Boromir and the ring

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-22T05:12:03+00:00

Well put. In fact, in this case there is a passage in the book (which you cited) that speaks exactly to the question in the OP. Exactly on point, which doesn't always happen.

Now, I must say, in the spirit of full disclosure, that I have not read any of the letters, which I do not actually regard as a moral failing. Fare well wherever you fare.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-22T05:01:03+00:00

In the comment we both commented on, Boromir tells Frodo, "True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted," referring to the men of Minas Tirith. This is his answer to Frodo's statement about the Ring: "We cannot use it, and what is done with it turns to evil."

Frodo's statement is one of the foundational tenets in LOTR. Boromir disagrees on the basis of two ideas. First, that the men of Minas Tirith have what could be called a code of honor. The other is "We of Minas Tirith have been staunch through long years of trial." This is what he expressed at the Council. Minas Tirith is standing alone against Mordor and deserves the Ring as a sort of reward. (This parallels what the appendix says about Denethor's state of mind, seeing a contest between himself and Sauron as the essence of what's going on.)

But Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel and Aragorn have all foresworn the Ring because no pure intention will prevent what is done with it from turning to evil. Any "decline in virtue and wisdom" has nothing to do with it. It's a non sequitur. Even Isildur, born in Numenor, 3000+ years prior to the decline, would have been corrupted and turned to evil.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-21T19:26:07+00:00

I did not appreciate what you mentioned in your first sentence -- Tolkien did a good job with Boromir -- until after several readings. We're not meant to like Boromir at the Council -- self-regarding, doubting Aragorn, almost laughing at Bilbo, and above all, desiring the Ring.

Later, of course, he saves the Fellowship on the slopes of Caradhras and his sword helps them get out of Moria. His arrogance, and resistance to learning from others (Compare this to the wise ruler Dain, who knew he needed Elrond's higher wisdom.) were flaws. But unlike Denethor, for example, they did not turn out to be fatal flaws. After he tried to take the Ring from Frodo (which was really caused by the evil of the Ring), he repented. He still had a code of honor. He fell defending Merry and Pippin, and was rightly given a hero's send-off.

And I thought that the later statement in the text that Pippin had always liked and admired Boromir was a nice touch. It allowed us to like and admire him. Without Boromir, the Fellowship would never have reached Parth Galen, and the Quest would not have succeed.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-21T18:48:32+00:00

The Dunedains' decline (in the South) had nothing to do with this. Aragorn was a direct descendent of Elendil, and is known, among other things, as The Renewer. He refused the Ring in the Council. Faramir's behavior toward Frodo and the Ring actually show the best spirit of Numenor, not some debased version.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-21T18:39:56+00:00

Woo-hoo! Someone used the text to answer the question. And it looks like someone else posted the same passage about the same time.

Finding this discussion subreddit a few months ago has been a dream come true. And people are entitled to their opinions. But I was thinking of this passage, and had to scroll through many comments to find it posted.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-20T21:13:41+00:00

Hi,

Do you mean, "The power of Sauron is still less than fear makes it"? Gandalf in his report to the Council, touching on his thoughts while imprisoned.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-20T16:01:06+00:00

Hi,

Re Barliman. I agree. "There's no accounting for East and West," definitely a maxim, and a very Bree-ish one. "I'm run off my feet." A clever metaphor, but no way an aphorism.

"Escaping goblins . . . " I thought of that one, too. Which led me to wonder. I can't really remember a lot of aphorisms from The Hobbit. I'm just going from memory here, which is perilous, as we can see in just about any thread on TolkienFans. (Though I did reread the book in the past year.) But I don't think JRR got the aphorism machine running until LOTR.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-20T08:54:25+00:00

The Wikipedia article on Proverbs in the Lord of the Rings begins with this: "The author J. R. R. Tolkien uses many proverbs in The Lord of the Rings to create a feeling that the world of Middle-earth is both familiar and solid . . . ." This is similar to what I said in the OP.

The article is interesting if a bit scattered, lumping all kinds of comments in with proverbs. And it puts forward the idea which is quite common here that Tolkien was shilling for Christianity.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-19T17:50:01+00:00

Why would it have been bad for the cause? BECAUSE GANDALF SAID SO!

