There is nothing ordinary about Sam, how ever much he may protest that
idea. Nor is there anything ordinary about Frodo. But they stand
out not because of their power or wisdom or physical strength, but because of
their humility, their self-sacrifice, and their spiritual strength.
Tolkien does believe, however, that true heroes do not seek public honors like
Boromir, but instead simply do their duty like Sam and Frodo and Aragorn.
Heroism is a burden, not a reward.
Like Sam, Frodo was unduly modest. He did not fail, despite his own
doubts. No one else could have better earned the intervention of a
benevolent Providence -- even Sam dealt more harshly with Gollum than Frodo,
thus jeopardizing a Holy Quest. To suggest that Frodo should have been
able to destroy the Ring on his own, without the intervention of Providence,
defies everything we know about the Ring and its powers. Only a saint
like Frodo could have gotten as far as he did; no one could have gotten farther
without the help of Providence.
Frodo gets his accolades in Gondor, but not in the Shire. Tolkien
suggests that true heroes still exist, but that the modern world does not
recognize them. Thus he questions the popular standards of heroism, while
at the same time asserting that there is such a thing as
heroism.
“I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.)” (From Tolkien Letter # 131.)
Tips for posting in the Reading Room.
