Character Analysis Thread

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Ibrîniðilpathânezel, I do not have enough knowledge of genes and science to take you up on this, but I must say that Gandalf must have been talking metaphorically. There's no way Boromir and Faramir didn't share the same blood.

All siblings share the same blood - but that doesn't mean they must be identical twins. Ibrin is 100% right - genes may be expressed or not. Genotype is one thing, phenotype is another: thus brothers can be (and often are) very unlike, both in appearance and in character. And even the Numenoreans from the line of Elendil were not all alike: we are told in UT that Aragorn most resembled Elendil himself, as well as Isildur’s son Elendur, while Boromir was much alike to Earnur the last King and to Boromir I, Steward of Gondor.

Boromir was a great man - we see him only as a member of the Fellowship, but he was first and foremost the Captain of the White Tower, military commander of Gondor, loved and respected by everyone in Gondor - and the future steward.
And it was not only for his personal benefit that Boromir wanted the Ring, but mostly for the good of his country.

It looks like Gandalf and the Wise failed to realize that by his position and his personality, Boromir would be in grave danger from the Ring's lure. Aragorn would have been even more susceptible, but for his training: I think Elrond and Gandalf made it abundantly clear to him over the years that Isildur his ancestor was wrong to take the Ring and why. Boromir has never heard about the Ring before the Council and I don't think that he ever understood WHY the Ring should not be used against Sauron. In a way Boromir's fall is the fault of the Wise.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Boromir was a great man - we see him only as a member of the Fellowship, but he was first and foremost the Captain of the White Tower, military commander of Gondor, loved and respected by everyone in Gondor - and the future steward.
And it was not only for his personal benefit that Boromir wanted the Ring, but mostly for the good of his country.

It looks like Gandalf and the Wise failed to realize that by his position and his personality, Boromir would be in grave danger from the Ring's lure. Aragorn would have been even more susceptible, but for his training: I think Elrond and Gandalf made it abundantly clear to him over the years that Isildur his ancestor was wrong to take the Ring and why. Boromir has never heard about the Ring before the Council and I don't think that he ever understood WHY the Ring should not be used against Sauron. In a way Boromir's fall is the fault of the Wise.

Well, in a way Boromir's fall is the fault of story. Without the examples of those who have succumbed to the lure of the Ring, Frodo's trial would lack effect. So short of seeing how the Nazgul fell--but being given depictions of their malevolence--we have Gollem and Boromir as examples of how both the weak and the strong are susceptible. (And on the other hand there's Tom and Sam. If only Boromir had had a bit more sense of silliness and humour about him. )

But really, this question of the culpability of the Wise is interesting, for they are not bullies; they do not seek to dominate the will of others. That way lies Sauron's way. It is the quintessetial dilemma of Good, how to combat evil without succumbing to its ways. The only person who could save Boromir from himself was Boromir; any other person would have meant a bullying interference.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, in a way Boromir's fall is the fault of story. Without the examples of those who have succumbed to the lure of the Ring, Frodo's trial would lack effect. .

Not necessarily. There was Isildur’s example, Gollum’s example, Gandalf’s fear to take the Ring even for a time, Galadriel’s lust for the Ring that she had barely overcome, Denethor’s wish to get the ring, Sam’s temptation and finally Frodo’s ultimate fall to the Ring’s lure. The point was made even without Boromir.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And on the other hand there's Tom and Sam. If only Boromir had had a bit more sense of silliness and humour about him. .

Tom? But he didn't need the Ring at all - that was the difference. He was a content being. He had no goals in life that he couldn't carry out with his own "stronger songs". Had he wished (for instance) to expand his territory to Fangorn etc., or had he wished for Sauron's downfall, he wouldn't have remained immune to the Ring. Even Sam, the simple gardener and the perfect bodyguard, had more hidden desires that the Ring could explore.
And if "Sam the Ringlord" or "Gollum the Great" sounded silly, "Boromir the Great" didn't - at all. He was a good potential Ringlord, no worse than Isildur or Aragorn - and Sauron himself was most worried when he was led to believe that Aragorn had his Ring.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But really, this question of the culpability of the Wise is interesting, for they are not bullies; they do not seek to dominate the will of others. That way lies Sauron's way. It is the quintessetial dilemma of Good, how to combat evil without succumbing to its ways. The only person who could save Boromir from himself was Boromir; any other person would have meant a bullying interference.

