curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
2016-08-01 11:32 am
Entry tags:

Modern Literature Lacking Soul?

It's rather astounding to see the number of books available on the book stores and being sold. Some of them are brilliant and some, well...

However, I came across a couple of books and was left unsatisfied, wondering what the author was really trying to say. I haven't read much modern books except 2 Nicholas Sparks' books, Harry Potter books and The Alchemist.

Somehow, I stumbled upon Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn a couple of weeks back and started it with huge expectations given I'm fond of psychological thrillers. What I saw till 20 chapters was a rough and childish writing. God, I waited for some sincerity in it but couldn't find any. And had to give up on it after those few chapters. I don't regret it.

I'm a huge Tolkien fan. Love reading Dickens and many authors of old. Their works are full of richness and sincerity and you know they're not writing for JUST money. But most books I've come across disappoint me heavily.

The only ones I treasure are Harry Potter books. And currently reading Percy Jackson. They're decent enough so far.
curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
2014-12-05 03:05 pm
Entry tags:

What I learnt from LOTR

J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series is one of the most revered series of all time. To me, personally, it gave so many heroes and Tolkien explored lots of themes in his creation in which LOTR is mainly about the inevitability of death and mortality. Lord of the Rings comes as an immense source of inspiration to its readers. Since its publish in 29th July 1954 the series has never failed to entertain and inspire its readers: the Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves and Men created the most beautiful and colorful world of Middle-earth that is still ablaze in the hearts of the fans.

Started in 1937 LOTR was written during World War II; and the experience of the war vastly influenced Tolkien’s writing. The other element influencing his writing was his own experience in World War I where he served as a soldier and saw immense destruction during. He was also influenced by the effects of industrialization where he saw most of England he loved fading away.

Sunday Times reviewed the books as saying, “The English-speaking world is divided into those who have read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit and those who are going to read them.” The reviews in the beginning were not very kind; after the release of the first book in the series, Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien’s work was criticized blatantly. The books, however, maintained to make the place in its readers’ lives. I, as a reader, learnt a lot from Tolkien’s books which is discussed
Love is what makes this world worth living and J. R. R. Tolkien deals with this theme beautifully. The foundation of LOTR is based on Love, because the four Hobbit heroes rise from their peaceful living place out of Love.
Arwen, the daughter of Elrond, makes an eternal sacrifice for her Love for Aragorn when she chooses to become mortal knowing the decision is going to lead her to a bitter end.
“Frodo undertook his quest out of love, to save the world he knew from disaster,” an infamous quote by Tolkien presents the greatest form of love I came across in fiction. Frodo’s decision to go to Mordor was not inspired by any personal interest, and nor was it to prove something for himself; it rather came as a stimulation from love and welfare of the masses. Frodo’s love perfectly personifies a soldier’s love for his country.
Another example of love that moves me to the core is that of Sam’s love for his friend Frodo. The devotion and love Sam shows throughout the story is not just moving but utterly astonishing. The moment he decides to rescue Frodo from the tower of Cirith Ungol is the greatest act of courage that was solely inspired by his undying love for his master. Later in the parts, Sam’s ability to stick with Frodo truly unfolds his character as an epitome of “earthly” love.
Merry and Pippin, Frodo’s closest friends, not knowing what unknown dangers lay ahead for them, stubbornly wish to follow Frodo and Sam. When Frodo asks them to back out, Merry replies, “You can trust us to stick to you through thick and thin- to the bitter end. And you can trust us to keep any secret of yours- closer that you keep it to yourself. But you cannot trust us to let you face trouble alone, and go off without a word. We are your friends, Frodo.” The conversation between the Hobbits is an amazing evidence of the bond of love and friendship they share. This is not to mention the Hobbits turn out to be the game-changers in the War of the Ring. Such selflessness and love of these characters is worth learning from.

