Aragorn's assertiveness

[Zigûr]

Something I think the filmmakers overlooked is the fact that Aragorn actually does have a small character arc in the book, appropriate for a secondary character (which he is).

For instance, after the passing of Boromir, Aragorn expresses self-doubt about his ability as leader: "Since we passed through the Argonath my choices have gone amiss." He does undergo a process, motivated by the loss of Gandalf in Moria, of understanding more seriously what leadership involves and the responsibilities he faces by reclaiming the throne. As he becomes more confident, the narrative becomes more and more distant from his perspective; he becomes a "lofty" character, which is why, for instance, in the Paths of the Dead we see things from Gimli's perspective, as he is the least knowledgeable/confident character in the scene. In "The Departure of Boromir" we see things from Aragorn's perspective because he does not know what is going on (he was looking for Frodo, unlike the film, in which he is massacring Orcs) and is feeling insecure in his leadership of the Company.

Michael Drout gives an interesting lecture touching upon this narrative device, as Professor Tolkien uses it. The lecture can be found on YouTube if I recall correctly.

It comes back, I think, to the fact that the filmmakers turned Aragorn into one of the protagonists, when he's only a supporting character in the book. In the book, ultimately, the protagonists are the four hobbits, but as diminutive folk not wholly inclined to action and derring-do they can't be the only heroes in a Hollywood film, so Aragorn's role is altered. It's one of those things, in my opinion, that shows why the book was unsuitable for the "Hollywood treatment".

[Faramir Jones]

You started a nice thread here, Leaf!

The problem with the portrayal of Aragorn in those films is partly because he is a difficult character for even avid fans who have read LotR thoroughly to get to grips with.

This is a man who is already 88 years old by the time the War of the Ring ends. He becomes King of Gondor and marries Arwen. He then reigns for 122 years, dying at the age of 210. He is 20 when he first meets Arwen, 2690 years his senior, and falls in love with her; but it is when he is 49, after many adventures and experiences, including serving in Rohan and Gondor, that he meets Arwen again, she returns his love, and they become engaged, an engagement that lasts for 39 years.

The reason behind this is that he is the heir of Elendil the Tall, of the line of Elros, of mixed human, elvish, and divine (through Melian the Maia) ancestry, being very long lived. Also, he has been fostered by an Elf, Elrond, as Túrin was by Thingol. The love between him and Arwen can certainly be justified by the love song title 'No Ordinary Love'; because she, as an Elf, would (and does) in order to be his wife need to become mortal, a sacrifice that can be barely imagined.

What I'm saying here is that it is difficult even for fans like ourselves to get to grips with who Aragorn is, who Arwen is, and the nature of their love. Aragorn, while he does express doubt about his ability as leader in the book, has already had many years to deal with a lot of earlier self-doubt.

Even while I accept that because who Aragorn and Arwen are, and their love for each other, is a difficult concept even for avid fans to grasp, and was too much for those involved in the films, it still doesn't explain the nonsense of two scenes. The first is in The Two Towers film, when this happens:

ELROND: (coming into her room) Arwen. (she sits up) It is time. The ships are leaving for Valinor. Go now... before it is too late.

ARWEN: I have made my choice.

ELROND: (standing in front of her) He is not coming back. Why do you linger here when there is no hope?

ARWEN: There is still hope.

ELROND: (walks across the room) If Aragorn survives this war, you will still be parted. If Sauron is defeated and Aragorn made king......and all that you hope for comes true......you will still have to taste the bitterness of mortality.

A vision of Arwen dressed in mourning robes appears. She is standing beside Aragorn, who lies grey and dead wearing his crown and grasping his sword on top of his tomb. Mourners walk behind her.

ELROND VOICEOVER: Whether by the sword or the slow decay of time......Aragorn will die. And there will be no comfort for you......no comfort to ease the pain of his passing. He will come to death......an image of the splendor of the kings of Men......in glory undimmed before the breaking of the world.

The vision changes so that Aragorn is now a stone statue on top of the tomb. Arwen is standing at the end of it, alone and grieving. As morning light comes, she wanders alone through the woods.

ELROND VOICEOVER: But you, my daughter......you will linger on in darkness and in doubt......as nightfall in winter that comes without a star. Here you will dwell......bound to your grief under the fading trees...... until all the world is changed......and the long years of your life are utterly spent.

ELROND: (turning to Arwen) Arwen. (she gasps, she is crying) There is nothing for you here......only death.

In the book, while Elrond was deeply grieved by his daughter's choice of mortality, he accepted the sincerity of her and Aragon's love, not standing in their way. Later, in The Return of the King film, Elrond tells Aragorn that Arwen is dying:

ARAGORN: (bows) My lord Elrond.

