# Aragorn and Faramir



## Lilan (Dec 25, 2005)

Hi all,

I'd like an opinion on these two characters in interaction, but feel I first have to briefly outline the history of this issue as related to me.

A couple of weeks (or even months  ) ago, I got involved into a discussion triggered by a post at one of the forums. The author happened to be a quite militant Aragorn fan who plainly said that Aragorn became King because he was TEH COOLEST GUY EVAH, and Faramir could never have hoped to equal him. I will not give this person's reasoning here; I consider it all very much influenced by personal preferences to be objective.

So, one of the questions is: how are these two related in terms of personal worth? What constitutes personal worth in this case? And, finally, what _exactly _is a non-ruling Steward's function at the side of a _perfect _King? Or maybe it's in the shadow of the King, not at his side? Nodding at appropriate intervals? *shudders* Because, if the King has an ability to see ten moves ahead, does he really need anyone who would not be quite as good at it?

I want to make one thing clear: it isn't a "who's better?" question. I am not saying Aragorn has no right to the throne or anything. I respect the man, like him...but I like Faramir better and would not want to feel apologetic because I happen to prefer, as it might appear, a second best!

Personally, I am convinced that there are a lot of differences between these two characters (in addition to similarities), and they make a valid comparison quite impossible...but I'd rather hear what you think first. So?..


----------



## e.Blackstar (Dec 25, 2005)

First of all, allow me to welcome you to the forum!  

Like the Vice President of the US, the Steward would mainly a security net _in case_ something happened. He would also probably lead some military excursions and be an ambassador/figurehead. 

In regards to why one is 'suited' to be king and not the other: both men would have to have leadership skills et cetera, but the King would of course have the lineage to back it up. That's the only real difference that I can think of for the moment.

This is the point at which someone comes along and blows my ideas completely out of the proverbial water...


----------



## Thorondor_ (Dec 25, 2005)

> but the King would of course have the lineage to back it up


Not to mention "the hands of a healer" . On a more serious note, all stewards, including the ruling ones, took an oath 'to hold rod and rule in the name of the king, until he shall return' (though the oath was a trivial matter to many of them). Moreover: he guarded the fellowship (while Faramir almost stopped Frodo on his tracks); he brought the Dead Men; he baited Sauron through the palantir (I doubt Faramir could have pulled that trick, esspecially since he lacked a certain sword), causing him to mess his plans; he was more of a bait to Sauron later in front of the Black Gate than Faramir could have been.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 26, 2005)

Lilan said:


> ...I got involved into a discussion triggered by a post at one of the forums. The author happened to be a quite militant Aragorn fan who plainly said that Aragorn became King because he was TEH COOLEST GUY EVAH...how are these two related in terms of personal worth? What constitutes personal worth in this case? And, finally, what _exactly _is a non-ruling Steward's function at the side of a _perfect _King? Or maybe it's in the shadow of the King, not at his side?



First, Welcome, and thanks for a thoughtful first post!

Interesting. My quick take: had something happened to Aragorn (and I'm talking book, not movie), I think Faramir could have filled in the vacancy quite nicely as the steward succeeding his father. I think he was the equal of Aragorn when it came to integrity, bravery, and decision-making.

As to the question of a steward — they ruled only in the _absence_ of a king. Once a true king was established, their post would be dissolved. I would imagine that a good ex-steward might be retained as a possible counselor to the king, based on his past experiences.

Barley


----------



## Lilan (Dec 26, 2005)

Thanks for replying!!  



> In regards to why one is 'suited' to be king and not the other: both men would have to have leadership skills et cetera, but the King would of course have the lineage to back it up.


 
That was my original reply...and would have been perfect if not for the fact that there were a lot of other candidates before Aragorn. Most never thought of claiming the throne, and one who did was shown to the door...



> Moreover: he guarded the fellowship (while Faramir almost stopped Frodo on his tracks); he brought the Dead Men; he baited Sauron through the palantir (I doubt Faramir could have pulled that trick, esspecially since he lacked a certain sword), causing him to mess his plans...


 
Okay, how about this: he failed to prevent Boromir from attacking Frodo? And did Faramir stop Frodo because he wasn't as accomplished? Nope - he just had no idea who Frodo was and what he was carrying. Once he sorted things out, he set Frodo and Sam on their way immediately (of course, if you are not talking movieverse!  ) 

The palantir thing is something I have seen people argue about, too. Why did Aragorn have to do it while still in Rohan? In fact, he only brought out Mordor forces sooner than they planned to attack. Had he waited a bit, and Minas Tirith might have not suffered that much. Yes, I know it worked out perfectly in the end, but no one knew it would!



