LotR -- Book 2 - Chapter 06 - Lothlórien

[Boromir88]

Mark, good quotes, and I know what you mean, I've seen more examples of Boromir's "whittiness" but can't find them right now.

Lalwende, interesting, I think maybe what makes the elves not "perfect" would be their cockiness. I don't see them as "extremely pompous," but they got this certain swagger about them, to say as if they are better then everyone else. We see that with Gildor and Haldir.

Here's another quote of Haldir's.

"Some there are among us who sing that the Shadow will draw back, and peace shall come again. Yet I do not believe that the world about us will ever again be as it was of old, or the light of the Sun as it was aforetime. For the Elves, I fear, it will prove at best a truce, in which they may pass to the Sea unhindered and leave the Middle-earth forever. Alas for Lothlorien that I love! It would be a poor life in a land where no mallorn grew. But if there are mallorn-trees beyond the Great Sea, none have reported it."

This sort of sums up Fordhim's point about the Elves wish to "throw" away the ring, and not "use" it, and it will cost their lovely haven of Lorien. But, I find this rather funny on Haldir's part, Lorien is a beautiful place, but I would imagine Valinor as even more beautiful. Lorien is probably the most beautiful place to view on Middle-earth, in it's own way it is a "Valinor" of Middle-earth. But, I've always pictured Valinor as even more beautiful.

[Mithalwen]

I have wondered about those words of Haldir's and more frequently about Legolas' reaction to his message from Galadriel about the sea "Would you have her speak openly of your death?" - my conclusion was that for the silvan, and even Sindarin elves, Valinor has not the same significance as for the Exiles for whom the journey oversea is "going home". For Haldir going to Valinor because he had been driven out of Lorien by evil would be an exile. Lorien is home and however beautiful a place maybe... if it is not home it is not heaven. I mean as the relentless damp of an english November creeps into my bones, a carribean beach seems a great idea, but I would not want to be there forever, I think I would miss evern the murky days in time. There is something about Valinor that seems a little creepy to me... maybe I have a melancholy spirit but all that endless light and bliss..... it makes me think "Disney-land"/ cult and panic - i just know all those constantly happy, shiny people would get on my nerves very quickly ( I am currently working at a centre for adults with learning difficulties and I can tell you that the frequent practices of "Love will build a bridge" for the Christmas Concert has completely evaporated the milk of human kindness among the Office Staff). Maybe the idea of all that harmony implies the loss of "self", which perhaps is the true death.

[davem]

(Ideas sparked by some pm's to Fordim)

Its interesting to speculate on the 'peril' involved in entering Lorien - Why is it perilous to enter?

Perhaps because entering the otherworld forces a choice on the traveller - a choice between worlds, between perceptions, different existences. Frodo does make a choice, in the end - he chooses to 'trade' his 'reality' for that of the Elves - so in that sense we can see the 'peril' played out in his own life - he makes a choice from which 'there is no real going back - this is not simply a case of loss of innocence - its not simply the horrors he has seen or the suffering he has been through which prevents him going back, its his choice of the Elven world over the mundane. Whether he realised it or not, he cut himself off from returning to the Shire, his old life, by the choice he made.

He will forever walk on Cerin Amroth - but the deeper question is, did he always walk there - even before he left the Shire? Elven 'reality', elven 'time', is Dreamtime. After the destruction of the One it will fade from the world we know, & Frodo, by his choice will fade with it. The rest of the world will pass into history, into our reality, but Frodo won't - he will forever wander in 'Lorien' - & 'Lorien' in this sense is as much 'Valinor' as a place in Middle earth. He will wander there 'forever' psychologically, spiritually, wherever he may be physically, in 'our' world. He will never leave that other reality.

Of course, at the end, the Elven world will fade, its links with this reality of ours finally severed forever - so he is increasingly 'torn in two', but unlike Sam, who has chosen our reality, & whose choice will require him to let the elven world pass away, Frodo must go whither the Elves go. One can almost imagine Frodo & Sam standing on ships, anchored side by side, holding hands, but their ships are facing in different directions, & when the anchors are raised, they will slowly lose their grip & pass away in different directions.

