Don't keep calling him Elrond. Elrond in the movie was NOT Elrond, just like Faramir in the movie was not Faramir.

Please refer to him as "movie-Elrond", because that's what he is. The real Elrond was not like that at all.
He really didn't do that many "bad" deeds.

He drew his sword on his brother, but in his mind it was justified (because he had been influenced by Melkor's lies), and the sword incident resulted in Melkor's malice being uncovered (a very good thing).

Even the most insane of Feanor's actions (eg when he burned the Teleri's ships) were the best possible way to bring about good in the world. The threads below explain everything quite well. They're worth the read (it won't take too long, just a few minutes, the first thread is specifically about Feanor, the second is about the Noldor as a whole).
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin...c&f=1&t=003412
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin...24&t=000038&p=

(by the way, it's on the 2nd page of the first thread that I explain why burning the ships was a good thing)

He perpetrated massacre, theft and vandalism all in a few days, plus threatened his half-brother with death. He is a compelling character but he was blinded by his own arrogance I think.

Anyway, how funny that Arwen should be getting brutalised on this page. I don't recall hearing that she splashed on makeup and sat in front of the mirror all day, glorifying her beauty. She's quite innocent in my view, and not really worthy of such fierce criticism.

Exactly,she is inocent. Innocence annoys me. Of cource you will be innocent sitting behind fathers back, protected.

Hmmm....methinks this character is more properly called "movie-Arwen," for she did not do the warrior princess thing in the books and appeared very sparingly (appropriately!). I would agree with Eomer of the Rohirrim that Arwen is innocent, but I would also add that she is insightful enough to offer Frodo a way out when no one else had done so (it was she who gave him her token to cross over the Sea to the Undying Lands (or at least Tol Eressea) to seek healing.) I wouldn't say Arwen is completely innocent, but she is good hearted in a way that many others in Middle Earth were not or wouldn't have been in a position to be.

Cheers,
Lyta

But you must always take things in context. Beren perpetrated theft and murder but he is swiftly excused, rightfully so, because of the who, why, what, and so on surrounding his deeds.

In the other threads I attempted to put Feanor's (and the Noldor's) deeds in perspective, rather than just stating "he did this and that, and he's bad".

My arguments in the other threads state that Feanor and the Noldor were created in such a way that their flight to ME was inevitable (and not good to stop, for Tolkien even stated in his letters that the Noldor's war on Melkor was the best conceivable way to expend his energy while doing the smallest amount of harm to the world). The flight of the Noldor was Eru's plan.

Feanor was specifically wired and put under certain circumstances so that he'd do what was necessary to get the Noldor to ME in time to fulfill their destiny.

Angry Hill Troll, at the end of the 2nd page of thread one, does an excellent job of proving the value and necessity of Feanor's actions and states that they were the remedy for Manwe's inaction (something Eru chided Manwe for in HoME).

Feanor gets trashed a lot more than he deserves considering both the circumstances and necessity of his actions and all the good (for all of ME) that he accomplished.

(if you don't have time to read the threads at least read Hill Troll's post, it's a great one)

I might add that the threads that the phantom has linked to also include some very well-argued posts from those who disagree with his analysis, of whom there are many. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Disagree with the analysis, yes. Rule out and 100% not accept the analysis, no.

The other people, while personally interpreting things such as fate and Eru's plan differently, were intelligent and respectful enough to know that my analysis was not an impossibility. To the dismay of many Tolkienites, there are many areas of grey in his works that allow the reader to draw his own conclusion.

Feanor is one of these grey areas, and in case you didn't know, my purpose in life is to point people who dislike Feanor to the threads that discuss these grey areas. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

That way, even if they disagree with my view of fate and fulfilling Eru's will and instead choose to believe that Feanor is rotten, they at least understand the odd and twisted logic that makes Feanor the greatest being ever to live in my mind (and many others as well).

[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: the phantom ]

I agree wholeheartedly that he is a grey area in Tolkien's stories. I'm just not too fond of him! But your argument is compelling phantom.

Anywho, regarding Beren. Please explain where in the book he perpetrated murder and theft.

mmm... I think I dislike Theoden *stares hard at spelling, shakes head sadly* is Boromir considered a good guy... I think so... I don't like him eather! But OK...

