Sam threw himself across the screen to grab Frodo's bloody hand, Frodo frantically hanging at the edge of the cliff. Watching Sam yelling for Frodo not to let go, I realized, no matter how many times I watch The Lord of the Rings, this scene just gets me each and every time. I hold my breath as Frodo closes his eyes and is just about to slip away, as if ready to fall into the sinister river of molten rock-- and then I find myself letting out a sigh of relief as Sam gets his burst of reserve man-power to swing Frodo to safety. Wow.
When it comes to friendships, the trophy has to go to these two main characters of the famous three-part epic. Throughout the entire trilogy, their bond grows and becomes stronger as they battle out big hairy monsters and other evil things, and the combination of angst and innocence just hits me somewhere deep inside.
But I can't help to think to myself (as I wonder why my life doesn't consist of exciting dealings with elves --and sadly, not a whole lot of glorious sword fighting) does this kind of friendship even exist?
Sure, I have my best friend who I hang out with and share secrets, but does my friendship consist of any other ulterior motive than the desire for good company and mutual trust-- other than one I see between Sam and Frodo? Of course! Yes, optimistically I would hope that I would risk my life for my friend and she would do the same, and we'd stay loyal to each other till the end of time; but realistically, I definitely don't have that undying devotion that Sam so easily portrays.
Friendship nowadays is seen as the pure and everlasting bond between two (or more) people where trust, loyalty and love shine bright, and, while sometimes there may be some challenges along the way, the power of friendship will in the end, prevail. I see this idea everywhere: books, TV shows and movies – for example, Frodo and Sam in the Lord of the Rings, almost every classic Disney movie (The Fox and The Hound, Cinderella and her mice friends, Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs, etc.), the popular teen series Uglies and many more.
But what is friendship, really? Surely if our friendships in the real world reflected those portrayed in fiction, life would consist of a lot more sleep and a lot less stress. So, searching for some kind of definition on determining what friendship can be, I must say that I agree with wise-man Aristotle. Aristotle explains that there are three kinds of friendship; the first kind is the one we see most often in the media:
Friendship between good men of similar virtue or excellence who possess intrinsic rather than incidental goodness and who wish the good of each other for the other's sake and not for any lesser motive. This is the most perfect and stable kind of friendship, and may be considered friendship in the truest sense of the word
This is the kind of friendship I hope for (a hope possibly planted in my brain from countless rainy days sitting in and watching my favorite Disney movies) a bond that will indeed endure any conflict because this kind of friendship has the ideal notion of ‘wishing the good of each other for the other’s sake’ and not anything else. But what of the other two kinds of friendship?
Friendships based on mutual pleasure (i.e., two people are friendly not for what either is or what either can do, but because of the pleasure which each provides the other, e.g., witty conversation). This kind of friendship is easily dissolved and is most common in general social relationships and among the young.
Friendships based on mutual utility (e.g., two men are friendly because each can be useful to the other in some way). This kind of friendship tends to be short-lived and is easily dissolved when the abilities or needs of one or both parties change.
I suppose that the first, 'ideal' friendship ultimately encompasses things like mutual pleasure and mutual utility, but for Aristotle's two other kinds of friendships to stand alone, is that possible?
Psychologist and psychotherapist, Dr. Michael J. Hurd states, "The notion of 'getting something out' of friends has been given a bad name, for two reasons. One reason is that the phrase is commonly associated with material gain, as in business, rather than psychological gain."
If this is so, then the reasons why friendships based on mutual pleasure or mutual utility look so bad is because of this negative connotation of 'taking' compared to maybe something like ‘sharing’. Hurd goes on, "The other reason people don't like to associate friendship with self-interest is the widely held, though false, belief that self-interest is inherently wrong. Yet it isn't."
I must confess, a lot of the time I find myself with my lab partner, whom I call my friend, struggling through a difficult science problem together, and, I admit, that I insist on being his partner for his strength in math, and he tells me I’m a good partner for my skills in experimentation. If this relationship can be called a friendship, then surely the relationship between Hal and Falstaff of Shakespeare’s Henry IV is definitely camaraderie. Clever banter and amusing situations all taken in with a humorous and good-natured note create the perfect example for one of Aristotle's friendships, specifically, the one based on mutual pleasure.
