What's so special about Frodo?

Question

There's constant reference to courage and good-will of Hobbits, which makes them a natural choice for resisting the Ring, as well as being more easily overlooked than any other race, when delivering it to Mordor.

But are they any more resilient against the Ring than other races? Gollum definitely gave in to it, Sam almost did, and Pippin had that obsession with the Seeing Stone. So Hobbits are not that much immune than any other race, surely.

Frodo is landed gentry, so maybe it's a comment about Hobbit nobility? But then again, so is Pippin.

The one thing I can maybe grasp is, that Bilbo, though corrupted indeed by the Ring, was far less corrupted than he had a right to be. So maybe it's something to do with being a Baggins?

Or a Baggins with just enough of Took goodnaturedness that was the winning combination for being the ideal vessel for transporting the Ring?

Answer 1

It was a team effort, and not the only one in Tolkien's heroic romance.

Frodo spent all of himself just getting the Ring to the Cracks of Doom, and never would have made it without the help of Sam; who himself was willing, reluctant but willing, to carry on with the errand alone if need be. Gollum was dead set against the effort, yet without meaning to carried out the last step. Frodo was special in being willing to sacrifice himself, but so was Sam. Frodo was the nexus.

For other teamwork see, for example, the arguments about whether Eowyn or Merry killed the Witch-king. It took both of them, and like with Gollum it was an unwitting partnership.

Answer 2

I reject your premise. Frodo wasn't any more resilient than any other Hobbit.

Sam, for examples, was tempted - but he overcame his temptation, thanks to his "plain hobbit-sense" - "he knew in the core of his heart that he was not large enough to bear such a burden, even if such visions were not a mere cheat to betray him."

And don't forget that both Bilbo and Frodo were similarly tempted. Bilbo almost failed to hand over the Ring to Frodo; and Frodo did fail, at the Cracks of Doom, and the quest only succeeded because of Gollum.

Neither Pippin nor Merry showed any desire to possess the Ring, despite being companions with Frodo for longer than, say, Boromir.

Answer 3

Nothing much. He was in the right (or wrong?) place at the right (or wrong) time. He had the strength of character to accept the monumental role which fate or higher powers had thrust upon him.

He never sought to be a hero. That wasn't in his nature. But he had the moral courage to see that he couldn't relinquish his unsought responsibility. He had to see things through to the end. Sam was similar though more motivated by personal loyalty.

As we are told, Hobbits in general are particularly resistant to being corrupted by the ring. They are down to Earth and in general honest and hard to corrupt by temptation. But Frodo was never selected as the best of them.

(This sort of leading character seems rare in fiction. Not a flawed hero. A character who doesn't want to be any sort of hero, but ends up with no alternative choices but to try his utmost).

Answer 4

Frodo was special because he was meant to have the Ring. Gandalf explains that there are powers at work that have created this situation and somehow chosen Frodo to be the Ringbearer. Gandalf, of course, is an agent for these powers -- we can assume that the powers to which he refers are the Valar -- so he knows what he's talking about. Others of the Wise, as they are known, understand that Frodo has been chosen, and if he cannot succeed in destroying the Ring, no one can. Elrond and Galadriel both say something to that effect.

This is all bound up with Tolkien's ideas about fairy-stories with a heavy dose of his notion of a Savior. The Hobbit is the same fairy-story in several ways. Gandalf chooses Bilbo to go with the Dwarves as a "Burglar", knowing or guessing that this will somehow set events in motion that will lead to the end of Smaug.

Answer 5

What was so special about Frodo?

Nothing. That's part of the point.

Now, the books do make mention of the fact that he is, in some ways, special: Fellowship makes mention that Gandalf thought him to be "the best Hobbit in the Shire" (quote may be a little off, my daughter has my copy atm). He's an exemplar, a "class act" among his kind.

But that isn't necessarily saying much: Hobbits do not necessarily possess any particular special qualities.

The protagonist of LoTR isn't wise Gandalf or heroic Aragorn or valiant Gimli or skilled Legolas. It could have been, so why wasn't it? Frodo has at best modest amounts of those qualities, or at least in comparison to the other central characters.

Part of the point Tolkien is making is that in contrast to the heroic virtues of cultures past he's highlighting the nobility of the willingness to pass on the temptations of power, and the willingness to sacrifice oneself for friends and/or the greater good. Doing the right thing when it costs you is more important than being good with a sword. Contrast this take with say, Homer's Odyssey.

The influence of Tolkien's devout Catholicism on the themes of the work is no doubt worthy of a greater exploration, but hopefully the ties to teachings of the Bible are at least somewhat obvious.

It's also worth noting that Tolkien seems to consider the more classically epic virtues worthy: the characters embodying these traits are portrayed rather positively. But when push comes to shove and faced with moral compromise as the price of power we see the deliberate contrast between Boromir who's epic virtues did not save him and Frodo who despite being small, weak, and inexperienced made the right call.

In keeping with this theme, to me the single best change the movies made was the scene towards the end of Fellowship where Aragorn passes up the chance to take the Ring and takes on impossible odds in a last-stand effort to allow Frodo to flee with it. Although not in the books, that scene reinforces one of the central themes (as I've argued here) of the work: Aragorn isn't great because of his woodcraft or swordsmanship but because he makes morally correct choices even when it would be more "wise" not to.

I realize the question is looking for more of an "in universe" answer, and maybe the text could even support that, but it would be of minor importance compared to the out-of-universe thematic choice.