Embracing Our Own Danger

This week's chapter is called "The White Rider."  We rejoin our three hunters on their search for Merry and Pippin.  Eventually the trail takes them into Fangorn Forest.  Aragorn and Gimli recall Celeborn and Galadriel's warning to avoid that place, and Legolas says he feels young in the presence of such an old forest.  They spend the night outside the forest.  They will decide what to do in the light of day.

In the morning things don't seem so perilous, and they decide to enter Fangorn and continue their search.  They find strange signs and Aragorn has trouble keeping the trail (he doesn't recognize what we know are Treebeard's prints.  Aragorn has never encountered an Ent).  Finally, a figure in white appears to them.  They ask for its name, but it will not answer.  Tension builds before the figure reveals itself as Gandalf, who has Returned from his battle with the Balrog.  Due to the nature of his Return, he had forgotten his name (He initially says "Indeed I am Saruman, one might say, Saruman as he should be").

After catching Gandalf up on everything that has since happened, Gandalf tells them he knows Merry and Pippin are safe with Treebeard.  The chase now resolved, the four of them determine to go to Edoras to speak with Theoden, King of Rohan.  But Gimli expresses concern about leaving the hobbits with Treebeard.

"I thought Fangorn was dangerous."

"'Dangerous!' cried Gandalf.  "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous

than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat

of the Dark Lord.  And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous.  You are

beset with dangers, Gimli son of Gloin, for you are dangerous yourself."

Usually when we think of dangerous things we mean swords or bombs or drunk drivers or cancer.  If it's dangerous, it's bad.  WATCH OUT, DANGER!  A sign like that is more than just information - it's a warning.  But in truth danger doesn't just mean 'bad'.  Gandalf is pushing us to view danger as something that not just works against us, but that also can work in our favor.

First, let's define danger:  Danger is the quality of potentially causing harm.  The key word is "potentially."  A trapeze artist is always engaging in a dangerous performance, even if they never get hurt.  Similarly, it's strange to think of punching a cement wall as dangerous.  The harm is basically a certainty.  Danger suggests a potential.

We often rank someone's goodness by the lack of harm they can cause.  But tough, imposing, dangerous people aren't necessarily evil.  A better metric would be to learn when one causes harm and why.  Boycotting a business to protest their use of slave labor is, indeed, a good use of one's power.  So is enacting social pressure on homophobes.  Social and economic pressure can be dangerous, too.

Sometimes people are described as "wouldn't hurt a fly".  I automatically don't trust these people.  I don't consider such a description to be a compliment, but an indictment.  These people are powerless.  Sometimes we need to cause harm, or we need a credible threat of potentially causing harm.  We need to be seen as dangerous by those who would wrong us.  The world can be rough.  You need power to enact some change over it.

There are those who eschew power.  They'll say any power imbalance is wrong - that being a billionaire is inherently immoral.  I strongly disagree with that.  Power is amoral.  What defines you is how you acquire it and how you use it.  And that,in turn, defines who sees you as dangerous.

If we continue to adhere to the belief that the strong are wicked and the weak are good we resign ourselves to choosing between getting our way and being good.  That should be intolerable.  Losing but being morally good makes for an inspiring story but a difficult life.  And while some may be willing to endure for the sake of "The Good," it's unreasonable to expect this of others.  If we define being good as necessarily living in squalor, how can we fault those for refusing for the sake of their own comfort.  Being good is a moral choice.  It should not come with a material cost.

You are powerful.  You are dangerous.  You can impact the world around you.  Your friends, your family, your workplace, your neighborhood, your town, you can make a difference.  But to make an impact you need to accept the responsibility of having power.  To those without power, any cost of power is wrong.  But those who wield power know every usage has a cost, including abstention.  Know thyself, learn your strengths, practice using power.  The world is very broken.  You can't fix everything, but you must fix something.  Apply yourself to fix the things that are dearest to your heart.

You are dangerous to someone.  You have a potential they hope remains untapped forever.  Don't give them a moment's rest!  Get up and start making an impact.  Make them fear you.

The Lord of the Rings: An Ethical Guide is a Patreon-supported project.  Thank you to all those who have contributed.

