I'll tell you what the issue with heroes is today: they're not passionate in what they believe in, they can't convince your of their world, their ideas and their beliefs. So they come off as flat or boring. Whereas with Faramir you could sense that passion and conviction, his character arc was every step he took in protecting Gondor and the legacy of Numenor. By his actions more was revealed of Faramir and his lack of actions, when contrasted with other characters (Boromir cough cough), spoke volumes as well.
Perhaps this is because the writers, coming from a world of subjective ethics, have trouble believing it themselves. But they need to write a good guy because the story needs a hero.
My favorite Faramir character trait is that he is the person most similar to his father in talents and temperament, but with inverted values. He can be nearly as shrewd and dissembling as Denethor, but in service of a different goal. Reading the scenes where they converse is a bit like watching high-speed 4-d invisible chess.
It all comes down to whom do you serve. Good (Faramir, Aragorn, Gandalf) serves something greater than themselves and their own desires. Which acts as a moral compass. Why Faramir would not touch the Ring even if Gondor were to fall. Evil (Denethor, Saruman, Sauron) serves itself and it’s own desires. Denethor wanted to be a King, and all his efforts served that end. Once it became clear that it was no longer possible, he no longer cared what happened to anyone or anything else. Just let it all burn if I can’t have what I want, and I can’t control it…. This is where Gandalf was wrong. Denethor and Faramir would never have gotten along. Ever. They were too different morally.
@@kellygreenii I wouldn't necessarily call Denethor evil, he was self serving but that mostly involved being a decently good leader to the people of Gondor. He had his faults of course, loving one son far more than the other, wanting to use the ring for power, and his ultimate slight trying to kill faramir. Denethor's story showed the power of the corruption of Sauron. He lost his mind not because he wasn't going to be king, he never truly want to be king only keep his position as steward, but because he thought Faramir was dying and the bloodline of the Stewards would be ended. Tolkein makes a point to connect the madness of Denethor with the palantir multiple times. We learn that he looked in the palantir directly before deciding all was lost and to go to the tomb. We also learn that Denethor has been seen using the palantir on multiple occasions previously Denethor was a complex character not wholly good or evil but definitely corrupted by seeing exactly what Sauron wanted him to see
@@Ancient_Road Disagree. The Lord of the Rings is a meditation on the nature of evil and the struggle to overcome it. The issue is that so much of it is dedicated to supernatural evil and BIG evils…that you sometimes miss the more ordinary human evil. Denethor was evil on a human scale. The evil that puts individual ambition ahead of duty and common good. The evil that feels my ends justify my means. The evil that feels my survival justifies whatever I do. Denethor might not have started out that evil, but by the time Gandalf reaches Minas Tirith on the eve of Pelennor Fields? He is there… and yes Sauron helped get him there. But Sauron had to have something to work with. It’s why Saruman turned but Gandalf did not. Faramir (along with Aragorn and Eomer) represent good on a human scale. It’s why he and his father don’t get along. Why Faramir is drawn to the Angel-in-disguise in Gandalf…while Denethor resents his son, resents the bond with Gandalf, and falls to the clutches of Sauron. Faramir recognizes and honors principles that are greater than himself or any of his own ambitions. To the point he’d rather let the world of Men fall than compromise them. While once Denethor realizes that his own ambitions are out of reach (like many a modern dictator seeing his regime crumble) is content to let it all burn to the ground. Denethor garners some sympathy, because he did retain his humanity… but he was very much an evil man. Part of being a good man is recognizing when one is being tempted or confronted with evil…and to turn away. Some cannot…and they risk falling, “I just had to look at it, Merry….”
