Jared, Oriana and Ned discuss Oriana’s choice of topic: Aragorn. Whether it was encountering him like Tolkien first did, showing up much to his own surprise in an inn’s common room in Bree and then wondering who or what this character was, or having a moment when Viggo Mortensen swung those doors open in the Peter Jackson version of The Two Towers, the many-named Ranger and eventual ruler of the reunited kingdoms of the Dúnedain, with his carefully revealed backstory of seemingly impossible love and seemingly impossible odds to start with would be, in other hands, the hero of The Lord of the Rings. But the fact that he is clearly more of a secondary protagonist at most rather than the key central figure, and one whose own motivations and conclusions are more often than not kept hidden from readers or suggested by implication, makes him a more strangely compelling figure than a standard hero would be instead, despite the efforts of critics and interpreters to shift the perception otherwise over the years. What did we individually think of Aragorn when we first encountered him in any version, and what did that suggest to us about where the story might go? How do critics attempting to center him in their reads of the story go about it, and what does that suggest about what they think is the ‘right’ way to tell a story like The Lord of the Rings? What do the differences in Tolkien working from the model of a mortal man falling in love with an Elf princess between his youth and his later years suggest about how he treats or thinks about the subject of love? And just what was it with the early 2000s and movie heroes maybe looking and acting a certain way no matter the context?