He killed lots of orcs and stole a Silmaril. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I only mentioned his murder and theft in order to illustrate that almost nothing in and of itself is wrong, circumstances have to be considered. There's almost always a certain instance or situation in which a certain crime is acceptable.
[img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] Poor Feanor.
This says to me that you pondered the alternatives but chose to keep your own opinion. That's the type of Feanor-disliker that I can get along with. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I would probably say Celeborn, because to me he felt a bit superflulous to requirements - he never really seems to have much of a role in the story, which doesn't sit well with me (or maybe that's just the writer me liking everything and everyone to have a purpose). It just feels very un-Tolkien to include someone who, to me at least, felt like a completely irrelevant character.

I dislike Goldberry. I'm not exactly sure why. She just irritates me.

I feel like adding to phantom's comments. (Hope you don't mind [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

Everybody loves Beren, myself included, and his actions are usually excused because they were against the 'bad guys.' There is, however, another 'good guy' who does a lot of things, most much worse than Beren's acts against the baddies, who is idolised by many, again, myself included. He killed his best friend, left the woman who loved him to die, married his sister, k.illed the man who told him she was his sister and that she had commited suicide when she discovered that fact, then .

Yep, I'm talking about Turin Turambar, the Mormegil, Agarwaen son of Umarth, etc. His actions would be inexcusable in most circumstances, but because he was cursed, no one really blames him.

I happen to be one of the people who agrees with phantom about Feanor, but I am in no way as articulate.

Anyway...

To answer the original question, I have to agree with some of the older posts, and say movie-Arwen. (though in the books, I don't really care about her. She doesn't do anything in there.) I hate to go along with the crowd, but movie-Arwen just gets on my nerves. To say the least.

And in the books, I suppose that I least like Barliman Butterbur. He just kind of irritates me. He's so stupid. (He isn't really, just absent-minded. But it drives me up the wall.)

EDIT: Stupid computer censors the stupidest things...

[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: Tinuviel of Denton ]

I dislike Maedhros. The elf (indirectly) caused death of my namesake! Curse him for that! And his Union too!:mad:

I dislike Turin. He's a bad combination of angst, impatience, melodrama, and horrible luck. He's depicted as wise, but we're left to guess exactly how (other than winning a few battles). He also makes me doubt the wisdom of elves as judges of character.

I don't much like Luthien, actually. She was rather silly. "HI silly son of Feanor! Help me steal your shiny! I'm beautiful, why are you in love with me? And why are you keeping me from helping my boyfriend from stealing your shiny? Whaaa!"

:rolleyes:

Hmm, this could get complicated. Dislike when I read one of the books, or when I see the movies, or when I read fanfic? In LotR, I have never liked Tom Bombadil (loon). In the Silmarillion, I don't care for Turin (depressing self-important twit). In TH... Well, I would probably say Beorn (not sure why). In Jackson's version, I really can't stand Sam or Aragorn (probably too complex to get into while typing with two fingers for the first time since high school). Fanfic can make me despise anyone, if it's badly written, but these days, I cringe at the mention of Frodo and Aragorn (too often handled badly).

Turgon is horrible. Remember the Fen of Serech. Ha!

The easy answer is Boromir, as he is in the tale for no other reason than to succumb to the ring, but I remember the very first time I read The Fellowship -- and that is longer ago than I care to share -- his stand in defense of Merry and Pippin was my favorite part of the saga. He was a sacrificial lamb and I've found it hard to hate him as time has gone by.

For me it's Galadriel. That whole business with the mirror just disturbed me. It was almost as if she was torturing Frodo and Sam. That and I just got the feeling that she was showing off, describing the terrible beauty they would all despair at, and then turning her nose up at it.

Drama queen


Bleaaaah!

So glad I am not alone ... I really loathe Luthien but fear I have already used enough bandwidth here explaining why ...

Would it hurt to say Arwen? She is the most useless little damsel I have ever come across in Middle-Earth. I don't know what Aragorn sees in her, besides her beauty. Same with Beren. They're both like "Ohhh you're so pretty so let me just fall in love with you!" I mean, I know Tolkien based Luthien on his wife, and that's really sweet, but seriously, I despise this teenage infatuation stuff of 'love at first sight'.
I also find Aragorn a bit of a Gary-Sue. He is constantly compared with other characters and held up as "a mighty ruler, kingly, tall" blah blah blah.
*puffs* Now I feel evil :p

It would not hurt to say Arwen. That Undomiel chick (as I so fondly call her) didn't make my least favorite because I don't really care that much about her. :rolleyes:

But I do have to disagree with you about Aragorn. He is quite awesome, and not at all Gary-Suish - in my personal opinion. ;)

Arwen is annoying. I hate her part in the movies. What the heck, why not keep it original instead of letting that pesky girl to have a larger role! She seems to think she is so important! AGH!!