@@kellygreenii Compared to Faramir almost all characters, with as you said the exceptions of Aargorn and Eomer, fall short in honor. Faramir may be the most noble character in the story and not being his equal is far from an indicator of being evil. Gandalf makes a point to tell Pippin 'by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir.' Denathor's biggest fault was believing the ring of power would allow Gondor to win the war, the same fault that Boromir showed. I would also argue Boromir is far from evil. Only the wisest in midde earth recognized that destroying the ring was the only way the truly defeat Sauron. When Denathor is telling Faramir why he is disappointed that he let the ring go, how Boromir would have brought it to him, we see the failure of Denathor to recognize the power of corruption in the ring. Gandalf tells him 'He would have kept it for his own, and when he returned you would not have known your son. ' This same power of corruption, only through the palantir, led him to his ultimate demise. We see Denathor in full control of the battle until Faramir is brought back injured. Denathor looks at his son in silence, goes up to view the palantir, when he comes back he is described as 'but the face of the Lord was grey, more deathlike than his son's.' What he saw in the palantir is what changed his mind state. And we find out what he saw when he says Gandalfs plan has failed "'The enemy has found it, now his power waxes; he sees our very thoughts, and all we do is ruinous.' When told he is still steward and the troops are flying, they need commands Denathor says 'why do the fools fly? Better to burn sooner than later, for burn we must... The west has failed.' More evidence showing the change in Denathor after whatever he saw through the palantir making him believe his biggest fear, Sauron had the ring. Sauron corrupted the thoughts of Denathor, who was not of a strong enough will or nobility to control the palantir. I have laid out the proof of Denathor's wicked end being attributed not to his being evil but to the corruption of Sauron through the Palantir. There are other arguments of Aragorn coming to take the kingship but we cant forget it was Denathor who had to teach Boromir that no matter how many generations go by their line would never be kings, only faithful Stewards. How Denathor would have reacted to the return of the king in a different mind state would be an interesting topic of discussion.
@@Ancient_Road Disagree. Honor is not something your born with. It is a code you live by. The only thing that Boromir was guilty of was in trying to please Denethor and make his father’s ambitions come true. That’s all the Ring needed to cause him to stumble and fall, and try to take the Ring. But the lesson of Boromir is not that the stumbles and fell. But that he got back up and redeemed himself. Unlike his father, he recognized the wrongness of what he’d done and gave his life to atone for it. Denethor fell…and then laid there on the ground and said, “Screw it. Let it all burn.” He was not an honorable man…and by the end he was not even a good man.
This is one more tick on the list of what makes Tolkien so unique. Faramir has always been one of my favorite characters. Also, Megamind is a great movie and one which serves as a very good example of your point.
The fall arc, I was around 10 when Jedi cames out and the one thing so many of us wanted to know was how Anakin became Darth Vader. The redemption part wasn't enough, we needed to know how a good man, Obi Wan's friend, became evil.
Personally, I have always found heroes more interesting than villains. That even applies to Superman, who I find fascinating. If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then why is not Superman corrupt? Small town ethics taught by loving parents might partly explain that - but nowhere near completely. Similarly, why does Superman work at the Daily Planet? His time on as a reporter is time when, globally, multiple disasters and crimes occur that Superman could have prevented. These are two fundamental contradictions in his character, and such contradictions are exactly the sort of conflict that can drive plot. Unfortunately too many writers of Superman have ignored these factors, treating Superman's heroism and down time as givens which are completely ignored in the plot; whereas in a more interesting, truly literary treatment, they would be the key to the story while the villains would be mere backdrops to the real action.
some interesting points. it is often said that superman´s battle are against himself, since nothing outside is at his level. He fights between is human and godly sides. Part of the reason he doesnt become corrupt is because of the balance he maintains between those sides. Should he be superman 24/7 the corruption might become more probably just by the way of burnout. Did superman ever focused on actually saving mankind? i feel he just helps/saves people in need, focusing on the individual rather than thinking big, once again keeping him grounded.
I find Superman boring. I think Batman is fascinating. Otherwords Im usually fascinated by the villains. Now Gandalf and Aragorn, especially in the mysterious guise of Strider in Eriador, I find very interesting. I like either hulking, larger than life, menacing figures in suits of black armour or else mysterious liminal characters that prowl beyond the circle of the familiar.
I find the reverse of the normal transformation more interesting - someone who had nothing traumatic in life but was a bad person in some ways being transformed to a better person through hardship, such as a certain Soviet artillery officer who was arrested and sent to the Gulag for making a negative comment about "the man with a mustache" in a letter.
Great video! Another hero like Faramir or Captain America could be Russell Crowe's Maximus in Gladiator. He's basically the perfectly moral, inspirational leader, everyone loves him, but then he's thrown into pretty much the worst possible situation. The rest of the movie explores how such a person deals with all that.
