Which good guy (girl) do you least like?

[Lalaith]

Turgon is horrible. Remember the Fen of Serech. Ha!

[deagol]

The easy answer is Boromir, as he is in the tale for no other reason than to succumb to the ring, but I remember the very first time I read The Fellowship -- and that is longer ago than I care to share -- his stand in defense of Merry and Pippin was my favorite part of the saga. He was a sacrificial lamb and I've found it hard to hate him as time has gone by.

For me it's Galadriel. That whole business with the mirror just disturbed me. It was almost as if she was torturing Frodo and Sam. That and I just got the feeling that she was showing off, describing the terrible beauty they would all despair at, and then turning her nose up at it.

Drama queen


Bleaaaah!

[Eorl of Rohan]

My three favorite characters ever, Boromir and Feanor and Turin, so ruthlessly trampled upon... Is it *me* who has a strange taste, I wonder?

The Good Guy that I dislike the most would be King Elessar (Aragorn).
Does he really believe that the supposed royalty of his great-great-great-great-greatfather's ancestor gives him the right to boss people around?
Besides, I don't like characters with no moral conflicts and precious few flaws. Self-centered arrogant jerks.

[Eorl of Rohan]

Postscript.

All Hail Feanor and Boromir and Denethor and Turin!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by deagol

The easy answer is Boromir, as he is in the tale for no other reason than to succumb to the ring, but I remember the very first time I read The Fellowship -- and that is longer ago than I care to share -- his stand in defense of Merry and Pippin was my favorite part of the saga. He was a sacrificial lamb and I've found it hard to hate him as time has gone by.

I think the fact he was the sacrificial lamb in the end actually relieves him but not because of his sacrifice but because the prof was so cold with him and then only used him as a puppet to fill his needs.

I mean it starts great, he's the man who sees the problem and wants good, and acknowledges the insanity of Gandalf's plan. And let's be fair; Tolkien was the omnipotent creator so he could decide Gandalf would be right against all the possible odds. In any realistic scenario Boromir would have been right (and the downfall would have been inevitable to be sure). Boromir is the voice of reason, Gandalf and Frodo the voices of supernatural folly - and Aragorn the nerd can't decide...

So I really like him up to the last scene where he appears. Okay we can discuss whether he had a choice but to defend Merrry and Pip but I think it would have been an ending more suitable for him to try and take the Ring (which is a big thing) and not to die defending the hobbits (which is a small thing). With that scenario he still could have failed (Frodo got to the boat first and Boromir was killed by the orcs on the shore, followed the trio to Mordor, or anything), but it would have made him a more believable character. And surely it was up to the prof to make the setting for that last scene, so he could have made it such where Boromir had a chance to decide.

You say that then Merry and Pip would not have survived and then the Witch-King would not have died etc? Exactly so. That only proves Boromir was not a character in his own right to the prof but only a pawn to take his place in the overall plot. Similarly Aragorn's decision to go after the two hobbits instead of following Frodo / riding to Gondor, is both incredible and stupid if you look at it from the POV of the characters involved. Tolkien of course knew what he wished and what he was going to do, but the believability of his characters is pretty low.

Heh, sorry about the rant. I like the books, even the LotR, but I do dislike some decisions the prof made there and how they make certain characters to look.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I think the fact he was the sacrificial lamb in the end actually relieves him but not because of his sacrifice but because the prof was so cold with him and then only used him as a puppet to fill his needs.

I mean it starts great, he's the man who sees the problem and wants good, and acknowledges the insanity of Gandalf's plan. And let's be fair; Tolkien was the omnipotent creator so he could decide Gandalf would be right against all the possible odds. In any realistic scenario Boromir would have been right (and the downfall would have been inevitable to be sure). Boromir is the voice of reason, Gandalf and Frodo the voices of supernatural folly - and Aragorn the nerd can't decide...

Nog, I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere– in fact I know it has– but Boromir was "right" only according to his limited information (or rather, what information he accepted- see below). The Ring would have corrupted him.

And it's not like he was really trying to usher in a new age of rationality in to superstition-ridden Middle-earth. Otherwise, wouldn't he have seen the Ring as a worthless trinket?

After all, if you're willing to believe people when they tell you a piece of jewellery will confer untold power, you might want to think about paying attention when those same people tell you its power is evil and too dangerous to be used. Boromir was awfully selective in what he chose to believe. Not that smart, really, is it?

And yes, I do think Boromir is an interesting and in many ways admirable character– but don't make him into an infallible Gary Stu, please.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So I really like him up to the last scene where he appears. Okay we can discuss whether he had a choice but to defend Merrry and Pip but I think it would have been an ending more suitable for him to try and take the Ring (which is a big thing) and not to die defending the hobbits (which is a small thing). With that scenario he still could have failed (Frodo got to the boat first and Boromir was killed by the orcs on the shore, followed the trio to Mordor, or anything), but it would have made him a more believable character.

Nog, I don't see the difference, sorry. Why "more believeable"?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And surely it was up to the prof to make the setting for that last scene, so he could have made it such where Boromir had a chance to decide.

You say that then Merry and Pip would not have survived and then the Witch-King would not have died etc? Exactly so. That only proves Boromir was not a character in his own right to the prof but only a pawn to take his place in the overall plot.

Okay, Nogrod... I guess you and I have radically different ideas on novel-writing. I always think an author should be willing to sacrifice a character for the good of the story, and that a book can go south very fast indeed when that principle is ignored.

