Talk:Samwise Gamgee/Archive 1

Commentary
While all that information in the Commentary section is interesting, I don't think it's necessarily important enough to have its own section. (I am talking about the content, not the quanity or quality). Personally, I think it could be shortened and cut a whole lot more and go under a section called 'Trivia'. &mdash;Mirlen 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Images and weapons
first comment copied from User talk:Carcharoth

Instead of revert the edits I thought it would be better to ask you in your talk page. I have a few questions about your recent edits to Samwise Gamgee.


 * 1) When you removed Sam's weapon you stated that this isn't "Dungeons & Dragons" (at least I assume that's what D&D means). You also mentioned this in the "Template talk:Infobox Tolkien". What does that mean?
 * 2) Why did you remove the image in the infobox? Do you plan on doing this for all charecter's articles? Cause as of now Frodo, Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir, Gimli, Saruman, Merrry, and Pippin all have pictures of New Line Cinema's actors on them.
 * --Ted87 20:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I removed the weapons bit because I don't think Sam having a barrowblade is an important thing to know. In general, I would only fill in the weapon section if the weapon has a name. So I would agree for things like Aiglos, Narsil, Sting, Glamdring etc, but not just some barrowblade. The general trend towards putting a weapon in even when it is not really relevant - I mean Sam is not really a warrior - is what I meant by the Dungeons and Dragons comment. Does the proposal to only include weapons if they are named or relevant (eg - Legolas with a bow and Gimli with an axe, I would agree with) sound reasonable? Carcharoth 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 2) About the images, I was just trying out what I saw someone else doing. I discussed it with that editor here, and suggested that he move images to the "Portrayals" section, rather than remove them completely. Argonath and Balrog are examples of places where the images have been moved from the infobox to the "portrayals" section. I then got worried about images being "lost", and so I trawled the Tolkien categories and came up with over 300 images that are now linked (and displayed as gallery thumbnails) from WikiProject_Middle-earth/Images. This editing of the Sam article was trying things out. Unfortunately, with the "Portrayals" section being so small, the pictures don't fit very well with the text. Especially when there are two of them, as here. Ideally, there would be a screenshot from the Rankin Bass Return of the King as well, but we don't have that. I'd prefer to see the images kept in the portrayals section, with the main infobox dealing with material from the book, and having a separate infobox to go in the portrayals section. That might also cure some of the layout problems. Does this sound reasonable? Carcharoth 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the weapons rationale, but if you're going to change the format of the infobox then you should: One, do it for all articles, or like you said it is "absolutely contradictory to the text or use stuff that could misguide the reader", which Sam's image is not. And two, it should be done with a consensus (unless it was and I missed it).
 * --Ted87 22:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying out a new template at Frodo Baggins. See what you think. If I'm going ahead too fast, please revert all this and we can discuss at the WikiProject. Carcharoth 23:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just put the image back for now. As for the infobox for Frodo, shouldn't  the section say "Horse" or "Steed" instead of "Pony"? Since it is a more general term and most charecters don't have/use a pony. --Ted87 00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Frodo Baggins. Carcharoth 07:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes are broken
For some reason the three footnotes don't appear in the References section but I can't fathom out why. Thu 11:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Gardner
Is there more information regarding the house of Gardner? It might be nice to expand on that a little. Prome theus  -X303-  19:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Older comments
The comment at the end suggesting that Sam and Frodo MIGHT have a homoerotic relationship, even though it says it is ambiguous, should be removed. It isn't ambiguous. Sam is the brother he never had, etc. It's like old epic tales were "bands of brothers" share bonds of purely platonic love during time of war and trials.
 * It is probably fair to say that Tolkien would never have even dreamed of such a thing. However, it is something that people frequently bring up. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 04:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I found it thoroughly ambiguous, FWIW. The idea that Tolkien, an Oxford don, wouldn't have dreamed of same-sex relationships is fanciful in the extreme, even if he was married and heterosexual himself. Furthermore, the idea that the platonic bonds of epic tales and same-sex love are mutually exclusive is silly. 140.180.39.38 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No it's the way it's phrased; a new edit that wasn't here a few months ago.

Morwen, Pigsonthewing -

I found the following reference at http://www.planet-tolkien.com/board/cat/3/thread/1909/0 :


 * "Tolkien did not know that there really was a Sam Gamgee until he received a letter from the gentleman on March 13, 1956 and he was very surprised indeed. Gamgee was a word used for cotton-wool, after it's inventor Sampson Gamgee."