Lord of the Rings was a sacrificial quest. In the War of the Ring many lives were sacrificed for the wellbeing of the world. Be it Gandalf’s sacrifice in the Mines of Moria, or Boromir’s or that of Sam’s when he chooses to give up the last leftovers of water and food he had for Frodo; or Frodo’s decision to go to the quest that was meant to claim his life. The whole narrative is full of sacrificial characters in which Gandalf and Frodo come as prominent sacrificial figures, for these two characters sacrifice the whole essence of their being. In the Fellowship of the Ring Gandalf’s attempt to defeat Balrog costs him his life in the literal sense; while Frodo’s life is sacrificed symbolically.
However Tolkien does not write his heroes as “poor guys” so that I pity them, rather I learnt—sacrifice (thus suffering) hardens you. Gandalf, without letting his sacrifice or suffering become the reason of his weakness, returns as Gandalf the White—stronger than any warrior in ME. Aragorn’s words define his prowess as such:
“The Dark Lord has Nine. But we have One, mightier than they: the White Rider. He has passed through the fire and abyss, and they shall fear him. We will go where he leads.”
Without the self-sacrifice of Gandalf the Grey, there would never have been Gandalf the White.
The quest “claims” Frodo’s life in the symbolic sense when he finds it unable to go back to his previous life.
“But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: someone has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.”
The quote shows Frodo’s acceptance of his fate and self-sacrifice and also gives us an insight into our world’s accomplishments. That there has to be someone who makes a sacrifice for us, therefore we ought to be grateful to whatever we have. For we never know what we have had really belonged to someone else, and by being ungrateful for things we not only moderate our luxuries but also degrade the value of the sacrifice made by an unknown being.
Samwise’s sacrifice helps Frodo and him to reach their final destination, Cracks of Doom, the only place where the Ring could be destroyed. “Without Sam Frodo wouldn’t have got so far,” is an absolutely true quote from the book. Sam stuck with Frodo when he was supposed to be laughing, eating and living a peaceful life in the Shire. Sam’s sacrifice reminds me of a care-taker and patient where the caretaker sticks with the patient through everything and takes care of him/her.

Gildor, an elf, during his meeting with the hobbits says, “Courage if found in unlikely places.” The quote holds true for the hobbit heroes of the books because all of them show extraordinary courage all along.
Frodo stays back at the Barrow Downs where he faces an immense temptation to put in the Ring and save his own life first; but Frodo, instead of giving in to the temptation, fights and helps saving his companions from the Evil. Later his decision of taking the Ring to Mordor is the most courageous act in the entire series, for having been told what was at stake (i.e. not just life but his entire being included soul) his acceptance of burden shows proves him to be a truly courageous soul. Rest parts of the book unveil his courage his very aptly. The journey from the Shire to Mordor demonstrates his great amount of courage. Each step taken by Frodo towards Mordor wrote a new account of courage.
Another character showing courage in LOTR is Samwise who starts as an ordinary hobbit of the Shire but comes out as one of the most prominent characters who defeat the Dark Lord, Sauron. “Without Sam Frodo wouldn’t have got so far” is fully justifiable quote from The Two Towers. Sam’s courage is tested when he finds his master lying supposedly dead and himself alone in Shelob’s Lair. His battle with the giant spider, Shelob, puts him in the ‘league” of one of the bravest warriors in ME because Shelob had eaten Orcs far larger and greater than Sam while she loses the battle against this little hobbit. Again, when Sam decides to rescue Frodo from the clutches of the hideous Orcs in Cirith Ungol, he does not know how many Orcs are there in the tower. Not even this does stop him from going to face the ceaseless terror in CU.
Merry and Pippin stay back in the battle and present themselves in the service to the King. Pippin being the youngest hobbit and the member of the Fellowship is named “Fool of a Took”, does not take the things seriously until he faced with the final “deed” he is appointed to. The deed of Pippin’s is to save the life of Faramir, younger son of the Captain of the White City. His actions are purely inspired from love and affection for a friend the he too, like Sam, does not fear the Death when it comes to saving the life of a dear friend.
Merry is asked to stay behind as battlefield is no place for a little hobbit. Merry, however, does not admire the thought of being left behind when all of his fellow hobbits have been in the War. He decides to go and is aided by lady Eowyn. Like other hobbits, Merry, too, is proved the Hobbit hero of the Shire. He helps Eowyn kill the Witchking. This action of the duo not just glorifies lady of Rohan but also little Merry.
Tolkien through his Hobbits tells us the neither of them were great or Powerful from the beginning but due to their courage they become the key factors in the fall of Sauron. This is the case with us too. We do not need to be great or big to fight big battles, but courageous, determined and patient.

