Aragorn Conflict

[Odo Proudfoot]

Just a minor clarification, Mrs. Maggott, regarding Isildur's weakness.

What they are referring to in the movie is Isildur’s refusal to destroy it when he had the chance, not that he put it on later to escape the orcs.

In ‘Unfinished Tales’ the disaster of the Gladden fields is told in detail. Isildur puts the Ring on after being urged to do so by his son when the battle appears lost, because they know what it is and that it should not fall in the hands of the orcs, and presumably find its way back to Sauron. There were still men alive, Isildur does not want to abandon them, but they realize that the Ring must be saved and taken to Imladris at all cost. He is not being portrayed as a weak coward then. In the film, where there are only a few seconds of screen time to show how the Ring was lost, such subtlety has to go. Because Isildur’s main weakness was already laid out at the Crack of Doom, this extra blackening of his character has no impact on the subsequent events.

I am still mulling over your presentation of Aragorn as a developing character, and need to think about it a bit more. One of the problems may be that book-Aragorn never really reveals much of his deeper motivations or emotions beyond being business-like and in charge. This makes him a bit one-sided, and it may just be that aspect that PJ wants to expand on to give the audience a better chance at character identification. We get to see not just the outward end product, a Ranger who throws a switch and becomes King, but the process itself drawn out over time and made more explicit.

Odo

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

But is Aragorn "in charge"? Yes, of course, in Bree he is simply because his followers are the four hobbits. Once Glorfindel appears, it is obvious that Aragorn has relinquished his leadership role to the more powerful and far older elf. At the same time, Glorfindel says to Aragorn that he has learned he and the hobbits were in the wild carrying a heavy burden "without guidance" - that is, without the Wizard. It certainly doesn't sound as if Aragorn is "in charge" at all at this point. To further demonstrate, Tolkien notes that the Elf puts them through a forced march after which even Aragorn appears exhausted.

To my mind, Aragorn's character doesn't change, but his mind becomes made up to put himself forward after the debacle at Parth Galen (all of his options have been considered and his choice made) and you therefore have very different actions on the part of the character rather than a different character.

(will say more later; late for church)

 

[Confusticated]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
At the same time, Glorfindel says to Aragorn that he has learned he and the hobbits were in the wild carrying a heavy burden "without guidance" - that is, without the Wizard. It certainly doesn't sound as if Aragorn is "in charge" at all at this point.

Deja vu, Mrs Maggott
I have to correct this error - Glorfindel did not learn that "he and the hobbits were in the wild without guidance". Glorfindel heard that the hobbits were in the wild without a guide. Aragorn was in no way included in the message that reached Glorfindel through Gildor.

This point I made in the Glorfindel thread but here it is as a reminder:
The hobbits were without Aragorn when Gildor's group met them, so the group would obviously send a message that the hobbits were without a guide.
**********************

Another thing I forgot to mention as I came to the defense of the elves...

by Mrs. Maggott
It certainly doesn't sound as if Aragorn is "in charge" at all at this point. To further demonstrate, Tolkien notes that the Elf puts them through a forced march after which even Aragorn appears exhausted.

While Glorfindel may have had more say than Aragorn, they were both guides. That is stated by the author.
But of course Glorfindel would have more say, he is the one who can better handle the Nazgul, and he is the one who can sense them nearing from a mile away. Aragorn would be a fool to contest that.

I fail to see the point here. I'm not saying there is no point! I have just missed it.

 

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
But is Aragorn "in charge"? Yes, of course, in Bree he is simply because his followers are the four hobbits. Once Glorfindel appears, it is obvious that Aragorn has relinquished his leadership role to the more powerful and far older elf. At the same time, Glorfindel says to Aragorn that he has learned he and the hobbits were in the wild carrying a heavy burden "without guidance" - that is, without the Wizard. It certainly doesn't sound as if Aragorn is "in charge" at all at this point. To further demonstrate, Tolkien notes that the Elf puts them through a forced march after which even Aragorn appears exhausted.

To my mind, Aragorn's character doesn't change, but his mind becomes made up to put himself forward after the debacle at Parth Galen (all of his options have been considered and his choice made) and you therefore have very different actions on the part of the character rather than a different character.

(will say more later; late for church)

It probably seems like I'm picking this apart (and maybe this point should be posted in another forum), but why would Glorfindel say that ,with Aragorn leading them, they were "without guidance"? Even though he seems to be addressing Aragorn, I always took it to mean that Rivendell got news through Gildor that Frodo was in the Wild "without guidance" (read: no Gandalf - who was supposed to be at Bag End before Frodo left).