I have to disagree. Explaining things and persuading someone is no “bullying interference.” IMO, the Wise failed to give Boromir all the necessary information about the Ring: the reasoning behind WHY it shouldn't be used. In the movies m-Elrond tried to explain it, saying ”the Ring answers only to Sauron”. But that is NOT what Tolkien wrote. Saruman, Galadriel and Boromir thought they could use the Ring and overthrow Sauron. Gandalf certainly could do it – we know it from the Letters- but then he would become the next Dark Lord, even worse than Sauron.
Gandalf did explain it to Frodo, early on, but did he tell the same to Boromir? Did Galadriel try to explain it to Boromir? I doubt it. This reasoning (WHY the Ring should NOT be used) is not easy to grasp: even the wise ancient Galadriel spent countless hours musing on "what if she gets the Ring?" . Boromir was left alone, alone and unprepared to counter the Ring's lure. EVERY Man except the specially trained Aragorn (and at length maybe even he as well) would have been in peril in Boromir's place.

[Bêthberry]

To each his own.

Originally Posted by Gordis

The point was made even without Boromir

I rather think Boromir's fall provided a harrowing, operational example of the breakdown of civil and civic order and was a valuable addition to the story. There's something in Tolkien that wants to explore the old warrior code, its vulnerabilities as well as its honours and dignities. And of course something else interesting to have the "spare", Faramir, turn truer than the "heir."

Originally Posted by Gordis

Tom? But he didn't need the Ring at all - that was the difference

There's something to be said for the ability not to take oneself so seriously. Humour adds distance that counteracts pomposity.

Originally Posted by Gordis

IMO, the Wise failed

In fairy tale, there are characters, often of ambiguous or enigmatic status, whose role is to push other characters towards revealing or discovering their own spirit, often with the all too obvious peril that those so tested may fail. Rather like the Faun in [i]Pan's Labyrinth[/b] or the bowdlerized figure of Mr. Tumnus in Narnia. It is part of the attraction of fantasy.


Still, I suppose, it is the attraction of the character to merit an apologist.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And on the other hand there's Tom and Sam. If only Boromir had had a bit more sense of silliness and humour about him. )

No. That "silliness" you speak of is quite annoying in my opinion. Boromir had a sense of humor, he used sarcasm more than once on the journey. He just didn't have (thankfully) the senseless dummy humour that Sam and Tom had. And I'm extremely glad about that. Boromir's stern and proud nature made him stand out, and made him who he was.

Originally Posted by Gordis

All siblings share the same blood - but that doesn't mean they must be identical twins. Ibrin is 100% right - genes may be expressed or not. Genotype is one thing, phenotype is another: thus brothers can be (and often are) very unlike, both in appearance and in character. And even the Numenoreans from the line of Elendil were not all alike: we are told in UT that Aragorn most resembled Elendil himself, as well as Isildur’s son Elendur, while Boromir was much alike to Earnur the last King and to Boromir I, Steward of Gondor.

You misunderstood me. I never said they were supposed to be identical. Why did you make that up? I already know everything that you said. Obviously siblings come out differently. My argument is that Tolkien was definitely not talking physical blood, he was using it as a metaphor to say that Boromir did not have the same Numenorean mind qualities that Faramir and Denethor had. But he had everything else that was Numenorean. He was of high Num. lineage.

I can't stand when people take the blood quote literally. All Gandalf implied was character traits.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

No. That "silliness" you speak of is quite annoying in my opinion. Boromir had a sense of humor, he used sarcasm more than once on the journey. He just didn't have (thankfully) the senseless dummy humour that Sam and Tom had. And I'm extremely glad about that. Boromir's stern and proud nature made him stand out, and made him who he was.

