Isilidur, is he a coward?

[HsojVvad]

I am watching Fellowship of the Ring extended edtion again, for the umpteenth time. Just noticed when he got ambushed from the goblisn the he panicked and put the ring on to become invisible and run run or hide away.

For someone who is a King, he didn't show much leadership there. So is he really a coward or was it that the Ring made him do it?

I just find it so shamefull espically for the King of Gondor to be acting like that. Hell his Father stood up to Saruon and didn't even crap his pants. So for Isilidur to be scared from being ambushed from goblins seem very cowardly.

What are your opnions of this?

[Xollob]

Isildur was a bit of a plank, hence why the ring took over him, and made him runaway at the battle of goblin ambush, so he'd get killed, a goblin would pick up the ring, and sauron whould be whole again

[Dr Death]

Well if you're going by the books then your analysis is a hyper-simplification HsojVvad. Isildur by the books (particularly 'The Disaster of the Gladden Fields' in Unfinished Tales) is far more complex (well, he would be, he doesnt have to be characterised in a grand total of three minutes of screen time). In the books the Gladden Fields isnt really an ambush as such, it's more of a general skirmish, and Isildur aquits himself quite admirably before finally being urged to make a dash for it by a squire.

More generally, though marred by his moment of weakness with the Ring Isildur was not a bad bloke- he risked life and limb to steal the fruit of the White Tree of Numenor preserving its line, he captained one of the ships during the escape landing with his brother Anarion in a completely different part of Middle-earth to their father and managing to found and rule a kingdom right from scratch, and he was doing the dutiful thing in going north and taking up his father's rule in Arnor when the Disaster of the Gladden Fields happened so he wasnt a bad king fundamentally- just, like Boromir, he fell at the test.

Dr Death

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

As Dr Death points out, the books paint a very different picture of Isildur. Furthermore, it is difficult to say that almost any other human wouldn't have fallen to the influence of the ring, sooner or later, and he had much more exposure to it than being offered once or twice like Aragorn and Faramir, who are typically held up as "those who resisted the ring." They had the willpower to turn it down, but they never had the burden of carrying it around, chipping away at them.

To put things in perspective, Isildur had the ring for at least a year before dying at the Gladden Fields (Third Age, year 2). Lord of the Rings takes place over approximately 1 year (other more knowledgeable members may correct me on this), and look at the toll that the ring took on Frodo. Isildur didn't ditch his men and flee by his own initiative, but rather was convinced (since the Numenoreans were vastly outnumbered) that it was more important for him to survive than to die in a pointless battle.

[HsojVvad]

I only read, The Lord of the Rings books, I havn't read the other. What is Unfinished Tales? Maybe I will try it out. But I had a hard time reading LotR. The first 100 pages of Fellowship was the worst, then I couldn't put the book down after that. How is unfinished tales?

I was only going by what I saw in the movie, hence I was asking, was he really like this or not. I am glad to see that you guys say he isn't like this. After all they say it's the lineage of Isilidur. From seeing what I saw, how could anyone be proud from being the linage of Isilidur lol. But good to know he wasn't like this, and it was the ring that took over. I guess it just shows you how resiliant the Hobbits were to the Rings power I guess.

Thanks guys.

[Pacorko]

I wouldn't paint him as coward, but rather a petty man or one of broken spirit, both in the books and in the movie. Even when he tries to make a brave stand in the big fight on Gladden Fields, he wasn't determined to die there and then, just tried to lead his men out yet another fine, fine mess there got themselves in (points for those who get the reference!).

I say that his weakness of character and spirt i what makes him utterly fail in yielding the ring, and then to bear the burden which ultimately sends him to his grave.

But a "coward", he wasn't. Certainly not an epic hero and neither an Aragorn nor a Faramir. Heck, not even a Boromir!

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

fine, fine mess there got themselves in (points for those who get the reference!).

Skanic?