Tolkien in one of his letters says, “There are of course certain things and themes that move me specially. The inter-relation between the ’noble’ and ‘simple’ (or common or vulgar), for instance. The ennoblement of ignoble I find most moving.”
I remained in awe of the ennobled souls all my life without even realizing this fact until I read LOTR and Tolkien’s quote regarding ennoblement and his characters in the books. When the journey of the Ring starts, we have the people who one would say noble: Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, Boromir or any other elf or dwarf. All of them come across as noble souls. The hobbits, on the other hand, come as ignoble: unaware and rather careless about the outside world, its problems, corruption and evil. These hobbits grow out of their older selves and accept the tasks that are appointed to them by Authority (God that is).
Tolkien in particular talks about the ennoblement of Frodo who due to his journey “outgrows” the mortal world.
“I loved them [hobbits] myself, since I love the vulgar and simple as clearly as the noble, and nothing moves my heart (beyond all the passions and heartbreaks of the world) so much as ennoblement (From Ugly Duckling to Frodo).”
Frodo like his companions starts out as an ordinary and ignoble hobbit only learned in Elvish Lore more than them. Still the decision taken by him (of willingly taking the burden upon himself) in the Council of Elrond elevates him to the level of the greatest mortals in Middle-earth. His decision of self-sacrifice often makes him look like an epitome of Christ, for Christ too sacrificed his life for the salvation of the world.
Frodo’s final encounter with Saruman in the Shire proves his ennoblement and also his growth when he forgives the fallen Maia; and Saruman backs out, defeated, not by arms but the valor and divinity of this hobbit. Frodo’s ennoblement inspires Sam to be the hobbit he becomes at the end of their journey.
Samwise, as Tolkien in one of his letters said, means “Half-wise” or “Half-witted” is one of the most heroic and noble characters of the series. He grows out of his older self and also his name. By the end if the Return of the King he no more remains the “half-witted” Samwise- he participates in the battle against the ruffians and heals his Shire. Sam was a hobbit of the Fourth Age who takes lead and “serves” (rather than rules) as mayor for years. Sam being elected the Mayor 7 times is the proof of his ‘nobility’ of which I speak here.
Merry and Pippin too justify the theme of ennoblement in their journey. From the Shire to the War and back, their transition takes place. The two of them upon their return to their homeland take lead and play the most important role in the saving of the Shire. Later in their lives their achievements say it all where Pippin serves as the Thain and Merry as the Master of Brandy Hall. The two hobbits that once used to play like immature lads are transformed to the level of leading their people for the best.
These characters are ennobled due to their sacrifices, sufferings and most important their will to do the right thing. If they can change for the best why can’t we? The ennoblement is very obvious and yet it goes unnoticed by the careless world.
curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
2014-08-11 01:16 pm
Entry tags:

Do Two Wrongs Make One Right?

Once I came across a Facebook post on Hindustan Times where it said how a woman being harassed by husband killed him pouring boiling oil on his head. Well, the ‘feminists’ there defended her saying she was right as ‘killing an evil is not an evil deed.’ Though I saw a reply saying the lady was wrong, and that she shouldn’t have done so. But majority echoed in woman’s favor. I strongly disagree with everyone who took the woman’s side. She was thoroughly wrong; killing a culprit never kills the crime. Osama has been killed, but I still see the terrorism AND terrorists around us. Every day we see how people are killed on the streets, roads, malls etc. it is obvious to me that all of them are not ‘good’ people, so have they taken the evil with them? I don’t think so. Taking revenge has never been a solution; it never was. Some people think of it as ‘solution’ because of their narrow mentality. They will help one taking the revenge and spread negativity in the world. I recall J. R. R. Tolkien’s words”It is useless to meet revenge with revenge; it heals nothing.” This is something that I want everyone to know about. Recently having seen a film (Ek Villain) that really confirmed Tolkien's words to me. In the film the lead protagonist is murdered by a serial murderer and her husband being a “villain” in the past avenges her death. The man who murdered her was rejected by his wife (who constantly reminded him how big looser he was) and society. To become a “hero” in his wife’s eyes and to take revenge for his humiliation he starts murdering the women who say a single word to him. In this order he murders the female protagonist, and her husband seeks revenge. By the end of the film the wife of the murderer is murdered by Villain’s ex-boss and he (the murderer) himself dies leaving a 10 years old son behind. So, this is the perfect example albeit “fictional’ that two wrongs do not make ONE right, because this is not only the matter of imaginary world but of our own. Fiction comes from reality, not reality comes from fiction.
curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
2014-07-01 09:45 am

Happy Birthday, Dreamflower!

