Boromir, Gollum and Eowyn

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Boromir, Gollum and Éoywn may seem like an oddball collection of characters but I think that they are linked to one another in some interesting ways:

1) All three of them face despair and, oddly, triumph over it.

2) They all are rather unwitting players in a larger drama that they do not fully understand.

3) They are motivated, if not defined by, desire.

4) Their failures to fulfil their desires are integral parts of the successful completion of the Quest and of Aragorn’s Return.

5) They oppose the wills of the heroes, even try to hinder them, but they are not evil.

6) They have the same ‘place’ or role in the overall structure of the narrative.

OK – so that’s a lot, but please bear with me for a bit as I work through each of these points. I want to do this because I think that Boromir, Gollum and Éowyn each have a very special ‘place’ in the story that bears special attention. They give us an opportunity to tackle some of the very thorniest issues of the tale in ways that we can’t in relation to any other characters.

1) All three of them face despair and, oddly, triumph over it.

Boromir attempts to take the Ring from Frodo as he despairs over the fate of Minas Tirith. He sees no hope for his people, and so the Ring is able to exploit that. Gollum has no hope for himself, rather than for anyone or anything else. Frodo offers Gollum the opportunity to repent a number of times, and he comes close at least once (on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol – if only Sam had slept just a bit longer!), but in the end his despair consumes him and he remains dedicated to the Ring. Éowyn is an interesting composite of the other two. She despairs both for herself (Gollum) and for her land (Boromir). Like Boromir, she fails in her duty and her oaths of loyalty when she goes against her King’s command. Like Gollum, she fails in her spirit when she fails to repent of her despair and turn to hope, even though Aragorn has bid her do so.

But in some way, all three of them do manage to triumph over their despair, if in odd ways. Boromir defends the hobbits at Amon Hen and is killed, but dies in honour, repenting to Aragorn. Éowyn also nearly loses her life in battle with the Witch-King, but her return to hope comes when she falls in love with Faramir – interestingly, Boromir’s brother, who was originally ‘called’ to be in the Fellowship. Gollum becomes the tool of Providence, and falls into the fire, converting the despair of Middle-earth into Hope of the highest order (eucatastrophe).

These three each have a different kind of despair, or their despair has a different ‘direction’ than the others, but they all manage to overcome that. Boromir despairs for others (his city), so it is through his sacrifice to save others that he is redeemed. Éowyn despairs for herself and for others, so it is through her trials with renunciation of (selfish) desire for Aragorn and her acceptance of her new role as the White Lady (for the benefit of others, Faramir included) that she is redeemed of her despair. Gollum’s despair is entirely reserved for himself, and while he never returns to hope, per se, it is his individual destruction and the destruction of the Ring (which has come to replace his own sense of self) that Hope returns to Middle-earth.

2) They all are rather unwitting players in a larger drama that they do not fully understand.

Needless to say, none of them has any kind of apprehension about their role in events like the one I outline above. It’s not enough, however, to say that they are characters in a story and thus cannot know they have a ‘place’ in it, let alone what that place may be – but The Lord of the Rings is a funny story. The heroes in this tale do know that they are in a story – or, rather, a Story – and have at least some sense of what their part is. Aragorn, Gandalf and Frodo are the most ‘aware’: they know what they are to do, what their role is in the overall plan. Even characters as apparently ‘limited’ in their perceptions as Sam, Pippin and Merry know that they have a ‘part’ to play.

Boromir, Gollum and Éowyn are not aware of this at all – in fact, all three of them rail against being put into any particular role or part and want to find their own path, and make their own fate. (In Éowyn’s case there might be a certain sympathy to this desire, but it remains a ‘bad’ choice nonetheless.) It’s this desire to make their own way that, ironically, sets them down the path to despair and incorporates them into the grand Story: their actions, which they undertake for themselves, are integral to the success of the Story. But more on that to follow.

3) They are motivated, if not defined by, desire.

Éowyn for Aragorn and glory. Boromir for renown and glory, and thus for the Ring. Gollum for the Ring. Again they form an interesting pattern of ‘bad’ to ‘worse’, and this pattern is defined by how much the desire is directed away from the self and toward the other. Éowyn’s desire is a selfish one (she wants Aragorn for herself), but she does genuinely love another person; what’s more, at least part of her attraction to Aragorn is born of the conviction (well founded as it turns out) that he can save her people. Boromir is much more selfish; he thinks of his people and of protecting them, but he wants to be the Protector to their grateful Protected. Gollum thinks of nothing and no-one but himself and his desire for the Ring – to the point where the only ‘other’ he considers is simply another aspect of himself (slinker and stinker).

4) Their failures to fulfil their desires are integral parts of the successful completion of the Quest and of Aragorn’s Return.

I’ve already really covered this above, I suppose, but I still see it as a distinct point. Boromir, Éowyn and Gollum are all denied the successful fulfilment of their desires, and these failures are parts of the success of Good. Once more, there is a pattern from ‘bad’ to ‘worse’. Éowyn fails in her desire to have Aragorn for herself, but she transforms that desire of her own will into a desire for a more fitting man. Boromir fails in his desire for personal glory, but because of his self-sacrifice he dies with honour and his memory is redeemed. More significantly, because of his betrayal of the Fellowship at Amon Hen, Frodo and Sam go off alone, which proves to be the only way they could have succeeded, in the end. Gollum actually succeeds in fulfilling his desire for the Ring, but thank goodness because it is destroyed in this manner.

5) They oppose the wills of the heroes, even try to hinder them, but they are not evil.

This is probably the most important point about them. They are the story’s only truly flawed characters who undergo some process of redemption transformation. It is why they are the most interesting characters in some ways. They do evil things (even Éowyn, who breaks her oath to her King) but they are not evil. They are, in fact, good, but mistaken in their actions and desires.

6) They have the same ‘place’ or role in the overall structure of the narrative.

The oddest part of what I am outlining here: I see Éowyn and Gollum as taking Boromir’s place in the Fellowship. When Frodo and Sam go into Mordor on their own, they are accompanied by someone who, like Boromir, wants the Ring for himself and eventually attempts to take it. Boromir is Aragorn’s foil before Amon Hen, and Gollum is Frodo’s foil after it. Both initially take on a care-taking role for the hobbits (remember Boromir on Caradhras?) but eventually come to meditate harm on the hobbits. So far as Éowyn is concerned, she accepts responsibility for the care of at least one of the hobbits (Merry) who has been saved by Boromir, and she ends up marrying Boromir’s brother. Most significantly, however, she becomes Aragorn’s foil for the latter half of the tale. Boromir was presented with the challenge of Aragorn: accept him and love him and place his hope upon him. He failed in this challenge, and it is Éowyn who next takes it up. She very nearly fails in the challenge by loving him in the wrong way, but unlike Boromir she is able to overcome her selfish desires and redeem herself. Boromir and Éowyn both present options or reflections to Aragorn himself, however. Boromir reflects that part of Aragorn that wishes to proceed directly to Minas Tirith and claim the Throne, the Quest to Mordor be darned. Éowyn presents to him the option of an immediate gratification for a desire that to him must seem faint and fading fast – marriage with a beautiful and honourable princess. Again they together chart out the difference between other and self: Aragorn must overcome his Boromir-desire to protect his people and his throne at the expense of everyone else, and he must overcome his Éowyn-desire for a selfish relationship.

In the end, it is Éowyn and Gollum who redeem Boromir’s failure of his duty at Amon Hen. Gollum, like Boromir, tries to take the Ring, but this completes the Quest. Éowyn, like Boromir, rides out to battle in despair and for personal glory, but she manages to kill the Witch-King and – most importantly – she learns from this experience where her true duty lies: that is, she transmutes the love she feels for Aragorn from a personal affection to a dutiful one.

* * *

All right, so why I am going on and on about all this? Partly to get something off my chest (our out of my breosthord) that has been there a long time, but also because I think that these three characters, when we look at them together, have an awful lot to offer to our understanding of the extraordinarily thorny issues around free will, good and evil, desire and sacrifice, that are explored elsewhere in the story through relatively ‘simple’ forms of opposition. For example, in the contest between Good and Evil we have Aragorn versus Sauron. In the contest between Selfishness and Selflessness we have the Ring and Frodo. In Hope and Despair, there’s Gandalf and Saruman/Denethor. But Boromir, Gollum Éowyn we have all of these issues being played out in and with individual characters. So:

1) Good and evil: how do these three characters show us the difference between good and evil? What is evil about what they want and/or do, and how is it that good triumphs?

2) Free will: all three of them act selfishly, but all three of them end up promoting the Story – is there free will here? Are they making choices that are becoming incorporated into an evolving Story, or are they unwittingly playing parts that have been scripted for them?

3) Despair: do they all despair in the same way, or for the same thing? Why are their fates so different if they are all giving way to despair? Why do they not have hope to begin?

4) Other smart ideas I’ve not had yet: undoubtedly the most significant part of what I hope will be an intriguing discussion!

[Boromir88]

Right now I'm pressed for time, and too much thinking going on sadly, but here's what I've thought of...

What are the reasons behind Eowyn's despair? I would have to say Grima. She can't do anything about her beloved Uncle's Kingdom who's slipping away, and on the verge of being over run, she probably knows who is behind it (Grima), just can't do anything about it. Eomer definately knows who is behind it, but when he tries something, he's hauled off to jail. Also, I think Tolkien leaves us with this uneasy feeling about Grima and Eowyn. In the movie it's Eomer who says these lines, but in this case Gandalf....

"Down on your belly! How long is it since Saruman bought you? What was the promised price? When all the men were dead, you were to pick your share of the treasure, and take the woman you desire? Too long have you watched her under your eyelids and haunted her steps."
Eomer grasped his sword. "That I knew already," he muttered. "For that reason I would have slain him before, forgetting the law of the hall. But there are other reasons." He stepped forward, but Gandalf stayed him with his hand.
"Eowyn is safe now," he said.

