Boromir - An example of a man?

[Arathorn111]

Long time lurker, first time poster and I'm afraid I might be a bit to affected by the films. I've read the books, as well as the silmarillon, several times but watched the movies countless of times.

Anyway my question is about Boromir and I apologise if this has been discussed earlier.

Is Boromir Tolkiens representation of an ordinary man? He was said to be further from the race of Numenor than his brother and father and so, close to a middle man. Do you think his main part in the story was that of showing how an ordinary man would react?

When dark times is ahead he almost gives up hope and search for an easy solution (the ring). He's easily corrupted by it but shows that, in his heart, he is still good. Was this a way for tolkien to describe the nature of men, in middle earth and in the present, or am I interpreting this a bit too far?

Sorry about the English if it's not perfect, English isn't my first language.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Hi Arathorn111, and welcome to the 'Downs.

I would say, in many ways, yes, Boromir is representing an "average" man, even though he was not really "average" man, because after all, he is from one of the most noble families in Gondor. He is more a Dúnadan than most. But his choices are representing that what in Lord of the Rings really means "normal Men" or "the weakness of Men" - the reason why most Men (or even other races) are most often corrupted in Middle-Earth. He is not the kind of hero who would resist the temptation of power offered by the Ring (there are really few such people in Middle-Earth and also in the real world, in fact, the ones who seem to be resistant to it - at least for a while - are the Hobbits, the simple folk who are content with the little they have), but he is still not an "average" man because he is a hero who is a fighter, who stands against the odds, who does not give up hope and who also redeems himself in a self-sacrificial battle to protect Merry and Pippin. So the answer is yes and no, but I assume that from the point of view where you are asking - if I understood it correctly- the answer is yes.

[Pervinca Took]

Welcome to the Downs, Arathorn!

A very interesting question, and one that I need to ponder. It set me thinking about Eomer in comparison. Another high profile warrior, as it were, and quite apart from the race of Numenor. The Rohirrim are perhaps nearer to "loving the sword for its brightness" than Faramir, too.

Is Eomer, too, the ordinary man, with limitations? He loves his sister, but does not notice what Aragorn does. As Gandalf pointed out, he had deeds of arms, and the free fieds ... he abominated Wormtongue and would die to save his sister from him, but he did not see, perhaps, the pain and burden that the mundane aspects of a woman's life were to Eowyn.

Boromir is prouder than Eomer. More flawed, perhaps ... more completely drawn. Would Eomer have fallen to the Ring in the same context? Boromir was driven largely by a desperation to save his people. Eomer's people were threatened too ... not only the King and his sister ... his land is not on the border of Mordor, but Saruman is uncomfortably near, and so are his armies ....

Sorry not to have answered your question properly. But of the high ranking men, and hence the ones we see the most of, you have got me thinking that maybe Eomer and Boromir are the most ordinary.

[Arathorn111]

Legate:

No I didn't really mean that Boromir was an ordinary man, if that was the case he wouldn't have fitted in with the rest of the company and would, from the readers point, seem misplaced. I think that the point was that he wasn't an ordinary man from middle earth, just that he represented the ordinary man in his actions. He was a great man, but only a man.

Pervinca:

Thank you!

I think that Eomer is, in many ways, a moore ordinary man than Boromir. He's also not, as a character, as complex as Boromir, mainly because he isn't faced with the "problem" of the ring. The question about how he would react is an interesting one, but in my mind he would have reacted close to what Boromir did. Perhaps not as valiantly as Bormir though, as he is "a lesser man"?

[Arathorn111]

And, of course, a Thank you to you as well Legate.

[Belegorn]

It would appear that many of the ordinary Men in M-E were very subject to evil and tended to be evil. I'm not sure Boromir fits this.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Arathorn111

Legate:

No I didn't really mean that Boromir was an ordinary man, if that was the case he wouldn't have fitted in with the rest of the company and would, from the readers point, seem misplaced. I think that the point was that he wasn't an ordinary man from middle earth, just that he represented the ordinary man in his actions. He was a great man, but only a man.

Pervinca:

Thank you!

I think that Eomer is, in many ways, a moore ordinary man than Boromir. He's also not, as a character, as complex as Boromir, mainly because he isn't faced with the "problem" of the ring. The question about how he would react is an interesting one, but in my mind he would have reacted close to what Boromir did. Perhaps not as valiantly as Bormir though, as he is "a lesser man"?

Being susceptible to the ring is a lot more complicated than being a High or Middle Man. The Numenoreans were the highest of men and they fell. Denethor was a throw back to the Numenoreans of old and he would have used the ring. Galadriel was sorely tempted and in her younger years shr might have given in. I think a few of the Noldor princes like Maeglin or Curufin certainly would have.