While Faramir fits your argument here, Fingolfin might be a better representation of a true hero who has his own fall. Fingolfin's despair at "the ruin of the Noldor" causes him to essentially become suicidal. It's a very important theme in Tolkien's legendarium that you can find in LoTR with Eowyn and Denethor
It’s not so much that we are “culpable” with the fall, but that because we are fallen creatures, we are all capable of “the fall” arc and doing things we never thought were possible. And it is just reality that we are all capable of falling down hard and doing stuff that we never thought possible. Pride comes before a fall
Gollum is a character who has two very different sides. At times he is overwhelmed with the allure of the ring, and at other times you get a sense that he would want to be through with the ring and just be a hobbit again. He contrasts with Bilbo in the LOTR who gives up the ring with Gandalf's help, but when Frodo shows it to him in Rivendell reverts to almost being Gollum. I think of the reluctant heroes like Die Hard where the character does not see himself as a hero, but through circumstance has to act heroically. In real life I think you had many who were caught up in WWII who were thrown into situations where they had to act heroically. Many had flaws or moments when they did not act ethically but in the balance achieved good.
In novels, I would propose the novels that follow The Companions of the Hall, Forgotten Realms, by R.A. Salvatore, especially regarding the dark elf Drizzt Do'Urden. It must be said that Salvatore has explicitly stated that he's heavily influenced by Tolkien. I would also point out both Huma and Sturm Brightblade in Dragonlance, the Inheritance series, and perhaps, turned on its head, the story of Grand Admiral Thrawn from the Legacy line of Star Wars novels, especially as Timothy Zahn fills out the back story. I think the brilliance of Tolkien here is the marriage in his mind of the Christian faith he had with his love of what he called "northern stories," the tales of the Norse mythology, the myths native to the British isles, etc, which dealt much with hopelessness in ultimately victorious evil, but it was a testament to the character of those that fought it did so without lasting hope of victory or any hope of lasting victory. Bring into that the Christian faith that no matter what deeds of evil are done, there is a lasting hope of good beyond this life, something that turned Norse thought on its head (and in turn spread like wildfire through Norse and Germanic culture when presented), and you can see the influence in Tolkien's writing. I think we see that most in Gandalf, and as you said, more in plane with us, with Faramir. Thank you again for another excellent video.
In ancient Rome, one of the most popular roles for actors was Ballio, the loathsome pimp from Plautus' hilarious farce _Pseudolus._ Ballio's name even entered the Latin lexicon to mean a loathsome individual.
Had to pause halfway through to put down some thoughts that occurred to me: and what struck me is that black and white characters are not very interesting because it’s hard to empathise with them. For good or ill, they have no doubts. But in the real world, there is no black and white: everybody is the hero of their story, everybody tries to do their best for what they think is the ultimate good. But aspirations and good intentions are not enough. Captain America is interesting because it made me think of Civil War and the point of that is that *both sides* are right. Both are acting on principles they cannot or would not abandon or compromise. Even Thanos thinks he’s a tragic hero. There is a lot of that in Tolkien. Melkor becomes pretty early on bent on destruction alone, but Sauron is for a very long while the epitome of the well-intentioned extremist. Galadriel and Gandalf both know that if they had to use the Ring they will start off well. But the more you are powerful and choose to act upon the world, the more you are thwarting somebody else’s idea of what is good and right. Denethor, for example, would not have welcomed a returning King. For that matter, Denethor (who commits the cardinal sin of giving in to despair), is not really *wrong*. Sauron doesn’t lie to him, he doesn’t need to: he really has might in numbers enough that he could afford to send army after army after army against Gondor. They all know, all the “good” characters, that they stand no real chance, that but for a chain of improbable events that bring about the destruction of the Ring, they are doomed. This of course is even more pronounced in earlier ages, where we have a long long series of characters who are clearly heroic (looking at you, Maedhros, oh hi, Turin) and try their best with all their might and bring about tragedy.
"If Faramir is more interesting than Sauron then when did Denethor spend more of his time and energy using his palantír to see what was going on in Mordor as opposed to seeking counsel with his own son? Curious." - Turning Point Isengard
Interesting to the reader and interesting to a character within the story are two separate things. Samwise Gamgee was very interested in the contents of the garden at Bag End, but 99.99% of the readers would not have appreciated it if an entire chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring had been devoted solely to horticultural description of said garden.
Villains are more popular today because society is so much more violent, corrupted, and fallen and the moral decay in society is being praised and celebrated. This makes vile characters more appealing. It’s much easier to be depraved when your idol is someone like the Joker or Saruman or even antiheroes like Batman or the punisher
Although you know, we have stopped executing people by breaking them on the wheel, we no longer believe in the right of the conqueror to depradate the conquered, do not burn people alive over theological disagreements, so we have made some minor step forward in general decrease of awfulness, as a species.
