Judging a "mad fierce face."

This chapter is called “The Breaking of the Fellowship,” which is a fitting title for the final chapter of a book called “The Fellowship of the Ring.”  The Fellowship has reached the end of the Anduin river and must decide where to go – east to Mordor or west to Gondor.  While they meet and discuss, Aragorn reminds Frodo he is the only one who has been charged with bearing the Ring.  The choice is his, and others will follow him or not as they wish.  Frodo asks for some time to think it over, and goes for a walk.

While he is thinking, he unexpectedly runs into Boromir.  While Boromir has done a commendable job keeping his personal feelings to himself, he now knows if Frodo goes east, the Ring will never come to Gondor.  Boromir does not want that.

Boromir asks Frodo to come to Gondor, assuring him it is the best route to take.  Frodo refuses.  Boromir becomes offended, and speaks for forcefully.  When that doesn't work, “he sprang over the stone and leaped at Frodo.  His fair and pleasant face was hideously changed, a raging fire was in his eyes.”  Frodo slips on the Ring and flees.  And while the text shows us how Boromir’s madness passes him, and that he repents for his actions, Frodo does not see this.  He continues running: “Terror and grief shook him, seeing in his thought the mad fierce face of Boromir.”  That image is etched into his mind.

One common saying I abhor is when a person is said to have “Shown their true colors.”  This is never used positively.  It is always a trickster being revealed.  A friend showing they were false.  A person showing unbridled anger where first there had been restraint.  Boromir would seem to fit into this category.  He has revealed himself as the selfish Man he is, and that image will forever be in Frodo’s mind.  Frodo knows Boromir’s darkest secrets.  The secrets he tries to keep even from himself.

But is it fair to judge Boromir like this?  Is it fair to judge anyone?  Why do we let one moment of evil wipe away so much good?  We can comprehend of a good person being imperfect, or misguided, but not all and out bad.  If they were bad, how could they be good?  They are opposites!

One of the more powerful things I’ve heard in the past year was a quote from a defense attorney.  When defending her clients, she will try to talk about the good they’ve done in their life.  Were they a good father, a loving partner, a reliable employee?  Can we ignore these things?  “Shall we judge a whole person based on their single worst action?”

This, to me, is the essence of what’s wrong with the “true colors” sentiment.  It simplifies things too much.  When someone unexpectedly becomes a criminal, the neighbors say “But he was so nice/helpful/friendly.”  Why 'but'?  Why can’t criminals be nice?  Why can’t they be kind to their elderly neighbors and also part of gang violence?  Or a sales agent who always makes quota and also is a abusive towards a partner?  Criminals are not completely bad.  Having a bad quality doesn't wipe away the good ones (though the bad may outwiegh the good).

When I was in high school I had a particularly bad break up, and I remember her accusing me that “You never loved me!”  I remember thinking:  What’s that got to do with anything?  Saying that because we are breaking up I actually never loved you at all casts a pretty dark shadow on life.  It isn’t that all good things must come to an end, it’s that all good things were in fact never good because they end.  And that’s absurd.  You can’t judge a whole experience based on the single worst moment.  The bad moments do not wipe away the good.

Frodo, in his fear of Boromir, runs away.  We can understand this, but in doing so he does not know that Boromir repents.  He is so struck with “Terror and grief” that he runs, isolating himself.  He believes, if the Ring has seized hold of Boromir, it will seize control of others, and tear the Fellowship asunder.  So Frodo decides, for the good of the Company, to leave them all behind.

But isolation, while immediately useful at times, are not good tools for enabling love and understanding.  Frodo wants to isolate himself from “the mad fierce face of Boromir,” forgetting that this face is only one of many.  Boromir is also strong and valiant and loyal (Bottom left).  Is it right to forget all of that in light of recent events?

Our prison system utilizes this kind of isolation.  You are deemed bad for society; you are sent to a place separate from everyone else.  It is comparable to “time out.” That comparison is fair – when a child behaves badly s/he is sent alone and loses some play time.

But here’s the difference:  When a child comes out of time-out, there is no lingering cloud.  There is no label forever stamped upon them.  They go, but then they return (and return as fully equal members of the group).  When someone is released from prison, even early for good behavior and having shown honest remorse for their actions, they are forever given a criminal record.  And you better believe that costs them opportunities.  They can have a great resume, score highly on any test and interview excellently, but if that employer checks their criminal records (which are usually public, so you better believe they show up on a Google search), they’ll judge them on that and find another candidate.  Suddenly, they are judging a whole person on their worst action.  They are judging them based on the “mad fierce face,” and no other.

And don’t tell me that most criminals return to prison after being released, and therefore weren’t suitable for a second chance anyway.  After being turned down for one opportunity after another, they have no choice but turn back to crime.  No one will give them a legit job, but they still need money for food and clothes and shelter (and that's just for the basest survival)!  So they turn to the one network open to them, crime.  And then, when they're caught again, no one will want to hire them because they’ve gone to prison twice.  And so it goes.

When we say people are imperfect, I do not think we only mean they are not saints, striving and sometimes failing.  I think we mean, or need to mean, they are messy and a collection of ideas and actions.  You can be a hard worker and a bad partner, or you can be an unreliable employee and a great friend.  You can be a gunman who shoots innocent civilians and also a loving son.  I know it sounds contradictory to the point of nauseating, but we need to challenge our black and white view of criminals.  People are more than their single worst action, and deserve to be treated as such.

I have been thinking about maturity – what signs are there we can use to see if someone is "mature"?  We all know 22 year-olds who are very mature, and some 30 year-olds who are not.  But what’s a way to define this?  How can we check?

A method I like to use is to ask them a time when they were a villain.  When is a time when they were the bad guy in someone else’s story.  We all like to be the hero – but sometimes we are the villain.  And I don’t mean a villain as in “We obstructed a greater evil” or “I was young and it was fun." I mean a moment where, looking back, you aren’t even proud.  Not necessarily filled with shame, but you can see, 100%, why you are a villain in that story, and that no amount of editorializing can change that.  Some honest reflection is needed here.

Anyway, got your story?  Now imagine being judged solely on that story.  Shall we judge others on their single worst action?