Damus

Recent Notes

note1v3gzs...
themptyuniverse profile picture
The True Bearer of Hope: Reconsidering Samwise Gamgee as the Primary Hero of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings

While Frodo Baggins is traditionally viewed as the protagonist of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, a careful analysis of the narrative structure, character development, and thematic elements reveals that Samwise Gamgee functions as the trilogy's true hero. This paper argues that Sam's unwavering loyalty, moral fortitude, and decisive actions at critical junctures position him as the central heroic figure whose journey embodies the work's core themes of sacrifice, hope, and the triumph of ordinary goodness over extraordinary evil.

Through close textual analysis, this study demonstrates that Sam's character arc follows the classical hero's journey more completely than Frodo's, progressing from humble gardener to Ring-bearer to the eventual Mayor of the Shire. Unlike Frodo, who increasingly succumbs to the Ring's corruption and despair, Sam maintains his moral clarity and serves as the driving force behind the mission's success. Key evidence includes Sam's rescue of Frodo from Shelob's lair, his temporary assumption of the Ring-bearer role, and his crucial intervention during the final moments at Mount Doom.

Furthermore, this analysis examines how Sam's working-class background and practical wisdom represent Tolkien's idealization of English pastoral values, making him a more relatable and inspiring figure than the aristocratic Frodo. The paper concludes that while Frodo serves as the nominal Ring-bearer, Sam functions as the emotional and moral center of the narrative, embodying the "eucatastrophe" that Tolkien identified as essential to fairy-tale literature. This reframing positions The Lord of the Rings not as the story of a reluctant hero's burden, but as a celebration of steadfast friendship and the heroism found in everyday devotion.
note1zy56t...
themptyuniverse profile picture
The random things that happened to get to how we ended up speaking and writing now is amazing sometimes. Like the Greeks taking the wrong letter from the Phoenicians for s which was called samekh. The Greeks took the letter that the Phoenicians used for the sh sound which was called shin but called it by the sound the Phoenicians used for s (samekh) and called it sigma.
note15qhat...
themptyuniverse profile picture
For extreme language nerds:

In Latin, words that originally started with “w” changed to “b” and then “v.” But some words kept the “w” sound because of custom.

Those were usually place names, words that were used a lot. The problem was that the letter V eventually became recognized as standing for the “v” sound. So newer Latin needed a way to indicate the old “w” sound. The solution was a double U. Other languages modeling themselves on the Roman system, like German,
adopted double U as well. So, it started out as two “oo’s,” and that’s why it’s called “double U.”

Old English already had its own letter for “w,” called wynn. It’s something we never see today. It was needed because Old English had words like water and we, so there was no question as to whether “w” was a real sound. The problem with wynn was that it looked too much like P and made things confusing. After the Norman invasion, as English took on French words, the wynn fell away and the French-style double U was used to indicate the “w” sound.

In French, to indicate the double U, they used “ou,” as in oui, “yes,” and ouest, “west.” After a while, they adopted the W, especially for words borrowed from other languages. By then, however, there was a print tradition of writing the two Us as V-shaped. English speakers continued to call it the “double U,” but by the time the French adopted it, late in the game, it looked like two Vs, and that’s why the French call it double vé, “double V.”