> As to the question of a steward — they ruled only in the _absence_ of a king. Once a true king was established, their post would be dissolved.


 
Ummm...what about all those Stewards who ruled _with_ Kings before Earnur was killed? Or weren't these kings "true"? And remember, Aragorn himself confirms Faramir in his post...do you think it was just a publicity trick? Perhaps, in a reality like ours, it could be, but not in a place where all those guys are sincere to the utmost!


----------



## Thorondor_ (Dec 26, 2005)

> he failed to prevent Boromir from attacking Frodo?


The ring was a great temptation for many people, among them Gandalf, Bilbo and Galadriel, but at the base of the fellowship was a pact of trust, and not even Galadriel said that Boromir will necessarily fail. What do you suggest? That Aragorn main duty should have been to protect Frodo from Boromir? 


> Why did Aragorn have to do it while still in Rohan? In fact, he only brought out Mordor forces sooner than they planned to attack. Had he waited a bit, and Minas Tirith might have not suffered that much. Yes, I know it worked out perfectly in the end, but no one knew it would!


As the man says "the hasty stroke goes oft astray"; not to mention that baiting Sauron at that time was surely more beneficial, since by that he knew of the impending attack from the south on Gondor.


----------



## Lilan (Dec 26, 2005)

I'm sorry, I got a bit carried away with this. I did not in the least mean to somehow undermine Aragorn's worth! But I don't want his merits to be expressed through denying those of other people, as it is very often done... In fact, the opinions of the author of that post - a quite belligerent one - has made a lot of people resent Aragorn, and I don't think he deserves this!

But still, speaking of the Fellowship: Strider took upon himself Gandalf's duties, and with those, Gandalf's responsibilities. As a leader, he should have been more sensitive to the atmosphere within his team. But honestly, I don't see it as a problem. I think that, with all the experience he had, this group he was leading differed vastly from the disciplined Rangers. Perhaps Aragorn thought and was relieved at the fact that at least Boromir did not require looking after - he was a military man, after all!



> ...baiting Sauron at that time was surely more beneficial, since by that he knew of the impending attack from the south on Gondor.


 
Definitely - but no one could have known it at the time.

Okay...see, this is hard! Especially for a Faramir fan. But I really, really dislike the idea of some foolish "character competition." What I need is an acceptable way these two could interact. I know about the letter, and I know that for some years at least Faramir would be indispensable...but what will happen when Aragorn learns the ropes and does not need much guidance? Does Faramir then become reduced to a nominal advisor and turn to baby-making with Eowyn (which of course must be fun, though  )? I wouldn't like to think so.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Dec 26, 2005)

> but no one could have known it at the time


 Even if we discount that, if he baited Sauron any time later, I doubt that Sauron would have been as caught off guard as he actually was. At a later time, Sauron would have been better prepared to attack Gondor, with far greater success, I dare say.


> but what will happen when Aragorn learns the ropes and does not need much guidance? Does Faramir then become reduced to a nominal advisor and turn to baby-making with Eowyn (which of course must be fun, though  )?I wouldn't like to think so.


 Rest assured :


Letter #244 From a draft to a reader of The LotR said:


> Also to be Prince of Ithilien, the greatest noble after Dol Amroth in the revived Númenórean state of Gondor, soon to be of imperial power and prestige, was not a 'market-garden job' as you term it. Until much had been done by the restored King, the P. of Ithilien would be the resident march-warden of Gondor, in its main eastward outpost - and also would have many duties in rehabilitating the lost territory, and clearing it of outlaws and orc-remnants, not to speak of the dreadful vale of Minas Ithil (Morgul). I did not, naturally, go into details about the way in which Aragorn, as King of Gondor, would govern the realm. But it was made clear that there was much fighting, and in the earlier years of A.'s reign expeditions against enemies in the East. The chief commanders, under the King, would be Faramir and Imrahil; and one of these would normally remain a military commander at home in the King's absence. A Númenórean King was monarch, with the power of unquestioned decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic, or external, however, even Denethor had a Council, and at least listened to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to say. Aragorn re-established the Great Council of Gondor, and in that Faramir, who remained by inheritance the Steward (or representative of the King during his absence abroad, or sickness, or between his death and the accession of his heir) would [be] the chief counsellor.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Dec 26, 2005)

> Once a true king was established, their post would be dissolved



But Barley, if the post was truly _dissolved_, then if/when the king disappeared again, no one would know what to do or who should claim the throne. Surely the post, instead of becoming non-existant, would merely revert to ceremonious?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Dec 26, 2005)

As far as I understand, a steward's main(/perpetual) task is to be chief counsellor to the king; they go as far back as at least 1621, to the time of Húrin of Emyn Arnen, steward to king Minardil. Only from 2080 we have 26 ruling stewards, but after the return of the king, the stewards would assume their 'normal' position.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 26, 2005)

To Blacky and Thor: I bow **bows with a flourish of feathered cap** to the final and settling authority of Letter #244 — thanks for posting it!

