Civil War if Boromir survived?

[Boromir88]

Davem, I happen to disagree with you on many points, but that's why I'm here at the downs, to get other peoples view, here's my argument on some of your points...

Some people can't be corrupted - Sam can't, Aragorn can't, & neither, it seems to me, can Faramir. Sadly, we see Frodo can - which is why his story is a tragedy.

First, I think we should exclude Sam, yes, Sam did throw away the temptations, but he was tempted on being "Samwise the brave" and he was able to over come them, but to say he, was totally "uncorruptable" by the ring, I would not agree. Give it some time, Sam would have been corrupted, in my view, luckily he was able to past the test, and able only had one chance of passing that test, but that doesn't mean he was "uncorruptable."

Aragorn, my only case with him, was after the death of Boromir, he was in utter catastrophe. He was doubting his decisions he made, and wish he never had the burden of "leader" put on him, if Frodo stayed in the company, who knows what he would have done, but that is a "big if" so I do agree that Aragorn wasn't corruptable by the ring.

Your case you've made with Faramir is very strong, my personal opinion would be if Faramir and Boromir had switched, and Faramir went with the Fellowship, he still would have taken it and here is why...

Faramir had heard about what happened to Boromir, through Frodo's account. Through the story of Boromir trying to take the ring from him. And I think a big reason why Faramir was able to deny the ring, was because he learned from Boromir's mistake. As you have already quoted, Faramir holds Boromir higher then any man in Gondor, none in Gondor at this time could match him, atleast through Faramir's eyes. Then he learns, he tries to take this ring, and look what happens, he dies. Faramir seeing, and realizing, that the brother he holds above all else died because of the ring, makes him able to deny it so strongly. Because, Faramir realizes, heck if the ring leads to the end of the best in Gondor, Boromir, it would be hopeless for me to take it, and that is why I think Faramir was able to so "strongly" deny the ring. And that is the biggest reason, Faramir learning from the mistake of Boromir. So, if they had switched places I think Faramir still would have fallen, again thats just my opinion.

There is never, as far as I'm aware, any suggestion that Elrond wants it,

There is this quote from letters, that would suggest Elrond was tempted by the ring, just like Galadriel.

In the "Mirror of Galadriel", it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. IF so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond.

This states, if Galadriel saw herself taking the ring and supplanting Sauron (which we can see from the chapter "Mirror in Galadriel" when she comes out and says she's desired it). This just says, if Galadriel did, then so did the other 3 ringbearers (Elrond and Gandalf), and it even comes out to say ESPECIALLY Elrond. So, Elrond was tempted, like Galadriel, but of course he didn't let it get in his way.

I think we have to get away from this idea that the Ring inevitably corrupts anyone who comes into its vicinity.

That I agree with, the ring just doesn't automatically corrupt anyone around it, but, that doesn't mean they aren't corruptable, everyone would be corrupted (with the exclusion on Tom, who has already said Tom would not care for such things). Now, being around the ring, and maybe even wielding the ring at one time, there are those strong enough to refuse the temptation (Sam, Gandalf, Galadriel...etc), but it's made clear Galadriel, if in posession of the ring, would desire it to overthrow Sauron, and with Gandalf it was said he wanted to use it to do good things, create a lot of good, but by doing that, it would only be destruction, or total chaos. Sam, had temptation, but was able to quickly cast them away. So, I think if anyone was stuck in Frodo's position of having to destroy the ring (with the excluse of Tom), they too wouldn't have been able to do it. You are right in saying, there are those that can see the ring (Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel) some of the wiser ones, and are able to deny it and aren't affected by it, but if they were to wield it, they would have been corrupted.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I can't see anyway that the Ring could have tempted him by offering to fulfil any of his desires.

Davem, I would most certainly disagree with this premise in your argument. The Ring works by finding that which the individual desires and offering it to them. With Galadriel it was the desire to establish a realm and rule over others. With Boromir, it was his desire to defend Gondor and meet Sauron in battle. With Gollum, it was secretive, inquisitive nature and love of "precious" things. Gandalf accepts that he would be corrupted by it, since it would appeal to his desire to do good. Even Sam is tempted by the idea of a great garden covering the poisonous plains of Mordor. So, I think that there is no individual desire, however pure, that the Ring would not be able to "work on". Faramir is no exception here, and neither is Aragorn.