Like this project?  Want to learn more?  Want exclusive access to behind-the-scenes content?  Go to my Patreon site and see how you can become a part of the action!

Bonus: Heroics at the Expense of Others

There's a passage in this week's chapter that I would like to highlight, but I am having trouble connecting it to our world for any ethical lessons.  So we'll call it a bonus!

This week's chapter is called "The White Rider".  Gandalf returns!  Aragorn and Legolas and Gimli give him an account of what has happened since he fell.  When they say what happened to Boromir he says:

"'Poor Boromir!... It was a sore trial for such a man: a warrior, and a lord of men. Galadriel told me that he was in peril. But he escaped in the end. I am glad. It was not in vain that the young hobbits came with us, if only for Boromir's sake.'"

Let's take a closer look at what is being said.  The trial is to take The One Ring - a great weapon - and destroy it.  For Boromir, a warrior, this would have been very difficult.  We know he wanted the Ring to come to Minas Tirith.  Not because he was an idiot (though maybe because he's simple) but because he saw weapons as things to be used, not destroyed.  It must seem a great waste to Boromir to have it thrown it away.  But, of course, the Ring proved too much for Boromir, and when his wish to bring it to his city was continually denied he tried to take it.

But "he escaped".  By this Gandalf is speaking only of his reputation.  Boromir did not die trying to take the Ring from Frodo, but instead he died defending others.  It is a little strange to me that Gandalf says that Merry and Pippin have now served a purpose - giving Boromir a chance to redeem himself - given that they could have easily been killed.

The problem with this episode is there isn't much to learn from it.  Sure, Trump being elected is a great rallying cry across the country and I have taken note of which of my friends are standing up and which are standing aside.  Trump's election gives us who oppose him an opportunity to shine that we otherwise would not have had.  If Clinton had won in 2016, would I have gone to as many political rallies as I have?  Probably not.  Trump's election gives us a reason to 'escape' a mundane life, but honestly I'd have preferred he not have won.  My life may have been more dull, but that seems a small price to pay for global stability and less domestic horrors.  If we justify evil because of the heroics it drives us to do, then what we're saying is evil is necessary to get us to living our best life.  And that seems like bullshit.

The Lord of the Rings: An Ethical Guide is a Patreon-supported project.  Thank you to all those who have contributed.

Like this project?  Want to learn more?  Want exclusive access to behind-the-scenes content?  Go to my Patreon site and see how you can become a part of the action!

The Art of Persuasion

This week is another double portion, and so we read two chapters instead of one.  This week we read "The Uruk-Hai" and "Treebeard".  The titles offer a good contrast of content.  The Uruk-hai are a new form of orc created by Saruman, while Treebeard is an ent, a race that is new to us but among the oldest on Middle Earth.  It is a recurring theme in our text that new is bad and old is good.  Accordingly, the uruk-hai are evil and the ents are good.  

In our first chapter we rendezvous with Merry and Pippin as they are carried off toward Isengard.  Our text has backed up a few days in time.  We hear the orcs worry about the horsemen who are chasing them, and gaining on them (They evidently do not notice the three hunters also in pursuit).  They flee for what seems to be a whole 24 hours, finally resting out of necessity.

While they are resting, conflict boils over among the orcs and Merry and Pippin seize the opportunity to escape.  By the time the Rohirrim have destroyed the orcs, Merry and Pippin have escaped into nearby Fangorn Forest.

The second chapter follows Merry and Pippin through Fanghorn, a forest like the Old Forest, if maybe a little less oppressive.  They eventually meet Treebeard, an ent, who - after hearing their news that Gandalf has fallen and that Saruman and Sauron are working together - calls a meeting of his kind: an entmoot.  At the end of this meeting, Treebeard announces the ents have decided to attack Isengard to punish Saruman.

Let's go back to the first chapter.  As the conflict between the orcs is escalating, Pippin finds himself face to face with an orc who keeps pawing at him.  We are let into Pippin's thoughts:

'Grishnákh knows about the Ring!  He's looking for it...

he probably wants it for himself.'  Cold fear was in

Pippin's heart, yet at the same time he was wondering

what use he could made of Grishnákh's desire."

