"There is a pathological mismatch between the qualities that seduce us in a leader and those that are needed to be an effective leader. Based on research on the psychology of leadership, Chamorro-Premuzic shows that if leaders were selected on competence rather than confidence, humility rather than charisma, and integrity rather than narcissism, we would not just end up with more competent leaders, but also more women leaders."

Abstract of an interesting (10 min) TEDx talk "Why do so many incompetent men become leaders?" by Dr Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, who is the Chief Talent Scientist at Manpower Group, co-founder and CEO of DeeperSignals and Metaprofiling, and Professor of Business Psychology at both University College London, and Columbia University. [link to this talk on YouTube]

And are 'Leaders' (as per the TED talk: politicians and business managers) the same as 'Heroes' (legendary solo warriors)?

Sure, our society may be built upon rules and procedures, but they usually make for bad television. Sometimes you have to bend the rules, rough up the suspects, moon your supervisors and shred the Constitution to get stuff done.


https://tvtropes.org/...i.php/Main/CowboyCop

Certainly some bad things happen that are outside of his control like killing Beleg and Glaurung's antics, and he is not without some admirable qualities. But he also brings quite a lot on himself through his own foolishness and many character flaws (some of which he shares with his mother). It's both-and. Nargothrond falls because of his stubbornness and pride, for one.

Also, doesn't it say at one point that Morgoth was afraid his curse might fail? That doesn't sound like an absolute immutable decree.

Montgomery: Competent in prepared defenses, not so competent in taking the offense (see Operation Market-Garden), overly confident, hardly charismatic as he pissed off even other British commanders, lacked any sort of humility even in the face of failure (again, Market-Garden), constantly blamed others for his failures, probably the premier peacock of WWII leaders

I like your in-depth analysis of the characteristics of some of the top military commanders in the war. But I began to wonder if they were really leaders in the sense that, say, Aragorn is portrayed as being in the LotR book. The difference, I think, is that a leader establishes a personal connection with those he (or she) leads. Whether it is by actual human contact or by effective broadcasting, the effect is that each member of the mass group believes he is being led, not just ordered, by the leader.

Now, as amazingly effective as men such as Nimitz, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Spruance were, I never got the impression that the average swab or dogface identified with them, or believed they were being led into battle by them. Indeed, the primary difficulty of mass warfare is that the commander must lead from the rear, which (as has been noted already in this thread) does not tend to inspire those on the front lines. Thus the term commander is more appropriate, and leader is being used more for tradition and emotion than anything else.

Counter-examples from your list might include Patton, Stalin, and MacArthur. Facts about incompetence are overwhelmed by their ability to use rhetoric, PR, and state-sponsored propaganda to convince their armies that they were, in fact, leading the fight (although I suspect that even with these leaders their press accounts and historians may overstate the degree to which the average infantryman bought into the leadership message!)

What is the difference with Aragorn - and others of his fictional and even historical type? I would start with the simplest part: the armies were smaller, much smaller. A lord and general of six thousand men can be seen and heard by every fighter in a matter of a few weeks of training and marching. Second, in older warfare the lord and leader did in fact lead: fighting at the front, though protected to be sure by a guard to ensure his survival.

The notion that choosing leaders based on “either-or” selection of the six attributes listed is just silly as is the contention that those six characteristics are segregated by gender (the logical conclusion from the contention that choosing competence over confidence, humility over charisma, etc. would result in more female leaders).

Beyond commanding a single army, Aragorn managed fragile and touchy alliances and then bonded the kingdom together again after defeating Sauron.

"...frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root: the desire to benefit the world and others - speedily and according to the benefactor's own plans - is a recurrent motive."

JRR Tolkien, in a 1951 letter to Milton Waldman, an editor, (about the potential publication of what was to become The Silmarillion).

We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.”

it seems that one can almost blame the victims here, saying if they hadn't used [the palantirs], they'd still be good and sane, respectively.

The Edges of Ideas
The solution to the “Info-Dump” problem (how to fill in the background). The theory is that, as above, the mechanics of an interstellar drive (the center of the idea) is not important: all that matters is the impact on your characters: they can get to other planets in a few months, and, oh yeah, it gives them hallucinations about past lives. Or, more radically: the physics of TV transmission is the center of an idea; on the edges of it we find people turning into couch potatoes because they no longer have to leave home for entertainment. Or, more bluntly: we don’t need info dump at all. We just need a clear picture of how people’s lives have been affected by their background. This is also known as “carrying extrapolation into the fabric of daily life.”

