# Arwen: why i hate her



## Saucy

join me now...may all anti Arwen's unite?!!!

1.> she does nothing other then sit around and have "HOPE" that things work out!!!! if i was her, i'd be there fight along Aragorn's side.

2.>She is so forlorn, like really id be way happier then she is if i was a gazillion (exageration) yr's old and still looked that good

3.> Eowyn diserved aragorn WAY more but stupid arwen stood in her way!


i posted this in the book section because i felt this way about her when i read the books...but even in the movie i cant STAND her cause pj has taken her annoying hated qualities and multiplied them a gazillion times


----------



## Aragorn21

I agree, I never liked Arwen very much, especially after the movies, she's a waste of good movie time.


----------



## Thorin

I hope I don't sound sexist or male chauvinistic here...

You misunderstand the nature of the Elves. The Elves are supposed to be stand-offish and secluded. They are the highest created beings. They were written to be mysterious, deep and old. The ways of man don't concern them to much anymore. Arwen is that 'put on a pedastal' type of woman. The whole point of Aragorn's quest to fulfill his destiny as king is to 'earn' Arwen. The fact is, is that Aragorn _doesn't_ deserve Arwen. The Elves are far above any man. Arwen not involving herself is what makes her all the more desirable to a mortal man.

Eowyn is 'every woman'. She's mortal and more like Aragorn, no doubt. But she is not Elven and does not have the kinship that Aragorn has with the Elves. Aragorn and Arwen's love is a deep love, not a surface crush. 

By involving Arwen in everything like PJ did, he made Arwen as 'every woman', rather than the 'unreachable prize'.

Sheesh, that really sounds piggish doesn't it?


----------



## Aragorn21

Not at all m8 (hope u dont mind the m8, lol, its my second fav. word). It makes a whole lot me sence now, ty. I think this thread should now be in the movie section.


----------



## Saucy

well really i cant see what makes elves so great cause realy isnt everyone equal? and besides that how can pointy ers be attractive?  

now Eowyn...aragorn doesnt deserve her, man should desire an independent women who will fight for what she believes in and is strong and will ful.

but i guess tolkien didnt agree with me there/


----------



## HLGStrider

Arwen has different qualities from Eowyn, qualities which are now looked down upon in our modern world which is sort of sad. I've always admired her ability to stay home and wait for Aragorn. I'm not a huge feminist. I'd rather wait than fight. I know it probably took as much courage (and I'm assuming she didn't know how to fight and wasn't the type who would care to learn. . .many people aren't the fight-type).

And in Tolkien's world, no, everyone is not equal. The Elves are considered superior. 

Arwen is an underdeveloped character, however. We don't know a lot about her. I've always assumed she had an artistic, sensitive, but highly reserved nature.


----------



## Inderjit S

> 1.> she does nothing other then sit around and have "HOPE" that things work out!!!! if i was her, i'd be there fight along Aragorn's side.



Uh-Huh. Arwen Warrior Princess, going around Middle-Earth on adventures full of walks on the beach (The haven of Umbar that is, to over-throw it), walks under moon-light (To capture Gollum that is) and visits to exotic locations such as the Dead Marshes, Mordor and Far Harad, where the stars are strange and people evil! 

Or maybe to help Aragorn she could poison Denethor, or Ecthelion (Depending on their eagerness and patience) and do the same to Faramir and Boromir. (I wonder what really happened to Finduilas, to make her die so young?)

Or maybe she could storm Barad-dur? 



> 2.>She is so forlorn, like really id be way happier then she is if i was a gazillion (exageration) yr's old and still looked that good



Not everybody is fickle. You don't look in the mirror, realise that your 3,000 years old and still haven't had botox and forget all about choosing between the love of your life and your father and then realising, after you choose the love of your life that you will never see your father or mother and a lot of other people you care about again.




> 3.> Eowyn diserved aragorn WAY more but stupid arwen
> stood in her way!



No, the fact that neither really loved each other stood in the way.


----------



## Saucy

yes ur right elgee but i still dont like her


----------



## Inderjit S

> Arwen is an underdeveloped character, however. We don't know a lot about her. I've always assumed she had an artistic, sensitive, but highly reserved nature.



Indeed. Yet she is the "evenstar" of her people, she is said to be analogous to Lúthien the greatest of all the Elves, revered and respected by a lot of people, "the noblest lady the lives" (Gilraen) and a maiden of Yavanna. As can be seen by the corresponding HoME 6-9 a very late addition, and thus Tolkien was unable to say much about her in the narrative) and there is also something in the 'Letters of Tolkien' about Arwen's textual appearances (or lack of them) and it had something to do, if I recall correctly, with the fact that the text was by and large written by Hobbits. I cannot quite remember and it is too late in the day to check now.


----------



## Gil-Galad

I just read Inderjit S posts and I realized that I can write only.I absolutely agree.The other things I could say were said by him

Inderjit you make it impossible for the others to participate,especially after your posts   

But let me add something,Eowyn was not for Aragorn.Aragorn was one of the Dunedain,he grew in Rivendell,together with the Elven culture.So he was actually closer to elves than to men.He was just not the right type of man for Eowyn.


----------



## GuardianRanger

> _Originally posted by Thorin _
> *The whole point of Aragorn's quest to fulfill his destiny as king is to 'earn' Arwen. *



Much the same way that Beren had to return with a Silmaril to "earn" Luthien?


----------



## Sarah

> _Originally posted by powersauce _
> *join me now...may all anti Arwen's unite?!!!
> 
> 1.> she does nothing other then sit around and have "HOPE" that things work out!!!! if i was her, i'd be there fight along Aragorn's side.
> 
> 2.>She is so forlorn, like really id be way happier then she is if i was a gazillion (exageration) yr's old and still looked that good
> 
> 3.> Eowyn diserved aragorn WAY more but stupid arwen stood in her way!
> 
> 
> *



Hell yeah! Rock on Powersauce! Eowyn is way better. Arwen is a spoiled princess.


----------



## HLGStrider

Actually, Eowyn shows more signs of being spoiled than Arwen. Eowyn goes through three stages in the books:

1. Cold, hurt, desperate, shield maiden.

2. Rejected, sulking, sick maiden.

3. Full grown woman in love with Faramir and finally happy.

There is something noble in 1 and 3. Two we see a little of during the time when 1 is prevalent. It comes out a bit in her pursuit of Aragorn. She wants out. She's willing to do anything to get out, to get her way. Not that her way isn't a good thing. It was a heck of a lot better than what she had. Three is mainly seen after she is healed by Aragorn.

At this point she reverts to seemingly childish requests. She reminds me very much of a sad child in the scene where she says 'But my window does not look east" or something like that.

Arwen we never see signs of spoiledness. We know she gets the guy we all want, but the guy wanted her just as much if not more than she wanted him.


