Boromir, Gollum and Eowyn

[Boromir88]

That's a good quote, Boromir88! This shows that even in Aragorn there is something not entirely 'good'.

And to think people often take Aragorn as a superhuman, flawless, saint .

[Kuruharan]

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.

But this is not a personal triumph for Gollum. It is a different thing from Boromir and Eowyn. To be quite blunt, I don’t think it is the same thing at all.

Frodo is always being tested by the external force of the Ring

And Gollum isn’t?

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.

Again, as far as Gollum is concerned, I wholly disagree. You talk about his death with the Ring as being the birth of hope for all of Middle earth, yet that was entirely an accident and not a choice that he made (I also don’t see how the creation of new hope for Middle earth was somehow a great triumph for Gollum). Gollum’s whole will was to reclaim the Ring. That was all that was inside him.

He clearly does wrong in the terms of Arda and his brief, but he isn't anything to do with Unlight

Say what? He abandoned his calling and (incidentally) referred to Sauron as his Master. What exactly are you looking for?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

In reading back through the thread I see that the idea of sacrifice, which I mentioned in passing in the first post, has not really been addressed yet -- and I think it might be helpful to do so.

Can we say that the one thing which concretely differentiates Boromir and Eowyn from Gollum is that B and E willingly sacrifice themselves in defense of people whom they are duty-bound to protect, while Gollum is unwillingly sacrificed by Providence after he harms the person he is duty-bound to protect?

The idea of sacrifice is an important one in the story: Frodo, most obviously, has to sacrifice everything he has; Arwen, too, has to sacrifice her immortal life (and Elrond has to share in this); Sam is willing to sacrifice everything, and does give up a year of his life in which he had, as it turns out, been planning on getting married. Even Aragorn sacrifices something: he is, of course, willing to sacrifice himself (and his entire army!) to help Frodo get to Mount Doom, but even after this success he does have to give up his name and the identity that he's had for his whole life in order to fulfil a prophecy and a Providential role over which he has no control. . .

Herm. . .a new thought. . .

Boromir, Eowyn and Gollum are linked in that they all of them pursue their own desires in direct contravention to what is needed or required of them by the Story, but redemption comes about for them through sacrifice. But then, this raises the even stickier notion of free will: if they hadn't gone out on their own, then would things have turned out well? Are their sacrifices required (that is, do they have to choose to make them) or are they part and parcel of what's just going to happen (they are doomed to sacrifice themselves or be sacrificed).

[Encaitare]

I don't have any huge points to make, but I would like to add a couple of things.

It occurs, remembering that lovely scene when Faramir has given his mother's mantle that she is filling various voids in his life - it could be a bit creepy but it could be seen more positively in that they are everything to each other

This is quite possible -- after all, both have very little left at this point. Both have lost members of their families. Eowyn would act as a feminine presence which Faramir never has because of his mother's early death, and Faramir would act as the protective masculine presence that is the role of a father.

Evil is a convenient label - perhaps we should invent a term like 'ungood', implying the 'absence' of good

Ehh... that's way too 1984.

As for what Fordim recently mentioned regarding sacrifice...

Can we say that the one thing which concretely differentiates Boromir and Eowyn from Gollum is that B and E willingly sacrifice themselves in defense of people whom they are duty-bound to protect, while Gollum is unwillingly sacrificed by Providence after he harms the person he is duty-bound to protect?

Boromir definitely sacrificed himself willingly in defense of others. I don't think this was all of Eowyn's motive, though. She was in despair, having been rejected by Aragorn and being forced to stay behind while everyone else went to battle. She did want to protect her people, but she also wants to go to battle for herself. If Gondor and Rohan win, then she will gain renown and honor, even if she should die on the battlefield. If they lose, then she will most likely have been killed in battle, finding escape in death and an end to her despair, knowing that she did all she could to aid her people rather than sit at home and wait for the inevitable end to come. She wants to go to war to defend her people, but also for personal reasons.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Can we say that the one thing which concretely differentiates Boromir and Eowyn from Gollum is that B and E willingly sacrifice themselves in defense of people whom they are duty-bound to protect, while Gollum is unwillingly sacrificed by Providence after he harms the person he is duty-bound to protect?

