another thing wrt Sam’s moral character is, I do think that if it had come down to it (and it could easily have come down to it) he’d have let the rest of middle earth burn rather than let Frodo die.
WHICH is actually one of the qualities which makes him such an invaluable friend to Frodo - it’s what keeps them both alive long enough to be rescued after the Ring is destroyed and is also (obvs) what prompts him to go back for Frodo at the end of TT, even tho he fully believes he’s dooming the quest in doing so.
Sam’s willingness to abandon the quest is part of what ultimately allowed the quest to succeed. & I think that’s neat.
Frodo’s role in the team is being so determined not to abandon the quest that he was down for crawling up Mount Doom on his hands and knees, knowing full well that he was never going to make it to the top. & Sam’s role is being willing to say ‘you know what? fuck this’.
“For example: A writer sets out to write science fiction but isn’t familiar with the genre, hasn’t read what’s been written. This is a fairly common situation, because science fiction is known to sell well but, as a subliterary genre, is not supposed to be worth study—what’s to learn? It doesn’t occur to the novice that a genre is a genre because it has a field and focus of its own; its appropriate and particular tools, rules, and techniques for handling the material; its traditions; and its experienced, appreciative readers—that it is, in fact, a literature. Ignoring all this, our novice is just about to reinvent the wheel, the space ship, the space alien, and the mad scientist, with cries of innocent wonder. The cries will not be echoed by the readers. Readers familiar with that genre have met the space ship, the alien, and the mad scientist before. They know more about them than the writer does. In the same way, critics who set out to talk about a fantasy novel without having read any fantasy since they were eight, and in ignorance of the history and extensive theory of fantasy literature, will make fools of themselves because they don’t know how to read the book. They have no contextual information to tell them what its tradition is, where it’s coming from, what it’s trying to do, what it does. This was liberally proved when the first Harry Potter book came out and a lot of literary reviewers ran around shrieking about the incredible originality of the book. This originality was an artifact of the reviewers’ blank ignorance of its genres (children’s fantasy and the British boarding-school story), plus the fact that they hadn’t read a fantasy since they were eight. It was pitiful. It was like watching some TV gourmet chef eat a piece of buttered toast and squeal, ‘But this is delicious! Unheard of! Where has it been all my life?’”
man has no need for the 9 - 5 workday. you know what man DOES need? chickens, a food garden, ample time for hobbies/creative endeavors, a picnic basket, various jams also.
you know when you’re a child and you’re like what’s the big deal what’s so wrong with leaving dirty dishes in the sink and then you’re an adult and the presence of dirty dishes that the other adults in the dwelling have left in the sink makes you homicidal
I really think writing excessively brainy fanfiction for bad shows that don’t deserve it is the noblest form of women’s work…. This century’s Bayeux tapestry….