But Beregond's "exile" was no true punishment. It was a reward that met the legal requirements of a punishment. Aragorn, a wise king, found a way to make the law produce a truly just end. Also, Denethor was obviously quite mad--AND under the influence of Sauron--by the time he was putting himself and Faramir on a pyre. THAT was not a legal course of action either--it was outright attempted murder. So Aragorn could look at Faramir's action regarding Frodo and say, "yeah, Faramair was breaking the letter of one law, but he was doing so in service to a Steward we all now know was a fruit loop. A captain does not have a requirement to obey a manifestly insane leader, and in fact has an obligation to disobey him." (US military law codifies this.)
@@Vandervecken Actually Faramir was required to obey a nut case by law. This is why Berogond is exiled from Minas Tirith. The King had no authority to change or withhold the law. This was Tolkien's concept of a good King, that he be bound by the law. If this was not so, there is no point whatsoever to exile Berogond.
@@jonathonfrazier6622 ACTUALLY and no, I seriously doubt that the laws of Gondor, jurisprudence descended from the faithful of Numenor, would require ANY participant in the army and command structure of Gondor to obey a madman. And the King has every authority, the HIGHEST authority, to interpret clashing laws. Laws DO clash on occasion, and that's why we have judges to interpret such instances. Aragorn is both sovereign and judge. The point of "exiling" Beregond was that it was no true exile at all, but a reward for his devoted, heroic, and probably perfectly legal actions. He saved Faramir from a man who was attempting to murder him. Denethor had exactly zero authority to commit outright murder. So unless you believe the laws of Gondor sanction MURDER, you're wrong. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
@@Vandervecken you are mistaken. You dont seem to understand that the King of Gondor was not above the law. Exiling Berogond is not a reward, he could have followed Faramir there anyway. The books make it clear that Aragorn cannot overstep the law or change it and Tolkien even elaborated on this concept in letters. Go back and read the relevant text again.
@@jonathonfrazier6622, I think you are both missing the point that, in the law of Gondor, Berogond's offense was far greater. He broke a law, and one relating to sacred matters. In contrast, Faramir ignored (or interpreted liberally) a command from the Steward. If the King of Gondor cannot make laws (which he cannot), then neither can the Steward. And while there was a law against disobeying commands, the punishment for such a law would have be be flexible - depending both on the gravity of the offense, and the reason for it. If not, even turning up for dinner at the wrong time in a city under siege would require a death penalty.
@@TolkienLorePodcast so is Fëanor! Maedhros! Fingolfin abandons everybody in, to quote Banks, “the selfishness of his despair”, badass that he is. And I am sure I could think of others who are not even Finwë’s blood relations.
I don't understand how people can say Tolkein is boring. Not enough action? The narrative is too slow? There really aren't many examples of above average writing, at least in terms of fantasy fiction. Certainly not Vance.
Apart from the euthanasia propaganda at the end of the book, Brothers Lionheart has very interesting main person, who basically becomes a hero by admiring the heroism of his older brother, but who also has to insist until he makes a legit fool of himself and then insist again next time, when he's right but already discredited.
Well at least Tolkien didn't write his villains as mustache-twirling bad guys, Sauron and Morgoth are very twisted and terrifying villains in my opinion. He wrote complex grey characters like Gollum, Boromir, Denethor, Turin and Feanor. And he didn't treat his female characters like damsels in distress, nor did he make them into Mary Sues like Rey from Star Wars.
@@annafdd I never said that his female characters are his chief strength, I said he didn't make them into damsels in distress or Mary Sues like many other does (the latter is more used nowadays).
@@dragonhelmofdor-lomin4017 he didn’t make Eowyn as such, but I was disappointed to note that Luthien, who is in general incredibly badass, tends to scream and faint when confronted with Sauron.
I'll tell you what the issue with heroes is today: they're not passionate in what they believe in, they can't convince your of their world, their ideas and their beliefs. So they come off as flat or boring. Whereas with Faramir you could sense that passion and conviction, his character arc was every step he took in protecting Gondor and the legacy of Numenor. By his actions more was revealed of Faramir and his lack of actions, when contrasted with other characters (Boromir cough cough), spoke volumes as well.
Well put!
@@TolkienLorePodcast, very well put (and should probably be pinned /hint).
Perhaps this is because the writers, coming from a world of subjective ethics, have trouble believing it themselves. But they need to write a good guy because the story needs a hero.
