Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: What Happened to Gallant Captain Faramir?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Two Towers > What Happened to Gallant Captain Faramir?   << [1] [2] [3] >>
Quote:
Sometimes i think PJ changed Faramir on purpose to see women all over the world cry out their outrage. Strange that men don't react at all after seeing what PJ did to Arwen.....


Faramir, closely followed by Eomer & Imrahil, is my favourite character from the books. David Wenham is an awesome actor who did a good job with that what was given to him. I just find the way the script is written from time to time akward, like there are some plotholes that all of a sudden surface. You see it mostly with the Denethor character. I personally think that there is nothing wrong with the movie Faramir... he is just very very yummy. *coughs* I'll behave. Christmas Smilie
Quote:
And speaking of the movies, I'll have my say, (as usual) as someone who's seen the movies first and then read the books. Speaking of the Frodo telling Sam to go home thing, when I watched the movie, I didn't find anything odd with that, instead I thought that it DID fit in nicely in the movies.

Thanks! That's a nice insight that someone like me needs. I've read LOTR many times, and my reactions are bound to differ from someone seeing the movies first. I'd already noticed how many people on this webswite have praised the elves showing up at Helm's Deep; when I saw that in the theatre I thought "Ugh!" But now I find that it doesn't bother me that much; maybe the same will come to be true about the Frodo/Sam scene. But I think I will always feel that diminishing Faramir was a big mistake.
Good as the movies were, I think there is little chance that LOTR will suffer the fate of the Wizard of Oz; that is, virtually eclipsed by the movie version.
Quote:
Good as the movies were, I think there is little chance that LOTR will suffer the fate of the Wizard of Oz; that is, virtually eclipsed by the movie version.
I hope not, because the Wizard of Oz books couldn't hold a candle to Tolkien's book.

I started reading the Oz books when I was eight or nine, this was before I ever saw the movie and we didn't get TV for another seven years so that I could. I loved the Oz books at the time; however, when I now reread them, they seem quite poorly written, while the Wizard of Oz movie remains quite good. I also have some of the ancient silent Oz movies on VHS that have had music added and they are quite horrible.

PJ's movies will last, but they will never eclipse Tolkien's book as long as we have websites to expound on the joys of the book.
Quote:
PJ's movies will last, but they will never eclipse Tolkien's book as long as we have websites to expound on the joys of the book.


Of course not! I just see them as separate. Although I would be quite fascinated to see the Silm on screen... and yet not.
wot u gotta remember is that the vast majority of LotR film goers arent scholars of tolkein lore like us good people, Tolkeins world was a black and white world and Jackson had to make the ring look like the very epitomy of temptation and corruption, all in this ring, so he had to make every character react to this temptation. the desecration of Faramir's character is a lamentable but inevitable insertion and unlike most of Jackson's snips was almost necessary.

And i agree Gondor was made to look far to weak in the movie, where were teh companies of the citadel guard? no, all they have is two dozen fellas scared witless and gettin beaten down by fell beasts and catapults/
Yes, i'm sure "Tolkein" would agree with that viewpoint. Whoever that is.

Quote:
Tolkeins world was a black and white world and Jackson had to make the ring look like the very epitomy of temptation and corruption, all in this ring, so he had to make every character react to this temptation. the desecration of Faramir's character is a lamentable but inevitable insertion and unlike most of Jackson's snips was almost necessary.

He had to do that?? Was someone holding a gun against his head all the time or what? That explains a lot!
well hes a film maker, and hes gotta make a film that people will understand and enjoy. its what he does, maybe not a gun to his head but definitely an obligation. how else are ordinary people who are not infinitely wise like yourslef goin to percieve the practical corrupting power of the ring?
What happened with Boromir and Gollum, the part with Gandalf refusing the Ring, the part with the Mirror of Galadriel in the movie already shows the influence of the Ring more than enough, doesn't it? I think the ordinary ppl would most certainly understand that the ring had a bad influence, without the need to reduce faramir to a second rate character --- just as ordinary ppl would understand the bad influence of the ring, when they read about this scenes in the book.