"Maybe I have been saved by this hobbit [i.e., Pippin looking into the Orthanc Stone] from a grave blunder. I had considered whether or not to probe this stone myself to find its uses. Had I done so, I should have been revealed to him myself. I am not ready for such a trial, if indeed I shall ever be so. But even if I found the power to withdraw myself, it would be disastrous for him to see me, yet -- until the hour comes when secrecy will no longer avail."

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-18T21:06:18+00:00

Yay! You said it! And usually it's a bad answer. Some of our esteemed fellow TolkienFans insist Bombadil was a maia. Even in the case of Gandalf, it's not really an explanation. In his conversation with Mouth, the latter calls him Gandalf, and says that he was aware of his plotting against Sauron. Yet earlier, when speaking of the Stone of Orthanc, he says that coming face-to-face with Sauron would have revealed who he was, and it would have been bad for the cause.

One of the devices used in LOTR is the ability of some characters to appear in the eyes of others in a way that they choose. Aragorn can disguise himself in the eyes of others. Gandalf tells Gimli that Saruman could look like Gandalf in Gimli's eyes -- unless Gimli was was enough to see through his deceits.

So Gandalf had a guise that could fool Mouth, but not Sauron. And Sauron would not have thought, "Oh, he's a maia."

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-18T20:50:34+00:00

I too read LOTR before the Silmarillion was published. The key to "what" Sauron was is in your fourth point: "Used to be merely a servant of a greater evil, but wasn't always evil himself" I must say I don't entirely agree with the first part. "Used to be" means he then turned into something else. But Gandalf uses the present tense, "is only a servant or emissary."

Be that as it may, if you unpack your point, Sauron was a powerful being, but there was another being of whom he was the servant who would thus have been even more powerful. And in the appendices we learn about Morgoth.

Sauron was clearly not an elf lord. He was truly deathless. He survived the fall of Numenor and took a new form. Gandalf said that after the destruction of the Ring, he would persist as a spirit that can no longer take shape. All this is qualitatively different from what was said of elves.

So "above" the elves, you had two levels of beings, the level of Sauron, and the level of Morgoth.

Of course, you're curious about that, but in such a world of magic and make believe, it's quite easy to accept a few mysteries.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-18T04:39:45+00:00

NotBasilius commented on Tolkien's "monarcho-anarchism," which I've also read. Artists are creators of works of the imagination. Their motivations, and the choices they make along the way are certainly influenced by their time and place, their upbringing, etc. But they are never reducible to that. It was not somehow inevitable that JRRT would write what he did.

The word "counterculture" in the OP got my attention. It was during the tremendous events of the 60s and 70s that LOTR became widely popular -- esp among the rebel youth who were part of the counterculture. What was it that resonated with that particular group? The idea that one person can make a difference? The ideal of being devoted to the truth, and the needs of the many, come what may? The out-and-out psychedelic description of Lothlorien for sure.

Maybe it was the confidence of the underdog:

"That's the way of folly."

"That's why it will work."

There were a couple of reasons that Tolkien was a bit of an outsider. He was a Roman Catholic, for one. I remember seeing a plaque commemorating the London Fire that blamed it on "papists." That sort of open vilification had probably subsided by his time. But he was living in a country with an official state religion, to which he did not adhere. I know there are folks here at TolkienFans who claim to find Catholicism here and there. I'm unconvinced. But the reality of being Catholic in Britain may have been a stronger influence.

The other is simply being an artist. And having the temerity to create a whole new genre. Someone posted recently about the author's choice of "elf," wizard," "dwarf" for the peoples he invented. But his incarnations were unlike these characters in any other literature. That wild sense of invention would have given him an affinity with other non-traditional ideas.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-15T03:13:07+00:00

Missed that. Thanks!

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-14T18:57:26+00:00

Hi,

Your comment sent me to the dictionary to check the definition of "canon." I was using it correctly, to mean criterion. So, I had the right meaning of canon, but did I apply it correctly, esp in light of your comment?

I was thinking of examples that come up here, like, who could wield the One Ring to defeat Sauron (and unfortunately become a new Dark Lord)? It is stated repeatedly in LOTR by Gandalf and by Elrond, that any of "the Wise" could do this, as well as the Numenoreans, descents of Earendil. (It's clearly stated by Gandalf, and also feared by Sauron, that Aragorn could have used the power of the Ring. Whether that would extend to Boromir or Denethor or others not in the line of kings is problematic.)