Certainly not an epic hero and neither an Aragorn nor a Faramir. Heck, not even a Boromir!

Maybe not Aragorn or Faramir, at least they had the strength to deny the ring when offered to them, but Boromir was a slave to the ring almost as soon as he was in its presence. For all his martial prowess, I feel like he was particularly vain amongst men (others may surpass him in this, but he is most prominent), and only upon his deathbed did he really recognize his own weakness.

Faramir and Aragorn simply were able to hold it together long enough to "just say no" when offered the ring, but if either had to carry it on his person for any period of time my feeling has always been, who knows what they would have done? The strength of many of the good characters (Aragorn, Faramir, Gandalf, Galadriel) seems to be simply in knowing that they can't control the ring, so their only option is to deny it.

This segues into my feelings on the film portrayal of Faramir, which to me missed the crucial point. In the movies he originally gives in to the ring, more or less, out of vanity, but then is convinced otherwise. In the books his opinion is more of the "I'm not touching that with a 10 foot pole" approach and he is what Boromir should have been, but Boromir was too convinced that he had to save his kingdom through use of the ring.

@ HsojVvad:
Unfinished tales is pretty hit-or-miss, depending on how into it you are. It's mostly in the form of short stories, however, so in that respect at least you'll have the ability to pick and choose what you feel like reading. Honestly, though, if you really want to move on from Lord of the Rings I would first recommend Children of Hurin, which is a good self-contained story. Bits and pieces may not make sense without further background, but that's true of LotR too. If you enjoy that, check out the Silmarillion and the various other unpublished writings (History of Middle Earth, Unfinished Tales, Lost Tales, Shaping of Middle Earth, etc.).

[Condottiere]

Isildur received the Ring at a critical moment in time that changed the history of the world. He should have cast it away, but at that moment, like a battery, it might still have been pulsing with the might and the will of Sauron, and might have been able to rather easily manipulate Isildur, especially since it was in contact with him.

He had just lost his father, and undoubtedly many friends, his ambition to re-establish the Numorean empire and the fear of the future. The Ring was both a symbol of his victory over Sauron and a powerful talisman, why not keep and use it?

Isildur might have become more self-centred during his stewardship of it, which was why he might have easily been under the impression that his continued existence was essential.

Not cowardice, but perhaps misguided.

[Spider]

Isn't one of the central themes of the book that no-one can resist the ring.

The story is quite specific that it paints those as wise and powerfull for resisting the rings influence...by not taking it in the first place.

Because they know that they won't be able to resist its evil and before long they will either be another ringwraith or another dark lord (in the case of Galadriel and probably Gandalf).

Isildur had no way of knowing that the trinket he took from the being that had pretty much wiped out his family, homeland continent and initiated a war that devastated much of middle earth, was totally evil and somewhat sentient. Once he picked it up, did he even have much choice after that?

[de Selby]

Indeed.

This segues into my feelings on the film portrayal of Faramir, which to me missed the crucial point. In the movies he originally gives in to the ring, more or less, out of vanity, but then is convinced otherwise. In the books his opinion is more of the "I'm not touching that with a 10 foot pole" approach and he is what Boromir should have been, but Boromir was too convinced that he had to save his kingdom through use of the ring.

In PJ's commentaries I think he mentions that they deliberately made Faramir's decision seem a bit more wobbly because they thought the idea of him turning it down flat undersold the power of the Ring. I tend to agree with you that never allowing himself near it was the secret of his success. Just say no kids!

[Dr Death]

Faramir and Aragorn simply were able to hold it together long enough to "just say no" when offered the ring, but if either had to carry it on his person for any period of time my feeling has always been, who knows what they would have done? The strength of many of the good characters (Aragorn, Faramir, Gandalf, Galadriel) seems to be simply in knowing that they can't control the ring, so their only option is to deny it.

This is the crucial fact (and perhaps why the Ring is so applicable to drug addiction)- knowing your limitations and rejecting the Ring out of hand is the only real way to survive its influence- those that posess it almost universally fall to its power). Rejection of the Ring has more to do with wisdom than will-power. Bilbo- the only person to have prolonged contact and yet reject it, posessed both qualities, coupled with a lack of ambition to actually do anything with the Ring (such as getting back at rivals, building empires, defending his land) it was simply a useful trinklet to him. His innocence of intention ultimately shielded him from the corrupting effects the Ring had on the more ambitious.

Maybe not Aragorn or Faramir, at least they had the strength to deny the ring when offered to them, but Boromir was a slave to the ring almost as soon as he was in its presence. For all his martial prowess, I feel like he was particularly vain amongst men (others may surpass him in this, but he is most prominent), and only upon his deathbed did he really recognize his own weakness.

Boromir is the only case in all of Lord of the Rings where i actually find the film's portrayal more convincing and complex than the books. What Sean Bean (and the screenplay) managed to bring out was a lot of the underlying motivations which Tolkien only hints at in Boromir. From that standpoint i cant agree with you that Boromir is particularly vain. Boromir to me is a man who is tragically out of his depth. He's a military man, used to dealing with tangible realities and yet here he is confronted by all this talk about temptation and corruption, malignant wills and long lost lore. He fails to see its pertinence and its importance to the daily suffering of his country and quite naturally beleives his own personal experience of Mordor's attacks to have more weight than the opinions of some comittee of elves, dwarves and wizards hundreds of miles behind the front line. When presented with the matter of the Ring, the only thing he can truly understand and see in it is the potential to end the suffering- to change the fortune of the war for his people and to gain the glory so richly deserved for himself and his armies who have taken the strain.

I quite like the fact Boromir is a representative of the cynical viewers in the film. Without him it would seem a bit too high fantasy and pretentious, but his presence gives the viewer someone they can relate to and a parable of where that outlook would land them.

Dr Death

[Pacorko]

Dear, Doctor:

You've said it. With Boromir, things are far more complex (thank goodness for the movie) than the cardboard characterisation Tolkien delivers in his scribblings--and this I firmly believe that generally applies to everyone else in the book as the tale is an epic and most of the characters are nothing but archetypes.

Boromir is a tragic hero, and as such, it's his failure to realize that desperation/despair leads to bad decisions even when having the good of his people in mind, the very thing that makes him all the more complex. He's a sort of an Achilles rather than an Heracles (whose vanity indeed dommed him), so to speak.

That said, I have always liked Boromir the best and feel vindicated by the movie and Sean Bean's excellent portrayal.

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

Agree with Dr. Death and Pacorko - PJ's Boromir was much more believable and likable than Tolkien's. The film version certainly justifies his desire to use the ring much better than the books, especially the extended edition's scene after his victory at Osgiliath.

[The Anarchist]

Big point in Isildurs favour he grasped his fathers broken sword when all seemed lost and cut off Saurons Hand. the coward would ahve begged for his life, given up or fled in this moment, Isildur faced the greatest evil of his age and did so with courage, so I dont think he can ever be called a coward. however he was vain, and soemtimes foolish man and his choice at the gladden fields as portrayed in the film was a low one....but then the book tels a different story

[Dr Death]

this I firmly believe that generally applies to everyone else in the book as the tale is an epic and most of the characters are nothing but archetypes.

I'm afraid i'm going to have to take your praise with a pinch of salt then. Tolkien's characters have layers of complexity and subtlety that Peter Jackson frequently missed entirely. While i like the films for what they are, the subversion and sometimes outright contradition of the films to the books greatly demeans the characters in question and in several cases the films rely on hackneyed modern day cliches to explain the motivations of the characters to the audience. If Tolkien's characterisations are 'nothing but archetypes' then PJ's are nothing but stereotypes, however i beleive neither extreme to be a true representation of what the respective mediums portray.