I hope my reply above to Gordis elaborates on my comment--do note please my use of the smilie--that sometimes those who can distance themselves from their most passionate wishes and nature are those who can the most successfully avoid falling prey to those passions and wishes. And a sense of humour provides that distance. Given both Sam's heroic stature and Tom's immunity to the Ring's lure I would humbly suggest that it is worthwhile to ponder with some degree of respect this ability of theirs. Sarcasm can sometimes be taken humorously but more often it denotes derision and contempt, something quite different from what I was suggesting as a way of understanding oneself and knowing onself.

Originally Posted by MattewM

I can't stand when people take the blood quote literally. All Gandalf implied was character traits.

Why get so riled up by different interpretations? Why does that idea of a literal meaning bother you so much?

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Why get so riled up by different interpretations? Why does that idea of a literal meaning bother you so much?

Because it doesn't make any sense and simply is not true. Boromir was every bit of Numenorean that Faramir and Denethor were. The only difference was that Faramir did not possess Boromir's position or pride and had a different demeanor than his brother. The great part about this is the unshakable bond the brothers had, despite their character differences.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Why get so riled up by different interpretations? Why does that idea of a literal meaning bother you so much?

Good question, especially considering that I basically agreed with you, MatthewM. Cool down, please.

What I meant was that IF it were blood alone that determined person's features, THEN any siblings would have been identical twins, as they share exactly the same blood. Yet, they are usually NOT identical: the fact that Gandalf was surely aware of. "Blood" that may or may not "run true" was simply a figure of speech - before the mankind acquired knowledge about genes. It is the same as to say "I love you with all my heart", despite the fact that a heart as such has nothing to do with any emotions.

Bethberry - I have a feeling that humor directed on one's self and Bombadil-ish silliness were hardly desirable in leaders of men, like Aragorn and Boromir. Both were proud and deadly serious about their fate, their place and lineage.
Look like Aragorn bristled when Gimli asked him about his talk with Sauron:

‘Did you say aught to - him?
‘You forget to whom you speak,’ said Aragorn sternly, and his eyes glinted. ‘Did I not openly proclaim my title before the doors of Edoras? What do you fear that I should say to him?"

Rangers of the North were characterized as "grim" in general: even the nine nazgul showed more humor than they did.
Frodo by the end of the quest lost all his sense of humor altogether, as did Denethor by the end of the siege. And I can't really blame them...

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Good question, especially considering that I basically agreed with you, MatthewM. Cool down, please.

Alright. I apologize...

Originally Posted by Gordis

What I meant was that IF it were blood alone that determined person's features, THEN any siblings would have been identical twins, as they share exactly the same blood. Yet, they are usually NOT identical: the fact that Gandalf was surely aware of. "Blood" that may or may not "run true" was simply a figure of speech - before the mankind acquired knowledge about genes. It is the same as to say "I love you with all my heart", despite the fact that a heart as such has nothing to do with any emotions.

Exactly. I wasn't clear of your stance.

Originally Posted by Gordis

Bethberry - I have a feeling that humor directed on one's self and Bombadil-ish silliness were hardly desirable in leaders of men, like Aragorn and Boromir. Both were proud and deadly serious about their fate, their place and lineage.
Look like Aragorn bristled when Gimli asked him about his talk with Sauron:
Rangers of the North were characterized as "grim" in general: even the nine nazgul showed more humor than they did.
Frodo by the end of the quest lost all his sense of humor altogether, as did Denethor by the end of the siege. And I can't really blame them...

Exactly.

[Bêthberry]

Gentlemen, Tolkien probably has the best lines to express my opinion of this discussion about humour and distance:

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Letters

As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point. [...] You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name father belonged only to the First Person.

And that I believe sums up all I wish to say.

I am, however, glad that amends have been made about the anger over the blood issue. Really, I was wondering if people were thinking that the comment implied some sort of hanky panky by Finduilas or some more dire event (hence her increasing dark spirits, long decline, and ultimate death after marrying Denethor) and that's what drew the ire.