Barley


----------



## Lilan (Dec 27, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> As far as I understand, a steward's main(/perpetual) task is to be chief counsellor to the king...


 
Yeah...but what does one counsel to a King who is a perfect one? And many would say Aragorn is. Does that leave Faramir out in the cold?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Dec 27, 2005)

> Yeah...but what does one counsel to a King who is a perfect one? And many would say Aragorn is.


Perfect as in ... infallible? I doubt such a concept exists anywhere in Ea; everyone makes mistakes, from Manwe to the last mortal. 


> Does that leave Faramir out in the cold?


No; I don't think that "absolute monarchism" (in the sense of one-man rule) ever crossed Aragorn's mind. He reinstalled the old 'Great Council of Gondor', in which F. was chief counsellor (besides having the princedom of Ithilien) - plus him being chief commander in the expeditions in the East, etc (see the quote above).


----------



## Lilan (Dec 30, 2005)

Thanks, all! It's really a bunch of ideas. Thorondor, you must be more of an Aragorn fan, right?  


I quite agree with your attitude towards the absolute monarchy thing. There's a letter JRRT wrote to his son, and it says there:





> My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State… and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G… Anyway, the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints… is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity… Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses…





But, as you understand, I just wanted to find a place for my favourite character in the new society, that's all! And I am familiar with that letter that describes the duties of the Prince of Ithilien...only then, one may ask: "Right, but what will happen when all the Orcs are dealt with, and the new King learns the ropes of governing? Is Faramir just pushed aside after a couple of years?"


It sounds a bit funny, I know...and I know Tolkien probably didn't even think of it in such terms, but, OTOH, he allowed us readers to interpret his works, and I feel somewhat uneasy when some Aragorn worshipper says that there's no place for Faramir! I need arguments to deal with that!


Personally, I like the idea of Aragorn as a man of Action, and Faramir a man of Thought. I think this is how they are described in the book, and this kind of approach would make them complementary to each other.


One of posters at another forum said: _"The two are just two same souls coated with different births and titles to me."_


----------



## Thorondor_ (Dec 30, 2005)

> Thorondor, you must be more of an Aragorn fan, right?


I actually have issues with the way he left Arwen 


> I feel somewhat uneasy when some Aragorn worshipper says that there's no place for Faramir!


Hehe, a sort of a "my hero is better than that hero"? Lame and rather unfounded


----------



## Lilan (Jan 1, 2006)

Thorondor_ said:


> Hehe, a sort of a "my hero is better than that hero"? Lame and rather unfounded


 
I think that was at the bottom, yes. But the idea of personal worth is also interesting: the person said _"When Faramir gives the crown to Aragorn, he acknowledges the latter is a better man,"_ or something along these lines. I got pissed off, TBH...


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jan 2, 2006)

> 'When Faramir gives the crown to Aragorn, he acknowledges the latter is a better man'


 I doubt this is the case; that person must be confounding worth with 'destiny'; rather often, people of great worth have 'humble destinies', and vice-versa. Faramir only showed great character when he acknowledged the royal right of Aragorn, something which a good deal of stewards would have been reluctant to do so. Let us return to the same letter #244:


> He had been accustomed to giving way and not giving his own opinions air, while retaining a power of command among men, such as a man may obtain who is evidently personally courageous and decisive, but also modest, fair-minded and scrupulously just, and very merciful


 which is very much in tune with Tolkien's statement in Letter #181 that 'the main narrative ... is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, _primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble_'


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 2, 2006)

Lilan said:


> I'm sorry, I got a bit carried away with this. I did not in the least mean to somehow undermine Aragorn's worth!



Not to worry! The problem originally came from your "militant Aragorn" guy. His kind of black/white simplistic thinking isn't worth bothering about.

Faramir and Aragorn each have their own merit, worth and important place in the story. To compare them might be fun — they have similar qualities — but to say that one or the other is somehow "better" is just silly stuff.

Barley


----------