Now, Boromir88 brings up an important distinction here. There is a difference between becoming corrupted by the Ring through merely being within its vicinity and succumbing to it as Ringbearer. But, since we have examples of those that succumbed through being within its vicinity, it is clear that the Ring's influence, its power to corrupt, extends beyond simply the individual who happens to be bearing it at any given time. I hold with the belief (suggested by Tokien in his Letters) that no one (with the exception of Bombadil, who is a special case) would have been able willingly to destroy the Ring. The tragedy of Frodo (and his heroism) lies, for me, in the fact that he blames himself for not being able to do something that no other person would have been able to do. If someone else could have done what Frodo couldn't, it would severely diminish Frodo's character in my eyes.

Now, if one accepts (as I do) that no one would have been able to destroy the Ring voluntarily, then it follows that everyone would ultimately have been corruptible (and corrupted) as its bearer. There is evidence for this in Gandalf's refusal to bear it and in Galadriel's admission that, had she failed the "test", she would have become a Queen terrible to behold, a source of despair. Sam is able to give it up, but his time as Ringbearer was short. Had he borne it all the way from the Shire, I have no doubt that he would have found it a lot more difficult, if not impossible, to relinquish it.

Now, as I have said, the Ring's influence clearly extends beyond its immediate bearer. I do not believe that its influence on its bearer and its influence on those around it was any different save, perhaps, in strength. So, on that assumption, it follows from what I have said above that, given sufficient exposure, anyone within the vicinity of the Ring would ultimately have succumbed to it. Some would hold out longer than others. Some would no doubt hold out for a very long time indeed. But everyone without exception (well, one exception as noted above) was vulnerable to it. Had the Fellowship not broken when it did, I am sure that others would have felt its pull. It had no need to work on anyone else while it held Boromir within its power. But with him gone, I am sure that it would have chosen another "victim", perhaps even Aragorn himself, given his ancestry and clear purpose (ie desire). Had Faramir been there in Boromir's place, he would have been a suitable alternative for the Ring's wiles.

So, I do not see Faramir as uncorruptible at all, despite what he says to Frodo at Henneth Annun (and I think that there is much sense in what Boromir88 says in Faramir having "learned his lesson, giving him even greater resources to resist it). As I said before, I believe that he would have held out longer than his brother. But I have no doubt that Faramir would have succumbed eventually, given sufficient exposure to the Ring's focused influence.

[davem]

It is far more powerful than I ever dared to think at first, so powerful that in the end it would overcome anyone of mortal race who possessed it. It would possess him' (The Shadow of the Past)

Of course, we're back to the Manichaean/Boethian thing - is the Ring an external power of evil, which can overcome anyone simply by its overwhelming power, or is it something which brings out the innate 'evil' tendencies in the individual?

I think the key is in Gandalf's statement about 'possession'. It 'posesses' anyone who 'possesses' it. But what does 'possession' imply in this instance - simply having it?

Chambers dictionary gives the following definitions of 'possess':

to have or hold as owner, ..to seize..to control..to be master of...to dominate the mind of

[QUOTE=Boromir88]

Quote:In the "Mirror of Galadriel", it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. IF so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond.[/QUOTE


This states, if Galadriel saw herself taking the ring and supplanting Sauron (which we can see from the chapter "Mirror in Galadriel" when she comes out and says she's desired it). This just says, if Galadriel did, then so did the other 3 ringbearers (Elrond and Gandalf), and it even comes out to say ESPECIALLY Elrond. So, Elrond was tempted, like Galadriel, but of course he didn't let it get in his way.

Well, that merely says to me that Elrond, like Gandalf & Galdadriel, 'concieved of themselves as capable of using it' - but so did pretty much everyone who came into contact with it. But knowing you can do something is not the same as being tempted to do it, & its certainly not the same as being 'possessed' by the idea.

Sam was tempted by the Ring, but temptation is merely the making of an offer - the Ring showed Sam what it could offer him, he weighed the offer up, & dismissed it as ridiculous. So did Galadriel. Temptation is not really relevant in this context; what is relevant is the individual's reaction to the temptation - some are able to dismiss the temptation out of hand, because they find what's offered to be silly (Sam) or morally wrong (Gandalf, Galadriel, Faramir).