So we get this vibe that something's happened with Eowyn and Grima. Which could be the reason for her despair.

[Mithalwen]

Is there any significance in that these three characters never meet (as far as we know- obviously it is not impossible that the paths of the "first lady" of Rohan and the heir to the steward of Gondor might have crossed. Indeed had Boromir not devoted himself to warfare, and if Rohan and Gondor followed the practice common amongst European royalty until even the last generations, it would have been a highly suitable dynastic match. However that devotion to warfare and skill in arms and the rejection of family life is a shared characteristic of Boromir and Eowyn. It is one of those neat little twists that the hobbits who Boromir dies saving facilitate the survival of Faramir and Eowyn. Little Hobbit cupids bringing them together at the houses of healing - don't forget that Merry fills Faramir in of Eowyn's sadness! If I remember the early drafts rightly, Tolkien originally thought that Eowyn would die ... it may be a fancy ( and I have a well known fondness for Faramir!) but I wonder if one of the reasons that Faramir wandered from the woods of Ithilien and in to the plot to Tolkien's own surprise, was to (in a sense) provide a kind of "cleansed" reincarnation of Boromir . They are some of the most interesting characters because they are psychologically in complex and perhaps more realistic than the more consistently noble characters who disregard their own feelings with regard to the greater good.

I feel it is harsh to single out Eowyn's action as evil - Faramir and Eomer also break the rules crucially for the plot.

All three are slightly lonely figures striving for something beyond their reach. Eowyn is a women alone among men - no mother, sister, aunts to provide role models. I have argued elsewhere that her upbringing might have predisposed her to avoid a traditional female role and the same might also be argued of Boromir - much is said in the few lines that tell the story of Denethor and Finduilas. And when Boromir arrives at Rivendell he has travelled far and alone - it is not surpising he too seems defined by his pride. Used to being revered in his own land he arrives at Imladris almost as a beggar at the gates to a place where even his noble line is relatively lowly; little surprise that he sounds his horn as he leaves refusing to go forth as a thief in the night. Little of course is known of Gollum's background but he is more alone than anyone.

I would also make a point about education - if they do not fully understand the story this must surely have a role. Faramir has learnt enough from the archive of Minas Tirith and Gandalf to get the bigger picture whereas Boromir regard sthe ring as a weapon - such is his training and inclination. Gollum is a relatively primitive creature - a true victim of circumstance if he could never have been expected to resist the lure of the ring (btw a typo just made me realise that rule and lure are anagrams ...) . Eowyn, well I see her a little as a force of nature. She is often described as a flower - a lily tocuched by frost.... she is not a barbarian, if anything she aspire to a higher civilisation than the one she was born into but she still feels trapped by convention. Oh dear ... anopther stream of consciouness ramble and the essence of what I am trying to say escapes me ... but I there may be a few things that people may choose to run with!

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Right now I'm pressed for time, and too much thinking going on sadly, but here's what I've thought of...

What are the reasons behind Eowyn's despair? I would have to say Grima. She can't do anything about her beloved Uncle's Kingdom who's slipping away, and on the verge of being over run, she probably knows who is behind it (Grima), just can't do anything about it. Eomer definately knows who is behind it, but when he tries something, he's hauled off to jail. Also, I think Tolkien leaves us with this uneasy feeling about Grima and Eowyn. In the movie it's Eomer who says these lines, but in this case Gandalf....

So we get this vibe that something's happened with Eowyn and Grima. Which could be the reason for her despair.

I think there is something else Gandalf says about Grima having words not just for Theoden - the "What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn ......" bit. Again, I have speculated elsewhere that another possible reason for Eowyn's rejection of marriage is she feared that Grima would be the likely groom. I doubt anything actually happened beyond Eowyn being aware of this being a likely fate and having the sleazoid creep watch her every move....

[The Saucepan Man]

Great topic, Fordim, and a fascinating analysis.

Unfortunately, I have no time now save to make a few passing comments.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

They are some of the most interesting characters because they are psychologically in complex and perhaps more realistic than the more consistently noble characters who disregard their own feelings with regard to the greater good.

I heartily agree with this, and it was a point that became clear to me during the discussion on the Psychological Depth thread. Together with Denethor, they are the most psychologically complex characters in the book, and it seems to me, therefore, that it is natural that they should be grouped together in an analysis such as this. Is there a place for Denethor too here, I wonder? Probably not, despite his psychological complexity:

1. Although he certainly despairs, he does not triumph.
2. He is not an unwitting player and is more aware of his "part in the Story" than many others - hence, in many ways, his despair.
3. Desire did not play a great role in his actions, save perhaps the desire to preserve his position.
4. His failure to achieve his ends does allow the Return of the King unopposed.
5. He certainly opposes the will of the "heroes".
6. But he occupies a different place in the structure of the narrative than the three subjects of this thread.

So there are some parallels, but they are not borne fully out. Nevertheless, I feel that Denethor does have some place in this discussion, as Boromir's father, if for no other reason. Alas, no time to develop this further.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

It is one of those neat little twists that the hobbits who Boromir dies saving facilitate the survival of Faramir and Eowyn. Little Hobbit cupids bringing them together at thehouses of healing

Good point. Merry and Pippin do form a link between Boromir and Eowyn/Faramir, although their connection with Gollum is less clear ...

One final thought. Eowyn can be distinguished from the other two, it seems to me, on one analysis. The selfish and disobedient actions of Boromir and Gollum (ie going against their oaths and attempting to seize the Ring) are unambiguously portrayed as "wrong", even though they have (unintended) fortuitous consequences. On the other hand, Eowyn's selfish and disobedient act (disobeying her King's orders) has an intentionally fortuitous consequence - she kills the Witch King and saves her King from a grisly end. Admittedly, she did not set out to kill the Witch King, but she did set out to do battle. The consequences of her acts are more within the scope of that which she intended to achieve. Accordingly, her "wrongful" act seems, to me at least, to be of a different character - less unambiguously "wrong" than the acts of Boromir and Gollum.

Sorry, my disordered and incomplete thoughts are the result of haste. I will return ...

[Boromir88]

I think some other connections between the three, are their parents. Eowyn's parents died, Boromir's parents died (yes his father died after him, but he died). With Gollum, his own family kicked him out.

In Boromir's case, a reason for his glory lust, and valour, could be Denethor. Denethor saw Boromir as Gondor's only hope left, and put a lot of pressure on him. Eager to please his father, and to see Gondor victorious, he feels the only way to do that is through the Ring.

Eowyn's parents died at a very young age, Boromir's mom died when he was young, his father was a good strategist, but a bad parent, and Gollum, as mentioned was shunned by his own family. So, none of them have this strong relation with their parents.

I'm not sure about Gollum, but in Boromir and Eowyn's case they have people to help them out. With Boromir, it's Faramir, who he's always looking after, and as it states in the appendix, despite the father's favortism they rarely fought. Eowyn has Theoden she's looking after, and Eomer is looking after her. I'm not sure where Gollum fits in, because he really doesn't have anyone, except the Ring.

This is just some of the my thoughts, with the three characters parents, it could quite honestly lead to no where.

[mark12_30]

Wonderful stuff.

However:

5) They oppose the wills of the heroes, even try to hinder them, but they are not evil.

This is probably the most important point about them. They are the story’s only truly flawed characters who undergo some process of redemption transformation. It is why they are the most interesting characters in some ways. They do evil things (even Éowyn, who breaks her oath to her King) but they are not evil. They are, in fact, good, but mistaken in their actions and desires.

I think it's a stretch to say that Gollum isn't evil.

"Nothing is evil in the beginning-- even Sauron was not so." I would say the same thing about Smeagol. The fellow had every intention of eating Bilbo; um, ex-hobbit eats hobbit, that's cannibalism. In Mirkwood there was the rumor of some evil creature that drank blood and made small children disappear. We know that while still in the caves, when he tired of fissssh he ate goblins. (Aside: "And they don't taste very good, does they, precioussss?" Great line.)

Who else has he eaten?

Sam's fear that Smeagol would strangle them in their sleep was not an unfounded one. If the Ring hadn't had a still stronger hold on Smeagol than hunger, Frodo and Sam would have been lunch.

IMO this makes Smeagol's near repentance that much more profound and amazing. We're not looking at the repentance of someone who's been caught stealing cookies. ONe would guess that five centuries of cannibalistic murder produces a tremendous hardening of the heart and soul. Frodo's persistent love and mercy and kindness and compassion actually whittled through THAT kind of hardening. It's like pondering, for the sake of argument, the repentance of one of the ringwraiths-- hard to imagine, and I doubt Tolkien would go for it; but Smeagol's repentance is somewhat like that. The odds against it are seemingly insurmountable, and if Sam hadn't seen it with his own hasty eyes, would you believe it?

Compared to that, the repentance of Boromir and Eowyn is in a different league.

I don't think that hurts your arguments all that much, Fordie, except for the part that "the three of them aren't evil". Two aren't, and the third wasn't evil in the beginning-- that works for me.

[Mithalwen]

It occurs, remembering that lovely scene when Faramir has given his mother's mantle that she is filling various voids in his life - it could be a bit creepy but it could be seen more positively in that they are everything to each other * sleps self before getting too gooey thinking about Faramir and Eowyn... * :P

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Some very interesting initial responses – and much, as I predicted, that I had not considered.