We see in them different choices, freely made. Their love holding them together, but their choices pulling them apart.

There is 'peril' in Lorien, & the traveller brings it with him, because he brings himself. He is who he is, & his choice is a spiritual one, reflecting, ultimately, his essential nature. Frodo must leave the world - its as inevitable a fate as that of the Elves themselves. Frodo is as 'half-Elven' as a mortal can be, & his choice is the choice faced by all the half-Elven - to remain mortal, within the world, or to choose the West.

In this sense, it doesn't matter that Frodo remains mortal, & will eventually die & pass beyond the circles of the world - because in the context of LotR alone, we don't know that Frodo will die - it isn't stated - & all the hippy buttons proclaiming 'Frodo Lives' shows that readers who only had LotR believed that Frodo's passing into the West meant he would not die.

In Frodo & Sam we can see an echo of Elrond & Elros, & specifically, of Arwen - In Frodo & Sam we can see the consequences of the choice, the alternatives facing all the pereldar. Arwen's choice is Sam's choice - both choose the sweet & the bitter - mortality. Frodo, the dreamer, chooses rather the dreamworld - & those dreams are both real & unreal, eternal & transitory, here forever & always having just slipped from our grasp. Sam's sorrow is based in the realisation that Frodo's choice could never be his, & Frodo's that his choice could never have been Sam's.

Eternity is in love with the productions of time - it is, & vice versa. Sam & Frodo - the great tragic love story - tragic in the greatest sense, because the tragedy has been chosen by both parties - yet, being who they are, they could 'choose' nothing else.

'Choice'? Is it really? Perilous, certainly to enter the Golden Wood, Heart of Elvendom on Earth, not simply because the traveller brings evil with him, but because he brings who he is, his essential nature, & that will force him to make a 'choice' which ultimately is no-choice.

[Aiwendil]

Interesting thoughts, Davem.

At the risk of sounding boorish and mundane, though, I must say that I think "perilous" can be understood in a more obvious way as well - that is, there is the simple danger of becoming too enamored of Lorien, as of most good and pleasing things. Time passes in Lorien much as it does "when you're having fun". The realization by Sam of the time discrepancy on leaving Lorien reminds me of the feeling I get when I half-wake, still overcome with sleep, thinking that it's the middle of the night, only to discover that my alarm didn't go off and I'm late for class.

This is perhaps simply a more mundane expression of what you said. Coming into contact with the Elves (here as elsewhere in the Legendarium) results in enchantment and then longing - longing which cannot be fulfilled.

One minor quibble, though:

Of course, at the end, the Elven world will fade, its links with this reality of ours finally severed forever - so he is increasingly 'torn in two', but unlike Sam, who has chosen our reality, & whose choice will require him to let the elven world pass away, Frodo must go whither the Elves go.

I'm not so sure about Sam having "chosen our reality" or letting "the elven world pass away". The suggestion is certainly there that one day he will follow Frodo. Before the epilogue was discarded, the novel ended with:

They went in, and Sam shut the door. But even as he did so, he heard suddenly, deep and unstilled, the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.

Now, I know that the epilogue was discarded - but as far as I can tell the motivation for getting rid of it had nothing to do with Sam's spiritual character.

[mark12_30]

The tale of years makes it clear that Samwise passes over the sea-- *after* Rosie is dead.

But I do not think that negates davem's contrast between Sam's practicality and Frodo's dream-nature.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I made the point above the "peril" pertains to risk more than to danger, but I did not really approach the question of what this risk might be. I think that it's got to do with the risk of bringing the One into contact with the Lady -- you might just get the help you are going to require for the success of your quest (counsel, the Phial, the Cloaks, lembas, etc), but at the risk of the quest's eternal failure.

