[The Saucepan Man]

Some thoughts on the Boromir v Aragorn debate. I tend to agree with Lord Melkor that you were rather harsh on Boromir, Bêthberry, in your original post. Boromir is a man who undoubtedly possesses a great many admirable qualities. There has recently been a good discussion of these (as well as his less admirable qualities) in this thread: The 7 deadly sins vs. The 7 heavenly virtues. It did seem to me that you had rather skirted over these qualities, but I understand the point that you are making in your latest post. Undoubtedly, Boromir is flawed (and particularly in relation to his inability to question himself). But is that not the very nature of all in Middle-earth, indeed of Middle-earth itself, being as the whole of Arda has been tainted with Morgoth's evil? To my mind, this makes Boromir a far more credible character than Aragorn both within the context of the Legendarium and (as you will recall from the position that I took in the Psychological Depth in Tolkien's characters thread) as a character with which the reader can identify. It is also why I think it is important to note the moments where Aragorn is himself shown to have flaws (however minor). Given the extent of his knowledge concerning the nature of the Balrog, I would consider his foolhardy charge on the Bridge of Khazad-Dum as one of these.

I also take your point concerning Tolkien's approach to the heroic ideal. But there are also many other themes touched upon by Boromir's character which I think will merit consideration. These are perhaps best left until we reach the breaking of the Fellowship, Frodo's encounter with Faramir and the passages concerning Denethor and Faramir in Minas Tirith. But I did think it worth noting that, while we have seen aspects of his nobility, courage and fortitude in the preceding Chapters, we do not really get to appreciate the extent of his positive qualities until during and after his death. The first few times that I read LotR, I came away with the impression that Boromir was rather a villain. It was not until I had read it a few more times that I came to appreciate him as a far more complex and sympathetic character. And, to buck against the trend of pointing out the perceived shortcomings of the films in these discussions ( ), I would make the point that engendering reader/audience sympathy for Boromir is something that the films perhaps handled better than Tolkien himself.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.)

Well, I suppose that the point arises here because Aragorn specifically makes the point that those who bring evil with them into Lothlorien have something to fear. The Ring was expected in Rivendell since the decision as to what to do with it was to be taken there. And perhaps that, at least partly, provides the answer here. Galadriel is aware of the nature of the Quest and willing to offer refuge and comfort to the Fellowship. So, although they are bringing evil with them in the shape of the Ring, they are doing so with the permission of the Lady of the Wood.

I do also take Bêthberry's point that Aragorn's comment could be interpreted as referring only to those who bring evil with them within their heart. There is support for this in that (as Esty pointed out at the outset of this thread), the comment is directed to Boromir, whose heart has already begun to be corrupted by the Ring. But would not this apply to Frodo also, since we have seen that he is already powerless on occasion to resist the temptation to wear the Ring? He too is (quite understandably, given that he is the Ringbearer) succumbing to it.