(Let me say here that I can't locate my copy of FOTR - and my memory ain't what it used to be - so I may be off-base a tad as far as the context in which Glorfindel spoke.)

First of all, how could Rivendell know that the hobbits were accompanied by Aragorn? And, if Elrond and company did know, why would they think the Strider and the hobbits were "without guidance"? Wasn't Aragorn the greatest hunter & tracker in that Age of the world (not to mention that he had the blood of great kings and warriors of old running through his veins)? Granted, Aragorn is not as powerful as Gandalf or Glorfindel, but he's a pretty formidable guy by any standard.

I do agree, however, that Aragorn defers to Glorfindel as soon as he shows up. But I don't think it's because Aragorn has not yet grown enough to be a leader (or a King). After all, wasn't he described as a great leader of men in his guise as Thorongil (thus earning Denethor's jealousy)? He's as close to being ready to be King at this point as he can be - he's had 50 years of training for it. The one truly elevating event (IMO) in the book where we see a tranformation in Aragorn is the Paths of the Dead. From then on, he's "not as close" (as Pippin might say) as he was earlier (though Tolkien makes a point a couple of times of trying to make him so).

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I did not say that he was not "strong enough", but I brought forth the points to illustrate that Jackson's supporters who say that Aragorn was a never failing "cardboard hero" who never "grew" during the course of the book.

And by the way, Glorfindel does not say to Aragorn when he mentions "without guidance" that he is glad to see that Aragorn was with them for he didn't know it. Furthermore, it is not possible that the Elf could have ever supposed that the hobbits had managed to get that far without Aragorn, so to suggest that he thought the hobbits were alone in the wilderness is simply not credible. It appeared to me from first reading that Glorfindel's statement includes the man as well as the hobbits, probably because he supposed that only the Wizard (aside from himself) was able to prevail against the Nazgul.

But there is something else in the book that reveals Aragorn's "vulnerability" (as opposed to the belief that he was "as strong" at the beginning of the book as he was at the end). Consider his interaction with the hobbits at Bree: he has attempted to gain Frodo's confidence without mentioning Gandalf. At last Butterbur brings in Gandalf's letter which introduces "Strider/Aragorn". Frodo asks Strider why he hasn't mentioned the Wizard before. Strider then asks, "'Would any of you have believed me till now?" Then he says something that to my mind marks the "humanity" of Tolkien's character: "In any case, I did not intend to tell you all about myself at once. I had to study you first, and make sure of you. The enemy has set traps for me before now. As soon as I had made up my mind, I was ready to tell you whatever you asked. But I must admit,' he added with a q-u-e-e-r* laugh, 'that I hoped you would take to me for my own sake. A hunted man sometimes wearies of disruct and longs for friendship. But there, I believe my looks are against me. (my emphasis)'" Strider, FOTR, LOTR.

How much more vulnerable and "unkingly" can one get than to virtually "beg" for the friendship and approval of four "country bumpkin" hobbits? I think of how beautifully Viggo Mortensen could have delivered those lines (and Gandalf leaving a letter at the Pony was not unthinkable given that he had directed Frodo to go there in the first place). How much more understandable and acceptable would that "weakness" have been in the character than the silly nonsense about "rejecting" his birthright! Alas for yet another missed opportunity.

[*sorry, but the cybersensor **** out the word, so I had to s-p-e-l-l it this way or it would just "disappear".)

 

[Confusticated]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I did not say that he was not "strong enough", but I brought forth the points to illustrate that Jackson's supporters who say that Aragorn was a never failing "cardboard hero" who never "grew" during the course of the book.

He is cardboard to me. I would not say never failing though. I also don't think he grew much during the story.

At any rate, I dont see how the events with Glorfindel relate to this.
--------
It is certainly possible that Glorfindel figured that Strider had run into the hobbits. Glorfindel did not say "I thought the hobbits were without a guide"... he was merely repeating the message that made it to Rivendell. In repeating the message from Gildor, he was giving the explaination for why he was out and about looking for them.
--------
Tar-Palantir:

First of all, how could Rivendell know that the hobbits were accompanied by Aragorn? And, if Elrond and company did know, why would they think the Strider and the hobbits were "without guidance"?