----------



## Rhiannon

I dislike Arwen for the simple fact that I find her incredibly boring. Sits at home (under a _canopy_), embroiders, hums wedding march and hopes. Very...nice. Arwen is the kind of person who you want to live next-door to, or maybe have as queen. But she isn't a very interesting character, which is why I find it so bewildering that a remarkable lot of people seem to fall down at her (perfectly trimmed and painted) toe-nails and worship (pre-movies an increasingly bitter fan of a particular shieldmaiden was very annoyed and remains very annoyed at the lack of Eowyn art, despite the hundreds and hundreds of pictures people feel the need to do of Arwen). 

I know people who are Arwen-esque, and I love them dearly, but I ask a little bit more of my book characters.

<edit> And the only reason I am not thwapping Elgee is that I'm going to bed now and this is the wrong thread...but I'm not about to let you off!


----------



## HLGStrider

I don't necessarily think liking Eowyn means you have to dislike Arwen. . .unless you also dislike Faramir and think that Aragorn should've married Eowyn. Both girls got good guys in the end.

I also think that the spoiled child side of Eowyn makes her MORE appealing, which is why I'm never going to let Rhi talk me out of that vision of her. It helps me relate. 

I think what is appealing about Arwen is that we have to make up all the big details. . .we can make up just about anything about her (even that she's a warrior princess, apparently  ). 

I can imagine her crying gently as she carefully makes the flag. I can imagine that she was known to make beautiful embroidery, which would link her with my beading escapades. I can imagine that she wrote poetry in her spare time. 

In not knowing anything, we know everything.


----------



## Rhiannon

Liking Eowyn does not mean you _have_ to dislike Arwen, but it sure doesn't mean you have to like her, either. And you can still be annoyed with people who do like her and completely ignore the existence of any other female characters, even though they do a lot more. 

I find Arwen's passive approach to life very unappealing, annoying, and downright dull. She's very _nice_, but if I had to live in the same house with her, one of us would die.

And it wouldn't be me.

I can envision her arranging throw pillows and making perfect cookies and never blowing up the kitchen and never smearing her lipstick or sleeping on her hair funny or spilling her drink down her front or snorting soda up her nose during _Henry V_ (all things I have done- and snorting up soda is painful). 

Basically I despise perfection. I hate perfect people, and I hate people who idolize perfect people. And I like my characters flawed and pro-active and psychologically complex so I can have fun writing essays on them.


----------



## jimmyboy

On the other hand maybe it's just a matter of "do you prefer blondes or brunettes?"
*shrug*


----------



## Rhiannon

...only if you're shallow...

I actually don't really care for blonds.


----------



## Saucy

i think its a case of 
Arwen Vs. Eowyn the cat fight! who would win

of course arwen is a bleh! character and Eowyn is a very deep character that one can relate too.


----------



## jallan

The difficulty with Tolkien’s Arwen is that we don’t know anything much about her.

It seems she is revered by the Elves, but we don’t see the reasons she is revered, other than being, it appears, extraordinary beautiful.

In writing _The Lord of the Rings_ Tolkien himself only gradually realized that this Trotter hobbit was actually the lost heir to the throne of Gondor.

Lost heirs are standard in romantic fiction and are often the heroes. Certainly Aragorn whom Trotter metamorphed into took on role of the standard virtuous and noble romantic hero who in the end gains his rightful place and of course marries suitably.

But that’s not the center of Tolkien’s story. The full story of Aragorn’s life and of his love for Arwen lies mostly outside _The Lord of the Rings_. The small amount of writing on the matter in the Appendix A doesn’t well fill the gap.

I don’t find that among Tolkien’s most inspiring writings. Tolkien doesn’t make Arwen come alive or early Aragorn come alive.

Accordingly Arwen can’t be much else than blank to the reader. She is weakly characterized.

I don’t see much in Arwen either to hate or to respect from knowledge that Tolkien provides, other than knowing that in default of any other information we probably should take her at Aragorn’s and Tolkien’s estimation if we can do so. 

Perhaps if Tolkien had been given longer to work on the Appendices and more space had been provided he Tolkien would have been able to fill out the tale of Aragorn and Arwen satisfactorily.

I am reminded of similar complaints for much the same reason from generations of readers of Walter Scott’s _Ivanhoe_, readers who far prefer Rebecca to the staid and conventional and mostly unknown Rowena.

The same reaction occurs with Victor Hugo’s _Les Miserables_ where Eponine seems far worthier of Marius’ love than does Cossette (though Marius himself is so useless that one also wonders why Eponine bothers with him).

And what did Tarzan see in Jane Porter compared to La of Opar?

Now if Tolkien had been writing a conventional heroic romance he would have focused on Aragorn and Arwen and the story would have ended at their coronation and wedding (and the wedding of Faramir and Éowyn). 

Group weddings are common at the end of heroic romances. Instead Tolkien’s center is with the smaller folk who made the triumph possible. Aragorn is not Tolkien’s main interest and Arwen, invented very late as an appropriate love interest, is less so.

That Arwen is uncharacterized is reasonable in _The Lord of the Rings_. It is more of a flaw that Tolkien did not do more with her in the Appendix A.


----------



## HLGStrider

> And you can still be annoyed with people who do like her and completely ignore the existence of any other female characters, even though they do a lot more.



I've encountered more dislike than like for Arwen, actually, except among A. the movie crowd who is clinging to the Warrior Princess and B. Some males who just know she was pretty. 



> I find Arwen's passive approach to life very unappealing, annoying, and downright dull.



I think passivity is all we can expect from her.

A. Arwen was not a shield maiden. All maidens can't be fighters. I wouldn't be. You admit you wouldn't go on an Orc hunt  so I'd wager you wouldn't be. Arwen isn't going to go gallavanting around.

B. I wouldn't expect Elrond to let her do anything else, and I expect she's obediant, another virtue not popular in today's world.



> And I like my characters flawed and pro-active and psychologically complex so I can have fun writing essays on them.



Well, if you compacted all the text on Arwen you'd get maybe five pages, so it would be impossible to write a character essay on her.



> Arwen Vs. Eowyn the cat fight! who would win



Really? I think I'm leaving now. . .

 Elgee is very scared. . .



> of course arwen is a bleh! character and Eowyn is a very deep character that one can relate too.



Due to having about fifty more pages about her, yes. 



> I don’t find that among Tolkien’s most inspiring writings.



I do, but I have a weakness for anything about Aragorn.




> I am reminded of similar complaints for much the same reason from generations of readers of Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe, readers who far prefer Rebecca to the staid and conventional and mostly unknown Rowena.



I find Rowena to be another character who gets a hard wrap. . .which is sad because I do identify with her a lot. . .all that sobbing. . .


----------



## Rhiannon

> I think passivity is all we can expect from her.
> 
> A. Arwen was not a shield maiden. All maidens can't be fighters. I wouldn't be. You admit you wouldn't go on an Orc hunt so I'd wager you wouldn't be. Arwen isn't going to go gallavanting around.