Sauce: I don’t think that Denethor ‘belongs’ in this grouping of characters for the reasons you outline, but I agree that he is definitely important to the discussion. I think of all the characters in the story he is the one who most obviously, or most fully, gives way to despair. Saruman also gives up all hope of defeating Sauron, but he is motivated by his desire to replace him as well. Gollum, Boromir and Éowyn all give in to despair, but they never really give up. Denethor’s ‘madness’ is really not psychological or even emotional, but spiritual. He has been tricked by Sauron into believing that hope is impossible. In this way he stands as an important foil to the GBE triad (and I can already see how I’m going to regret putting it that way…). He is the unredeemed version of despair, and the result of this is that he seeks to destroy himself and others (Faramir directly, and Minas Tirith indirectly, through inaction).

Mithalwen: I can readily appreciate your resistance to my proposition that Éowyn does evil, but I really do think that it is important to recognise that she has done evil. You cite Faramir and Éomer as also doing evil in that they go against their fathers/Kings, but these are decidedly different. Unlike Éowyn they take counsel on their actions and do what they think is best for everyone involved; more importantly, they are forced into these positions by having fathers/parents who are no longer in their right minds. When Éowyn goes against Theoden and Aragorn, the former has been healed and the latter is, well, Aragorn! She also breaks her duty to them both entirely on her own. Yes, her motivations might be noble and even rewarded, but she’s an oath-breaker – like them fellows in that there mountain!

Mark: I also would resist the absolute characterisation of Gollum as evil, if by that you mean he is beyond all hope of redemption, untouchable and untouched by the good. There are a number of times in his journeys with Frodo that we see him very much moved by and toward the good, and the possibility of penance is there for him all along. Yes, he has done appalling things – evil things – but he is not evil in the way that Sauron or Melkor or Shelob are evil.

These questions that Mark and Mith rather demonstrate what I think makes these three characters so very interesting insofar as there’s not going to be much debate about whether Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, Gandalf, Merry, Pippin, Legolas, Gimli (and on and on and on) are good or if Sauron, Saruman, Grima, Shelob (and on and on and on) are evil – but with Boromir, Éowyn and Gollum (BEG?) there is a discussion possible. They are good people, who do evil things, but these evil things in the end are in the service of good. It gets even more complicated: they are good people who are doing what they think are good things, but which are evil anyway, despite their intentions or how sympathetic we might feel toward them. I find it interesting that so far we’ve had people come forward in defence of Éowyn and in condemnation of Gollum, but so far no-one has weighed in on Boromir – is this the result of G and E being far more sympathetic characters, insofar as they are more pathetic and vulnerable, victims even, whereas Boromir is a mighty warrior who ‘brings it on himself’ or is even ‘asking for it’?

B88: you (quite wonderfully) write that:

I'm not sure about Gollum, but in Boromir and Eowyn's case they have people to help them out. With Boromir, it's Faramir, who he's always looking after, and as it states in the appendix, despite the father's favortism they rarely fought. Eowyn has Theoden she's looking after, and Eomer is looking after her. I'm not sure where Gollum fits in, because he really doesn't have anyone, except the Ring.

I had not considered this in the slightest, but I think it’s brilliant. Gollum very much has a ‘place’ in here, too insofar as he looks after Frodo and is looked after by Frodo on their journey. Their bond is an odd one, and an adversarial one, but it is one that is as emotionally charged as the one between Sam and Frodo. There are many ways in which Frodo and Gollum understand one another better than any else could ever understand them: who but they know the full torment of bearing the Ring? What’s interesting to me is how each of the three (GEB?) is redeemed by the person they care for: Éowyn saves Theoden after breaking her duty to him; Faramir succeeds in letting the Ring go where Boromir failed; Gollum gets the Ring into the Fire because Frodo has let him live.

And this matter of parents that you raise is also interesting, particularly in reference to the mothers: Faramir is much more like his mother than his father, Gollum was kicked out of his society by his grandmother (whom Gandalf singles out as “a mighty person” in her own right), Éowyn is a woman utterly isolated in a world of men to the point where her own mother is entirely non-existent in the tale. Her own redemption takes the form, in part at least, of her willing adoption of a motherly role for herself. Not really sure where to go with this, but it’s interesting…

[Lalwendë]

There is something within Eowyn which I think would stop me from ever calling her actions in any way evil. She does abandon her command and go off to war in disguise, but this in itself is not as evil as actions of many many other characters. Presuming she goes to war in order to find some way to assuage her love for Aragorn, her actions are not unusual. Legolas says of Aragorn's devoted followers:

all those who come to know him come to love him after their own fashion, even the cold maiden of the Rohirrim.

This perhaps says more about Aragron and the kind of devotion he engenders than Eowyn's 'love'; he may have this effect on many more people. We do not know if Aragron meets any other young women trained to the sword, but I feel that if he did, then they too would feel the same 'love' that Eowyn feels. It is a high-minded, admiring love rather than the love for any kind of soul-mate. Faramir describes the love she has felt for him thus:

You desired to have the love of the Lord Aragorn. Because he was high and puissant, and you wished to have renown and glory and to be lifted far above the mean things that crawl on the earth. And as a great captain may to a young soldier he seemed to you admirable. For so he is, a lord among men, the greatest that now is. But when he gave you only understanding and pity, then you desired to have nothing, unless a brave death in battle.

It seems that Aragorn is well aware of the nature of Eowyn's 'love' for him. He is not altogether comfortable with it, but he he knows that this love she has is born of desperation, coming from the days when she is unloved and threatened by Grima, trapped with an elderly uncle, and in a household filled with tough fighting men. He sees that Eowyn sees him as a leader as much as a love interest:

For she is a fair maiden, fairest lady of a house of queens. And yet I know not how I should speak of her. When I first looked on her and perceived her unhappiness, it seemed to me that I saw a white flower standing straight and proud, shapely as a lily, and yet knew that it was hard, as if wrought by elf-wrights out of steel. Or was it, maybe, a frost that had turned its sap to ice, and so it stood, bitter-sweet, still fair to see, but stricken, soon to fall and die? Her malady begins far back before this day, does it not, Eomer?'

Aragorn does try to stay Eowyn, and keep her from an awful fate. Has he had this situation before? He also gives her a lecture on her dereliction of duty if she leaves Meduseld unattended; in so many words, he says that this would be an evil act. But then contrast this with the effect that Faramir has on her:

'I would have you command this Warden, and bid him let me go,' she said; but though her words were still proud, her heart faltered, and for the first time she doubted herself. She guessed that this tall man, both stern and gentle, might think her merely wayward, like a child that has not the firmness of mind to go on with a dull task to the end.

With this man, she is prepared to listen and he even seems to have the effect on her that she ought to behave better in some way. He has some kind of control over her, though not of misplaced power. Does this show how she did not really love Aragorn? That he could not command her, but Faramir clearly can. Faramir can see that she has been besotted with Aragorn, partly due to his leadership qualities; he can see that she has been inspired by him. While with Faramir, she finds real love. The following scene between Eowyn and Faramir is quite beautiful (it also describes the tension on the edge of the cracks of doom) as it describes how time does indeed seem to stop and the world almost disappears when we fall in love:

And they said no more; and it seemed to them as they stood upon the wall that the wind died, and the light failed, and the Sun was bleared, and all sounds in the City or in the lands about were hushed: neither wind, nor voice, nor bird-call, nor rustle of leaf, nor their own breath could be heard; the very beating of their hearts was stilled. Time halted.

And as they stood so, their hands met and clasped, though they did not know it.

I cannot think that Eowyn was evil in any way for going AWOL. She was driven by something desperate, not entirely of Aragorn's making. And she saw in him some kind of freedom offered, or another way of life better than being nurse maid to an old man. Yet then she is rewarded by a rare thing, finding instinctive, real love with Faramir. That can't surely be a reward for an evil person? Or can it be? I think Eowyn was definitely in despair - for much more than her 'crush' on Aragorn, but as for whether she is acting out of free will, I'm not sure. She seems to do much on an instinctive level, from falling for Aragorn to making the decision to abandon her post and ride to war. In fact, she does not seem to act of free will until she falls in love with Faramir and suddenly is then hit by the fact as though she has woken from a nightmare:

Then the heart of Eowyn changed, or else at last she understood it. And suddenly her winter passed, and the sun shone on her.

[Boromir88]

I find it interesting that so far we’ve had people come forward in defence of Éowyn and in condemnation of Gollum, but so far no-one has weighed in on Boromir – is this the result of G and E being far more sympathetic characters

I'm always sympathetic to Boromir, but I thought most people had seen my rantings about him already. I'll gladly jump to Boromir's defense if one wishes it .

As for another comment...

As Fordhim says, none of them are downright "evil," compared to Sauron and Saruman, they are good at heart, they just make bad decisions. Could this also be connected with eachother's places in the story? For all these characters seem out of place, at least at some part (if not through the whole story).

Boromir- He's out of place in Lorien, and very well could be out of place in the fellowship. He cares not for lore, and history, but battle, so the only time he fits in "place," is during chances of fighting (Moria, Gondor, Amon Hen...etc). However, when it comes to other occasions, like deciding where the Fellowship goes, or Lorien, he is out of place.

Eowyn- being amongst men practically her whole life. And even when she disguises herself as Dernhelm she is out of place. As far as we know the only ones that know she is actually is Eowyn, that set out from Dunharrow, are Elfhelm and Merry.

Gollum- Once he took the Ring he was out of place amongst his family members. Shunned upon and cast out.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

These questions that Mark and Mith rather demonstrate what I think makes these three characters so very interesting insofar as there’s not going to be much debate about whether Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, Gandalf, Merry, Pippin, Legolas, Gimli (and on and on and on) are good or if Sauron, Saruman, Grima, Shelob (and on and on and on) are evil – but with Boromir, Éowyn and Gollum (BEG?) there is a discussion possible.

