My Essay: "A Defense of Character: Boromir"

[MatthewM]

Hello everybody, if you have some free time I would appreciate it if you read my essay entitled "A Defense of Character: Boromir". It is located at my site http://www.swordofboromir.com. Please let me know what you think if you do read it.

Thanks again.

-Matthew

[Boromir88]

Impressive, very impressive. There are a few things I want to touch on, but very well done.

First, I'd like to note that I don't think Tolkien was so anti-Boromir as it seems. Sure, he compares him to Saruman and Denethor, but it's in the sense that there is no black and white, good and evil. There is a bunch of gray areas, it's not "all these guys are good and they're going to fight all these evil guys," as some critics said. There are people who struggle between good and evil, they have a flawed reasoning so to say.

But, he doesn't compare them in the sense of being a "bad person." Which I think is what you are trying to argue, I agree, and I think Tolkien would agree. Boromir has his flaws, his struggles, but he is not an "evil/bad person."

What I mean, by he was comparing them to their outlook on Good and Evil to...
In Saruman's case, he wasn't allied with Sauron. He lets us into his mind and he plans to betray Sauron:

"As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to directs its courses, to control it. We can bid our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, and Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any change in our designs, only in our means."~The Council of Elrond

Saruman wants to buddy up to Sauron and eventually perhaps they can control it (the ring). But, we see Saruman has one skewed interpretation of the Istari's purpose. Saruman has turned from "the path," and he's not sided with Sauron, but it goes along with does "the ends fit the means." Yes, Saruman is planning to betray Sauron, but in Saruman's case the ends don't fit the means. Basically he's saying, doesn't matter what evil we commit, let's forget the Elves and Men, they're weak, our goal will be achieved...Sauron will be beaten.

With Denethor you're just opening up one complicated case of worms. He is an effective Steward that cared deeply for Gondor, but he became obsessed with power. He needed to be in control and no one else...

"I am Steward of the House of Anarion. I will not step down to be the dotard chamberlain of an upstart. Even were his claim proved to me, still he comes but of the line of Isildur. I will not bow to such a one, the last of a ragged house long bereft of lordship and dignity."~The Pyre of Denethor

Again Denethor is against Sauron, but the good vs. evil thing is gray again. Denethor is against Sauron, but will not relinquish his power to the rightful king. He is "Steward and Lord of Gondor," it is his command and no one elses. With Denethor comes a bunch of tangles, was he a "good person," or not? Well we know he becomes obsessed with power, and he wasn't the best of fathers, but he still loved Gondor, wanted Sauron dead, and we do see a glimpse of Denethor's former self:

'When Denethor became Steward (2984) he proved a masterful lord, holding the rule of all things in his own hand. He said little. He listened to counsel, and then followed his own mind. He had married late (2976), taking as his wife, Finduilas, daughter of Adrahil of Dol Amroth. She was a lady of great beauty and gentle heart, but before twelve years had passed she died. Denethor loved her, in his fashion, more dearly than any other, unless it were the elder of the sons that she bore him...'
After her death Denethor became more grim and silent that before, and would sit long alone in his tower deep in thought, foreseeing that the assaul of Mordor would come in his time.~Appendix A: The Stewards

Denethor was always a grim man, but he was opened to counsel, he loved Finduilas and we get to see a little glimpseo f the man he once was. After his wife's death a change occurs, then he goes further down hill after Boromir and Faramir:

'Thus pride increased in Denethor together with despair, until he saw in all the deeds of that time only a single combat between the Lord of the White Tower and the Lord of Barad-dur, and mistrusted all others who resisted Sauron, unless they served himself alone.~ibid

So, it was Denethor vs. Sauron, no one else. And he didn't trust anyone else unless they served him. So, like Saruman, the area of good vs. evil isn't necessarily clear. He's against Sauron, but he himself is the one who has to be in control.

With Boromir he wants more than anything Sauron's downfall and Gondor's victory. But, he doesn't agree with the Council's decision. He feels its folly to send the Ring into Mordor in the hands of a hobbit. It should be used as a weapon against Sauron, seeing only the short-term solution and not what will come aftewards.

The letter you point out where Tolkien compares Boromir to Denethor and Saruman I think are more in these regards. The good vs. evil battle is not black and white it's filled with gray areas. There are characters in the story that are against Sauron (evil) but their way of defeating him are either entirely bad and evil itself (Saruman) or see their way as being the best.

