Thread: odd couples?

While watching the LotR movies,I've noticed some strange pairings.

Frodo & Samwise: They seemed very close. When some unfortunate event happened to one of them,the other would be crying over him. Was Samwise jealous?

Gimli & Legolas: They mildy fought and argued with each other. Each were trying to 1-up the other.

Pippen & Merry: I believe that they were best friends.

Dwarfy and Elf Boy were definitely the Odd Couple. Gimli was Oscar and Legolas was Felix!

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

Dwarfy and Elf Boy were definitely the Odd Couple. Gimli was Oscar and Legolas was Felix!

Great....now I have the theme of the Odd Couple running through my brain...DOH!

Unfortunately, while the movies are very good, they do not accurately portray both Samwise and Frodo.
Frodo in the movies comes across as a bit weak and emo (IMO), but in the books he is coping with a tremendous burden and shows much more courage and perseverance. Sam and Frodo are certainly good friends, but their bond goes even deeper into that forged by comrades in war. When you face death together you become 'blood brothers' and I believe this better describes their relationship. Jealousy was never an element of their relationship. I always got the impression from reading the books that Sam never considered himself Frodo's equal, but never hinted at any jealous nature.

Gimli and Legolas initially shared the distrust that existed between dwarves and elves. The competition between them underscores the growing trust and friendship. Gimli and Legolas became such good friends that they eventually sailed together to the Undying Lands.

Merry and Pippin are Frodo's cousins. It would be safe to say they were good friends too.

Originally Posted by Riverleaf_Breeze

While watching the LotR movies,I've noticed some strange pairings.

Frodo & Samwise: They seemed very close. When some unfortunate event happened to one of them,the other would be crying over him. Was Samwise jealous?

Gimli & Legolas: They mildy fought and argued with each other. Each were trying to 1-up the other.

Pippen & Merry: I believe that they were best friends.

As far as Frodo and Sam, and it's been touched on already, but here's a bit more--- Sam was first of all Frodo's servant. If you're American, in that "classless" society the bond between servant and master has been lost, beyond our comprehension. Sam was devoted to Frodo, to the point of putting Frodo's life before his own. And even beyond that, Gandalf, and later elves they met on their journey, gave Sam the "mission" to stay with Frodo til everything was completed. Being a bit "simple", Sam took that very seriously, and devoted all his energies in that direction.

Gimli and Legolas-- you've hit it with your statement in it's entire simplicity. They started out as unkowns to each other, their races "at odds" with one another, then grew close, as people will, through heavy trials and hard battles. A bond develops between people who have faced death together and overcome the odds. And yes, they were trying to 1-up each other, as close friends always do. Perhaps it's a guy thing, lol.

Pippin and Merry were definitely best friends. That stemmed in the beginning from being entirely different from a "normal" hobbit in that they both had adventurous spirits. As a rule, adventures were seriously frowned upon by hobbits. Their egregarious nature brought them close to each other. And again, there was the bond of hardship and war.

Originally Posted by Abiyah

As far as Frodo and Sam, and it's been touched on already, but here's a bit more--- Sam was first of all Frodo's servant. If you're American, in that "classless" society the bond between servant and master has been lost, beyond our comprehension.

This is something that didn't come across all that well in the films and it is perhaps difficult for modern audiences to understand, especially for people living in societies that don't have, or never had, a class system.

Modern American society, to use one example, doesn't have a class system in the way that British people would recognise one. I'm sure many of the Americans on this forum might say that there are different classes in America e.g. working class, middle class, etc, but that is brought about by money and power. It isn't actually a class system because people can, and do, move up and down the classes relatively frequently.

Compare that with the British system, in which you are either working or middle class and can never be a member of the upper class unless you are born into it or are made a peer by Her Majesty the Queen. Being a member of the upper class has absolutely nothing to do with how much money or power you have. The Prime Minister, the most powerful man in the country, is not a noble so he is regarded as a commoner. If Bill Gates were British he too would be a commoner despite his enormous wealth because he is not a noble.

It's that divide that is important to the master/servant relationship. The servant can never be the equal of his master in terms of social standing because he can never become a member of the master's social class (except through exceptional circumstances).

Such bonds are working relationships, but they can, and often are, also bonds of friendship, especially when a master and servant are together for many years. The master comes to rely upon his servant, especially a personal servant such as a valet, for all manner of things and perhaps, in time, for more intangible things like advice and support, whilst the servant can take on a protective role, seeing himself as someone who has to care for and look after his master. The bond that can develop can be long lasting and invested with emotion.

Plus rep for that explanation.

Originally Posted by MrWarg

This is something that didn't come across all that well in the films and it is perhaps difficult for modern audiences to understand, especially for people living in societies that don't have, or never had, a class system.

