LotR: Is Frodo a static character?

[Hwo Thumb]

Firstoff, it pains me to say it, but I have never gotten around to reading the Lord of the Rings books. I'm going to be talking about the movies. If Frodo goes through this wonderful evolution and becomes a hero by the end of the books, that's great, but in this thread I'm only using the movies. As far as I'm concerned, the movies and the books are two completely different things.

With that in mind, I was talking with a friend of mine, who's a film buff and a huge Tolkien fan. (Star Wars fans, Tolkienites, Trekkies, I have all the nerd friends! Yet I'm the only browncoat :sad:) I argued that while the LotR world is pretty awesome, and the plot is okay, I don't like the characters, particularly Frodo.

Think about it. Throughout the entire trilogy, what does he do? He gets stabbed several times, saved by other, more competent people, attacked by spiders and emaciated fish people, and ultimately for what? To make a decision: Should I destroy the super evil demon ring from hell or not? I know it's a little more complicated than that, but come on, literally character we meet in this epic would make a better protagonist than Frodo. (And a better ring bearer) I know that for some random, arbitrary reason, he's magically more resistant than most to the ring's corruption, but we clearly see Sam resist the temptation of the ring several times. In fact, he does a better job of it than Frodo, who becomes incredibly paranoid that Sam is plotting to take the ring when he isn't.

But Frodo's suckiness isn't the point here. His resistance to change is. After his grand adventure, what is he? He's not any smarter or wiser. He's not stronger, or a more skilled fighter, or less full of stab wounds, or kinder or more charitable or more faithful or better in any way at all. He walks away from Mordor, (Well, flies away, but I'm not discussing Deus ex Eagle here) more or less the same hobbit that left the Shire. Months (Years?) of journeying and he isn't any different.

Opinions? Counter-claims? I'm interested to hear what other people think about this.

[sandy14]

The books have a very different ending to the films. In addition the texts are able to elaborate more about the constant struggle Frodo has with the ring of power, something which the films at least acknowledge. The truncated ending means that you do not get to see what they've learnt about fighting evil against an evil wizard. (I'm trying not to give too much away).

As far as the films go, they end when the lord of the ring destroys the ring. No ring - no lord. Some might say "passing into the West" is a metaphor for dying, or at least moving to an eternal life (or the destruction of the gods - Ragnarok - Tolkien knew the Ring cycle). So Frodo goes from a young hobbit to a battle scarred veteran who cannot return to the life he had before. The fight against evil involves sacrifice and loss and Tolkien shows us this through Frodo. Sam comes back from the wars and finds peace because he has something to live for. Frodo cannot find peace because his wounds are too deep and "passes into the West".

So, no, Frodo is not a static character. He starts as a carefree volunteer and finished as a broken veteran dying of his wounds, but well aware that sacrifice is necessary for good to triumph over evil.

[kev67]

I preferred Bilbo Baggins to Frodo as a character. Frodo was always rather dull. Frodo's main strength is his willpower. He is less corruptible than any of the others in the fellowship, the warriors anyway. Being physically weak means he is potentially less dangerous if he is corrupted. Sam only had the ring for a short time, so it had less time to wield its effect. You could say when Frodo demands the ring back from Sam that the ring had started to corrupt him. Even Frodo cannot bring himself to throw the ring in Mount Doom in the book. The implication is that nobody could. In the book, but not the film, Frodo warns Gollum that he would order him to jump into the volcano if he tried to steal the ring back. Gollum bites Frodo's ring finger off while Frodo is changing his mind at the cliff edge, but as he is dancing and celebrating, falls into the volcano. Frodo does change over the book; he becomes sadder and wiser and progressively more injured and in pain.

[Ecurb]

Character development (beloved of High School English teachers) doesn't play much of a role in Epics. Achilles is, was, and shall ever be Achilles.

Nonetheless, the Frodo of the movies was ridiculous, with his eyes rolling up in his head as if the One Ring were some kind of Roofie. The point of Frodo is that he is ordinary and extraordinary simultaneously -- the Ring holds more tempations for the Great and the Wise, like Gandalf or Aragorn or Galadriel. Although Frodo doesn't develop much in the novels, he does learn about himself, as is made clear in The Scouring of the Shire (which was cut out of the movies). The Lord of the Rings revolves around these ordinary Hobbits, surrounded by the Great and Heroic. It's as if Ratty and Moley were plopped into the Elder Eddas.

[Hwo Thumb]

Sam only had the ring for a short time, so it had less time to wield its effect. You could say when Frodo demands the ring back from Sam that the ring had started to corrupt him.

Sam may not have been touching the ring, but he was still exposed to it. After all, Gollum committed murder over the ring after being exposed to it for mere minutes. (If I remember correctly, didn't he kill his own brother to take the ring from him?) Isn't the idea not just that the ring makes you paranoid, but it also makes others envious of it? Yet Sam never shows any real desire to take the ring from Frodo. In fact, Frodo is even MORE corrupted by it than Sam, because he falsely suspects Sam of wanting it and even believes Gollum over his own best friend, even though he knows Gollum is corrupted by the ring. And we plainly see that it only takes Boromir, who is just as close, proximity wise to Frodo as Sam, a few days (Or is it weeks? I lose track of time in this story. Anyway, much less time than Sam) to try and get the ring for himself.

Conclusion: Sam should have been the ring bearer. Frodo, however, should have remained the meat-shield, getting repeatedly stabbed, poisoned, bludgeoned, etc.

Edit: I like what ecurb says, about Frodo being perfectly ordinary. (Except that Sam is just as ordinary and yet clearly better :P)

[Calidore]

I think the point was that hobbits are naturally bland, boring and, most important for this purpose, completely without greed or ambition. The ring was still able to corrupt Frodo over time, but it took much longer because the ring had less to work with. No other potential ringbearer (except Sam, for the same reasons) would have made it nearly as far.