XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid
In message
Lewis spoke these staves:
>
> Boromir's fault is the fault of many men, and in many stories is
> not a fault at all. He is the classic hero, noble and virtuous. He
> is fighting an enemy of much greater power than he, and he is
> presented with a great weapon. Dangerous, to be sure, but
> nonetheless a great weapon capable of destroying the enemy and
> saving his people.
>
> Of course he thinks the weapon should be use and of course he
> thinks he is strong enough to use it.
>
> In many stories he would get the ring and use it to defeat the
> enemy and that would be the story. Hell, in *most* stories.
Yes!
You are completely right -- and I think that this also gives one of the
reasons why this is important for me to stress: Tolkien is telling a
different story from most, and he is portraying as sins what would in
very many other stories be virtues (and as virtues what would in many
other stories be weaknesses and foolishness -- Frodo trusting Gollum,
for instance [though not in all things, of course]).
As an illustration: In Jackson's LotR, Boromir /is/ treated as a
classic hero, and instead of making Boromir's attempt to seize the Ring
a matter of Boromir's own fault, the Ring itself is portrayed as having
an explicitly evil will and a far greater agency than in the book (even
if we accept the antropomorphic attribution of agency to the Ring as it
is in the Book). That way Jackson manages both to portray Boromir as
the noble warrior in compliance with the normal view that you present,
and yet make not using the Ring the right choice.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.
- /Interesting Times/ (Terry Pratchett)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
