[The_Expatriate]

Glancing back over some of the earlier discussions, I noticed you all placed Aragorn on a particularly high pedestal...obviously a gal thing. :-)

Strider the Ranger is a character I quite liked throughout Fellowship of the Ring but as he gradually emerges in the second and third books as the Second Coming of Christ (bringing the dead 'back to life,' healing the sick and performing various other miracles), I found him increasingly more of an icon, a symbolic manifestation of the 'right and proper order of the world,' and less a man with heroic qualities. It should be interesting to see how they portray this metamorphosis in the movies...I wouldn't be surprised by the end to see him cloaked in a glowing aura with a halo over his crown.

Perhaps it's the anti-statist in me, but why must so many heroes in such tales be the long-lost heirs of some royal house or another come to save 'their' people?

[JenB]

Tolkien was English, Catholic, and a product of the Victorian Era. He has an excuse for long-lost kings and such. Everyone else just copies Tolkien.

Besides, long-lost woodcutter's sons just aren't as fun.

[HairOfTheDog]

Funny should should mention the esteem we have for Aragorn... I had just been off preparing a post to MozartLover and the rest of the girls, with text included this time to justify more pictures, and Aragorn just happens to be the subject!

So let me post that - clearly a lowly discussion of Aragorn the man, before considering your more lofty visions:

If I may:

_______________________

To: MozartLover; JenB; Penny1; 2JedisMom:

Aragorn's readiness and alertness to Frodo's well-being is at least the most innocent endearing quality that our Aragorn has. When Frodo is in trouble, Aragorn is never far off (only once did he blink, with near disastrous outcome)

One of my favorite scenes is of course the

"If by my life, or death, I can protect you, I will" from Rivendell:

I also particularly like the scene at Caradhras, when Frodo takes a tumble and loses the ring, and Boromir picks it up.

We see Aragorns hand on Frodo's shoulder… supporting him, and letting him know that he need not fear. And what Frodo could not see, of course, and we can only wonder if Boromir could see, was that his hand left Frodo's shoulder to grip the hilt of his sword.

Had Boromir done the wrong thing then… I have a feeling there would not have been a debate about it.

[HairOfTheDog]

I think there is a lot of literary appeal to the idea of birthright and royalty because kingdoms are more romantic than democracies, and make for better visions in epic stories.

There is much more romance to Aragorn declaring an edict protecting the Shire from further interference from men, than there would be in some lawmaker proposing a bill declaring the Shire free, and then debate and argument from representatives of Mirkwood, who want the same freedom, representatives of Harad, who think Hobbits cannot be trusted to self-rule, and then representatives from Rohan, who tack on an open space preservation ammendment that gives the pastures of Rohan tax-free status.

Give me the romantic rule of Kings, lest C-Span bore me to tears!

[carton253]

Perhaps it's the anti-statist in me, but why must so many heroes in such tales be the long-lost heirs of some royal house or another come to save 'their' people?

Because they are the best kind of heros. So much to overcome during the course of the story.