Rivendell didn't have to know this at the time that the riders were sent out. Glorfindel would have figured it along the way.
He may not have been sure that Aragorn was with the hobbits, but he obviously hoped, and probably strongly suspected that he was. Especially since he left the stone at the bridge and when he found their trail.
--------
Mrs. Maggott:
Try as I might, I can not begin to understand this:

It appeared to me from first reading that Glorfindel's statement includes the man as well as the hobbits, probably because he supposed that only the Wizard (aside from himself) was able to prevail against the Nazgul.

I'm trying... but I do not see ANY logic in that. None.

--------
Mrs. Maggott:
As for the bit about hoping that the hobbits would take to him, it indicates a vulnerability, but I wouldn't go this far...

How much more vulnerable and "unkingly" can one get than to virtually "beg" for the friendship and approval of four "country bumpkin" hobbits?

I think "beg" is just a bit extreme. I can't see from a point of view where I can see this as being begging.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Nóm
He is cardboard to me. I would not say never failing though. I also don't think he grew much during the story.

At any rate, I dont see how the events with Glorfindel relate to this.
--------
It is certainly possible that Glorfindel figured that Strider had run into the hobbits. Glorfindel did not say "I thought the hobbits were without a guide"... he was merely repeating the message that made it to Rivendell. In repeating the message from Gildor, he was giving the explaination for why he was out and about looking for them.
--------
Mrs. Maggott:
Try as I might, I can not begin to understand this:

I'm trying... but I do not see ANY logic in that. None.
--------
Mrs. Maggott:
As for the bit about hoping that the hobbits would take to him, it indicates a vulnerability, but I wouldn't go this far...

I think "beg" is just a bit extreme. I can't see from a point of view where I can see this as being begging.

Alas, there is no reason to further discuss this issue. You see one thing and I another. Since we are not even on the same page regarding the most basic understanding of either film or text, then I'm sure you will agree that further debate between us is pointless.

 

[Confusticated]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Alas, there is no reason to further discuss this issue. You see one thing and I another. Since we are not even on the same page regarding the most basic understanding of either film or text, then I'm sure you will agree that further debate between us is pointless.

I suppose, but wish I understood about your Glorfindel/Aragorn idea. That isn't what this thread is for, and you and I are never on the same "wavelength" (for lack of better word)... so I guess it ends here.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Nóm
I suppose, but wish I understood about your Glorfindel/Aragorn idea. That isn't what this thread is for, and you and I are never on the same "wavelength" (for lack of better word)... so I guess it ends here.

The reason I suggested that there was no sense in continuing is that we have both read the texts - and have come to diametric understandings thereof. As we can find no fundamental basis from which to proceed, I cannot imagine how we may do so. Still, if you can suggest some way to do so, I would be more than pleased to entertain your idea.

 

[jallan]

As to Aragorn and Glorfindel, remember that much of their meeting and subsequent events were written by Tolkien about Glorfindel and a Hobbit named Trotter.

That, at one level, is why Glorfindel seems so much more important in that scene. Originally, he was.

Tolkien perhaps ought to have revised more. But the original picture can, I think, still be justified.

Glorfindel is a powerful "elf-lord", more skilled at partially relievving the effects of Frodo's wound than Aragorn, perhaps Elrond's most powerful warrior, someone who the young Aragorn would have greatly looked up to and revered.

Also, as published, there is indeed no reason to think Glorfindel has any clue as to who might or might not be with the Hobbits for whom he is searching based on tidings that came from Gildor, unless possibly, seeing by the tracks he his following, he knows that a Man (or Elf) is with them.

Probably only when he saw Aragorn would he know for certain who that Man was. For all he knew it might have been Gandalf, or another Ranger. Surely Aragorn is not the only competent Ranger.

But a problem I find with these discussions is that it is not clear why the film blames Aragorn for chosing the Path of Exile.

In what sense is movie-Aragorn in exile, what claim does movie-Aragorn have to the throne of Gondor and what should he have done about it.

Book-Aragorn has no more claim, and no less claim, than any of his ancestors who were Chieftains of the Rangers following the disappearance of Eärnil, the last king of Gondor.

If something like this is the back story of the film, then how should movie-Aragorn be blamed any more than any of those ancestors for remaining in exile.

The claim to the throne of book-Gondor by the line of book-Islidur had been rejected at least once.

What were those of that line supposed to do?

Make political overtures to dissident factions in Gondor, hoping to stage a coup or maybe a civil war?

Hire some lawyers and keep pushing and pushing and pushing the case?

Secretly arrange the assassination of the Steward and all his family?

Book-Boromir and the lords Gondor are not aware that any heirs of Isildur even survive. When made aware, it is not clear that book-Boromir even remembers the old claim that once was made.

In the book it was also made by various descendants of Meneldil son of Anárion, but in the movie Anárion probably never existed and there is nothing to indicated who the statues of the Argonath represent, save they are movie-Aragorn's ancestors and kings of Gondor, but apparently not movie-Elendil and movie-Isildur.

In the film, when Legolas announces Strider's true name and claims he is the rightful King of Gondor, movie-Boromir apparently knows something of him by reputation, and says that Gondor wants no king and needs no king.

I cannot make any coherent back story out of the hints given by the film that explain in what sense movie-Aragorn, any more than his ancestors, is to be blamed for not seeking the throne, unless indeed his ancestors in the film are known as northern trouble-makers, constantly interfering in the politics of Gondor with their claims, and he is thought wrong not to do the same?

But I am suspicious that the films will never provide a coherent back story, and we will never know what DVD-Boromor thought movie-Aragorn should have to be doing to regain the kingship.

However, movie-Aragorn does claim to have seen the White City, so perhaps the Thorongil episodes are supposed to have occurred, in which book-Aragorn seems to be attempting, perhaps, to make a position for himself in Gondor.

But book-Aragorn then departs, for reasons not given, but possibly in part because he has become Denethor's rival and does not see any point in remaing in that unteneable position.

 

[Talimon]

But a problem I find with these discussions is that it is not clear why the film blames Aragorn for chosing the Path of Exile.

I do not see why this should be such a big issue. It is made quite clear why Aragorn does not want to become a king in the film: "The same blood flows in my viens, the same weakness." Also, on the EE, "I do not want that power. I have never wanted it." Aragorn does not want to become king because he is haunted by the decisions Isildur made. I don't think the film "blames" him for anything more then that. Elrond merely states that "He has chosen exile." He says some words to him at his mothers grave about "you are the last of that line. There is no other." Boromir is the only one that really accuses him of anything (on the shores of the Anduin in the EE).

Also, the whole history of Aragorns line is not recounted in either the book or the film. We only hear of it in the Appendices and elsewhere. As such, I do not see how much more PJ really needs to explain. The important elements here are 1) Aragorn is the rightful heir to the throne of Gondor. This is because he is Isildurs heir. 2) Aragorn does not want to become king, because he fears that he might fail in the same way Isildur did, and does not want the power that comes with kingship. I believe there are a number of strong scenes in FotR that establish these two points, and there will be more in RotK. I guess your concern is regarding the first point. Maybe we will get a better explanation regarding just who the stewards really are. But I'm not sure how much more needs to be said regarding Aragorns heritage.

I did not say that he was not "strong enough", but I brought forth the points to illustrate that Jackson's supporters who say that Aragorn was a never failing "cardboard hero" who never "grew" during the course of the book.

I am not saying that Aragorn is a "cardboard hero" in the book. I do not think he is the most fleshed out charachter, but he is certainly much deeper then your average warrior (Eomer, for instance). You point out one of many scenes that show his humanity. The same point can be said of Gandalf: he is not just your ordinary wizard. His feelings and emotions are shown on numerous occasions, and those are what make him such a special charachter. Indeed, all these details are what make Tolkiens charachters more then just the normal, "stock" fantasy personalities.

My point was just that in the book we do not learn "how" or "why" Aragorn all of a sudden becomes such a lordly charachter. This does not bother me, because it adds to his mystique. It is just that in a movie I cant see that making a very deep or interesting charachter. I have to disagree with Thorin here; I don't think PJ has made Aragorn an "underdog". He has just made him conflicted. Indeed, physically Aragorn is just as powerful as he is in the book. What PJ has done is given him another emotional layer of conflict. I can't see in what way he is an "underdog", really. He is not facing any greater odds then he was in the book. His struggle is with himself, not some external force.

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Talimon, I think your last sentence says it all about the movie-Aragorn:
"His struggle is with himself, not some external force.
In the books (in the main part; before reading the appendix about him and Arwen) my dearest Aragorn faces EXACTLY external forces mainly. There are of course some "flashes" of inner struggle, but mainly I see him in the books as one who has heard "the call" of duty and has obeyed his destiny.
In the film, however, Aragorn is much more "human" than a "hero" and I love this! I think PJ wanted to give Aragorn the "path" of becoming a king and not make him a king right from the start. The audience can trace his development very clearly.
In the FOTR we start from a stranger in rags with surprising knowledge in the history and the events in his world and time. Then in Rivendell we learn about his true identity. I would like to point out here that I liked it that PJ chose Rivendell to "reveal" to the audience who in fact Aragorn is. Just like young Aragorn learned the truth about his line in Rivendell, so does the audience.
Then, through the episodes at the Council of Elrond and of course the various conversations and talks in Rivendell we "get the picture" about this man. And what is most important, we see that "inner" struggle he has with himself!
And if in FOTR we are introduced to this character for the reason to expect something very important of him, in TTT he is starting to prove himself as the rightful king - a ruler of his time - valiant in battles, wise councellor, good war-startegist, one who cares for the fate of his world.
I think this way of presenting Aragorn in the movies was a good and necessary step taken in the development of his character until he is "allowed" to "unfirl the great standard of the Kings of Gondor in the third movie.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by jallan
What were those of that line supposed to do?

Make political overtures to dissident factions in Gondor, hoping to stage a coup or maybe a civil war?

Hire some lawyers and keep pushing and pushing and pushing the case?

Secretly arrange the assassination of the Steward and all his family?
...
I cannot make any coherent back story out of the hints given by the film that explain in what sense movie-Aragorn, any more than his ancestors, is to be blamed for not seeking the throne, unless indeed his ancestors in the film are known as northern trouble-makers, constantly interfering in the politics of Gondor with their claims, and he is thought wrong not to do the same?

jallan- with re. to the back story, what about my suggestion that Arathorn was slain in office in Gondor, and that Aragorn has chosen to stay in the North rather than returning to claim the kinship? I think there's evidence in the film story line for this, though I'm also well aware that there are many other possibilities at this point.

Re. the Northern line- I think they should have hired lawyers and continued pushing the case. Their case improved substantially after the death of Earnur, with two key point different from those raised in the time of Arvdui and Earnil:

1) When Arvedui made the claim, he was not of the line of Anarion- I believe that this was the grounds for denying his claim. However, as he was married to Firiel, daughter of Ondoher, his descendants actually were descended from Anarion as well as Isildur.

2) When Arvedui made the claim, there were men in Gondor who not only had the support of the people, but who could also claim descent from Anarion. No such person existed who was willing to press his claim after the death of Earnur.

Call up the legal firm, I say!

 

[Harad the White]

i seen the light....

the growth of Aragorn began at bree, the realisation that his destiny lies with the ring and frodo.....AT the CoE, Frodo basically offered him the ring, and he refused......

the conflict is with the ring NOT his lineage or kingship, since he was bound to both....

Power came to him with the 'fall" of Gandalf, and he "grew into his Kingship", culminating in his decision to take the Path of the Dead....

Upon revealing himslef in the palantir, and walking the Path of the DEAD....surprise surprise, Aragorn is "reborn" as the KINZG

 

[jallan]

Talimon posted:

I do not see why this should be such a big issue.

<snip>

2) Aragorn does not want to become king, because he fears that he might fail in the same way Isildur did, and does not want the power that comes with kingship.

As far was we know from either book or film, Isildur's only mistake was to take possession of the Ring, which meant letting the Ring take possession of him.

True, Jackson has Galadriel in the prologue make some remarks about Men's lust for power, so maybe if Elrond, for example, had obtained the Ring, all would have been well.

Or maybe not?

Who knew the Ring was so addictive then?

Now movie-Aragorn, descendant of Isildur over a thousand years later, "fears that he might fail in the same way Isildur did, and does not want the power that comes with kingship."

Why should movie-Aragorn fear to be corrupted by a Ring of power that has been lost for a thousand years before it actually resurfaces?

As a child did movie-Aragorn wake up in the middle of the night with nightmares about it?

Or did this fear only begin when movie-Aragorn learned that the One Ring had been found?

There is no indication in Bree or later that movie-Aragorn is at all tempted by it until the ambiguous scene on Amon Hen where, if falling at all into the Ring's temptations, he rebounds without demonstrable difficulty.

I suppose the scene with Arwen and the broken sword might suggest he was worried about being tempted or something.

In that scene movie-Aragorn natters on about human weakness, so maybe, in fact, under his calm surface, movie-Aragorn is just seething to grab that Ring and rule everyone and everybody and show a thing or two to that stupid inn-keeper and finally be able to take Arwen for his own despite anything daddy-Elrond can do, and take her grandmother as well.

Or maybe not.

In any case, movie-Aragorn probably chose the "Path of Exile" long before the Ring was discovered, a decision that could have had any direct relation to the One Ring or Isildur's taken possession of it.

It would be nice to know why movie-Aragorn chose the Path of Exile though none of his ancestors did so.

Or did they also renounce power? Do we have an entire lineage who chose the Path of Exile?