That's it! You have put your finger on it! That's what makes me think that Denethor belongs in this discussion. As you say, there is much scope for discussion in connection with the motives and actions of Boromir, Eowyn and Gollum because (unlike the other central characters) they are neither entirely good nor entirely evil. And this applies to Denethor too. He was once a great and noble Steward and he has served Gondor with distinction. Even at the time of the War of the Ring, despite his despair, he retains his dignity, powerful intellect and strategic nouse (no, we are not talking about the villain of the films here ). He is never entirely evil (in the Sauron/Saruman/Shelob sense), yet his final act is an evil one - and one which goes unredeemed. He kills himself (presumably a sin, according to Tolkien's beliefs) and tries to take his one remaining son with him (a sin in anyone's book). And he achieves nothing by doing so, save to ease Aragorn's ascent to the throne - hardly a consequence which redeems his final act.

Denethor’s ‘madness’ is really not psychological or even emotional, but spiritual. He has been tricked by Sauron into believing that hope is impossible.

Actually, I believe that his madness comprises all three. The emotional, and therefore psychological, element is present in the heightening of his despair with the loss of his beloved firstborn and the belief that he has lost his remaining son too. And Sauron's trickery could only work on him by virtue of the emotional (as well as dutiful) love that he felt for his country. Seeing its fall as inevitable works emotionally and psychologically on his mind. So, his ambiguity - in terms of good v evil - may be discussed on all three levels.

But, ultimately, I believe that you are right when you say:

In this way he stands as an important foil to the GBE triad

He is similar to them in his psychological/spiritual complexity, yet he goes unredeemed. Why is this? What did he do that was so wrong that he doesn't deserve redemption (in life at least)? Is it perhaps that he is brought down directly by Sauron rather than indirectly (through the Ring or, in Eowyn's case, the circumstances of her country and her unrequited love for Aragorn)? Surely that is rather unfair on him since, of them all, he had the least chance, being directly in contention with the Dark Lord's will. And, as I have suggested, his despair was heavily influenced by the loss of his sons and the inevitable (as he saw it) loss of the realm for which he was responsible, factors played upon by a power far greater than him. Surely, viewed in these terms, his madness is at least understandable, and possibly excusable.

[davem]

Jumping in here....

I'm interested in what SpM has said about Denethor:

What did he do that was so wrong that he doesn't deserve redemption (in life at least)?

Is there redemption for Denethor after death? And then there's the question as to whether Gollum is truly evil. In Middle earth there is no 'Hell'. No-one goes (as far as we're told) to any place worse than Mandos. Sauron, Saruman & the Lord of the Nazgul seem simply to dissipate into nothingness, rather than be dragged off to eternal damnation. Each individual's fate (self inflicted or otherwise) seems to play itself out within Middle earth.

I'm uncomfortable with labeling any of the characters as Evil, because accepting Tolkien's statements that 'nothing is evil in the beginning', that evil is merely a perversion of the Good, we really have originally innocent, individuals who have made a series of increasingly bad choices, & become locked into a certain mindset.

From this point of view, any decision to act against what the individual knows to be the Good is an evil act. Any such choice puts that individual on the road that leads to becoming a Sauron or Shelob. Some choose evil but pull back & manage (often with some help) to redeem themselves, other's don't.

In other words, no-one in Middle earth is 'evil' per se - ie, evil in their essential nature, because Nothing is evil in its beginning. There is simply an option to remain in the 'light' or move away from it, into the 'darkness' which is not a thing in itself, but an absence of that Light.

Eowyn's confrontation with the Lord of the Nazgul is on one level a confrontation with that 'unlight' which she has been 'dallying' with for most of her adult life. She defeats him not so much because of some ancient prophecy as because she refuses, at the last, to go the whole way & let that unlight swallow her up & consume her. She asserts her Eru given uniqueness - 'You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter.....For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him.'

Smeagol carries his own 'unlight' within him. And in the end he gives in to it & is consumed by it. Does he find redemption after his death? Is there anything left of 'Smeagol' to be redeemed? Aren't such choices made in this life, rather than after death. Are there any in Mandos who have chosen the unlight willingly, chosen it totally, & rejected the Good? Or have they all sacrificed their existence through their choices made in this life?

Rambling thoughts posted too early in the morning.....

[mark12_30]

Let me put it this way.

Would you trust Boromir for an afternoon to guard a child?

I would.

Eowyn?

I would.

Smeagol?

[Thinlómien]

Hey Mark, about your Gollum: He is not evil; he just has an evil fate, I think. Mark, what would you have became like if you had murdered your friend (blinded by uncontrollable lust), you had been kicked out your home and retreated to the mountains, lived many, many years in lonely dark caves. What would you have eaten, if not goblins (and fish)? Stone?
Anyway, I´ll continue. Your dearest thing and only "memento" of the past had bounded itself to your mind and you have became addicted to it. You probably know that it's hard to be addicted to something; the lust is not stopped by just saying: "you wicked ring! Leave me alone!", as Gollum did. Well my main point was that it was his "fate", all the things that had happened to him, that made him evil.

The same way we can think about Boromir and Éowyn: they did their "bad deeds" because of what had hapened to them, somehow. (Well I think it's quite self-evident and mentioned here before.)

[mark12_30]

davem wrote:

In other words, no-one in Middle earth is 'evil' per se - ie, evil in their essential nature, because Nothing is evil in its beginning.

There is a big difference between "Nothing is evil in the beginning" and "nothing is evil."

Thinlómien: Are you saying that Smeagol was forced to do all those things? The corollary would be that Bilbo was forced to spare Gollum; Bilbo would get no credit for sparing Gollum.

But he does.

[Boromir88]

Gollum is an important piece of the story, and without him, Frodo wouldn't have succeeded, but I think what Mark is trying to get at is this...
Or atleast in my view, Gollum must of had a pretty weak mind, or must have been in some way "evil," if he killed Deagol on sight. As soon as Gollum laid eyes on The Ring, bam! he was corrupted by it. It wasn't some slow long process, in Boromir's case, it was instant. So, either Gollum had a really weak mind, or he must had some sort of evil in him, during that time. One thing still remains the same though, Gollum, you just can't help but feel sorry for the lad.

Actually, I believe that his madness comprises all three. The emotional, and therefore psychological, element is present in the heightening of his despair with the loss of his beloved firstborn and the belief that he has lost his remaining son too. And Sauron's trickery could only work on him by virtue of the emotional (as well as dutiful) love that he felt for his country. Seeing its fall as inevitable works emotionally and psychologically on his mind. So, his ambiguity - in terms of good v evil - may be discussed on all three levels.

Good point SpM, I think when Denethor tried to foolishly strive with Sauron, he sunk into despair. But, no doubt his true breaking points were the loss of his sons, and seeing his country under HIS rule about to be over run, and Denethor comments on this...

"I would have things as they were in all the days of my life," answered Denethor, "and in the days of my longfathers before me: to be the Lord of this City in peace, and leave my chair to a son after me, who would be his own master and no wizard's pupil."

I agree with you Davem, to a point. Because, no one is "born" evil. Stalin wasn't born and just said I'm going to kill 30 million of my own people. However, that action of killing 30 million people makes him evil. Maybe, a question is, if the person is beyond redemption, then that makes them fully evil? However, another question, truthfully is anyone beyond any sort of redemption? Even the most wicked, and hated people, were they beyond redemption? Some like to look on the good side and think, that there's still hope in people. There's still time for change.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Fordim -

Have to run and take someone to work, but can't help mentioning this...

As I was reading this excellent thread, an oddball idea occurred to me.

First, let's review the original criteria you put up for a character to be included on this thread:

1) All three of them face despair and, oddly, triumph over it.

2) They all are rather unwitting players in a larger drama that they do not fully understand.

3) They are motivated, if not defined by, desire.

4) Their failures to fulfil their desires are integral parts of the successful completion of the Quest and of Aragorn’s Return.

5) They oppose the wills of the heroes, even try to hinder them, but they are not evil.

6) They have the same ‘place’ or role in the overall structure of the narrative.

If we look at the trudge up Mount Doom and the final scenes at Sammath Naur, couldn't we apply these same criteria to the character of Frodo Baggins? OK, maybe I am stretching things a bit, but there are many elements shared in common by these four individuals. Let me trace these point by point and link them to your six criteria listed above.

1. The final steps of the journey are surely a study in despair with Frodo unable even to remember the Shire, that which he is fighting to save. Frodo's "triumph" over despair is simply the fact that the object of his desire is destroyed and, at the same time, he manages to survive with a great deal of help from outside himself....Sam, Providence, and even the sacrifices of the good folk as a whole. Like the other three characters, his fate does not rest wholly within his own hands.

2. He is certainly a player in a larger drama that he does not fully understand. He has grown in wisdom thoughout the story, but does not have a complete understanding of what is happening. Just one small example....the person he has most relied on in the early part of the journey is actually a Maia, but Frodo still does not know that and would not even understand what the term "Maia" means.

3. The entire trip to Mordor is a study in desire, and it is this which defines Frodo's entire place in the story. Frodo is constantly battling his desire to put on the Ring. Sometimes the Ring triumphs and sometimes it does not. But it is when Frodo stands before Sammath Naur that desire wins out.

The fact that Frodo is able to fight and resist the pull of the Ring for some time should not exclude him from this group. There are certainly hints of this same thing happening to Boromir on the initial journey of the Fellowship, and also to Gollum in his dealings with Sam and Frodo. In both these cases, the reader is aware that there is internal conflict occurring, just as with Frodo and the object of his desire.

4. Frodo's failure to fill his desire, to become master of the Ring, is certainly an integral part of the fulfillment of the Quest as a whole.

5. Certainly, Frodo is opposing the stated will of Gandalf when he refuses to toss the Ring into the fire. Yes, Gandalf may have suspected right from the beginning that Frodo would be unable to dispose of the Ring. But I don't think that would exclude a name from your list. After all, the reader who listens to Boromir at Rivendell knows, and probably Gandalf suspected as well, that Boromir will be unable to resist the lure of the Ring. In that respect, Frodo is no different from Boromir.