Tolkien's characters in fact frequently subvert what is expected of the archetype, and their personal ambiguity and complexity is realistically renegated to second place next to their decisions. Tolkien's characters do not need to vacilate playing out their personal doubts in their actions as they do in the films (such as Theoden's postponed decision to aid Gondor or Frodo's outburst of suspicion in sending Sam home). Instead Tolkien evokes these feelings and tensions through careful use of dialogue, short 'point of view' accounts (frequently from the point of view of a sleepy hobbit overhearing discussions they wasnt supposed to) and snippets of pertinent historical detail.

Boromir is the exception. I think it plays very much in the films favour that they werent afraid to explore it and some scenes which feature not so much as a line from the book are turned into moments of intense empathy by a deft authorial touch and a powerhouse performance by Sean Bean. One of the best is of course the 'It is a strange fate...' monologue on Caradhras but the other notable is his talk with Aragorn in Lothlorien and even minor flashes like his demand to "Give them [the Hobbits] a moment for pity's sake!" after Gandalf's death and his faltering conversations with Frodo, full of respect but at the same time tinged by jealousy of the Hobbit's charge and guilt of the foreknowledge of what he may resort to. Those little moments really do count for a lot and i actually find that Fellowship of the Ring where they are used to develop characters 'on the run' acheives more in respect to 'personal journeies' than all the grand gestures of the later films.

Dr Death

[Pacorko]

Dear Doctor, I see where you are coming from, but really for all the grandiose intent in Tolkien's efforts, the results are merely an entertaining read, not a redefinition of Literature as an art form, and with his copious amount of borrowing from most scandinavian myths, his portrayals were made to imitate many of these things and therefore became archetypical in nature.

Read without passion and with an analytical eye, one can see Tolkien did very little characterisation or character development on this part of his work. That's not saying the tale was bad, by all means, but I firmly believe he was most pretentious about his craft, while being unable to concoct truly developed and evolving characters with one notable exception.

That said, I find very little ambiguity in any of them, save for Gollum/Smeagol who is the most developed character in the story. What you point out as examples of characteristaion are merely tools to get the story flowing, not a display of a character's development as none ever deviates from its initial role and mindset, they just play the same part of the conflict every time trying to further their "cause" or "conviction" not evolving as players beyond said conflict, therefore I fail to see those "personal journies" you mention reflected on the text--save for Gollum/Smeagol, again.

But I will certianly keep all your ideas in mind next time I reread the book, as this is the fifth year since I last read it and I made it a tradition of sorts to do so every few winter Hollidays. Maybe I can extract more enjoyment out of it all.

[Condottiere]

I remember reading a Freudian interpretation of the Hobbit and LotR, it was illuminating.

Tolkien may have explained his works in an academic fashion, since he was after all one, rather than being pretensious, since his initial critics were from his circle of fellow academics.

[Pacorko]

No. He was indeed a very pretentious man, but the "legend" created around him by his son and the "undying love" of his legion of fans/sychopanths its what make many forget the man's and his works many failings due to their enthusiam about his books.

His pretentiousness was evidenced by his very public snide remarks aimed at the English Modernist writers who did not have a grudge with him, just no real interest in his "overwritten flights of fancy". Then, trying to explain your work of fiction in an academic fashion to your colleagues as an attempt to give it more validity is, under any light, pretentious. Not to mention his quite idiotic statement about his creation of a "wholly British mythology for England, who lacked one" (as stated by him in one of his last filmed interviews).

I mean, his fellow scholars would certainly have found out all the underlying intricacies without his continous nagging about the "real value and scope of his work", and the man should have not refused to accept the plethora of Celtic, Pictish, and Welsh folklore as the true "original English" myths.

But we are deviating from the original topic, and I don't want anyone coming here calling us names for not sticking to the topic at hand or have Brimstone or any other admin closing it just because it "deviated" and is no longer "hobby-related".