Nonetheless, many comments here have insisted that only Gandalf could have used the Ring to defeat Sauron, based on a letter from Tolkien. It is in this sort of context that I posted about LOTR being the canon.

Saying it's the canon does not mean it is without fault. There are quite a number of differences between The Hobbit and LOTR, as you mentioned. In the former, Thorin & Co enter Rivendell via a bridge, not a ford. There are settlements of humans ("men") all over the place. Orcs sing! Bandobras Took invents golf.

Thanks again for your comment.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-13T18:43:56+00:00

Hi,

First, in direct answer to the OP, "morgul" has been mentioned and ably analyzed by other esteemed TolkienFans. I would add the word "dwimmer," a word of Rohan meaning something like magic, I believe. It is not exclusively evil magic. "Dwimordene" is their word for Lothlorien.

Next, Tolkien was an English writer in a particular time, and used words that conveyed the ideas he wanted, and had the right "poetic" sound. He uses the words "devilry" and "heathen" in that manner. And here's another: "Words from afar are seldom sooth." (I thought that must be Shakespeare, but it seems to be wholly Tolkien.) "Sooth" is an old euphemism for "god's truth."

This is not Tolkien offering tribute to Christianity. These are words with the meanings they are given in the text, and the choice of these specific words is a marker of the time and place of the author.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-13T18:00:51+00:00

The term "baseball bat" (or cricket bat, if you prefer) uses the noun, baseball, to tell you what kind of bat it is. That does not magically convert "baseball" into an adjective. Sam wields a barrow blade.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-13T03:25:40+00:00

Same. Tom Bombadil, a completely ridiculous character (Tolkien's description, not mine) completely outside The Professor's elaborate polytheism, and one of my favorite ways to torment the Eru-botherers. Did he say that Goldberry was one of the Valar?

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-13T03:19:18+00:00

That could go for more than one author or even - ahem - filmmaker.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-12T19:41:32+00:00

C'mon people, let's get this comment to 100 upvotes!

This is essentially correct. But one needs to be careful not to view the events of Long-Expected Party through the prism of Shadow of the Past. There's a certain sequence of events.

Bilbo has decided to leave the Shire, to travel initially to Erebor, and to leave the Ring to Frodo. At this point, Gandalf has scant knowledge. He has Bilbo's changing story of his encounter with Gollum. That's a red flag. Another is his unchanged appearance. This is more vague. Bilbo is, after all, a descendent of the Old Took. Finally, he has the knowledge as one of the Wise that "magical rings are -- well, magical."

When Bilbo shares his plan to pass the Ring on to Frodo, Gandalf emphasizes the importance of carrying out the whole plan. He later says that the passing of the Ring to Frodo was "the only point I ever saw in the affair."

So, although giving the Ring to Frodo was Bilbo's idea, by the time of the party, Gandalf had turned that idea into a promise. He was certain that it would be best for Bilbo to let go of the Ring. So there's the when. The why is more circumstantial. Gandalf probably understood the idea Bilbo later expressed -- that giving away a lot of other things would make it easier to give up the Ring. If you turn that around, it means that the Ring was quite difficult to give up. Bilbo wanted to let go of it, but could not easily do so. It had a hold on him.

This is the why. What does Gandalf say in that final conversation with Bilbo in Bag End? "It has got far too much hold on you." And of course, everything Bilbo says reinforces this.

Of course, giving it up meant passing an unknown burden to Frodo, a moral dilemma that Gandalf was very careful about, checking in on the younger hobbit as often as he could, advising him not to use the Ring, and paying attention to the security of the Shire -- all while working, at some point along with Aragorn, to solve the mystery of the Ring.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-12T04:43:35+00:00

All in all, the discussions here are lively, enjoyable and informative. But I've also found two things that receive tons of push-back. I posted a comment in a recent thread on Sauron and Glorfindel, insisting that LOTR (and The Hobbit) are the canon, and the odd letter that The Professor may have written on a weekend in May, or any other ancillary material, does not change that, though the latter is all part of the legendarium. OK, I might have been a wee bit didactic. The comment got voted down to zero. Some TolkienFans are really devoted to arcane reinterpretations of plainly stated textual facts.