Yeah, he is pretty awesome, but I just feel that Tolkien kind of over-did his role.

I would have to agree that the old Dunadan is a little over-the-top. A proper hero should have some endearing flaw that makes him seem at least marginally human or, lacking that, at least some inner demon to overcome beyond pining away for his dimensionless girlfriend. But for all that, he's hard not to like.

He does have a flaw. He lacks self-confidence. Remember when he says, in the first chapter of TTT:

And then later, in the same chapter:

And, in the books at least, he does not "pine". You are thinking of the movie version. There is a difference.

Hmm. What I liked about Turin was the fact that he was a kick-*** warrior, but his pride got in the way too much. I'm bordering on not liking Aragorn, but not quite.
I liked Frodo too. For all his flaws, I can't imagine anyone else carrying the Ring to Mordor. I like the fact that he's notyour typical hero who just gets everything right (and is liked by everyone, and gets the girl, and gets a happy ending, and gets whatever he always wanted). He is a realistic hero, and I appreciate that.

Hmmmm, I will have to say the guy that made me the most angry while reading the Silm. would have to be Thingol. mostly because he was just a little too protective of his daughter (who at that time would be quite old). He also treated Beren like he was an idiot and a thrall of Morgoth. The only thing that soothed my anger was the fact that he was nice to Turin and let him live in Menegroth.

Gimli never did anything for me. I don't particularly dislike him but he is boring.

Beren I do dislike. He is a stubborn and selfish jerk. Luthien could've done much better.

I think the fact he was the sacrificial lamb in the end actually relieves him but not because of his sacrifice but because the prof was so cold with him and then only used him as a puppet to fill his needs.

I mean it starts great, he's the man who sees the problem and wants good, and acknowledges the insanity of Gandalf's plan. And let's be fair; Tolkien was the omnipotent creator so he could decide Gandalf would be right against all the possible odds. In any realistic scenario Boromir would have been right (and the downfall would have been inevitable to be sure). Boromir is the voice of reason, Gandalf and Frodo the voices of supernatural folly - and Aragorn the nerd can't decide... :)

So I really like him up to the last scene where he appears. Okay we can discuss whether he had a choice but to defend Merrry and Pip but I think it would have been an ending more suitable for him to try and take the Ring (which is a big thing) and not to die defending the hobbits (which is a small thing). With that scenario he still could have failed (Frodo got to the boat first and Boromir was killed by the orcs on the shore, followed the trio to Mordor, or anything), but it would have made him a more believable character. And surely it was up to the prof to make the setting for that last scene, so he could have made it such where Boromir had a chance to decide.

You say that then Merry and Pip would not have survived and then the Witch-King would not have died etc? Exactly so. That only proves Boromir was not a character in his own right to the prof but only a pawn to take his place in the overall plot. Similarly Aragorn's decision to go after the two hobbits instead of following Frodo / riding to Gondor, is both incredible and stupid if you look at it from the POV of the characters involved. Tolkien of course knew what he wished and what he was going to do, but the believability of his characters is pretty low.

Heh, sorry about the rant. I like the books, even the LotR, but I do dislike some decisions the prof made there and how they make certain characters to look.

Nog, I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere– in fact I know it has– but Boromir was "right" only according to his limited information (or rather, what information he accepted- see below). The Ring would have corrupted him.

And it's not like he was really trying to usher in a new age of rationality in to superstition-ridden Middle-earth. Otherwise, wouldn't he have seen the Ring as a worthless trinket?

After all, if you're willing to believe people when they tell you a piece of jewellery will confer untold power, you might want to think about paying attention when those same people tell you its power is evil and too dangerous to be used. Boromir was awfully selective in what he chose to believe. Not that smart, really, is it?

And yes, I do think Boromir is an interesting and in many ways admirable character– but don't make him into an infallible Gary Stu, please.

Nog, I don't see the difference, sorry.:confused: Why "more believeable"?

Okay, Nogrod... I guess you and I have radically different ideas on novel-writing. I always think an author should be willing to sacrifice a character for the good of the story, and that a book can go south very fast indeed when that principle is ignored.

I mean, in the end, all fictional characters are– as you say– just puppets.

Besides– in your scenario Merry and Pippin (and later, Eowyn) would have died: would that not also have been a "cold" decision on the part of the author?

So, you've used this word "believable" twice, and each time– as far as I can work out– you seem to apply it to situations where characters make an emotional rather than rational decision (to aid the weakest rather than the more valuable members of their party). Now, you can certainly criticise those decisions, alright– but I'm not sure the issue is one of believability.