I don't think Tolkien ever thought Boromir was a "bad person", though. He does give Boromir justice. As we see Boromir indeed was saved and redeemed for his actions. Boromir's death most closely mimics the Anglo-Saxon Laws of Compensation. Where a sin/crime is committed, in order to be saved you must not only feel sorry for what you did, but "compensate" - either with gold or your life- and then a holy man must declare you saved.

1) Commite the crime- Boromir trying to take the ring from Frodo.
2) Forgiveness- "I tried to take the ring from Frodo. I am sorry. I have paid."~The Departure of Boromir
3) Compensate- I doubt Boromir had the money for his compensation, but he does the other thing and he sacrifices his life to attempt a good deed by helping save Merry and Pippin.
4) Holy man, both Aragorn and Gandalf who could be considered "holy figures" in the story declare Boromir was saved as you pointed out in the essay.

So, I doubt if Tolkien thought that Boromir was a "bad/evil person" he would have given Boromir this kind of redemption. Tolkien probably would have stuck with his earliest draft thoughts on Boromir, if he felt like he was an "evil person."

Evil has now hold of Boromir who is jealous of Aragorn. The Lord of Minas Tirith is slain (9) and they choose Aragorn. Boromir deserts and sneaks off to Saruman, to get his help in becoming Lord of Minas Tirith.~The Story Foreseen from Moria, The Treason of Isengard

In the earliest drafts he has Boromir and Saruman allied! Now that would make Boromir a 'bad person,' but Tolkien's last thoughts and what's final in LOTR I don't see that same idea about Boromir.

Boromir no doubt is a flawed individual and suffers from excess pride, something Tolkien shows distaste for quite a bit. Pride can be a good trait, but it's the excess prid, or ofer-mod as Tolkien terms, that can get people into trouble. There is no doubt that Boromir is full of pride, but I don't think this condemns him as a 'bad person,' it's what causes his pull and downfall towards the Ring.

I like how you mention the deeds that Boromir does along the way, because without his strength the Fellowship wouldn't have gotten far. But, you may also want to add a bit more about him resisting the Ring. Boromir ultimately falls to the Ring's corruption, but it's not like he has some big grand conspiracy from the start of the quest to take the Ring from Frodo. He is resistant to it's temptation up to the very point where he falls to it. As you mention Galadriel awoke something in Boromir and after Lorien his temptation to the Ring dramatically increases and becomes more apparent. Also, I like how you point out the Ring got control over Boromir. Boromir was not in control of his own actions:

What have I done? Frodo, Frodo!" he called. "Come back! A madness took me, but it has passed. Come back!"~The Breaking of the Fellowship.

The Ring got control over Boromir, and when the Ring is out of his presense the madness passes. I like how you bring up this, also it wasn't Boromir's character do something like this. It was his mindset, and his personality that caused his pull to the Ring, and for that he is a flawed character. But this act here of taking the Ring from Frodo, was not Boromir as the person we see in LOTR, it was the Ring's control over him. He, most of all, realizes what he did what wrong, and he goes to try and make up for it.

In fact I think this event changed Boromir even more and made him grow to be a better person than he was before. An interesting point is after the attempt to take the Ring, he goes back. Though he doesn't admit to it here, he does something Boromir usally doesn't do, WILLINGLY TAKE ORDERS!

"Boromir! I do not know what part you have played in this mischief, but help now! Go after those two young hobbits, and guard them at the least, even if you cannot find Frodo. Come back to this spot, if you find him, or any traces of him. I shall return soon."~ibid

The thing with Boromir is he is the High Captain/Warden of the White Tower. Kid of like the Commander in Chief today, he is the commander/leader of Gondor's army. He is the one used to giving orders and having those orders followed out. Which, is why when he joins in the Fellowship, he seems always the one to try to force his opinion, and what he would do. He will not go into Moria...he will not go into Lorien, he will not take this path...etc. Which it wasn't his nature to accept order, he was always the one giving them. But, he's in greater company now and has to learn a bit of humility. And here, without any objections, goes out and carries out Aragorn's orders.