Modern American society, to use one example, doesn't have a class system in the way that British people would recognise one. I'm sure many of the Americans on this forum might say that there are different classes in America e.g. working class, middle class, etc, but that is brought about by money and power. It isn't actually a class system because people can, and do, move up and down the classes relatively frequently.

Compare that with the British system, in which you are either working or middle class and can never be a member of the upper class unless you are born into it or are made a peer by Her Majesty the Queen. Being a member of the upper class has absolutely nothing to do with how much money or power you have. The Prime Minister, the most powerful man in the country, is not a noble so he is regarded as a commoner. If Bill Gates were British he too would be a commoner despite his enormous wealth because he is not a noble.

It's that divide that is important to the master/servant relationship. The servant can never be the equal of his master in terms of social standing because he can never become a member of the master's social class (except through exceptional circumstances).

This is a fine overall explanation of the British class system in comparison to the US where class is most of the time based on money.

Originally Posted by MrWarg

Such bonds are working relationships, but they can, and often are, also bonds of friendship, especially when a master and servant are together for many years. The master comes to rely upon his servant, especially a personal servant such as a valet, for all manner of things and perhaps, in time, for more intangible things like advice and support, whilst the servant can take on a protective role, seeing himself as someone who has to care for and look after his master. The bond that can develop can be long lasting and invested with emotion.

The British class system does explain close working relationships between employers and servants. However, when a bond in a working relationship changes to a very close friendship (which we see with Frodo and Sam), I think it is a bit different. Imo a very close friendship can not be forced and it doesn't just happen because of a class system. I think there needs to be a genuine feeling of brotherhood/sisterhood.

For instance, I live in the US. And my mother worked as a personal secretary for a wealthy woman for many years. Over time their friendship grew until my mom was very devoted to her employer/friend through her employer's long debilitating illness until death. (My mom even received a small inheritance when her employer/friend passed away.)

Imo this is the kind of bond which we see between Frodo and Sam. It was like they became brothers. Frodo left his estate, along with the Red Book of Westmarch, to Sam.

But there is also more to Sam's standing in the community beyond being a servant who did well but who would always be in a lower class. He was the Mayor of the Shire for 49 years. He had property. Would Sam's children be considered to come from a lower class in the Shire? I don't think so.

So, while I agree the beginning of the Sam / Frodo relationship can be better understood by the British class system of servant and master; by the end of the story there does not seem to be a rigid class system in the Shire.

I should point out that Sam's relation to Frodo mirrors a very particular kind of servant/master relation almost entirely exclusive to the British Army.

Tolkien wrote several times that Sam was in large part inspired by the officer's batmen he had met in France during the First World War. A batman was an officer's personal servant; he "did the chores" - cooking, laundry, etc. - on the front lines so that his master could be as comfortable as possible in the trenches. Given the nature of British military service during the Great War, it was quite common for a domestic servant to follow his master into the Army. Batmen were famously devoted to their officers, not only risking life and limb for them but going to extraordinary lengths to give them a feeling of homeliness. What is more, they were known for their apparent eternal optimism, constantly reassuring their masters that "everything would turn out all right in the end," even though they themselves probably knew that it would not. As such, they often have a certain sacrificial air.

One can, of course, see quite easily that Sam does precisely the same thing for Frodo. Sam does his utmost to make Frodo feel at home - hence the seemingly unimportant worries about cooking and so on - and to reassure him that they will both return to the Shire. One of the saddest moments in The Lord of the Rings, to my mind, is when Sam discards his cooking gear: their condition is so grim that not even Sam can keep pretending that they will survive.

Originally Posted by Angenga

One of the saddest moments in The Lord of the Rings, to my mind, is when Sam discards his cooking gear: their condition is so grim that not even Sam can keep pretending that they will survive.

Oh Sam was really upset at having to do that.

Originally Posted by bb-15

The British class system does explain close working relationships between employers and servants. However, when a bond in a working relationship changes to a very close friendship (which we see with Frodo and Sam), I think it is a bit different. Imo a very close friendship can not be forced and it doesn't just happen because of a class system. I think there needs to be a genuine feeling of brotherhood/sisterhood.

I wasn't suggesting that a class system inherently creates these types of bonds, indeed one could point to master/servant relationships that are far from close. I was more setting out some background material so as to better explain the nature of Frodo and Sam's relationship.

One last thing, you raise an interesting point concerning Sam and his role as Mayor. This would be an example of Sam climbing up the social ladder and gaining a new standing in society. Before he had been a gardener, very much below Frodo in social standing. After his great exploits he rose to become Mayor and yes he would have been considered part of the 'upper class' of Hobbit society.

How much of a class system the Shire had I don't know. I think there would be a certain degree of it considering some of the snobbery we see from some Hobbits, but I get the impression that it wasn't too rigid i.e. they didn't have a full blown aristocracy with nuanced rules and generations of traditions to govern a multitude of social situations. Even in strict class systems some degree of social mobility is possible, usually under extraordinary circumstances and I think Sam's participation in defeating Sauron would easily qualify as extraordinary circumstances.