6. the same place or role in the overall narrative.... This one is harder to address. Yet I think it might be said that Frodo as the Ringbearer is the central character who most exemplifies the themes you have delineated above. Eowyn, Boromir, and Gollum all have smaller battles or conflicts that seem to mirror Frodo's primary dilemma in certain key respects. These characters perhaps present us with alternate suggestions as to what may eventually happen to the Ringbearer at the end of the story when he must fully face his desire? For if one measures the amount of evil and despair that these four characters must face, it is surely Frodo who has the toughest job of all.

Yet the central dilemma for all four remains the same: how a 'human' faces temptation and what happens when they succumb to that temptation. ( For purposes of this discussion I am arguing that Gollum has enough of Smeagol potential left inside him to be classified along with other hobbits as a "Man"....)

Interestingly, there is also the question of which of these characters are later able to accept "forgiveness". Eowyn and Boromir both seem able to put their mistakes behind them and go on (however short that might have been for Boromir!). With Gollum, we shall never know. And then there is poor Frodo....., though I have always felt that his decision to sail to the West was at least an acceptance of the fact that healing and acceptance of forgiveness was needed.

Oh, yes, with a nod to Boromir88, Frodo also is motherless.....

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

There is a big difference between "Nothing is evil in the beginning" and "nothing is evil."

This brings us to the essence of the question. If I say 'Nothing is evil' am I saying the same thing as if I said 'Evil is nothing'?

Itt seems to me that (within Middle earth at least) evil does not have a seperate existence in its own right. Evil is the ultimate perversion of Good, perhaps the ultimate absence of Good but it isn't some 'thing' which exists in its own right. I'm struggling to get my point across, but its to do with the difference between 'darkness' & 'unlight'.

Evil is a convenient label - perhaps we should invent a term like 'ungood', implying the 'absence' of good - so, Gollum is 'ungood', so is Sauron, Saruman & the Witchking. Boromir & Eowyn make 'ungood' choices.

So, I would hold that no-one is 'evil' - they start out good & move away from it as a result of their choices, but they [i]don't/i] become something else - 'Evil', they simply move away from the Good, which is the only truly 'real' thing. They move towards an unreal state, an emptiness, a 'void'.

[Mithalwen]

Fordim - I don't want to reopen old arguments but disobeying aragorn is not inherently evil.

[Boromir88]

Itt seems to me that (within Middle earth at least) evil does not have a seperate existence in its own right. Evil is the ultimate perversion of Good, perhaps the ultimate absence of Good but it isn't some 'thing' which exists in its own right. I'm struggling to get my point across,

Davem, maybe I can help you out a bit, . There's what are called concrete nouns, and abstract nouns. Concrete nouns- things that appeal to our senses, things that we can see, touch, hear, for instance a table, a dog barking, coffee...etc. Abstract nouns- or abstract ideas, things that can't be measured. Often these are emotions, love, fear, nervous, or could be things like power, wealth. I can't go to the store and say, jee, I'm down in the dumps today I think I'll get a gallon of happiness.

Look at the some of the classified evil characters from LOTR, Saruman and Sauron. Both, desire abstract ideas, they want power, world domination, money, greedy. So first off, abstract nouns lead to "evil," but since they are abstract, things that we can't touch, see, hear, they are our emotions, are desires, and are immeasurable. In essence it's not even there. How much power do I have? I don't know, just power. Seeing that these abstract ideas are often a cause of evil, then maybe that helps your point. That evil is nothing. Just an absence of good.

[Thinlómien]

I didn't mean that Sméagol was forced to do those things. My point is that he can't be blamed of becoming of what he was like, because, I think, most of people would have become as "mad" as he became.

Well, for Boromir88: might this theory be likely: The Ring acts differently on different people. (I'm not saying that it "seduced" Gollum right away and Boromir during a long time period, because that would have fitted fitted it's purposes. That would be an intresting theory, though.) I mean that some people have weaker strength of mind (eg Gollum), some "normal", if it could be said so (eg Boromir, Denethor) and some people have a great resistance to it (eg Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli). And that is how quickly the ring acts on them. Who knows?

Nothing is evil at the beginning. They just might become "evil", if such a word can be used.

[Kuruharan]

Gollum becomes the tool of Providence, and falls into the fire, converting the despair of Middle-earth into Hope of the highest order (eucatastrophe).

I disagree with your assessment of Gollum’s ‘triumph’ over his despair. He was used as a tool in spite of his despair. He had nothing to do with it and in no way defeated it. He was consumed by it.

They oppose the wills of the heroes, even try to hinder them, but they are not evil.

Along with mark12_30, I have reservations about Gollum in this area as well. He had strong propensities in that direction. He also failed to repent in the end. Coming close doesn’t count (similar principle to “second place is first loser.”)

but he is not evil in the way that Sauron or Melkor or Shelob are evil.

I am curious as to what was left for him to do that would put him into that category.

Éowyn saves Theoden after breaking her duty to him; Faramir succeeds in letting the Ring go where Boromir failed;

and

Gollum gets the Ring into the Fire because Frodo has let him live.

The difference between the first two and the last is that Eowyn and Faramir engaged in willing acts to accomplish their goals.

Gollum had a woopsie to accomplish something that was in no way his goal.

My point is that he can't be blamed of becoming of what he was like, because, I think, most of people would have become as "mad" as he became.

Only if one made the same consistently bad choices that he made. He had control over his own choices.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The old Evill, evil, evil-doing, doing-evil debate rearing its knobbly head once more, eh. . .?

That's a very nice point about Frodo, Child, and one that I'd not considered. As with Denethor, though, I think that Frodo's relation to this discussion works best precisely as you have framed it -- the BEG grouping is a foil to Frodo in some way, insofar as they explore in a particularlised way the nature of despair and its consequences, which is -- as you eloquently point out -- what Frodo's journey up Mount Doom is all about (the inverse of Dante's Inferno, in which the poet went down to conquer his despair??? A new idea that must be contemplated).

I think the key thing that really separates out Gollum, Eowyn and Boromir from the rest of the characters, for me, is that they commit a very specific form of evil act: they are oath breakers. They each of them are bound by their duty and by their word to a particular person whom they concsciously disobey: Boromir owes his allegiance to Aragorn, and has no excuse after the Council of Elrond to deny that (again, I cite Faramir's reaction to Aragorn: instantly acknowleging the fealty he owes). Eowyn has been ordered by her king to remain at Dunharrow. Gollum has sworn to guide Frodo. There's no two ways about this in Middle-earth -- if you swear an oath, if you owe fealty, then to go against that is an evil act. Again, I would cite those fellows along the Paths of the Dead, and don't even get me started on examples from the Sil!

(This is where, incidentally, Child's point about Frodo is extremely interesting. When the Fellowship sets out from Rivendell, Elrond is very clear that on Frodo alone "is any charge laid: neither to cast away the Ring, nor to deliver it to any servant of the Enemy". Technically, when he does claim the Ring for his own he does not break this oath, but then he also is not really living up to the spirit of that oath either?)

The more I read through the other posts the more I begin to think that these three characters really are bound by a common journey through despair to hope, rather than by any abstract or metaphysical cogitations about good and evil (Good and Evil? doing-good and evil-doing?). Each of them gives in to their despair, and each of them is redeemed of that despair (I'm not talking about Redemption of their souls or whatever, for the same reason that I'm not talking about them in terms of good and evil. . .more below). With Boromir and Eowyn it's easy to see how this works, but with Gollum I suppose it's a bit murkier. I still stand by my argument that his journey is one from despair to hope insofar as (in the words of Gandalf), "his fate is bound up with that of the Ring's". While Gollum/Ring are alive, they are bound to one another by despair, to the despair of the world; when they are destroyed, the world's despair is converted to hope. In this sense, I think it is fair to talk about Gollum's despair (which is bound to the Ring) is redeemed by hope when the Ring is destroyed.

Where I'm going with all this is that with Gollum, Boromir and Eowyn we have the issues of good and evil dramatised for us on a very human scale. There is no real litmus test of good and evil that we can apply to concrete humans in the real world -- if there were, well, wouldn't that make things so much easier?! Just take a urine sample or something, and if the person comes up "Evil" throw 'em in the clink and be done with it! With these three characters, the full complexity of the issue is brought out in the specific terms of despair and hope, which is all about how we feel about our own natures and fates in the universe. They are not about being judged by others, but about judging themselves. This really does make them unique: Frodo is always being tested by the external force of the Ring (yes, sure, there's an internal struggle, but the Ring is what is operating on him, drawing him toward an evil act, or doing wrong). Even Aragorn is being operated on by external forces, insofar as the big question for him is not will he do/be good, but will other people accept him as the rightful King? For Gollum, Boromir and Eowyn, their struggles really are primarilly, if not wholly, internal as they give in to their own despair and are redeemed of that despair when they find hope again in themselves.

[Lalwendë]

First of all I want to pick up on Fordim's comment below:

Boromir owes his allegiance to Aragorn, and has no excuse after the Council of Elrond to deny that

We would think that, as observers looking 'in' on Middle Earth, but if we look at it through Boromir's eyes, it becomes a little different. He has been brought up as an heir to the Stewardship and would necessarily have the idea instilled within him that to protect and carry on the Stewardship was all important. He is in Rivendell on the orders of his father, and might find it very difficult to submit to the will of a king who is not-yet-a-king, in effect to supplant his loyalty to his father and to his 'office'.

Boromir88's comments about the things which 'evil' characters desire made me think:

Look at the some of the classified evil characters from LOTR, Saruman and Sauron. Both, desire abstract ideas, they want power, world domination, money, greedy.

Now, these evil characters seek out power and status, and they also strive to consolidate their power. We would say that to do such things is necessarily exploitative, and that these are not good things to desire. But what about when such things are thrust upon us? I am speaking of Aragorn.