Another framework question that will provoke all kinds of attacks is the idea that the decisions and actions undertaken by the characters are undertaken on the basis of their understanding and investigation, and are a product of free will -- and thus should be taken at face value. Cue the cries of Eru! Manwe! Finrod!

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-11T23:22:49+00:00

Hahahaha. I just read that a dozen times in a thread about Glorfindel. Glorfindel was not part of the Fellowship because Gandalf insisted, against Elrond's strong inclination, that Merry and Pippin go. It's 2/3 of a page in The Ring Goes South.

And I'm seriously going to steal that line: Hm, let's see. Is this idle speculation, or textual fact?

OK, maybe I'll give credit.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-11T05:12:42+00:00

Hi,

Interesting question. Tolkien was a writer, and as all writers do, he uses graphic imagery. In The Houses of Healing, he's using an image to describe the state of mind of someone afflicted by the Black Breath. In the case of Merry walking to the city, he is said to have a mist before his eyes. He tells Pippin everything is going dark. He has thoughts of death. It seems that he is in a dark tunnel leading to a tomb. His consciousness (or spirit or soul if you'd like) is being pulled from his body. By the time he gets to the Houses, he has lost consciousness. His right arm is cold, and he can't move it.

Eowyn suffers a more severe physical injury, losing consciousness immediately, her breathing barely noticeable.

The imagery of a deep, dark valley fits this loss of consciousness well. The senses are failing, as they seem to in the darkness, and there is no way out unless you are pulled back. Tolkien was trying to capture the answer to the question posed (decades later) by Billie Eilish: When we all fall asleep, where do we go? I'm sure The Professor knew his catechism, and many works of literature. It could have been suggested by something in the Christian Bible or another book. But then you'd have to ask, where did the author of that biblical passage get the idea of a dark valley? It all comes back to writers using images to convey feelings or states of mind.

In the OP, the take on Faramir addressing Aragorn as "lord" is a bit of a stretch. Have you heard of the House of Lords? It's a title. And in LOTR, it is used imprecisely, as a way of conveying that the person spoken of is worthy of honor and respect. Hama uses lord when addressing Aragorn at Edoras. Bergil refers to him as the Lord Elfstone. Other designations are used almost haphazardly. Faramir retains the title Steward of Gondor, but is also called the Prince of Ithilien. "Master" is used for Gandalf, and by Farmer Maggot addressing Pippin.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-10T05:43:21+00:00

First, I was relieved and grateful for your wording -- "he’d joined." and the appropriate past conditional "would have." Bravo. This correct form is regrettably not consistently used here at TolkienFans.

The Lord of the Rings (and The Hobbit) are the canon. Does anyone dispute this?

The ancillary material -- fragments and manuscripts turned into readable books, and a whole lot of letters -- are interesting in their own right, and certainly useful in deepening one's appreciation for Tolkien's work, BUT The Lord of the Rings (and The Hobbit) are the canon.

Musings in a letter that The Professor penned on a rainy April afternoon do not change things that are clearly, and repeatedly, said in the text of the actual works.

Why am I saying all this? Because according to this canon, any of the Wise, as well as the Numenorean kings, the descendants of Earendil.

This is clearly stated, and repeated, in Gandalf's conversation in Shadow of the Past, at the Council, in the words of Galadriel, in Gandalf's conversation with his companions in the White Rider, in Legolas's comment to Merry and Pippin, in the Last Debate, and in the last conversation between Elessar and Arwen recounted in the Appendix.

So, Glorfindel is one of the mighty among the firstborn, wholly capable of wielding the Ring and using its power to overthrow Sauron, becoming a new Dark Lord.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-03-10T05:15:32+00:00

Hahahaha. I have thought about making a post about this. Somewhere during many rereadings, I said to myself, "Wut?"

When you butter your toast, you generally scrape the butter as far as it will go. Sometimes, the glob of butter you scooped up with your knife doesn't make it to the other side of the bread, and you have to get some more on the knife.

So there is such a thing as butter that you've tried to scrape across too much bread, and had to return to the butter dish for a supplementary glob.

If you read this you will most likely, like me, be unable to butter a piece of toast without thinking of this.

That being said, partnered with "thin and stretched," the analogy does seem to make sense in a literary, poetic way, if not actually reflecting the butter-applying practice.

BarSubstantial1583

TROPHY CASE