[Bêthberry]

I think I must be a reader like Aiwendil and Lalwendë, for I too am circumspect about the elves and Lorien. I think it is because of the elves' lack of interest in other races and their nostagia for their own past; these features tinge them with a wistful blemish on the face of their beauty, despite, I hate to say it, Tolkien's words that Lorien was without blemish. Something in me makes me cautious about a people who seem to want to preserve things unchanged. That inability--if this is not too strong a word--spells a veritable doom in itself I think. In this aspect, I guess I am unable to see Lorien as representative of a dreamlike state outside time. I see it more as a lost world, one which has great value and worth, but one which nonetheless must be let go as it has been unable to meld itself with mundanity. This could be an ideological perspective where Tolkien and I differ, however much I enjoy his work.

Boromir once again Fordim has spoken words similar to my feelings about Boromir. I am not "so much against him or down on him" but that I think his character is shaped to fulfil a narrative purpose. You said it best, I think, when you reminded us of Tolkien's first plans for Boromir:

In one of Tolkien's earlier drafts, Boromir lives, and heads to Minas Tirith, with Aragorn. Aragorn takes claim to the throne, Boromir wants to reject this claim and starts stirring up trouble, a possible civil war. Then Aragorn quickly kills Boromir, before he can rally enough support. I can get more in depth and make a connection between Aragorn's claim and Arvedui's claim, but I will do that when the time is right, for I fear this will take us too off track. Anyway, now Tolkien threw out that idea, I just wanted to mention it, since it could display something about Boromir.

Civil war engendered by the return of the King is not something that would seem meritorious, particularly in light of the defeat of Sauron and destruction of the Ring. The heir of Gondor's Steward has to be, in terms of pragmatic narrative, done away with in a manner which serves the story best. I think Boromir is infinitely more important to the story as the flawed hero who demonstrates the power of the Ring than as an heir who will not give way to the King.

Sauce, I absolutely take your point that Boromir's character is not readily apparent.

However, I do wonder whether the fact that Boromir's sympathetic qualities are not brought out earlier in the book (as they are in the first film) risks having readers miss these aspects of his character. As I said, I was initially left with the feeling that Boromir was a negative character and it took a few readings before his positive qualities came through to me. And my impression from past threads concerning him on this forum is that I am not alone in this.

I suggest, however, the possibility that it is valuable for the reader to have this experience of 'missing aspects' about the character at first. It could be that Tolkien expects his readers to learn actively his 'theme' of mercy and pity. We learn as readers that first impressions are not the best and that time can change point of view. Boromir is the first lesson which will then be more fully explored in the figure of Gollem. I will readily admit, however, that this idea grants to Tolkien a great deal of forthought and planning whereas he was in many aspects a spontaneous writer who strove to incorporate 'backwards' (if I may use that in a positive sense) his many ideas.

And I see I have done it again. After paring Boromir with Aragorn I have paired him with Gollem. I seem to have by some kind of osmosis incorporated Fordim's habit of looking for pairs. But within my interest in looking at absences!

Edit: A quick note that I have PMed Boromir88 about his very good point that Boromir the character nevers peaks cant but always his honest mind.