This might seem to be a controversial view at first, but does he actively seek out power and status by taking a leadership role in the War of the Ring? If we looked at him through the eyes of the 'enemy' then we might well think just that. The clever thing which Tolkien does is have Aragorn display real doubt over his 'destiny'; he in effect humbles him. I think then that the difference between Sauron and Aragorn is that the former seeks power and is proud of it, the latter accepts power and is humbled by it.

And so to evil:

In other words, no-one in Middle earth is 'evil' per se - ie, evil in their essential nature, because Nothing is evil in its beginning. There is simply an option to remain in the 'light' or move away from it, into the 'darkness' which is not a thing in itself, but an absence of that Light.

Davem's idea of unlight complements the concept of the Light of Eru. In Middle Earth terms, 'good' seems to be represented by Light and evil by Darkness - rather than in the terms we are more familiar with. Unlight is a useful way of looking at 'evil' in Middle Earth, as it suggests not an external force coming from the ether but some kind of partial, even entire, absence of Light within certain characters. This would perfectly fit with such characters as The Nazgul, who are in effect 'void' of life and hence Light; they are Unlight.

Where someone like Saruman would fit in is even more interesting. He clearly does wrong in the terms of Arda and his brief, but he isn't anything to do with Unlight, rather he makes en entirely new kind of Light; he is in effect something of a heretic in Arda.

Even in the case of the Valar and Maiar, they were created as essentially good, were bestowed with the Light of Eru, but then this Light diminished within certain of them - I'm thinking of Melkor and Sauron. Even these two figures began as Light, and became Unlight - but was that darkness absolute?

As an aside, Unlight also sounds rather like Ungoliant, a nice linguistic link that has pleased me now I've spotted it.

[Boromir88]

We would think that, as observers looking 'in' on Middle Earth, but if we look at it through Boromir's eyes, it becomes a little different. He has been brought up as an heir to the Stewardship and would necessarily have the idea instilled within him that to protect and carry on the Stewardship was all important. He is in Rivendell on the orders of his father, and might find it very difficult to submit to the will of a king who is not-yet-a-king, in effect to supplant his loyalty to his father and to his 'office'.

Good point Lal, I think the oath Boromir broke was actually to Frodo. That is the oath he broke. Now he did not join the Fellowship to be a faithful companion like Sam. He merely went a long to head back to Minas Tirith, but whilst a member of that company, the oath was to protect the ringbearer, help him succeed. Well, when Boromir goes mad, that's when he breaks his oath, and nearly causes the failure of the quest. Then his redemption is recognizing what he had did wrong.

"I tried to take the Ring from Frodo," he said. "I am sorry. I have paid."

He realizes what he has done, and then asks for forgiveness. I don't feel as if Boromir broke any oath to Aragorn at all. Boromir had agreed to go to Minas Tirith, with Aragorn, and if he had lived and done so, then he could have broken an oath to Aragorn. Since, Tolkien wrote in another story, Boromir denying Aragorn's claim, and starting up turmoil. But, that's not what happened, and then Boromir's last words were.

"Farewell, Aragorn! Go to Minas Tirith and save my people! I have failed."

So from their first time meeting, in Rivendell, to his death Boromir doesn't do anything to hinder Aragorn's claim as king. But, he does hinder Frodo from trying to complete his quest.

Also, Lal, another thing between Aragorn's power, and Sauron's power. Is whatever power Aragorn has is his own right, it's his own right to claim the throne of Gondor. Unlike Sauron, he seeks to have power over everything, power that isn't his "right" to claim. Where, Aragorn doesn't seek to take power over anything that isn't his right. There's an interesting quote in "The King of the Golden Hall," where it appears Aragorn is trying to force his power as king (which he isn't yet) over the power of Theoden, but Gandalf stops him. Where Aragorn doesn't want to let go Anduril...

"It is not clear to me that the will of Theoden son of Thengel, even though he be lord of the Mark, should prevail over the will of Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elendil's heir of Gondor."
"This is the house of Theoden, not of Aragorn, even were he King of Gondor in the seat of Denethor," said Hama, stepping swiftly before the doors and barring the way. His sword was now in his hand and the point towards the strangers.
"This is idle talk," said Gandalf. "Needless is Theoden's demand, but it is useless to refuse. A king may have his way in his own hall, be it folly or wisdom."

This I point is is interesting because Aragorn, eventhough he isn't King yet, he tries to "override" Theoden's orders. Saying, I king of Gondor, should be able to over ride the Lord of the Mark, in his own house. So here Aragorn is trying to force his own power, over the power of another's. But as said, Gandalf stops him, and says a King shall have his way on his own "turf."

[Lalwendë]

That's a good quote, Boromir88! This shows that even in Aragorn there is something not entirely 'good'. At the risk of applying my own opinions a little, it seems that there is something of the empire builder within Aragorn, something which I would see as an 'evil' action. This shows he clearly has the potential within himself to incorporate a kingdom such as Rohan within Gondor, due to his pride. Luckily, this potential is worked out of him.

It also backs up a point I made in another thread that Gandalf was crucial as an advisor to Aragorn, vital to his success.

Thus, this shows again that good and evil cannot always be clearly delineated in Middle Earth.

[davem]

On vows:

[QUOTE]'Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,' said Gimli.

'Maybe,' said Elrond, 'but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.'

Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,' said Gimli;

Or break it, said Elrond. [QUOTE]

If Boromir, Eowyn & Smeagol swear oaths they are bound by them, but perhaps their mistake was in swearing the oaths in the first place. That is perhaps the starting point, if we're bringing in the oaths they swore - should they have sworn those oaths - weren't they asking for trouble in doing so?

Yet at the same time it seems that each of them was backed into a corner & had little choice but to swear those oaths, & once sworn they were bound by those oaths to, in the case of Boromir & Smeagol, to their own destruction.

What this says about Tolkien's own attitude to oaths is perhaps worth exploring. Gimli seems almost to be looking for an oath to swear, & Boromir seems equally to jump at the chance, in order to prove he is a man of honour - he's a warrior & that's the kind of thing warriors do. Smeagol swears his oath of service out of fear & desperation in extremis. Eowyn seems to have sworn out of duty.

In each case the oath quickly becomes a burden, something which they each seem to try to extricate themselves from while retaining their honour. They each attempt to construct clever arguments to get out of doing what they'd sworn to do. But this doesn't - probably can't - work. An oath is an oath. Things are called into action, forces, which cannot be put aside or ignored in the hope they will just go away.

They are each on a journey from despair - but to 'hope'? Boromir dies not so much with 'hope' but with faith. At the end I'm not sure he believes that the Good will attain victory in the world, but I think he does die knowing he has done the right thing, & perhaps realises that is enough - or that it is all a man can do. Gollum dies not in a state of hope, but of exultation at finally achieving his desire. Eowyn lives & she does attain to hope, but in a sense that hope is not due to the victory over Sauron, it is hope in life itself.

Its interesting that the concept of Mandos is not present in LotR. There is no sense of that kind of metaphysical dimension after death - Theoden expresses his belief that he will go to be with 'his fathers', but this seems to be a Rohirric belief, rather than being based in knowledge of the Halls of Waiting. The characters do not seem to live out their lives, or make their decisions, based on a sense of their lives on earth being merely a prelude to eternity. Boromir dies knowing he has done the right thing, but i don't get any sense that he thinks he is going to 'heaven'. Same with Smeagol. And Eowyn too. They are all looking for 'redemption in the world, in the sense of either achieving happiness, or power, or renown.

Any 'afterlife' is a mystery, the great unknown, & not something that anyone has as a motivation for their deeds on earth. Good & 'ungood' are choices made in order to achive worldly things, not eternal ones. There is almost a sense of failure about Frodo's end precisely because of this - he doesn't achieve worldly happiness or success. He fails because he has to leave the world & doesn't get what Sam gets, or Aragorn, or Legolas, Gimli, Merry & Pippin, et al. No-one seems to be looking beyond the world for meaning - not even the Elves, really - they are leaving not in the hopes of attaining something beyond Middle earth, but rather because they can no longer stay.

I don't know if this takes the discussion any further, but it just struck me as a point to add....

[Boromir88]

That's a good quote, Boromir88! This shows that even in Aragorn there is something not entirely 'good'.

And to think people often take Aragorn as a superhuman, flawless, saint .

[Kuruharan]

While Gollum/Ring are alive, they are bound to one another by despair, to the despair of the world; when they are destroyed, the world's despair is converted to hope. In this sense, I think it is fair to talk about Gollum's despair (which is bound to the Ring) is redeemed by hope when the Ring is destroyed.

But this is not a personal triumph for Gollum. It is a different thing from Boromir and Eowyn. To be quite blunt, I don’t think it is the same thing at all.

Frodo is always being tested by the external force of the Ring

And Gollum isn’t?

For Gollum, Boromir and Eowyn, their struggles really are primarilly, if not wholly, internal as they give in to their own despair and are redeemed of that despair when they find hope again in themselves.

Again, as far as Gollum is concerned, I wholly disagree. You talk about his death with the Ring as being the birth of hope for all of Middle earth, yet that was entirely an accident and not a choice that he made (I also don’t see how the creation of new hope for Middle earth was somehow a great triumph for Gollum). Gollum’s whole will was to reclaim the Ring. That was all that was inside him.

He clearly does wrong in the terms of Arda and his brief, but he isn't anything to do with Unlight

Say what? He abandoned his calling and (incidentally) referred to Sauron as his Master. What exactly are you looking for?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

In reading back through the thread I see that the idea of sacrifice, which I mentioned in passing in the first post, has not really been addressed yet -- and I think it might be helpful to do so.

Can we say that the one thing which concretely differentiates Boromir and Eowyn from Gollum is that B and E willingly sacrifice themselves in defense of people whom they are duty-bound to protect, while Gollum is unwillingly sacrificed by Providence after he harms the person he is duty-bound to protect?