So, I don't necessarily agree with the fact that Tolkien thought Boromir was a 'bad person.' He was flawed, and like Saruman and Denethor the "good vs. evil" idea wasn't so clear-cut. He didn't agree with the Council and he wanted to use the Ring against Sauron, but I don't know if Tolkien ever said that Boromir was evil as a person. Overall though, a very well done essay and a cogently argued defense of Boromir.

[drigel]

Great points and a nice essay.

The thing with Boromir is he is the High Captain/Warden of the White Tower. Kid of like the Commander in Chief today, he is the commander/leader of Gondor's army. He is the one used to giving orders and having those orders followed out.

A life like that would lead one to see anything (or anyone) one encounters as a potential tool for the ultimate mission.

He was flawed, ...

I suppose the point I would make at this point is: so was Frodo. He, at the end, "failed" too, because he was flawed. So, are we to consider his level of evilness, due to his finally succuming to evil? IMO if Frodo had any experience of leadership, or a real sense of the stakes at hand, or a tab bit more ego/ambition, he would have "failed" a lot earlier.

nice work!

[davem]

Originally Posted by B88

First, I'd like to note that I don't think Tolkien was so anti-Boromir as it seems. Sure, he compares him to Saruman and Denethor, but it's in the sense that there is no black and white, good and evil. There is a bunch of gray areas, it's not "all these guys are good and they're going to fight all these evil guys," as some critics said. There are people who struggle between good and evil, they have a flawed reasoning so to say.

Good point. Of course, in Tolkien's world there is Good & Evil, but incarnates are very rarely absolutely one or the other. I'm reminded of Frodo on Amon Hen, writhing between the opposing forces of the Voice & the Eye. Boromir seems to have been in the same position when he confronted Frodo (if not for much longer).

Its perhaps true that many of the characters 'writhe' in the same way - Denethor, Saruman - in fact most of the characters have that experience. But the point is they all remain themselves, even at the most extreme point. So there is a moral choice to be made & there is an individual who makes a free choice - even though they may be under the most extreme distress. Boromir chooses 'Evil' & as such he is required to pay his 'weregild'.

The difference between Boromir & Frodo is that Boromir dies forgiven, & knows that he has paid his debt. Frodo perhaps, deep down, never does feel he has paid the debt for his 'betrayal'. He still longs for the Ring's existence even after its destruction.

I suspect this is the difference between them. Boromir desired the Ring to defeat Sauron. One feels that once that had happened he would no longer have any desire for it. Frodo desired the Ring even after Sauron's fall. Its as if his identification with the Ring had become so intense that he saw no clear dividing line between himself & it, whereas for Boromir the Ring was merely the means to an end. Frodo could not destroy the Ring finally because it was effectively himself - its 'will' was his own, its being his own being. Boromir never went that far. Which is not to say that, if he had taken it & achieved victory over Sauron he wouldn't have ended up in the same position. However that didn't happen. Frodo identified himself with the Ring, became one with it. Boromir never did, so his 'sin' was less. However his 'test' was less. I suspect Boromir, unlike Frodo, was able to forgive himself & therefore accept Aragorn's 'forgiveness', & so die at peace. Frodo, however, was not able to forgive himself, & so could not go on living, but must needs pass from the world.

Boromir's was not a 'mortal' sin, so he could die in peace. Frodo's was, so he could not, but had to continue living - why else did he not die, as he should have done, in achieving the Quest. He expected to die at the end. His 'punishment' for his 'sin' was in not being permitted to die. His life after the Ring's destruction was his punishment for his sin. Of course, the only way he could have achieved the Quest was to hurl himself into the Fire along with the Ring - the idea he could have thrown the Ring in & walked away is ridiculous, as by that time he had ceased to distinguish between it & himself. The task he had taken on himself was his own destruction along with that of the Ring - whether he realised that or not at the time he accepted the Quest is not important. His role was to be the Blood Sacrifice for the Sins of Middle-earth, but he refused at the end to go through with it. He rejected his sacrificial role & was punished accordingly, because Eru demanded his death, not just the destruction of the One.

One of Tolkien's best friends, GB Smith wrote two elegies for Rob Gilson who had just been killed on the Somme: John Garth writes (Tolkien & the Great War)

"'One piece declares a stark view of Divine Providence. Gilson's death is 'a sacrifice of blood outpoured' to a God whose purposes are utterly inscrutable & who 'only canst be glorified/ by man's own passion & the supreme pain'.