The Turkey City Lexicon - a primer for SF workshops' by the SFWA

https://www.sfwa.org/...er-for-sf-workshops/

Denethor used it repeatedly, and honestly, doesn't Denethor seem like a drug addict, the way he needs a fix from the palantir even as each dose eats away at his mind? But drug addiction aside, I would say as a Steward wanting to preserve Gondor from Sauron's annihilation, he was the right person and had the right intent, though he didn't know what he was getting into, i.e., the slow corruption of his mind by Sauron. I think his excess pride was the culprit here.

"How long, I wonder, has he been constrained to come often to his glass for inspection and instruction, and the Orthanc-stone so bent towards Barad-dûr that, if any save a will of adamant now looks into it, it will bear his mind and sight swiftly thither? And how it draws one to itself! Have I not felt it? Even now my heart desires to test my will upon it, to see if I could not wrench it from him and turn it where I would–to look across the wide seas of water and of time to Tirion the Fair, and perceive the unimaginable hand and mind of Fëanor at their work, while both the White Tree and the Golden were in flower!’ He sighed and fell silent."

The Ring's ambiguity is present almost the first time we see it, in 'The Shadow of the Past', when Gandalf tells Frodo, 'Give me the ring for a moment'. Frodo unfastened it from its chain and, 'handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.
Either it or Frodo.... The difference is the difference between the world views I have labelled above as 'Boethian' and 'Manichaean'. If Bothius is right, then evil is internal, caused by human sin and weakness and alienation from God; in this case the Ring feels heavy because Frodo (already in the very first stages of addiction, we may say) is unconsciously reluctant to part with it. If there is some truth in the Manichaean view, though, then evil is a force from outside which has in some way been able to make the non-sentient Ring itself evil; so it is indeed the Ring, obeying the will of its master, which does not want to be identified.Both views are furthermore perfectly convincing. ...The idea that on the one hand the Ring is a sort of psychic amplifier , magnifying the unconscious fears or selfishnesses of its owners, and on the other that it is a sentient creature with urges and powers of its own, are both present from the beginning..."

Prof. Tom Shippey' in "JRR Tolkien, Author of the Century”

one discrepancy I spot is that Aragorn isn't very humble. Like Faramir, he has wonderful charisma that makes people want to serve him, but if I think in particular of his proud words at Edoras and also to Eomer upon first meeting, I see a lot of pride not seen in other characters. I might argue that Gandalf is less proud, or that his pride is more mixed with humility:
Quote
Aragorn stood a while hesitating. ‘It is not my will,’ he said, ‘to put aside my sword or to deliver Andúril to the hand of any other man.’

‘It is the will of Théoden,’ said Háma.

‘It is not clear to me that the will of Théoden son of Thengel, even though he be lord of the Mark, should prevail over the will of Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elendil’s heir of Gondor.’

There are two quit diff. emotions: one that moves me supremely and I find small difficulty in evoking: the heart-racking sense of the vanished past (best expressed by Gandalf’s words about the Palantir); and the other the more ‘ordinary’ emotion, triumph, pathos, tragedy of the characters. That I am learning to do, as I get to know my people, but it is not really so near my heart, and is forced on me by the fundamental literary dilemma. A story must be told or there’ll be no story, yet it is the untold stories that are most moving.

I have always read Gandalf's musing about using the palantir to try to visit the First Age and 'meet' Feanor as a reminder to the reader of his scholarly side in the midst of his being general-in-chief of a world war - the mind of a wizard who loves lore and craft, and knows well of Feanor and would dearly love to have met him. It's rather like giving a Nobel-winning physicist a time-machine and hearing him say he's off to visit Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.

I see where you're coming from with your take, but it never occurred to me he was speaking 'as' Olorin here. My impression is that Tolkien buries that side of Gandalf quite thoroughly in the book, as it tends to flatten him into someone who doesn't actually belong in the Third Age.

Lastly, I can read it that it's all deliberate - one of those double-acts that Aragorn and Gandalf seem to drop into (like at the Council of Elrond, where they support each other in the account of the capture of Gollum, whilst giving Aragorn a perfectly natural opportunity to impress Boromir wiht stories of his exploits). Possibly Aragorn has some inkling of what Gandalf is going to do, and a fuss over the sword is a distraction. Having forced Aragorn to hand over his supremely awesome sword, this argument goes, Hama might forget to - or feel too embarressed to - insist on taking Gandalf's staff too. Especially when Gandalf has been so nice and reasonable in talking badcop Aragorn down.

OTOH, would Aragorn stoop to deceit? (and if it was all an act and he really didn't mind leaving Anduril with Hama, then it was deceitful, even including spoken lies)