My favorite Faramir character trait is that he is the person most similar to his father in talents and temperament, but with inverted values. He can be nearly as shrewd and dissembling as Denethor, but in service of a different goal. Reading the scenes where they converse is a bit like watching high-speed 4-d invisible chess.
It all comes down to whom do you serve. Good (Faramir, Aragorn, Gandalf) serves something greater than themselves and their own desires. Which acts as a moral compass. Why Faramir would not touch the Ring even if Gondor were to fall. Evil (Denethor, Saruman, Sauron) serves itself and it’s own desires. Denethor wanted to be a King, and all his efforts served that end. Once it became clear that it was no longer possible, he no longer cared what happened to anyone or anything else. Just let it all burn if I can’t have what I want, and I can’t control it…. This is where Gandalf was wrong. Denethor and Faramir would never have gotten along. Ever. They were too different morally.
@@kellygreenii I wouldn't necessarily call Denethor evil, he was self serving but that mostly involved being a decently good leader to the people of Gondor.
He had his faults of course, loving one son far more than the other, wanting to use the ring for power, and his ultimate slight trying to kill faramir.
Denethor's story showed the power of the corruption of Sauron. He lost his mind not because he wasn't going to be king, he never truly want to be king only keep his position as steward, but because he thought Faramir was dying and the bloodline of the Stewards would be ended.
Tolkein makes a point to connect the madness of Denethor with the palantir multiple times. We learn that he looked in the palantir directly before deciding all was lost and to go to the tomb. We also learn that Denethor has been seen using the palantir on multiple occasions previously
Denethor was a complex character not wholly good or evil but definitely corrupted by seeing exactly what Sauron wanted him to see
@@Ancient_Road Disagree. The Lord of the Rings is a meditation on the nature of evil and the struggle to overcome it. The issue is that so much of it is dedicated to supernatural evil and BIG evils…that you sometimes miss the more ordinary human evil.
Denethor was evil on a human scale. The evil that puts individual ambition ahead of duty and common good. The evil that feels my ends justify my means. The evil that feels my survival justifies whatever I do. Denethor might not have started out that evil, but by the time Gandalf reaches Minas Tirith on the eve of Pelennor Fields? He is there… and yes Sauron helped get him there. But Sauron had to have something to work with. It’s why Saruman turned but Gandalf did not.
Faramir (along with Aragorn and Eomer) represent good on a human scale. It’s why he and his father don’t get along. Why Faramir is drawn to the Angel-in-disguise in Gandalf…while Denethor resents his son, resents the bond with Gandalf, and falls to the clutches of Sauron.
Faramir recognizes and honors principles that are greater than himself or any of his own ambitions. To the point he’d rather let the world of Men fall than compromise them. While once Denethor realizes that his own ambitions are out of reach (like many a modern dictator seeing his regime crumble) is content to let it all burn to the ground. Denethor garners some sympathy, because he did retain his humanity… but he was very much an evil man.
Part of being a good man is recognizing when one is being tempted or confronted with evil…and to turn away. Some cannot…and they risk falling, “I just had to look at it, Merry….”
@@kellygreenii Compared to Faramir almost all characters, with as you said the exceptions of Aargorn and Eomer, fall short in honor. Faramir may be the most noble character in the story and not being his equal is far from an indicator of being evil.
Gandalf makes a point to tell Pippin 'by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir.'
Denathor's biggest fault was believing the ring of power would allow Gondor to win the war, the same fault that Boromir showed. I would also argue Boromir is far from evil. Only the wisest in midde earth recognized that destroying the ring was the only way the truly defeat Sauron.
When Denathor is telling Faramir why he is disappointed that he let the ring go, how Boromir would have brought it to him, we see the failure of Denathor to recognize the power of corruption in the ring. Gandalf tells him 'He would have kept it for his own, and when he returned you would not have known your son. '
This same power of corruption, only through the palantir, led him to his ultimate demise. We see Denathor in full control of the battle until Faramir is brought back injured. Denathor looks at his son in silence, goes up to view the palantir, when he comes back he is described as 'but the face of the Lord was grey, more deathlike than his son's.' What he saw in the palantir is what changed his mind state. And we find out what he saw when he says Gandalfs plan has failed
"'The enemy has found it, now his power waxes; he sees our very thoughts, and all we do is ruinous.'
When told he is still steward and the troops are flying, they need commands Denathor says 'why do the fools fly? Better to burn sooner than later, for burn we must... The west has failed.' More evidence showing the change in Denathor after whatever he saw through the palantir making him believe his biggest fear, Sauron had the ring.
