How pleasant it is to find one's arguements developed and thoughtfully considered even when one was called away sadly without time for the Downs yesterday. I can now be the lazier for the work of my admirable, enthusiastic colleague,
Fordim and
davem's perceptive thoughts on the nature of who we call to be soldiers . (There's a pint for you at the Faculty Club after work on Friday
One for Lord Melkor, too ).
Quote:
Lord Melkor posted:
I'm afraid you're being too harsh on poor Boromir.
|
I suppose it is possible to see the word I used, 'hollow,' as too harsh, particularly if one has mainly in mind T.S. Eliot's use of the word, "We are the hollow men." Yet I did give Boromir his due, I think, and recognised his nobility. The distinction between Boromir and Aragorn is one that is subtle, I said, and so I don't think the point is simply that I did not recognise Boromir's strengths. What I was interested in was how he differs from Aragorn.
What I am getting at--and I am helped immensely not only by
Fordim's reply about Boromir's lack of knowledge but by
davem's point that Boromir is limited--is two things. First of all, we have a writer of the calibre Tolkien was using the son of Gondor as a foil to the returning king. This is to be expected almost. The Stewardship will be shown to be a heroic and noble effort but one that, in this long defeat, will succumb, as all in this world does, to its own downfall. It is the King who has his eye on the greater vision.
The second point which influenced my thoughts on Boromir was Tolkien's own essay on the Old English poem
The Battle of Maldon--there's that wonderful post, an essay really, by the now absent
Squatter of Amon Rűdh about Tolkien's concept of the heroic Northern ideal, the warrior-leader who abandons his rightful role as protector of his realm to engage in a chivalrous battle which turns the fate of nations and peoples into a personal competition. I am not sure how much we can specifically 'import' here to Boromir. Yet I think that it is helpful to consider the point that Tolkien had well developed thoughts on the nature of the heroic Northern Ideal. This does not mean that automatically we must dredge for them in LotR and risk raising our own form of balrog, but I think it is valuable to consider the depiction of Boromir within this light.
So, my point was not to deny Boromir's strengths and nobility but to suggest that Tolkien as a writer is engaging in some rather serious thoughts about the nature of the masculine ideal. In a book which holds up Frodo and Sam as the unexpected heroes--and which sees Eowyn and Merry defeat the Witch-King--I would think it would be quite plausible to consider whether Tolkien was rewrting the entire book on heroic ideal--something which would necessarily entail both a character who appears to be the most like the traditional ideal and who also carries in him the potential flaw of that ideal, the flaw of hubris. Boromir's conceit is never to question himself. (This is my way of saying Fordim's point that Boromir always thinks he is right.) Aragorn does this constantly, as does Frodo, and Sam, too, comes to consider the merits of choice offered to him. Boromir lacks this self-reflexivity. This does not negate his other admirable qualities, but it does limit them.
There are so many other very interesting points to consider here but yesterday's rude interruption on my Down's time
has meant I am still catching up. I would ask one thing, though, which arises from
davem's thoughts about
Sauce's comment on the Fellowship bringing evil into the Perilous Realm. Why has this question become important for Lothlorien? Why did we not consider any symbolic meaning when the Ring was brought to Rivendell? (at least, I cannot now recall that we did.)
I shall return with a link to Squatter's essay:
Squatter on Tolkien's "The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth"