The Heroism of Faramir

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

Forget Osgiliath...

That's just it, I can't. His throttling and tossing of Gollum kind of made me sick the first time I saw hit. Even if you forget Faramir's conduct at Osgiliath, his behavior at Henneth Annûn--holding his sword at Frodo's throat as he examined the Ring, standing by while his men pummeled Gollum (they finally quit when Faramir gives a nod of approval)--is less than "courteous".

I, too, very much like Brian Sibley's adaptation for the BBC. It's a shame Jackson's adaptation was not as faithful to Tolkien.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The blood of Númenor runs high in him. That's why he is spiritually wiser than either his father or his brother.

But, of course, the blood of Númenor ran high in Denethor, as well. The "blood of Númenor" was a two-edged sword. After all, Ar-Pharazôn was a pure-blood decendent of Elros. The "blood of Númenor" was as likely to produce power-hungry, immortality-obsessed demi-gods as a noble prince such as Faramir.

[Inanna]

OK, I'll try to be rational. The blood of Númenor runs high in him. That's why he is spiritually wiser than either his father or his brother.

I remember Tolkien saying that, and I remember being a little confused by it. How did it run only in Faramir and not Boromir or Denthor??

[MithLuin]

Actually, he says that it runs high in both Denethor and Faramir, but not so much in Boromir. Maybe Boromir took after their mom, Finduilas of Dol Amroth.... But of Denethor it is said, "in him the blood of Númenor ran nearly true."

Boromir is a man more like Éomer - "we are men of action; lies do not become us." He's a warrior, and a proud one....but that's about it. In some ways, he is like Eärnur, last king of Gondor.

Faramir and Denethor are both more "subtle."

They are the ones who can read men's hearts. They can be politicians. They....are "high" men.

This is (in part) why the family dynamics are so interesting. Denethor loved his heir, Boromir, even though his other son, Faramir, was more like him in temperment (though not in mood). Faramir has the same subtlety as Denethor, but he is much milder, and less proud. He is moved to pity rather than scorn by what he sees of other men. Boromir, on the other hand, has the same mood as his father, which is why they are able to understand each other so well.

(This is in the Appendices, I must admit. But I do think that he used these descriptions to craft the dialogue. All the references to 'wizard's pupil' speak of this underlying truth.)

To speak of two brothers having different "blood," it must be understood that blood is being used somewhat metaphorically. It is being used of traits of the Numenoreans that may or may not be passed down. So, Denethor, who is not of the line of Elros (but still of High Númenórean blood) isn't having his blood analyzed for similarities to the Númenórean kings. He's...having his character, bearing, and personality traits analyzed, and then being told, "yep, you're like them." Blood means inheritence, but is not limited to biological inheritence (genetics). It is the broader scope of anything that could be passed down.

Aragorn looks an awful lot like Elendil, and reminds Elrond of him. It is unlikely that he has that much in common with him, geneticly speaking, because the genes have passed through a bunch of generations. But....there is still a family resemblence, something in who he is as a person that strikes Elrond. (The resemblence of Elendur, son of Isildur, to Elendil is much more likely to be tied to genetics - Elendil is his grandfather.)

My brothers and sisters and I all have blue eyes, and anyone would point to this as signs of our "Irish blood." But they'd say the same thing of my mother's temper (not just her red hair). Or use it to explain why so many of my relatives have a drinking problem. Or why I like potatoes so much. I mean....it's broader than genes. Blood also incorporates culture. (Or stereotypes, as the case may be.) When Faramir speaks of being mixed with lesser men, he doesn't just mean that the grey-eye trait is going to die out as they inter-marry...he means that their culture is going to grow closer to that of the people who surround them. They are becoming more like the Rohirrim. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a change, a losing who they were....

Pssst, Tom - I know very well how lengthy my posts are! There was a reason I paused before calling Faramir names .

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The exact quote is from Gandalf, speaking of Denethor:

'He is not as other men of this time, Pippin, and whatever be his descent from father to son, 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, who he loved best.'

[Frelga]

This is (in part) why the family dynamics are so interesting. Denethor loved his heir, Boromir, even though his other son, Faramir, was more like him in temperment (though not in mood). Faramir has the same subtlety as Denethor, but he is much milder, and less proud. He is moved to pity rather than scorn by what he sees of other men. Boromir, on the other hand, has the same mood as his father, which is why they are able to understand each other so well.

Indeed.

I have posted in Teremia's brilliant "m00bies reads the b00ks" thread that Denethor's attitude toward Faramir is in part explained by what he perceives as his son's rejection of him in favor ot the wizard. Kind of like, oh, so you love Gandalf more than me, well then I'll love your borther more than you. Petty.

But also it now occurred to me that the quiet, bookish Faramir also has the strength and wizdom to follow his own sense of what's right, while Boromir is content to serve as his father's war Captain. It's telling that Denethor challenges Faramir by asking if there was a Captain capable of doing his lord's will (while sending him to fortify the defenses, a risky mission but not a criminally suicidal one as in the movie).

On the whole, the father-son-brother dynamic in the book was a lot more complex than the abuse that mDenethor heaped on mFaramir.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I have posted in Teremia's brilliant "m00bies reads the b00ks" thread

Off-topic: Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get Teremia to finally finish that journey here?

that Denethor's attitude toward Faramir is in part explained by what he perceives as his son's rejection of him in favor ot the wizard. Kind of like, oh, so you love Gandalf more than me, well then I'll love your brother more than you. Petty.

I agree with your assessment but my question is, why would someone within whom the blood of Westernesse runs almost true act in such a petty way?

[Frelga]

I agree with your assessment but my question is, why would someone within whom the blood of Westernesse runs almost true act in such a petty way?

Because he's human?

Actually, I think you answered your own question.

The "blood of Númenor" was a two-edged sword. After all, Ar-Pharazôn was a pure-blood decendent of Elros. The "blood of Númenor" was as likely to produce power-hungry, immortality-obsessed demi-gods as a noble prince such as Faramir.

In Denethor, the power-hungry aspect is very high, and to him what he perceived as his son's disobedience was a proof of Faramir's flawed nature and flawed love for his father. Didn't he says something about "love halved"?

Love for power => need for control => jealousy => emotional abuse

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[truehobbit]

Hehe, I would go "squee, a Faramir thread!", too, but I can't think of anything to add to what people, esp Mith, have said.

Maybe one comment on Prim's initial question.

Prim, it seems to me that maybe you expect to be told about a character's motivations by auctorial comment?
That's ok, that's one way of telling a story, and not better nor worse than other ways. It's just something that Tolkien doesn't do. As Mith pointed out, we do learn everything about a character's motivations by what they do and how they do it and by what the characters themselves say. I don't even think that the appendices or other additional material is so necessary to understand them. The only thing we don't get is an omniscient narrator telling the reader: X was thinking this and that.
Instead we get hear and see X's words and actions.
I don't think I mind an omniscient interfering narrator (I don't remember whether that's the correct term, I'd have to look that up, and that would take some time ), in fact they can be great fun when they address the reader directly, but I think in a story that tries to present itself directly to the reader, get the reader into the middle of the action as if they were witnessing it first hand, auctorial comments can be a bit annoying, as if the author didn't trust the reader to catch his intention without explanation, so I'm glad that Tolkien largely did without them.

(Actually, that's very much the same as what I was going to post in reply to your similar question in the "Great Expectations" thread, so I'm just going to repeat myself there. )

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

The only thing we don't get is an omniscient narrator telling the reader: X was thinking this and that.

Maybe not, but we do get a lot of internal dialogue. It's funny how this was handled in Brian Sibley's adaptation for BBC radio. Of course you can't hear an internal dialogue, so the character has to say what he's thinking. Sam, in particular, does a lot of thinking out loud when he had Frodo are crossing Gorgoroth.

At one point while Frodo presumably is sleeping, Sam, as usual, is having yet another of his many external internal dialogues. Frodo says rather sleepily, "Talking to yourself, Sam?" (or something like that). "Just thinking out loud, as it were, Mr. Frodo" (or something to that effect). It's pretty funny because by that point the audience has to be thinking, "Gee, Sam sure does a lot of thinking out loud!".

[Primula Baggins]

hobby, no, I definitely didn't mean having the author tell us what anyone is thinking or why they are the way they are. That for my money is as awkward as having the character himself do so.

I appreciate being shown, not told, about characters—and being able to see into them a little, through their reactions and through being brought close to their emotions and physical sensations—what some writers call a close third-person point of view.

That isn't to everyone's taste, and it is not Tolkien's style except in some parts of the hobbits' stories (which is probably why I love them so). I'm not saying I think Tolkien "ought" to have told his story in any other way than the one he chose. I'm just trying to explain why something is sometimes lacking for me—why I find some parts of the story more remote and less interesting than others, and some characters less compelling.

(In Mordor, even when we lose Frodo's point of view entirely, we still see him through the loving eyes of Sam; we still see the reactions and cues that tell us how much he's suffering, and Sam feels that suffering almost as his own.)

[truehobbit]

Tom, yes, but that's still a lot more direct than auctorial explanation. It's you who's witnessing, as it were, Sam's thoughts - not the narrator going: ok, dear reader, let me explain to you what's going on here...
I'm wondering if it's maybe this narrative technique, as much as the famous completeness of Tolkien's world that makes readers feel so much as if they were in that world...

Cross-posted with Prim.

Prim, but then, what information are you missing? As Mith said, your questions about Faramir's feelings and motivations are answered in what he says and how he acts...

[Primula Baggins]

That's my point—that's the distinction I was drawing. There is an immediacy to Sam's observations and feelings in Mordor that isn't there in the more "epic" parts of the story (and wouldn't belong there—but I feel the lack more than some others do).

I do not like auctorial explanation. It was fairly conventional in English literature in the 19th century and I don't even like it there. "Ah, dear Reader, well may you weep at the foibles heretofore depicted by the Author's humble pen. . . ." Yuck. So, no, that's not what I would want from Tolkien. It is, in fact, a distancing technique, one that increases the remoteness of the characters from the reader.

The cheap show-biz mantra is "Show, don't tell," and it's a sound principle so far as it goes. Not "She was angry" but "Her fists clenched, and she gritted her teeth as she struggled to find words." (Bad writing—only meant as a quick example of what I mean.)

Edit: Cross-posted with hobby's edit! Faramir telling us what he's thinking is about the same as the author doing so. It's telling, not showing. We do not see any signs of temptation or struggle; we don't feel anything that Faramir says he feels. It's like reading a book report instead of a book.

Again, that's my take on it because of my tastes in writing. I don't consider it a "flaw" in Tolkien. It's my problem.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course you do, Prim. You're just too nice to say so. But there is nothing wrong with saying that Tolkien's work had flaws. He would be the first to agree (though he might not specifically agree with this point).

[Primula Baggins]

Caught! Yes, I do think there are flaws in Tolkien. But I also think LotR is what it is because of everything Tolkien put into it, and any change would probably diminish it in unexpected ways.

The ability of LotR to touch so many people must stem in part from the fact that it is so many different kinds of book in one. We don't all love the same characters or the same passages; we probably all have bits we skip or skim over and bits we go back to re-read even when we're not reading the whole book. But they're not the same bits for everyone.

[truehobbit]

Of course you do, Prim. You're just too nice to say so. But there is nothing wrong with saying that Tolkien's work had flaws. He would be the first to agree (though he might not specifically agree with this point).

Or too wise. Just because I don't like a certain narrative style or don't get what I want out of a book, doesn't mean it's a flaw on the author's part, you know.
Of course, I usually don't hesitate to blame the author for getting it wrong when I don't like a book.

"Ah, dear Reader, well may you weep at the foibles heretofore depicted by the Author's humble pen. . . ." Yuck

I think that's the kind of auctorial intrusion that I find funny.

