Boromir, Gollum and Eowyn

[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.

[Kuruharan]

Gollum becomes the tool of Providence, and falls into the fire, converting the despair of Middle-earth into Hope of the highest order (eucatastrophe).

I disagree with your assessment of Gollum’s ‘triumph’ over his despair. He was used as a tool in spite of his despair. He had nothing to do with it and in no way defeated it. He was consumed by it.

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

Along with mark12_30, I have reservations about Gollum in this area as well. He had strong propensities in that direction. He also failed to repent in the end. Coming close doesn’t count (similar principle to “second place is first loser.”)

but he is not evil in the way that Sauron or Melkor or Shelob are evil.

I am curious as to what was left for him to do that would put him into that category.

Éowyn saves Theoden after breaking her duty to him; Faramir succeeds in letting the Ring go where Boromir failed;

and

Gollum gets the Ring into the Fire because Frodo has let him live.

The difference between the first two and the last is that Eowyn and Faramir engaged in willing acts to accomplish their goals.

Gollum had a woopsie to accomplish something that was in no way his goal.

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.

Only if one made the same consistently bad choices that he made. He had control over his own choices.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The old Evill, evil, evil-doing, doing-evil debate rearing its knobbly head once more, eh. . .?

That's a very nice point about Frodo, Child, and one that I'd not considered. As with Denethor, though, I think that Frodo's relation to this discussion works best precisely as you have framed it -- the BEG grouping is a foil to Frodo in some way, insofar as they explore in a particularlised way the nature of despair and its consequences, which is -- as you eloquently point out -- what Frodo's journey up Mount Doom is all about (the inverse of Dante's Inferno, in which the poet went down to conquer his despair??? A new idea that must be contemplated).

I think the key thing that really separates out Gollum, Eowyn and Boromir from the rest of the characters, for me, is that they commit a very specific form of evil act: they are oath breakers. They each of them are bound by their duty and by their word to a particular person whom they concsciously disobey: Boromir owes his allegiance to Aragorn, and has no excuse after the Council of Elrond to deny that (again, I cite Faramir's reaction to Aragorn: instantly acknowleging the fealty he owes). Eowyn has been ordered by her king to remain at Dunharrow. Gollum has sworn to guide Frodo. There's no two ways about this in Middle-earth -- if you swear an oath, if you owe fealty, then to go against that is an evil act. Again, I would cite those fellows along the Paths of the Dead, and don't even get me started on examples from the Sil!

(This is where, incidentally, Child's point about Frodo is extremely interesting. When the Fellowship sets out from Rivendell, Elrond is very clear that on Frodo alone "is any charge laid: neither to cast away the Ring, nor to deliver it to any servant of the Enemy". Technically, when he does claim the Ring for his own he does not break this oath, but then he also is not really living up to the spirit of that oath either?)

The more I read through the other posts the more I begin to think that these three characters really are bound by a common journey through despair to hope, rather than by any abstract or metaphysical cogitations about good and evil (Good and Evil? doing-good and evil-doing?). Each of them gives in to their despair, and each of them is redeemed of that despair (I'm not talking about Redemption of their souls or whatever, for the same reason that I'm not talking about them in terms of good and evil. . .more below). With Boromir and Eowyn it's easy to see how this works, but with Gollum I suppose it's a bit murkier. I still stand by my argument that his journey is one from despair to hope insofar as (in the words of Gandalf), "his fate is bound up with that of the Ring's". While Gollum/Ring are alive, they are bound to one another by despair, to the despair of the world; when they are destroyed, the world's despair is converted to hope. In this sense, I think it is fair to talk about Gollum's despair (which is bound to the Ring) is redeemed by hope when the Ring is destroyed.

Where I'm going with all this is that with Gollum, Boromir and Eowyn we have the issues of good and evil dramatised for us on a very human scale. There is no real litmus test of good and evil that we can apply to concrete humans in the real world -- if there were, well, wouldn't that make things so much easier?! Just take a urine sample or something, and if the person comes up "Evil" throw 'em in the clink and be done with it! With these three characters, the full complexity of the issue is brought out in the specific terms of despair and hope, which is all about how we feel about our own natures and fates in the universe. They are not about being judged by others, but about judging themselves. This really does make them unique: Frodo is always being tested by the external force of the Ring (yes, sure, there's an internal struggle, but the Ring is what is operating on him, drawing him toward an evil act, or doing wrong). Even Aragorn is being operated on by external forces, insofar as the big question for him is not will he do/be good, but will other people accept him as the rightful King? For Gollum, Boromir and Eowyn, their struggles really are primarilly, if not wholly, internal as they give in to their own despair and are redeemed of that despair when they find hope again in themselves.

[Lalwendë]

First of all I want to pick up on Fordim's comment below:

Boromir owes his allegiance to Aragorn, and has no excuse after the Council of Elrond to deny that

We would think that, as observers looking 'in' on Middle Earth, but if we look at it through Boromir's eyes, it becomes a little different. He has been brought up as an heir to the Stewardship and would necessarily have the idea instilled within him that to protect and carry on the Stewardship was all important. He is in Rivendell on the orders of his father, and might find it very difficult to submit to the will of a king who is not-yet-a-king, in effect to supplant his loyalty to his father and to his 'office'.

Boromir88's comments about the things which 'evil' characters desire made me think:

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.

Now, these evil characters seek out power and status, and they also strive to consolidate their power. We would say that to do such things is necessarily exploitative, and that these are not good things to desire. But what about when such things are thrust upon us? I am speaking of Aragorn.

This might seem to be a controversial view at first, but does he actively seek out power and status by taking a leadership role in the War of the Ring? If we looked at him through the eyes of the 'enemy' then we might well think just that. The clever thing which Tolkien does is have Aragorn display real doubt over his 'destiny'; he in effect humbles him. I think then that the difference between Sauron and Aragorn is that the former seeks power and is proud of it, the latter accepts power and is humbled by it.

And so to evil:

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 simply an option to remain in the 'light' or move away from it, into the 'darkness' which is not a thing in itself, but an absence of that Light.

Davem's idea of unlight complements the concept of the Light of Eru. In Middle Earth terms, 'good' seems to be represented by Light and evil by Darkness - rather than in the terms we are more familiar with. Unlight is a useful way of looking at 'evil' in Middle Earth, as it suggests not an external force coming from the ether but some kind of partial, even entire, absence of Light within certain characters. This would perfectly fit with such characters as The Nazgul, who are in effect 'void' of life and hence Light; they are Unlight.

Where someone like Saruman would fit in is even more interesting. He clearly does wrong in the terms of Arda and his brief, but he isn't anything to do with Unlight, rather he makes en entirely new kind of Light; he is in effect something of a heretic in Arda.

Even in the case of the Valar and Maiar, they were created as essentially good, were bestowed with the Light of Eru, but then this Light diminished within certain of them - I'm thinking of Melkor and Sauron. Even these two figures began as Light, and became Unlight - but was that darkness absolute?

As an aside, Unlight also sounds rather like Ungoliant, a nice linguistic link that has pleased me now I've spotted it.

[Boromir88]

We would think that, as observers looking 'in' on Middle Earth, but if we look at it through Boromir's eyes, it becomes a little different. He has been brought up as an heir to the Stewardship and would necessarily have the idea instilled within him that to protect and carry on the Stewardship was all important. He is in Rivendell on the orders of his father, and might find it very difficult to submit to the will of a king who is not-yet-a-king, in effect to supplant his loyalty to his father and to his 'office'.

Good point Lal, I think the oath Boromir broke was actually to Frodo. That is the oath he broke. Now he did not join the Fellowship to be a faithful companion like Sam. He merely went a long to head back to Minas Tirith, but whilst a member of that company, the oath was to protect the ringbearer, help him succeed. Well, when Boromir goes mad, that's when he breaks his oath, and nearly causes the failure of the quest. Then his redemption is recognizing what he had did wrong.

"I tried to take the Ring from Frodo," he said. "I am sorry. I have paid."

He realizes what he has done, and then asks for forgiveness. I don't feel as if Boromir broke any oath to Aragorn at all. Boromir had agreed to go to Minas Tirith, with Aragorn, and if he had lived and done so, then he could have broken an oath to Aragorn. Since, Tolkien wrote in another story, Boromir denying Aragorn's claim, and starting up turmoil. But, that's not what happened, and then Boromir's last words were.

"Farewell, Aragorn! Go to Minas Tirith and save my people! I have failed."

So from their first time meeting, in Rivendell, to his death Boromir doesn't do anything to hinder Aragorn's claim as king. But, he does hinder Frodo from trying to complete his quest.

Also, Lal, another thing between Aragorn's power, and Sauron's power. Is whatever power Aragorn has is his own right, it's his own right to claim the throne of Gondor. Unlike Sauron, he seeks to have power over everything, power that isn't his "right" to claim. Where, Aragorn doesn't seek to take power over anything that isn't his right. There's an interesting quote in "The King of the Golden Hall," where it appears Aragorn is trying to force his power as king (which he isn't yet) over the power of Theoden, but Gandalf stops him. Where Aragorn doesn't want to let go Anduril...

