What is your heroic ideal?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm not sure if all the people mean the same thing here with the "heroic ideal"...

Actually, now thinking of it, a "heroic ideal" sounds like something quite boring. The ideal hero eg. no flaws, no vices, no personality... Maybe Elrond?

For the last time, i.e., Nogrod, i.e.

What I would imagine when hearing "heroic ideal" is simple - some person whom I see and say "wow, this is a hero".

So in general, I would probably imagine some guy in shiny armor who killed seventy Glaurungs, but who apart from that was admirably kind and noble and all that. Even though there are more admirable things - and I would likely not pick my, how would you call it, "admirable person", from among those "heroes". But "hero" in this sense of the word to me means mainly somebody who is fighting his heavy battle and is admirable for the way he does that. Usually however, I think of physical battle (or at least of heroic deeds in the sense of Sam or Frodo). I would not think of Galadriel, for instance, or Gandalf, although both of them would be among my picks for the really most admirable characters of all or something (well... although at least in Galadriel's case that'd be based on a few particular decisions or deeds and then the sort of general attitude to things).

But if you asked me "hero", I might think of Boromir (since I already defended him up there) - and I consider his final redemption a part of the true heroism. You actually see very few of these guys putting their life at stake like this, resp. sacrificing themselves, basically. And what is bigger than to sacrifice oneself for the other? (Of course it is not such a clean matter with Boromir either, as he did not probably have much of a chance of winning, but it might have had the perspective of giving the Hobbits at least a bit of time to escape.)

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

For the last time, i.e., Nogrod, i.e.

Heh. I actually know quite well what the abbreviations stand for from my own latin-studies but once you build the wrong habit it just seems to stick....

But maybe what I tried to point out was not so much about who you would call a hero, but who you would call an ideal hero... or heroic ideal as the title of the thread says.

And even in that case one should probably make the difference between the real life and phantasy-literature. I think RL heroes are of a quite different stock indeed. And quite luckily so (I'm not sure I would like to live in a world were the strongest would be the only candidates for heroism ).

[Folwren]

Eorl....out of curiosity (but not curiosity alone) I want to know how you can think that Sam has no backbone?

For your info, I do like Beleg. He was pretty awesome, too.

-- Folwren

[Eorl of Rohan]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Eorl....out of curiosity (but not curiosity alone) I want to know how you can think that Sam has no backbone? - Folwren

I *used* to think that when I was a kid. But then, I also wanted to marry Leonardo Decaprio. Funny, how age gives you new perspective.

I guess I thought Sam fawned over Frodo too much, that he was more of a loyal lackey than a true friend. A true friend would stand on equal footings; be able to assert himself as well as support his friend. This is the psychologically healthy relationship, at least. (Not that Sam-Frodo relationship is unhealthy; just that it has the potential to be unhealthy if it was re-enacted in real life where problems are not to simple as throwing a ring over a precipice.) But since then, I've rethought my views.

[Eorl of Rohan]

And before I get mobbed by Sam fans for my blasphemy on saying that he was lackey-like, I've since then rethought my views.

+runs away and hides self behind Feanor fans+

[mormegil]

Okay not to get side tracked too much but essentially what Boromir did to qualify him as a hero was defend two hobbits instead of running away and asking Aragorn for forgiveness at the end? The ring had left him ergo temptation was gone. Uruks and Goblins were his enemies and nobody doubt Boromir's bravery but plenty of men had bravery.

Maybe my problem is my ideal hero is more 'ideal' so to speak and it a bit cliche yes but I'm more a Samwise/Faramir type. What I don't like though are those heroes that are almost too noble however, Faramir flirts with that line but doesn't cross it.

[Nogrod]

The one thing I have entertained in my mind sometimes is that is Boromir (the one whose every action is depicted in the books) true to "Boromir" (the "character" he is in the books before the last events) in the way Tolkien handles him in that death-scene of his?

There is a question to be made, whether a captain of Gondor so keen to save Minas Tirith with all costs, would go for the seemingly futile suicide trying to save two hobbits of no consequence or value to Minas Tirith? (And please note, it's not me and my values talking here, but how Tolkien had made Boromir to be, and the discrepancy one can see within the inner logic of him portrayed by the prof.!)

Also the fact that Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas decide to go after the two in that dreadful situation just feels odd and / or unbelivable to me. Why follow two insignificant hobbits when there is a real war pouring in? So either after the Ring-bearer or to muster a war... those would have been the choices laid in front of them. But no, they decide to just run after two hobbits taken by the Uruks? That makes no sense for a king to come. "Heh, I'll just avoid these big issues I should decide on and go for the side-track so that no one notices me..."

I mean yes, you can make fine points on how that was meant to happen - and it's clear that was the case looking at the basic storyline. But wasn't Tolkien here bending his characters in favour of the plot he had in mind? Boromir included? So he had to find room for providence (or fatalism) even if it twisted his characters?

And to come to the point, didn't he make Boromir a different kind of a hero he was? From the "mighty public hero of good" into the "private defender of the few close to him"?

I can see the Christian ramifications here and will not wish to bring them to the fore more than this: did Tolkien change Boromir in the end to allow him to become a Christian hero instead of the pagan hero he was before?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And even in that case one should probably make the difference between the real life and phantasy-literature. I think RL heroes are of a quite different stock indeed. And quite luckily so (I'm not sure I would like to live in a world were the strongest would be the only candidates for heroism ).

I would tend to agree with that, but even so, for me, some of Tolkien's strongest heroes are far from the mightiest. To me, an "ideal" hero is one that is accessible on a human or humane level (meaning that they need not be of the human race), and Tolkien provides them in LotR. Those that speak most strongly to me are ones like Gandalf and Frodo, who were faced with an insurmountable task, one which they knew full well they had little or no chance of completing successfully -- and they took in on nonetheless, seeing it through as far as they were able. The hero isn't necessarily the one who defeats the enemy personally. They are often the ones who make that defeat possible by others. They often are little rewarded for their efforts, if those efforts are even recognized, but their victory comes from the same source are their heroism: in hearts and spirits willing to make sacrifices for the good of others.