Boromir, Gollum and Eowyn

[mark12_30]

Let me put it this way.

Would you trust Boromir for an afternoon to guard a child?

I would.

Eowyn?

I would.

Smeagol?

[Thinlómien]

Hey Mark, about your Gollum: He is not evil; he just has an evil fate, I think. Mark, what would you have became like if you had murdered your friend (blinded by uncontrollable lust), you had been kicked out your home and retreated to the mountains, lived many, many years in lonely dark caves. What would you have eaten, if not goblins (and fish)? Stone?
Anyway, I´ll continue. Your dearest thing and only "memento" of the past had bounded itself to your mind and you have became addicted to it. You probably know that it's hard to be addicted to something; the lust is not stopped by just saying: "you wicked ring! Leave me alone!", as Gollum did. Well my main point was that it was his "fate", all the things that had happened to him, that made him evil.

The same way we can think about Boromir and Éowyn: they did their "bad deeds" because of what had hapened to them, somehow. (Well I think it's quite self-evident and mentioned here before.)

[mark12_30]

davem wrote:

In other words, no-one in Middle earth is 'evil' per se - ie, evil in their essential nature, because Nothing is evil in its beginning.

There is a big difference between "Nothing is evil in the beginning" and "nothing is evil."

Thinlómien: Are you saying that Smeagol was forced to do all those things? The corollary would be that Bilbo was forced to spare Gollum; Bilbo would get no credit for sparing Gollum.

But he does.

[Boromir88]

Gollum is an important piece of the story, and without him, Frodo wouldn't have succeeded, but I think what Mark is trying to get at is this...
Or atleast in my view, Gollum must of had a pretty weak mind, or must have been in some way "evil," if he killed Deagol on sight. As soon as Gollum laid eyes on The Ring, bam! he was corrupted by it. It wasn't some slow long process, in Boromir's case, it was instant. So, either Gollum had a really weak mind, or he must had some sort of evil in him, during that time. One thing still remains the same though, Gollum, you just can't help but feel sorry for the lad.

Actually, I believe that his madness comprises all three. The emotional, and therefore psychological, element is present in the heightening of his despair with the loss of his beloved firstborn and the belief that he has lost his remaining son too. And Sauron's trickery could only work on him by virtue of the emotional (as well as dutiful) love that he felt for his country. Seeing its fall as inevitable works emotionally and psychologically on his mind. So, his ambiguity - in terms of good v evil - may be discussed on all three levels.

Good point SpM, I think when Denethor tried to foolishly strive with Sauron, he sunk into despair. But, no doubt his true breaking points were the loss of his sons, and seeing his country under HIS rule about to be over run, and Denethor comments on this...

"I would have things as they were in all the days of my life," answered Denethor, "and in the days of my longfathers before me: to be the Lord of this City in peace, and leave my chair to a son after me, who would be his own master and no wizard's pupil."

I agree with you Davem, to a point. Because, no one is "born" evil. Stalin wasn't born and just said I'm going to kill 30 million of my own people. However, that action of killing 30 million people makes him evil. Maybe, a question is, if the person is beyond redemption, then that makes them fully evil? However, another question, truthfully is anyone beyond any sort of redemption? Even the most wicked, and hated people, were they beyond redemption? Some like to look on the good side and think, that there's still hope in people. There's still time for change.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Fordim -

Have to run and take someone to work, but can't help mentioning this...

As I was reading this excellent thread, an oddball idea occurred to me.

First, let's review the original criteria you put up for a character to be included on this thread:

1) All three of them face despair and, oddly, triumph over it.

2) They all are rather unwitting players in a larger drama that they do not fully understand.

3) They are motivated, if not defined by, desire.

4) Their failures to fulfil their desires are integral parts of the successful completion of the Quest and of Aragorn’s Return.

5) They oppose the wills of the heroes, even try to hinder them, but they are not evil.

6) They have the same ‘place’ or role in the overall structure of the narrative.

If we look at the trudge up Mount Doom and the final scenes at Sammath Naur, couldn't we apply these same criteria to the character of Frodo Baggins? OK, maybe I am stretching things a bit, but there are many elements shared in common by these four individuals. Let me trace these point by point and link them to your six criteria listed above.

1. The final steps of the journey are surely a study in despair with Frodo unable even to remember the Shire, that which he is fighting to save. Frodo's "triumph" over despair is simply the fact that the object of his desire is destroyed and, at the same time, he manages to survive with a great deal of help from outside himself....Sam, Providence, and even the sacrifices of the good folk as a whole. Like the other three characters, his fate does not rest wholly within his own hands.

2. He is certainly a player in a larger drama that he does not fully understand. He has grown in wisdom thoughout the story, but does not have a complete understanding of what is happening. Just one small example....the person he has most relied on in the early part of the journey is actually a Maia, but Frodo still does not know that and would not even understand what the term "Maia" means.

3. The entire trip to Mordor is a study in desire, and it is this which defines Frodo's entire place in the story. Frodo is constantly battling his desire to put on the Ring. Sometimes the Ring triumphs and sometimes it does not. But it is when Frodo stands before Sammath Naur that desire wins out.

