I recently submitted a vlog (video blog) submission to geek and sundry as a potential pitch to be one of their video bloggers. Here was the concept: I would do a weekly vlog about characters, themes, tv shows, etc., that were nerdy only I would put my own psychological twist, interpretation, and/or analysis on the subject matter because of my background and passions (not bad, right? I thought it was an OK idea, maybe not the funniest). Anyways, we shall see how it turns out.
What I would like to write about is the actual example I gave in my vlog pitch: the relationships between Sam, Frodo, and Gollum in LOTR and the concept of the ring and what it represents. Here's what I asked: Why do we like Samwise Gamgee? Why do we love him the most as a character? And it isn't as simple as he has qualities that are noble or loyal. To understand Sam, to understand why we like Sam, we have to go back to the original books and the origins of Sam.
Samwise Gamgee was the Baggins' gardener. He was from a lesser class. He was--dare I say--the outcast of the four. No, not outcast, but perhaps, out of the ordinary. Frodo, Merry, and Pippin, dreamed of adventure, dreamed of leaving the Shire and living the stories in which they read in books. Sam enjoyed telling and reading those stories as well, but he didn't care for it: he wanted to stay in the Shire, have kids, raise a family. But what happens? He goes because of Frodo, because he's a loyal friend, despite all the great things that could keep him happy in the Shire. He has no special powers. He is not charged with any quest deemed by fate. He is completely ordinary, while his actions are extraordinary. That is one reason that Sam is so special. He's the underdog in LOTR, the lowest of the low, and he does the most with what he's got.
What develops is one of the most interesting--at least for me--psychological examples of writing that has ever happened in fantasy. It isn't seen much until the company parts ways and Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are left to fend for themselves as they travel toward Mount Doom. We, as viewers and readers, see a major difference between Frodo and Sam: Frodo's behavior/actions are easily manipulated by the situation; people easily influence Frodo--the constant push and pull of Sam and Gollum on him is what I'm talking about here. Frodo's actions are so malleable that he becomes to the reader, completely undependable--which allows us to not be surprised when he fails to throw the ring into Mount Doom. Gollum is able to manipulate Frodo so well that he reaches the point where he abandons his best friend who has been with Frodo since as long as he can remember. Sam, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. He is an anchor in the midst of chaos. We can't cling to Frodo; we can't cling to Gollum; we can't cling to Gandalf (he dies). We can cling to Aragorn, Merry, or Pippin, but they aren't essential--if they died the world will still be saved if Frodo can drop the ring into Mount Doom. Thus, Tolkien presents a beautiful contrast: Frodo is completely undependable, while Sam is completely dependable. He's loyal to a fault. He loves Frodo unconditionally. And no matter what the situation, you know his actions are true and geared towards the greater good.
Besides Sam having the most poignant moments and sayings in the books and movies alike, he also represents something else: moral purity. The ring is used as a vehicle for this. At first glance, the ring represents power--it's the most obvious conclusion to make because of all the shit surrounding it. Evil desires it, while Good desires to destroy it. But the ring itself isn't evil is it? It's a ring. How could it possibly be evil? The ring is an external manifestation of human flaws: For Boromir it was power. Boromir wanted power and that's what drew him to the ring. For Frodo, it's mistrust, its the manifestation of human flaws in physical form. The ring distorts the purity of Frodo. It taints the love between Frodo and Sam (not homosexual love, but I'm sure there is literature on that). A writer mentioned a psychological analysis of these three and said that Frodo and Gollum represented the best and worst qualities of Sam (i.e., Frodo the noble/moral and Gollum the instinctual/addictive need). I disagree. Sam represented the best qualities of Frodo.
As for Gollum, the ring was an external manifestation of instinct. A Jekyl and Hyde phenomenon. Under the ring's spell, he killed his friends/relatives. The split personality develops, one wanting to do good, the other wanting to do total evil (Jekyl and Hyde); Gollum represents an age old theme: the duality of man. He was addicted to it like Jekyl was to Hyde. He loved himself and he hated himself. He loved the ring and hated the ring. Jekyl loved Hyde...and hated him. "My precious" comes to mind. It was a love of sorts. A love and hate relationship. An addictive love, kinda like Heathcliff and Catherine in Wuthering Heights. Okay that's all I got. Have a good one, guys.
--Matt
No comments:
Post a Comment