Basically, none of them desired to 'possess' the Ring, so it could not 'possess' them. I think this is why some find Faramir a two dimensional character, either stupid or too good to be true. But this is only the case if the Ring is an overpowering external source that no-one can resist or reject, & while Tolkien, in letters written after the event, may seem to imply that, it does not come across so in the book. In the book there are many characters who are simply not tempted by it, or if they are, are able to dismiss the temptation out of hand.

Why? Well, it seems that the ones who can reject it are the ones with spiritual values & goals which are in direct opposition to what the Ring seems to offer. Simply, the ring can offer nothing to Aragorn, Faramir, Elrond or Sam that they would actually want - they have no desire to 'possess' it. Others are more sorely tempted, because it perhaps could offer a solution to their problems - Galadriel's focus is on defeating Sauron but not really on anything beyond that, & the Ring could do that for her. Gandalf's mission is to defeat Sauron also, so he is tempted, but Aragorn, Faramir, & Sam in his own way, wish for other things. They all want something which the Ring not only cannot give them, but which possessing it would actually put at risk. They don't want anything it can offer. Sam, for instance, may desire to see Mordor turned into a garden, but he doesn't actually want to be Samwise the Strong.

My position is, I suppose, the Boethian one - I don't believe the Ring is an external force of evil so powerful it can & will inevitably corrupt anyone - some will have no desire to possess it, so it will have nothing to work on - it may tempt them, but the temtation will not be seductive enough, so it will never get the chance to possess them.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, we're back to the Manichaean/Boethian thing - is the Ring an external power of evil, which can overcome anyone simply by its overwhelming power, or is it something which brings out the innate 'evil' tendencies in the individual?

I am not sure that seeing everyone as being vulnerable to the Ring requires one to firmly take either one view or the other on this issue. One might see the Ring as an external power which is able to corrupt anyone regardless of their virtue. But equally, one can view it as every individual, regardless of their virtue, being vulnerable to it as a result of their being a part of "Arda marred". If Gandalf and Saruman, Maia who came into being prior to the marring of Arda, were vulnerable to temptation, I fail to see how Aragorn, Faramir and Sam could somehow be immune to it.

Originally Posted by davem

Why? Well, it seems that the ones who can reject it are the ones with spiritual values & goals which are in direct opposition to what the Ring seems to offer. Simply, the ring can offer nothing to Aragorn, Faramir, Elrond or Sam that they would actually want - they have no desire to 'possess' it.

But aren't Gandalf's spiritual values and goals also in opposition to eveything that the Ring has to offer? His raison d'etre (at least within Middle-earth) is to defeat Sauron and he knows that this can only truly be accomplished through the destruction of the Ring. Yet he considers himself to be vulnerable to it. Aragorn's purpose too is in direct opposition to that of Sauron. If it is within contemplation that Gandalf would be tempted to use the Ring to acheive his goal, then I don't see how it cannot be within contemplation that Aragorn would also be tempted to use the Ring to achieve his purpose. The same goes for Faramir. Like his brother, he is opposed to Sauron. The difference between them is that he recognises that such opposition is best pursued through methods other than strength of arms alone. But the Ring could still tempt him by offering him the possibility of defeating Sauron, although the means by which that was to be acheived might be different from those which it offered Boromir. As for Sam, well clearly the Ring does have something to offer him because it does indeed offer it to him. He is tempted, but is able to overcome temptation both through the strength of his will, but also because his exposure to it was limited.

My position is that everyone was vulnerable to the Ring. It had something to offer everyone (because eveyone has desires and goals). The difference between characters like Boromir and Smeagol on the one hand and Faramir, Aragorn and Sam on the other is that they have the virtue and strength of will to resist it for longer, and therefore are able to overcome their moments of temptation. But the more prolonged their exposure, the less able they would be to resist it.

Otherwise, why was Frodo chosen to bear the Ring and not Sam?

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Otherwise, why was Frodo chosen to bear the Ring and not Sam?

Ask Eru.

As for why Aragorn & Faramir would never be tempted by the Ring, even in the last resort, well, the short answer is Numenor.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Ask Eru.

Precisely! I am assuming that He knew best.

As for why Aragorn & Faramir would never be tempted by the Ring, even in the last resort, well, the short answer is Numenor.

Then again, the Numenoreans, even those of the Faithful, don't exactly have a brilliant track record in these matters.