Who were the most Important Characters in the History of ME?

[narya]

This is a spin off from the "Who is the most Important Person in History?" thread. I'd like to use the same sorts of reasonings to decide who are the ten most important characters in the history of Middle Earth, including any of the books or apocrypha you would like.

My question has been somewhat shaped by Yov's questioning on the other thread. Who made a big difference in the course of Middle Earth history? Would Middle Earth history have turned out far differently if the nominee had instead died at birth? Or would someone else have popped up to fill the void?

Note that the list should not including JRRT himself, or Eru, or PJ . Nor should it include the Valar, nor the Maiar. (Lúthien, only part Maia, is OK.) Otherwise, all of the top ten slots would belong to these world building characters. I'd rather discuss the relative merits of the elves in the Sil, the members of the Fellowship, and other historical figures. Well, actually, I'd rather not discuss them. I'm not as erudite as most of you here, and am not well versed on HOME or even the Sil (could never keep all those F_ names straight) so I'll just start the ball rolling and sit back and watch you all discuss.

[Alatar]

It has to Fëanor. Everything after followed from his act of rebellion.

[Aravar]

Fëanor: for the reason Alatar has already given.

Beren and Lúthien for recovering the Silmaril and founding the line that lead ultimately to Aragorn

Eärendil for finding Valinor and bringing about the War of Wrath

Ar-Pharazôn for bringing about major geographical change.

Elendil for remaining loyal, founding Arnor and the defeat of Sauron

Galadriel for her long fight against the long defeat.

Frodo and Sam as ring-bearers.

Gandalf, although he does strictly violate the non-Maia criterion.

[yovargas]

As far as I can recall, Sam is the only character in ME.
Therefore, I presume that he is also the most important one.

[Holbytla]

Gollum surely has to be on the list somewhere.
If it were not for him, there would have been another Dark Lord, and day may have indeed turned to unending night.

[Padme]

I agree with Alatar on this. Fëanor and his father Finwë. I say Finwë because of the whole jealousy crap Fëanor seemed to have with his younger brothers by a different mother. Fëanor always seemed trying to be picked as dad's favorite and that drove him to make the sil.

Frodo and Sam would also be important characters. Gandalf (but you said no Maia) If we could add Maia, definately Melkor and Sauron.

The ring would also be a important character, even though it's just a thing.

[narya]

OK, we can compromise and include Gandalf's ring.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Tolkien would say Lúthien, followed by Fëanor and Galadriel.

I would probably vote for Galadriel, as the only character with a major role in both the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings.

[narya]

As far as I can recall, Sam is the only character in ME.
Therefore, I presume that he is also the most important one.

I don't quite follow you, though I agree ME wouldn't have gotten far without Sam.

All of the ringbearers are vital to the story and the course of ME history: Isildur, Déagol, Sméagol, Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam. And they all had supporters to keep them alive long enough to be ringbearers (except poor Déagol), like Aragorn, Galadriel, Elrond, Faramir, and Thorin. Which perhaps is what Tolkien was getting at. He may have said that even the smallest person can change the fate of the world, but that small person can't do it without a great deal of help. Is Bilbo, who found the Ring in the Misty Mountains more important to the fate of Middle Earth than Primula Baggins, who raised him to be a sensible, if somewhat eccentric hobbit?

[Primula Baggins]

Well, Primula actually raised Frodo, if she can be said to have raised him, given that she died when he was twelve; but the point you make is one that I've always appreciated about Tolkien: the wovenness of things, where the success of one depends on the mercy and right action of many others.

It makes me think that anyone who puts their hands to good work done well or rearing happy children or planting a good garden may also be helping to save the world. Because who knows? And even if not, in the end you do still have the good work, the happy children, the garden.

[yovargas]

As far as I can recall, Sam is the only character in ME.
Therefore, I presume that he is also the most important one.

I don't quite follow you, though I agree ME wouldn't have gotten far without Sam.

Sorry, I was being silly. I've had a crush on Sam since forever so, you know, I only have eyes for Sam. All the others can go jump in a hole for all I care as long as I get to hang out with my dear Sam.

A slightly less silly answer would be that as the most fully realized character in ME, Sam simply has more character than everybody else.

A completely serious answer would be Fëanor. I really can't see how that could be argued against as nearly every part of all the stories (outside The Hobbit) is in one way or another a reaction to Fëanor's actions.

