Character Analysis Thread

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

If Galadriel was able to test Boromir that way, why could not Sauron? And if Boromir fell to Galadriel's test, would he not then also be likely to fall to a similar one from Sauron? So it makes it more likely Boromir, speaking of course always hypothetically as most of our discussions here are, would have fallen similarly to become one of the Nine.

Yet I don't think that's what many Downers would think?

I do agree whole-heartedly with Bêthberry. I have little doubt that Boromir would have become one of the Nine, had he lived back in the mid-Second age. He was a great man, seeking power and glory, he needed the Ring to save his country - so he wouldn't have refused the offer. Moreover, please note, that unlike Boromir, the future nazgul had no idea what kind of Rings they were offered and most likely they didn't even know that it was Sauron who was offering them (at least it applies to Numenorean nazgul). The Elves were most secretive about the Rings - they never told the Numenoreans what all this conflict with Sauron was about. Not even Ar-Pharazon heard about the Rings - so we can be pretty sure about those before him.
The future nazgul were men of the ilk of Tar-Aldarion and Isildur and Boromir and Aragorn - that's why Sauron went to such lengths to entice them. And he succeeded.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Gordis

I do agree whole-heartedly with Bêthberry. I have little doubt that Boromir would have become one of the Nine, had he lived back in the mid-Second age. He was a great man, seeking power and glory, he needed the Ring to save his country - so he wouldn't have refused the offer. Moreover, please note, that unlike Boromir, the future nazgul had no idea what kind of Rings they were offered and most likely they didn't even know that it was Sauron who was offering them (at least it applies to Numenorean nazgul). The Elves were most secretive about the Rings - they never told the Numenoreans what all this conflict with Sauron was about. Not even Ar-Pharazon heard about the Rings - so we can be pretty sure about those before him.
The future nazgul were men of the ilk of Tar-Aldarion and Isildur and Boromir and Aragorn - that's why Sauron went to such lengths to entice them. And he succeeded.

Let me just clarify something about what I meant, as I certainly don't wish to cast any spurious charges at Galadriel. From my reading, I would not say that Galadriel was in any way responsible for Boromir's fall. Certainly she tested men by showing them something true about themselves, possibly some sort of desire or feltwish that they were unaware of and which could influence them unseemingly. And so she offers men the chance to become aware of their own weaknesses and proclivities. I think those quotations which Ibrin provides give a very clear sense that Galadriel was not at fault for planting evil ideas in people's minds. The story is full of evidence of Boromir's rashness, pride, vanity, along with his many sterling qualities before he ever meets up with the Lady of Lothlorien.

There is a point, however, where I do agree with Gordis and it is in this: since Boromir failed Galadriel's test and did not take heed of his own pride and vanity, he would also have been a very likely candidate to fall to the wiles of Sauron, who of course never identified himself as Evil Incarnate in his efforts to entrap the Nine. Many can no doubt avoid temptation when it knocks them over the head (if they wish), but not so many can easily recognise the siren call when it is cunningly whispered. I think Fordim ran an RPG about this very topic, which now rests in Elvenhome: Shadow of the West. rpg of course aren't 'canon' but they do explore a topic in interesting ways and I think this game shows particularly how a powerful, well intentioned man could fall to the Dark Emissary.


And I think that Gandalf's words about Faramir and Boromir, which ArathornJax quotes, are meant metaphorically to refer to Faramir's mental state as the true heir. I think it is fairly clear what Gandalf's thoughts are about the two sons.

Although I must here admit that I am more prone to spelling the White City Minus Tirith, as I have this unfortunate reading stuck in mind about a place referred to in this august forum as Minus Teeth.

[Gordis]

Curious that you have posted the link to the "Shadow of the West", Bethberry, as I have (quite independently) spent three evenings reading this RPG. I have just finished. Great story: I loved all of it but the very ending...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

In a weird way, it is possible for Boromir to have "less true" blood than his brother. I remember, oh, so very long ago, the introduction to genetics we were given in biology class back in high school. Using a simpler genetic structure, the teacher showed how certain traits pass from parents to children, and how, depending on the parents' own genetic structure, it's possible for one child to show all the dominant genes while another child shows all the recessive. If the characteristics of Numenorean blood to which Gandalf refers are carried in the genes, it's possible (depending on the genes of Denethor and Finduilas and the ancestors of both) for Faramir to have those traits inherent to pure Numenorean blood, and for Boromir to have more of those inherent to their non-Numenorean ancestors. Just thinking along rather peculiar lines.

