I think Boromir is valiant and loyal to Gondor. He was extraordinary brave to take on the Orcs by himself, defending two Hobbits. In fact, you can call him a Gondorian zealot. That's why he tried to take the Ring from Frodo. He believed that the Ring could save everything he loved: his father, his brother, his men, his country. Plus Boromir can't be blamed for being tempted the Ring. People more powerful (Saruman, Galadriel for a brief moment) than him were tempted and even Frodo couldn't resist it. But what Boromir lacked in inner strength, he made up for it with his outer strength.

_________________

I was cured all right.

Hubris. Intriguing.

I actually have two seperate answers to this matter, dealing with different aspects on the subject. However, I shall content myself now with posting merely one (which, at its present length, is more than enough) rather than imposing upon this thread the entirety of both. I shall await proper opportunity to bring up the second at some later date.

I agree with you on a fair portion of your comments of Boromir, both of your last post and previous entries I have read... what it is that immediately establishes him as a character of distinction is not his strength, but rather his weakness. Here is a character who is not the "knight in shining armour" he is supposed to be to inhabit such a tale; yet, in the end, he proves himself no less the hero for that.

But what is his weakness?

The answer, some might argue, is from the words of Tolkien himself. The answer -the weakness- , they might say, is pride. Perhaps even some degree of megalomania. And, let us not forget, the hunger for power.

I remain dubious.

It is oft said that Pride goeth before the Fall, but the question remains as to the role of Pride in the entire equation. Is it true then, as it is undoubtedly implied, that Pride does in fact cause the Fall, or is it that Pride simply has the misfortune to precede that rather distressing event, and is therefore allotted more than its fair share of the blame?

If you'll forgive the pseudo-philosophical meandering of the previous paragraph, I will attempt to tie it back to the point in discussion- I respect Boromir for his pride, and I respect Boromir for his nobility. I like Boromir precisely because he is power-hungry, and I like Boromir precisely because he ends his life for selflessness and honor. I do not, however, see the former traits of either statement above as detracting from his character any more than either of the latter traits would. I do not pity Boromir his weakness and then rejoice and forgive him when he overcomes this to his noble death. Rather, I reflect on a quote which has provided me with quite a different view on the nature of characters, of people, than is common for most; a quote from (if such cross-literary references are allowed) an excellent novel by Mathew Woodring Stover. It is the last paragraph in a short, three paragraph description of the metaphorical character of the Crooked Knight. It says only -

His strength was the strength of ten, because his heart was stained with corruption.

_

_________________
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

Well, as far as I understand, the ring tempts every one. Though it may be less in some poeple, there is still that desire to use the ring. But it was Boromir that gave in.

Perhaps it is because he is so proud and then becomes 'humbled' at the end that makes us love him so much as a character? If he were not so proud, then Boromir would be more like another Aragorn, and while Aragorn is a likeable fellow, we empathize with Boromir more. I think I see what you are saying, and it certainly makes sense. And Boromir still does retain some of his pride even at the end of his life. He just has a different persepective on it, perhaps?

What precisely do you refer to by "humbled" then?

It is an interesting note on pride however- it is used both to describe the best and the worst of the characters of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Nearly every major character in the book is described in the novels by their pride, but the elasticity of the term continues to stymie any coherent report of the trait itself.

Boromir is a character who, unlike his brother in the novels (a reference to a seperate thread on that character) undergoes a journey entirely of his own, in the span of merely half a book. However, it is not his pride I see as changing, as the description of this pride is something that we are shown at first meeting him at the council... "And seated a little apart was a tall man with a fair and noble face, dark-haired and grey-eyed, proud and stern of glance." This, in fact, is one of the characteristics that distinguishes him seperately in the fellowship, from his entrance to his departure. The pride of Boromir has always seemed to me ever-constant. And for that I am impressed.

But rather, you speak of perception. Would you be so kind as to elucidate, should I have missed the idea you were presenting?