If Jackson does have a coherent story to tell about this, maybe he should tell it.

Movie-Arwen hopes that movie-Aragorn, will become king, according to movie-Elrond, though movie-Elrond has laid no geas on movie-Aragorn to become king before claiming movie-Arwen's hand.

But movie-Aragorn, though vowed now by his word to Boromir to save the White City, is certainly not seeking the kingship.

How can he?

Movie-Aragorn will never be so crass as to actutally seek the kingship to which he is heir.

It will be sort of forced on him by movie-Faramir and the lords of Gondor and the acclamation of the people.

"Ah! Shucks! Gee!"

Movie-Aragorn doesn't even seek movie-Arwen.

In the Rivendell scenes movie-Arwen is the aggressor, almost forcing the Evenstar on movie-Aragorn.

In the second film we learn that movie-Aragorn had second thoughs. He who rejected the throne of Gondor also rejected movie-Arwen, despite his love for her and because of his love for her.

In the matter of Arwen also movie-Aragorn choses the Path of Exile.

Every imperfection in Tolkien's Aragorn is removed.

Movie-Aragorn also makes the decision to die with the Rohirrim, if it comes to that, to lay down his life with them. Book-Aragorn presumably makes the same decision, but nothing is made of it in the book.

Movie-Aragorn is possibly even a better fighter than book-Aragorn, for he defeats five Nazgûl in battle.

Lhunithiliel posted:

I would like to point out here that I liked it that PJ chose Rivendell to "reveal" to the audience who in fact Aragorn is.

I would like to point out that PJ is just following Tolkien here. Tolkien somewhat shrouded Aragorn's claim to the throne of Gondor, though that also is plain enough if you read slowly and carefully.

Then, through the episodes at the Council of Elrond and of course the various conversations and talks in Rivendell we "get the picture" about this man. And what is most important, we see that "inner" struggle he has with himself!

Yes, we see movie-Aragorn's fears about his own imperfection, which partly explains why he is, in fact, so perfect.

In TTT he is starting to prove himself as the rightful king - a ruler of his time - valiant in battles, wise councellor, good war-startegist, one who cares for the fate of his world.

There is nothing in the films to suggest that Aragorn was not all of these from long before we first see him, unless you wish to so interpret an enigmatic wink from Gandalf.

As to movie-Aragorn being a war-strategist, the film wants us to think so, but as I've pointed out in another thread, his two pieces of advice to Théoden are both wrong as strategy: one would have turned out badly and one did turn out badly.

But the viewers aren't supposed to notice this.

Aragil posted:

jallan- with re. to the back story, what about my suggestion that Arathorn was slain in office in Gondor, and that Aragorn has chosen to stay in the North rather than returning to claim the kinship? I think there's evidence in the film story line for this, though I'm also well aware that there are many other possibilities at this point.

That doesn't explain exactly why Boromir says Gondor neither wants or needs a king, unless Arathorn had in some way, in some eyes, shamed the kingship.

One could invent such a detail.

Or perhaps, like book-Aragorn, Aragorn did serve in Gondor as Thorongil, some discovered who he was and pressed him to make a claim for the throne.

Movie-Aragorn then departed, choosing the Path of Exile. But the existence of this heir of Isildur then became generally known, though not that he was also the hero Thorongil, hence Boromir's ignorance that Aragorn has ever seen the White City.

There are all kinds of stories we could make up.

But without a story of movie-Aragorn's past before he appears, all claims that what we see of him in the film show development are arguments from Jackson's silence.

When Arvedui made the claim, there were men in Gondor who not only had the support of the people, but who could also claim descent from Anarion. No such person existed who was willing to press his claim after the death of Earnur.

Not so. From Appendix A:

So it was that no claimant to the crown could be found who was of pure blood, or whose claim all would allow; and all feared the memory of the Kin-strife, knowing that if any such dissension arose again, then Gondor would perish.

It is possible that Aranarth was among those whose claim not all would allow.

Actually, Tolkien nowhere says clearly and precisely that there were no descendants of Minardil alive in Aragorn's time who were descended from those who who were not of "pure blood" or who had not relinquished any claim on the throne for themselves or their descendants.

But that was, I think, most likely the case.

If one of the chieftains of the Dúnedain after Aranarth had tried to make a claim to the kingship of Gondor he would almost certainly have failed.

The case, as Tolkien presents it in Appendix A, is about as clear as Salic Law at the beginning of Shakespeare's Henry V.

There would doubtless be opinions either way.

Naturally, no decision would then be made to accept the Chieftan as King of Gondor, though the claim would not actually be rejected either.

But that would have the same effect as deciding against the claim.

Only the lawyers would be enriched.

 

[Talimon]

I was more or less following your line of reasoning, jallan, until I came upon this:

Every imperfection in Tolkien's Aragorn is removed.

You'll have to explain that for me. This one too:

Yes, we see movie-Aragorn's fears about his own imperfection, which partly explains why he is, in fact, so perfect.

I'm not quite following.... are you saying that having fears makes one perfect? In what sense? You seem to be suggesting that in the book Aragorn was in fact flawed, or at the very least "imperfect". What are all these imperfections in Tolkien's Aragorn that you are reffering to? I've heard folks complain about how PJ has made Aragorn weaker and more fallible, but what you are saying has gotten me curious. Are you suggesting that PJ made Aragorn less fallible? More noble?

True, Jackson has Galadriel in the prologue make some remarks about Men's lust for power, so maybe if Elrond, for example, had obtained the Ring, all would have been well.

Or maybe not?

Who knew the Ring was so addictive then?

Elrond claims to have argued for it to be destroyed in both book and film. In the film we even get to see the flash-back, where Elrond takes Isildur into the heart of Mt. Doom and asks him to destroy it. In the book (Council of Elrond):

'Isildur took it, as should not have been. It should have been cast into Orodruin's fire nigh at hand where it was made. But few marked what Isildur did. He alone stood by his father in that last mortal contest; and by Gil-galad only Cirdan stood, and I. But Isildur would not listen to our counsel.

'"This I will have as weregild for my father, and my brother," he said; and therefore whether we would or no, he took it to treasure it.'

Now movie-Aragorn, descendant of Isildur over a thousand years later, "fears that he might fail in the same way Isildur did, and does not want the power that comes with kingship."

Why should movie-Aragorn fear to be corrupted by a Ring of power that has been lost for a thousand years before it actually resurfaces?

First of all, it is clear Aragorn knows about the ring before he even meets the hobbits. He says in his first scene, "That is no trinket you carry." But I think his fears come from a sense of failure on the part of his people. He is right to feel that Isildur had a big part to play in the coming war. Had the ring been destroyed none of this would have happenned. But Aragorn fears more then just the ring. He fears power in general. He does not want to have the responsiblity that comes with it. He fears that he may fail as Isildur did.

It would be nice to know why movie-Aragorn chose the Path of Exile though none of his ancestors did so.

Or did they also renounce power? Do we have an entire lineage who chose the Path of Exile?

If Jackson does have a coherent story to tell about this, maybe he should tell it.

I'm not sure how much to make out of this "Path of Exile". In fact, the only mention of the word "exile" is at the beggining from Elrond: "He turned from that path a long time ago. He has chosen exile." As for his ancestors, when did they come into the equation? Who ever mentioned them? Why should they even cross the audiences mind? In the actual tale of LotR Tolkien never goes into much depth discussing exactly why Aragorns ancestors never claimed the throne. That is only made clear in the appendices, and not in full. Tolkien didn't count on everyone reading all the histories. In fact, there weren't any histories around when LotR was published in the first place. As such, how can we blame PJ for details that even Tolkien himself did not cover? In either case, it does not seem like PJ needs to tell a story any more coherent then he actually has. The fact that Aragorns past in shrouded in mystery in both book and film is what makes him becoming king so dramatic. He comes out of the wild lands and goes on to become the greatest ruler of his age. As far as I'm concerened, his back-story has been told as well as it need be.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by myself
When Arvedui made the claim, there were men in Gondor
who not only had the support of the people, but who could also claim descent from Anarion. No such person existed who was willing to press his claim after the death of Earnur.

Originally quoted by jallan
So it was that no claimant to the crown could be found who was of pure blood, or whose claim all would allow; and all feared the memory of the Kin-strife, knowing that if any such dissension arose again, then Gondor would perish.

Is there a pertinent difference between these two that I am missing?
If Tolkien had included a description of the Northerners trying to claim the throne and failing, then I'd be completely satisfied. It is with those who never tried that I have a problem.

Talimon- If my sarcastometer is right in this matter, than jallan may not actually think that movie-Aragorn is perfect.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

There is one name here that never seems to "crop up" in the discussion, and that is Elendil (not Isildur). Elendil founded and was the first King of the northern kingdom Arnor. He then sent his representatives to the south to found the southern kingdom of Gondor. Eventually, he leaves the Kingdoms to his two sons, the older, Arnor, to Isildur his elder and Gondor to his younger son. This must be a "family thing" because later Arnor is carved up into three smaller kingdoms to accommodate the three sons of one ruler (whose name escapes me with this dratted cold).