Happy Birthday. Many happy returns of the day. Hopefully you enjoy your day, and thrive a lot in your life. :)
curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
2014-06-16 01:01 pm
Entry tags:

We have spoiled our planet!

Our planet Earth is the only known planet that supports life. It has its beauty, charisma, charm and dangers. Despite all the dangers and mishaps earth is the only planet that has given us the reason of our existence. But we are not grateful for what has been given us. Today almost everything is “humanized” by us. Oceans are polluted, and so is the air; not even the land is spared by us. There is climate change, global warming, acid rain are caused by us. Although there are other natural forces that affect our planet more than us, but our presence. Volcano eruptions release a large amount of Carbon dioxide— tons of CO2. And this way the damage done by us is approximately 2%... How are we responsible for the mess then? Well, we are! Through the years we have managed to live on the Earth—that proves Mandle’s theory is absolutely correct. We adjusted through time, and here we are. Things on Earth could never be so perfect had it not been for our own adjusting abilities. Whatever our capabilities are, we cannot fight the Nature. The horrible side of the nature says something to me [us]: “If you are cruel on me, I am crueler than you; I will protect myself even if it means your death.”
The horrific flood disaster in Uttarakand, India in 2013 seems to prove this. Luckily I didn’t experience the horror and torment of the disaster, yet, it was very close. If we do not care for what is given to us, we’re going to pay for this. As for the nature—in my very humble opinion—it is going to protect itself from us. And that’ll be disastrous.
On the highest mountain-- Mount Everest— there is an estimated 50 tons of rubbish made up of equipments and supplies left behind. Who did that? Most certainly not animals. We did it. There’s lots of garbage inside the oceans and the seas—we have humanized it as well, and in a bad way. Oceans are the home for billions (or more) species. What we have done to this is not only going to harm them but us as well. Each and every object and creature in the world plays an important part in our ecosystem as much we do, and affects it as much we do, and thus deserves to live as much we do. The planet isn’t harmed in just one way-there are countless ways our planet is broken. Our selfishness has led us to this path, and it still continues.
Once I read a quote, and it struck me. It says:
“Be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the Universe, no less than the trees and the stars: you have a right to be here.”
No matter how beautifully it is written I feel sorry for the writer of it. To be “gentle” with ourselves we have forgotten our responsibilities and [in a sense] moral values as well. To have a comfortable life we want to have almost everything—even if it costs us our home. Uses of vehicles, natural and human resources etc. – is no more ‘use’; it’s wastage. In India the rivers are worshipped as Mothers. But the children of the mother do not realize what they have done to them. Water is the basic necessity of every individual, and they do realize this: this is their basic duty, too, to take care of the source of their survival. The water we drink today is dirty, very dirty but that’s the only thing that we can drink to ease our thirst. Earth is covered with water—70% water; but clean one is merely 2% or may be less: rest is in the oceans and they’re polluted too. This is not a comforting thought to me, really.
Scientists are too desperate to find a planet that supports life. What then? I suppose that’ll be consumed like earth is. We can change the planet not our attitude. If we do, many problems of ours will come to an end.
India’s former president, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam says: “You cannot change your future, but you can change your habits, and surely your habits will change your future.” The quote perfectly fits our situation so do the consequences.
curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
2014-06-15 06:53 pm
Entry tags:

Hatred: A fashion?