Er, does Boromir willingly 'sacrifice' himself - ie, does he fight the Orcs knowing that he will die as a result? I don't think we can say that he does. He goes into combat against massive odds, but we don't know that he realises he will die. Perhaps, driven by his pride, he believes he will win. Its possible that when he speaks of having 'failed' he is referring to the fact that he lost a fight he thought he could win. Perhaps this is the reason for Aragorn's response - that he hasn't 'failed', he has 'conquered'.

Eowyn, I think, does sacrifice herself - even though she survives - because she clearly believes she has no chance of defeating the WK - but stands against him anyway. Its interesting that in the book, as opposed to the movie, she tells the WK not that she will 'kill' him if he touches Theoden, but merely that she will 'smite' him. She believes she will fall in defence of her Lord & kinsman, not that she will defeat the WK.

So, one could say that Boromir is 'sacrificed' by providence in the way Smeagol is, 'for the greater good, while Eowyn's is possibly the only real self sacrifice in full awareness. Perhaps that's why she survives. Something about 'He who tries to save his life will lose it, but he that gives up his life for my sake will save it'? I don't know....

B & G want to win & live with the fruit of their victories, Eowyn almost wishes to fail - to die - & find a peaceful end.

Of course, this makes all of them seem 'victims' of providence - the old joke about 'How do you make God Laugh? Tell him your plans.' springs to mind.

In Middle earth it seems that many, if not all, are either 'victims of providence', or in a deeper sense, 'characters in a story'. They all have roles to play in the cosmic drama, & those roles will be played out, in spite of their own desires - even in spite of any oaths they might have sworn. Perhaps that's what's behind Elrond's warning to Gimli.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Might as well jump right back in after all this time...

Boromir, Eowyn and Gollum are linked in that they all of them pursue their own desires in direct contravention to what is needed or required of them by the Story, but redemption comes about for them through sacrifice.

I read through this thread with the growing idea that Fordim seems to have crystallized here. Boromir, Eowyn and Gollum all act and are driven by personal desires, which, as he had lined out initially, define them to a great extent. Boromir's desire is for glory and the honor of battle and the position of protector of Gondor. If we take this desire to its end, it is a selfish one, one that puts Boromir, in the final test, above his beloved country, his father, anything else. This is why Faramir's insight is so apt and yet so intuitive as to be obvious when one breaks down Boromir's motivations. This is the very thing that the Ring exploits in everyone, only these three characters seem to show it on the surface. They are the most obviously susceptible to the draw of desire.

Gollum is most susceptible, as he had only to look upon the Ring and he immediately falls to his desire of it. All his actions thereafter are motivated by this desire. Having lost the Ring, his only motivation is to regain it. In a way, it seems rather than, as davem suggests, that Gollum is forced into an oath at last extremity, that he is instead willing to take the oath to further his contact with the Ring and ensure that his chances of regaining it are much larger than if he does not take the oath. In other words, Gollum may be in a tight place, but his understanding of the oath is not pure. The oath is a means to his desire, and by this discrepancy is Gollum made to trip over the inherent (although often petty) evil of being slave to one's desires. This is what makes his near redemption so extraordinary, as he is, for one moment, able to see through this desire and to "see the light," but, as Tolkien himself said in other words, his conversion was spoiled not only by the brusqueness of Sam at the vital cusp, but also by the fragility of a new concept to one so thoroughly steeped in evil ways. It could not even stand a harsh word from Sam, even though Sam DID apologize afterwards! But there is a near redemption and a glimpse of light to be seen, proof that Gollum was not beyond saving. He ends up "in persistent wickedness," however, so any real redemption is not his own but Middle Earth's.