Boromir was not like his immediate family but that is not why he fell in the end. His pride, desperation to save Gondor and the desire for glory is what led to his fall. In the end the best protection against the ring seems to be having a realistic understanding of who you were and rejecting power. Therefore would say eomer was less likely to fall under the ring than Boromir.

In terms of character and strength Boromir was exceptional in ability but like the middle men valued ohysical prowess more than learning.

Average but pure people are thr Hobbits.

[Pervinca Took]

My gut feeling is that Eomer would not have fallen to the Ring. He doesn't ever seem to have the pride that Boromir does, and I think that was simply a part of Boromir's personality. Plus the fact that the need of strong warriors meant that he was very much prized in his day. His father's favouritism didn't help, either. All this does point to Boromir being the ordinary man, because his flaws are very human.

Eomer deferred to Aragorn from the beginning. "Elfstone, since the day you rose out of the northern mists I have loved you, and that love shall not fail." I don't really see unwarranted ambition or pride in Eomer. He wants Wormtongue out of the way, but to serve the King again. "Take this, dear lord. It was ever at your service." I think he would have deferred to Aragorn had he been on the quest in Boromir's place, too. Perhaps this is natural, because he is of a royal line, but of a much smaller kingdom. The kings of Rohan are like Old English kings - in some ways more like chieftains. The majesty of Gondor makes Boromir grow up with grander ideas, in a way, even though his father is only the Steward. Faramir tells Frodo how it rather bothered Boromir that his father was not king. Frodo says he always treated Aragorn with respect, but Faramir points out that they had not yet reached Minas Tirith or become rivals in her wars. And Eomer's respect and admiration for Aragorn seems to me much stronger. "Wingfoot I name you." He is clearly very moved by Aragorn's loyalty to his companions and his heroic pursuit of the orcs in an attempt to rescue them. Boromir would be moved by such things too, though ... but he didn't witness such an act ... yes, he saw Aragorn bravely protecting the hobbits throughout the quest, but he was protecting them too ... whereas it probably played a very large part in Eomer's love and respect for Aragorn.

I realise in typing this that my memories of Eomer are very much bound up with Antony Hyde's radio performance. Perhaps rather unfairly overlooked, because he can be a a little overlooked as a character, as his sister is seen as more exceptional?

Average but pure people are thr Hobbits.

I wonder how pure Lotho was in the beginning.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

My gut feeling is that Eomer would not have fallen to the Ring. He doesn't ever seem to have the pride that Boromir does, and I think that was simply a part of Boromir's personality. Plus the fact that the need of strong warriors meant that he was very much prized in his day. His father's favouritism didn't help, either. All this does point to Boromir being the ordinary man, because his flaws are very human.

Gandalf makes it clear to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli that the Ring was especially hard for Boromir to resist because of his status as a military leader and a man-at-arms. It would seem the Ring presented him with an acute vision of it's being both the solution to Gondor's problems and a means for his own glorification.

You know, I think a better example of an "ordinary man" would be Barliman Butterbur. No high birth, no lofty ambitions, just a man with an inn.

[Pervinca Took]

Indeed! I was thinking of Beregond, as the ordinary soldier, but many an "ordinary" soldier is an extraordinary man, and Beregond is exceptionally brave in laying his life on the line to save Faramir.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Indeed! I was thinking of Beregond, as the ordinary soldier, but many an "ordinary" soldier is an extraordinary man, and Beregond is exceptionally brave in laying his life on the line to save Faramir.

Yes, I think Beregond, as a Guard, had something of an elite status in the military. He was a professional, not a farmer going to war in great need.

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Indeed! I was thinking of Beregond, as the ordinary soldier, but many an "ordinary" soldier is an extraordinary man, and Beregond is exceptionally brave in laying his life on the line to save Faramir.

The term 'ordinary' is a tricky one. In this case I believe it was used meaning 'average' meaning 'like most other men'

The lines are many, as there would be professional soldiers and conscripts in Gondor. Boromir, nor Denethor, would I classify as "ordinary men" They were extraordinary in their own right, different from each other, and from Faramir who Gandalf considered more like the men of the West.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Perhaps a good example of an "ordinary man" and how said would
react is Bard the Archer. In fact the whole political Esgaroth situation
is the closest to Democratic in Middle-earth (hobbits are more
minimalists-and unknown to them, really protected). Would Bard's
grandson Bard II have used the Ring? Very likely when the Lonely Mountain
was besieged, although perhaps temporarily advised against it by the nearby
ally elves. And no, I haven't seen PJ's latest assault on The Hobbit. The first
was enough.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

Would Bard's
grandson Bard II have used the Ring? Very likely when the Lonely Mountain
was besieged, although perhaps temporarily advised against it by the nearby
ally elves. And no, I haven't seen PJ's latest assault on The Hobbit. The first
was enough.