There are more kinds of fighting than painting yourself up with woad and running around screaming blue murder- You can be pro-active and still sit prettily at home (under a stupid canopy if absolutely necassary). I'm not a physical activity kind of girl, which I freely admit and have the flab to prove, but I am still pro-active, I still try to make a difference, to make my _own_ mark instead of passively sitting back and letting stuff happen to me. And you argue- 'fight'- on behalf of the things you believe in. Arwen annoys me not because she was ladylike, or obedient, or whatever, but because I am driven mad by her complete lack of any apparent wish to _do_ anything. If you don't like your situation then go out and do something about it! Sitting around languishing and being weepy doesn't accomplish much (except maybe some embroidery).


----------



## HLGStrider

But do you know for a fact she wasn't proactive? We know she made a standard. We know she traveled before Aragorn. We don't know if she did afterwards. 

All the assumption that she was weepy (we never see her cry in the books except when Aragorn dies, at which point you can't blame her) and complacent, is just assumption.

I don't think she talked with her father about it. I believe if she had it would've worsened Aragorn's case. Elrond and Aragorn had agreed not to talk about it. Elrond wanted it to be quiet.


----------



## jimmyboy

> but we don’t see the reasons she is revered, other than being, it appears, extraordinary beautiful.


Not only that but she's also Elrond's daughter. As we know, Elrond was known and respected throughout Middle-earth. For thousands of years he was one of the main foes against Sauron, and people knew this. He was also considered one of the most wise in lore. Plus, she was the little sister of Elrohir and Elladan who also were known as stalwart foes of the enemy and his agents.

I think many, at least among the elves, also knew what happened to Elrond's wife. It's also very likely that Arwen was "daddy's little girl", and since his wife left I'm sure Arwen became the closest to his heart. Surely people knew this or could see it, and so naturally they'd hold her in high esteem as they did her father. Plus, she seems like she was a worthy and likeable girl so of course add that to what's been mentioned already and she would naturally be highly respected.


----------



## Thorin

What many of you are failing to realize is that Tolkien didn't need a reason for someone to be useful or revered other than for who they were. In Tolkien's world, a name, a heritage and the innermost heart were all that it took to gain respect and admiration, and that person had the RIGHT to be admired for those very characteristics. From that, heroic actions came forth as a fruit of that inner strength and beauty.

Luthien was still the most beautiful Elven maiden of ME in the First Age and revered by all BEFORE she did anything heroic like helping Beren get back a silmaril from Morgoth.

Arwen was a high elf, the daughter of Elrond and was like Luthien reincarnated. That is HUGE as far as admiration goes. Just those characteristics alone put her in the high esteem of the peoples of ME and deservedly so. She did not have to do anything.

With that behind you, can you not imagine why WOULDN'T Aragorn try for the kingship? This is where PJ's Aragorn fails by dumping the very thing book Aragorn strives for. He has the privilege that the most noble man on ME would die for...to have the love of Arwen Undomeil and be able to marry her.

What is a greater goal than that?


----------



## Rhiannon

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *But do you know for a fact she wasn't proactive? We know she made a standard. We know she traveled before Aragorn. We don't know if she did afterwards. *



By the same token, you don't know that she wasn't passive- so really this is a pointless argument because we don't have enough to go on. I just like being annoyed by Arwen  I don't like her because I'm not interested in her enough to care.


----------



## HLGStrider

But by the same token, you can't expect others to dislike her or not like her.

Though I do admit, she never got her picture on a bubble gum card. How can you consider someone truly great who never got their picture on a bubblegum card?


----------



## Rhiannon

I don't expect other people to dislike her, although I do get annoyed with people who go on about wonderful elf princesses. 

But Beethoven never got his picture on a bubblegum card either...


----------



## jimmyboy

> But Beethoven never got his picture on a bubblegum card either...


Yes he did! I have his rookie card.


----------



## Ravenna

Part of the problem that Arwen has when compared to Eowyn is the fact that Eowyn is a much more modern type of woman, someone who can hold her own against the men; whereas Arwen herself is a more old fashioned type, a true mediaeval love interest, and after all, Tolkien's writing was in a mediaeval type of setting. She is more of a figurehead than a character in the true sense of the word.
We can identify with Eowyn much more easily, and as has been said before, there's so much more written about her, we get to know her feelings in far more depth.
Arwen, whilst admittedly waiting for her father's (somewhat reluctant) permission, had to be of a fairly strong character to do the one thing we know she did - marry a mortal! Thus going against thousands of years of Elvish tradition, a situation which had only arisen twice before. It also meant that she willingly deprived herself of eternal life and her entire family, including the chance of seeing her mother again in Valinor.
She may not have been out fighting Nazgul, but she remained faithful to her true love throughout, even when there seemed to be no hope. (outdated sentimentality I know, but at least she was consistent.)


----------



## Saucy

yes but still i believe she would a much how MORE "LIKEABLE CHARACTEER" if would of just said 'screw this" and gone out and kicked some evil, orc butt! something wich i believe her character was fully capable of given her strong will power.
and even in the medievial type setting tolkien managed to mingle out one female heroin so we can at least give him credit for that.


anyways if u wanna go beyond "my personal opinion" and into more technical ways of dealing with Arwen's character, i still dislike her. Just because she proves that all the pretty gurls have to do is sit around and wait and the boys will come to them!


----------



## Rhiannon

Powersauce has a point...I'm probably just shallow enough for a good part of my deep seated dislike of Arwen to be based on the general hate of the unattractive for the fundamentally beautiful.


----------



## HLGStrider

Eowyn was very lovely too. Probably more than one man was attracted to her but didn't approach because he was on a differing status level (Wormtongue didn't dare make an open move. . .even dispite her dislike for him he probably would've made an open declaration if he had been on a similar status).

However, I think the fighting thing is just as shallow as the beauty thing. It's like a man coming into a house, plopping an orc's head on the table and asking to marry the daughter of the house on that merit.

I don't find Eowyn's fighting to make her more likeable. I think it makes her more interesting, but not likeable.

Arwen probably isn't very interesting.

And of course being the world's most beautiful kitten, I know I'm prettier than Arwen (anyone who denies it gets hit with a pencil sharpener!)


----------



## Rhiannon

> Eowyn was very lovely too. Probably more than one man was attracted to her but didn't approach because he was on a differing status level


I don't really think this is true, but I'll resist the urge to hijack this thread and go in to a long explanation of my interpretation of Eowyn's situation. See, I'm going good.



> However, I think the fighting thing is just as shallow as the beauty thing. It's like a man coming into a house, plopping an orc's head on the table and asking to marry the daughter of the house on that merit.


I didn't follow this...It's not the fighting in and of itself, it's the doing-something-proactive, as opposed to passively letting events be controlled by other people. Maybe I'm just too bossy to like Arwen.



> I don't find Eowyn's fighting to make her more likeable. I think it makes her more interesting, but not likeable.


