Representing Men?

[Nimrodel_9]

In the Fellowship we know that each person stood for one race. ex. Legolas for the Elves. So who stood for men, Aragorn or Boromir? I know, this sounds dumb, but really, who was it?
I would say it was Boromir. He lived in Gondor, was around men every day, and he was to be the next ruler. Aragorn (though he was Isildur`s heir) was not in the presence of men everyday, and had not been to Gondor for quite some time.
Since the Dunedain are sort of another race of men, and Aragorn is their chief, I think that Aragorn would represent the Rangers instead of men. Did any of that make sense?
What are you thoughts?

[Encaitare]

I would say that Boromir does represent the race of Men, not only because of the fact that he is of Minas Tirith, but because of his personality as well. Men are supposed to be weak and easily seduced by power, and Boromir's eventual corruption seems to represent this. However, he shows the strength and bravery of Men as well.

Aragorn, as a descendant of Numenor, would represent the lost -- or failing, if you like -- glory of Men, I think. He is like the quintessential Man, since he is intelligent, just, and courageous. He, unlike most, has the ability to resist the Ring. He's living proof that Men used to be greater and stronger, and can be once more if only he can lead them.

[Snowdog]

I would say both Boromir and Aragorn represented men. It shows the duality of men, in failing, and in persevering to glory.

[rutslegolas]

I agree with Encaitare ,Boromir as a man of Gondor surely represented men and he showed the psycology of race - hungry for power ,getting ensnared by evil and so on .

But Aragorn was one of the people of Numenor ,the faithful.I can say that they were a different race all-together.

( Yes !! My 400th post ).

[Neferchoirwen]

It's a dynamic representation. I thought at first, that Aragorn is "the Man," if you will. But the problem with Aragorn is that he raised as an elf, and his identity as a Ranger removes him from the royalty that rules the whole race of men. Which means that he isn't really ready to come to terms with his fate. (Him being a little edgy about being the heir if Isildur and all that)

Boromir is the Man of the Moment, the moment being the Fellowship. He was the right representative for men at the time because he was ready to face the leadership supposedly passed down from his father. He had an agenda in mind, and it was all for the good of his people. Obviously, his agenda isn't the most ideal one, if not unrealistic (giving him the Ring wouldn't really turn out as he had in mind, would it?). Boromir, however new and refreshing his leadership will be, will pressumably under the power of the Ring.

Aragorn, on the other hand, although reluctant he seemed to be about taking on the role of King (in the films, at least), turned out to rule middle earth under a new paradigm sans the Ring, and evil altogether.

So in the story that circles around who represents Men involves a dynamic change: Boromir as the outgoing old, and Aragorn as the incoming new.

Congratulations on your 400th post, rutslegolas ! I'm nearing my 500th.

(edit: at this post, for the record, my posts totaled at 496!)

[davem]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

Men are supposed to be weak and easily seduced by power

No they aren't. Tolkien doesn't stereotype whole races in that way (apart from 'monsters', of course).

You need to avoid silly, over simplistic movies by bad writers

[Child of the 7th Age]

There is a wholly different way to look at this problem, but I think it is one that sheds light and underlines the difficulty of trying to put a simple reading on a question like this. Somewhere in the Letters (I do not have the quote at my fingertips but I have personally read it several times), Tolkien explicitly states that each of the races of Middle-earth were intended to reflect different aspects of humanity: different characteristics that man possesses but which the author then represents in a more explicit or extreme fashion via a particular race.

In this sense, we are all Elves or Hobbits or Dwarves. For example, Man has the capacity to be a creator or to cling to his past and try to keep things from changing. He also has the ability to appreciate the smaller things of life: to enjoy being with family, relishing a good meal, or nurturing growing things. In that sense, not only do characters like Boromir or Aragorn reflect our human nature and destiny, but so too do Gimli and Sam and Elrond. Why else do we respond to the characters as we do? How often when we read about a supposedly non-human character do we instinctively feel that we know and understand that individual perhaps as well or even better than the other "human" characters in Lord of the Rings?

Certainly, the Hobbits and the Shire have always represented for me a great deal of what I realistically understand about human nature. With his struggle to grow beyond what he is, his innate loyalty coupled with a definite parochialism, Samwise has always seemed to embody many of the possibilities that lie in the soul of mankind. And I would say the same about Saruman. We certainly have too many Sarumans running around today, using their silver tongues to promise us things that simply aren't true and, driven by a desire to succeed, wholly disregard the needs of the earth.