Also:


 * Back in March of 1956, the Professor got a letter ...from a gentleman whose name was... Sam Gamgee ! It seems Mr. Gamgee had heard that his name was, ahem, mentioned in The Lord of the Rings, though he had not read the book. On March 18th, the Professor replied with a letter which ran, in part :


 * "Dear Mr. Gamgee,


 * It was very kind of you to write. You can imagine my astonishment when I saw your signature! I can only say, for your comfort, I hope, that the 'Sam Gamgee' of my story is a most heroic character, now widely beloved by many readers, even though his origins are rustic. So that perhaps you will not be displeased at the coincidence of the name of this imaginary character of supposedly many centuries ago being the same as yours."


 * The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, ed. Humphrey Carpenter


 * He proceeded to send Mr. Gamgee signed copies of all three volumes of the book. However, this entire incident did start a bit of a worry, as recorded in his biography.


 * "For some time I lived in fear of receiving a letter signed 'S. Gollum'. That would have been more difficult to deal with. "


 * Tolkien: A Biography by Humphrey Carpenter

( http://quenta-narwen.blogspot.com/2003_03_16_quenta-narwen_archive.htm )

So in short, it seems that Sam Gamgee was indeed named after the tissue, not the man. -- ChrisO 19:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * There's a better quote in letter 257


 * "The choice of Gamgee was primarily directed by alliteration; but I did not invent it. It was caught out of childhood memory, as a comic word or name. It was in fact the name when I was small (in Birmingham) for 'cotton-wool'. (Hence the association of the Gamgees with the Cottons.) I knew nothing of its origin.
 * Morwen - Talk 19:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Morwen - Talk 19:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Nice one - I've added that to the article. However, it doesn't really explain why of all names he chose Sam, so I suspect there was something subconscious going on there! -- ChrisO 20:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed this from after the first paragraph:

"An unusually funny scene from the LOTR films, where Sam enunciates out the meaning of 'taters' to Gollum, became an internet meme for a short while."

It's very obscure (evidence?) and it doesn't belong at the top of this article. I'd like to see evidence that it's significant enough for inclusion anywhere before putting it elsewhere. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edited to correct typo in link to "Gamgee Tissue" (Name section)

Death
I changed the death from "Fourth Age" to "unknown." He departed to Aman, the land of eternal life, and it is unclear whether he, as a mortal being, would die there or live eternally with the elves. Any guess as to his death is pure speculation. Papercrab 20:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we can presume he died in the Fourth Age because he is not immortal. Saying "presumably" doesn't seem to inappropriate. --Ted87 07:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While he may not have been immortal, he was a ringbearer, which counts for something. However, I think that we can have "unknown, presumably fourth age" would be best -Rebent 21:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tolkien says in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien that mortals would still die in Aman. Uthanc 11:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be worth noting that it appears to be within the power of the Valar to grant immortality to mortals who live in the Undying Lands. Tuor for example, at least according to Middle Earth legend. Elrond and Elros are also specifically offered this choice, although unlike Tuor they are at least half-elven. It is not inconceivable that a similar choice might be set before the ring-bearers.


 * Is this written anywhere? No, but nor is it written that Sam or Frodo die. In the absence of any evidence either way, "unknown" seems more accurate than "Fourth Age" for Sam's death. Euryalus 11:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "'As for Frodo or other mortals, they could only dwell in Aman for a limited time -whether brief or long. The Valar had neither the power nor the right to confer 'immortality' upon them. Their sojourn was a 'purgatory', but one of peace and healing and they would eventually pass away (die at their own desire and of free will) to destinations of which the Elves knew nothing.' Letter #325 Uthanc 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)"