_________________
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

I meant he has a different perspective on how Gondor's glory was to be brought about. He realised the Ring would not bring this--he placed it in Aragorn's hands. I used the word 'humbled' but put it in quotes because that's not quite the word I wanted to use. Boromir does still have an amount of pride. He's a powerful man of Gondor--of course he's still going to be proud, but he's not quite so high-minded. Do you think he would have given his life to save a couple of hobbits earlier in the story? I don't think he would have. It took that encounter with Frodo to open his mind.
So yes, I believe we agree more than disagree here. Boromir is a proud figure, but there is a certain transformation that occurs at his death. Again, 'humbled' is not really the word I wanted to use...he has a different perspective on life.
I'm just curious, could you elaborate on this...v

I am interested in knowing what you meant.

I would not presume to answer for your own views on Boromir's transformation (which, I agree, is a major point in the novel) seeing as our perspectives would seem to differ significantly enough on the matter. However, my own thoughts on this change lie not in his pride at all, but in respect- a trait which has many connections to the earlier term, but can be used almost seperately in this case I would believe.

It is not the pride of Boromir that I see changing in the course of his travels with the Fellowship, but his almost grudgingly developing respect for his fellow travelers. A man of Boromir's standing, though trained from youth to be respectful in all ventures (by the book and the movies, but especially book), is not one who seems quick to give respect- in this matter he resembles his father Denethor to a great degree over his more open brother, Faramir. This is, most likely, a direct link to his pride in himself- people who think highly of themselves more often hold others to higher standards as well, and think less of their chances to meet those standards.

I as well find it quite unlikely that the Boromir we are greeted with at the Council of Elrond would have given his life to save two halflings, and even more incredulous of his giving charge to save his city to a ranger (or even, in the movie, proclaim his allegiance to him). However, it is not that I think the pride of Boromir has lessened, but that his respect for these others has grown beyond this. Perhaps it is not that Boromir has lowered his vaulted views, but has recognized his companions have reached these heights regardless.



As for my own comments on the contradicting uses of the word "pride" in Tolkien's work, here are four excerpts from his books which might illustrate my point better than my own words might manage to.

"Believe not that in the land of Gondor the blood of Numenor is spent, nor all its pride and dignity forgotten." (Boromir; The Fellowship of the Ring; The Council of Elrond)

In the stern sat Aragorn, son of Arathorn, proud and erect, guiding the boat with skillful strokes; his hood was cast back, and his dark hair was blowing in the wind, a light was in his eyes: a king returning from exile to his own land. (The Fellowship of the Ring; The Great River)

A shadow passed over Saruman's face; then it went deathly white. Before he could conceal it, they saw through the mask the anguish of a mind in doubt, loathing to stay and dreading to leave its refuge. For a second, he hesitated, and no one breathed. Then he spoke, and his voice was shrill and cold. Pride and hate were conquering him." (The Two Towers; The Voice of Saruman)

Then suddenly Denethor laughed. He stood up tall and proud again, and stepping swiftly back to the table he lifted from it the pillow on which his head had lain ... he had between his hands a palantir ... the lean face of the Lord was lit as with a red fire, and it seemed cut out of hard stone, sharp with black shadows, noble, proud, and terrible. His eyes glittered. "Pride and despair!" he cried. (The Return of the King; The Pyre of Denethor)

Do you see, then, these four uses of the term pride? They all are the same word, and indeed all express the same trait, yet their use is something entirely individual to each situation. It is this which so fascinates me on the matter of pride, both within Tolkien's works and without (such as, for instance, that rather intriguing thread in these forums asking about pride in one's personal life, though I forget the section being too new).

_________________
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

Ah, I see what you are saying, I think. So what you mean is that Boromir's pride did not diminish, but his respect for the others in the fellowship increased throughout the book.
I think also Boromir's heart was opened to others too. He was concerned for the hobbits when they were carried off (I think both the film and the book include this). But the pride in Gondor still remains. He doesn't just forget about his homeland, he still wants to see its glory restored.
What you say makes sense. You are right, there are different kinds of pride. So maybe 'pride' is too broad a word to use in some cases, such as Boromir's. You can't just say, 'he was proud', you have to say something like 'he was proud in this certain kind of way.' Is that what you are saying?