[solicitr]

What about Míriel? But for her act, which some might consider selfishness, it's much less likely that Fëanor would ever have gone bad.

[superwizard]

Very interesting topic

Yes I can definitely see Fëanor being considered the most important character. Another extremely important character in my opinion was Ar-Pharazôn. Think about it; without him Middle Earth would not have become round nor would it have become cut off from the Undying lands.

[rosiethehobbit]

I would have to say Fëanor for the first and second ages. And Frodo and Sam for the Third age. You can hardly go a few pages in the Sil without running into Fëanor and his sons and their oath. Wars were fought and many died at their hands. By the end, you're starting to get sick of reading about them, and Tolkien seems to realize that with his comments that Fëanor's sons are getting sick of trying to fulfill the oath.

Fëanor created the Silmarils. How many future events were based around their existence? The chain of events goes all the way down to Frodo, who used the light of the Silmaril captured in Galadriel's phial, to defeat Shelob. As Primula said, the wovenness of things.

For Frodo and Sam, the result of their quest quite literally changed the course of every future event from that day on. And it is arguable that no one else could have done it. Hobbits were uniquely suited to be able to resist the ring longer than any other race. And it is difficult to imagine that a replacement could have been found. From what we know about hobbits in general, it would have been difficult to find one willing to leave their comfortable cozy smial in the idyllic Shire, and undertake such a journey. Even Sam, and Merry and Pippin for that matter, were not there to attempt to save the Shire. They were there out of friendship to Frodo. Which is exactly the type of support Frodo needed.

Obviously if Sauron had regained the Ring, everything thereafter would have been vastly different. If we were to talk 'what ifs', which scenario would be more different from the one we know? A Second Age without Fëanor or a Fourth Age under Sauron's rule? I'd say the Fourth age.


I hope that made sense. I probably shouldn't post when I'm not awake yet.

[narya]

I wish I could post that well, fully awake.

[axordil]

The mythic history of Middle-Earth is composed of two great cycles, that of the Silmarils and that of the Rings. The first begins with Fëanor's actions and ends with Eärendil's; the second begins with Sauron's actions and ends with Frodo's (and Sam's).

Sauron is an Ainu and ineligible. That leaves Fëanor, Eärendil, and Frodo/Sam. Fëanor is the prime mover among the Children for the first cycle. So he's in.

Eärendil's redemption, while crucial, was incomplete. After Frodo and Sam, on the other hand, there are no more actively participating Ainu are no longer in Arda. We're on our own.

The mythic history of Middle-Earth thus effectively begins with Fëanor and ends with Frodo and Sam. So I agree with Rosie.

[solicitr]

And Frodo and Sam for the Third age

But what about Isildur? But for him, Sauron wouldn't have outlasted the Second Age, and Frodo would have been irrelevant (and much happier).

[axordil]

Backing up for a second: there are two questions here. The one narya asked--to look at characters in the legendarium as if they were historical--can entertain "What ifs". The one some (including me, really) are answering--looking at the characters as literary characters--can't, not in the same way. If Isildur destroys the ring, there is no LOTR to read. If Hamlet kills Claudius in Act III we have a three-act play.

Now, the "why" question CAN be asked: why did JRRT choose for certain characters to do certain things and not others? In some cases it's as straightforward as Isildur and the Ring...and in others it's much more muddled (and thus interesting). For example: why does JRRT have Sam pick up the Ring as if to go on alone, but eventually decide he has to find Frodo and save him?

[Primula Baggins]

Head versus heart, I've always thought. Sam knows he ought to carry on with the Quest, and that his chances of saving Frodo are almost zero; but in the end that knowledge is overcome by the love and loyalty he feels for Frodo, and he turns back to try the impossible.

And, of course, his heart is wiser than his head; it was the right choice.

But from a story standpoint it would be much less interesting if Sam never doubted himself, never started to follow the "sensible" course. Writing it that way ensures that readers understand what a huge risk Sam is taking, carrying the Ring into a fortress full of Orcs.

[yovargas]

Backing up for a second: there are two questions here. The one narya asked--to look at characters in the legendarium as if they were historical--can entertain "What ifs". The one some (including me, really) are answering--looking at the characters as literary characters--can't, not in the same way. If Isildur destroys the ring, there is no LOTR to read. If Hamlet kills Claudius in Act III we have a three-act play.

The historical "what ifs" are the only interesting question, than, since otherwise the protagonists is the immediate answer in almost any book.