[Kransha]

Tuor, I must, as others have done, applaud you. I had not searched much of Tolkien’s Letters for Denethor material. I found one tidbit, but it was so little that it did not merit inclusion. Your quote is interesting, if a little foreboding. There is certainly some evidence that Denethor, after the war, might’ve been headed for a reign more tyrannous than righteous. Of all the Stewards, he suffered most from the ruler mentality, which also helps explain his great hostility and suspicion, thinking everyone is out to oust him from his mighty roost. I think that many mannish leaders from those times would have ended up tyrannical in some respects. It is the same principle borne by Ring seduction…It is hard for even the noblest of men to resist power. The Ring represents a much greater well of power than Stewardship, so it tempts greater men. Who knows what would’ve happened if Denethor got near the Ring?

Kuruharan, I agree with you on technicality, but I must argue another point. I do not wholly agree with the fact that Denethor is good, gone bad, but I have chosen a side and will dutifully defend it, even if my points are moot. Yours, of course, are very good, and I will retaliate with, what I hope, is likewise. Though I agree with the fact that Denethor was more of a mind to have Faramir follow his own devices, he was still, even if unintentionally, thinking in the best wishes of his ‘un-favored’ child. He didn’t want Faramir to play ‘second fiddle’ as you so aptly put it; he wanted Faramir to be like Boromir. This brings up a rather interesting point which one might consider. Denethor did support Boromir over Faramir, though, in my opinion, he loved them both. If he did support the mind-set and actions of Boromir, perhaps this reflects another circumstance.

Faramir’s gallantry is often forgotten, and a certain aspect was cut fully from the movie. That aspect was Faramir’s ability to resist the temptation of the Ring. Faramir tells Frodo that he would not take it if he found it by the wayside. He is miraculously unaffected by the thing that effects everyone else. Perhaps he would be the person Denethor thought he should be if he was tempted by the One Ring. He would seem more human, more like his father, and, despite that temptation, be seen as something of a man with more initiative and goals to strive for. The Ring tempts even the Elves, a very human quality which they possess, but that same addiction and seduction does nothing to the Captain of Gondor, now does it? If it did, the character of Faramir that we know would be severely changed, but the story would be comparatively different and less interesting. I think that another failing of PJ is doing such a thing to Faramir. It adversely affected everyone else as well. If Faramir, as he was portrayed in the movie, had been tempted, his personality would be more like Denethor’s, like his father wanted him to be, which reverses the crucial plot point that Faramir and Denethor are different. In the movie, Faramir ‘breaks free’ of his want and desire to please his father, and lets Frodo go with the Ring, but that is still confusing. This cinematic change of heart does not explain Denethor’s deep-rooted disappointment in Faramir. If Faramir were trying to please Denethor so much, why would Denethor dislike him? In the books, it is evident that, even though Faramir desires his father to love him, he is not as eager to please, and does not attempt to act in the way that his father wishes.

Boromir88, I believe that you have struck on a concept I raised, in greater detail, which was the theory of Denethor’s actual, physical sanity at the time of the Siege of Gondor. Some say defending Minas Tirith, and sending Faramir to Osgiliath, was a strategic failing. It is hard to argue with this, as not many points can be raised to the contrary. But, as you said, his presence on the whole was essential. Aragorn and Gandalf were not in Minas Tirith to defend it before him, and he still managed to keep it standing. The important point is that, in the movie (I’m afraid I can’t stop using references to PJ’s failings), Faramir is defending Osgiliath the whole time, after a foray into Ithilien. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that means that Denethor was the one who had set up Osgiliath’s defense, since it was being attacked at the time that Faramir was in Ithilien with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. So, Denethor at least had the competence to set up generic defenses, and still heralded his people. Your quote helps this theory, and is greatly reminiscent of Theoden’s film-recovery (prior to his exorcism ala White Wizard). Of course, the book sheds that event in a different light, in fact, in a different filter, whereas the movie sheds Denethor in an equally different light. He carries a sword and a hauberk of mail in the movie to ward off indolence only, not to be a courageous leader.

Ah, master davem, our paths cross at last. Let me respond to you as best I can.

Originally Posted by davem

]I have to say that while Denethor seems, as Tolkien says, more than capable of reading men's hearts, he is incapable of reading his own. He is simply unable to accept that anyone else could rule better than himself (or perhaps he simply doesn't care whether anyone else could - he has the rule & that's it. What he forgets (or chooses to ignore) is that he is not King. He swears an oath to rule till the King comes back, but plays around with the the letter of the law till he convinces himself that that possibility can never happen.