And no, the above does not mean I think Tolkien– or any author– is above criticism. Rather, I really disagree with what seems to be the principle underlying your arguments here.

That's the crux of why I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Boromir. He was privy to the same information regarding the Ring as the other members of the Fellowship. However, pride being such a large factor in his makeup (as it was in his father), he discounted the words spoken by Elrond, whom he had journeyed so far and through such perils to hear.
If you want to blame Denethor for Boromir being what he was, I can only point to the fact that his brother had the wisdom and humility to know he did not have the power to claim the Ring, and that was without the benefit of having heard the Council of Elrond.

Nerwen: I think we have a major communication breakdown here. It might be my broken English or hastiness to say things too bluntly or whatever...

Why would they have died? If Tolkien wished them to live he could have written the story differently so that they would not have been in the same dangers... or he could have written them escaping those dangers differently. :)

Absolutely. But you can either make them logical or not (and that means also the logicality of their feelings; not in a way anyone should "feel logically" but that their emotions are "believable" given the character).

Of course it would have. I actually said that in my post. Nope. He wished to wield it in the service of Gondor (so he had to believe in the Ring's force!) - and he didn't take Gandalf's (and others') warnings seriously enough. Looking at his character he should have followed that path and not turn into this nice-guy-hero thinking more of two unrelated hobbits than the future of Gondor, the men and good against evil; the key to which was the Ring he should have sought after - according to his beliefs!

I am not and I never was. I'm just saying that the prof built him as a certain kind of character and then made him act against the character he was built to be to serve his plot.

But yes, I'm not willing to make this a row of any sorts.

Well, Nogrod, I understand what you mean now, and I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I will say that my own impression of Boromir leads me to think that his saving the hobbits is not out of character– which I guess is what you mean by "believability". As far as I can work out, what you're saying here is that since (in your view) Boromir's wanting to take the Ring is highly logical, all his actions should be logical also. He seems to me more of an impulsive type. After all, he didn't just play down the dangers of the Ring, he basically chose to ignore them.

I just don't think Boromir was written as a ruthlessly brilliant strategist, who would always make the smartest, most expedient choice rather than the "moral" one, or anything like that. I think you might be reading things into the character that aren't really there.

And no, I don't want a row either... but you know, this is all reminding me weirdly of Urwen's "Lalaith".:D

Oh, I have sympathy for him. People in the real world choose to believe what they want to believe all the time. I think Boromir is flawed in a very human way. What I'm disputing is that he was actually "right", or that because of this he should be considered a mastermind whose later actions are out of character. Which I think is what Nog's saying.

I do agree to disagree... :)

I do not consider him a mastermind of any sort. On the contrary I see him as highly passionate and erring person who wishes for good and honour over all else. And that is exactly the mindset that would drive him to pursue the ring - not in a rational way but as the strongly emotional character he is (and given the information he had). I mean you know there are many kinds of emotions and giving your heart to the little-ones who suffer is just one of them. There are people who truly love their country, or good against evil, or God or whatnot, and are set in flames whenever they see those things dear to them in danger. I just think Tolkien built Boromir as someone whose deep emotions ran for his city, his country and for good against evil... and then he changed him to suit his plot.

But yeah, let's not make this into a "Lalaith-discussion". :D

It's not that important anyway...

No, but actually I find that I want to add something after all:

Look, my interpretation of what happens is that Boromir simply gives into temptation, that this is in large part due to the influence of the Ring itself, and that it works not just on his desire to fight evil and protect his country, but also on his personal pride and ambition.
I don't think it's an accident that this is extremely similar to Galadriel's "In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen," or Sam's fantasies in Mordor:
After this, Boromir, his face "hideously changed" suddenly tries to take the Ring by force, then, when Frodo gives him the slip, has hysterics– firstly screaming abuse after him, then bursting into tears.

Does any of this really sound like someone trying to accomplish a thought-out plan, to which he is firmly committed? Does it even sound like someone whose mind is working normally? As Boromir himself says, "a madness" took him. Betraying the trust placed in him by trying to seize the Ring is what's out of character for him, I think– but intentionally so.

So, this is all now completely OT for this thread. I just wanted make a further comment, because I've noticed that it's become pretty common for Tolkien fans, in defending this character from the demonizing treatment he gets in some quarters (he's an evil monster in about 90% of fan-fiction:rolleyes:) to go the other way and claim that he was really smarter than everyone else, or that his motive were entirely pure. Which I don't think is supported by the actual text of the novel.

Why, what an improper reason to hate my dear Russandol! :p