Well, that's pretty conclusive - Died it is. Out of idle curiosity, I note the letter is not available at the website - do you know anywhere else it can be read online? Euryalus 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is - see on the fifth post. Uthanc 08:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 'Characteristics' section mention his major characteristics? Such as his embarrassingly servile attitude, and his appearance of being a simpleton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.202.221 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to infobox
See discussion here. It started as a debate on whether the infobox should be removed from Saruman after a recent GA fail, but has moved on to proposed changes to the M-e character infoboxes to make them less in-universe, as required by Wikipedia's guidelines on writing about fiction. All comments welcome. 4u1e (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Literacy
Not only was it unusual for a rustic hobbit to be able to read and write, but the Gaffer plainly had mixed feelings about it: Book One, Chapter One has a line something like "Mr Frodo has learned him his letters -- meaning no harm, and I hope none comes of it"... :) Captain Pedant (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics - "chief hero"
The source here isn't really clear on who Tolkien is calling the chief hero. Many, such as this author and English teacher, interpret this to be referring to Aragorn, whom the original paragraph is about in this excerpt. There are sources on both sides of this. The Yar (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Resisting the Ring
I thought the hobbits were chosen because apparently they can resist the One Ring better than anyone else. Therefore it wouldn't be surprising for Sam to resist the Ring if he had only worn it for such a brief period of time. I think Bilbo in "The Hobbit" initially only used the Ring to escape. Angry bee (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who chose them?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Council of Elrond did. and ultimately, Eru. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, does Tom Bombadil not count as a character who resisted the power of the Ring because by all appearances, it exerted no effect on him at all? Nonstopdrivel (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There is an error in stating only Sam and Frodo resisted the ring. Faramir also resisted the ring in a manner as absolute as Sam did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.234.64 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Frodo.
The article states that Sam was Frodo's Gardener, but wasn't he more of a man-servant than a Gardener? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, quite definitely a gardener. Here is his first mention in the book: ''No-one had a more attentive audience than old Ham Gamgee.... He had tended the garden at Bag End for forty years.... Now that he was himself growing old and stiff in the joints, the job was mainly carried on by his youngest son, Sam Gamgee. 91.105.34.19 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say he was just a gardener, it says Sam had taken over his fathers duties in the Garden. There is a big difference, Sam's duties encompass far more than this. When Frodo move's to Crickhollow it's announced that Sam is going with him to "do for Mr Frodo" whatever that means. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonably clear that Sam's relationship with Frodo (on the quest at least) was modeled on that between a World War I officer and his assigned batman or servant. I have introduced a new section "Relationship with Frodo" in the main page with more information in this. Tony 1212 (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the speculation, without a source we are WP:SYNTH. It also incorrectly said the term servant doesn't appear in the text, but Sam is referred to as a servant by several different characters. GimliDotNet (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Papageno
After watching Håkan Hagegård's interpretation of Papageno in The Magic Flute (1975 film), I found a parallel with Sean Astin's Sam Gamgee in the Peter Jackson's films. A quick Internet search doesn't find a relation, but you may find a source about Jackson's team getting inspiration from Ingmar Bergman. --Error (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Character Information Box
Do you all think we should add an image of Samwise Gamgee from the movie adaptation to the character info box? I think it would help readers verify quicker who they searched for. And the movie adaptation is the most scene from the average person. Let me know. Michaelkurek011 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but we can't, as we only use free-to-use images up there, and any image from Jackson's films will be in copyright. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a good point. Thanks for pointing that out Michaelkurek011 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relationships with Frodo
Pertaining to this edit: ''Froto increasingly started to become more untrusting of Sam during their journey to Mordor to destroy the One Ring. Gollum, the creature leading the duo to Mordor, started to play with Froto and turn him against Sam. Gollum started to corrupt Froto more as the journey continued, but Sam was highly motivated in trying to help Froto complete his mission to destroy the ring. Near the end of their journey to destroy the One Ring nearing Mount Doom, Froto seemed to give up. Sam, being strong both mentally and physically, famously said, "Come, Mr. Froto! I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you and it as well. So up you get!" And then picked up Froto, and carried him higher up the volcano.''

