Most Tragic Figure

If a tragic hero is defined as a noble person with a fatal flaw that brings them to a low, then I would argue that Faramir is too one of the books tragic heroes. His fatal flaw being his will to prove his value to his father, even when it means almost killing himself. At no time during the book does it seem that he has pleased Denethor.

I guess in a way, the entire family is tragic.

[Gothmog]

I think what is missing in the case of Melkor is that most tragic heroes either die fairly quickly after their "fall", or at least come to a transcendental moment of clarity, realizing their own faults and taking responsibility for the consequences of their misguided actions. Melkor never does acknowledge his wrongdoings, except as a ruse to corrupt Valinor, and by the time he finally dies, we the readers have long since run out of sympathy for him. Simply stated, he wore out his welcome as a tragic hero.

Your right Hill Troll, you don't feel any compassion with Melkor, he's fallen too far and for too long time. Therefore I nominate Feanor and Turin for the Most Tragic Figure. Why? Well, read the the other posts...

[Vanya]

Somehow, Isildur's fate made very sad impression on me. He was great man, who did lots of heroic things (such as saving the seeds of White tree from Sauron in Numenor, what costed him many serious wounds), founded Gondor along with his brother, fought many battles, made Gondor and Arnor powerfull kingdoms, been wise king: but, he is rememberd mostly by his unfortunate desision to keep the ring, what brought him and to his sons, death at Gladen fields. So, everything good that he did became annuled by this.
So, I vote for Isildur.

[The Saucepan Man]

Fair points, Vanya, particularly as Isildur was on his way to Rivendell to seek counsel on what should be done with the Ring, having realised his error in not destroying it, when he was waylaid and killed.

But it has been pointed out that, to be a truly tragic figure, an individual's own personality defects should play a critical role in his downfall. I wonder how much of Isildur's refusal to destroy the Ring was his own pride, and how much was the influence of the Ring itself. Tolkien makes the point in his Letters that no one could willingly have destroyed the Ring. Can Isildur really be described as tragic, when the failing which led to his downfall was something which no one could be expected to resist?

[Vanya]

Well, in my oppinion, tragic means just the oposite, when someone is doomed without any guilt of it's own. I think that great deal of missfortune that happened to Turin, he brought to himself, because his temper. So this is just the reason Isildur is tragic for me - because he died because he could't rule the Ring. It wasn't his fault, since the real question is whether he was proud or he wasn't aware of Ring's nature?

[Dininziliel]

doug*platypus--ahem . . . [shakes her head slowly, still trying to recall the iron-clad, sterling logic that had added up to a sum that turned out to be far less than its parts] um, gosh . . . having gone back and read my own criteria, I guess there's not much to defend Gollum. He could never have been considered as possessing a noble character. Tolkien says as much in Letters of . . . ; Gollum merely had the potential to become noble in that one brief moment of pity & love for Frodo. Gollum could have opted for forgiveness and transcended the fate of his path to that point; however, he chose that path and its fate. I think this may have been what was on my mind--he could have been a contender and all he "got" was a lousy one-way ticket to palookaville. Sad, yes; tragic, no. Now, if he had opted for forgiveness in that moment w/Frodo and gone on to carry the Ring to Doom and then wrestled w/himself on the edge and fallen to a firey, molten death below . . .

Frodo, though, we could argue, albeit the points are fine and feathery. Frodo was definitely a noble character pitted against a situation in which he was doomed to fail and fall low. The falling low part is the wishbone of contention. This is what is most fascinating to me this week about Frodo--if he had not been gifted with a healing in Aman, he would, indeed, be a candidate for tragic hero. He was fading out to the world and the world was fading out to him--all was joyless and gray. But, he did get the healing in Aman. The question as I consider it now is: can Frodo qualify as a tragic hero because of his suffering and certain end in this world (ME), or must he be disqualified for being healed out of this world?