See above. I have essays about this stuff (must...resist...hijacking...thread...)



> Arwen probably isn't very interesting.


Nope. Or sympathetic (geeze, handsome wonderful guy falls in her lap, and oh look, he happens to be a king, how nice!). Like I said, good in a person, not good in a book character. 



> And of course being the world's most beautiful kitten, I know I'm prettier than Arwen (anyone who denies it gets hit with a pencil sharpener!)


Good point. It occurs to me that after the above mentioned shallowness, I am required to hate you. But it's nothing personal


----------



## HLGStrider

The part about fighting isn't directed at anything you said but at this:



> yes but still i believe she would a much how MORE "LIKEABLE CHARACTEER" if would of just said 'screw this" and gone out and kicked some evil, orc butt!



I wouldn't describe what Eowyn did as this. I think Eowyn, if she'd just gone out to fight, would've been an uninteresting, juveniel character. Her other motives made her interesting.

I think Arwen couldn't have had her fate controlled by her and maintained her honor. She would've had to defy her father, for one thing.

I also don't see how strength of will equals prowess in battle. It probably wouldn't. Arwen probably couldn't lift a blade.


----------



## Elfhelm25

Interesting debates, eveyrbody !
I have to say I am more inclined to agree with Rhiannon, however. I don't think character should be measured on heroic warrior like fighting, but in a midievil - like setting, character WAS. Faramir was looked down upon for a lonnnng time simply because he was mroe peace loving than his brother. All members of the Fellowship ( hobbits included ) claimed leadership roles through swords and weapons. ( Think; Scouring of the Shire ). i think we need to keep in mind that in the "days" of the Fellowship bravery was a must for leaders and , well, that was that really. Now i'm not saying that Arwen should have been a leader, necessarly, but for goodness sake ! She was engaged to the big machomisso, the hero, ARAGORN! In my mind it was just more fitting to have had a character for Aragorn that fitted his abilities , even just with very strong contrasting qualities. the fact was, in my mind, Arwen ( from what we knew )didn't measure up to Aragorn. She did nothing that we knew of that made me think, Now THAT is a powerful couple. She reminded me of a beautiful shadow to Aragorn, and that wasn't what i was looking for by the end of Return of the King. Aragorn had become so much, and Arwen had done nothing. It seemed uneven. granted, we didnt know much about her, but doesnt that tell you something ? She was prolly too boring to write about in detail. Did you ever get the feeling Tolkien wanted her to be another Luthien, but gave up on her after describing her physical beauty? Luthien was a great character, and it felt like Tolkien didn't want another luthien by the end. Anyhoo, just my thoughts. I found Arwen dull and unwrothy by the end. Thus increasing my annoyance to her. the poop dull sap. She never had a chance.


----------



## Thorin

> _Originally posted by Elfhelm25 _
> *In my mind it was just more fitting to have had a character for Aragorn that fitted his abilities , even just with very strong contrasting qualities. the fact was, in my mind, Arwen ( from what we knew )didn't measure up to Aragorn. She did nothing that we knew of that made me think, Now THAT is a powerful couple. She reminded me of a beautiful shadow to Aragorn, and that wasn't what i was looking for by the end of Return of the King. Aragorn had become so much, and Arwen had done nothing.*


Maybe you should read my previous post. The facts of Middle Earth are that Aragorn could not reach Arwen's standards. Elrond was not out of line to require Aragorn to get the kingship to marry Arwen. It was his right as an Elven Lord with an Elven princess daughter because humans are NOT worthy to marry an elf. Arwen was far higher than Aragorn ever could be just because she was an Elven princess. She had eternal life, she was over a 1000 years old by then. Aragorn's only hope was that he was from the line of Numenor, a line started by Elrond's own brother. The point of their union is a testament to Arwen, not Aragorn. She lowered herself and made the incredible sacrifice of mortality for him when he had no right to even encroach on her to think about it. 

The problem here is that you are all interpreting how interesting and useful Arwen is from a human perspective based on today's modern standards. You can't do that. You have to look at the history of the elves and their place in ME. Sure Luthien did something, but that was because of the situation she was in concerning Morgoth and Beren. Had she done NOTHING she still would have been the most revered being in ME at the time. Why? Because she just EXISTED as an elven princess. The same is true for Arwen. That simple fact alone puts her above Aragorn. You may find that 'boring' and elitest thinking on the elves' part but that is the way that Tolkien created them and that is the role they played in ME and the beings of ME all understood that.


----------



## Elfhelm25

I respect your opinion, Thorin, and you have some very good points. It's true that Tolkien wrote of a different time and atmosphere than today's standards, and in my opinion that makes it all the more interesting to discuss them using today's standards. Even in those day's standards, and yes, given the fact that elves were considered superior to humans, that still does not mean that Arwen could have been a more interesting character based on the values of those days. Being a superior being you would think she would have been developped...well, as superior then! Anyhoo, I found her disapointing when I read it for the first time, and that was also at the stage where I loved midievil-esque books. (Though I still do !)I think she could have been a very great character .I hope this debate continues. After all , it wouldn't be a debate without opposing sides, am I not right ??


----------



## HLGStrider

> In my mind it was just more fitting to have had a character for Aragorn that fitted his abilities , even just with very strong contrasting qualities.



We know she has strong qualities, but they seem to be similar to Aragorn's:

Patience,
Fidelity,
Self-Sacrifice.

Aragorn is a natural leader. I don't know what the opposite positive to that is, but I think it would be supportive. I think I could make a case for that with what little we know of Arwen. The few times we see her speak or act, she is in support of Aragorn:
When they plight their troth, she encourages him by stating that he will be among the great that destroy the darkness (even when, at his own admission he cannot see this).
The Standard. I don't think I need to explain how this supported him. Also, if you think about it, it was a bit like sewing her wedding dress in front of her father. It says it was wrought in secret, doesn't it? Or perhaps I'm mixing it up with something else. . .I wonder if her father knew what she was sewing.

Aragorn is very brave. I think the opposite of this would be cautious and careful. I can't make any judgements from the info we have.

Aragorn is somewhat quiet and reserved. I believe Arwen to be as well from what I see. . .though a little softer around the edges.

Any other qualities you'd like to discuss?



> She did nothing that we knew of that made me think, Now THAT is a powerful couple.



Arwen wasn't supposed to do anything. If she had it would've totally altered her character and probably made Aragorn lose interest. She was delicate and feminine and not a fighter. Aragorn spent his life around fighters. She was probably a breath of fresh air. 

Personally, I think being a supportive wife and a mother is a very wonderful thing, it's something I plan to be to the best of my ability. I think Arwen probably was this. Greatness in the form of deeds is nothing to this, in my opinion. 



> Aragorn had become so much, and Arwen had done nothing.



Aragorn became so much. Arwen was so much.



> She was prolly too boring to write about in detail.