[HsojVvad]

OH please, keep this going guys. I believe the original topic has expired, since you have changed my mind, and I find new breath and learning new things with your discussions. I have no problem if you guys keep debating politely, it is enjoying, entertaining and educational.

[Dr Death]

Read without passion and with an analytical eye, one can see Tolkien did very little characterisation or character development on this part of his work. That's not saying the tale was bad, by all means, but I firmly believe he was most pretentious about his craft, while being unable to concoct truly developed and evolving characters with one notable exception.

I admit that i am an admirer of his work but i do believe i can maintain an analytical eye. I personally fail to see why people are incapable of seeing complexity in any character who isnt schizophrenic, which is perhaps why you only see complexity in Gollum. Complexity doesnt just come from grand dramatic gestures like Achilles' withdrawl from battle in the Iliad, it comes from a careful building of a character-portrait throughout a work. Gollum himself ultimately does not change from the beginning of the story to the end- he is still a treacherous, double-dealing addict by the time of his death- his short period of 'good work' during The Two Towers does not lead to any profound change in his character or his outlook which he maintains until his death. So i'm interested to hear why you consider him to be a standout exception to your general contempt of Tolkien's abilities when he is perhaps the least subtle and most consistant characters of the work.

There are far more engaging personal journeys in people who you would consider simple 'archetypes', Frodo, Samwise and Aragorn being among the most prominent, each of those has a fully rounded and convincing 'journey' from one state of mind to another and yet unlike less skilled writers who feel the need to showboat with their melodrama, Tolkien does not allow any one character to dominate his ensemble piece: the story comes first and the motivations are purely that- an underlying tapestry of emotional eddies which influence the story rather than shape it in themselves. To give you an example- in the real world each person is a complex individual, but that doesnt stop them having a day-job. Being leaders and captains of men is the day job of most of Tolkien's characters but there are many other facets to them, motivations and conflicts which ultimately come second to the peril they find themselves in but are nevertheless present in their words and actions.

Tolkien himself was a complex individual and i do rather object to your oversimplified analysis of his character. Tolkien was very pig-headed and stubborn but i wouldnt describe him as particularly arrogant or egotistical about his story. He himself regularly mocked his work regarding it as nothing more than a bunch of fairy stories which he was proud of in his own right but never expected to worth very much as a work of commercial fiction. He did however fight for his work to be accepted as a valid piece of literature, which he was entirely justified in doing, however for one reason or another, perhaps jealousy of his following amd an inability to characterise him as some common hack, the vast majority of the intellectual literary community have isolated him as an anomaly, outside either high art or pulp fiction and instead take pot-shots at him based on his opinions and intentions (which he is perfectly within his rights to change i should add) such as the 'Mythology for England' thing (such as you have picked up on Pacorko).

I do agree that Tolkien is certainly not above criticism but it seems that to a certain extent he has become the literary communities whipping-boy, a person who is refused entry, despite eligibility to the inner circles of literary excellence. The ridicule and undermining of his work and contributions to 20th century (and beyond) literature has become a game and objective unto itself. Tolkien effectively wrote himself a big 'kick me' sign by daring to put his embarrassing hobby up for publishing. The fact that his following is mainly of teenage boys has made ridicule even easier. Tolkien is never dignified with real literary criticism, Tolkien-baiting is more of a blood sport where various strutting intellectuals make a show of their flamboyant put-downs (such as Micheal Moorcock's 'Epic Pooh') safe in the knowledge that the beast will never be allowed out of the arena and into the real world of literary criticism where the hackneyed preconceptions and myths about Tolkien's failings might finally be put to rest. For me it's not so much a case of Tolkien being a 'special case' so much as basic literary injustice.

In any case, not being a literarti myself i dont have quite as firm a grasp of their objections to Tolkien being considered part of the 'canon' of literary achievers, but i have read a number of the criticisms and an equal number of defences and so while i express an 'un-expert' opinion it is not an uninformed one.

Dr Death