You've got great insight into the literature, and it's very apparent that you are well-acquainted with Tolkien's book. I enjoy reading your posts...it's always good to know other points of view because it helps me develop my own opinions. This has turned out to be an interesting discussion.

Indeed, one can come to despair at times of finding "discussion" on the current medium of our internet, but fortunately one occasionally stumbles upon a forum sporting such advancement. This forum in particular would seem adept at cultivating such progress, to my own opinion at least, and for that I am thankful. But back to the discussion at hand...


As for the matter of Boromir's "transformation", we would seem to be largely in agreement. Indeed, I might be hard-pressed to continue to argue it as a "transformation" at all, for, though the character is developed significantly as the story progresses, it is not a fundamental change in the sense that transformation would generally imply. This, for myself at least, is a new peception developed from this discussion.

Also, his connection to the two hobbits is another matter that I had somewhat overlooked previously, though Peter Jackson portrayed it brilliantly in the movies I believe.


As to the matter of 'pride'- it is not actually that I object to the use of the term, but rather only to its use with any implied connotation of it being a specifically good or bad trait.

Heh, no, I am too gracious towards my own views in that statement, for the truth is I use the word "pride" with as great a bias as any other. I am one who tends to focus on what I might term the "up-side of pride" (and then congratulate myself for my rhyming prowess), and hold it as a virtue worthy those of the highest caliber.

However, the elasticity and indeed ambiguous nature of the word still does factor into my thoughts of the term, leading to a mixed perception of what any one person might imply in using it. Indeed, I hold Tolkien himself as a masterful exploiter of the term, as he is one of the few I have ever read who manages, in the course of his books, to capture nearly every concievable notion behind this one word, the examples I provided being but a few of which I could remember. But I digress.

I fear, as interesting as this side-discussion has proven, that I have overstepped the bounds of the topic of this thread (a habit I have been aware of for quite some time unfortunately), and so might make a proposition- should any be willing and interested in commenting further on the matter, an intriguing find I made upon my first day or two of joining is a thread in the "Your Life" section of the forums titled "Are you proud?" It would seem to me an excellant topic fitted for just this type of discourse, but, to my moderate dismay, it has slipped back to the second page of that section without comment. Simply a note of interest.


Therefore, in a last-ditch effort to confine myself to the subject matter of this particular thread (a tad late perhaps, but one does what one can), there is an interesting point that I accidentally "dropped" earlier in conversation with VikingMaiden, one which would make quite the interesting subject matter by my reckoning. I provide it below in a quote.


I remain curious on this point, but inadvertently abandoned it to focus more on the specific matter of pride. What is it then about Boromir's stance, the wish to use the Ring as a weapon -regardless of whether this wish was spawned from a desire to protect his people or a desire for glory (I personally suspect a combination of these and other factors)- which denotes it as "weakness" to your mind?

_________________
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

i think he was brave when he sacrificed his life to save Merry and Pippin but he became weak when he let himself become controled by the power of the One Ring

_________________
And as he looked into her eyes
Within the auburn of her hair
The trembling starlight of the skies
He saw there mirrored bright and fair

♥In a poly relationship with Kili and Tauriel♥

Weakness is a trait of Men in Tolkien's world. All Men are weak to an extent. So Boromir's pride/lust for power and glory is not the cause of his weakness, they are a product of it. That's what I think, and it shows through at certain times throughout the book. I also believe Tolkien would have held this position more because of his religious background, that Man is a fallen creature. Anyways, here are some quotes worth noting:


This came from the 'Breaking of the Fellowship', just for reference's sake. At first Boromir seems to have a just cause. He wants to defend his people. He wants to lead wisely and bring glory back to his land. That's not at all bad in and of itself. But he wants to do it by the wrong methods. He wants to use the Machine (a form of corruption) to give him power. Perhaps Tolkien can clear it up better than I:

This was taken from a letter from Tolkien to Milton Waldman.
To Tolkien, using power to dominate was evil. It is most clearly seen with Sauron and the Ring, but filters down to Boromir on a more mortal level. So it's not really Boromir's pride in his country that is the issue. It's his desire to use the Ring. He wants to use a machine for glory rather than believing that a mere hobbit can defeat Sauron. What I think Tolkien is saying is that the power and glory of men seems great at first, but what is it really that will prevail against evil? Even the smallest person can change the course of the future...Aragorn, Gandalf and Elrond realise this. Even in the film, this is noted..."Men? Men are weak." The day the race of men failed was when Isildur first decided that he would keep the Ring for his own instead of destroying it. Men are concerned with Powers and Machines, devices that will get them glory here on this temporal earth. Saruman is a great example of this (although he is not human): cutting down trees, bending the earth to his will, breeding half-orcs with the intent to destroy. It's a way of controlling. But men also have the ability to resist and conquer their weaknesses. Aragorn probably was very encouraged by Boromir and the way he finally rejected the notion of using the Ring. Aragorn was afraid that he was not able to stand up to it...this is noted in the film (I am not sure about the book)..."The same blood flows in my veins. The same weakness." But both Boromir and Aragorn conquer it.

I had not looked at the situation in that perspective before; it is quite intriguing. I can begin to see the logic in the relationship- weakness naturally breeding a need for power, or an "answer" to this weakness, somewhat follows characteristics one might attribute to Nietzsche, yet here it is taken from a Tolkienesque perspective. I shall have to reflect on that for some time.

However, this does bring us to another question and decision- shall we discuss this as entirely confined to Tolkien's world and according to Tolkien's views, or might conversation benefit from widening the scope somewhat?


Quite likely, but one might wonder if the themes and ideas present in truly good stories necessarily rely entirely on the themes and ideas of the author- I myself remain uncertain if I agree with Tolkien on this point.

Moving on, I trust you don't object to the passage from the book not being added again in the quotes, and so I will address it only in this post and let reference be taken entirely from your post above.


But I remain uncertain on what determines his goals as noble, and what determines his methods as not. What, then, is the distinction between going to war with Sauron with the Ring as opposed to going to war with Sauron without it?

Furthermore, I find some of Boromir's arguments quite compelling here-

"What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? What could not Aragorn do? Or if he refuses, why not Boromir? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!'

Why not?


Was this note taken from the collection of notes in the book "The Letters of Tolkien" (or some like title), and, if so, could you provide reference to it specifically, I'd be quite interested.


Indeed, and this is why I must depart here from merely discussing Tolkien's views. However, does what Boromir proposes necessarily entail "domination", or could it merely be strong leadership? What is the distinction there?


Yes, I can see the reasoning in this, and the symbolism was quite potent i will admit. Indeed, if taken from this perception, the distinction between Boromir and Sauron would have to be addressed, if indeed the Ring would not obliterate any such seperation.


Can he be blamed for that however? Which would we be quicker to put our trust in, the walls of the White City or the will of a young hobbit? Tolkien urges the latter, but in the novel even Gandalf acknowledges it as nothing more than a "fool's hope".


All well put, yet I still have trouble as holding the "need for power" of men as necessarily a weakness, in the same sense I have trouble holding pride as a weakness. The arguments are similar in a sense, though not quite so pronounced in Tolkien's world. It is as the matter of Faramir and Boromir- Faramir is, in the end, considered the stronger, for he does not desire power as his brother does. I, however, see no reason that should connote strength in itself- Boromir's lust for power would most likely have greatly aided Gondor under his Stewardship had the Ring not come into play.


Ah, and here we come to Saruman, another fascinating character in the scheme of things. Here, however, we find the distinction that I myself do not think entirely addressed in Tolkien's works- is the want for power itself the factor which corrupts Men? The basic though process of the stories is that "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely". It is largely this argument from which Tolkien therefore derives this "weakness of Men". However, I turn to Boromir's comments once again- "'So you go on,' he cried, 'Gandalf, Elrond--all these folk have tuaght you to say so. For themselves they may be right. These elves and half--elves and wizards, they would come to grief perhaps. Yet often I doubt if they are wise and not merely timid. But each to his own kind. True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted."