I think the best way to put Sam and Frodo's relationship into a modern american context is to frame it as a C-level staff member (CEO, CFO etc) and their Executive Assistant.

While the relationship is primarily a work-based relationship, quite often you'll begin to see the duties being performed by the E.A. become a little greyed with regards to the boundary of work and domestic life. Over time, the E.A. can become an invaluable asset to the CEO, and a strong bond between the two will naturally develop.

Imagine if this relationship existed outside of a work context--ie, you had a life partner who WASN'T your spouse. They would look after all manner of tasks for you (or you for them) and in return, your victories became their victories and vice versa. Same with their defeats. I believe there are a couple of british detective shows that showcase this relationship: Lord Peter Wimsey and Bunter, his manservant (which I feel is closer to Frodo and Sam's relationship) and of course Sherlock Holmes and Watson, where the relationship is decidedly more professional in tone and character.

Jeeves and Wooster might not be a totally inaccurate comparison either.

Originally Posted by MrWarg

How much of a class system the Shire had I don't know. I think there would be a certain degree of it considering some of the snobbery we see from some Hobbits, but I get the impression that it wasn't too rigid i.e. they didn't have a full blown aristocracy with nuanced rules and generations of traditions to govern a multitude of social situations.

It looks to me like an old-style English one, but with a kind of rusticated aristocracy who come across as being like country squires (lacking the airs and graces or high-and-mightiness of a real aristocracy). Pippin and Merry would both be from that upper class, the privileged sons of 'noble' families. The Bagginses were also 'posh', an old family of some note (enough that Bilbo's father could marry a Took); the giveaway is that Bilbo was evidently independently wealthy to some extent before his adventure, as there was no sign he did anything for a living and Bag End was a sizable residence. In the absence of large towns or cities, the middle class would likely be small and the overwhelming majority of hobbits would live on the land, being farmers or labourers of one kind or another.

There was a 'know your place' thing in evidence, the Gaffer was apparently worried that Sam would get ideas above his station after Bilbo had taught him to read.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

It looks to me like an old-style English one, but with a kind of rusticated aristocracy who come across as being like country squires (lacking the airs and graces or high-and-mightiness of a real aristocracy). Pippin and Merry would both be from that upper class, the privileged sons of 'noble' families. The Bagginses were also 'posh', an old family of some note (enough that Bilbo's father could marry a Took); the giveaway is that Bilbo was evidently independently wealthy to some extent before his adventure, as there was no sign he did anything for a living and Bag End was a sizable residence. In the absence of large towns or cities, the middle class would likely be small and the overwhelming majority of hobbits would live on the land, being farmers or labourers of one kind or another.

There was a 'know your place' thing in evidence, the Gaffer was apparently worried that Sam would get ideas above his station after Bilbo had taught him to read.

That all sounds eminently plausible. Merry and Pippin both strike me as Bertie Wooster types i.e. young, wealthy 'men about town' types. I find Frodo more interesting though because of his relationship with Sam. Either the class system in the Shire is not particularly rigid and it is fine for him to socialise and form a deep relationship with Sam or Frodo is something of an iconoclast, willing to thumb his nose at Hobbit society and its established social order.

Frodo as "something of an iconoclast"... he was a Baggins. The reputation of the name preceded him. And the fact that he not only spent a lot of time with Bilbo, but lived with him, was adopted by him, and became his heir all pretty much set him apart from the rest of Hobbit society.

He didn't let it affect him, though, and I think that's what made Sam so devoted to him.

Originally Posted by Angenga

I should point out that Sam's relation to Frodo mirrors a very particular kind of servant/master relation almost entirely exclusive to the British Army.

Tolkien wrote several times that Sam was in large part inspired by the officer's batmen he had met in France during the First World War. A batman was an officer's personal servant; he "did the chores" - cooking, laundry, etc. - on the front lines so that his master could be as comfortable as possible in the trenches. Given the nature of British military service during the Great War, it was quite common for a domestic servant to follow his master into the Army. Batmen were famously devoted to their officers, not only risking life and limb for them but going to extraordinary lengths to give them a feeling of homeliness. What is more, they were known for their apparent eternal optimism, constantly reassuring their masters that "everything would turn out all right in the end," even though they themselves probably knew that it would not. As such, they often have a certain sacrificial air.

One can, of course, see quite easily that Sam does precisely the same thing for Frodo. Sam does his utmost to make Frodo feel at home - hence the seemingly unimportant worries about cooking and so on - and to reassure him that they will both return to the Shire. One of the saddest moments in The Lord of the Rings, to my mind, is when Sam discards his cooking gear: their condition is so grim that not even Sam can keep pretending that they will survive.

