You're viewing a single thread.
I'd like to hear both sides of the full argument please of that's a real offer. I don't think he was useless, but I do think there must have been better choices for the task
Not meant to have been a real offer, but sure.
I've come across a few comments (back on Reddit) where people argued that Sam would've been a better pick for the role as he does more in the movies, and yeah in the movies Frodo is a little more fragile, but in the books he does do more.
I suppose the main drive of the meme is that some downplay Frodo's role, whereas I think he is a good character and has his moments.
I was one of the people arguing against Frodo but my buddy convinced me with this argument:
The point of Frodo was to carry the burden of the ring without succumbing to it. Nobody was able to do this. Frodo pulled it off (albeit barely) because of his willpower, and the strong bond with his buddy Sam. Sam was the MVP for sure, however I think if Sam has been the one carrying the ring he’d have been affected in a similar way to Frodo.
At the end of the day, I think they succeeded because they made an excellent team- they played to their strengths and backed each other up when they needed it most and got the job done in the end in a way that no one man, or hobbit, or whatever, could have done.
Frodo by himself looks weak, but that’s the point. His strength is holding that ring and being just strong enough to get the job done, with a bunch of help from his bro Sam.
Yeah, the ring definitely still tried to fuck with Sam. At one point he held the ring for a couple of days and it started tempting with visions of a HUGE garden in the shire all to himself. All in all, he and Bilbo were the only 2 people in history to willingly give up the ring, but I think if he was exposed as long as Frodo, the outcome would be very much the same.
And you have to wonder, if Sam had been the ringbearer...would Frodo have been such a selfless wingman?