I mean, in the end, all fictional characters are– as you say– just puppets.

Besides– in your scenario Merry and Pippin (and later, Eowyn) would have died: would that not also have been a "cold" decision on the part of the author?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Similarly Aragorn's decision to go after the two hobbits instead of following Frodo / riding to Gondor, is both incredible and stupid if you look at it from the POV of the characters involved. Tolkien of course knew what he wished and what he was going to do, but the believability of his characters is pretty low.

So, you've used this word "believable" twice, and each time– as far as I can work out– you seem to apply it to situations where characters make an emotional rather than rational decision (to aid the weakest rather than the more valuable members of their party). Now, you can certainly criticise those decisions, alright– but I'm not sure the issue is one of believability.

And no, the above does not mean I think Tolkien– or any author– is above criticism. Rather, I really disagree with what seems to be the principle underlying your arguments here.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

After all, if you're willing to believe people when they tell you a piece of jewellery will confer untold power, you might want to think about paying attention when those same people tell you its power is evil and too dangerous to be used. Boromir was awfully selective in what he chose to believe. Not that smart, really, is it?

That's the crux of why I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Boromir. He was privy to the same information regarding the Ring as the other members of the Fellowship. However, pride being such a large factor in his makeup (as it was in his father), he discounted the words spoken by Elrond, whom he had journeyed so far and through such perils to hear.
If you want to blame Denethor for Boromir being what he was, I can only point to the fact that his brother had the wisdom and humility to know he did not have the power to claim the Ring, and that was without the benefit of having heard the Council of Elrond.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

That's the crux of why I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Boromir. He was privy to the same information regarding the Ring as the other members of the Fellowship. However, pride being such a large factor in his makeup (as it was in his father), he discounted the words spoken by Elrond, whom he had journeyed so far and through such perils to hear.

Oh, I have sympathy for him. People in the real world choose to believe what they want to believe all the time. I think Boromir is flawed in a very human way. What I'm disputing is that he was actually "right", or that because of this he should be considered a mastermind whose later actions are out of character. Which I think is what Nog's saying.

[Nogrod]

I do agree to disagree...

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What I'm disputing is that he was actually "right", or that because of this he should be considered a mastermind whose later actions are out of character. Which I think is what Nog's saying.

I do not consider him a mastermind of any sort. On the contrary I see him as highly passionate and erring person who wishes for good and honour over all else. And that is exactly the mindset that would drive him to pursue the ring - not in a rational way but as the strongly emotional character he is (and given the information he had). I mean you know there are many kinds of emotions and giving your heart to the little-ones who suffer is just one of them. There are people who truly love their country, or good against evil, or God or whatnot, and are set in flames whenever they see those things dear to them in danger. I just think Tolkien built Boromir as someone whose deep emotions ran for his city, his country and for good against evil... and then he changed him to suit his plot.

But yeah, let's not make this into a "Lalaith-discussion".

It's not that important anyway...

[Nogrod]

Nerwen: I think we have a major communication breakdown here. It might be my broken English or hastiness to say things too bluntly or whatever...

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Besides– in your scenario Merry and Pippin (and later, Eowyn) would have died: would that not also have been a "cold" decision on the part of the author?

Why would they have died? If Tolkien wished them to live he could have written the story differently so that they would not have been in the same dangers... or he could have written them escaping those dangers differently.

I mean, in the end, all fictional characters are– as you say– just puppets.

Absolutely. But you can either make them logical or not (and that means also the logicality of their feelings; not in a way anyone should "feel logically" but that their emotions are "believable" given the character).

Boromir was "right" only according to his limited information (or rather, what information he accepted- see below). The Ring would have corrupted him.

Of course it would have. I actually said that in my post.

Originally Posted by me

(and the downfall would have been inevitable to be sure)

Originally Posted by Nerwen

And it's not like he was really trying to usher in a new age of rationality in to superstition-ridden Middle-earth.

Nope. He wished to wield it in the service of Gondor (so he had to believe in the Ring's force!) - and he didn't take Gandalf's (and others') warnings seriously enough. Looking at his character he should have followed that path and not turn into this nice-guy-hero thinking more of two unrelated hobbits than the future of Gondor, the men and good against evil; the key to which was the Ring he should have sought after - according to his beliefs!

And yes, I do think Boromir is an interesting and in many ways admirable character– but don't make him into an infallible Gary Stu, please.

I am not and I never was. I'm just saying that the prof built him as a certain kind of character and then made him act against the character he was built to be to serve his plot.

But yes, I'm not willing to make this a row of any sorts.

[Nerwen]

Well, Nogrod, I understand what you mean now, and I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I will say that my own impression of Boromir leads me to think that his saving the hobbits is not out of character– which I guess is what you mean by "believability". As far as I can work out, what you're saying here is that since (in your view) Boromir's wanting to take the Ring is highly logical, all his actions should be logical also. He seems to me more of an impulsive type. After all, he didn't just play down the dangers of the Ring, he basically chose to ignore them.

I just don't think Boromir was written as a ruthlessly brilliant strategist, who would always make the smartest, most expedient choice rather than the "moral" one, or anything like that. I think you might be reading things into the character that aren't really there.

And no, I don't want a row either... but you know, this is all reminding me weirdly of Urwen's "Lalaith".