In that sense it is wholly impossible to point to a "representative man" in Lord of the Rings, or to say which character best embodies the nature or fate of humanity. All of the characters exhibit characteristics, bad and good, that we possess within our own souls. Saruman and Sam have as much to teach us about who we are as those characters officially identified as "Men".

The closest I could come to answering your question is to point to the character with whom Tolkien identified most closely: that of Faramir. Again in the Letters, Tolkien states that it is Faramir who most nearly mirrors his own personality, his likes and dislikes. It was for this reason that he gave Faramir the dream about the drowning of Atlanta (aka Numenor), which both he and his own son Michael shared. And it is perhaps not surprising that the character of Faramir was never planned, but was one of those who came popping out of his head without premeditation.

In the end there can be no one character that embodies humanity. Each of them share a tiny piece of who we are and what could happen to us. We could populate our earth with Sarumans, Orcs, or even "fallen" Boromirs, or we could develop into Samwise or Aragorn: the choice is up to us.

[Bêthberry]

Oh, I think it was Eowyn who stood for men. Ah, but wait; she wasn't in the Fellowship. Pity.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Child that is a wonderful point, and one that we should all keep in mind. Tolkien's characters have always seemed to me to be somewhat 'flat' -- none of them really express a kind of psychological complexity or ambiguous reality of most contemporary fiction (or of, say, Shakespearean drama). But of course Tolkien was not attempting any such form of story telling. To look for a single character/single attribution (that is. Boromir=Men) is to begin moving into allegory.

Tolkien always works in terms of pairs and relationships, so much so that his characters begin to take on the emblematic status that Child is suggesting. But where I get curious is about the mimetic intent of this 'corporate' kind of characterisation. By that wordy mouthful I mean: the sum total of the characters in the book 'add up' to a total picture of humanity. But can we look at this another way? Is it not also possible that the characters add up to a picture not of people, but of a person? Not a specific individual, but a picture of the individual mind?

But I guess it could all be part of a single individual: the members of the Fellowship, and others (Eowyn and Faramir) are little 'bits' of Tolkien?

So we have some possibilities here:

1) the characters are a corporate/group/fragmented/split representation of people; of human nature

2) they are a representation of the individual human mind/spirit

3) they are a representation of Tolkien

4) they are a representation of human society.

I rather suspect that all of these things are going on all the time. The point is that while the characters are rather flat, and the moral dilemmas are rather simple, the relations between them are infinitely complex and it is that complexity in which we find the most accurate representation of our own primary world.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Tolkien's characters have always seemed to me to be somewhat 'flat' -- none of them really express a kind of psychological complexity or ambiguous reality of most contemporary fiction (or of, say, Shakespearean drama).

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but I've recently been searching for an old post of Squatter's on this very question of pyschological depth, because he makes a valuable point about Gimli & Legolas' conversation on leaving Lorien, which I wanted to refer to in the Chapter-by-Chapter thread. Its so enlightening that some of you might want to read it now:
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...&postcount=127

[The Saucepan Man]

That's one of the few threads that I started that ever went anywhere, so I feel duty-bound to give the full link (it being relevant to the question of whether Tolkien's characters are flat 'n all):

Psychological depth in Tolkien's characters

[Nimrodel_9]

I was reading in The Fellowship of the Ring today, and I came upon this:

For men you shall have Aragorn son of Arathorn, for the Ring of Isildur concerns him closely.

..............

"I would have begged for you to come," said Frodo, "only I thought you were going to Minas Tirith with Boromir." "I am," said Aragorn, "And the Sword-that-was-Broken will be re-forged ere I set out to war. But your road and my road lie together for many hundreds of miles. Therefore Boromir will also be in the Company. He is a valiant man.

So, if you decipher from that...

I liked my other theory better.

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by davem

No they aren't. Tolkien doesn't stereotype whole races in that way (apart from 'monsters', of course).

You need to avoid silly, over simplistic movies by bad writers

Goodness me, I stand competely and utterly corrected. PJ, get out of my head!

[A_Brandybuck]

Beside the point, that the Fellowship is a picture of the whole humanity, I have another theory.

There is not the classification, where one character represents one race. This isn't possible, because of two Men and four Hobbits. When we see from another point of view, Hobbits could be classifed as Men, because they are a branch of Men. Consequently six Men, one Dwarf, one Elf and one Istari as the leader.
This fellowship represents in a way the actual status of the free peoples of Middle-earth. The time of Men has come, the Elves have not more than one in the Fellowship and this one isn't one of the Noldor. The Dwarves have also only one ambassador, but the Dwarves are more interesting in their own concerns than in the concerns of Middle-earth.
The leader is an Istari, who came over sea to help and motivate the free peoples of Middle-earth, which are probably represented by the Fellowship, which he lead. The Istari haven't come to make war against Sauron, they wanted to increase the will to fight against Sauron in the hearts of the peoples. Do it yourself would be a sloppy formulation.