As for Eowyn, her desire is for a strong realm and an escape from a cage enforced by her being female and surrounded by those who seem to be heralding the end of Rohan. She wishes to escape the decay she is witnessing around her and latches on to Aragorn as a beacon of hope. But she is merely transferring her "shadow and a thought," her desires, onto Aragorn, because he is possessed of strength and purpose. When he bursts her bubble, so to speak, she desires death in battle, a final escape (compare this with Denethor's despair and madness...I think Eowyn's motives somewhat similar, but she is capable of more self-sacrifice than Denethor shows...). I think, in a way, her redemption is aided by the pure love of Merry for Theoden. Merry wishes simply to fight by Theoden's side and to be with him in danger, as well as in his halls. Eowyn realizes her love for her uncle in a much more real way, in a way that does not require that he be anything other than what he is. Her fear and disappointment, felt keenly at Edoras, dissolve in an act of defense out of love for Theoden as he is, rather than as she desires him to be.

Spinning off into the vast galaxy of points in this discussion, perhaps there is a point to be seen in the contrast between leaders Theoden and Denethor. They are both influenced by hobbits. I am a great believer in the efficacy of applying hobbits to any problem one might have in order to clarify and simplify it. Merry is salve to both Theoden and to Eowyn, while Pippin fulfills a similar role to Faramir and attempts to do so with Denethor. I find it interesting to note that Pippin, as he is standing at the Black Gate, wishing Merry were there so that they might die together, is reminded of Denethor and his despair. Pippin, however, being sensible, rejects the psychological and spiritual pit that Denethor falls into, and puts all his energies into the fight without the intrusion of desire. The beautiful aspect of this ability is not only that it is quintessentially "hobbitish," but that it also is an ultimate rejection of selfishness and a flowing into the Story. Pippin's spirit even laughs a little, realizing the Tale is a tale and the dark desires of one such as Denethor cannot further a proper Tale with a proper spirit.

(I hope that is not too far afield for the discussion...it was irresistible!)

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. I don't know if this would further the discussion, but perhaps it would be of interest to identify and quantify the foils of these three characters: Boromir-Faramir, Gollum-Frodo, and Eowyn-Arwen. (I'm reaching with the last one, but the way I see it, Eowyn is driven by the desire to escape a cage, while Arwen is driven by her innate selflessness and pure faith and to the extent of giving up her birthright in order to fulfill her love for Aragorn. In so doing, she also makes her sacrifice of immortality more meaningful in that she gives her place on the ship to the West to Frodo so that he might have a tangible reward that addresses his real needs. ) Although her people are fading, every act and fruit of her hands proceeds in furtherance of hope for Men, without regard to the separateness of the Elves (that might not be expressed as fluidly as I'd like, but I'm out of practice so please forgive me!) But this has gone on quite long enough and I'll break off and keep reading and thinking a bit! Cheers again!

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lyta -

It is indeed good to hear your ideas again!

Fordim-

I do agree that Frodo's plight and place in the narrative is so unique that he works best as a "foil" to this group or, perhaps more properly speaking, they work best as a foil to him, since he bears the central and pivotal role. Moreover, it seems clear that, as far as Frodo goes, the central figure in this triad opposing him would have to be Gollum, with the other two flanking off to the side. Yet, I do not think you can look at these three characters in isolation, without considering how Frodo fits into this equation and determining how his position is both similar and different.

In this wider context, your comment on oath breakers was interesting. Yes, I think there is a contrast. I would say Frodo stands in a unique situation when compared with the others in your triad:

(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?)

Whatever the other three characters may have done, Frodo did not actually swear an oath when he spoke before the Council of Elrond. "I will take the Ring,....though I do not know the way." A traditional oath of fealty must be sworn to a particular person or body and that person or body must directly accept the sworn fealty. If we look at the wording of Elrond's response, we see that he did not actually accept Frodo's words as an oath. Instead, he falls back on the "pregnant passive". He even modifies his response further by adding the words "I think" to the beginning of the sentence.

I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo, and that if you do not find a way, no one will.

It is not Elrond who imposes the duty. He is merely recognizing something that has been imposed from elsewhere (an elsewhere that is not specified in the text but which the reader can conjecture).

