What is your heroic ideal?

[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?

[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.

[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.