ELROND: I come on behalf of one whom I love. Arwen is dying. She will not long survive the evil that now spreads from Mordor. The light of the evenstar is failing. As Sauron’s power grows her strength wanes. Arwen’s life is now tied to the fate of the Ring. The Shadow is upon us Aragorn. The end has come.

No explanation is given for why she is dying, and if it's Sauron's fault why others aren't also dying.

I agree completely with you, Zigûr, that a reason for turning Aragorn into one of the protagonists in the films was that it was either too complicated, too lazy, or both, for the people responsible to give the four hobbits their due.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

No explanation is given for why she is dying, and if it's Sauron's fault why others aren't also dying.

Yes. Not only is it an incredibly lazy piece of storytelling, because it ups the stakes without giving any reason for why it is happening, it's also pointless; the average viewer wouldn't care - they already know that the heroes have to destroy the Ring and stop Sauron from taking over Middle-earth for reasons that have already been clearly established. The addition of this plot point adds nothing whatsoever to the narrative, even to the altered version of Aragorn's character arc invented for the film.

It reminds me of how in the film Pippin has to have a vision of Minas Tirith in the palantír for Gandalf to realise that Sauron is going to strike there next, and he reacts as if he'd never even thought of it as a possibility.

All Gandalf needs to do is say something like "We may have defeated Saruman, but Sauron is sure to strike next against Minas Tirith, the capital city of Gondor, his old enemy." Anyone watching knows that "Gondor" is a country where good Men live; it gets mentioned a lot in the films. There's no need for Pippin to have a silly vision. It would even keep viewers in suspense if they, like Pippin, were largely in the dark until the arrival at the city; if you want a visual cue you can point out how close Mordor is (as the film often does) to emphasise why we're now at Minas Tirith.

I feel like the filmmakers often weren't confident in their ability to express the plot cinematically, which is why they invent these "mystical" shorthands.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

You started a nice thread here, Leaf!

The problem with the portrayal of Aragorn in those films is partly because he is a difficult character for even avid fans who have read LotR thoroughly to get to grips with.

This is a man who is already 88 years old by the time the War of the Ring ends, he becomes King of Gondor and marries Arwen. He then reigns for 122 years, dying at the age of 210. He is 20 when he first meets Arwen, 2690 years his senior, and falls in love with her; but it is when he is 49, after many adventures and experiences, including serving in Rohan and Gondor, that he meets Arwen again, she returns his love, and they become engaged, an engagement that lasts for 39 years.

The reason behind this is that he is the heir of Elendil the Tall, of the line of Elros, of mixed human, elvish, and divine (through Melian the Maia) ancestry, being very long lived. Also, he has been fostered by an Elf, Elrond, as Túrin was by Thingol. The love between him and Arwen can certainly be justified by the love song title 'No Ordinary Love'; because she, as an Elf, would (and does) in order to be his wife need to become mortal, a sacrifice that can be barely imagined.

What I'm saying here is that it is difficult even for fans like ourselves to get to grips with who Aragorn is, who Arwen is, and the nature of their love. Aragorn, while he does express doubt about his ability as leader in the book, has already had many years to deal with a lot of earlier self-doubt.

It's true, Aragorn is a difficult character to get accustomed to. You outlined his vague backstory well enough. I think what it comes down to is this: There's two contradictory concepts within his character. His everyday (sometimes moody) personality and his royal and mythical role.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Something I think the filmmakers overlooked is the fact that Aragorn actually does have a small character arc in the book, appropriate for a secondary character (which he is).

For instance, after the passing of Boromir, Aragorn expresses self-doubt about his ability as leader: "Since we passed through the Argonath my choices have gone amiss." He does undergo a process, motivated by the loss of Gandalf in Moria, of understanding more seriously what leadership involves and the responsibilities he faces by reclaiming the throne. As he becomes more confident, the narrative becomes more and more distant from his perspective; he becomes a "lofty" character, which is why, for instance, in the Paths of the Dead we see things from Gimli's perspective, as he is the least knowledgeable/confident character in the scene. In "The Departure of Boromir" we see things from Aragorn's perspective because he does not know what is going on (he was looking for Frodo, unlike the film, in which he is massacring Orcs) and is feeling insecure in his leadership of the Company.

Michael Drout gives an interesting lecture touching upon this narrative device, as Professor Tolkien uses it. The lecture can be found on YouTube if I recall correctly.

It comes back, I think, to the fact that the filmmakers turned Aragorn into one of the protagonists, when he's only a supporting character in the book. In the book, ultimately, the protagonists are the four hobbits, but as diminutive folk not wholly inclined to action and derring-do they can't be the only heroes in a Hollywood film, so Aragorn's role is altered. It's one of those things, in my opinion, that shows why the book was unsuitable for the "Hollywood treatment".