I take your point, but is there really any less danger in bringing the Ring into contact with Elrond? If the possibility exists that Galadriel might fail the test and succumb to the Ring (the peril to the Quest that you refer to), wasn’t there an equal, or even greater possibility, that Elrond would have succumbed to it – that, had it been offered to him freely at the Council, he would have taken it? Or are you assuming that Elrond passed his “test” when he counselled Isildur to cast it into Orodruin?

Another question comes to mind in this regard. Are you supposing that Aragorn had this peril in mind when he responded to Boromir’s concerns over entering Lothlorien? Was he aware that Galadriel might be tempted by the Ring? If he did, then this would call into question whether he should have been leading the Fellowship into Lothlorien, since it would surely be folly to risk the Ring falling into the hands of one as powerful of Galadriel. Or did he have faith that Galadriel would pass the test, should the Ring be offered to her?

Indeed, is there any direct applicability to the Fellowship in this comment, as far as Aragorn is concerned, or is he simply making a general statement concerning the nature of Lothlorien? If the former, was he aware that Boromir was vulnerable to the wiles of the Ring and that he might attempt to seize it at some point? There is little evidence to this effect as far as I am aware, but Boromir's comments at the Council of Elrond might well have alerted him. If so, and his comment was pointedly directed at Boromir, then could he, or should he, have done more to protect Frodo from this eventuality?

Which brings me back to Boromir. Funny how he has become one of the major topics of discussion on this thread when, as Bêthberry points out, he hardly features in it.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This strikes me as being one of your prime criteria Sauce--and a thoroughly respectable criteron it is--for determining quality in writing (sympathy for or with a character), but I am not sure it is a criterion which is justified in the book at this point.

Well, first off I wouldn't say that I necessarily judge the quality of the presentation of a character on a page by the extent to which that character engenders sympathy in the reader. I have read and enjoyed many books where the central characters are not a wholly sympathetic. I do, however, respond more positively to a character the more credibly that they are presented. The point that I was trying to make is that, to my mind, Boromir's flaws make him a more credible character than Aragorn.

Having said that, however, and given that there is much to sympathise with within Boromir's character, I would question whether Tolkien lets us see enough of Boromir's positive qualities, whether he engenders sufficient sympathy for him as a character, before killing him off. Certainly, the film does engender more audience sympathy for Boromir. His concern for the Hobbits on Caradhras is emphasised, and a specific connection with Merry and Pippin (the characters who he lays his life down for) is established in the mock swordplay scene.

I do agree that comparative judgements between the book and the films are not always helpful in discussions such as this. One of the shortcomings in comparing how Tolkien wrote the story with how Jackson presented it on film is that they had some very different purposes in mind and were working with entirely different media (Jackson, for example, was most certainly not experimenting with the Heroic Northern ideal ). It made sense for Jackson to portray Boromir in a more sympathetic light earlier on (ie in the first film), since otherwise we would not learn of his more positive qualities until the later films. Also, the immediacy of film means that an audience will perhaps form a quicker impression of a character on the screen than they will of a character in a book.

However, I do wonder whether the fact that Boromir's sympathetic qualities are not brought out earlier in the book (as they are in the first film) risks having readers miss these aspects of his character. As I said, I was initially left with the feeling that Boromir was a negative character and it took a few readings before his positive qualities came through to me. And my impression from past threads concerning him on this forum is that I am not alone in this.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Of course as you say, later we may understand Boromir much better after 'meeting' Denethor and Faramir, but for this discussion I thought we were limiting ourselves to 'the plot so far'.

That is my very point. Limiting ourselves to the plot thus far means that we miss many of Boromir's positive qualities. My concern is that, since we do not learn of these qualities until after his death, Tolkien risks leaving the reader with a negative impression of Boromir overall, as it did with me at first.

[Boromir88]

SpM, I do feel Mr. Jackson sympathized Boromir more in the first book, then Tolkien did. And as you say, dealing with the audience PJ had, it was probably the better way. We do get to see a little bigger connection with Boromir and the hobbits in the movie, but we Tolkien still adds hints to seem as if the Hobbits are rubbing of on Boromir. For it is Boromir who first thinks of the hobbits.