I'm sure we could find the opposite but I still haven't read through the JRR letters (someone who has. . ? Anything on Arwen?). I really don't see anyway to flesh out Arwen without taking the point of view away from the Hobbits. There is one chapter that is written from Aragorn's point of view (the first in The Two Towers). I disliked it. Aragorn is my favorite character, but in that one I felt it wasn't right. 



> Did you ever get the feeling Tolkien wanted her to be another Luthien, but gave up on her after describing her physical beauty? Luthien was a great character, and it felt like Tolkien didn't want another luthien by the end.



He didn't even describe her beauty in great length. One or two sentences. I think he did want another Luthien in the end, otherwise he wouldnt' have written the Tale of Arwen and Aragorn.



> and in my opinion that makes it all the more interesting to discuss them using today's standards.



Interesting but inaccurate. I don't even care for today's standards at much. Feminism grates on my nerves, for one thing, even when it has a point.



> Being a superior being you would think she would have been developped...well, as superior then!



This really depends on your definition of superior, doesn't it? Elfishness is superior. Princessness is superior. 

I don't think warriorishness is. 

I think we can make a case for kindness in Arwen based on her giving the jewel to Frodo, her kind treatment of Aragorn when they first meet (at which point she probably saw him as practically an infant and pointed out their relation instead of mocking him as lesser blood).

I think we can make a case for intelligence and forsight based on her speech when she cleeves to Aragorn and the Standard.

I think she was reserved and probably submissive. Submissive used to be considered a virtue, and probably still should be. I think she did submit to Elrond and then transfered that submission to Aragorn.


----------



## Rhiannon

> Feminism grates on my nerves, for one thing, even when it has a point.


A whole 'nother cauldron of aquatic beings...*fights impulse to hijack thread* We'll have to have a conversation about this later...

I remain and will always remain annoyed by Arwen as a literary character because she is plain and simple _dull_. Kind of like Jane from _Pride and Prejudice_. We know that she is sweet, lets people push her around, and...that's it. Not particularly interesting next to the vibrant Lizzie. Or even Beth from _Little Women_. She's sweet, lets people push her around, and dies. Both of them are foils to a more interesting main character, but Arwen by her absence fails to do even that effectively.


----------



## Ravenna

> I don't think character should be measured on heroic warrior like fighting, but in a midievil - like setting, character WAS. Faramir was looked down upon for a lonnnng time simply because he was mroe peace loving than his brother.


I don't feel that this really applies in Arwen's case. It was a standard applied to men. In fact in many cases strong willed, warrior type women were not really appreciated in mediaeval times, (with a few exceptions suchas Eleanor of Aquitaine). Femininity was deemed to be the most desirable aspect, I mean, even intelligent women were scorned , at least publicly, right up to comparatively recent times, why else did female writers have to use male pen names in order to get published?

Feminism is one thing but militant feminism is quite another. Arwen certainly gets what she wants in the end, but instead of fighting physically, she uses passive resistance, she supports and encourages Aragorn. Why should she have to show herself equal to Aragorn physically in order to be considered worthy of him? Maybe he didn't want a wife who might take a sword to him if he upset her
 
By the time Aragorn became King, I would have thought he'd had enough strife and violence to last even his extended lifetime, maybe he wanted someone with whom he could relax and just be himself.
I certainly don't consider myself to be equal to men in all ways, certainly not physically, but I do expect to be treated as an equal intellectually, and I certainly don't feel that as a stay at home wife and mother I am less worthy than my husband who goes off to work each day. I do my bit just as Arwen did hers. It doesn't mean she didn't do anything, just that the things she did weren't the type of things that attract a lot of attention.


----------



## Elfhelm25

> She was delicate and feminine and not a fighter.



But what does she DO ? What does she think, what emotions does she ever express, besides a few expressionless sentences here and there ? She spun some cloth....well, that's a start. She's doing something at least. Then what ? ............

I think I got the quote thing working. Excccelent. 



> Also, if you think about it, it was a bit like sewing her wedding dress in front of her father. It says it was wrought in secret, doesn't it? Or perhaps I'm mixing it up with something else. . .I wonder if her father knew what she was sewing.



This is interesting. I wonder.....



> In fact in many cases strong willed, warrior type women were not really appreciated in mediaeval times



This is true, but Tolkien seemed to value a strong will in his female characters. ( Luthien, Galadriel, Eowyn, my semi goddess-wink wink ). Therefore I don't think Tolkien's work was 100% midievil. Therefore, Arwen paled completely in comparision!



> Why should she have to show herself equal to Aragorn physically in order to be considered worthy of him?



There are more ways to be active than by sword alone. Lots of important matters in war are dealt with behind the scenes. Arwen was about as active as a rock. Ok, a beautiful rock. 



> I certainly don't feel that as a stay at home wife and mother I am less worthy than my husband who goes off to work each day.



together with 




> Feminism grates on my nerves, for one thing, even when it has a point.



and as well


> Submissive used to be considered a virtue, and probably still should be.



I agree that a stay at home parent ( male or female ) is completely respectable and underrated ( My mum, my rock, is a prime example . ) I think ( in quick words as this is slightly off topic), that many ppp misjudge feminism as bra burning, male bashing, housewife scorning women. The true essence of feminism is the freedom to choose a life for oneself, without the hinderance of being born into a certain body. The ideal of feminine and masculine is lovely, hell, my mum would love to be a supportive wife. Sadly, it is an ideal, a lovely, middle class, suburban ideal that a large majority of men and women can never live up to due to economy, unfaithful relationships, and poverty. Dependance and submissiveness are lovely in ideals, in reality however, they are far less lovely. Sorry for my off topic-ness. 

Point being, Arwen was still waaayyy boring compared to all other female characters in tolkien, whom I found quite interesting, amusing, or uplifting in their own diverse ways. And as Arwen was basically the counter to Aragorn, she fell incredibly short in my opinion. Whew ! A mouthful.


----------



## Rhiannon

Elfhelm is on my good list 

Arwen was also, I believe, a late addition to the story. Tolkien added her to 1) provide a love interest for Aragorn and 2) to echo Luthien. She wasn't important enough to _him_ to spend more time on her character. Eowyn, on the other hand, is not only much more developed, but was a much older character in the evolution of the story. I think Eowyn mattered to Tolkien himself in a way Arwen did not.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Here are some interesting tidbits from the Letters:



> _Letter #154_
> But in this story it is supposed that there may be certain rare exceptions or accommodations (legitimately supposed? there always seem to be exceptions); and so certain 'mortals', who have played some great part in Elvish affairs, may pass with the Elves to Elvenhome. Thus Frodo ([color=sky blue]by the express gift of Arwen[/color]*) and Bilbo, and eventually Sam (as adumbrated by Frodo); and as a unique exception Gimli the Dwarf, as friend of Legolas and 'servant' of Galadriel.