I have included two citations of direct J.R.R Tolkien novels. Both explaining what I have stated in this description. Gollum's corruption of Froto is explained throughout the whole The Two Towers novel, specifically The Stairs of Cirith Ungol chapter. The end of this edit explaining Sam's help in destroying the Ring and helping Frodo is explained throughout the whole chapter Mount Doom in the third novel. Michaelkurek011 (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Also this is a massive moment in the lore of the universe and how the One Ring was destroyed. Without Sam in this, the Ring may have never been destroyed so an explanation of this should surely exist on his page. And being that he assisted Frodo in destorying the Ring, having it in the Relationships with Frodo section fits best. Michaelkurek011 (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Tolkien is the WP:PRIMARY source here, and the article already briefly summarizes the content. We cannot rely on a primary source for interpretation, especially not when coloured by personal views. The only option is to cite scholars and critics to explain their views of what it all means; these are called reliable sources, WP:RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sam and his heroics are described in depth in the article, and cited to reliable sources. We cannot put our own interpretation of the points in without breaking WP:OR. GimliDotNet (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't find this article very in depth, at least compared to other characters such as Gandalf or Frodo. Most of the content is extremely well written and what is here is in depth. I agree to it's "Good Article" rating, but it can be improved and more detail added. This isn't an interpretation, just explanations made based on the original texts from J.R.R Tolkien. I'm not sharing my opinion on if Gollum is trying to corrupt Frodo, he is, he wants the Ring for himself. One of the most important moments in the story (opinion or not) is Sam carrying Frodo up Mount Doom to destroy the Ring. Somewhere in this article it should go more into depth on this moment. Should it be added to a different section of the article? Or maybe change an existing section to describe it more? Michaelkurek011 (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Gollum trying to corrupt Frodo is not required in an article on Sam. We are not here to write a detailed plot summary, for that the Tolkien gateway other fan wiki's are available. We are not allowed to draw our conclusions as to the importance of one scene over another. The Relationship with Frodo section is cited to external reviewers and commentators, not wikipedia editors. We would need a reliable source to allow us to include your wanted additions to this section. GimliDotNet (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief mention of the carrying to the plot summary. Not sure if you want to copy/edit it Chiswick Chap GimliDotNet (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. On Sam's carrying Frodo, it has a Christian aspect which has been discussed by scholars, so I may add a brief section on that side of things; obviously the "most important moments" stuff is pure editorial opinion which must not be reflected in the article (WP:OR). I'm glad the edit-warring seems to have abated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent. The additional section gives weight to the inclusion of the carrying of Frodo in the plot section, showing it’s not just in there because it’s a great scene. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've taken the opportunity to extend the lead slightly, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Use of term "sidekick" in lede?
In the lede the relevant phrase currently reads: "Samwise is the chief supporting character of The Lord of the Rings, serving as the sidekick of the protagonist Frodo Baggins". However "sidekick" is (in my experience) an American (slang) term (like Batman and Robin, etc. etc.), which to me reads weirdly in a description of a book that was written by an English author, initially for a British readership. Surely there is a term in equivalent current British usage that would be more appropriate? I note that the only reference in the main body of the article is from a US commentary, namely "Entertainment Weekly called Sam Gamgee one of the "greatest sidekicks." ", but that is still not a term which would normally be used in Britain. Thoughts? BTW in earlier versions of the article, e.g. this one from 2011, the lede was a little better constructed, with the text saying "Samwise is one of the chief characters in Tolkien's novel The Lord of the Rings, in which he fills an archetypical role as the sidekick of the protagonist, Frodo Baggins.", although an editor of the time noted: "Undid revision 437660004 by 65.78.180.166 (talk) although 'sidekick' seems incredibly inappropriate wording...", see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samwise_Gamgee&oldid=437664132. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course Tolkien's conception (born from his own experience) for Frodo and Sam was of a military officer and his assigned soldier-servant (batman), but such a term is a bit archaic today :) Tony 1212 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some options, but IDK, maybe choice #2.... I guess, by definition, it should be Deuteragonist -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How about "loyal companion" as a substitute phrase? Tony 1212 (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I had conjured up "loyal companion" myself (possibly still did), however it already appears elsewhere, in Colin Duriez' book "The Tolkien and Middle-Earth Handbook", pub. 1992: "Gamgee, Samwise ... the loyal companion of the Ring-bearer Frodo Baggins..." With that in mind, perhaps it would be OK to substitute it for "sidekick" in the lede and add the cited reference to the text somewhere (possibly under Samwise_Gamgee, possibly elsewhere...) Tony 1212 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Interestingly ... I checked the earliest archived version of this page that I could find, from November 2001, which reads almost in entirety: (quote)"Sam Gamgee, found in J.R.R. Tolkien's trilogy, Lord of the Rings, is Frodo Baggins' best friend and most loyal companion through all their adventures". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samwise_Gamgee&oldid=385142125) No sidekick there, only loyal companion... sometimes it takes a while and things eventually run full circle... Tony 1212 (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That will work for me. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK done... also added the term "manservant" to the lede, and added relevant discussion (and citations) to the section "Relationship with Frodo". Tony 1212 (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)