Pippin convinces Grishnákh to take he and Merry away from the other orcs, so that he can take the Ring without anyone else noticing.  Then Pippin says it is hidden away and that he himself will give it to him, if only he'd cut the ropes tying his hands.  Grishnákh does this and then, fortunately, the Rohirrim arrive and he gets runs him down.  Merry and Pippin, now untied and unguarded, are able to escape.

When trying to convince someone to do something, we often mistake the ends and the means.  We want to hang out with them, we assume we must make them want them to hang out with us.  We want our family to use their screens less when we're together, then we must convince them what we know is true: screens are bad.  But this is not an effective way to convince someone - it assumes they think like us.  The trouble is other people think differently than we do.  In order to change their minds we must change our own thinking, first.

We say we live in a post-fact world, but I think we regularly overestimate the power of facts in convincing someone.  The primary way to convince someone is not to throw facts at them.  They likely have their own facts - or their own "facts".  Further, they likely are a part of a community that cherishes those talking points, false or not.  If I were suddenly convinced of a flat earth, the relationship I have with my friends and community would change dramatically.  I'd either need to find new ones or hide a piece of myself from them.

A better way to convince someone is to find what they value and connect it to your talking points - not to use talking points to try to alter their values.  An excellent example is abortion.

(There are of course many more nuances to the abortion debate.  For simplicity's sake I am only discussing voluntary abortions during a pregnancy that does not endanger the life of the mother)

For those who are pro-life, those who are pro-choice seem to disregard inconvenient lives.  They see the fetus as a life, and since all lives are equal, how can someone justify prioritizing the woman's want over the fetuses existence?  You had sex, there's a consequence.  Being able to ignore unpleasant consequences can cause one to be morally reckless.  Abortion is a symptom of a selfish society.  And since pro-lifers view abortion as murder, it is the quintessential symptom of a selfish society.

Those who are pro-choice think those who are pro-life are trying to keep women controlled, and that they think a women's reproductive capacities should be her primary potential.  It's about individual autonomy - which a fetus lacks.  Pro-choicers see women who choose to have abortions as women making a personal decision about their own body and their own life.  An autonomous person should not be forced to give up their autonomy for the sake of something non-autonomous.  We finally have the technology to help women decide when to have children.  Forcing women to bear children they don't want when we can prevent it seems socially backwards.

Debates between these two sides is rarely productive.  One side shouts about the value of the life of the fetus, and the other about the value of the autonomy of the woman.  There is little overlap.  It becomes an argument of which value to prioritize.

For the record, I am pro-choice.  So how would I apply this to trying to convince a pro-lifer?  They value life, so I'd begin there, applying that value to the woman.  What would be a better life, that the woman be forced to give birth when she doesn't want to, costing her time and money she won't get back, or letting that woman build a strong personal foundation, giving her a full life, and then letting her choose when/if to bring a child into the world - a child she will be ready and excited for, rather than one she may resent for derailing her life's plan.

This argument may remain unconvincing, but it at least tackles the issue they are talking about.  They want the child to live, so talk about the life of the mother.  Life is more about being alive, it is about being happy and fulfilled.  They want the child to live, so talk about the life of children born into families prepared and ready versus the life of unwanted children.  At least this makes the conversation potentially productive.

Similarly, Pippin is able to use Grishnákh's values for his own gain.  Grishnákh is greedy and is worried the other orcs won't share the credit of delivering the hobbits to Saruman.  Pippin promises him a way to profit immediately, and through this ruse is able to escape.  While we can say Pippin was lucky the Rohirrim came when they did, I think it's better to say Pippin put himself in a better position than he had been before.  It's possible, had the riders attacked a little bit later, that Grishnákh would have realized Pippin was lying and killed him out of frustration.  But if he had stayed in the orc camp he certainly would have been killed, luck or no.  We know that Éomer said they strove to leave none alive.  Sometimes progress is putting yourself in merely a better position than before.

People's values are notoriously difficult to change - and for good reason.  Is it really a 'value' if you can easily be talked out of it?  If you want to convince someone then you should learn their values and find a way to connect your talking points to those values.  Persuasion is not an act of brute force, but rather a guided tour.  Instead of Tetris, where you throw down as many blocks as you can, it's Jenga, where you need to analyze the situation to determine the best block to use.  And, like Jenga, when done correctly, discussions build everyone up.