Yes, that's a good observation. The shifting in perspective most certainly requiered an altered character. A character more suitable for the typical Hollywood-esque protagonist. I find this to be boring and also a little sad. In a way I always liked Book-Aragorn for his determination and occasional boldness. At times he seems to be more of a mythical figure, a visage of kingship in and of itself.
As I said before his fierce assertiveness even has some comedic value to me. I always chuckle when I read those Aragorn passages where he declares his right to rule, own or do something simply because of his ancestors. Like "Oh, that thing over there?! Yep, that's totally mine." "What, I can't act this way? Has anybody told you who I am?"

I suppose it's true, it's good to be the King.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Leaf

I want to look into this aspect of Aragorn's character deeper and collect, together with your help, passages from a books that substantiate this motif. We could, for example, collect every instance where Aragorn insists on his status, or where he introduces himself to other people as the rightful heir of Isildur. But I think that the oppsite might be more practical. To whom doesn't Aragorn declare his heritage and claims and why?! We could start with analysing Fellowship and work our way up till the Return of the King.

That sounds like an interesting project. I may take you up on that.

Originally Posted by Leaf

Book-Aragorn, on the other hand, is confident and strident when it comes to the verbalisation of his heritage and claim.

and

Originally Posted by Leaf

Political sovereignty over a territory does not simply fall from the sky. In actuality it's quite the opposite. It requieres determination and the will to defend a claim to power, verbally and in action. Book-Aragorn embodies this bold and overbearing concept in person.

And

Originally Posted by Leaf

In a way I always liked Book-Aragorn for his determination and occasional boldness. At times he seems to be more of a mythical figure, a visage of kingship in and of itself.
As I said before his fierce assertiveness even has some comedic value to me. I always chuckle when I read those Aragorn passages where he declares his right to rule, own or do something simply because of his ancestors. Like "Oh, that thing over there?! Yep, that's totally mine." "What, I can't act this way? Has anybody told you who I am?"

I don’t agree that Aragorn is strident or overbearing in asserting his claims. In point of fact, he is usually rather humble about it. I agree that Tolkien intended him to be a semi-mythic figure. However, I think Faramir Jones is correct in pointing out that from a practical standpoint Aragorn already had a wealth of experience in life and in leadership by the time he encountered the hobbits at The Prancing Pony. He was accustomed to heavy responsibility and hard choices.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It reminds me of how in the film Pippin has to have a vision of Minas Tirith in the palantír for Gandalf to realise that Sauron is going to strike there next, and he reacts as if he'd never even thought of it as a possibility.
All Gandalf needs to do is say something like "We may have defeated Saruman, but Sauron is sure to strike next against Minas Tirith, the capital city of Gondor, his old enemy." Anyone watching knows that "Gondor" is a country where good Men live; it gets mentioned a lot in the films. There's no need for Pippin to have a silly vision. It would even keep viewers in suspense if they, like Pippin, were largely in the dark until the arrival at the city; if you want a visual cue you can point out how close Mordor is (as the film often does) to emphasise why we're now at Minas Tirith.

Perhaps they have underlying discomfort with the concept of competent leadership…

EDIT: Gah, I put one of my quotes in the wrong place which rather distorted the flow of the post. Corrected now.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I don’t agree that Aragorn is strident or overbearing in asserting his claims. In point of fact, he is usually rather humble about it. I agree that Tolkien intended him to be a semi-mythic figure. However, I think Faramir Jones is correct in pointing out that from a practical standpoint Aragorn already had a wealth of experience in life and in leadership by the time he encountered the hobbits at The Prancing Pony. He was accustomed to heavy responsibility and hard choices.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that book-Aragorn is some kind of zealot, or an aspirating tyrant. He's just as overbearing as the concept of absolute monarchy is in itself! I may have overemphasised Aragorn's assertiveness due to the stark contrasts between the book and the movie.

You are right, there are times when Aragorn restricts himself and his political agenda. He's willing to bow his own claim to the rules of the golden Hall and in turn agrees (reluctantly) to leave his sword (the very symbol of his kingship) in front of the door. His approach to the political situation in Minas Tirtih is restrained as well. Aragorn is willing to wait for the right time, so he doesn't claim the throne as soon as possible.

I think Aragorn views his claims as a mixture of privilege and duty. And he's mature enough to act accordingly.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that book-Aragorn is some kind of zealot, or an aspirating tyrant. He's just as overbearing as the concept of absolute monarchy is in itself!

As a side point, but an important one I think, the Gondorian monarchy (and by association the Arnorian as well) was not an absolute one. Tolkien speaks to this in one of the HOME essays. I will find it and post the relevant contents this evening.