The Ring goes South

"This will be the death of the halflings, Gandalf," said Boromir. "It is useless to sit here until the snow goes over our heads. We must do something to save ourselves."

and then later...

"Have hope!" said Boromir. "I am weary, but I still have some strength left, and Aragorn too. We will bear the little folk. The others no doubt will make shift to tread the path behind us. Come Master Peregrin! I will begin with you."

Here is where Boromir's strength first appears, and it's even the first time (maybe the only time) when we see Boromir huh, wiser then Aragorn perhaps? Aragorn wishes to fight the mountain, which would most likely end in death, well that is because he feels it is a better choice then going through the Gap of Rohan, or through Moria. However, I will have to say Aragorn (and Boromir) Gandalf's idea is probably the best, Caradhras would have been fatal to the whole company, The Gap of Rohan is not safe anymore, Moria ended in despair, but probably was the best choice.

[Bêthberry]

I think I must be a reader like Aiwendil and Lalwendë, for I too am circumspect about the elves and Lorien. I think it is because of the elves' lack of interest in other races and their nostagia for their own past; these features tinge them with a wistful blemish on the face of their beauty, despite, I hate to say it, Tolkien's words that Lorien was without blemish. Something in me makes me cautious about a people who seem to want to preserve things unchanged. That inability--if this is not too strong a word--spells a veritable doom in itself I think. In this aspect, I guess I am unable to see Lorien as representative of a dreamlike state outside time. I see it more as a lost world, one which has great value and worth, but one which nonetheless must be let go as it has been unable to meld itself with mundanity. This could be an ideological perspective where Tolkien and I differ, however much I enjoy his work.

Boromir once again Fordim has spoken words similar to my feelings about Boromir. I am not "so much against him or down on him" but that I think his character is shaped to fulfil a narrative purpose. You said it best, I think, when you reminded us of Tolkien's first plans for Boromir:

In one of Tolkien's earlier drafts, Boromir lives, and heads to Minas Tirith, with Aragorn. Aragorn takes claim to the throne, Boromir wants to reject this claim and starts stirring up trouble, a possible civil war. Then Aragorn quickly kills Boromir, before he can rally enough support. I can get more in depth and make a connection between Aragorn's claim and Arvedui's claim, but I will do that when the time is right, for I fear this will take us too off track. Anyway, now Tolkien threw out that idea, I just wanted to mention it, since it could display something about Boromir.

Civil war engendered by the return of the King is not something that would seem meritorious, particularly in light of the defeat of Sauron and destruction of the Ring. The heir of Gondor's Steward has to be, in terms of pragmatic narrative, done away with in a manner which serves the story best. I think Boromir is infinitely more important to the story as the flawed hero who demonstrates the power of the Ring than as an heir who will not give way to the King.

Sauce, I absolutely take your point that Boromir's character is not readily apparent.

However, I do wonder whether the fact that Boromir's sympathetic qualities are not brought out earlier in the book (as they are in the first film) risks having readers miss these aspects of his character. As I said, I was initially left with the feeling that Boromir was a negative character and it took a few readings before his positive qualities came through to me. And my impression from past threads concerning him on this forum is that I am not alone in this.

I suggest, however, the possibility that it is valuable for the reader to have this experience of 'missing aspects' about the character at first. It could be that Tolkien expects his readers to learn actively his 'theme' of mercy and pity. We learn as readers that first impressions are not the best and that time can change point of view. Boromir is the first lesson which will then be more fully explored in the figure of Gollem. I will readily admit, however, that this idea grants to Tolkien a great deal of forthought and planning whereas he was in many aspects a spontaneous writer who strove to incorporate 'backwards' (if I may use that in a positive sense) his many ideas.

And I see I have done it again. After paring Boromir with Aragorn I have paired him with Gollem. I seem to have by some kind of osmosis incorporated Fordim's habit of looking for pairs. But within my interest in looking at absences!

Edit: A quick note that I have PMed Boromir88 about his very good point that Boromir the character nevers peaks cant but always his honest mind.