Exactly this happens after Gandalf was gone (or fallen). A Man took over the leadership, not an Dwarf or an Elf. (An Elf could be the first choice in former times) A

That is what I think about the representation of the Fellowship. I hope that isn't too much skurrile or too far away.

[Formendacil]

Actually, I don't think that either Boromir or Aragorn was specifically chosen to represent Men. As it happened, both were going on the journey for other reasons. Namely, Boromir was going home, and Aragorn was going with him to reveal himself.

They were obvious choices for the Fellowship, so Elrond and Gandalf made them members. It was probably only later, when looking to fill up the round nine that they thought about getting someone from every race. Hence, Legolas and Gimli came along. By now there were seven, since Frodo, Sam, and Gandalf were already signed on. And, as history recalls, Merry and Pippin came along for lack of anyone better.

By the time that tokenship entered Elrond's plans for the Fellowship, Boromir and Aragorn were probably already both members. That's great, Elrond likely thinks. Two races down, two to go. No need to go out and round up a ranger or Bree-man to finish off his little idea.

For men you shall have Aragorn son of Arathorn, for the Ring of Isildur concerns him closely.

If Elrond states that Aragorn is the representative of Men, let's remember that Aragorn IS the rightful King of Gondor and Arnor, and overlord of the West. So just as the Queen of England can be said to represent that state, so too could Aragorn be said to represent Man in any case. Besides, Elrond liked Aragorn better, both as a foster-son, and in light of the fact that he didn't make Ring-grabbing comments at important councils, unlike certain Gondorian captains. It's only to be expected that Elrond would designate Aragorn as "The" representative, if was to designate one at all.

[The Saucepan Man]

Merry and Pippin came along for lack of anyone better

To be fair to them, they insisted on coming along by virtue of their friendship with and loyalty to Frodo. And Gandalf saw that as a good reason for their inclusion.

[Lhunardawen]

Nimrodel_9, are you trying to say that the mere fact that Aragorn was mentioned by Elrond before Boromir goes to show that Aragorn represents Men more than Boromir does?

In line with Formendacil's opinion, were there any other Men present at the Council for Elrond to choose from? There is no other choice, and both Men have something to gain from being included in the Fellowship.

For Boromir's part, aside from having company as he goes home, he could have been chosen to be there to learn a little humility and subordination. Since he is a captain of Gondor and soon-to-be Steward of Minas Tirith, it would do him well to learn how to obey and follow (Gandalf). Maybe in the way, he could develop his servant-leadership - which would be helpful if ever he gets to sit at the Steward's throne.

As for Aragorn, this could also be his training ground for the kingship. Lending his sword to the Fellowship, he learns to protect the hobbits who eventually become close to his heart - which is quite different from how he defends the Northern borders from the Enemy. With the hobbits, there is emotional intimacy involved, which is how his relationship with his future kingdom should be. Eventually he got his hand in deciding for many when Gandalf died.

Both Men were part of the Fellowship for a purpose, and it was no accident that they were in the Council. I believe both of them somehow represented Men as a whole, and their opposing traits show how each Man tends to be.

But if this question is to be asked, should not the Hobbits also be considered? It would not be fair to say that Frodo alone is the representative of The Shire, just because he is the Ringbearer.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

To be fair to them, they insisted on coming along by virtue of their friendship with and loyalty to Frodo. And Gandalf saw that as a good reason for their inclusion.

True enough, but I rather suspect that had there been anyone else around that could have really improved the Fellowship's chances, I think they would have taken that person/people instead. Especially if Elrond was really intent on the NINE Walkers staying at that number. But the point is taken.

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

But if this question is to be asked, should not the Hobbits also be considered? It would not be fair to say that Frodo alone is the representative of The Shire, just because he is the Ringbearer.

Personally, I think it is much the same story. Frodo and Sam are going anyway, so the Hobbits are represented, no problem.

But if you have to say that a specific hobbit is representing his race, I would say Sma rather than Frodo. If you look at Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn and/or Boromir, they are representing their races in the Fellowship as COMPANIONS of the Ringbearer. Since Frodo is the Ringbearer, he cannot be taken as his own companion, hence Sam would seem like a logical choice as "the" representative of hobbit-kind, seeing as how Merry and Pippin were something resembling afterthoughts in the composition of the Fellowship.