What Frodo is doing is much closer to what a modern reader would call a "promise". Unlike the other characters we're discussing --Eowyn, Boromir, and even the "archaic" Gollum who comes from a much older world, Frodo is from the Shire.....hardly a place of oaths. He is the mediator between the modern reader and the other characters in the story who are indeed oath-givers from oath-swearing cultures. (Interestingly, Frodo's two Hobbit friends are later to be swept up into swearing oaths but only because they become intimately involved with the "older" cultures of Rohan and Gondor.)

The word "charge" that you cite in your quotation above is also very interesting. In a modern sense, this word can mean a requirement or an obligation. This would be a natural component of an oath. But there is another, much older meaning of this term, and I think it is what Tolkien meant when he had Elrond utter the word. An obsolete meaning of the word is "a material load or weight". Surely Tolkien was aware of that, and I think his choice of words was intentional. I can not think of anything more suitable than charge or weight to describe the task that Frodo has taken on.

Finally, I do not think we can understand the full meaning of oaths by confining our consideration to only these three individuals, or even to the comment that Elrond gave to Gimli. You would certainly have to consider the later Hobbit oaths as well.

[mark12_30]

BTW, if we are counting oathbreakers we must include Merry, who was told to remain behind and disobeyed, riding with Dernhelm instead.

With Eowyn and Merry, is Tolkien making a point that sometimes oathbreaking is neccessary?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Yes, Helen, I agree in regard to your post just above.

That is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind when I was wrote the last paragraph of my own post and suggested we'd have to consider the "later hobbit oaths".

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

After reading davem's post, I find I must amend my view of sacrifice -- you are quite right d, in your assesment of the sacrifices that these characters make (or do not make). I think that what I should have said is that Eowyn and Boromir become willing to sacrifice their personal desires, rather than actually being required to do so. So that, Boromir, throughout his journey, is never willing to give up his desire for glory and personal honou -- this is what drives him to try and take the Ring. At the very end, however, he gives up this personal desire and 'repents' to Aragorn. It's not his death that is the sacrifice. Instead, he sacrifices his desire for the Ring, for personal renown, when he acknowleges that Aragorn is his true King and leaves it for him to save Minas Tirith. He does not die wanting what he has wanted all along.

Eowyn's sacrifice is much the same: it's not that she is willing to sacrifice herself for Theoden (with her death) that 'saves' her. Instead, her despair is converted to hope when she gives up, sacrifices, her personal desire for Aragorn -- and what he represents to her. It's interesting that Boromir is redeemed by accepting the person who Eoywn must give up. . . An interesting form of gender inversion???

And this is where Gollum really stands out, as he is never willing to sacrifice his desire for the Ring. He's willing to sacrifice everything except the Ring.

So with this new emphasis on sacrifice (and in light of Lyta's and Child's points about oaths and oath-breaking), I think I would like to move back from the emphasis that I've been placing on oaths and fealty. What I think Gollum, Boromir and Eowyn have in common is that each of them is committed to their own desires to such an extent that they are at odds with their duty -- now, this is where there's some differences, insofar as their duties are quite different. Boromir's duty is defined in terms of fealty and lordship (he should be acknowleging Aragorn and isn't). Eowyn's duty is to her socially defined role (she should be content to be a shieldmaiden). Gollum's duty is to Frodo.

So in the desire versus duty view of things:

Boromir realises and fulfils his duty at the end of his life, by repenting of his selfish desires for Rule (the Ring).

Eowyn realises and fulfils her duty with Faramir by repenting of her selfish desire for Aragorn.

Gollum fulfils (but does not realise) his duty when his desire for the Ring leads him to fall into the fire.

So in each case, their duty is fulfilled and their desire destroyed or overcome. But what does this mean? That any desire one has that is in contravention to one's duty is self-destructive and 'wrong'? That the only right desires are those that are in accord with what one is expected or supposed to do? I don't really by this, but I seem to have led myself toward a conclusion like that. . .

One Last Note: Lyta, Kudos and wow on your idea about the foils for each of the three in our current triad, particularly the way you have worked through the Eowyn-Arwen pairing. Seems to me that in this little pattern you've outlined we can see this desire/duty dialogue at work pretty clearly: who in the story is more dutiful, or less motivated by personal desire, than Faramir, Frodo and Arwen???