"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
(dedicated to @thcrin // 'a whole decade!' celebration!)
582 notes
·
View notes
Ok, time for a hot take.
It really bothers me that Rosie and Sam’s relationship is reduced and made so shallow in the films, with the implication that they’ve never even talked to each other, and Sam is pining for this girl he doesn’t really know….
Like …
… this actually misses the entire point of their relationship in the book.
In the book, Sam and Rosie grew up together. His warmest memories that bring him comfort in the darkest place are the memories of playing with her in the pool when they were kids.
The point of Tolkien’s Rosie is that she’s someone familiar to Sam, the face that comes into his mind when he thinks of home. He remembers an actual moment he spent with her, a moment of fun and bonding. Then when he comes home, it turns out she could somehow sense the moment the Ring was destroyed, and knew he was coming home. They have this special, deep bond that brings Sam a sense of comfort and stability.
She’s not supposed to be some distant, unknown figure that Sam has built up in his head but has never actually talked to or gotten to know. That’s literally the antithesis of Tolkien’s Rosie Cotton.
It’s like the films swap Sam’s initial relationships with Rosie and with Frodo. In the movies, he starts off more familiar and friendly with Frodo; they apparently go to the pub together frequently like typical buddies do, whereas Rosie is in another world, dancing and making drinks behind the bar, and Sam is just too unsure of himself to even make small talk with her.
But Tolkien’s portrait is the exact opposite. Rosie is the one who Sam spends a lot of time with and has known for a long while. Frodo is the one who Sam is distant from and doesn’t really have the nerve to make chit-chat with, because he is Frodo’s servant and thus he thinks it’s not his place to be too friendly with “his betters,” as his dad says. (And then the journey takes the two of them out of that restrictive class system and frees them to bond and get to know each other as people.)
Then when they come home, there’s an actual sense of coming home, because Rosie embodies everything that is familiar and safe for Sam. Not everything that is unknown and scary.
2K notes
·
View notes
Sam/Rosie (Book vs Movie)
There's a post going 'round with a lot of notes about the difference between Sam and Rosie's relationship in the book vs the movie, and I wanted to share my own thoughts.
It's undeniable that Sam and Rosie's relationship in the movie is different from in the books...but is it actually worse? Let's discuss!
Facts.
In the book, we know that Sam and Rosie are friends; we know she's willing to wait for him; we know that after he comes back, they then get married.
In the movies, we know that Sam and Rosie admire each other but from a distance; we know it's only when Sam returns that he has the courage to ask her out himself; they then get married.
These two scenarios are different, yes, but which one is better?
I actually think the second is better, and here's why.
Shallow vs Deep
The original post suggests that Sam and Rosie's relationship is more "shallow" in the movies, but this is an assumption. An understandable assumption, but nonetheless only an assumption.
Consider this: what if Sam and Rosie's years of friendship was based on only what we see in the books: they hung out with her brothers in a mutual group and enjoyed splashing around the rivers together?
That's...fine. But there's no depth to this. They were just hanging out and eventually developed a mutual crush - maybe due to nothing more than proximity and familiarity.
Alternatively, consider all the possible reasons why Sam and Rosie could admire each other, even from a distance. Maybe she admires him for his steadfastness in caring for Bilbo and Frodo and for refusing to care about the gossip of other hobbits. Maybe he admires her for her determination to create a safe and hospitable place for hobbits to rest and for her ability as a barmaid to listen well to other people.
There actually would be quite a bit of depth in that scenario.
The reality is, we just don't know which scenario has more depth. Either could have quite a bit of depth; either could be shallow. It's really up to us to fill in the gaps as we like.
Impact
So if neither is objectively more shallow or deep, why do I prefer the movie's ending? Simple: because of what it adds to the story - the significance, the impact.
In the books, Rosie's steadfastness adds because the Shire has been torn apart. The Shire is heartbreakingly upside-down, yet Tolkien gives us Rosie to hold onto: she is still the same, and she and Sam are able to get married at the end even after everything, giving readers much-needed comfort.
But in the movies, the Shire is tranquil. We already have the comfort of everything being the same back home (though with an additional discomfort of no longer fitting in). To have Rosie and Sam already basically established wouldn't add anything.
Instead, we see it is Sam's adventure that gives him the courage to finally pursue her, and this adds so much to Sam's character. Sam, who is so self-deprecating, who doesn't get fancy titles like the rest of his friends, who generally does not see himself as a hero.
What does it tell us if, prior to the adventure he felt unworthy of her, but now after the adventure he feels worthy of her? It tells us that Sam finally sees himself as heroic.
And that is a wonderful, wonderful thing.
71 notes
·
View notes