Faramir telling us what he's thinking is about the same as the author doing so. It's telling, not showing. We do not see any signs of temptation or struggle; we don't feel anything that Faramir says he feels. It's like reading a book report instead of a book.

I think Faramir telling is is a big difference from the author doing so. Whatever there was in terms of temptation is there, and you feel what he feels by listening to his words. At least I do.
I'm thinking that maybe it's that you expect more of a struggle than there was?

[Primula Baggins]

Of course you do, Prim. You're just too nice to say so. But there is nothing wrong with saying that Tolkien's work had flaws. He would be the first to agree (though he might not specifically agree with this point).

Or too wise. Just because I don't like a certain narrative style or don't get what I want out of a book, doesn't mean it's a flaw on the author's part, you know.

As I said elaborately four or five times , I agree with this. I perceive flaws that some other people would not consider flaws; I love parts of the text that some other people don't. I'm not explaining what Tolkien should have done differently; I'm explaining what I experience when I read the book.

Faramir telling us what he's thinking is about the same as the author doing so. It's telling, not showing. We do not see any signs of temptation or struggle; we don't feel anything that Faramir says he feels. It's like reading a book report instead of a book.

I think Faramir telling is is a big difference from the author doing so. Whatever there was in terms of temptation is there, and you feel what he feels by listening to his words. At least I do.
I'm thinking that maybe it's that you expect more of a struggle than there was?

I have no idea how much of a struggle there was—no reason to think there was much of one. Faramir's words hint at it, but because I don't know how he looked or sounded when he talked about it—in other words, in the absence of any hint about how Faramir felt—it's all very remote. Faramir's words are the author's words and no more. There is no subtext and no immediacy. As I said, a book report instead of a book.

And, again, this is my take, not everyone's. I tend not to take characters at their word, because character is often built by the contrast between a character's words and his actions. So a character asserting a feeling is not enough to make me believe it.

This is because of how I think about characters and write characters myself. I'm not saying LotR should have been written that way.

Edited to clarify final point

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

Tom, yes, but that's still a lot more direct than auctorial explanation...

That's why I said, "Maybe not, but...". The internal dialogue is close, but not exactly the same thing. It appears we agree on that.

Of course you do, Prim. You're just too nice to say so. But there is nothing wrong with saying that Tolkien's work had flaws. He would be the first to agree (though he might not specifically agree with this point).

Or too wise. Just because I don't like a certain narrative style or don't get what I want out of a book, doesn't mean it's a flaw on the author's part, you know.

As I said elaborately four or five times , I agree with this. I perceive flaws that some other people would not consider flaws...

We all know that LOTR had flaws. Perhaps the greatest flaw is that Tolkien did not follow through on his first thought of making Bombadil the hero of the story:

Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story? Or is he, as I suspect, fully enshrined in the enclosed verses? Still I could enlarge the portrait.

(The "enclosed verses" are, of course, "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil".)

Why just think of it! Tom Bombadil capering his way towards Mordor, gathering buttercups, tickling the bumblebees, and sitting by the waterside for hours upon hours...

Of course he'd have to take his little rowboat down the Withywindle and Brandywine Rivers, with a stop at Bamfurlong to discuss the weather with Farmer Maggot while quaffing ale, and perhaps dance the hornpipe to a tune or two...

Heck, we might even have Bombadil visit with Gandalf, or maybe even Elves. Then there's his triumphal return to The House of Tom Bombadil and the loving arms of his pretty lady Goldberry. ("Well, I'm back.") Now that would have been an epic worth adapting to film!

Still, the LOTR didn't turn out too bad.

[superwizard]

Or too wise. Just because I don't like a certain narrative style or don't get what I want out of a book, doesn't mean it's a flaw on the author's part, you know.

As I said elaborately four or five times , I agree with this. I perceive flaws that some other people would not consider flaws...

We all know that LOTR had flaws. Perhaps the greatest flaw is that Tolkien did not follow through on his first thought of making Bombadil the hero of the story:

Someone may be a wee biased