> *It is not made explicit how she could arrange this. She could not of course just transfer her ticket on the boat like that! For any except those of Elvish race 'sailing West' was not permitted, and any exception required 'authority', and she was not in direct communication with the Valar, especially not since her choice to become 'mortal'. What is meant is that it was Arwen who first thought of sending Frodo into the West, and put in a plea for him to Gandalf (direct or through Galadriel, or both), and she used her own renunciation of the right to go West as an argument. Her renunciation and suffering were related to and enmeshed with Frodo's : both were parts of a plan for the regeneration of the state of Men. Her prayer might therefore be specially effective, and her plan have a certain equity of exchange. No doubt it was Gandalf who was the authority that accepted her plea. The Appendices show clearly that he was an emissary of the Valar, and virtually their plenipotentiary in accomplishing the plan against Sauron. He was also in special accord with Cirdan the Ship-master, who had surrendered to him his ring and so placed himself under Gandalf's command. Since Gandalf himself went on the Ship there would be so to speak no trouble either at embarking or at the landing.



This certainly adds a little bit to Arwen's 'greatness'.  

Another thing in Arwen's favour:



> _Letter #246_
> That appears to have been the judgement of Gandalf and Aragorn and of all who learned the full story of his journey. Certainly nothing would be concealed by Frodo! But what Frodo himself felt about the events is quite another matter.
> He appears at first to have had no sense of guilt (III 224-5);1 he was restored to sanity and peace. But then he thought that he had given his life in sacrifice: he expected to die very soon. But he did not, and one can observe the disquiet growing in him. [color=sky blue]Arwen was the first to observe the signs, and gave him her jewel for comfort, and thought of a way of healing him.[/color] Slowly he fades 'out of the picture', saying and doing less and less. I think it is clear on reflection to an attentive reader that when his dark times came upon him and he was conscious of being 'wounded by knife sting and tooth and a long burden' (III 268) it was not only nightmare memories of past horrors that afflicted him, but also unreasoning self-reproach: he saw himself and all that he done as a broken failure. 'Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same, for I shall not be the same.' That was actually a temptation out of the Dark, a last flicker of pride: desire to have returned as a 'hero', not content with being a mere instrument of good. And it was mixed with another temptation, blacker and yet (in a sense) more merited, for however that may be explained, he had not in fact cast away the Ring by a voluntary act: he was tempted to regret its destruction, and still to desire it. 'It is gone for ever, and now all is dark and empty', he said as he wakened from his sickness in 1420.
> 'Alas! there are some wounds that cannot be wholly cured', said Gandalf (III 268) – not in Middle-earth. Frodo was sent or allowed to pass over Sea to heal him – if that could be done, before he died. He would have eventually to 'pass away': no mortal could, or can, abide for ever on earth, or within Time. So he went both to a purgatory and to a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and in greatness, spent still in Time amid the natural beauty of 'Arda Unmarred', the Earth unspoiled by evil.
> Bilbo went too. No doubt as a completion of the plan due to Gandalf himself. Gandalf had a very great affection for Bilbo, from the hobbit's childhood onwards. His companionship was really necessary for Frodo's sake – it is difficult to imagine a hobbit, even one who had been through Frodo's experiences, being really happy even in an earthly paradise without a companion of his own kind, and Bilbo was the person that Frodo most loved. (Cf III 252 lines 12 to 21 and 263 lines 1-2.)2 But he also needed and deserved the favour on his own account. He bore still the mark of the Ring that needed to be finally erased : a trace of pride and personal possessiveness. Of course he was old and confused in mind, but it was still a revelation of the 'black mark' when he said in Rivendell (III 265) 'What's become of my ring, Frodo, that you took away?'; and when he was reminded of what had happened, his immediate reply was: 'What a pity! I should have liked to see it again'. As for reward for his pan, it is difficult to feel that his life would be complete without an experience of 'pure Elvishness', and the opportunity of hearing the legends and histories in full the fragments of which had so delighted him.
> [color=sky blue]It is clear, of course, that the plan had actually been made and concerted (by Arwen, Gandalf and others) before Arwen spoke.[/color] But Frodo did not immediately take it in;


----------



## Rhiannon

Really those just increase my feeling that Arwen is basically a plot convenience...


----------



## Inderjit S

*May your hemorrhoids shrink without surgery.*

Just like to make another post. I realise that my first posts in this thread seemed to be pretty pro-Arwen but I was just correcting inane arguments. I am neither wholly against or for Arwen, but I adore Éowyn. 

Why do I like Éowyn? Mainly, because she embodies (or nearly everything) that I would ever want in a woman. Her individualistic attitude, her rebellion against the narrow minded opinions of Men, her belief in herself, her strength of will and character, her stubborn disposition, her valour in standing up to the lord of the Nazgûl for the love of Théoden Ednew and her grace, dignity and kindness, which at times shined through her sexy, callous exterior. (Well she was callous to Faramir when she first met him, which I found annoying because Faramir was a beautiful and compassionate Man.)

Not that I’m saying Éowyn was perfect, far from it, she had her inherent flaws, but to me flaws are more attractive then perfection because to me, perfection is inhuman. (In the sense that it contradicts the very nature of Humans, imperfection) 

Éowyn of course was at times petulant, even foolish. Gandalf’s words to Éomer about Éowyn’s discernment in regards to Théoden’s illness and senility and the state of House of Eorl are echoed when Éowyn states;

“And yet it is good beyond all that I dared hope in the dark days, when it seemed that the House of Eorl had sunk in honour less then any shepherds cot”

Seemed to me to be rather petulant, though I can still sympathise with her anger at the demise in the health and state of mind of Théoden, and her inability to do anything about it. At least Théodred and Éomer could go to war (That is when Saruman’s intentions were known and his soldiers began to attack Rohan, Rohan was not at war with Mordor, as Éomer tells Aragorn despite the theft of their horses by Orks of Barad-dûr).

But Rohan I think Rohan was a lot like Gondor became in it’s latter days, as Beregond, Faramir and Denethor state, that warriors are held in high esteem, and prowess in battle are valued over nobility and wisdom. It must have been frustrating for Éowyn to sit in Edoras whilst Theoden became more and more senile and the pride of the House of Eorl withered. 

Yet, Éowyn seems to lose all hope when she realises that Aragorn will never lover her, and to me here we can see her weakness (which she tries her best to hide) and you are struck by a sense of tragedy, this poor woman will never be loved by the Man of her dreams. Though once can see a sense of fickleness in regard to her love for Aragorn, I think she loved his lordliness more, and I think that she may have looked to him as a substitute for the diminishing House of Eorl, and he was the means by which she could feel high and queenly, someone in authority “and you wished to have renown and glory and be lifted far above the mean things that crawl on the earth” as Faramir rather cynically puts it and at times she can be childish (when she requests for her to look Eastwards so she could be facing Aragorn, I couldn’t help but think “Aww, bless how CUTE!” yet she was a “lady high and valiant and have yourself won renown that shall not be forgotten” and “but she, born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours” and “Few other griefs amid the ill chances of the world have more bitterness and shame for a Man’s heart then to behold the love of a lady so fair and brave that cannot be returned”. What I like most about Éowyn is the complexity of her character, not only is she the ’cold lady of the Rohhirm’, but also the ‘wild shield maiden’, but at the same time she is strong, dignified and brave and I find such things more beautiful then physical beauty. You do not have to be pretty to be beautiful and Éowyn for her grace and dignity is to me the most beautiful woman in the book, I do not desire the grace of Arwen or beauty of Galadriel or the hairy feet of Rosie. 