Sauron corrupted the thoughts of Denathor, who was not of a strong enough will or nobility to control the palantir.
I have laid out the proof of Denathor's wicked end being attributed not to his being evil but to the corruption of Sauron through the Palantir.
There are other arguments of Aragorn coming to take the kingship but we cant forget it was Denathor who had to teach Boromir that no matter how many generations go by their line would never be kings, only faithful Stewards. How Denathor would have reacted to the return of the king in a different mind state would be an interesting topic of discussion.
@@Ancient_Road Disagree. Honor is not something your born with. It is a code you live by. The only thing that Boromir was guilty of was in trying to please Denethor and make his father’s ambitions come true. That’s all the Ring needed to cause him to stumble and fall, and try to take the Ring. But the lesson of Boromir is not that the stumbles and fell. But that he got back up and redeemed himself. Unlike his father, he recognized the wrongness of what he’d done and gave his life to atone for it.
Denethor fell…and then laid there on the ground and said, “Screw it. Let it all burn.” He was not an honorable man…and by the end he was not even a good man.
This is one more tick on the list of what makes Tolkien so unique. Faramir has always been one of my favorite characters. Also, Megamind is a great movie and one which serves as a very good example of your point.
The fall arc, I was around 10 when Jedi cames out and the one thing so many of us wanted to know was how Anakin became Darth Vader. The redemption part wasn't enough, we needed to know how a good man, Obi Wan's friend, became evil.
Personally, I have always found heroes more interesting than villains. That even applies to Superman, who I find fascinating. If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then why is not Superman corrupt? Small town ethics taught by loving parents might partly explain that - but nowhere near completely. Similarly, why does Superman work at the Daily Planet? His time on as a reporter is time when, globally, multiple disasters and crimes occur that Superman could have prevented. These are two fundamental contradictions in his character, and such contradictions are exactly the sort of conflict that can drive plot. Unfortunately too many writers of Superman have ignored these factors, treating Superman's heroism and down time as givens which are completely ignored in the plot; whereas in a more interesting, truly literary treatment, they would be the key to the story while the villains would be mere backdrops to the real action.
some interesting points. it is often said that superman´s battle are against himself, since nothing outside is at his level. He fights between is human and godly sides. Part of the reason he doesnt become corrupt is because of the balance he maintains between those sides. Should he be superman 24/7 the corruption might become more probably just by the way of burnout. Did superman ever focused on actually saving mankind? i feel he just helps/saves people in need, focusing on the individual rather than thinking big, once again keeping him grounded.
I find Superman boring. I think Batman is fascinating. Otherwords Im usually fascinated by the villains. Now Gandalf and Aragorn, especially in the mysterious guise of Strider in Eriador, I find very interesting. I like either hulking, larger than life, menacing figures in suits of black armour or else mysterious liminal characters that prowl beyond the circle of the familiar.
I find the reverse of the normal transformation more interesting - someone who had nothing traumatic in life but was a bad person in some ways being transformed to a better person through hardship, such as a certain Soviet artillery officer who was arrested and sent to the Gulag for making a negative comment about "the man with a mustache" in a letter.
Great video! Another hero like Faramir or Captain America could be Russell Crowe's Maximus in Gladiator. He's basically the perfectly moral, inspirational leader, everyone loves him, but then he's thrown into pretty much the worst possible situation. The rest of the movie explores how such a person deals with all that.
While Faramir fits your argument here, Fingolfin might be a better representation of a true hero who has his own fall. Fingolfin's despair at "the ruin of the Noldor" causes him to essentially become suicidal. It's a very important theme in Tolkien's legendarium that you can find in LoTR with Eowyn and Denethor
It’s not so much that we are “culpable” with the fall, but that because we are fallen creatures, we are all capable of “the fall” arc and doing things we never thought were possible. And it is just reality that we are all capable of falling down hard and doing stuff that we never thought possible. Pride comes before a fall
Gollum is a character who has two very different sides. At times he is overwhelmed with the allure of the ring, and at other times you get a sense that he would want to be through with the ring and just be a hobbit again. He contrasts with Bilbo in the LOTR who gives up the ring with Gandalf's help, but when Frodo shows it to him in Rivendell reverts to almost being Gollum.
I think of the reluctant heroes like Die Hard where the character does not see himself as a hero, but through circumstance has to act heroically. In real life I think you had many who were caught up in WWII who were thrown into situations where they had to act heroically. Many had flaws or moments when they did not act ethically but in the balance achieved good.