That said, I do tend to think Gandalf was speaking metaphorically rather than literally, but one never knows.

[Nazgûl-king]

Ok, moving on to the next set of characters>

This week: Frodo, Sam, and Gollum

Three of the most important characters in the Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam have a very strong friendship; they are very loyal to each other, and care about each other greatly. They experienced much together, through their journey to destroy the Ring. However the two hobbits, have a very different relationship with Gollum; Sam did not like nor trust Gollum, while Frodo wished to help him, seeing in him what the Ring could do to him and having pity on him. So what are your thoughts on the relationship between these three most important characters?

[Gordis]

I personally doubt that Frodo and Sam "shared a very strong friendship". Maybe they did - after the Quest.
But at first it was more like benevolent master- faithful servant relationship. Frodo had been friends with Pippin, Merry and Fredegar - but not with Sam.
When they had to travel to Mordor alone, Frodo learned to rely on Sam more and more - but then he had no choice. Sam's devotion has gradually become all-consuming - more akin to that of a faithful dog.

[Lush]

OK, I'm actually replying to something about Boromir, please, please forgive me,

The point was made even without Boromir.

Well, I think that Boromir's fall, redemption, and death is what gives us an extra dimension there, MatthewM. Boromir shows us how the Ring's corrupting influence wormed its way into the heart of the Fellowship. There's something very visceral about it, this idea of all-important bonds of friendship and duty compromised in this manner.

And then there's the fact that we lose Boromir, but not before he realizes his mistake and repents. I've been revisiting that part of the book since I first read it - it's a huge tragedy, and Tolkien uses great, understated language there (instead of piling it on).

It's one of the reasons why I love his character even more with each passing year, I think.

Sorry, back to your regular scheduled posting now.

[Groin Redbeard]

I think Frodo took pity on Gollum because he could relate to the burden that Gollum carried for so lone, but Sam was naturally suspicious of Gollum. Indeed I think any person would be if a creature like that attacked you in the middle of the night. Gordis makes an interesting point with the "faithful dog" analogy, but Frodo surely had to have some relationship with Sam if they were going to travel together.

Sam, to me, represents the ordinary man. He isn't awfully smart, but he is loving and loyal to those that he knows. Sam was always looking out for Frodo whenever danger arrived. Maybe he had something to prove to himself while doing this.

Gollum represents the inner struggle between good and evil. The Ring is what he wants, but he can't make up his mind whether to let the evil thing go and have long lasting happiness or hold onto it and be happy for the moment.

[Nazgûl-king]

This week: Treebeard

Treebeard also know as Fangorn is the oldest of the Ents and described as the oldest being in Middle-earth. He is patient and wise, though he takes a long time to make up his mind. What are your thoughts on this character?

[Gwathagor]

Whether or not being slow to make his mind constitutes a weakness on Treebeard's part is debatable, but he certainly has a sympathy for living, growing things, which works as a strength and a weakness - it contributed to the Ents' decision to destroy Isengard, and which Saruman later manipulated to escape Orthanc. Thus it seems to be a crucial part of both his character - as the protection of living plants is his occupation - and also of the story as a whole. Our strengths are our weaknesses, I suppose.

[Nazgûl-king]

Alright, now for our first character from The Hobbit.

This Week: Beorn

A rather mysterious character, Beorn can turn into a bear. He is strong and powerful. By the time of Lord of the Rings, he has a son Grimbeorn who leads a race of people the Beornings, who can also turn into bears. His having a son implies that he became married at some point. What are your thoughts on this character?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Redux on the Steward and his sons:

I suppose it's also possible that Faramir, but not his brother, inherited from his mother something of Dol Amroth and thus the thread of Elven lineage.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

EEP!!! I'm two years late for a surprise exam on Middle Earth and Hobbit!!!

Oh well, better late than never ...

By the time of The Hobbit, there seemed to be only two santuaries of Men from which Beorn could have found his mate: Woodsmen village and Dale. Of course, that is discounting the possibility of the random Ranger and wandering Wizard. It may also be possible that some teenage Eldar maiden or bearded dwarf spinster discovered the masculine appeal of the hairy macho man of Carrock.