He's willing to bow his own claim to the rules of the golden Hall and in turn agrees (reluctantly) to leave his sword (the very symbol of his kingship) in front of the door.

That was a complex situation. I don't know if Tolkien himself had developed all the ultimate complexities at the time of writing. Rohan existed because of the gift of the Steward who ruled until the King returned. Theoretically, that gift could be revoked by the returned King. Aragorn was put in an awkward situation because he was asked (unknowingly on the part of the askers, it is true) to diminish his status and acknowledge the supremacy of the King of Rohan within the bounds of Rohan. Those bounds, however, could still be considered provisional as they had not been confirmed by the King. Acknowledging the claim of the King of Rohan could diminish the legal standing of the King of Gondor should he decide to revoke the gift of Calenardhon.

While Aragorn acted temperamentally, it may have been for show.

I think Aragorn views his claims as a mixture of privilege and duty. And he's mature enough to act accordingly.

I agree with this.

[Marwhini]

Aragorn could be considered a pretty Classist Character, though.

Much of what he does in the Book is to illustrate Natural Rights, and people's "Sticking to their Station" (knowing their place).

That would likely not fly well with modern audiences.

Which is a pity, as it is a missed opportunity to examine that issue in a more direct fashion.

MB

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by me

I will find it and post the relevant contents this evening.

I thought the reference was in The Peoples of Middle-earth and spent quite a lot of time trying to find it, sudden inspiration struck that it might be in the Letters and my questing was rewarded.

Originally Posted by Letter 244

A Numenorean King was monarch, with the power of unquestioned decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic, or external, however, even Denethor had a Council, and at least listened to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to say.

So the Kings of Gondor ruled by virtue of and through ancient custom that enabled and also bound the King within certain limits, much like the kings of the Dark Age in the Western World on Earth, which is not surprising given that was Tolkien's inspiration.

I am currently thumbing through the first couple chapters where Aragorn appears of Fellowship just to see if there are any noteworthy moments of "claiming" that happen in these chapters. I don't think that there will be much useful for this topic in these chapters.

[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

As a side point, but an important one I think, the Gondorian monarchy (and by association the Arnorian as well) was not an absolute one.

What Tolkien mentions of King Eldacar's trials of ruling is a good example, and even he didn't have the uphill battle of having to explain to others exactly how he was directly descended. Book-Aragorn, as others have pointed out, has had years of this experience, so it does make sense his 'non-mythical' self has his ancestry memorized like a speed dial.

Everyone else in the ruling elite of Gondor that we see in the books is rather obsessed (from our modern perspective) with the how and by who they are descended from Numenor, and in the mythos of the books this has meaning determining the 'potency' of a ruler and it does fluctuate throughout the generations (ex: Denethor and his sons as Gandalf explains to Pippin, or Prince Imrahil as observed by Legolas, etc.)
Maybe they're just born with it, maybe it's those Dunedain genes...

That was a complex situation. I don't know if Tolkien himself had developed all the ultimate complexities at the time of writing. Rohan existed because of the gift of the Steward who ruled until the King returned. Theoretically, that gift could be revoked by the returned King. Aragorn was put in an awkward situation because he was asked (unknowingly on the part of the askers, it is true) to diminish his status and acknowledge the supremacy of the King of Rohan within the bounds of Rohan. Those bounds, however, could still be considered provisional as they had not been confirmed by the King. Acknowledging the claim of the King of Rohan could diminish the legal standing of the King of Gondor should he decide to revoke the gift of Calenardhon.

This is a very good observation. Not to tarnish Aragorn as a politician (as Tolkien wasn't very much a fan of this way of thinking and using your fellow man), but tactically this is a good choice in his immediate situation as he hasn't quite reached Gondor and there is the combined threat of forces from both Saruman and Sauron. If anything, the Rohirrim offer a buffer to the threat of Saruman joining his forces to Sauron, so advantageously it would make sense to not challenge or strip such a title from them. Aragorn arguably wasn't in a position to be that picky with his allies, especially other men who proved quite formidable.
As for the what-maybes after the fall of Sauron, Eomer and Imrahil were connected by marriage, but it would be safe to say no one was particularly interested in the idea of fighting amongst themselves for territory. It is mentioned that Aragorn as king later brought all groups of men into his own, but if this involved political squabbles it isn't said (as Tolkien didn't prefer his exemplary rulers to act this way).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Let's keep in mind that Tolkien was drawing on a much older mode of narrative art than 20th or even 19th century literature. In the classical and Germanic and medieval legends which formed most of Tolkien's leaf-mould, false modesty (or any modesty) was not a component of the heroic character: Achilles and Sigurd and Beowulf and Gawaine are quite open and proud about their own rank and badassery.