The idea of sacrifice is an important one in the story: Frodo, most obviously, has to sacrifice everything he has; Arwen, too, has to sacrifice her immortal life (and Elrond has to share in this); Sam is willing to sacrifice everything, and does give up a year of his life in which he had, as it turns out, been planning on getting married. Even Aragorn sacrifices something: he is, of course, willing to sacrifice himself (and his entire army!) to help Frodo get to Mount Doom, but even after this success he does have to give up his name and the identity that he's had for his whole life in order to fulfil a prophecy and a Providential role over which he has no control. . .

Herm. . .a new thought. . .

Boromir, Eowyn and Gollum are linked in that they all of them pursue their own desires in direct contravention to what is needed or required of them by the Story, but redemption comes about for them through sacrifice. But then, this raises the even stickier notion of free will: if they hadn't gone out on their own, then would things have turned out well? Are their sacrifices required (that is, do they have to choose to make them) or are they part and parcel of what's just going to happen (they are doomed to sacrifice themselves or be sacrificed).

[Encaitare]

I don't have any huge points to make, but I would like to add a couple of things.

It occurs, remembering that lovely scene when Faramir has given his mother's mantle that she is filling various voids in his life - it could be a bit creepy but it could be seen more positively in that they are everything to each other

This is quite possible -- after all, both have very little left at this point. Both have lost members of their families. Eowyn would act as a feminine presence which Faramir never has because of his mother's early death, and Faramir would act as the protective masculine presence that is the role of a father.

Evil is a convenient label - perhaps we should invent a term like 'ungood', implying the 'absence' of good

Ehh... that's way too 1984.

As for what Fordim recently mentioned regarding sacrifice...

Can we say that the one thing which concretely differentiates Boromir and Eowyn from Gollum is that B and E willingly sacrifice themselves in defense of people whom they are duty-bound to protect, while Gollum is unwillingly sacrificed by Providence after he harms the person he is duty-bound to protect?

Boromir definitely sacrificed himself willingly in defense of others. I don't think this was all of Eowyn's motive, though. She was in despair, having been rejected by Aragorn and being forced to stay behind while everyone else went to battle. She did want to protect her people, but she also wants to go to battle for herself. If Gondor and Rohan win, then she will gain renown and honor, even if she should die on the battlefield. If they lose, then she will most likely have been killed in battle, finding escape in death and an end to her despair, knowing that she did all she could to aid her people rather than sit at home and wait for the inevitable end to come. She wants to go to war to defend her people, but also for personal reasons.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Can we say that the one thing which concretely differentiates Boromir and Eowyn from Gollum is that B and E willingly sacrifice themselves in defense of people whom they are duty-bound to protect, while Gollum is unwillingly sacrificed by Providence after he harms the person he is duty-bound to protect?

Er, does Boromir willingly 'sacrifice' himself - ie, does he fight the Orcs knowing that he will die as a result? I don't think we can say that he does. He goes into combat against massive odds, but we don't know that he realises he will die. Perhaps, driven by his pride, he believes he will win. Its possible that when he speaks of having 'failed' he is referring to the fact that he lost a fight he thought he could win. Perhaps this is the reason for Aragorn's response - that he hasn't 'failed', he has 'conquered'.

Eowyn, I think, does sacrifice herself - even though she survives - because she clearly believes she has no chance of defeating the WK - but stands against him anyway. Its interesting that in the book, as opposed to the movie, she tells the WK not that she will 'kill' him if he touches Theoden, but merely that she will 'smite' him. She believes she will fall in defence of her Lord & kinsman, not that she will defeat the WK.

So, one could say that Boromir is 'sacrificed' by providence in the way Smeagol is, 'for the greater good, while Eowyn's is possibly the only real self sacrifice in full awareness. Perhaps that's why she survives. Something about 'He who tries to save his life will lose it, but he that gives up his life for my sake will save it'? I don't know....

B & G want to win & live with the fruit of their victories, Eowyn almost wishes to fail - to die - & find a peaceful end.

Of course, this makes all of them seem 'victims' of providence - the old joke about 'How do you make God Laugh? Tell him your plans.' springs to mind.

In Middle earth it seems that many, if not all, are either 'victims of providence', or in a deeper sense, 'characters in a story'. They all have roles to play in the cosmic drama, & those roles will be played out, in spite of their own desires - even in spite of any oaths they might have sworn. Perhaps that's what's behind Elrond's warning to Gimli.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Might as well jump right back in after all this time...

Boromir, Eowyn and Gollum are linked in that they all of them pursue their own desires in direct contravention to what is needed or required of them by the Story, but redemption comes about for them through sacrifice.

I read through this thread with the growing idea that Fordim seems to have crystallized here. Boromir, Eowyn and Gollum all act and are driven by personal desires, which, as he had lined out initially, define them to a great extent. Boromir's desire is for glory and the honor of battle and the position of protector of Gondor. If we take this desire to its end, it is a selfish one, one that puts Boromir, in the final test, above his beloved country, his father, anything else. This is why Faramir's insight is so apt and yet so intuitive as to be obvious when one breaks down Boromir's motivations. This is the very thing that the Ring exploits in everyone, only these three characters seem to show it on the surface. They are the most obviously susceptible to the draw of desire.

Gollum is most susceptible, as he had only to look upon the Ring and he immediately falls to his desire of it. All his actions thereafter are motivated by this desire. Having lost the Ring, his only motivation is to regain it. In a way, it seems rather than, as davem suggests, that Gollum is forced into an oath at last extremity, that he is instead willing to take the oath to further his contact with the Ring and ensure that his chances of regaining it are much larger than if he does not take the oath. In other words, Gollum may be in a tight place, but his understanding of the oath is not pure. The oath is a means to his desire, and by this discrepancy is Gollum made to trip over the inherent (although often petty) evil of being slave to one's desires. This is what makes his near redemption so extraordinary, as he is, for one moment, able to see through this desire and to "see the light," but, as Tolkien himself said in other words, his conversion was spoiled not only by the brusqueness of Sam at the vital cusp, but also by the fragility of a new concept to one so thoroughly steeped in evil ways. It could not even stand a harsh word from Sam, even though Sam DID apologize afterwards! But there is a near redemption and a glimpse of light to be seen, proof that Gollum was not beyond saving. He ends up "in persistent wickedness," however, so any real redemption is not his own but Middle Earth's.

As for Eowyn, her desire is for a strong realm and an escape from a cage enforced by her being female and surrounded by those who seem to be heralding the end of Rohan. She wishes to escape the decay she is witnessing around her and latches on to Aragorn as a beacon of hope. But she is merely transferring her "shadow and a thought," her desires, onto Aragorn, because he is possessed of strength and purpose. When he bursts her bubble, so to speak, she desires death in battle, a final escape (compare this with Denethor's despair and madness...I think Eowyn's motives somewhat similar, but she is capable of more self-sacrifice than Denethor shows...). I think, in a way, her redemption is aided by the pure love of Merry for Theoden. Merry wishes simply to fight by Theoden's side and to be with him in danger, as well as in his halls. Eowyn realizes her love for her uncle in a much more real way, in a way that does not require that he be anything other than what he is. Her fear and disappointment, felt keenly at Edoras, dissolve in an act of defense out of love for Theoden as he is, rather than as she desires him to be.

Spinning off into the vast galaxy of points in this discussion, perhaps there is a point to be seen in the contrast between leaders Theoden and Denethor. They are both influenced by hobbits. I am a great believer in the efficacy of applying hobbits to any problem one might have in order to clarify and simplify it. Merry is salve to both Theoden and to Eowyn, while Pippin fulfills a similar role to Faramir and attempts to do so with Denethor. I find it interesting to note that Pippin, as he is standing at the Black Gate, wishing Merry were there so that they might die together, is reminded of Denethor and his despair. Pippin, however, being sensible, rejects the psychological and spiritual pit that Denethor falls into, and puts all his energies into the fight without the intrusion of desire. The beautiful aspect of this ability is not only that it is quintessentially "hobbitish," but that it also is an ultimate rejection of selfishness and a flowing into the Story. Pippin's spirit even laughs a little, realizing the Tale is a tale and the dark desires of one such as Denethor cannot further a proper Tale with a proper spirit.

(I hope that is not too far afield for the discussion...it was irresistible!)

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. I don't know if this would further the discussion, but perhaps it would be of interest to identify and quantify the foils of these three characters: Boromir-Faramir, Gollum-Frodo, and Eowyn-Arwen. (I'm reaching with the last one, but the way I see it, Eowyn is driven by the desire to escape a cage, while Arwen is driven by her innate selflessness and pure faith and to the extent of giving up her birthright in order to fulfill her love for Aragorn. In so doing, she also makes her sacrifice of immortality more meaningful in that she gives her place on the ship to the West to Frodo so that he might have a tangible reward that addresses his real needs. ) Although her people are fading, every act and fruit of her hands proceeds in furtherance of hope for Men, without regard to the separateness of the Elves (that might not be expressed as fluidly as I'd like, but I'm out of practice so please forgive me!) But this has gone on quite long enough and I'll break off and keep reading and thinking a bit! Cheers again!

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lyta -

It is indeed good to hear your ideas again!

Fordim-

I do agree that Frodo's plight and place in the narrative is so unique that he works best as a "foil" to this group or, perhaps more properly speaking, they work best as a foil to him, since he bears the central and pivotal role. Moreover, it seems clear that, as far as Frodo goes, the central figure in this triad opposing him would have to be Gollum, with the other two flanking off to the side. Yet, I do not think you can look at these three characters in isolation, without considering how Frodo fits into this equation and determining how his position is both similar and different.