I think it's clear that anyone possessing the One Ring would be ultimately be unable to resist claiming and using it sooner or later. Those with great power (Gandalf) or ambition (Boromir) were just especially vulnerable. A Bard or Barliman Butterbur might hold out longer, but probably still wouldn't do as well as a Hobbit.

[Bard the Bowman]

Bard the Archer. In fact the whole political Esgaroth situation
is the closest to Democratic in Middle-earth (hobbits are more
minimalists-and unknown to them, really protected). Would Bard's
grandson Bard II have used the Ring? Very likely when the Lonely Mountain
was besieged, although perhaps temporarily advised against it by the nearby
ally elves.

+1

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I think it's clear that anyone possessing the One Ring would be ultimately be unable to resist claiming and using it sooner or later.

This reminds me of the idea I argued in another thread that Boromir had, arguably, the learning of the High without the usually correlative wisdom, which was why he simultaneously was capable of desiring to effect grand schemes with the Ring and struggled to resist its temptations.
But of course anyone would indeed have succumbed eventually, although Boromir lacked humility as a substitute for or alternative to wisdom also. Yet the Ring was ultimately irresistible in the same way that it could not be conventionally destroyed. Everyone would have made the same choice as Frodo if they had been in his position at the Crack of Doom. Sauron himself could not have voluntarily destroyed the Ring.

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

That's an interesting interpretation, and I believe that you have a valid point. Of course, for fear of redundancy, I'm not going to argue the point for or against, but I can see how you drew that conclusion. However, I see it less as him being "modern", and more as being an example of how people react when controlled by fear.

Welcome to the barrowdowns!!!! *throws confetti*

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

This reminds me of the idea I argued in another thread that Boromir had, arguably, the learning of the High without the usually correlative wisdom, which was why he simultaneously was capable of desiring to effect grand schemes with the Ring and struggled to resist its temptations.
But of course anyone would indeed have succumbed eventually, although Boromir lacked humility as a substitute for or alternative to wisdom also. Yet the Ring was ultimately irresistible in the same way that it could not be conventionally destroyed. Everyone would have made the same choice as Frodo if they had been in his position at the Crack of Doom. Sauron himself could not have voluntarily destroyed the Ring.

Everyone alive would have made the same choice as Frodo. There are possible exceptions to this.

I dislike the notion that being a 'High' man with wisdom makes you less susceptible to the corruption of the ring. It is a matter of character. A relatively uneducated Hobbit like Sam was able to resist due to his good Hobbit sense. At the same time Hobbit like creature, Smeagol, was utterly ensnared. Faramir and Denethor are two people of equal education and power of mind. These are two examples of what a Numenorean used to be. Faramir is noble and does resist the ring, but Denethor equally as wise as Faramir would have taken it.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I dislike the notion that being a 'High' man with wisdom makes you less susceptible to the corruption of the ring. It is a matter of character. A relatively uneducated Hobbit like Sam was able to resist due to his good Hobbit sense.

Apart from Sam and Bombadil, isn't everyone who resists the Ring someone of High stature? I never said I was exclusively talking about Men. Gandalf, Galadriel and Faramir all had the wisdom to understand the Ring's corruption. The Ring took advantage of Boromir's 'Middle-ness': his warlike nature and enthusiasm for martial prowess. I'm not trying to argue that it's the only reason but I think it definitely plays a role. My point is that by the end of the Third Age in Gondor Men were of an increasingly Middling nature with the learning of the High, and that this was a source of inner tension. Faramir and Aragorn were both throwbacks to the day when people from High cultures were also of High stature. At least, I think there is a difference.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Apart from Sam and Bombadil, isn't everyone who resists the Ring someone of High stature? I never said I was exclusively talking about Men. Gandalf, Galadriel and Faramir all had the wisdom to understand the Ring's corruption. The Ring took advantage of Boromir's 'Middle-ness': his warlike nature and enthusiasm for martial prowess. I'm not trying to argue that it's the only reason but I think it definitely plays a role. My point is that by the end of the Third Age in Gondor Men were of an increasingly Middling nature with the learning of the High, and that this was a source of inner tension. Faramir and Aragorn were both throwbacks to the day when people from High cultures were also of High stature. At least, I think there is a difference.

I would not say Bombadill is someone of low stature at all. Bilbo at the time he found the ring was certainly not as knowledgeable as he would become and I would say even Frodo only became knowledgeable after his suffering.

The ring takes advantage of everything. It's a question of character and not education.

You mention Galadriel, but she was as sorely tempted as anyone and had the trial been in her youth may have failed.

Denethor was just as much a throwback as Faramir. Saruman knew more about the ring than anyone and was head of the order. You can be High and reject the things the rings stands for or High and accept it much like Saruman and Denethor. The same way you can be a 'Middle Man' like Eomer and trust the judgement or fall like Boromir.