A message by George Carlin was posted somewhere. George Carlin, a comedian has said something so true that is mindblowingly poignant. Here is the message that was posted:
The Paradox of our Time
“We have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less. We have bigger houses, and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems, more medicine, but less wellness. We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom and hate too often. We have learned how to make a living, but not a life; we have added years to life, not life to years. We have been all the way to the Moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor. We have conquered outer space, but not inner space. We have done larger things, but not better things. We have cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We have split the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication.”
There is really no doubt that we ARE living in this ‘dark’ time. Things are hated with passion, and haters take pride in doing so. How I wish we could stop this hatred, irresponsible attitude, wastage of good things. It is said if we do not think it is necessary to love the person who loves us like anything—be it a friend, parent, teacher, grandparents or anyone— then why is it so important for us to hate those who hate us? Why we cannot let go of such people? And often it is not the person we hate who hates us, it is someone who we think is “stupid”. Life is very short and it should not be wasted in hating others. When are we going to learn that? My feelings towards haters have always been that only WEAK people are able to hate. When you are strong you forgive and forget. Obviously it’s not easy to ‘forgive and forget’ but this is not impossible either. By saying no-no to hatred I’m not saying we should love everyone or everything. Gray color can be appreciated for the existence of both black & white. If we see black color, we can’t most certainly say it’s white or something. Hatred spreads negativity and causes our society to do evil things. Murder, kidnapping, rape, abuse and even wars take place because of this hatred. It does no good to our world; the only thing hatred does is Damage. Countless people have lost their lives because this one feeling. Though it can be said there ought to be an opposition. Without winter we wouldn’t appreciate the spring, without loss we wouldn’t appreciate anything- similarly without hate love cannot be appreciated. Yet excess of anything is bad—it has always been so. The excess of hatred is bad. It keeps us from appreciating the beauty of our world. It has done irrecoverable damage to us. I hope people come out of it one day—I’ll keep the hope alive!
curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
2014-04-27 08:50 am
Entry tags:

It does not do to hate Frodo Baggins and love LOTR

Frodo, supposedly, is the least famous character of the epic saga of JRR Tolkien.He is often accused of being “whiney”, “wimp”, and “loser”. To be honest, he doesn’t deserve any of these “honorable” titles. His life, story and sacrifices are beyond most of the people’s comfort. Haters claim him to be a “loser” (as I already mentioned above)—pretty cool word, right? Most people find pleasure in bashing this wonderful Hobbit. Some claim that his creator, i.e. Professor Tolkien, meant his friend to be the “true hero” of his story. When you say, “Sam Gamgee is the true hero of the quest,” you not only [in a sense; and CONCIOUSLY] exaggerate* Sam’s role, but devalue Frodo’s too. Sam’s motivation was his love for his master—had it not been for Frodo, Sam would never have set out on the quest. It was his devotion for Frodo that kept him going, and it was his master’s sufferings that inspired him to do the work for Frodo. “The quest would claim his life,” is what Lady Galadriel had said [in the movie]; the quest DID claim his life! He came back home, what you’d say ‘alive’, but he did not survive the war—he died more than once. His decision to spare poor Sméagol’s life became the reason of his salvation, and that of Middle-Earth too. What makes me say that he is the hero of the LOTR saga is not the fact that the story is about him, rather he, despite being and acknowledging [that he was] “wholly inadequate to the task” decides to take the task upon him that he could easily turn away from. Professor says so as well:
“Frodo undertook his quest out of love- to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense if he could; and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that.”
Why we, as readers, have problems in acknowledging that he DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE IGNORED AND JUDGED TOO HARSHLY? There was no one who could have done this much. “Possibly no other of his time would have got this far,” is what professor says. Is there anyone else you can imagine going as far as Frodo did? Sam? He became reluctant in giving back the Ring in a couple of hours. Was that his love for his Master? Indeed it was—and he wanted to rid his master from that torment; and The Ring tried to control him from that. What Sam does out of his love for his friend, he, if appointed for the task of being the main person [i.e. Frodo’s], would never have taken upon him. Not saying that he was bad or something, but it was his character that in fact was like that, and it helped him through his journey to Mordor. Sam’s strength came from Frodo’s sacrifices. Imagine him [Sam] this way:
Frodo is asleep and Sam wakes him up.
Frodo (getting angry): You, idiot!!! You know I need more sleep than you do. Why don’t you let me sleep? It won’t take much if I sleep little more—I’m already tired.
Sam: Yes, Mr. Frodo, I’m sorry.
Frodo is starving. He wants Sam to give him some food, while Sam is busy in taking care of other things. Frodo would scold Sam for not taking care of him “properly” while Sam does everything he can do for his dear friend. What if Frodo acted rudely with Sam, acknowledging NOTHING that Sam does for him?
In this case, what does Frodo do?
Behaves with Sam rudely?
Or hides his problems so that Sam should not worry about him much? If you read the 1st book, you’d see Frodo already goes through so much. His Morgul-blade wound, Gandalf’s death, Galadriel’s words to him [of Elves’ fading] and Boromir’s betrayal—how much of it Sam truly knew? He did not understand the deep meaning of his Master’s physical and emotional wounds. Frodo wasn’t a failure, as is suggested by most. Events at Sammath Naur cannot be defined by words like “failure” or “success”. Things are much more complicated than a careless reader realizes. His life and its ending are a mystery—