The analogy works again in another way.  Did you check out that Jenga game up above?  It's awful.  Jenga is not a game to be played online - it should be played in person.  Similarly, while sometimes we can engage in meaningful conversations online, persuading someone else is easier in person.  You can see facial expressions, tone of voice, etc.  All of these are important ways to see if you're getting to someone, which will help you know which arguments to follow and which to abandon.

The Lord of the Rings: An Ethical Guide is a Patreon-supported project.  Thank you to all those who have contributed.

Like this project?  Want to learn more?  Want exclusive access to behind-the-scenes content?  Go to my Patreon site and see how you can become a part of the action!

Breaking News Norms

This week's chapter is called "The Rider's of Rohan."  Aragon, Legolas and Gimli follow the trail of the orcs who captured Merry and Pippin for many miles, eventually leading them to Rohan.  We've heard of this realm before, but know little of it.  Perhaps suspiciously, none from Rohan were present at the Council of Elrond.  They do not know of the Quest.

While following the trail, the three hunters are surprised to see a large group of horsemen coming directly towards them - away from the orcs.  Are they fleeing?  Are they following orders?  Our text tells us that Aragorn says, "We will wait... We may get news from them."  Gimli responds by saying, "Or spears."  Aragorn speaks again, "I did not say that we should hear good news.  But evil or good we will await it here."

The horsemen reach them and we meet their leader, Eomer.  Eomer is a man of Rohan, the King's nephew.  Aragorn actually knew his father, Eomund.  ("Eo" is an important phoneme in Rohirric, the language of the people of Rohan).  Though there is much initial distrust, and even threats of violence, they eventually untangle their differences and realize they are on the same side.

Eomer does not have any news about the fate of Merry and Pippin.  He says they attacked the orcs and destroyed them, leaving none alive.  But of course, the battle was chaotic and Eomer only has one set of eyes.  He admits its possible some escaped, Orc or otherwise.  Aragorn and Legolas and Gimli take their leave of Eomer who asks them to go to Edoras, King's seat in Rohan, when they are done looking for their friends.

This week I want to take a closer look at what Aragorn said to Gimli.

"I did not say that we should hear good news.  But evil or good we will await it here."

In January there was an episode at the Capitol between a group of Black Hebrew Israelites, a mostly white group of students and chaperones from a Catholic high school, and a lone Omaha Nation Elder who is also a US Military Veteran.  We all know the story, and the story about the story.  It was a mess, and it seems impossible to not be outraged, no matter your point of view.  And outrage sells and drives shares.  It is to the benefit of social media companies and news organizations.

Nevermind that the story kept changing and that new videos were released.  Everyone on my social media (myself included) felt the need to get a word in.  Silence can be interpreted as complicity, and we all want to avoid the wrath of the online mob.

But as new information came out, people were finding themselves backtracking.  Oh, the Omaha Elder walked into the crowd, they did not walk and surround him.  Oh, the students were waiting for a school bus to pick them up when the Black Hebrew Israelites began yelling at them.  Someone did indeed use a racial slur - but it was the Black Hebrew Israelites who called a student who was black the N word.  And what about that damn smile?  Is he being arrogant or calm or simply frozen in an overwhelming moment?

It was dizzying.

This is not the first time media has jumped to the wrong conclusions in an effort to be first.  When Obamacare was first challenged in the Supreme Court, both CNN and Fox wrongly reported the law had been struck down.  This was based on what they read at the beginning of the decision.  They ran the headline and figured they'd fill in the details later.   Everyone wants to be the first news organization to publish a story.  No one wants to get scooped.  But CNN and Fox, essentially, scooped themselves...

The problem now is with social media, everyone feels the pressure CNN and Fox felt.  We all want our opinions heard, and we want people to know we are up to date.  Hell, I have some social media connections whom I view as legitimate news sources.  I shouldn't, but they have shown themselves to be reliable and thoughtful, time and time again.  But this pressure probably adds to the trouble.  They have shown themselves to be both fast and reliable, and they will want to maintain that reputation.  Inevitably, mistakes will happen.