I have more faith in the ordinary ppl than you, buddy.

btw : try spelling Tolkien right next time, ok?
Jesus i was spellin Tolkien wrong,how could i? cheers mate.Maybe you do have more faith in the ordinary public than me, but how else do u explain all the big box office smashes that are clones of every other brainless action films ever? and they definitely woulda got confused if every other character in the film, even Gandalf (portrayed as the ultimate good guy in the film) woulda had a moment of doubt but Faramir is somehow immune to the corrupting effects of this most powerful of objects.
The thing what I absolutely like is that Tolkien is not black and white... so many shades of grey (or beige for that matter).
i thought the whole point of Tolkiens writings is that, with all his "Dark Lords" was that there is a clearly defined line between the "goodies" and the "baddies" and although goodies can be corrupted, they are still either "good" or "bad" at different times. i a;ways thought that at teh end of RotK the dark image after the destruction of the ring and then its dissipation symbolised the move into the modern age and how the evil was spread out, no longer in "Dark Lords" but in everyone, turning the black and white into grey. i think i actually read that somewhere in my edition of LotR somewhere.
Gandalf the grey? Boromir? Gollum/Smeagol? Grima? Just some characters I think about. I mean, Boromir was not really such a good guy and yet he was. I think Tolkien's characters are not that one dimensional as you think. Another one: the sons of Feanor, Turin Turambar? Were they really bad guys? But their deeds does not qualify them as good, but then again they fought against Morgoth so valiantly.... Smile Smilie Nah. No Black and White.
What you think about the point of Tolkien's writings is your business and strictly personal, but here's what JRRT himself wrote about it :

Quote:
I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story. It provides the theme of a War, about something dark and threatening enough to seem at that time of supreme importance, but that is mainly 'a setting' for characters to show themselves. The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it, until its whole evil-aroused story is complete.


I think it's pretty clear in JRRT's works than no one and nothing is simply "good" or "evil", even Sauron and Melkor didn't start as 100% "evil" but also started good. Even Gollum at one part had a chance to redeem himself, like Boromir, but failed to take it.
were any of those characters ever actually grey? rather the spasmodic and sometimes occasional change from white to black? could you ever say the sons of feanor acted like "grey" characters? sometimes they were "white" and sometimes they were "black" but never "grey" i think it is the same for most of the other characters.
The fact that sometimes characters do good things and sometimes bad things, makes those characters "grey", to use your words. The fact that they don't act evil or good all the time, makes them multidimensional.
Virumor, great words from the man himself, but wot did it have to do with the black/white debate that we were talkin about?
Just to inform you what the point of JRRT's writings actually was. Besides, this thread is supposed to be about Faramir, so let's return back on topic shall we.
yeh good idea, and im gettin the distinct the impression you just dont like me Sad Smilie or are you like this with everyone? lol
I understand that Faramir has been changed for the movie, but honestly, I like him better in the movie. In the book, I was bored with Faramir. He was not dynamic. He was too good for me to believe. I just wanted to see him have some kind of weakness. In the movie he is far more interesting and believable. I loved the way that he was tempted by the ring and later came to understand the true meaning of it all, in a way, redeeming his brother. There is just so much more meaning to his character in the movie. I always thought that that was the one mistake that Tolkien made, and I am happy that PJ and Fran and Philipa corrected it.
I also thought the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep was a wonderful idea. The more we see of the Elves, the better.
That's a different way of looking at it. I'd never thought of movie Faramir being more dynamic because of his failings and to be honest I still don't. But I can understand why you would. I would understand it better though if you had seen the films before reading the books. It doesn't work like that for me. I think book Faramir stands out like a shining beacon in the almost hopeless world of ME where evil seems to have the upper hand so often and so many fall into darkness. He is in contrast to Boromir's heavy handedness and Denethor's decline into despair and through his own values and actions he inspires love, loyalty and devotion in the men who serve under him and those, such as the hobbits, who meet him and recognise something special in him. I don't get that from the movies at all.