This is interesting, but possibly does not delve deep enough. A human psyche is a hard thing to understand, even for the esteemed Prof. T. himself. He was at least grooming Boromir for a role as King. The fact is, even if he is self-centered, it is merely a mortal quality, one of a tragic hero (to be touched on later). He loves his sons, and would doubtless be proud to see them on the throne. But, your point gets my little, teensy-weensy mind to thinking again.

The absence of Finduilas, Denethor’s wife, may have played an important role in his persona. Many fathers, without mothers to assist them, begin to take on maternal qualities. Many Downers here are mothers (or fathers), so you may…or may not know what I mean by this, but here we go anyway. Denethor may have assumed some qualities that a mother might show, one of those being a sort of over-protectiveness. Fathers can be this way as well, an I’m trying not to stereotype, but I mean, simply, that, without his wife or father, Denethor reverted to a very hermit-like man, in some ways, a bit reclusive and alienated, and, I admit, very suspicious. He was grooming both his sons for Stewardship, and was determined not to fail them, or let them become so malleable that they could be pushed aside by a “dotard chamberlain of an upstart.” To touch upon what Estelyn said, I think that Denethor’s own upbringing may have had some effect on his raising of Faramir and Boromir, except for the aforementioned dual-parent-syndrome.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Kransha! I'm shocked! Nay dismayed!! Given your predeliction for the Bard and obvious admiration for Denethor, how could you have failed to note the ways in which he is a tragic hero?? Like all really great tragic heroes he is both someone we admire and someone we fear or even dislike (I love Hamlet, but would not want to be trapped in a castle with him; Lear is monumental but terrifies me; Othello and Macbeth are both twerps, but greatly so).

Shocked and dismayed, are you? Well, I am shocked and dismayed that you have the nerve to call the great Macbeth, Thain of Cawdor, Glamis, AND King of all Scotland, a twerp...even if I do agree with you. Let me assure you, I could argue such a point for ages...but I digress.

You make a good point, Fordim, as always. In fact, the point is fascinating. Denethor, unlike many other characters, does not seem to exemplify the principles of a bildungsromans, generic or otherwise. There is a story arc, and sub-plot for Denethor, and he does change, which eventually results in his self-immolation, but he is predominantly a character who effects other characters, a point who exemplifies characteristics, good and bad, of all the other points on the spectrum, and they move around him. Of the four wheels of the proverbial LotR automobile, he is possibly one. One might claim that Elrond is such a character in The Fellowship, a wheel axle which allows the others to turn. Denethor is the penultimate mortal man. Aragorn is too perfect to be fully related to, so we turn to the lesser characters of men. The Hobbits are like us, and they are prime protagonists, so we seek out knowledge of them, vut we see ourselves in Theoden, Eowyn, Boromir, Faramir, and Denethor. They are part of the Shakespearian influence, I believe, all archetypal of certain endowments that the Classical Greats presented.

If you want to get Bardian on me, though, I’ll willingly seek some farfetched allegory. I know that Master Tolkien did not like allegory (cordially), though I suppose Shakespeare may have loved it. I think there is already a thread that compares Tolkien to Will somewhere, so I won’t steer the topic off course, but the topic is Denethor, so I think I manipulate that to my own whims *insert oodles of maniacal, Bela Lugosi-esque laughter herein*. Denethor, like the animals of the ecologic biosphere, has his own niche in Tolkien’s work. Many of Tolkien’s niches, as much as I hate to say so, are more like dues ex machinas, (Ex: Eagles, Erkenbrand, and even Elrond in some ways…Hey! They all start with the letter E! I think I’ve hit on some deep philosophical discovery!) He is not, though he easily could be. He is in a position where it might have been convenient to make him devoid of personality, and simply a mean old coot. I think that Jackson, in a way, did make him a dues ex machina, for his purpose is served without motive. Tolkien did him a far greater justice in the end. Other characters are more crucial than Denethor, but his niche is still unique. He’s not a King, not a Warrior, not a Madman, not an Innocent…he’s somewhere between everyone else, part of all the other types, and essential as well. His small, navigable course also helps to direct the path of Pippin, Gandalf, Aragorn, Faramir, and, before RotK, Boromir. His actions have a profound emotional effect on many characters who never knew him before, unlike two long-time friends who changed each other, for example.

P.S. About Hamlet. His intelligence is still highly debatable. One could compare him to Einstein in certain ways, or perhaps Dr. Frankenstein, so involved in plots and conspiracies that he lost track of the ‘stupid’ simplicity of simply offing Claudius. There are countless nuances about Hamlet that make that play one of Shakespeare’s most intriguing works…But, I’ll save all those stored-away rants for another time.