And while news organizations can offer corrections, it is much harder for people on social media to.  "Yeah ok maybe those kids weren't chanting 'build the wall' but doesn't it seem like they could have been?"  Traditional media has a long tradition of "we regret the error."  Social media does not.  Being wrong online isn't just a momentary error.  It's deemed a personal failure.

Currently the breaking news stories are about Liam Neeson and Virginia's top state officials.  Liam Neeson admitted he spent about a week and a half hoping to avenge his friend's rape by a black man by attacking another black man.  In Virginia, The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General are each caught up in their own scandal.  All of what these four men are accused of / have confessed to range from bad to terrible.  They may lose their positions and/or reputation.  And maybe they deserve to.  That's not my point.  The point is we shouldn't be so eager to jump on the shaming band-wagon.

Aragorn tells Gimli that they will wait for the riders to come to them, even though it may bode ill for them.  What "new information" would bode ill for us?  Anything exculpatory.  As long as Neeson and those Virginia politicians commit only wrongs, it is easy to stand up for what's right.  It would bode ill for us if new information told us they weren't only wrong.  It feels good to condemn the Attorney General for admitting he once donned blackface.  It feels good to find someone doing something shitty and proudly say "Not I!"  Further, understanding their point of view decidedly does not feel good, especially when expressions of sympathy may cause the online wrath be to turned on you.

The Attorney General of Virginia, Mark Herring, did don black face.  He did it as part of a costume when he was 19.  He was dressing up as a rapper.  That's also bad, but we can understand how a 19-year-old can rationalize the blackface - especially when we remember he was 19 in 1980.  Times change.  It's still very bad (blackface has been considered offensive SINCE ALWAYS), but let's compare this to what the governor did.

The governor,  Ralph Northam, also wore blackface.  He did it in 1984, when he was 25.  The differences we can expect in judgment between a 19-year-old and a 25-year-old are significant.  Also, the Northam wore blackface and then posed in a picture next to someone dressed in a KKK outfit.  ALSO Northam did not admit to this, as Herring did.  Not that the Attorney General should be exonerated because he admitted what he did, but some distinction must be made between someone admitting to a past wrong and someone refusing to admit it.

We want to decry these things not just because they are bad, but so that people see us standing up for what's right.  But when we learn new information that complicates the issue, where it is no longer capital R Right versus capital W Wrong, then we might feel caught between the social desire to decry them and the moral desire to be fair to them.  What Liam Neeson did was horrible and reckless, and it is fortunate no one got hurt.  However, he admitted to this event thoroughly unprovoked.  He could have gone to his grave with this secret, and instead he decided to be honest and share a darker side of his life.  That seems worthy to me, though it obviously does not redeem him.

The lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax, is accused of sexual assault, and all the 'new information' I am finding is only more damning towards him.  If you want to be uncomplicatedly mad, rail against him.  But that's one out of four of this week's scandals.  If you were equally mad about all four, you're in a difficult situation now.  All four of these scandals are bad, but they are different and deserve closer scrutiny.  But closer scrutiny sucks.  It takes time and effort and it may put you in a difficult position if you care about fairness.  It may put you in a difficult position socially.

The way we interact with news needs to change.  Rather than chasing the breaking news stories, we should break our need to "be first" and allow the full picture to emerge before forming an opinion, because once that first opinion is formed, it looms large over our whole understanding of the story.  There was still a lot of decry about the Covington Catholic Students once the whole story came out, even if they weren't chanting racist slurs.  But initially believing they chanted racist slurs tilts the whole story.  If you're still against them, you need to ratchet down your opposition, because chanting "Make America Great Again" is different than doing Tomahawk chops after asking for their teacher's permission.  At the very least, the adults now deserve a good deal of the scorn.  If you're in favor of the students, having been accused of chanting racist slurs helps your side, since now you can say they were unfairly accused.  It's better to rightly accuse someone of something bad than to wrongly accuse them of an evil.

Of course, it isn't as easy as that.  We aren't the problem.  There are things we can do better, but as long as Facebook's algorithms remain what they are, we can only strive to better ourselves and maybe our close friends.  Whatever the next outrage is, it will snowball once again, and we'll be in the same helpless position we are now, stuck between being morally right and socially right.