Quote:
I think book Faramir stands out like a shining beacon in the almost hopeless world of ME where evil seems to have the upper hand so often and so many fall into darkness.


This is so well put and beautiful written that I can only say: what she said.

Although I do like film Faramir as well, but he is far from the book-Faramir... somehow.
In the book, Faramir is too "Duddley Do-Right". Besides, Aragorn is the shining beacon of decency and goodness in men. Faramir should not outshine Aragorn.
I think they both shine in different directions. And anyway, Faramir has no desire to outshine Aragorn. He is content with being what he is and serving Aragorn as his King.

Quote:
My lord, you called me. I come. What does the king command?


I think book-Faramir is a bit too perfect. He's like a younger version of Aragorn, but without the royal blood. Yup, the perfect son-in-law. He never says or does anything wrong (like Aragorn). Bah.

I understand that could be irritating for some ppl, or "too good to be true", but this doesn't apply to me, strangely. And i doubt whether it applies to any female readers of LOTR.



This may be outside the courtesy of the website, but the following is a long post that I put up earlier this evening on another thread. I'm pasting it into this thread because I think it addresses this subject well also, and I'm interested in responses. If double posting like this is inappropriate, I am willing to be reprimanded.

About the movies, ah, yes. I've been running the idea of a long posting in my head. I'm never going to get the time to do it, so I'll just state it more plainly.

I like a lot about the movies. The design work is truly wonderful, especially garments. The clothing, the weapons, the buildings are really gorgeous and extraordinarily well filmed. The acting is almost invariably of the highest quality. I think the actors, to the extent that it is in their control, are very true to the characters in the books.

I don't object to things left out. That had to be done to make a movie. Some of the additions don't bother me much except in that they take up time that could have been used doing scenes more out of Tolkien. The horse Brego and Aragon episode is nice enough, but completely unnecessary. I wouldn't have had elves show up at Helm's Deep, but I don't mind. The scene of Aragon with the youth that starts with "Give me your sword..." in TTT is really wonderful. There is even one case where PJ does something that Tolkien misses: he shows Boromir as likable teaching the hobbits to fence. In the books, I always found Boromir always a little dark until his death.

What is really wrong with the movies, and it permeates everything, is that PJ and the writers do not have the vision of the possibilities of moral depth. that Tolkien does. Everyone is morally dumbed down. It seems that they cannot imagine people, or elves being as wise or good as Tolkien does.

Sam is the only character that goes through the movie with a heart as strong as Tolkien's Sam. Aragorn is very close to Tolkien's and one of the best and most completely physical inhabitation of a character I've seen a film actor do. He is only frayed a bit from the Tolkien Aragorn by needing to be "bucked up" by Arwen when he doubts. The real Aragorn does not doubt and he does not waver in his intentions and hopes with Arwen. Neither does Arwen waver. They both do in the movie.

The movie gutted the character of Faramir. That's not the most extreme, but I think the most painful. In the book, he is completely the man who would never take the Ring, and would be well past that adolescent angst vis-a-vis his father that the movie depicts. That whole shallow soap opera of brothers and father there functions levels way below Tolkien's world. (Otherwise, I think Wenham does Faramir marvelously well and to Tolkien. I saw him in a movie called, I think, Molokai where he played Damien de Veuster, the Belgian priest in Hawaii ministering to lepers. It was not a great movie, but it was a truly great performance.)

Tolkien's Denethor is, at worst, proud and cold. But he is always assiduously attentive to the defense of the city and rules with strength and intelligence and seeking the good. There is a horror to his insanity. He is a loss. PJ's Denethor is downright loathesome and exhibits no particular talents, and we are not sorry to see him go.

Tolkien's Ents are ancient and deep with wisdom, memory and thought. That trick of Pippin's makes Treebeard little more than a buffoon.

Speaking of buffoons, Merry and Pippin are supposed to be young gentlemen and the particular friends of Bilbo and Frodo. Despite a youthful hobbitlike lightheartedness, they are far more serious and brave than the movie depicts. For instance, Pippin's swearing fealty to Denethor is respected and praised by Gandalf, but in the movie Gandalf treats him like a foolish child. Again, though, the actors do very well with what they are given.

Eowyn is fairly close to the book. That scene of her as a giggly bad cook is an awful degradation of Tolkien's character.

The possession of Theoden by Saruman turns him into a simple pawn and replaces the terrible descent of his spirit and the potency of his redemption with a bit of fairy tale magic. Further, the king of Rohan would not ever question his duty to ride to the aid of Gondor when summoned.

Gimli has been turned into comic relief. The books' Legolas would never express or feel the doubts and fears the movie's Legolas did at Helm's Deep.

Elrond is just kind of bitchy. Galadriel is done well enough. I'd have done it differently, but she isn't as cheapened in spirit as most of the rest of the characters are. Eomer is fine. There is no sense of the innate greatness and nobility of Isildur. He comes across as something of a brigand. Saruman, however, is right on the money. That scene of duelling staffs pretty much cheapens the story, though.

Other than thinking the astonishingly excellent computer graphics of Gollum never stops looking like astonishingly excellent computer graphics, I think the character of Gollum is even less of a moral actor than the book. There is a real sorrow and pathos, even hope and, eventually regret at his fall in the book that doesn't make the movie. And Frodo sending Sam away in being duped by Gollum is completely false to the three characters and their relationships. Additionally it makes Frodo look stupid.

Okay, it goes on. I cannot assert that PJ has some responsibility to follow the book or do what I would want him to do. I don't think he is a traitor or at all dishonest. He also seems like a nice guy.

What he seems not to have is Tolkien's belief, faith in the ascendant perfectibility of the human soul. It seems that the characters he portrays are as good as he can imagine them to be or thinks that we can accept. I read somewhere in the text of a book of African sculpture that the purpose of a work of art is to summon us to be better than what we are. (Possibly it was more that a great work of art summons us to be better than what we are. My memory is imperfect.) I think Tolkien does that. I think PJ entertains, which is, of course, no crime.
Quote:
I read somewhere in the text of a book of African sculpture that the purpose of a work of art is to summon us to be better than what we are. (Possibly it was more that a great work of art summons us to be better than what we are. My memory is imperfect.) I think Tolkien does that. I think PJ entertains, which is, of course, no crime.


A good and insightful post. Thank you. Of course, the real work of art here was Tolkien's writing. PJ's film could never reach or exceed that and would only every be a shadow of the great man's work. Maybe the changes PJ made were his way of stamping something original on it.
Although I really like movie Faramir, my one beef with PJ was the complete omition of the Faramir-Eowyn love story. I have not seen the EE of ROTK yet, but I understand that some of it is covered in the EE. I want to see how that is treated in the film. When reading the book the first time, I didn't see it coming, but was hoping that Eowyn would find love. Then pleasantly surprised by Faramir's expression of love and Eowyn's response, I felt exhilirated.
I would be interested to see other people's opinions on this.
It sounds slightly silly but in LOTR, Faramir and Eowyn are two characters whom I love like I love actual other human beings. (Well, not quite: I am sane.) They touch me like none of the other characters do. One just so much aches for and wishes well to Eowyn.

I am in a genuinely humble way, an artist. At any rate, I'm very visual and I was almost afraid that they would ruin those characters. Visually anyway, they did not and the actors acted them very well. Eowyn wears the most beautiful garments I've ever seen. Miranda Otto portrays an extremely lovable character.

But, yeah, I was personally very disappointed that they didn't get the movie time. I remember how, oh, moved I was when Faramir recounts a recurring dream identical to a recurring dream I had as a child when I first read it - the great wave engulfing everything. Later, I read that that was a recurring dream of Tolkien's.

But that's a personal disappointment. It is still the sort of thing that can be cut in a movie that needs to cut some things. I would hate to think political correctness edged out her decision to be a shield-maiden no more and turn her attention to growing things. (That's almost a quote.) It doesn't make a gripping yarn, but midst the strife of the novel, Tolkien frequently points out that that is what life is supposed to be. Faramir and Eowyn move to the most completely happy ending in the book.
There is a bit more about Faramir and Eowyn's love story in the EEDVD but not a great deal. Certainly not as much as Tolkien wrote about it.

Quote:
But, yeah, I was personally very disappointed that they didn't get the movie time. I remember how, oh, moved I was when Faramir recounts a recurring dream identical to a recurring dream I had as a child when I first read it - the great wave engulfing everything. Later, I read that that was a recurring dream of Tolkien's.


Those lines are given to Eowyn in the EEDVD in a conversation she has with Aragorn.
Did they really say that in the movie?? How surreal.
Thank you, Vee. I've seen the EEDVD. It's curious that she wears a beautiful blue cloak in that scene as in the book Faramir had given her one that was his mother's.

Yes, Virumor, they did. Do you mean surreal that they took Faramir's speech to Eowyn and made it Eowyn's to Aragorn; or do you just mean it's an innately surreal speach? It's one of those heartbreakingly beautiful moments/images of which the movie has more than a few.
It just seemed a bit odd to me that PJ uses those lines of the books (not to mention flip-flopping lines) in the movie without the whole background of what happened in the chapter Houses of Healing/Steward and the King, etc.

It's the same when Aragorn dismissed Eowyn just before he dived into the cave with the Dead : he used a line book-Aragorn only uses in the Houses of Healing.

I just think that's totally ripping quotes from the book out of context.

BTW : did ╔owyn's cloak in the movie have stars ?
Yeah. The one I found strangest is part of the description of Frodo arriving in Valinor spoken by Gandalf to Pippin as a description of an afterlife.
Eowyn is one of my favorite characters in the books, and her cliamtctic battle with the Witch king is one of the most stirring scenes I have ever read. Her finding solace, love, and (we hope) happiness with Faramir is one of the most uplifting parts of the rather meloncholy ending of the LOTR. But by gutting the character of Faramir in the movie, PJ automatically removed any interest the audience would have in the romance, and was probably correct in omitting it. (save for the slightest hint in the coronation scene, which I doubt those who didn't know the story in advance would have picked up on.)

Shaya puma's long discussion of the moral dumbing down of the characters in the movie is exceptional. Thanks! Though naturally I don't agree with all of the analysis. In particular, Aragorn's doubt (which SP is quite right in pointing out doesn't much exist in the book; just a bit, perhaps) is not a dumbing down, but a humanization that I actually found welcome. In the book, Aragorn the ranger is a great character, but Aragorn the war leader (from Helm's Deep onwards) is a rather cold character. The movie makes him more complex and interesting. Arwen is just a cipher in the book; in the movie she is a forceful character, and one of the reasons Aragorn is deepened. JRRT once wrote he regretted not putting the scenes in Appendix A between the two of them into the body of the work, and after watching the movies, I can understand why. I thought I should mention the one area where I thought PJ may have improved on the book; in most areas he falls short, primarily for reasons Shaya puma specified.
Quote:
Eowyn is one of my favorite characters in the books, and her cliamtctic battle with the Witch king is one of the most stirring scenes I have ever read. Her finding solace, love, and (we hope) happiness with Faramir is one of the most uplifting parts of the rather meloncholy ending of the LOTR. But by gutting the character of Faramir in the movie, PJ automatically removed any interest the audience would have in the romance, and was probably correct in omitting it. (save for the slightest hint in the coronation scene, which I doubt those who didn't know the story in advance would have picked up on.)


She is my favorite character, too: the only one I've attempted to illustrate from Tolkien. I really miss the fullness of the book Faramir in the movie and their subsequent relationship. Even though Faramir has that Aragorn-like moral perfection he comes across with a richer characterization than Aragorn. He has one of the most beautiful utterances in the books, too: "...I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend..."

Quote:
Shaya puma's long discussion of the moral dumbing down of the characters in the movie is exceptional. Thanks!


Thank you, rather. And thank you, Vee. I think it's funny that I started saying that I gave up on writing a long post and would just write what turned out to be a long post. It was sloppy, though. I had been meaning to compose it more.

Quote:
Though naturally I don't agree with all of the analysis. In particular, Aragorn's doubt (which SP is quite right in pointing out doesn't much exist in the book; just a bit, perhaps) is not a dumbing down, but a humanization that I actually found welcome. In the book, Aragorn the ranger is a great character, but Aragorn the war leader (from Helm's Deep onwards) is a rather cold character. The movie makes him more complex and interesting.


I think maybe you're right. The book Aragorn is something of an icon. Viggo's Aragorn really lives and isn't darkened with some of the mean ordinariness that others of PJ's depiction have.
I'm never gonna get this right. The quote sections and my sections of my last post are directly opposite what they are supposed to be.
I just sorted the above problem out for you.... You'd got the open and close quotes out of sequence. This sometimes happens when you try to paste bits into the message window.
GRONDY!!
I wonder if Tolkien did not flesh out Arwen Evenstar because at the particular times he was working on her there was so much else going on he simply never got around to it.
It is true the Faramir of the book and movie are two different gentlemen. And as Vir says, if you can accept that and the fact that the two renditions of the character, the book and movie move different directions according to the mind of the one in charge(Tolkien and Jackson)then there is no reason not to enjoy his character. And I have no problem with him being broken hearted because of the cruel words of his father. No matter what the reason they were cruel and devestating words. He had no idea his father was one sandwhich short of a picnic from having tasted of the forbidden palantir. He had a heart. Strong and brave and noble men all through history have wept in pain of heart.
And yes, just why is it that noone seemed to mind what was done to poor Arwen's heart and emotions. why is that I wonder.
Quote:
The fact that sometimes characters do good things and sometimes bad things, makes those characters "grey", to use your words. The fact that they don't act evil or good all the time, makes them multidimensional.


I prefer to look at it as white with black spots.

Quote:
I just think that's totally ripping quotes from the book out of context.


I agree. For example, Treebeard uses two Tom Bombadill quotes in TTT:
"You should not be waking. Sleep, dig deep, eat earth" or something likethat and
"Heed no nightly noises"

As if using these quotes even begins to replace the loss of Tom Bombadill. PJ misses out two times the hobbits are saved by him, in the Old Forest and in The Barrowdowns.

On the subject of Faramir, in the movie I love his first line, about whether the Haradrim is truly evil or whether he thinks he is fighting for good. I think this shows some of the wisdom of Numenor.
Yes those lines are fitting for Faramir's character, even though in the book they were Sam's thoughts. But I still don't like what movie-Faramis turned out to be. There was a bitterness in him that I don't think the Book-Faramir had...
I think PJ wanted film-Faramir to appear very griefed-turned-bitter just to show more emotion for his brother's death and father's dissaproval without having to read his emotion you could read in the books... But film-Faramir wasn't book-Faramir, which is always a bad thing...
I do not have any problems with what PJ did to Faramir. After all, after reading the books so many times I have come to see Faramir as merely a plot device to provide the White Lady of Rohan with a husband; Faramir is almost a copy of Aragorn, but even less formidable and more prone to pseudo-wise eulogies of two, three pages.

It would have been more fitting to leave ╔owyn behind alone and bitter, since this would open plot possibilities for ╔owyn plotting a revenge at the man who scorned her, and/or the woman who stole him away from her. But I digress.

Boromir, imo, was a much more interesting character due to his inner turmoil and Sturm und Drang; it is a pity JRRT did not expand on this character and gave him an untimely death. There certainly was an option for the writer to -rather than let the warrior die- let him survive and become some kind of Mordred figure, and then some.