Boromir had no such destiny, hence his 'failure' could be forgiven & he could die fulfilled & at peace.

[MatthewM]

Boromir88, I am a little confused with what you're telling me, because some of the things you critiqued I have already done in my essay.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

First, I'd like to note that I don't think Tolkien was so anti-Boromir as it seems.

But, he doesn't compare them in the sense of being a "bad person." Which I think is what you are trying to argue, I agree, and I think Tolkien would agree. Boromir has his flaws, his struggles, but he is not an "evil/bad person."

Indeed this is what I am arguing.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The letter you point out where Tolkien compares Boromir to Denethor and Saruman I think are more in these regards. The good vs. evil battle is not black and white it's filled with gray areas. There are characters in the story that are against Sauron (evil) but their way of defeating him are either entirely bad and evil itself (Saruman) or see their way as being the best.

I don't think Tolkien ever thought Boromir was a "bad person", though. He does give Boromir justice. As we see Boromir indeed was saved and redeemed for his actions.

I know, I never said Tolkien thought he was a "bad person". I also never said that his pride was a bad characteristic...I actually said it was one of his shining points. This is all contained in the writing...from my essay:

Fans that have no previous knowledge of his character and the internal struggles with concerns to the Ring and of Gondor may even deem him evil. This is one of the many misconceptions about Boromir that urged me to write this essay.

I said that fans with no previous knowledge may deem him evil, not Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

In the earliest drafts he has Boromir and Saruman allied! Now that would make Boromir a 'bad person,' but Tolkien's last thoughts and what's final in LOTR I don't see that same idea about Boromir.

Interesting!

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But, you may also want to add a bit more about him resisting the Ring. Boromir ultimately falls to the Ring's corruption, but it's not like he has some big grand conspiracy from the start of the quest to take the Ring from Frodo.

Boromir never wanted to let the Ring go to Mordor in the hands of Frodo. This we knew from the Council, and this was his thought the whole journey. It was subdued until it awoke ever rapidly in Lorien. He's never really given a chance to resist the Ring before Amon Hen, for he is never alone with Frodo until then (which is after Lorien). Most likely Boromir would not have tried to take the Ring earlier in the quest, as his lust for it was not as strong as after Lorien, and he was always in the company of the Fellowship to keep his mind off of it.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

In fact I think this event changed Boromir even more and made him grow to be a better person than he was before. An interesting point is after the attempt to take the Ring, he goes back. Though he doesn't admit to it here, he does something Boromir usally doesn't do, WILLINGLY TAKE ORDERS!

I covered this part, where Boromir realizes what he does. His pride has been hurt, and he is not quick to forgive himself.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

So, I don't necessarily agree with the fact that Tolkien thought Boromir was a 'bad person.' He was flawed, and like Saruman and Denethor the "good vs. evil" idea wasn't so clear-cut. He didn't agree with the Council and he wanted to use the Ring against Sauron, but I don't know if Tolkien ever said that Boromir was evil as a person. Overall though, a very well done essay and a cogently argued defense of Boromir.

Again, I never once mentioned that Tolkien thought Boromir was evil. There is no doubt that in the Letters Tolkien talks a little negatively on Boromir, but as stated, never as "evil". From my essay:

Here Tolkien speaks of Boromir’s issue within the story as a sort of limbo between Good and Evil. As Tolkien stated “there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs”, he is most likely talking about strife amongst Men, or strife amongst friendship and promise. He can also be talking of (which is more likely) the inner struggle of Boromir through out the story and how it ultimately plays out in the end. Although trying to steal the Ring was in fact an evil deed, Boromir never fights for the side of the enemy, nor is he ever debating which side is right. Gondor was weakened at the time of the War of the Ring, and such a burden as bringing this Ring of Power back to the halls of Gondor was laid upon him. Tolkien compared the Men of Gondor to the Elves, in the sense of a withering people, perhaps making stressed and hasty decisions. Stressed and hasty decisions indeed, however as you will read, Boromir at least was not viewed as “withering” to most that knew him.



Thanks for reading my work.

[Boromir88]

Actually I wasn't disagreeing with you on a whole lot. I thought it was a good, indepth, essay on Boromir's character. Most of the stuff from my post I was giving you other things that you might want to add in and strengthen it even more. For example, his redemption to Anglo-Saxon Laws of Compensation, and the fact that he ended up taking orders from Aragorn. Just some other things that you might want to add, if you so wish.