In novels, I would propose the novels that follow The Companions of the Hall, Forgotten Realms, by R.A. Salvatore, especially regarding the dark elf Drizzt Do'Urden. It must be said that Salvatore has explicitly stated that he's heavily influenced by Tolkien. I would also point out both Huma and Sturm Brightblade in Dragonlance, the Inheritance series, and perhaps, turned on its head, the story of Grand Admiral Thrawn from the Legacy line of Star Wars novels, especially as Timothy Zahn fills out the back story.
I think the brilliance of Tolkien here is the marriage in his mind of the Christian faith he had with his love of what he called "northern stories," the tales of the Norse mythology, the myths native to the British isles, etc, which dealt much with hopelessness in ultimately victorious evil, but it was a testament to the character of those that fought it did so without lasting hope of victory or any hope of lasting victory. Bring into that the Christian faith that no matter what deeds of evil are done, there is a lasting hope of good beyond this life, something that turned Norse thought on its head (and in turn spread like wildfire through Norse and Germanic culture when presented), and you can see the influence in Tolkien's writing. I think we see that most in Gandalf, and as you said, more in plane with us, with Faramir.
Thank you again for another excellent video.
In ancient Rome, one of the most popular roles for actors was Ballio, the loathsome pimp from Plautus' hilarious farce _Pseudolus._ Ballio's name even entered the Latin lexicon to mean a loathsome individual.
"Hey Gollum, would you like to be the hero?"
Your analyses are so cogent and dynamic
Gandalf and Aragorn are in my opinion the two most interesting characters in the stories.
Had to pause halfway through to put down some thoughts that occurred to me: and what struck me is that black and white characters are not very interesting because it’s hard to empathise with them. For good or ill, they have no doubts. But in the real world, there is no black and white: everybody is the hero of their story, everybody tries to do their best for what they think is the ultimate good. But aspirations and good intentions are not enough. Captain America is interesting because it made me think of Civil War and the point of that is that *both sides* are right. Both are acting on principles they cannot or would not abandon or compromise. Even Thanos thinks he’s a tragic hero.
There is a lot of that in Tolkien. Melkor becomes pretty early on bent on destruction alone, but Sauron is for a very long while the epitome of the well-intentioned extremist. Galadriel and Gandalf both know that if they had to use the Ring they will start off well. But the more you are powerful and choose to act upon the world, the more you are thwarting somebody else’s idea of what is good and right. Denethor, for example, would not have welcomed a returning King. For that matter, Denethor (who commits the cardinal sin of giving in to despair), is not really *wrong*. Sauron doesn’t lie to him, he doesn’t need to: he really has might in numbers enough that he could afford to send army after army after army against Gondor. They all know, all the “good” characters, that they stand no real chance, that but for a chain of improbable events that bring about the destruction of the Ring, they are doomed.
This of course is even more pronounced in earlier ages, where we have a long long series of characters who are clearly heroic (looking at you, Maedhros, oh hi, Turin) and try their best with all their might and bring about tragedy.
Villains are closer to humanity = Heros are closer to Myth
Errr
No
"If Faramir is more interesting than Sauron then when did Denethor spend more of his time and energy using his palantír to see what was going on in Mordor as opposed to seeking counsel with his own son? Curious." - Turning Point Isengard
Interesting to the reader and interesting to a character within the story are two separate things.
Samwise Gamgee was very interested in the contents of the garden at Bag End, but 99.99% of the readers would not have appreciated it if an entire chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring had been devoted solely to horticultural description of said garden.
I'd say Obi-wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker fit into that category of heroes.
Especially if you’re dealing with Luke and all his character nuances in the extended universe in the books (now labeled Star Wars Legends)
Villains are more popular today because society is so much more violent, corrupted, and fallen and the moral decay in society is being praised and celebrated. This makes vile characters more appealing. It’s much easier to be depraved when your idol is someone like the Joker or Saruman or even antiheroes like Batman or the punisher
The center of the promotion of moral decay is Hollywood.
Although you know, we have stopped executing people by breaking them on the wheel, we no longer believe in the right of the conqueror to depradate the conquered, do not burn people alive over theological disagreements, so we have made some minor step forward in general decrease of awfulness, as a species.
of course saying if anyone is interesting or boring is totally subjective.
don't know if you realized it but you were really making boy scout an insulting term... which I loved
I actually don’t mean it as an insulting term, but I’m using it because a lot of people use it to mean a character who is boringly good.
