"I tried not to, sir, but it burst out of me..."

[Archimago]

I absolutely loved the suggestion in Lecture 20 that perhaps Sam deliberately allowed himself to be discovered eavesdropping in hopes that he would be given the chance to accompany Frodo. I would love for this to be true, but I think the evidence is rather thin.

First, in favor of the idea, it's notable that Sam's outburst happens just after Gandalf says, "But I don't think you need go alone." What better time to reveal yourself than after that bit of advice? In fact, it's possible that Gandalf's advice is what prompted Sam's decision. And of course, Sam reveals his paramount desire immediately, asking, "Couldn't you take me to see Elves, sir, when you go?" (Interestingly, Frodo seems to miss this point, thinking instead that Sam is going to try to dissuade him from leaving. He'll make the same mistake later with Merry and Pippin.)

Gandalf's reaction is striking (and something I never fully appreciated before): a rare laugh, not to mention the marvelous absurdity of hauling Sam (shears, grass-clippings, and all) through the window. I think he's just realized he's found a companion for Frodo, and it's both a relief and a delight. I also wonder about that smile flickering across his face; is he smiling simply because he's decided Sam's "punishment," or is it because he's guessed Sam's ruse?

Finally, Sam's response to Gandalf's "So you heard that Mr. Frodo is going away?" is interesting. "I did, sir," is the only answer required, but Sam goes on: "And that's why I choked: which you heard seemingly. I tried not to, sir, but it burst out of me: I was so upset." This answers a different, unasked question: "Why did you make a noise?" It sounds rather like the sort of over-explaining you might expect from an inexperienced prevaricator.

But I still feel like I'm having to reach for each of these interpretations. And looming over all these attempts is the undeniable fact that this (potential) ruse of Sam's is never plainly revealed. It's hard for me to believe that Sam's Gildorian deception would be revealed while his earlier fenestral one would not.

Is Sam's allowing himself to be discovered a reasonable possibility, or is it just wishful thinking?

 

[Jonathan Cassels]

First, I'd add to your first piece of evidence that Sam not only reveals himself immediately after Gandalf mentions a companion (based on Gandalf's reaction), but he then appears to lie about it. The exchange between Gandalf and Sam is this:

"‘So you heard that Mr. Frodo is going away?’
‘I did, sir. And that’s why I choked: which you heard seemingly. I tried not to, sir, but it burst out of me: I was so upset.’"

But there's actually a good chunk of speech between when Frodo says he'll go and when Gandalf appears to hear Sam. It seems odd that he'd hear that Frodo is leaving, and be so upset that a noise bursts out of him... at least a full minute later.

Having said that, I'm inclined to think it is wishful thinking... if our "wish" is that this was Tolkien's intent. I can't remember anything about this in his letters, or any other source. But I also subscribe to the notion that an authors intent isn't terribly relevant after a certain point. When we see symbolism, metaphor, or allegory (even from a self-professed loather or allegory) the author's opinion ceases to matter. It's probably important that we don't claim or imply that such a thing was the author's intent, but that doesn't make the symbolic, metaphorical, or allegorical reference any less real. Such things exist outside the author, and I think that the same applies here.

This seems like a reasonable reading of the text. There's nothing to contradict it in the text, and it's plausible based on what we do see. This isn't history, none of this "actually happened", so there's no right answer. There's more than one possibility, and that ambiguity is okay.

 

[Corey Olsen]

I totally agree with Jonathan, here. It isn't that Tolkien's intentions are irrelevant, but it is certainly true that his intentions at the time of writing are not the equivalent of what "actually happened" in history or something. When you read Tolkien's letters, you'll notice that in answering questions he often turns to his own book like a reader instead of like an author. He doesn't (as, for instance, JK Rowling so often used to do) come out with some kind of backstage "this is what I actually intended all along" answer. Instead, he does a close reading of the story and shows what readings it will bear and what readings it will not.

Will the text bear the "Sam did it on purpose" reading? It certainly does, I think. Does that reading fit the facts better than the one that says his explanation was genuine? The more I look at it, the more I think it might. Jonathan's point about the delay is particularly good, there.