LotR -- Book 2 - Chapter 06 - Lothlórien

[Bêthberry]

How pleasant it is to find one's arguements developed and thoughtfully considered even when one was called away sadly without time for the Downs yesterday. I can now be the lazier for the work of my admirable, enthusiastic colleague, Fordim and davem's perceptive thoughts on the nature of who we call to be soldiers . (There's a pint for you at the Faculty Club after work on Friday One for Lord Melkor, too ).

Lord Melkor posted:
I'm afraid you're being too harsh on poor Boromir.

I suppose it is possible to see the word I used, 'hollow,' as too harsh, particularly if one has mainly in mind T.S. Eliot's use of the word, "We are the hollow men." Yet I did give Boromir his due, I think, and recognised his nobility. The distinction between Boromir and Aragorn is one that is subtle, I said, and so I don't think the point is simply that I did not recognise Boromir's strengths. What I was interested in was how he differs from Aragorn.

What I am getting at--and I am helped immensely not only by Fordim's reply about Boromir's lack of knowledge but by davem's point that Boromir is limited--is two things. First of all, we have a writer of the calibre Tolkien was using the son of Gondor as a foil to the returning king. This is to be expected almost. The Stewardship will be shown to be a heroic and noble effort but one that, in this long defeat, will succumb, as all in this world does, to its own downfall. It is the King who has his eye on the greater vision.

The second point which influenced my thoughts on Boromir was Tolkien's own essay on the Old English poem The Battle of Maldon--there's that wonderful post, an essay really, by the now absent Squatter of Amon Rûdh about Tolkien's concept of the heroic Northern ideal, the warrior-leader who abandons his rightful role as protector of his realm to engage in a chivalrous battle which turns the fate of nations and peoples into a personal competition. I am not sure how much we can specifically 'import' here to Boromir. Yet I think that it is helpful to consider the point that Tolkien had well developed thoughts on the nature of the heroic Northern Ideal. This does not mean that automatically we must dredge for them in LotR and risk raising our own form of balrog, but I think it is valuable to consider the depiction of Boromir within this light.

So, my point was not to deny Boromir's strengths and nobility but to suggest that Tolkien as a writer is engaging in some rather serious thoughts about the nature of the masculine ideal. In a book which holds up Frodo and Sam as the unexpected heroes--and which sees Eowyn and Merry defeat the Witch-King--I would think it would be quite plausible to consider whether Tolkien was rewrting the entire book on heroic ideal--something which would necessarily entail both a character who appears to be the most like the traditional ideal and who also carries in him the potential flaw of that ideal, the flaw of hubris. Boromir's conceit is never to question himself. (This is my way of saying Fordim's point that Boromir always thinks he is right.) Aragorn does this constantly, as does Frodo, and Sam, too, comes to consider the merits of choice offered to him. Boromir lacks this self-reflexivity. This does not negate his other admirable qualities, but it does limit them.

There are so many other very interesting points to consider here but yesterday's rude interruption on my Down's time has meant I am still catching up. I would ask one thing, though, which arises from davem's thoughts about Sauce's comment on the Fellowship bringing evil into the Perilous Realm. Why has this question become important for Lothlorien? Why did we not consider any symbolic meaning when the Ring was brought to Rivendell? (at least, I cannot now recall that we did.)

I shall return with a link to Squatter's essay: Squatter on Tolkien's "The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth"

[The Saucepan Man]

Some thoughts on the Boromir v Aragorn debate. I tend to agree with Lord Melkor that you were rather harsh on Boromir, Bêthberry, in your original post. Boromir is a man who undoubtedly possesses a great many admirable qualities. There has recently been a good discussion of these (as well as his less admirable qualities) in this thread: The 7 deadly sins vs. The 7 heavenly virtues. It did seem to me that you had rather skirted over these qualities, but I understand the point that you are making in your latest post. Undoubtedly, Boromir is flawed (and particularly in relation to his inability to question himself). But is that not the very nature of all in Middle-earth, indeed of Middle-earth itself, being as the whole of Arda has been tainted with Morgoth's evil? To my mind, this makes Boromir a far more credible character than Aragorn both within the context of the Legendarium and (as you will recall from the position that I took in the Psychological Depth in Tolkien's characters thread) as a character with which the reader can identify. It is also why I think it is important to note the moments where Aragorn is himself shown to have flaws (however minor). Given the extent of his knowledge concerning the nature of the Balrog, I would consider his foolhardy charge on the Bridge of Khazad-Dum as one of these.