As a Boy Scout I take offense at the idea that doing the right thing all the time is bad. :)
If Berogond has to be exiled to Osgiliath then must not Faramir be executed by Aragorn for letting Frodo go?
But Beregond's "exile" was no true punishment. It was a reward that met the legal requirements of a punishment. Aragorn, a wise king, found a way to make the law produce a truly just end.
Also, Denethor was obviously quite mad--AND under the influence of Sauron--by the time he was putting himself and Faramir on a pyre. THAT was not a legal course of action either--it was outright attempted murder. So Aragorn could look at Faramir's action regarding Frodo and say, "yeah, Faramair was breaking the letter of one law, but he was doing so in service to a Steward we all now know was a fruit loop. A captain does not have a requirement to obey a manifestly insane leader, and in fact has an obligation to disobey him." (US military law codifies this.)
@@Vandervecken Actually Faramir was required to obey a nut case by law. This is why Berogond is exiled from Minas Tirith. The King had no authority to change or withhold the law. This was Tolkien's concept of a good King, that he be bound by the law. If this was not so, there is no point whatsoever to exile Berogond.
@@jonathonfrazier6622 ACTUALLY and no, I seriously doubt that the laws of Gondor, jurisprudence descended from the faithful of Numenor, would require ANY participant in the army and command structure of Gondor to obey a madman. And the King has every authority, the HIGHEST authority, to interpret clashing laws. Laws DO clash on occasion, and that's why we have judges to interpret such instances. Aragorn is both sovereign and judge. The point of "exiling" Beregond was that it was no true exile at all, but a reward for his devoted, heroic, and probably perfectly legal actions. He saved Faramir from a man who was attempting to murder him. Denethor had exactly zero authority to commit outright murder. So unless you believe the laws of Gondor sanction MURDER, you're wrong. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
@@Vandervecken you are mistaken. You dont seem to understand that the King of Gondor was not above the law. Exiling Berogond is not a reward, he could have followed Faramir there anyway. The books make it clear that Aragorn cannot overstep the law or change it and Tolkien even elaborated on this concept in letters. Go back and read the relevant text again.
@@jonathonfrazier6622, I think you are both missing the point that, in the law of Gondor, Berogond's offense was far greater. He broke a law, and one relating to sacred matters. In contrast, Faramir ignored (or interpreted liberally) a command from the Steward. If the King of Gondor cannot make laws (which he cannot), then neither can the Steward. And while there was a law against disobeying commands, the punishment for such a law would have be be flexible - depending both on the gravity of the offense, and the reason for it. If not, even turning up for dinner at the wrong time in a city under siege would require a death penalty.
Turin is an interesting herouc character.
He’s kind of an anti-hero though.
@@TolkienLorePodcast - We find similar "tragic heroes" aplenty in Greek mythology.
@@TolkienLorePodcast so is Fëanor! Maedhros! Fingolfin abandons everybody in, to quote Banks, “the selfishness of his despair”, badass that he is. And I am sure I could think of others who are not even Finwë’s blood relations.
I don't understand how people can say Tolkein is boring. Not enough action? The narrative is too slow? There really aren't many examples of above average writing, at least in terms of fantasy fiction. Certainly not Vance.
FARAMIR is the best in the books. Can also read minds. Superhero's powers
Wouldn’t kick him out of bed either!
Apart from the euthanasia propaganda at the end of the book, Brothers Lionheart has very interesting main person, who basically becomes a hero by admiring the heroism of his older brother, but who also has to insist until he makes a legit fool of himself and then insist again next time, when he's right but already discredited.
Well at least Tolkien didn't write his villains as mustache-twirling bad guys, Sauron and Morgoth are very twisted and terrifying villains in my opinion.
He wrote complex grey characters like Gollum, Boromir, Denethor, Turin and Feanor.
And he didn't treat his female characters like damsels in distress, nor did he make them into Mary Sues like Rey from Star Wars.
Well, I wouldn’t say that his female characters are Tolkien’s chief strength, no…
@@annafdd I never said that his female characters are his chief strength, I said he didn't make them into damsels in distress or Mary Sues like many other does (the latter is more used nowadays).
@@dragonhelmofdor-lomin4017 he didn’t make Eowyn as such, but I was disappointed to note that Luthien, who is in general incredibly badass, tends to scream and faint when confronted with Sauron.
@@dragonhelmofdor-lomin4017
What's wrong with a damsel in distress???