That's very interesting. +rep for that! It does seem a more plausible explanation of their relationship to me, as I don't recall any mention in the book of a rigid class system in the Shire, besides some families being more posh than others.

Originally Posted by MrWarg

Even in strict class systems some degree of social mobility is possible, usually under extraordinary circumstances and I think Sam's participation in defeating Sauron would easily qualify as extraordinary circumstances.

Except the hobbits living in the Shire were more or less oblivious to everything that went on during the war. They don't come into contact with the events of the war at all until it's long over, during Saruman's botched attempt to invade the Shire. They wouldn't have any reason to treat Sam differently, because they had no idea what he and Frodo had done for them, or how much danger they were in.

Originally Posted by MannyCalavera

Except the hobbits living in the Shire were more or less oblivious to everything that went on during the war. They don't come into contact with the events of the war at all until it's long over, during Saruman's botched attempt to invade the Shire. They wouldn't have any reason to treat Sam differently, because they had no idea what he and Frodo had done for them, or how much danger they were in.

You're right about the hobbits not knowing or understanding what Frodo and Sam had done for them, but Saruman didn't invade the Shire, he'd stage-managed a largely successful takeover by stealth that had left most of it under his control, with the mere threat of force being enough to keep most hobbits cowed and submissive. The thing is, after his defeat and eventual departure from Isengard he'd become nihilistic, which was why pointlessly destructive things started happening after he arrived in person and why everything was so shambolic.

Originally Posted by MannyCalavera

Except the hobbits living in the Shire were more or less oblivious to everything that went on during the war. They don't come into contact with the events of the war at all until it's long over, during Saruman's botched attempt to invade the Shire. They wouldn't have any reason to treat Sam differently, because they had no idea what he and Frodo had done for them, or how much danger they were in.

A valid point in that the residents of the Shire may not have appreciated the full implications of what the Fellowship had accomplished, but nevertheless Sam was someone who had left the Shire to go on an adventure. This would have been unusual for a Hobbit as we know, but it would have perhaps given him a certain status as being above his previous station. The residents of the Shire may not have fully appreciated or understood the nature of what Sam had done, but I think they would still comprehend that he had done something great.

Originally Posted by Abiyah

Frodo as "something of an iconoclast"... he was a Baggins. .

All I can think of after reading this is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. "You're, you're...... a Brandybuck! Who the heck did she tell that too? I think it was Merry, I can't remember for sure.

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

All I can think of after reading this is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. "You're, you're...... a Brandybuck! Who the heck did she tell that too? I think it was Merry, I can't remember for sure.

No, it was to Frodo (whose mother was Primula Brandybuck), after Bilbo's birthday party:

"You'll live to regret it, young fellow! Why didn't you go too? You don't belong here; you're no Baggins - you - you're a Brandybuck!"

"Did you hear that, Merry? That was an insult, if you like," said Frodo, as he shut the door on her.

"It was a compliment," said Merry Brandybuck, "and so, of course, not true."


/chuckle

Originally Posted by MrWarg

.... The residents of the Shire may not have fully appreciated or understood the nature of what Sam had done, but I think they would still comprehend that he had done something great.

All those king's heralds etc coming through the shire periodically after the 4thA began and treating Sam with great respect probably had some effect on that comprehension..

Originally Posted by MrWarg

(...) nevertheless Sam was someone who had left the Shire to go on an adventure. This would have been unusual for a Hobbit as we know, but it would have perhaps given him a certain status as being above his previous station.

If I understand hobbit society correctly, this would have just flagged him as an eccentric, like Bilbo. Proper, polite hobbits don't go on adventures!

Originally Posted by ferdinanda

No, it was to Frodo (whose mother was Primula Brandybuck), after Bilbo's birthday party:

"You'll live to regret it, young fellow! Why didn't you go too? You don't belong here; you're no Baggins - you - you're a Brandybuck!"

"Did you hear that, Merry? That was an insult, if you like," said Frodo, as he shut the door on her.

"It was a compliment," said Merry Brandybuck, "and so, of course, not true."


/chuckle

Thanks for the correction!

Originally Posted by Andjay

All those king's heralds etc coming through the shire periodically after the 4thA began and treating Sam with great respect probably had some effect on that comprehension..

My take on it has always been that Sam earned the respect of the Shire hobbits (and ultimately the mayorship), mainly through his efforts in the "regreening" of the Shire. Merry and Pippin of course won great renown for their leadership and courage in the battle of Bywater. Frodo sadly was barely even recognised as having played any great part in those events.

The troubles of the wider world and the part played by the "travellers" in those great events went mostly unnoticed by the majority of the hobbit community.

I think so, too, Wolfhelm. You can see that in Rosie Cotton's remarks to Sam when he came to see her just before the Bywater battles.