Middle-earth Journeys

Now Iolanthe that's what I'm talking about. Your argument is a good one. A hero to me is someone who makes a great sacrific and I don't see that with Aragorn at all. Yes, he carries a big sword...Estel any man with a big sword would get your vote.

Perhaps Eowyn should have been on the list. But her motives for wanting to fight for her country are just not heroic enough for me. Slap me ... I know what you're thinking.

Now Riv has introduced Gollum in the mix. Intersting...I think in some respects he could be considered a hero. However, he was not thinking of others from day one of having that ring. The power of the ring had already warped his mind before poor Deagal had unclasped the Ring incased in mud. His actions were not heroic but pathetic all the way around.

I don't wish to deminish Frodo's great sacrifice, and there is no dispute there. Yet, he failed at Mount Doom and was it not for Smeagol/Gollum the Ring would have taken him to join the other Nazgul. Could Sam made it different? Too much to speculate.
Heroism is found in all of the characters we all admire and have come to hold dear in our minds and hearts. I think some characters more closely touch our souls when they illuminate our struggles and victories. All of us have been given our life's tasks to accomplish, and this epic informs us that no matter how hard to road or perilsome it may become, we can summon our strengths and find those who can aid us.
What it also informs us is that at the end, when the circles of life have become too many, we can leave without fear. There is something nameless and beautiful that we participate in and we get a glimpse of its majesty as a sentient being.

I name them all!!! It's impossible to pick one over the other ( and I could think of a few more to add...Eomer being a big one).

What if we looked at it this way. In defining the word 'hero' for our purposes here...let's say that it means the ONE character in this tale, without whom the quest would have failed.

Frodo and Sam definitely/clearly fit the bill in trudging thorough Mordor...but...how clear are we REALLY (as Philipa said) that Aragorn did more than wage war? Ok...he created a diversion. Does Gandalf do more than defeat a Balrog and urge the others in the right direction? Theoden and Faramir appear to have the least herioc credentials by this measure.

What say you?

But you know, Riv Res, that Tolkien crafted the story such that there are many people who fit that definition. For example, if Merry and Pippin hadn't appealed to the conscience of Treebeard, Saruman would not have been destroyed, the Rohirrim would not have made it to Minas Tirith, there would have been no diversion at the Black Gate, and Frodo probably would have been caught by orcs.

Even Ghan-buri-ghan played a vital role, making it possible for Rohan to reach Minas Tirith in the nick of time. What if Fatty Bulger had blabbed all he knew to the Black Riders rather than run for help? There are many, many characters that played a vital role, so vital that the Quest would have failed had they acted differently: that's the beauty of the plot!

What is hero I suppose should have been the topic. Even though Frodo failed does an individual have to succeed to be called a hero? I like to play advocate.

Varda is absolutely right. It is a diffecult choice. But for me Smeagol is not one of them.

I have to agree on the issue of Smeagol...a hero is motivated by honorable causes and Smeagol's cause certainly was not honorable..

I think it's a matter of individual preferences as to what hero means to us...the battles that Aragorn fought were honorable causes and helped to advance the destruction of the ring....but so many contributed in their own way that it's hard to pick just one hero...

But for me it was Aragorn...a man with a sword fighting for a just cause will always be a hero to me....

But if Gollum hadn't been there in the end...and IF Frodo hadn't agreed to take the Ring...and IF Sam hadn't taken the RING when he thought Frodo was dead...and IF Faramir had taken Frodo and Sam back to his father....so many IF'S!!! But if you need a answer, I think Frodo would be the hero. He took on the responsibility of carrying the Ring, without fully understanding the risk involved. In the end, he suffered/lost the most of all the characters.

I honestly think that the lesson of Tolkien is that the sum of our heroic efforts is made up of many parts. The Fellowship is the thing. We are all in it together and no matter what social rank or status anyone has...they all play a pivotal part in the final outcome. The lowly are as crucial as the mighty...as Elrond says..."This is the hour of the Shire-folk, when they arise from their quiet fields to shake the towers and counsels of the Great."

Elrond also gives us other clues...

"Gandalf will go; for this shall be his great task, and maybe the end of his labours."