"It is not clear to me that the will of Theoden son of Thengel, even though he be lord of the Mark, should prevail over the will of Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elendil's heir of Gondor."
"This is the house of Theoden, not of Aragorn, even were he King of Gondor in the seat of Denethor," said Hama, stepping swiftly before the doors and barring the way. His sword was now in his hand and the point towards the strangers.
"This is idle talk," said Gandalf. "Needless is Theoden's demand, but it is useless to refuse. A king may have his way in his own hall, be it folly or wisdom."

This I point is is interesting because Aragorn, eventhough he isn't King yet, he tries to "override" Theoden's orders. Saying, I king of Gondor, should be able to over ride the Lord of the Mark, in his own house. So here Aragorn is trying to force his own power, over the power of another's. But as said, Gandalf stops him, and says a King shall have his way on his own "turf."

[Lalwendë]

That's a good quote, Boromir88! This shows that even in Aragorn there is something not entirely 'good'. At the risk of applying my own opinions a little, it seems that there is something of the empire builder within Aragorn, something which I would see as an 'evil' action. This shows he clearly has the potential within himself to incorporate a kingdom such as Rohan within Gondor, due to his pride. Luckily, this potential is worked out of him.

It also backs up a point I made in another thread that Gandalf was crucial as an advisor to Aragorn, vital to his success.

Thus, this shows again that good and evil cannot always be clearly delineated in Middle Earth.

[davem]

On vows:

[QUOTE]'Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,' said Gimli.

'Maybe,' said Elrond, 'but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.'

Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,' said Gimli;

Or break it, said Elrond. [QUOTE]

If Boromir, Eowyn & Smeagol swear oaths they are bound by them, but perhaps their mistake was in swearing the oaths in the first place. That is perhaps the starting point, if we're bringing in the oaths they swore - should they have sworn those oaths - weren't they asking for trouble in doing so?

Yet at the same time it seems that each of them was backed into a corner & had little choice but to swear those oaths, & once sworn they were bound by those oaths to, in the case of Boromir & Smeagol, to their own destruction.

What this says about Tolkien's own attitude to oaths is perhaps worth exploring. Gimli seems almost to be looking for an oath to swear, & Boromir seems equally to jump at the chance, in order to prove he is a man of honour - he's a warrior & that's the kind of thing warriors do. Smeagol swears his oath of service out of fear & desperation in extremis. Eowyn seems to have sworn out of duty.

In each case the oath quickly becomes a burden, something which they each seem to try to extricate themselves from while retaining their honour. They each attempt to construct clever arguments to get out of doing what they'd sworn to do. But this doesn't - probably can't - work. An oath is an oath. Things are called into action, forces, which cannot be put aside or ignored in the hope they will just go away.

They are each on a journey from despair - but to 'hope'? Boromir dies not so much with 'hope' but with faith. At the end I'm not sure he believes that the Good will attain victory in the world, but I think he does die knowing he has done the right thing, & perhaps realises that is enough - or that it is all a man can do. Gollum dies not in a state of hope, but of exultation at finally achieving his desire. Eowyn lives & she does attain to hope, but in a sense that hope is not due to the victory over Sauron, it is hope in life itself.

Its interesting that the concept of Mandos is not present in LotR. There is no sense of that kind of metaphysical dimension after death - Theoden expresses his belief that he will go to be with 'his fathers', but this seems to be a Rohirric belief, rather than being based in knowledge of the Halls of Waiting. The characters do not seem to live out their lives, or make their decisions, based on a sense of their lives on earth being merely a prelude to eternity. Boromir dies knowing he has done the right thing, but i don't get any sense that he thinks he is going to 'heaven'. Same with Smeagol. And Eowyn too. They are all looking for 'redemption in the world, in the sense of either achieving happiness, or power, or renown.

Any 'afterlife' is a mystery, the great unknown, & not something that anyone has as a motivation for their deeds on earth. Good & 'ungood' are choices made in order to achive worldly things, not eternal ones. There is almost a sense of failure about Frodo's end precisely because of this - he doesn't achieve worldly happiness or success. He fails because he has to leave the world & doesn't get what Sam gets, or Aragorn, or Legolas, Gimli, Merry & Pippin, et al. No-one seems to be looking beyond the world for meaning - not even the Elves, really - they are leaving not in the hopes of attaining something beyond Middle earth, but rather because they can no longer stay.

I don't know if this takes the discussion any further, but it just struck me as a point to add....