In one conversation, or more like situation, I even laughed out loud at the ongoing, back and forth dialogue between Hal and Falstaff. Act 2 Scene 4 is when Hal slyly confronts Falstaff about a robbery while only later confessing that it was all a set up, and yet the two, throwing remarks meant to offend, like, “You tailor’s yard, you sheath, you bowcase, you vile standing tuck –” (ii.iv.256), keep a good-humored, ‘everyone gets a laugh’ kind of attitude, with Falstaff eloquently ending the debate with “Ah, no more of that, Hal, and thou lovest me.” (ii.iv.295)
This relationship could easily be seen as a friendship based on mutual pleasure, the two lets say, enjoyed the witty conversation that is present throughout almost all of the dialogues between Hal and Falstaff. Again, not an undying loyalty like with Sam and Frodo, but a friendship nonetheless. But…did it matter that Hal’s ulterior motive to have been friends with the tavern-goers, like Falstaff, was because of his plan of ‘I will be the sun parting the clouds’ (i.ii.204) and not just solely on mutual pleasure?
Well, as Cicero states, “There is nothing more fatal to friendship than the greed of gain.” One could argue that this is true, because in the end, Hal takes his place on the throne and brutally ends the friendship with the tavern-goers, especially Falstaff.
But what ultimately puts a friendship under the ‘shocks of adversity’? Is it, as Cicero claims, the greed of gain? Hal’s greed is most likely seen as the greed of gaining a reputation or making that statement of ‘hey, I’m here and I’m going to rock your world’ but how does that motive negate the friendship as a whole?
According to Michael Hurd, “If you engaged in the pretense that you enjoyed a "friend" for his personal qualities, when in fact you want to know him only for contacts or for money, then you would be guilty of a fraud. But it's fraud and pretense which are wrong; not that getting something out of a relationship which is wrong.” The fact that Hal had other plans in his life doesn’t necessarily mean that his friendship with Falstaff was in the end a ‘fake’ one.
Actually, looking back at the text, I feel as if Hal almost was trying to prepare Falstaff for his ascension to the throne, slowly ‘letting go’ so the pain isn’t as much when the time comes to break off with tavern lazy life. This is strongly seen in Hal and Falstaff’s role play in act 2 scene 4. Through the role play, Hal indicates that the friendship will indeed end as he speaks as the King, “There is a devil haunts/ thee in the likeness of an old fat man. A tun of man/ is thy companion…” whereas Falstaff, playing as the Prince replies, “Banish not him thy/ Harry’s company. Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.” This role play, of course in a setting meant to be playful and mocking of the actual King, carries Hal’s sad foreshadow as he replies to Falstaff’s denial, “I do, I will [banish].” (Ii.iv.460~500)
Hal’s actions are seen as ‘I have to let you go…duty comes first’ and do carry a tone of remorse. This sense of this depressing remorse is strongly seen not in the hard-to-interpret text, but in Kenneth Branah’s movie of Henry V, in the scene where King Hal looks back in time to the role playing. Here, his bond with Falstaff is intimate and the heartrending whisper of Hal’s words of “I know thee not…” just creates that heavy atmosphere of compunction. To me, this scene in the movie was as emotional as the scene where Sam desperately tries to save Frodo’s life in The Lord of the Rings.
So, is the stopper that cut the friendship between Hal and Falstaff the ‘gain of greed’ or merely the reality of a situation like this? Think about it, in a world where the everlasting bond of friendship will not save you— in the non-fictional world, can a King, or king to be, who has to make an image that is flawless of himself to bring a country together, keep and hold a friendship with a drunk, no-name, bad reputation noble even if he wanted to?
It's kind of sad to think, ‘yeah, hey. Maybe friendships like the one Sam and Frodo have are kinda hard to make.’ But even though my friendship with one of my best friends doesn’t have that edge of life and death situations, where loyalty was survival, I cherish the friendship even so.
“Aristotle’s Ethics by Aristotle.” Yahoo: Education. 14 May 2007. <http://education.yahoo.com/homework_help/cliffsnotes/aristotles_ethics/95.html>
Michael J. Hurd. “Friendship is Selfish.” Capitalism Magazine.
(April 3, 2001). May 14, 2007.