In the course of the story, it is shown to us beyond doubt that the Ring corrupts, but the lust for power?... that remains open I believe. Perhaps, had Boromir survived to come to power himself, we would have had an answer, but his death ended the life of the one person who held these views in the novels. What is it that corrupted Saruman, lust for power, or lust for the Ring? In some ways, the two seem almost as one, but I am not certain yet.

For that matter, there is one defintion which must be addressed for any of this to be answered fully- what is this "corruption" of which we speak?


Yes. I do quite like Tolkien's views as presented in his works, but I remain questioning on a few such as the inherent corrupting influence of power. You do seem to have a very solid hold on Tolkien's views, but are these necessarily the only views which may be drawn from his works I wonder?

_________________
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

No. However, I do believe in knowing what the author had in mind in order to make sense of a piece of literature. I don't like the way some professors of literature go on and on about 'what does this mean to you?' as if that is the only opinion that matters. It's alright to an extent, but it's important to know what the author intended. Certainly a work of literature can have specific meaning to an individual, but I don't like to stray too far from the author's meaning.

The letter I took was from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien edited by Humphrey Carpenter. The letter is not dated, although it is noted that it may have been written in 1951. In the book, the letter is numbered 131. I hope that helps, although it's not too specific a cite.



That may just come from the different way you and I view life. I think a hunger for power is usually a bad thing, the same as pride. You may not. As a result, our views on the book differ, which is fine, I just don't want this to become a long and tiresome debate as opposed to a discussion.


Because the Ring was evil. Because using the Ring against Sauron was the wrong way to defeat him. The only way it could be done was to throw it back into the fires where it was made. There was no other way.

However, I don't want to be too harsh on Boromir, and I hope I am not coming across this way. Just because I point out what I perceive as faults in him does not mean I condemn him. I admire Boromir...in fact, he is my favourite character in the book and films. I read what you've posted in the pride thread, and we all have a certain admiration for those who are proud.

I do have more to say on this...but I haven't time to write out a full-blown post. I hope you don't mind I put this on hold for a time?

That's a good rule to have on the matter I would reckon, and I do attempt to view most matters in the Lord of the Rings as I imagine Tolkien might.

I myself only oppose the attempts to determine "The Theme" of any given work, when the title is used in capitals- most good books have to be more fluid than that to attact audiences I would think. That is, in the end, one of the biggest selling points to me for the Lord of the Rings... I clearly do not hold quite the same "theme" as Tolkien, and yet draw just as much pleasure and thought from the reading.


Yes, thank you very much. I happen to have that volume, and so that was mainly what I was wondering about.


Indeed, but the role this plays on the book does fascinate me. One might assume that, if the reader were to hold different views than the author, the book would be ruined for them- but, for Tolkien's works at least, that is hardly the case.


Heh, then, for both our sakes, do tell me when I threaten that ideal. I unfortunately have picked up the mannerisms and thoughts from other forums I have frequented that a discussion must involve some form of long and tiresome debate (which, for those particular topics, it did), and have been unable to entirely rid myself of that sentiment I fear.


"So you go on. Gandalf, Elrond- all these folk have taught you to say so. ... Yet often I doubt if they are wise and not merely timid. ... The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory."

Heh, no, I do not attempt to bring that into a debate again, I just am always intrigued by Boromir's say on the matter. It is especially compelling when you consider that this was written by the same author who, by all accounts, seemed to disagree entirely with it.

I wonder then... would Boromir perhaps be considered a foil character? Why the thought has never occurred to me before I can not imagine, but he seems quite well-developed for just that role. But back to Tolkien...

