|
Boromir88 -- I think Betberry and I are not so much 'against' Boromir, or even down on him, as responding to the ambivalence that surrounds him in the book. I have been taken by Bb's view of Boromir as the most 'stereotypical' representation of the traditional Northern Ideal of Masculine Heroism. I don't think that he is being presented, then, as an opposite to Aragorn, or even as 'wrong' but as, like you say, out of place.
In the quest to destroy the Ring, there is no place for a hero (and he is a hero) like Boromir. He is all about defeating the enemy through strength of arms and ability; he is an individualist who epitomizes the heroic ideal (still the predominant heroic ideal in our society) that the individual who has capability and will is equal to the task and can win. For Boromir, dangers (like the Ring) are to be confronted and defeated, enemies are to be overthrown -- but in the Quest the Ring must be thrown away, with the result that Good (Lothlorien) will not 'win' over Evil (Mordor), but both will be diminished and fade from the world making it safe for good people (the fading Gondor; the mortal Arwen; the Rohirrim; the Hobbits).
I think that this sense of Boromir's being "out of place" in Lorien is the clearest representation that Boromir is simply not equipped for the task ahead. He still thinks that this is a War in which his side can have absolute victory over the enemy; those in the know -- like Aragorn and Frodo and, by the next chapter at least, Galadriel -- realise that there can be no absolute victory, only a mutual defeat: Sauron will be dismissed, yes, but the Golden Woods will fade and Galadriel will "pass into the West".
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling.
|