I certainly find the prospect of Beorn laying with some Eldar entaintaining, though implausible as that would give rise to another line of super-Men with shape-changing elvish lineage.

(How'd I do for my first paper after 3 years of truant?)

[Groin Redbeard]

I was/am always troubled by what Beorn really is. I know that he's a skin changer and all that, but what are the origins of his people? Where did they come from and how did they get their gift of skin changing?

[Nazgûl-king]

This week: Bilbo Baggins

What are your thoughts on the character of Bilbo Baggins?

[Kitanna]

Bilbo is quite the corrupted, yet uncorrupted character.

His possession of the Ring for six decades left him accusing Gandalf of trying to take it and in Rivendell a strange shadow passes over him as he contemplates getting it back from Frodo. From the very beginning he lied about it and his "winning" it from Gollum. Yet he manages to overcome its hold by giving it up as Gandalf requested.

Even though he knows it's evil he still longs for it in a childlike manner. And in that childlike manner I say he's uncorrupted. Because children can be easily swayed by what they want, they even resort to throwing fits, but they're never moved to a state of true violence. Bilbo's accusations and his lying from the beginning make me think of him as a small child hoarding some secret treasure he's not supposed to have. As for children (at least when my siblings and I were growing up) our treasures corrupts us, makes us act out, but after a time we were taught or came to realize we shouldn't keep it.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Bilbo does appear to have a habit of picking up things that later prove troublesome (the Ring, the Arkenstone). It has always struck me as odd, however, that the Ring -- which is an object of malice and evil with a sort of will of its own -- was something he picked up casually, in the dark, simply because his hand happened to fall on it, and in so doing, it put the Ring in what turned out to be the best place to lead to its eventual destruction. He chose to take the Arkenstone, not just because he happened upon it in the dark, and for him personally, the repercussions were more immediately bad. Just goes to show that Gandalf was right when he said that Bilbo took so little harm from the Ring because he began his ownership of it with pity. Not so the Arkenstone, and in that case, he lost friends in the battle that followed.

I tend to think that Bilbo is very much the embodiment of the Hobbit tendency to be "brave in a pinch." He's really a poet and scholar, and if he yearned for adventure, I think it was mostly because he wanted to know what it was like, to have such an experience so that he could feel he understood the heroes he heard about in story and song. When needed, he displays considerable courage, but doesn't really step up and volunteer for the job very often. I can't help but think that at the Council of Elrond, he volunteered to take the Ring to Mordor with a rather certain knowledge that he would not be allowed to do so because of his age. It doesn't diminish the value of his offer, because he's the kind of person who would stick to his word, but it could well explain why some of the others at the council smiled when he volunteered.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think it is fairly clear what Gandalf's thoughts are about the two sons.

Well obviously he prefered Faramir, for Faramir was the "wizard's pupil" (nothing wrong with that) but I do not think he disliked Boromir at all. Sure, Boromir called him out on a few things, such as when Gandalf could not think of the password to Moria. There's nothing wrong with that...this guy who has been all over the place and knows so many tricks and spells can't open this door, and this foul pool is really getting to me. What gives? I would have called him out on it too. If Gandalf was so understanding, like we think he probably was, he would let it slide I'm sure.

It's also made very apparent that Gandalf showed true pity towards Boromir. After he returned from the grave and found Legolas, Aragorn, and Gimli he said to them upon hearing of Boromir's fall-

"Poor Boromir! I could not see what happened to him. It was a sore trial for such a man: a warrior, and a lord of men. Galadriel told me that he was in peril. But he escaped in the end. I am glad.

Even Gandalf knew Boromir was a lord of men, and that he passed the test in the end.

Ibrîniðilpathânezel, I do not have enough knowledge of genes and science to take you up on this, but I must say that Gandalf must have been talking metaphorically. There's no way Boromir and Faramir didn't share the same blood.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Ibrîniðilpathânezel, I do not have enough knowledge of genes and science to take you up on this, but I must say that Gandalf must have been talking metaphorically. There's no way Boromir and Faramir didn't share the same blood.