As I say, I do like the world as presented by Tolkien on the matter- I like the ideal. Perhaps that is at the base of what I like about the character of Boromir- he is the one character who can not come entirely to grips with that ideal, and yet he is still willing (in the end) to sacrifice his life for it.


No objection- no good discussion that I have found is ever quick.


Here, though I hesitate now to ask it, is a question which pure curiosity has aroused. If you think this too far removed from the subject or too much in line with "debate", ignore it, I will hold no objection. But, in case you're of a mind to discuss- what do you think has led you to your views on the "want for power" being something bad, something to avoid? And for pride, which we had the interesting discussion on earlier?

Merely curiousity however, discard if necessary.

_________________
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

I have been watching this discussion from the shadows for a time, and I must say that I am truly impressed with the fact that both Isildur's Bane and VikingMaiden have put their fingers on what I have believed to be true in Boromir's case. His 'weakness' for lack of a better term, and the fact that pride was not his weakness, but a factor of it. I of course, do not have the eloquence of you two, but I truly admire this discussion.

And I also wish to inquire Isildur's Bane of what was meant by this question to Vikingmaiden,


It is to be assumed you don't believe that a want of power is a bad thing? I find it more interesting that you do not, than the fact that Vikingmaiden doesn't. Most people believe to be 'power hungry' is a bad thing, as I associate Boromir's want of power, which I assume is what you mean. In some cases, want of power could be considered ambitious, which would not necessarily be considered a bad thing, so once more, as with the word pride, the connotation must be taken into consideration.

_________________
Be with me always - take any form - drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!

I think this is a fine question, and it does hold some relevance to the topic. Power all too often leads to oppression and slavery. It can easily become a very, very dangerous thing. Pride, and by this I mean having an exaggerated opinion of oneself, can become dangerous. It can become a parent to prejudices and hatred. History can attest to this over many occasions. There are those who make history who often exhibit some degree of pride and the hunger for power. I am not saying that they are right, but you have to give them some credit…I mean, they did ‘make history’ after all. History is usually made by people who aren't necessarily well-behaved…for good or for bad. Mainly I believe this because I tend to have a pretty strong notion of right and wrong, but I try my best to be polite and open-minded.
Although, it is rather humorous that I’m saying this, because I like to play those medieval battle games where the winner conquers the world and so forth…but I’m applying this to real life here! In real life, I am not very ‘ambitious’, except when it comes to school I guess. But anyway, back to the topic.

Pride, and by this I mean that kind of stern staunchness that we see exhibited in a lot of leaders throughout history isn’t really bad at all, in fact, I find it admirable to be this way. I mean those kinds of people like William Wallace or Joan of Arc. People who fought for the freedom of their people instead of trying to gain land or whatever.

Boromir would have fit into this category, but his words at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring make me doubtful of his true intentions. He says he wants to save Gondor. He wants to lead Gondor to victory over Mordor. But he is completely absorbed, it seems, in the power that the Ring supposedly will give him. Boromir’s mind is one-tracked, he cannot see any other way. It is wiser to follow Elrond and Gandalf’s advice, they know the Ring better than he does, yet Boromir is so consumed with what the Ring will do for him.

And yet, we still need to understand where Boromir is coming from. He has seen the destruction of his homeland, the desolation and death. Who wouldn’t be desperate? Yes but…I still can’t completely condone his attitude. Aragorn and the rest of the fellowship were desperate too. Gandalf had a heavy burden for Middle-earth, perhaps it was even greater than Boromir’s burden for Gondor. Yet Gandalf realised that the Ring had to be destroyed, not used at all. Argh. I feel as if I’ve just repeated myself from my other posts. I think it’s rather obvious what my thinking is, so I’ll try to be less verbose in the future…

I think it’s interesting how you brought up Boromir as a foil character. Do you mean a foil to Aragorn, Faramir…? I am interested if you would expand on this.

I do know what you mean about debates. I’ve been on some forums where it seems every other topic is some sort of debate. I don’t like debate. I do not like to be closed to another’s opinion. I do enjoy a good discussion, though, and this is no exception. It gives me something to think about throughout the day.