*Exaggeration MUST not be taken as ‘over-rating’. I understand Sam’s importance and his true value.
curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
2014-04-07 07:02 pm
Entry tags:

My Thoughts

My ramblings actually! ;) Another oldie...!
I often see people saying: Frodo's a loser; he didn't do anything; he's a failed hero; he wasn't heroic at all; he's silly etc. etc. I don't understand why do people say these words to him and why?? Is this because Sam helped him? Well, then who didn't get ANY help from people? Where would Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas and Merry, Pippin and people those were outside Fellowship be without Each-other; And the thousands of unknown heroes who died in the War? Without them where would have been our Major Heroes? They needed help and still people consider them the "REAL HEROES". Then why not Frodo? Sam needed Frodo's and Smeagal's help to go on.
Frodo trusted and relied on Sam but never became a burden on him. Frodo inspired many people including Sam. His decision brough hope in everyone's hearts. What was it, then, if not heroism? He was twice attacked by the Ringwraiths. Once stabbed. Still He took the task. In which he didn't have any hope, for atleast himself. He knew what'll happen next, still decided to Go On. Gandalf's death, Boromir's betrayal, twice attacked by Enemy's Servants and Frodo still went on..
Later attacked by Shelob, Gollum's betrayal might have been hard to digest this little Hobbit. Orcs, when captured Frodo, said to each other, if he survives the poison, he'll regret it. Still we don't see him mention anything about it later. Above all this, The Ring was too heavy for him to bear. He still went on.
Galadriel's words to Frodo were, if he fails they(elves) will have to give themselves to the Enemy and if he succeeds Elves will diminish from ME. Towards the End Frodo couldn't go any further and Sam asks him if can manage it (going on), Frodo replies, "I MUST, SAM"
curiosity_jigyasa: (Default)
2014-04-07 06:24 pm
Entry tags:

Frodo as the Hero of the Lord of the Rings

This one is actually very old, and badly written. I wrote this last year when I finished the books and was shocked by the Frodo-hatred on Facebook. This thought came to my mind after the even I mentioned here.
Once I saw a photo of Frodo-Galadrielscene on Facebook (Even the smallest person.....scene). I commented about how brave Frodo had been during the quest etc. A guy came and said Frodo "failed" and Sam is the "real hero".
This led me to a thought and I want to know if I and right or wrong.
Didn't Sam fail as well? He had to protect Frodo and help him. Was Frodo really okay? Protected? Or like Sam had intended him to be? No, because if it was so, Frodo wouldn't have left Shire.
Still we don't blame Sam, we must not. We know Sam faced immense peril on his journey, sacrificed a lot, fought Orcs, Shelob, Gollum, etc to keep Frodo safe. And was ready to sacrifice himself. But unfortunately couldn't. Still we say Sam's the Real Hero.
But whenever it comes to Frodo, why everyone expects him to be Stanley's Super Human(Hobbit)? The more story goes deeper, the more Frodo becomes silent and secretive about him and hardly tell anything to Sam. Even Sam doesn't know about Frodo's inside battles. Sam, atleast, could fight with enemies. Who Frodo would fight with? Ring, Souron, Shelob's poison, Gollum's treachery or Morgul Blade? Who? After Shelob's attack he couldn't sleep properly while had to walk entire day.
My point is: they both went through the same conditions (FRODO, OBVIOUSLY WORSTS) and faced the Same consequences; then why people aren't ready to see Frodo as the hero? Even at the end he decides to leave ME. Isn't it completly selfless? He could've stayed there and died his friends around him. But that'd have been a big tragedy for his friends to see him like that. He gave his friends a Happy Life and not to worry about him anymore.
I always feel, that Frodo's a riddle or a puzzle that people cannot early crack; and this is why are too rude about him.