[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I think the fact he was the sacrificial lamb in the end actually relieves him but not because of his sacrifice but because the prof was so cold with him and then only used him as a puppet to fill his needs.

I mean it starts great, he's the man who sees the problem and wants good, and acknowledges the insanity of Gandalf's plan. And let's be fair; Tolkien was the omnipotent creator so he could decide Gandalf would be right against all the possible odds. In any realistic scenario Boromir would have been right (and the downfall would have been inevitable to be sure). Boromir is the voice of reason, Gandalf and Frodo the voices of supernatural folly - and Aragorn the nerd can't decide...

Nog, I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere– in fact I know it has– but Boromir was "right" only according to his limited information (or rather, what information he accepted- see below). The Ring would have corrupted him.

And it's not like he was really trying to usher in a new age of rationality in to superstition-ridden Middle-earth. Otherwise, wouldn't he have seen the Ring as a worthless trinket?

After all, if you're willing to believe people when they tell you a piece of jewellery will confer untold power, you might want to think about paying attention when those same people tell you its power is evil and too dangerous to be used. Boromir was awfully selective in what he chose to believe. Not that smart, really, is it?

And yes, I do think Boromir is an interesting and in many ways admirable character– but don't make him into an infallible Gary Stu, please.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So I really like him up to the last scene where he appears. Okay we can discuss whether he had a choice but to defend Merrry and Pip but I think it would have been an ending more suitable for him to try and take the Ring (which is a big thing) and not to die defending the hobbits (which is a small thing). With that scenario he still could have failed (Frodo got to the boat first and Boromir was killed by the orcs on the shore, followed the trio to Mordor, or anything), but it would have made him a more believable character.

Nog, I don't see the difference, sorry. Why "more believeable"?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And surely it was up to the prof to make the setting for that last scene, so he could have made it such where Boromir had a chance to decide.

You say that then Merry and Pip would not have survived and then the Witch-King would not have died etc? Exactly so. That only proves Boromir was not a character in his own right to the prof but only a pawn to take his place in the overall plot.

Okay, Nogrod... I guess you and I have radically different ideas on novel-writing. I always think an author should be willing to sacrifice a character for the good of the story, and that a book can go south very fast indeed when that principle is ignored.

I mean, in the end, all fictional characters are– as you say– just puppets.

Besides– in your scenario Merry and Pippin (and later, Eowyn) would have died: would that not also have been a "cold" decision on the part of the author?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Similarly Aragorn's decision to go after the two hobbits instead of following Frodo / riding to Gondor, is both incredible and stupid if you look at it from the POV of the characters involved. Tolkien of course knew what he wished and what he was going to do, but the believability of his characters is pretty low.

So, you've used this word "believable" twice, and each time– as far as I can work out– you seem to apply it to situations where characters make an emotional rather than rational decision (to aid the weakest rather than the more valuable members of their party). Now, you can certainly criticise those decisions, alright– but I'm not sure the issue is one of believability.

And no, the above does not mean I think Tolkien– or any author– is above criticism. Rather, I really disagree with what seems to be the principle underlying your arguments here.