Except Sam doesn't need anyone to make excuses for him.

I don't get hte parallel, ita.

Neither do I, Connie.

I mean, the parallel between Hagrid and Samwise is what I don't get. Sam's full of his own agency, but it's something he's chosen to dedicate to Frodo. He's not inept. He may not be as sophisticated as Frodo (because hobbits are oh-so-posh), but he's not the bumbling figure Hagrid is.

Hagrid could leave Hogwarts if he wanted, but he's loyal to Dumbledore. Sam was Frodo's gardener because Gaffer Gamgee was Bilbo's gardener--Gamgees pretty much come with the property. I don't see Hagrid as being deficient or lacking in any way. And he doesn't seem bumbling as much as giant-sized in a human-sized world. Granted, Hagrid's not the brightest candle on the shelf, but Dumbledore trusts him with very sensitive errands.

Hagrid is bumbling with academics, but he's very good with animals and knows lots about them. He makes fewer mistakes/bad choices with animals than a lot of the other teachers do with their chosen subjects.

I tend to feel very affectionate toward Hagrid because I see a lot of myself in him. Hagrid isn't dumb or unaware of the world so much as he perceives it differently, and has vastly different priorities than the staff and students. Dumbledore (and others) have realized that Hagrid's priorities are not as valueless as most would think.

I see Hagrid as a Jane Goodall, focused on a microcosm, that while not panoramic, is still an important part of the whole, and possibly even a key to perceiving the whole.

But that's my issues at work. I'm hell on the details, but usually unaware (and uncaring) of the big picture.

And really, shift the timeline back 50 years or so, make Hagrid a black woman, and you have the same thing.

EXACTLY. He's the faithful but dumb servant, more like a beloved dog than a full person.

I've never read Tolkein. In the movies Samwise doesn't annoy me the way Hagrid does, but it's not an informed comparison.

Hagrid needs defending by the people around him, and Samwise doesn't. That's the huge differentiation for me.

Sure, they're both loyal. They're also both male. I got nothing against faithful retainers. It's the simplicity of Hagrid that bothers me.

Dumbledore (and others) have realized that Hagrid's priorities are not as valueless as most would think.

That's how you tell the bad guys from the good. I dunno. He's written as woobie, which is another thing I think Samwise wasn't.

He makes fewer mistakes/bad choices with animals than a lot of the other teachers do with their chosen subjects.

Really? Other than the divination teacher, who's an out and out flake, and textually mocked, whose classes go worse?

whose classes go worse

Lockhart's Defense Against the Dark Arts classes weren't paragons of effectiveness.

And if Draco had followed instructions, Buckbeak wouldn't have tried to munch him.

Lockhart's Defense Against the Dark Arts classes weren't paragons of effectiveness.

True.

But I feel that Hagrid's ineffectiveness is supposed to endear him to me, and ... why? It's like I'm supposed to react to his situation, and from where I'm standing, part of it is that he means well. Snape doesn't mean well, so when things go wrong we're not to feel for him. We're not called on to be empathic for the Divination teacher either. Just dear, simple, Hagrid.

if Draco had followed instructions, Buckbeak wouldn't have tried to munch him

Absolutely. There was naivete on Hagrid's part that contributed to that ... which is kinda my point.

I just don't get the vibe that Hagrid is responsible and effective and an agent. He's continually being reassured and rescued by the kids, in not a very adult way -- he's less adult than them, in ways.

Which fits with, in my eyes, the trope I think he belongs to, which is in no way a British one.