But our text is about these helplessly large challenges.  The beginning of the Quest has Frodo accepting the burden while in the same sentence admitting he doesn't know how to get to Mordor.  Failure of the Quest is ever-present and easy.  Few mistakes can be allowed.  However dominant Facebook is of our lives, Mordor's reach into Middle Earth is stronger and more ruthless.  And yet Frodo knows it is the right thing to do.  It is the only thing to do.  Everything else is to accept defeat.

And maybe that's where we are now.  Do what you can while also knowing it isn't enough.  Awaiting the full picture of an evolving news story before forming an opinion is the right thing to do.  I'm not saying don't be outraged, nor am I saying every scandal should be approached with understanding and sympathy.  There is a lot to be outraged about.  But be careful with your outrage.  Make sure your outrage is working for you, and not making you its slave.

The Lord of the Rings: An Ethical Guide is a Patreon-supported project.  Thank you to all those who have contributed.

Like this project?  Want to learn more?  Want exclusive access to behind-the-scenes content?  Go to my Patreon site and see how you can become a part of the action!

A Lament for Boromir

This week we begin a new book.  It is the first (third overall) book of the second volume, The Two Towers.  The Fellowship has broken.  Sam and Frodo have left the others behind.  What happens to them?

At the end of the last chapter, their fates were unclear.  Merry and Pippin were looking for Frodo, unaware he had left the company by boat.  Boromir had succumbed to the call of the Ring, but had recovered and had been sent to defend Merry and Pippin. 

This week's chapter is called "The Departure of Boromir."  Boromir will leave the fellowship, too.  But in what fashion?

We find Aragorn looking frantically for Frodo, but he hears the Horn of Gondor, which is Boromir's, and is a sign he is in danger.  Aragorn rushes to where the sound is coming from.  He finds Boromir laid up against a tree, mortally wounded.  He is too late.

Boromir tells what he has done.  He found Merry and Pippin, but they were attacked by Orcs.  He tried to defend them (dozens are dead on the ground around him) but they were captured and taken away.  Having said this, he dies.  As Aragorn kneels at his side in mourning Aragorn and Legolas appear, they, too, having heard his horn.

They decide they should give Boromir a proper funeral.  But there is not enough time to bury him or to build a pyre.  They decide to place his body in one of the boats.  They will put his weapons with him, as well as the weapons of his enemies at his feet.  The river will take him down the Falls of Rauros, which leads towards the Sea.

Having prepared the boat in this way, they send it down the river.  Legolas and Aragorn then break into song.  This week I'd like to analyze the song, as well as to discuss why Gimli adds nothing.  I will bold the parts of the song I will analyze, and then write my analysis below.  Hopefully it will be clear enough.  Also, if you prefer to follow the lyrics while listening, check out this rendition!

Aragorn:

Through Rohan over fen and field where the long grass grows

The West Wind comes walking, and about the walls it goes

"What news from the West, O wandering wind, do you bring to me tonight?

Have you seen Boromir the Tall by moon or by starlight?"

"I saw him ride over seven streams, over waters wide and grey

I saw him walk in empty lands until he passed away

Into the shadows of the North, I saw him then no more

The North Wind may have heard the horn of the son of Denethor"

"O Boromir! From the high walls westward I looked afar

But you came not from the empty lands where no men are"

Legolas:

From the mouths of the Sea the South Wind flies, from the sandhills and the stones

The wailing of the gulls it bears, and at the gate it moans

"What news from the South, O sighing wind, do you bring to me at eve?

Where now is Boromir the Fair? He tarries and I grieve"

"Ask not of me where he doth dwell – so many bones there lie

On the white shores, on the dark shores under the stormy sky

So many have passed down Anduin to find the flowing Sea

Ask of the North Wind news of them the North Wind sends to me"

"O Boromir! Beyond the gate the seaward road runs south

But you came not with the wailing gulls from the grey sea’s mouth"

Aragorn:

From the Gate of Kings the North Wind rides, and past the roaring falls

And clear and cold about the tower its loud horn calls

"What news from the North, O mighty wind, do you bring to me today?