Interestingly, Tolkien originally intended for Aragorn and Éowyn to get together (HoME 7; Treason of Isengard) and he also panned out several tragic endings to their love-affair but in the end he decided that Aragorn was to old and grim for Éowyn. (She comments on his grimness after he looks in the Palantír and is on his way to the Paths of the Dead) I think that having Arwen as the woman who ends up with Aragorn is more satisfactory for several reasons (Him going out in the wild, his perseverance in becoming King of Gondor, the union of the line of the Half-Elven) and also because I think that Faramir and Éowyns love is more true then Éowyn and Aragorn‘s. “But now, were you sorrow less, without fear or any lack were you blissful Queen of Gondor, still I would love you Éowyn” *sniff* (In the same way that Arwen was similar to Lúthien, Éowyn was similar to Morwen, her grand-mother, who married Thengel. (The Appendix and ‘Of Dwarves and Men’ (HoME 12) tell us that Thengel dwelt in Gondor for a long time, because he did not get along with his greedy father, Fengel.) 

In regards to feminism, I am in the rather unusual position of being a male Feminist. Though I dislike ‘radical feminism’ I sympathise with the views put forward by ’Marxist feminists’ and to a lesser extent ’liberal’ and ‘black feminists’ and I support the ideas of independence and self-dependence that Feminism promotes and the rights of women in a (by and large) patriarchal society. (Though at times my feminists friends can get annoying, whenever I say something stupid they say its “just like a Man” I really think that their movement can do without the paranoia about any idiotic statement that a Man makes. Everyone makes idiotic remarks, not just Men, and it is not some kind of patriarchal, sexist, machoisitc conspiracy). To me feminism is not about marching and voicing your disgust with Men, but about standing up for yourself, gaining a voice and taking pride in the fact that you are a woman. (Though one could argue that you don’t have to be a feminist to believe in those things, that is what in my eyes feminism stands for.)


----------



## Rhiannon

Inderjit is also on my good list 

Great comments, Inderjit...that's about as profound as I can get right now, but I did appreciate them.


----------



## Legolas_lover12

wow do u know how long it took me to read that whole thread? and inderjit is on my good list too.

arwen...well like we've sed she justs sits at home and has HOPE that everything will be ok. and yes she's an elven princess. who cares? not me. she never DID anything. i dont think that just being born makes u better than everyone else. 

feminists arent bad. they just want equal rights for women. yes some of them are paranoid... but ....well read everything Inderjit wrote and thats my post. gosh i finally read everything and inderjit takes everything im gonna say  lol. ok more from me later


----------



## HLGStrider

If what you're saying about feminism is true, however, none of the people thought of as feminists are feminists. The only true feminists are those who don't talk about it or attack men, but just lead their lives the way their morals, talents, wishes, etc tell them to and do what they need to do. However, these aren't what we see as far as feminism goes. I think it has become a tainted word that won't escape its taint, and that you need to find a new word.



> I remain and will always remain annoyed by Arwen as a literary character because she is plain and simple dull. Kind of like Jane from Pride and Prejudice.



Same author. Different character and book: Elenor, Sense and Sensibility (admits to only having watched the movie but I've also watched the entire eight tape Pride and Prejudice).

I think that is the better comparison. Eowyn isn't quite a Marianne, so don't think I'm making that comparison, but there is quite a bit of Elenor in Arwen. . .



> We know that she is sweet, lets people push her around, and...that's it.



We know that she is sweet and does not defy her father. That's about it.



> But what does she DO ? What does she think, what emotions does she ever express, besides a few expressionless sentences here and there ?



We don't know. We REALLY don't know. Last sentence includes a contradiction so I'm going to change it to "what does she ever express besides a few emotionless sentences here and there?" Is that what you meant?

The last we can list:
Kindness, fidelity, strength of will, patience, foresight, and hope.

Pretty good for the limited text.




> This is true, but Tolkien seemed to value a strong will in his female characters. ( Luthien, Galadriel, Eowyn, my semi goddess-wink wink )



From Ithy's quotes, I think he valued Arwen as well. 



> Sadly, it is an ideal, a lovely, middle class, suburban ideal that a large majority of men and women can never live up to due to economy, unfaithful relationships, and poverty.



Aren't econmony and poverty the same arguements? Unfaithfulness is obviously true. I think I could debate the economy issue pretty well (Did you hear the poverty rate is now set at 100,000 dollars a year for a family with three kids?. . .well, in a canidate debate canidates were asked to set the poverty level. The lowest anyone went was 60,000. My family is at 50,000 with soon to be five kids and one parent in the work force and my mom says we could survive on a lot less. . .brother. . .). I think a lot of women are led to believe they have to work due to this arguement when it really isn't true. There are exceptions and a LOT of single moms, but in general, money isn't a good reason for a mother to work.



> Dependance and submissiveness are lovely in ideals, in reality however, they are far less lovely. Sorry for my off topic-ness.



Dependence I never mentioned. Submissiveness I did, and I stand by it (and dependence to a father I definitely would until a girl is of age). 



> Really those just increase my feeling that Arwen is basically a plot convenience...



A lot of things are a plot convenience. I will go as far as to say that Tolkien didn't take the time to fill Arwen out, not because she was boring but because as the plot goes she was important only in name. There was no need for Arwen in the plot. She was simply the end of the line for Aragorn. Now, Aragorn needed a reward, an end of the line, more than just a crown. He needed a lady love. To introduce Arwen in more detail, after JRRT decided not to use Eowyn, would've taken away time from the plot. It would've changed the character of the book. I don't like that it is this way.I wish he'd had more time and more space to work on her, just as I wish we had more background information on Aragorn's early life, a better idea of what the heck happened to the Blue Wizards, etc.

But he didn't, and so we are left with an Arwen we really have to guess about. 

To me she's similar to the children I always make my characters have at the end of a book. To me children are a reward and a wonderful thing, and that the characters have them in the end is a plus for me that makes me feel all warm inside. However, I rarely develop them beyond names and comments such as "They had their mother's eyes and tongue and their father's patient nature" or something vague like that.

However, I think it would annoy me to no end if someone attacked my character's children as being bland, dull stereotypes only put there for plot or something or other and started comparing them to another child in the plot that had a key roll.

Arwen didn't have a key roll. That doesn't mean she didn't have worth.


