[Leaf]

Allow me to start this Book discussion threat with an observation concerning PJ's portrail of Aragorn's character. The main difference between the character from the books and the movies lies in Aragorn's attitude towards his own cause: The claim on the gondorian throne and the restoration of the former kingdom. Movie-Aragorn is ridden with self-doubts about his own capabilities and his (prospective) people. He doesn't want to become king in his own right and therefore chose a life in exil, as a ranger. Book-Aragorn, on the other hand, is confident and strident when it comes to the verbalisation of his heritage and claim.

I suppose PJ wanted to accomplish two things with this alteration:

1. To make Aragorn more sympethetic and relateable to the audiance.

2. To give Aragorn an emotional ark, where he finally learns to accept his own destiny.

I think PJ succeeded with regards to the first goal. At least from my personal experience I get that many people liked this hesitant and humble Aragorn more. Yet it seems to me that the gain of sympathy comes with a big loss. Let me try to explain what I mean by that.

Political sovereignty over a territory does not simply fall from the sky. In actuality it's quite the opposite. It requieres determination and the will to defend a claim to power, verbally and in action. Book-Aragorn embodies this bold and overbearing concept in person. The authoritarian nature of this endeavour is concealed when you make Aragorn into a passive character, who practically has to be bullied (by Elrond and circumstance) into becoming the all-powerful King of Gondor.

It's astonishing to me that PJ somehow managed to romanticise kingship to a greater degree than Tolkien ever did!

At least in the novel it's clear that this man has a mission and the determination to archieve what he desires. Movie-Aragorn simply turns out to be the oh-so-humane and charismatic autocrat who is instituted, not by a clear political agenda, but mostly by fate and public demand. That's, to me at least, a disturbing idea of authority. The discomfort the reader might feel when Book-Aragorn self-righteously declairs his hereditary claims on this and that is a good thing. Peronally I find this character trait to be quiet amusing but appropriate regarding the context.

I don't necessarily think that Tolkien intended to irritate his readers in this way. The main concept of the novels requiered an outdated and exaggerated type of authority figure that is strange to modern thinking. While Book-Aragorn's claims and the according demeanour is portrait as unquestionable good and just, the mark of authority is still there and visible!

What do you think about this? Am I over-analysing this themes or do you think that it's fair to distinguish books and movies in this manner?

These contradicitons between movie and novel brought me to think about this subject a little more. I want to look into this aspect of Aragorn's character deeper and collect, together with your help, passages from a books that substantiate this motif. We could, for example, collect every instance where Aragorn insists on his status, or where he introduces himself to other people as the rightful heir of Isildur. But I think that the oppsite might be more practical. To whom doesn't Aragorn declare his heritage and claims and why?! We could start with analysing Fellowship and work our way up till the Return of the King.