The only thing I really didn't agree with was this:

Boromir was talked negatively upon by Tolkien a couple of times in the posthumously published Letters. One I will go into detail about later. The other- as Tolkien talks about Faramir, he mentions that he had “a ‘bossy’ brother”

Perhaps I just read it wrong, but it seems like you were implying Tolkien thought badly about Boromir, which is why you bring up the Letter where he is compared to Saruman and Denethor. Which, is why I felt need to comment that he wasn't so Boromir 'negative' as what it seems. For Boromir was first indeed 'evil' in Tolkien's earliest drafts, but he was greatly altered in the final version. If this is not what you were saying, then I read it wrong, but it looked like you were implying that Tolkien didn't like Boromir too much.

Good point. Of course, in Tolkien's world there is Good & Evil~davem

And of course that's what I meant. I was highlighting the characters who were more gray, they were against Sauron but either for another evil purpose, or just had the wrong outlook of how to go about beating him.

[MatthewM]

I understand what you're saying, I may edit that a bit, for it wasn't my intention to make the reader think that Tolkien didn't like Boromir that much. Although, I do think that the "bossy brother" quote is in a negative light. As Tolkien obviously prefered Faramir much more, some of the qualities Boromir didn't have are present in Faramir, and as Tolkien was talking about Faramir in Letter #244:

"He was motherless and sisterless...and had a 'bossy' brother. He had been accustomed to giving way and not giving his own opinions air..."

Tolkien goes on to praise Faramir even more. So in that respect, I see the "bossy brother" comment as a definite negative on Boromir.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Anglo-Saxon Laws of Compensation. Where a sin/crime is committed, in order to be saved you must not only feel sorry for what you did, but "compensate" - either with gold or your life- and then a holy man must declare you saved.

1) Commite the crime- Boromir trying to take the ring from Frodo.
2) Forgiveness- "I tried to take the ring from Frodo. I am sorry. I have paid."~The Departure of Boromir
3) Compensate- I doubt Boromir had the money for his compensation, but he does the other thing and he sacrifices his life to attempt a good deed by helping save Merry and Pippin.
4) Holy man, both Aragorn and Gandalf who could be considered "holy figures" in the story declare Boromir was saved as you pointed out in the essay.

I don't want to impugn you or your sources, but I'm not aware of an Anglo-Saxon law-code that demands the endorsement of a holy man. Even the most piously worded, those of Alfred the Great and his grandson Athelstan, refer only to the fines payable. Perhaps someone has mistakenly conflated the secular legal process of fines and compensation and the separate spiritual process of confession, penance and absolution. The former rested with the temporal authority (the king) and the latter with the spiritual authority (the pope and his subordinates, and ultimately God). Since most crimes would be in breach of both spiritual and temporal law, reparations would have to be made to both authorities, but not under a single system.

For what it's worth, the Roman Catholic Tolkien would in my opinion be more likely to favour the Church process, whereby sin is realised and repented, confessed and then absolved (by an ordained priest, not just any holy man) after the performance of a suitable act of penance. In Boromir's case, he realises instantly that he has sinned, demonstrates immediate penitence and expiates his transgression by sacrificing his life for his friends. Aragorn as Boromir's rightful (although not yet official) lord and Gandalf as the spiritual emissary of the Valar, offer temporal and spiritual absolution respectively. The spiritual perspective on this sacrifice is neatly summed up by John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Vulgate "maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet ut animam suam quis ponat pro amicis suis"). Logically, since no direct monetary payment is made to Denethor as ruler of Gondor or Aragorn as the heir apparent to the Gondorian throne, weregild has clearly not been payed, and the crime is not one that calls for death under the Anglo-Saxon law codes. Furthermore Gondor has no such system, and I think that Tolkien would have required more internal consistency of his story as well as preferring the approach to forgiveness taken in his own denomination and faith. Anglo-Saxon codes are logical and sensible, but like any compensatory system they take little account of repentance.

[Boromir88]

It was my mistake for typing Anglo-Saxon, I don't know what exactly I was thinking at the time. I meant it was an Anglo-Norman concept, for one to be truly 'forgiven' and redeemed, they would not only have to ask for forgiveness, but have some form of compensation for their crime. Which, I read from the Haskin's Society at Cornell University.