What news of Boromir the Bold? For he is long away"

"'Neath Amon Hen I heard his cry. There many foes he fought

His cloven shield, his broken sword, they to the water brought

His head so proud, his face so fair, his limbs they laid to rest

And Rauros, golden Rauros-falls, bore him upon its breast"

"O Boromir! The Tower of Guard shall ever northward gaze

To Rauros, golden Rauros-falls, until the end of days"

The first question to answer is: From whose point of view are these lyrics?  As we see, some of the lyrics on in quotes.  Someone particular is speaking in this poem.  The narrator is clearly in Minas Tirith, given the description of what the winds pass.  Who the speaker is proves harder to pin down specifically, but let's suffice to say it's a guard of the city who has been told to look for Boromir's return.

This first verse references the West Wind - that is, a wind from the west blowing east.  What is west of Minas Tirith?  Well, everything good.  The Shire, Rivendell and Lothlorien, etc.  Mordor is to the east, as is Minas Morgul (a fallen city) and Osgiliath (a falling city).

Why is Boromir called "the Tall"?  In Middle Earth, men of old (and remember, in Middle Earth, everything old is good) were actually taller.  Elendil, the old King of Gondor who fought Sauron in the second age, is called "Elendil the Tall" (Some sources say he was an absurd 7 foot 11 inches).  By calling him Boromir the Tall, the poem directly compares him to Gondor's greatest king.  

Then the west wind suggests the North Wind may know of Boromir, since Boromir went north ("Passed away into the shadows of the North").  It specifically suggests it may have heard his horn, a particularly significant choice, since wind of course carries any such sound that may have come from the horn.

Next comes the South Wind.  South of Gondor is the Sea, which is not really part of our text.  But we know the Sea will eventually (if all goes well) receive Boromir's body.  It is apparently a common practice, since "so many bones there lie."  The South Wind doesn't deny Boromir may be there, simply that it does not know.  It, too, suggests the North Wind may know.

In this verse Boromir is called "Boromir the Fair."  In Middle Earth 'fair' is sort of like "nice" in our world - positive but meaningless.  But this is the only verse where the guard of his own volition suggests Boromir may be dead (Since he says he grieves).  While we may have seen a complicated, and ultimately ugly, side of Boromir, the people of Gondor know him only as the heroic son of their leader.  His death will only be a tragedy for them.

In the final verse the North Wind speaks.  We have so far been lead to believe the North Wind will know of Boromir's fate, and relieve our guard of their ignorance.   The guard asks the North Wind specifically of 'Boromir the Bold.'

The North Wind answers that it has seen Boromir, and that he fought valiantly.  Bold, indeed.  By saying his shield and sword were broken the wind tells the guard that he died while fighting and not while fleeing.  Further, his head is proud and his face is fair: That is, he has died with honor and his body was not ravaged by enemies.

Having learned Boromir's fate the guard ends by saying the Tower of Guard (Which is what Minas Tirith translates to) will look forever northward, awaiting the return of his body.  Gondor has lost a son, and will forever hope to bring him home.

Perhaps you noticed two things.  Gimli does not sing any verse, nor is there any verse for the East Wind.  In our text, this is addressed:

"You left the East Wind to me," Said Gimli "But I 
will say naught of it." "That is as it should
be," said Aragorn. "In Minas Tirith they endure
the East Wind, but they do not ask it for tidings."

The East Wind, of course, would blow from Mordor.  There is no sense in listening to anything from that direction.

I was going to write more about Gimli's decision to say nothing, but analyzing the lament has made this post quite long enough.  I will say this: We are often eager to say our piece and make ourselves be heard.  But intentional silence also sends a message, and refusing to say anything at all can be as impactful as a scathing rebuke.  Though in the current culture silence is usually seen as complacency.  Perhaps, then, the answer is not to say nothing, but to - like Gimli did - say you will say nothing.  "I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer!"  That way everyone knows you saw it and that your silence is purposeful.

The Lord of the Rings: An Ethical Guide is a Patreon-supported project.  Thank you to all those who have contributed.

Like this project?  Want to learn more?  Want exclusive access to behind-the-scenes content?  Go to my Patreon site and see how you can become a part of the action!