The fact that Frodo is able to fight and resist the pull of the Ring for some time should not exclude him from this group. There are certainly hints of this same thing happening to Boromir on the initial journey of the Fellowship, and also to Gollum in his dealings with Sam and Frodo. In both these cases, the reader is aware that there is internal conflict occurring, just as with Frodo and the object of his desire.

4. Frodo's failure to fill his desire, to become master of the Ring, is certainly an integral part of the fulfillment of the Quest as a whole.

5. Certainly, Frodo is opposing the stated will of Gandalf when he refuses to toss the Ring into the fire. Yes, Gandalf may have suspected right from the beginning that Frodo would be unable to dispose of the Ring. But I don't think that would exclude a name from your list. After all, the reader who listens to Boromir at Rivendell knows, and probably Gandalf suspected as well, that Boromir will be unable to resist the lure of the Ring. In that respect, Frodo is no different from Boromir.

6. the same place or role in the overall narrative.... This one is harder to address. Yet I think it might be said that Frodo as the Ringbearer is the central character who most exemplifies the themes you have delineated above. Eowyn, Boromir, and Gollum all have smaller battles or conflicts that seem to mirror Frodo's primary dilemma in certain key respects. These characters perhaps present us with alternate suggestions as to what may eventually happen to the Ringbearer at the end of the story when he must fully face his desire? For if one measures the amount of evil and despair that these four characters must face, it is surely Frodo who has the toughest job of all.

Yet the central dilemma for all four remains the same: how a 'human' faces temptation and what happens when they succumb to that temptation. ( For purposes of this discussion I am arguing that Gollum has enough of Smeagol potential left inside him to be classified along with other hobbits as a "Man"....)

Interestingly, there is also the question of which of these characters are later able to accept "forgiveness". Eowyn and Boromir both seem able to put their mistakes behind them and go on (however short that might have been for Boromir!). With Gollum, we shall never know. And then there is poor Frodo....., though I have always felt that his decision to sail to the West was at least an acceptance of the fact that healing and acceptance of forgiveness was needed.

Oh, yes, with a nod to Boromir88, Frodo also is motherless.....

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

There is a big difference between "Nothing is evil in the beginning" and "nothing is evil."

This brings us to the essence of the question. If I say 'Nothing is evil' am I saying the same thing as if I said 'Evil is nothing'?

Itt seems to me that (within Middle earth at least) evil does not have a seperate existence in its own right. Evil is the ultimate perversion of Good, perhaps the ultimate absence of Good but it isn't some 'thing' which exists in its own right. I'm struggling to get my point across, but its to do with the difference between 'darkness' & 'unlight'.

Evil is a convenient label - perhaps we should invent a term like 'ungood', implying the 'absence' of good - so, Gollum is 'ungood', so is Sauron, Saruman & the Witchking. Boromir & Eowyn make 'ungood' choices.

So, I would hold that no-one is 'evil' - they start out good & move away from it as a result of their choices, but they [i]don't/i] become something else - 'Evil', they simply move away from the Good, which is the only truly 'real' thing. They move towards an unreal state, an emptiness, a 'void'.

[Mithalwen]

Fordim - I don't want to reopen old arguments but disobeying aragorn is not inherently evil.

[Boromir88]

Itt seems to me that (within Middle earth at least) evil does not have a seperate existence in its own right. Evil is the ultimate perversion of Good, perhaps the ultimate absence of Good but it isn't some 'thing' which exists in its own right. I'm struggling to get my point across,

Davem, maybe I can help you out a bit, . There's what are called concrete nouns, and abstract nouns. Concrete nouns- things that appeal to our senses, things that we can see, touch, hear, for instance a table, a dog barking, coffee...etc. Abstract nouns- or abstract ideas, things that can't be measured. Often these are emotions, love, fear, nervous, or could be things like power, wealth. I can't go to the store and say, jee, I'm down in the dumps today I think I'll get a gallon of happiness.

Look at the some of the classified evil characters from LOTR, Saruman and Sauron. Both, desire abstract ideas, they want power, world domination, money, greedy. So first off, abstract nouns lead to "evil," but since they are abstract, things that we can't touch, see, hear, they are our emotions, are desires, and are immeasurable. In essence it's not even there. How much power do I have? I don't know, just power. Seeing that these abstract ideas are often a cause of evil, then maybe that helps your point. That evil is nothing. Just an absence of good.

[Thinlómien]

I didn't mean that Sméagol was forced to do those things. My point is that he can't be blamed of becoming of what he was like, because, I think, most of people would have become as "mad" as he became.

Well, for Boromir88: might this theory be likely: The Ring acts differently on different people. (I'm not saying that it "seduced" Gollum right away and Boromir during a long time period, because that would have fitted fitted it's purposes. That would be an intresting theory, though.) I mean that some people have weaker strength of mind (eg Gollum), some "normal", if it could be said so (eg Boromir, Denethor) and some people have a great resistance to it (eg Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli). And that is how quickly the ring acts on them. Who knows?

Nothing is evil at the beginning. They just might become "evil", if such a word can be used.