Morgoth was the greatest and mightiest of the Ainur, but he was the one too fall. Throughout the story and in the case of the ring being 'High' or 'Low' has not mattered.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The ring takes advantage of everything. It's a question of character and not education.

Now that I think about it I'm not sure why I was arguing the point I was because it's quite opposed to how I read The Lord of the Rings, for many of the same reasons you gave.

In his chapter on The Lord of the Rings in Classic Cult Fiction Thomas Reed Whissen argues that The Lord of the Rings “reminds us of how much our notion of good and evil and our power to resist temptation depend, not upon reason and will, but upon the kind of family and society into which we happen to have been born and by which we have been educated.” Yet this can be seen as patently untrue through Boromir alone, as well as Denethor, Saruman, even Sauron himself.

So if Boromir's susceptibility is a matter of character and not culture, how does he reflect whatever Professor Tolkien's opinion is on how much choice we have over our own actions? Is this a 'nature vs nurture' question, and does Professor Tolkien fall on the side of nature? Or is there a compromise to be found between these two aspects and circumstance? I am loath to suggest that Professor Tolkien was ever guilty of that for which he is so regularly accused by his detractors, that he did not draw humanity in complex terms.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Now that I think about it I'm not sure why I was arguing the point I was because it's quite opposed to how I read The Lord of the Rings, for many of the same reasons you gave.

In his chapter on The Lord of the Rings in Classic Cult Fiction Thomas Reed Whissen argues that The Lord of the Rings “reminds us of how much our notion of good and evil and our power to resist temptation depend, not upon reason and will, but upon the kind of family and society into which we happen to have been born and by which we have been educated.” Yet this can be seen as patently untrue through Boromir alone, as well as Denethor, Saruman, even Sauron himself.

So if Boromir's susceptibility is a matter of character and not culture, how does he reflect whatever Professor Tolkien's opinion is on how much choice we have over our own actions? Is this a 'nature vs nurture' question, and does Professor Tolkien fall on the side of nature? Or is there a compromise to be found between these two aspects and circumstance? I am loath to suggest that Professor Tolkien was ever guilty of that for which he is so regularly accused by his detractors, that he did not draw humanity in complex terms.

Well the very fact that the ring is too powerful for anyone of mortal race suggest that even the strongest of us can be broken by exterior influences. In the real life instead of demonic ring it may be torture.

I don't want to put words in Tolkien's mouth, but I imagine he would have a similar view to Catholic doctrine.

The impression I get is that knowledge is important in being able to resist initially. Isildur was ensnared partially, because he did not know the full extent of what he was dealing with. However, even after we are ensnared we have the choice to reject the ring. Isildur decides to give it to Elrond, Celebrimbor repents from forging the ring and Galadriel finally accepts returning to Valinor.

In the Tolkien's world nothing is completely evil and even the orcs have some qualities we would consider virtuous. Nurture may leave a person broken and evil like Gollum, but there is always going to be a little light shining through in which it's up to our nature to take advantage. Even Gollum after 500 years possessing the ring and many evil acts had a chance at redemption.

The Edain like other member were under the same darkness of Melkor, but choice to leave.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The impression I get is that knowledge is important in being able to resist initially. Isildur was ensnared partially, because he did not know the full extent of what he was dealing with. However, even after we are ensnared we have the choice to reject the ring. Isildur decides to give it to Elrond, Celebrimbor repents from forging the ring and Galadriel finally accepts returning to Valinor.

If the first sentence is true, then Boromir's failure points to his inherent weakness all the more. He had been present at the Council of Elrond, and had gained as much knowledge of the Ring as any on Middle-earth, save perhaps the members of the White Council. Faramir lacked such knowledge, and yet, as he said to Frodo, he was "wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee".

[Bard the Bowman]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Well the very fact that the ring is too powerful for anyone of mortal race suggest that even the strongest of us can be broken by exterior influences. In the real life instead of demonic ring it may be torture.

I don't want to put words in Tolkien's mouth, but I imagine he would have a similar view to Catholic doctrine.

The impression I get is that knowledge is important in being able to resist initially. Isildur was ensnared partially, because he did not know the full extent of what he was dealing with. However, even after we are ensnared we have the choice to reject the ring. Isildur decides to give it to Elrond, Celebrimbor repents from forging the ring and Galadriel finally accepts returning to Valinor.

In the Tolkien's world nothing is completely evil and even the orcs have some qualities we would consider virtuous. Nurture may leave a person broken and evil like Gollum, but there is always going to be a little light shining through in which it's up to our nature to take advantage. Even Gollum after 500 years possessing the ring and many evil acts had a chance at redemption.

The Edain like other member were under the same darkness of Melkor, but choice to leave.

+1 *Flies away*