All siblings share the same blood - but that doesn't mean they must be identical twins. Ibrin is 100% right - genes may be expressed or not. Genotype is one thing, phenotype is another: thus brothers can be (and often are) very unlike, both in appearance and in character. And even the Numenoreans from the line of Elendil were not all alike: we are told in UT that Aragorn most resembled Elendil himself, as well as Isildur’s son Elendur, while Boromir was much alike to Earnur the last King and to Boromir I, Steward of Gondor.

Boromir was a great man - we see him only as a member of the Fellowship, but he was first and foremost the Captain of the White Tower, military commander of Gondor, loved and respected by everyone in Gondor - and the future steward.
And it was not only for his personal benefit that Boromir wanted the Ring, but mostly for the good of his country.

It looks like Gandalf and the Wise failed to realize that by his position and his personality, Boromir would be in grave danger from the Ring's lure. Aragorn would have been even more susceptible, but for his training: I think Elrond and Gandalf made it abundantly clear to him over the years that Isildur his ancestor was wrong to take the Ring and why. Boromir has never heard about the Ring before the Council and I don't think that he ever understood WHY the Ring should not be used against Sauron. In a way Boromir's fall is the fault of the Wise.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Boromir was a great man - we see him only as a member of the Fellowship, but he was first and foremost the Captain of the White Tower, military commander of Gondor, loved and respected by everyone in Gondor - and the future steward.
And it was not only for his personal benefit that Boromir wanted the Ring, but mostly for the good of his country.

It looks like Gandalf and the Wise failed to realize that by his position and his personality, Boromir would be in grave danger from the Ring's lure. Aragorn would have been even more susceptible, but for his training: I think Elrond and Gandalf made it abundantly clear to him over the years that Isildur his ancestor was wrong to take the Ring and why. Boromir has never heard about the Ring before the Council and I don't think that he ever understood WHY the Ring should not be used against Sauron. In a way Boromir's fall is the fault of the Wise.

Well, in a way Boromir's fall is the fault of story. Without the examples of those who have succumbed to the lure of the Ring, Frodo's trial would lack effect. So short of seeing how the Nazgul fell--but being given depictions of their malevolence--we have Gollem and Boromir as examples of how both the weak and the strong are susceptible. (And on the other hand there's Tom and Sam. If only Boromir had had a bit more sense of silliness and humour about him. )

But really, this question of the culpability of the Wise is interesting, for they are not bullies; they do not seek to dominate the will of others. That way lies Sauron's way. It is the quintessetial dilemma of Good, how to combat evil without succumbing to its ways. The only person who could save Boromir from himself was Boromir; any other person would have meant a bullying interference.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, in a way Boromir's fall is the fault of story. Without the examples of those who have succumbed to the lure of the Ring, Frodo's trial would lack effect. .

Not necessarily. There was Isildur’s example, Gollum’s example, Gandalf’s fear to take the Ring even for a time, Galadriel’s lust for the Ring that she had barely overcome, Denethor’s wish to get the ring, Sam’s temptation and finally Frodo’s ultimate fall to the Ring’s lure. The point was made even without Boromir.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And on the other hand there's Tom and Sam. If only Boromir had had a bit more sense of silliness and humour about him. .

Tom? But he didn't need the Ring at all - that was the difference. He was a content being. He had no goals in life that he couldn't carry out with his own "stronger songs". Had he wished (for instance) to expand his territory to Fangorn etc., or had he wished for Sauron's downfall, he wouldn't have remained immune to the Ring. Even Sam, the simple gardener and the perfect bodyguard, had more hidden desires that the Ring could explore.
And if "Sam the Ringlord" or "Gollum the Great" sounded silly, "Boromir the Great" didn't - at all. He was a good potential Ringlord, no worse than Isildur or Aragorn - and Sauron himself was most worried when he was led to believe that Aragorn had his Ring.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But really, this question of the culpability of the Wise is interesting, for they are not bullies; they do not seek to dominate the will of others. That way lies Sauron's way. It is the quintessetial dilemma of Good, how to combat evil without succumbing to its ways. The only person who could save Boromir from himself was Boromir; any other person would have meant a bullying interference.

