Sidekicks

[papayahed]

Who's the better Sidekick Sam Gamgee or Ron Weasly?

[LadyLuck]

I have to go with Sam! He's much more accepting of everything than Ron. There was no jealousy, just a desire to help. Ron was a bit of a whiner for me.

[The Comedian]

It's Sam. . .and it ain't even close.

[JuniperWoolf]

I completely hate Sam. His name is appropriate, they might as well have cast a dog to play the role. What a pushover. I pick any sidekick except for him.

[papayahed]

I have to go with Sam! He's much more accepting of everything than Ron. There was no jealousy, just a desire to help. Ron was a bit of a whiner for me.


Even though I agree I pick Ron.

[LadyLuck]

Even though I agree I pick Ron.

:lol: Why then? I heard a rumor the other day that Ron was almost killed off, and all I could think was why not?!?!? I enjoyed the books, but I didn't really relate to or like the characters that much.

[qimissung]

I like Ron. He was a real person who struggled with himself, even while unstintingly giving Harry a true and genuine human connection. And they had fun together. What more could you ask for?

[OrphanPip]

Sam is less of a sidekick and more like Frodo's indentured servant, and he's unhealthily obsessed with Frodo.

[papayahed]

:lol: Why then? I heard a rumor the other day that Ron was almost killed off, and all I could think was why not?!?!? I enjoyed the books, but I didn't really relate to or like the characters that much.


:biggrinjester:

Because Sam is too loyal. It seems as though Sam has put Frodo on a pedestal while Ron seems like a real friend seeing the good and the bad in Harry.

[TheFifthElement]

Ron. Sam was less of a sidekick and more of a doormat.

[Lokasenna]

Is Sam really a sidekick?

I think the message that Tolkien is trying to get at is the nobility of unswerving devotion and the strength of the homosocial bond, and its ultimately redemptive quality. I happen to think their relationship is rather beautiful. Sam excels at nothing, compared to the other members of the fellowship, yet through his quiet and steadfast strength, he, as the everyman, comes to take centre-stage at the end.

Ron, from what I've read of the Potter books, really is not that complex. If 'sidekick' is as simplistic a term as I think it is, then he probably fits the role more than Sam...

[cafolini]

Is Sam really a sidekick?

I think the message that Tolkien is trying to get at is the nobility of unswerving devotion and the strength of the homosocial bond, and its ultimately redemptive quality. I happen to think their relationship is rather beautiful. Sam excels at nothing, compared to the other members of the fellowship, yet through his quiet and steadfast strength, he, as the everyman, comes to take centre-stage at the end.

Ron, from what I've read of the Potter books, really is not that complex. If 'sidekick' is as simplistic a term as I think it is, then he probably fits the role more than Sam...

Good points.

[Helga]

I totally agree with Lokasenna, Sam was the every man and I really liked him. I have to admit I haven't read any Harry Potter book and I have only seen two movies from beginning to end.

I picked Sam because he was there for Frodo all the way, and I don't think he was a doormat he had courage to do what was needed of him.

Ron was annoying.

[papayahed]

Is Sam really a sidekick?


Yes in that he was the "come with" guy.

[LadyLuck]

:biggrinjester:

Because Sam is too loyal. It seems as though Sam has put Frodo on a pedestal while Ron seems like a real friend seeing the good and the bad in Harry.

Fair enough, but I have to love Sam for having the strength to just take whatever it is was thrown his way. In so many ways he shouldered such a huge burden in his unfailing support of Frodo. He didn't whine or become self pitying, he just stood up and kept trucking on through it. I guess I relate a bit more with his way of handling stresses than I do Ron and the complaining and tantrums. Ron was still a good friend, but if I had to choose between the two, I would take the stalwart and steady one.

[Alexander III]

Sam is less of a sidekick and more like Frodo's indentured servant, and he's unhealthily obsessed with Frodo.

Oddly enough, I was visiting a friend at the international American school in Rome, and there calling someone a "samwise" is used as a slang for calling them gay.

[Lokasenna]

Yes in that he was the "come with" guy.

The issue I was hazily trying to poke at is how one defines a 'sidekick' - the term to me has always suggested a character who is tacked on, who is entertaining but not actually necessary. For example, one can imagine Batman without Robin, so Robin is therefore a sidekick. It would be impossible to imagine Don Quixote without Sancho Panza, as he brings far too much to the story, characters and situations.

Sam is integral to our understanding of The Lord of the Rings, whereas I suspect (from my limited reading) that Ron would be more easily disposed of without particularly damaging the plot.

[LadyLuck]

Sam is integral to our understanding of The Lord of the Rings, whereas I suspect (from my limited reading) that Ron would be more easily disposed of without particularly damaging the plot.

I would have to agree with this. I imagine in that sense, I would characterize Hermione as more of the sidekick in Harry Potter. It's strange in that I think Ron was supposed to be that guy, but it was really Hermione who stole the show for me in helping with the understanding a resolution of problems in Harry Potter.

[TurquoiseSunset]

Sam irritated me, whereas Ron provided comic relief. If I had to pick a sidekick, between the two, it would be Ron.

[papayahed]

The issue I was hazily trying to poke at is how one defines a 'sidekick' - the term to me has always suggested a character who is tacked on, who is entertaining but not actually necessary. For example, one can imagine Batman without Robin, so Robin is therefore a sidekick. It would be impossible to imagine Don Quixote without Sancho Panza, as he brings far too much to the story, characters and situations.

Sam is integral to our understanding of The Lord of the Rings, whereas I suspect (from my limited reading) that Ron would be more easily disposed of without particularly damaging the plot.


I have to disagree with your definition of sidekick. I've always thought of the sidekick as the side dish, the person who adds to the story but is unable to carry the story himself. Sure you can imagine Batman without Robin, but do you want to? No.

You can't make a story with Sam as the main character therefore - sidekick.

[Themis]

Even though I can't stand Sam and much prefer Ron, I'd have to say "Sam", too. Because Sam's great.

[togre]

I've always thought of the sidekick as the side dish, the person who adds to the story but is unable to carry the story himself.

Carry the story? Sam had to carry Frodo almost half-way across Mordor.