In this wider context, your comment on oath breakers was interesting. Yes, I think there is a contrast. I would say Frodo stands in a unique situation when compared with the others in your triad:

(This is where, incidentally, Child's point about Frodo is extremely interesting. When the Fellowship sets out from Rivendell, Elrond is very clear that on Frodo alone "is any charge laid: neither to cast away the Ring, nor to deliver it to any servant of the Enemy". Technically, when he does claim the Ring for his own he does not break this oath, but then he also is not really living up to the spirit of that oath either?)

Whatever the other three characters may have done, Frodo did not actually swear an oath when he spoke before the Council of Elrond. "I will take the Ring,....though I do not know the way." A traditional oath of fealty must be sworn to a particular person or body and that person or body must directly accept the sworn fealty. If we look at the wording of Elrond's response, we see that he did not actually accept Frodo's words as an oath. Instead, he falls back on the "pregnant passive". He even modifies his response further by adding the words "I think" to the beginning of the sentence.

I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo, and that if you do not find a way, no one will.

It is not Elrond who imposes the duty. He is merely recognizing something that has been imposed from elsewhere (an elsewhere that is not specified in the text but which the reader can conjecture).

What Frodo is doing is much closer to what a modern reader would call a "promise". Unlike the other characters we're discussing --Eowyn, Boromir, and even the "archaic" Gollum who comes from a much older world, Frodo is from the Shire.....hardly a place of oaths. He is the mediator between the modern reader and the other characters in the story who are indeed oath-givers from oath-swearing cultures. (Interestingly, Frodo's two Hobbit friends are later to be swept up into swearing oaths but only because they become intimately involved with the "older" cultures of Rohan and Gondor.)

The word "charge" that you cite in your quotation above is also very interesting. In a modern sense, this word can mean a requirement or an obligation. This would be a natural component of an oath. But there is another, much older meaning of this term, and I think it is what Tolkien meant when he had Elrond utter the word. An obsolete meaning of the word is "a material load or weight". Surely Tolkien was aware of that, and I think his choice of words was intentional. I can not think of anything more suitable than charge or weight to describe the task that Frodo has taken on.

Finally, I do not think we can understand the full meaning of oaths by confining our consideration to only these three individuals, or even to the comment that Elrond gave to Gimli. You would certainly have to consider the later Hobbit oaths as well.

[mark12_30]

BTW, if we are counting oathbreakers we must include Merry, who was told to remain behind and disobeyed, riding with Dernhelm instead.

With Eowyn and Merry, is Tolkien making a point that sometimes oathbreaking is neccessary?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Yes, Helen, I agree in regard to your post just above.

That is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind when I was wrote the last paragraph of my own post and suggested we'd have to consider the "later hobbit oaths".

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

After reading davem's post, I find I must amend my view of sacrifice -- you are quite right d, in your assesment of the sacrifices that these characters make (or do not make). I think that what I should have said is that Eowyn and Boromir become willing to sacrifice their personal desires, rather than actually being required to do so. So that, Boromir, throughout his journey, is never willing to give up his desire for glory and personal honou -- this is what drives him to try and take the Ring. At the very end, however, he gives up this personal desire and 'repents' to Aragorn. It's not his death that is the sacrifice. Instead, he sacrifices his desire for the Ring, for personal renown, when he acknowleges that Aragorn is his true King and leaves it for him to save Minas Tirith. He does not die wanting what he has wanted all along.

Eowyn's sacrifice is much the same: it's not that she is willing to sacrifice herself for Theoden (with her death) that 'saves' her. Instead, her despair is converted to hope when she gives up, sacrifices, her personal desire for Aragorn -- and what he represents to her. It's interesting that Boromir is redeemed by accepting the person who Eoywn must give up. . . An interesting form of gender inversion???

And this is where Gollum really stands out, as he is never willing to sacrifice his desire for the Ring. He's willing to sacrifice everything except the Ring.

So with this new emphasis on sacrifice (and in light of Lyta's and Child's points about oaths and oath-breaking), I think I would like to move back from the emphasis that I've been placing on oaths and fealty. What I think Gollum, Boromir and Eowyn have in common is that each of them is committed to their own desires to such an extent that they are at odds with their duty -- now, this is where there's some differences, insofar as their duties are quite different. Boromir's duty is defined in terms of fealty and lordship (he should be acknowleging Aragorn and isn't). Eowyn's duty is to her socially defined role (she should be content to be a shieldmaiden). Gollum's duty is to Frodo.

So in the desire versus duty view of things:

Boromir realises and fulfils his duty at the end of his life, by repenting of his selfish desires for Rule (the Ring).

Eowyn realises and fulfils her duty with Faramir by repenting of her selfish desire for Aragorn.

Gollum fulfils (but does not realise) his duty when his desire for the Ring leads him to fall into the fire.

So in each case, their duty is fulfilled and their desire destroyed or overcome. But what does this mean? That any desire one has that is in contravention to one's duty is self-destructive and 'wrong'? That the only right desires are those that are in accord with what one is expected or supposed to do? I don't really by this, but I seem to have led myself toward a conclusion like that. . .

One Last Note: Lyta, Kudos and wow on your idea about the foils for each of the three in our current triad, particularly the way you have worked through the Eowyn-Arwen pairing. Seems to me that in this little pattern you've outlined we can see this desire/duty dialogue at work pretty clearly: who in the story is more dutiful, or less motivated by personal desire, than Faramir, Frodo and Arwen???

[Lyta_Underhill]

Fordim: So in each case, their duty is fulfilled and their desire destroyed or overcome. But what does this mean? That any desire one has that is in contravention to one's duty is self-destructive and 'wrong'?

I'm not sure I would define it this way, rather, I would say that the placing of one's selfish desires above the love of another causes a wrongness, either outwardly or inwardly, or both. Boromir desists in chasing Frodo to take the Ring and recognizes the madness that took him, placing his duty and his regard for Frodo (which must have risen in those few moments) above his selfish desire for the Ring and glory for Gondor. Eowyn puts her destructive desire for death in battle as a final fleeting bid to escape her 'cage' aside to stand against the Witch King--out of love for Theoden. Gollum almost puts aside his desire for the Ring in order to help Frodo in his quest. There is only a split second of time when Gollum might find redemption in this way, but it is shattered not only by Sam's words but also by the weight of his previous evil ways on his fragile soul.

There are others who have desires that contravene apparent duty as well--as mark and Child are saying of hobbits. Merry pledges himself to Theoden and breaks the latter's command, but he does so out of love. The desire is driven by a selfless motive. Pippin breaks Denethor's command, but he does so for love of Faramir. Sam puts aside his understood duty at the time--to continue with Frodo's quest and take the Ring to Mount Doom--all for the love of Frodo (of course we also understand that Sam is fulfilling his duty to Frodo in so doing).

One might stretch and say that Frodo engages in the dubious strategy (at least in Sam's eyes and probably others should they know about it) of keeping Gollum close and 'taming' he who is not really tameable. At first, Frodo finds this distasteful and wishes to be rid of him, but one could argue he finds a sort of 'love' for Gollum as Smeagol, a hobbit who shares his unique situation but has fallen away from the Light. If we say that Gollum is using Frodo, is Frodo using Gollum also? Frodo has not sworn to Gollum; it is certainly vice versa, but he treats him humanely and saves his life, even at the price of Gollum's misunderstanding and hating him (the betrayal to Faramir's men). Does Frodo do this because he needs Gollum, or does he do it for love of another?

davem: Er, does Boromir willingly 'sacrifice' himself - ie, does he fight the Orcs knowing that he will die as a result? I don't think we can say that he does. He goes into combat against massive odds, but we don't know that he realises he will die. Perhaps, driven by his pride, he believes he will win.

I was always of the opinion that Boromir was not consciously 'sacrificing' himself, but rather that he overcame his selfish desires and replaced them with selfless acts for the benefit of Merry and Pippin. I don't believe anyone goes into a conflict 'knowing' he or she will sacrifice everything, but one who enters in with no qualms about doing so will, in my opinion, act more purely and from selfless motive. This person will conquer fear by replacing it with love; this person will not be distracted by the self or one's own desires. I think Boromir conquers his desire by completely directing his energies to the defense of the two hobbits. I don't think that anything less would have so affected Pippin as to make him spontaneously pledge himself (yes, take an oath!) to the Steward of Gondor. Boromir achieved greatness through his willingness to die for the hobbits, not by being a prideful, yet strong Man of Gondor. This greatness is reflected in Pippin's awakening and willingness to, in turn, pledge himself to the greater realm of Gondor, thus enabling him in turn to apply and instill this concept inside Gondor itself. In a way, Pippin fulfills the greatness of Boromir.

I'm sure there's more in there somewhere (my rattled brain that is!) but I must break off to perform many duties myself, so I bid you all a happy day!

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. I couldn't leave before I added a bit about the "hobbit test!" I have found it quite irresistible in my readings to apply what I call the "hobbit test" to individuals; that is, the love of an individual over the love of an abstract or object. It seemed to work to great effect while I was reading "His Dark Materials" recently, although there is much that is still confusing or unequal about that work, so I imagine I'll be re-reading it soon. This is WAY off topic, so I'll be short--both Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter fail this test miserably, while Will and Lyra pass it, but it is interesting that Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter finally put aside their abstract philosophies, their war, and all else, and sacrifice themselves, all because they finally understood love for another individual...now back to wrapping presents and paying bills---bleah! Good day!

[Boromir88]

I agree with davem and lyta. From Pippin's account Boromir stalls the attack twice, on the third "regroup and recharge" he is defeated. Seeing that he's stopped them twice, but they've come back and attack him again, I don't think he honestly believes he can take them all down single-handedly, but I do believe he was just trying to stall them enough for the other members of the company to come. Since, he does blow his horn.

I think Boromir knows he can't beat them by himself, but by just blowing his horn, I believe he thought he could hold them off until help arrived.