I have to disagree. Explaining things and persuading someone is no “bullying interference.” IMO, the Wise failed to give Boromir all the necessary information about the Ring: the reasoning behind WHY it shouldn't be used. In the movies m-Elrond tried to explain it, saying ”the Ring answers only to Sauron”. But that is NOT what Tolkien wrote. Saruman, Galadriel and Boromir thought they could use the Ring and overthrow Sauron. Gandalf certainly could do it – we know it from the Letters- but then he would become the next Dark Lord, even worse than Sauron.
Gandalf did explain it to Frodo, early on, but did he tell the same to Boromir? Did Galadriel try to explain it to Boromir? I doubt it. This reasoning (WHY the Ring should NOT be used) is not easy to grasp: even the wise ancient Galadriel spent countless hours musing on "what if she gets the Ring?" . Boromir was left alone, alone and unprepared to counter the Ring's lure. EVERY Man except the specially trained Aragorn (and at length maybe even he as well) would have been in peril in Boromir's place.

[Bêthberry]

To each his own.

Originally Posted by Gordis

The point was made even without Boromir

I rather think Boromir's fall provided a harrowing, operational example of the breakdown of civil and civic order and was a valuable addition to the story. There's something in Tolkien that wants to explore the old warrior code, its vulnerabilities as well as its honours and dignities. And of course something else interesting to have the "spare", Faramir, turn truer than the "heir."

Originally Posted by Gordis

Tom? But he didn't need the Ring at all - that was the difference

There's something to be said for the ability not to take oneself so seriously. Humour adds distance that counteracts pomposity.

Originally Posted by Gordis

IMO, the Wise failed

In fairy tale, there are characters, often of ambiguous or enigmatic status, whose role is to push other characters towards revealing or discovering their own spirit, often with the all too obvious peril that those so tested may fail. Rather like the Faun in [i]Pan's Labyrinth[/b] or the bowdlerized figure of Mr. Tumnus in Narnia. It is part of the attraction of fantasy.


Still, I suppose, it is the attraction of the character to merit an apologist.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And on the other hand there's Tom and Sam. If only Boromir had had a bit more sense of silliness and humour about him. )

No. That "silliness" you speak of is quite annoying in my opinion. Boromir had a sense of humor, he used sarcasm more than once on the journey. He just didn't have (thankfully) the senseless dummy humour that Sam and Tom had. And I'm extremely glad about that. Boromir's stern and proud nature made him stand out, and made him who he was.

Originally Posted by Gordis

All siblings share the same blood - but that doesn't mean they must be identical twins. Ibrin is 100% right - genes may be expressed or not. Genotype is one thing, phenotype is another: thus brothers can be (and often are) very unlike, both in appearance and in character. And even the Numenoreans from the line of Elendil were not all alike: we are told in UT that Aragorn most resembled Elendil himself, as well as Isildur’s son Elendur, while Boromir was much alike to Earnur the last King and to Boromir I, Steward of Gondor.

You misunderstood me. I never said they were supposed to be identical. Why did you make that up? I already know everything that you said. Obviously siblings come out differently. My argument is that Tolkien was definitely not talking physical blood, he was using it as a metaphor to say that Boromir did not have the same Numenorean mind qualities that Faramir and Denethor had. But he had everything else that was Numenorean. He was of high Num. lineage.

I can't stand when people take the blood quote literally. All Gandalf implied was character traits.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

No. That "silliness" you speak of is quite annoying in my opinion. Boromir had a sense of humor, he used sarcasm more than once on the journey. He just didn't have (thankfully) the senseless dummy humour that Sam and Tom had. And I'm extremely glad about that. Boromir's stern and proud nature made him stand out, and made him who he was.

I hope my reply above to Gordis elaborates on my comment--do note please my use of the smilie--that sometimes those who can distance themselves from their most passionate wishes and nature are those who can the most successfully avoid falling prey to those passions and wishes. And a sense of humour provides that distance. Given both Sam's heroic stature and Tom's immunity to the Ring's lure I would humbly suggest that it is worthwhile to ponder with some degree of respect this ability of theirs. Sarcasm can sometimes be taken humorously but more often it denotes derision and contempt, something quite different from what I was suggesting as a way of understanding oneself and knowing onself.

Originally Posted by MattewM

I can't stand when people take the blood quote literally. All Gandalf implied was character traits.

Why get so riled up by different interpretations? Why does that idea of a literal meaning bother you so much?