stretch. In Tolkien’s work, interventions from a higher power happen to save someone from danger after doing the right thing, not to take away responsibility from sinning.
Remember that Frodo was also a broken man (hobbit) after the ordeal, which to me is showing the bad judgement continuing. It is the opposite of triumphant. He was forgiven, but the scars of his failure, both physical and emotional, continue to haunt him.
Perhaps most importantly, if you are saying that Frodo is steadfast, then either Sam or Gollum (others have mentioned it, but i know you are talking about Sam for IC) is a change character. Sam is utterly loyal to Frodo and the quest the whole way through, so he doesn’t change (which is why i think he is a faith character), and Gollum remains obsessed by the ring the whole way through, so he also doesn’t change. I don’t think there is an argument for either of them being change characters, but i’d love to hear one.
Consider that much epic fantasy and sci fi has the OS domain of Activity. I think the Dramatica book even talks about this (the Screenwriting one does too).
I don’t think that is wrong, it’s just when you take a step back, the story is about Frodo’s temptation above all. Dramatica doesn’t preclude things appearing in different places, and i would say the character-interactions around temptation are pushed to the front of the OS throughline, without it being the OS driver. Note also that almost all instances of temptation are interactions with the MC anyway (Gandalf, Bilbo, Aragorn, Boromir, Sam, Gollum, Galadriel, Faramir), showing Frodo the different arguments for remaining steadfast or succumbing to temptation while being influenced by Sauron.
“Thou shalt not kill” Maybe it was as simple as that. That only god can judge sin and dole out punishment, it’s not up to us.
Not sure about the connection here. Frodo succumbed to temptation, but that moment gave meaning to the act of not killing Gollum in the past?
Yeah we covered that. In 10 hours of movies and 1200 pages of books you can likely find an example for any choice of story points. And as i mentioned it could just be to parallel Frodo’s story given the separation of the characters, without being the main focus.[quote=“Prish, post:98, topic:436”]
Without that moment of compassion, the world would not have been saved. I wonder how that plays out in the story forming.
[/quote]
We’re not talking about the moment of compassion here, but the moment Frodo puts on the ring.
Right – not killing Gollum is the OS Solution at work. It doesn’t matter that it happens a few moments before the concluding Story Driver. All I meant by “brilliant” is that it was brilliant how Tolkien set everything up like that, so that the storytelling came together with the storyform in the end.
Agreed. I’m pretty darn convinced the OS Problem is Temptation, BTW, but it’s always good to keep an open mind. I’m somewhat less than 100% on Resolve and therefore what the MC vs. IC Problem is.
But I do feel like you can look almost anywhere in the narrative and find examples of Temptation causing conflict, and as a drive. For example, the temptation of the Palantir didn’t just cause trouble for Pippin, but it was also the cause of Saruman’s corruption (according to Gandalf he couldn’t resist pointing it at Barad-Dur).
Saruman’s drive for temptation continues as he is tempted to outdo Sauron by creating his own army. He tries to tempt Gandalf into joining him when he lures him to Isengard and tries to get him to divulge the location of the Ring.
But this still leaves you with a weak and unconvincing RS. You and Lakis have argued for a steadfast Frodo, rewarded for his steadfastness, but this requires a changed Sam which isn’t the case.
Whether the OS is Temptation or Activity for me could go either way in itself, but when you consider the RS i think OS can therefore only be Activity, which still fits.
?? Are you getting Temptation mixed up with Psychology? I think we all agree on the OS in Activity (Physics) and the RS in Psychology. Temptation comes under Physics/Obtaining/Morality (same OS problem quad as The Matrix).
To me, Becoming works really well for the RS between Sam and Frodo. Even though they do start out as friends, the point of the relationship is how it becomes something much more than that initial friendship, and the struggles that come from that change of nature. It’s almost like friends -> brothers.
I wouldn’t get a connection of meaning, since the grasping succumbing to temptation was immediate and totally personal. Maybe, it’s MC throughline, and Gollum spared in the past and finishing the task unintentionally is OS throughline?
I’ve been thinking about this a lot and browsing through the books, and had some ideas. What if instead of Temptation the OS Problem is Disbelief, mostly showing up as distrust and skepticism:
initially the hobbits are skeptical that the Enemy could reach them all the way in the Shire
initial distrust of Strider
a lot of “being unpersuadable” and difficulty convincing – the Council of Elrond, Gandalf and Aragorn having trouble convincing each other about taking the mountain pass vs. Moria route
doubting, like Gandalf doubted how bad Moria could be; or various characters (esp. Boromir) doubted whether a hobbit was the right choice of Ring-Bearer
Sauron doesn’t believe they would ever try to destroy the Ring
This makes the OS Focus Temptation, which is a decent fit. I mean, they do talk about Temptation and “see” it as a problem a lot, not just Gandalf but a lot of others. @Lakis I think you had some other examples about Temptation -> Conscience as Focus/Direction too?
And Faith is nice as the Solution in this story. Believing that Frodo can get the job done – so much so that they’re all willing to lay their lives on the line and march on Mordor. Getting Sauron to believe that the main threat is the army at his gates. The Crucial Element then becomes Conscience, which also feels right – doing the right thing instead of taking the easy road.
And for Sam as the Changed IC, it could be that he moves to a place where he has Faith in himself, where he’s the one getting the job done and listening to his own instincts.
We also see Gandalf and Galadriel resist their temptation (conscience). But you could make an argument that the real source of their problems is that they don’t trust themselves (disbelief) to carry the ring.
And even Boromir, after his failure, makes an effort to redeem himself (conscience).
EDIT: Isn’t Boromir’s justification for taking the ring a lack of faith (disbelief) in the plan?
At length [Boromir] spoke… ‘If you wish… to destroy the armed might of the Dark Lord, then it is folly to go without force into his domain; and folly to throw away.’ He paused suddenly… ‘It would be folly to throw lives away, I mean,’ he ended…
But I could see that example both ways – disbelief could be symptom or response, with temptation as the real problem.
So I think there’s a pretty good case for your arrangement here @mlucas.
Very cool. And note, just because it’s a source of conflict or drive for them, doesn’t mean it’s “wrong” – i.e. it doesn’t mean they should have taken the Ring, just that this necessary disbelief is causing them difficulty. (A similar example is in the Fugitive when he Helps the misdiagnosed child, it’s not like the narrative is saying that was the wrong thing to do, just that it was doomed to cause difficulties for him until the Solution was brought in.)
Agree with you on the Boromir quote. Ah, poor Boromir!
I apologize if this has been addressed. I didn’t see it, if so.
I don’t recall the particulars from the books, but in the movies the argument for Sam’s change would be shown by his interactions with Rosie Cotton. In the beginning he wants to ask her out or whatever the Hobbit equivalent is, but he’s too shy and nervous and sits muttering about the advances made toward her by other Hobbits. In the end, in a scene mirroring a scene from the beginning, he approaches her. Here the behavior of Frodo, Merry, and Pippin is basically identical to the earlier scene.
Sam has moved on from being Frodo’s “batman” to forging a life for himself.
I thought I mentioned this upthread but I may have just thought it! In any case I’ll take it as independent support of Sam’s change!
This can’t be an accident! Having a scene from the beginning mirrored at the end in this way feels like a pretty strong indication of the author’s intent to show change.
Yes. He moves from Be-er (adapt yourself – kind of the definition of being a “batman”) to forging a life (Do-er). Also he moves from Subconscious (Innermost Desires – unrequited love) to Future (having a future for himself).
