Boromir - An example of a man?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The ring takes advantage of everything. It's a question of character and not education.

Now that I think about it I'm not sure why I was arguing the point I was because it's quite opposed to how I read The Lord of the Rings, for many of the same reasons you gave.

In his chapter on The Lord of the Rings in Classic Cult Fiction Thomas Reed Whissen argues that The Lord of the Rings “reminds us of how much our notion of good and evil and our power to resist temptation depend, not upon reason and will, but upon the kind of family and society into which we happen to have been born and by which we have been educated.” Yet this can be seen as patently untrue through Boromir alone, as well as Denethor, Saruman, even Sauron himself.

So if Boromir's susceptibility is a matter of character and not culture, how does he reflect whatever Professor Tolkien's opinion is on how much choice we have over our own actions? Is this a 'nature vs nurture' question, and does Professor Tolkien fall on the side of nature? Or is there a compromise to be found between these two aspects and circumstance? I am loath to suggest that Professor Tolkien was ever guilty of that for which he is so regularly accused by his detractors, that he did not draw humanity in complex terms.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Now that I think about it I'm not sure why I was arguing the point I was because it's quite opposed to how I read The Lord of the Rings, for many of the same reasons you gave.

In his chapter on The Lord of the Rings in Classic Cult Fiction Thomas Reed Whissen argues that The Lord of the Rings “reminds us of how much our notion of good and evil and our power to resist temptation depend, not upon reason and will, but upon the kind of family and society into which we happen to have been born and by which we have been educated.” Yet this can be seen as patently untrue through Boromir alone, as well as Denethor, Saruman, even Sauron himself.

So if Boromir's susceptibility is a matter of character and not culture, how does he reflect whatever Professor Tolkien's opinion is on how much choice we have over our own actions? Is this a 'nature vs nurture' question, and does Professor Tolkien fall on the side of nature? Or is there a compromise to be found between these two aspects and circumstance? I am loath to suggest that Professor Tolkien was ever guilty of that for which he is so regularly accused by his detractors, that he did not draw humanity in complex terms.

Well the very fact that the ring is too powerful for anyone of mortal race suggest that even the strongest of us can be broken by exterior influences. In the real life instead of demonic ring it may be torture.

I don't want to put words in Tolkien's mouth, but I imagine he would have a similar view to Catholic doctrine.

The impression I get is that knowledge is important in being able to resist initially. Isildur was ensnared partially, because he did not know the full extent of what he was dealing with. However, even after we are ensnared we have the choice to reject the ring. Isildur decides to give it to Elrond, Celebrimbor repents from forging the ring and Galadriel finally accepts returning to Valinor.

In the Tolkien's world nothing is completely evil and even the orcs have some qualities we would consider virtuous. Nurture may leave a person broken and evil like Gollum, but there is always going to be a little light shining through in which it's up to our nature to take advantage. Even Gollum after 500 years possessing the ring and many evil acts had a chance at redemption.

The Edain like other member were under the same darkness of Melkor, but choice to leave.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The impression I get is that knowledge is important in being able to resist initially. Isildur was ensnared partially, because he did not know the full extent of what he was dealing with. However, even after we are ensnared we have the choice to reject the ring. Isildur decides to give it to Elrond, Celebrimbor repents from forging the ring and Galadriel finally accepts returning to Valinor.

If the first sentence is true, then Boromir's failure points to his inherent weakness all the more. He had been present at the Council of Elrond, and had gained as much knowledge of the Ring as any on Middle-earth, save perhaps the members of the White Council. Faramir lacked such knowledge, and yet, as he said to Frodo, he was "wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee".

[Bard the Bowman]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Well the very fact that the ring is too powerful for anyone of mortal race suggest that even the strongest of us can be broken by exterior influences. In the real life instead of demonic ring it may be torture.

I don't want to put words in Tolkien's mouth, but I imagine he would have a similar view to Catholic doctrine.

The impression I get is that knowledge is important in being able to resist initially. Isildur was ensnared partially, because he did not know the full extent of what he was dealing with. However, even after we are ensnared we have the choice to reject the ring. Isildur decides to give it to Elrond, Celebrimbor repents from forging the ring and Galadriel finally accepts returning to Valinor.

In the Tolkien's world nothing is completely evil and even the orcs have some qualities we would consider virtuous. Nurture may leave a person broken and evil like Gollum, but there is always going to be a little light shining through in which it's up to our nature to take advantage. Even Gollum after 500 years possessing the ring and many evil acts had a chance at redemption.

The Edain like other member were under the same darkness of Melkor, but choice to leave.

+1 *Flies away*