So it would seem to me, that as Elendil's line - through Isildur - remains even after the fall of the last northern kingdom Arthedain, then there can be no question that anyone directly descending therefrom has a claim on the throne of the southern kingdom through the man who was originally king of both - Elendil. It is not just a matter of interest that it is Elendil's sword Aragorn inherits as well as Elendil's appearance (as noted by Elrond).

As for the reason that no previous Dunadain Chieftain ever sought to claim Gondor's throne, well it may be that the time was not ripe. It may also be that as Sauron grew again in power, it was considered wise to, as Tolkien himself said, keep the line "hidden" in the North fearing that the Dark Lord would wage all out war in an attempt to kill or capture the last remaining heir of hated Elendil through even more hated Isildur. Certainly Aragorn notes after his struggle with the palantir that Sauron had not known at that time that he "walked the earth", so it is apparent that Elrond's efforts to keep the matter a secret at least from the Enemy, had been successful.

Of course, how much Denethor knew or suspected from his original interaction with Aragorn in his guise as Thorongil is not known directly, but we do know that in the end, the fact that someone was coming with a legitimate claim to the throne came as no surprise to the Steward. Therefore, we may assume that he had suspected his father's counselor of years past of having designs - or even a legitimate claim - on the throne which would explain his hostility to Aragorn before he even arrives.

 

[Thorin]

Let's take a look at Elrond's quote, "He chose exile long ago."

If that is the case, then we can safely conclude that Aragorn's decision to so vehemently reject the kingship is simply because he doesn't want it, not because he's afraid of Isildur's weakness in him. To me, this whole "weakness" thing is a secondary reason once the ring pops up.

Are you saying that Aragorn knew of the ring's resurfacing, "long ago"? If that is the case, then Aragorn is even more wiser than Gandalf.

And Aragorn's whole "dumping" of Arwen is also a confusion. Why? Because it is made quite plain in both mediums that Aragorn CANNOT claim Arwen unless he is king. If he doesn't want to be king, there is no fear of Arwen remaining in ME. There are many contradictions that point out only one thing:

PJ's Aragorn is a selfish character who truly shows his weakness in his behavior towards his heritage and all that comes with it.

 

[aragil]

Well, if not wanting power over people for fear of abusing power is classified as 'seflish', then I don't know how one can be unselfish.
Incidentally, at what point in the film has it been made clear that Aragorn can't have Arwen 'til he has the throne? I thought the conventional wisdom was that the film hadn't mentioned this.
How vehement was Aragorn's decision to choose exile in the film? I'm curious here, because as far as I know, none of us know the backstory or under what circumstances (or even with what language) film-Aragorn chose exile. Please enlighten us.

MM- minor point of correction- Elendil never left either realm to his sons. After the Last Alliance Isildur claimed overlordship of both realms, but left his nephew in charge of Gondor while he went on his ill-fated trip north. This was the basis of Arvedui's claim in ~TA 1974- rule of the Southern Kingdom through Isildur, the High King of the Numenoreans in exile. This claim was of course rejected by the Southerners, on the grounds that it was Anarion's and not Isildur's line that should rule Gondor (ingrates). Interestingly enough, what were Faramir's words at Elassar's crowning?

From the Steward and the King
‘Men of Gondor hear now the Steward of this Realm! Behold! one has come to claim the kingship again at last. Here is Aragorn son of Arathorn, chieftain of the Dúnedain of Arnor, Captain of the Host of the West, bearer of the Star of the North, wielder of the Sword Reforged, victorious in battle, whose hands bring healing, the Elfstone, Elessar of the line of Valandil, Isildur’s son, Elendil’s son of Númenor. Shall he be king and enter into the City and dwell there?’

Wha? I thought claiming the throne through Isildur was a bad thing. Oh well, no accounting for Stewards, I suppose.

As for the Northern line not claiming the throne earlier, we've had this out before. First of all, they weren't waiting a few weeks for something good to happen, they waited 1000 years. That is inexcusable in my opinion. As I said before, no-one knew for certain that Sauron had returned until ~TA 2850. They certainly feared much earlier that he had come back, but I don't think that fear is such a great excuse here. The bottom line is that their people were suffering without their leadership. If a set of Kings lets other people rule their realm for 1000 years, then I'd question their right to return at all.