I wonder if JRRT ever wrote why he took this direction in his book concerning Boromir.

But back to Faramir: PJ did a good job with expanding this character, he also changed the unrealistic feature of the book where Faramir is able to resist the Ring too easily, which of course is due to the fact that Faramir ought to be the perfect son-in-law, goodie two shoes, etc. but fails to be convincing in the bigger picture where even Gandalf and Galadriel are shown quite prone to the influence of the Ring.

Faramir is made a man of action, a merciless killer on a mission to try to hold back Sauron's minions as long as possible, without time for niceties. The only part of Faramir in the movie that's a bit awkward is the relationship with his father, where suddenly Faramir turns weak - but this should be seen as PJ giving Faramir a kind of "Achilles heel", a weakness to explain why he was bested by the Nazgűl when Denethor sent him away.
INteresting that you bring up Boromir's "untimely death" just as I'm reading the Treason of Isengard. Apparently, Tolkien had originally drawn Boromir out as a jealous figure who plots to keep the lordship of Gondor out of Aragorn's hands. In the drafts, Boromir does not die at the breaking of the Fellowship, but goes on to Minas Tirith with Aragorn (Legolas and Gimli head north by themselves). There, after some battles with Orcs, the people elect Aragorn as their lord, which drives Boromir into a fit of envy. Boromir subsequently goes over to the "Dark Side" and joins Saruman. (read the Story Foreseen from Moria chapter; I typed up a part of it in the post below)

But apparently this version was abandoned quite early on. He didn't give reasons, of course, but I think it was because he then decided that Merry and Pippin needed to be carried off by Orcs before going to Fangorn. It provides a convenient time for an emotional moment of heroic sacrifice...
Legolas feels the Company is broken up, and Gimli has no more heart. The four part. Aragorn and Boromir to Minas Tirith, Legolas and Gimli north. Legolas means to join Elves of Lothlorien for a while. Gimli means to go back up Anduin to Mirkwood and so home. They journey together. Legolas and Gimli both sing laments. Suddenly they meet Gandafl!

Gandalf's story. Overcame Balrog. The gulf was not deep (only a kind of moat and was full of silent water). He followed the channel and got down into the Deeps. ?? Clad himself in Mithril-mail and fought his way our slaying many trolls.

[Does?] Gandalf shine in the sun. He has a new power after overcoming of Balrog? He is now clad in white.

Gandalf is dreadfully downcast at the news of the loss of Frodo. He hastens south again with Legolas and Gimli.

(one chapter) Inside Minas Tirith. Aragorn began to suspect Boromir at the time of the loss of Frodo. A sudden change seems to come over Boromir. He is anxious to go away home at once and not look for Frodo.

Minas Tirith is besieged by Sauron's forces that have crossed Anduin at Osgiliath, and by Saruman who is come up in rear. There seems no hope. Evil has now got complete hold of Boromir. The Lord of Minas Tirith is slain. They choose Aragorn as chief. Boromir is jealous and enraged- he deserts and sneaks off to Saruman, seeking his aid in getting lordship.



--------The Story Foreseen from Moria
HoME Vol 7 The Treason of Isengard
Excellent.
Clover! Have ye finally managed to put a smile on the face of our mean ole Vir?! Even if it t'were for but a wee second?! Wiggle SmilieOrc Grinning Smilie
You all know that I am but a jester, a puny harlequin in the grand court of this planet. But I'll take Loss' comment as applause and Vir's comment as a little morsel awarded from the High Table. Dunce Smilie

I have always thought that that part about Gandalf falling into a shallow moat instead of "through fire and water, from the deepest dungeon to the tallest peak" was rather anticlimactic. Glad Tolkien abandoned that idea...
Oh and in the professor's earliest notes, Boromir the traitor was to have been slain by Aragorn in the end.
That's less to my liking. I demand that little morsel back.
Both of you are far too late! I have stolen the morsel and devoured it, and it is no more! May all such morsels have the same fate from this time forward.
  << [1] [2] [3] >>