"For men you shall have Aragorn son of Arathorn, for the Ring of Isildur concerns him greatly."

"For the rest, they shall represent the other Free Peoples of the World..."

I believe that Tolkien assigns heroics to all races who have a vested interest in the destruction of the Ring, and it speaks to his geniius that he creates scenarios throughout his epic for all to test and show their heroism...and...make it SO hard for us to choose the one hero.

Philipa wrote:Now Iolanthe that's what I'm talking about. Your argument is a good one. A hero to me is someone who makes a great sacrific and I don't see that with Aragorn at all.

No? Longing for an exquisite "elf chick" for 68 years, being sent away into the wilderness and to foreign lands with strange stars, by your foster father, who also happens to be your prospect father-in-law.

Philipa wrote:Yes, he carries a big sword...Estel any man with a big sword would get your vote.

Am I that obvious? But to my defense I will say that I wouldn't vote for any man with a big sword. But yes, a famous sword IS a necessary accessory. A bow is alright too, but not in this particular story.

Iolanthe wrote:OK, I'm riding out on my white charger on behalf of Frodo, though, as Estel pointed out, Aragorn has a big special sword (and is therefore automatically a first-class hero).

Why Frodo?
(---)
His is the greatest sacrifice. The others go on to reap the rewards of the New Age and live full lives. The old Frodo is destroyed by the task. 'I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me.'

That is why I call Frodo my anti-hero, his fate and whole journey makes me so sad while Aragorn makes me happy.

Iolanthe wrote:(But my favourite character's still Aragorn..... )

Yesss, my preciousss! and that goes to ElessarsLady too. And a couple of others who I know have a thing for the ranger/king since they first read the book.

Riv Res wrote:I honestly think that the lesson of Tolkien is that the sum of our heroic efforts is made up of many parts. The Fellowship is the thing.

Naturally. So why put the question in the first end? But hey, it's always fun to discuss. Especially if you're for once in a discussion is allowed to use a sword as an argument. (You can't see me, but I really am rolling on the floor laughing. LOTR really IS the best thing to get away from troubles IRL)

I think I'm out numbered. There are way too many Aragorn fanatics on this board.

Well, we are sort of Son of Viggo-Works, which is Son of House of Telcontar. We come by our obsessions honestly!

Riv Res, I do think that you've articulated Tolkien's lesson for us well.

Oh Lordy!! Don't get me started on Aragorn and the V man.

I agree (I think we all do) that all the characters in the book who are on the side of good are essential for success. They all play a part without whom the whole plan would have come tumbling down. The Quest indeed 'stands upon the edge of a knife'. So:

Riv Res wrote:What if we looked at it this way. In defining the word 'hero' for our purposes here...let's say that it means the ONE character in this tale, without whom the quest would have failed.

By this definition they are certainly all heros. But - could they all have detroyed the ring? The one act that was essential, the one goal that all other heroic acts either supported or would have been in vain without.

bruce rerek wrote:I don't wish to deminish Frodo's great sacrifice, and there is no dispute there. Yet, he failed at Mount Doom

That's a good point and very true. But riding out again on Frodo's behalf, I don't believe any of the characters in the book would have succeeded in throwing it in at that point. If Frodo couldn't, no one could. I'd like to argue that none of the others would have even got as far if they had been carrying the ring, not even Aragorn. That's why it was always meant to be Frodo's task and why he had to leave them all at Parth Galen. Perhaps only Sam might have got as close.

This is one of the twists in the story that I love. The Ring is only destroyed by a selfish act of Gollum's. It is not only the acts of the heroes that are essential to success. Good does all it can but in the end it brings events to the point where evil defeats itself. I think it's a very fitting irony that the lure of the Ring is it's own downfall.

So I'm still rooting for Frodo (with a big cheer for all the others especially Aragorn and his special sword ).

Great ideas, Iolanthe. The 'evil defeats itself' is an interesting theme throught the books.

By the way, Tolkien, in one of the letters, agrees with you that Frodo's quest was not a failure. I don't have my letters with me, but I seem to recall his reason was the same as yours: he did the best that could have been done by anyone.