I also take your point concerning Tolkien's approach to the heroic ideal. But there are also many other themes touched upon by Boromir's character which I think will merit consideration. These are perhaps best left until we reach the breaking of the Fellowship, Frodo's encounter with Faramir and the passages concerning Denethor and Faramir in Minas Tirith. But I did think it worth noting that, while we have seen aspects of his nobility, courage and fortitude in the preceding Chapters, we do not really get to appreciate the extent of his positive qualities until during and after his death. The first few times that I read LotR, I came away with the impression that Boromir was rather a villain. It was not until I had read it a few more times that I came to appreciate him as a far more complex and sympathetic character. And, to buck against the trend of pointing out the perceived shortcomings of the films in these discussions ( ), I would make the point that engendering reader/audience sympathy for Boromir is something that the films perhaps handled better than Tolkien himself.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I would ask one thing, though, which arises from davem's thoughts about Sauce's comment on the Fellowship bringing evil into the Perilous Realm. Why has this question become important for Lothlorien? Why did we not consider any symbolic meaning when the Ring was brought to Rivendell? (at least, I cannot now recall that we did.)

Well, I suppose that the point arises here because Aragorn specifically makes the point that those who bring evil with them into Lothlorien have something to fear. The Ring was expected in Rivendell since the decision as to what to do with it was to be taken there. And perhaps that, at least partly, provides the answer here. Galadriel is aware of the nature of the Quest and willing to offer refuge and comfort to the Fellowship. So, although they are bringing evil with them in the shape of the Ring, they are doing so with the permission of the Lady of the Wood.

I do also take Bêthberry's point that Aragorn's comment could be interpreted as referring only to those who bring evil with them within their heart. There is support for this in that (as Esty pointed out at the outset of this thread), the comment is directed to Boromir, whose heart has already begun to be corrupted by the Ring. But would not this apply to Frodo also, since we have seen that he is already powerless on occasion to resist the temptation to wear the Ring? He too is (quite understandably, given that he is the Ringbearer) succumbing to it.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Saucy, you neglect the other huge difference between Rivendell and Lothlorien -- the latter has Galadriel!

The peril and the beauty of the Golden Woods is much more completely tied to the nature of Galadriel than is Rivendell to Elrond, I think; and thus, it is indeed a perilous realm for those who enter, particularly for anyone foolish enough to bring with them the One Ring, insofar as Galadriel is a far more problematic (and interesting) figure than is 'Rondy. She has not yet been 'tested' by the Ring -- there is the peril that she will take it for herself (*Fordim rubs hands gleefully in anticipation of the next chapter*).

I made the point above the "peril" pertains to risk more than to danger, but I did not really approach the question of what this risk might be. I think that it's got to do with the risk of bringing the One into contact with the Lady -- you might just get the help you are going to require for the success of your quest (counsel, the Phial, the Cloaks, lembas, etc), but at the risk of the quest's eternal failure.

I think the difference between these two realms centres upon the fact that Rivendell is a place of lore: the past is in the past, it's over and Elrond has accepted that, however ruefully. As a result, Rivendell is wonderful but not nearly so miraculous (or even magical) as Lorien: nor as dangerous. In Lorien, as davem reminds us, the time/land of faerie is still the lived reality of the realm; the past is not past, but is now. In effect, Rivendell/Elrond have made the decision to forsake Middle-earth: they've accepted the fact of their long defeat. Galadriel/Lorien have not yet made that decision -- this land knows that an end is coming, but seems not quite ready to accept that yet.