----------



## Lúthien Séregon

I personally liked Eowyn a LOT more than Arwen. Arwen for me was one of those characters who was called great or wise, but showed no signs of it. She practically allowed her fate to be governed for her, by her father. In terms of plot, she only acted as a reward for Aragorn. Something in the Appendices seems to imply that her marriage to Aragorn was to symbolize the life of Luthien, whom Arwen was almost identical to:



> “So many have said,” she answered gravely. “Yet her name is not mine. Though maybe my doom will be not unlike hers.”



I’ve always had the idea that that was what Arwen was: simply a metaphor for the tale of Luthien that Tolkien always came back to. As a result, she doesn’t have a whole lot of depth to her, as Luthien’s life had already had a lot of impact on the Elves, and therefore all Arwen had to do was simply be her likeness in order to be held in high regard. At least Luthien actually aided Beren in the recapturing of the Silmaril - IMO, that's more of a sign of love than simply sitting around waiting for Aragorn to succeed.

Eowyn, on the other hand, was a woman with free-willed spirit and plenty of assertiveness. She knew what she wanted, and she wasn’t going to simply let her fate be governed by her situation. She was flawed, certainly, but that just made her all the more interesting. She had that conflict that she dealt with, and actually evolved in some way, as Elgee has noted ( Coldness & Defiance -> Despair & Sickness -> Happiness & Love ). That indicates a lot of strength, and not just of the warrior-kind either. Changing is a growth of the spirit. It is those flaws that trigger growth. So in a way, Eowyn showed signs of being stronger than Arwen both externally and internally, through facing her battles physically and changing to at last find happiness.

But Arwen didn’t change at all. She didn’t really have to face anything. She remained essentially the same character, which is never interesting text-wise. As a result, she just seems so fragile. Even when she was just sitting there, she had to have a canopy. What kind of character does not show any signs of growth and has a lot of depth at the same time?



> The only true feminists are those who don't talk about it or attack men, but just lead their lives the way their morals, talents, wishes, etc tell them to and do what they need to do.



That's so true, it is unfortunate that the term "feminism" has been equated with man-bashing, etc.



> (and dependence to a father I definitely would until a girl is of age).



What if a girl is in a position where she has no father?


----------



## Inderjit S

> If what you're saying about feminism is true, however, none of the people thought of as feminists are feminists



Really? You're stereotyping for no good reason. Some of the women who march, who shout anti-Male rhetoric are feminists in their own way, and just because they care to voice their disgust with Men doesn't mean they reject the positive (In my eyes) ideals that feminism promotes. 



> I think it has become a tainted word that won't escape its taint, and that you need to find a new word.



It has become tainted because a lot of Men are unwilling to support the promotion of women's rights as well as any negative effect women marching for freedom or being viciously anti-Men. The media can, naturally, perpetuate the problem, just like the media can perpetuate the threat posed to America by "terrorists", whether Communists or the neo-terrorist threats from the Middle-East. (The fact that when the "Commies" were the "threat" you were supporting these "Afghans etc." and their atrocities as well as many other corrupt governments is a political paradox that seems to have been lost on the patriotic American media.)

A lot of these extremist Feminists may have had negative experiences with Men in the past (abusive fathers, rape victims etc) and so they may feel an revulsion towards Men that they may find hard to shake off.



> I think a lot of women are led to believe they have to work due to this argument when it really isn't true



A lot of Women work because they want to not because of some subliminal government messages. Everyone has their own opinion on how "wealthy" they are and want to be. Some women are forced to work because they need the money, some for the pride and pleasure of having a job and some just to bring in that little bit more for the family. 

Facts are of course, _theory-dependent_ and circumstantial to the persons situation. What the government defines as poverty another person may define as affluence or vice-versa. 

If any of you are interested in Tolkien's views on women etc, then he is this *lengthy* quote from _Letter #43; Letters of Tolkien_ 



> Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit. And then things are going to happen: and they may be very painful and harmful, if things go wrong. Particularly if the young man only wanted a temporary guiding star and divinity (until he hitches his waggon to a brighter one), and was merely enjoying the flattery of sympathy nicely seasoned with a titillation of sex – all quite innocent, of course, and worlds away from 'seduction'
> You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don't refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy 'conquests', or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of 'love'. A young woman, even one 'economically independent', as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the 'bottom drawer' and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks. Anyway women are in general much less romantic and more practical. Don't be misled by the fact that they are more 'sentimental' in words – freer with 'darling', and all that. They do not want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don't really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it. If they have any delusion it is that they can 'reform' men.


 _Letter #43; Letters of Tolkien_ 

And also on Faramir and Éowyn’s love:



> Eowyn: It is possible to love more than one person (of the other sex) at the same time, but in a different mode and intensity. I do not think that Éowyn’s feelings for Aragorn really changed much; and when he was revealed as so lofty a figure, in descent and office, she was able to go on loving and admiring him. He was old, and that is not only a physical quality: when not accompanied by any physical decay age can be alarming or awe-inspiring. Also she was not herself ambitious in the true political sense. Though not a 'dry nurse' in temper, she was also not really a soldier or 'amazon', but like many brave women was capable of great military gallantry at a crisis.


 _Letter #244; Letters of Tolkien_


----------



## Elfhelm25

Wow, everyone is coming up with strong and intelligent arguments ! it's really interesting to read. I for one make it known my actual sex ( for who really knows who's female and male online moohahhhahaha), and don't care to find out what sex other people are. To me it is one of the beauties of the internet- you have to listen to people's words and not have male or female have any influence on them. 
Inderhit S is also on my "good"list!!!!!



> think a lot of women are led to believe they have to work due to this argument when it really isn't true



To me this indiactes an ignorance of the world. It depends on what the situation of the woman you're talking to is. I doubt you could tell a woman who has been left alone with five young children to raise that the job of provider belongs to the man. Men are human, and so are women, and do not live up to these ideals. However, the children are the ones who suffer from these views. Just look at the number of one parent famalies WORLDWIDE. Every religion, every culture, has this as a reality despite their ideals and despite what they allow the world to see. Views such as where women belong( and where men belong) disable famalies when they are not lived up to . And it's not a rare occurence that should be swept under the carpet. That's life for a LOT of people. I agree, material possessions are considered success in my society, although there is much more to success. I call myself a humanist, not a feminist, but I hold to many values of feminism nonetheless. I don't think any human has the right to tell any other human other than themself what their place should be. What a person chooses, be it a stay at home PARENT, or to follow ambition, or to love and nurture, or attempt all three, is a ok to me. Masculinity and femininity are social creations. I know because I possess many "feminine" and "masculine" traits, as does everyone, if they admit it to themselves. 

In response to Tolkien's thoughts on women, well, to each his or her own. Tolkien is brilliant but he's not perfect, as his thoughts prove. That's ok by me. I love reading what he says anyways. It doesn't mean his thoughts influence me more than my own. 

Anyhoo, very interesting points of view on all sides, everyone !


----------



## Rhiannon

> If what you're saying about feminism is true, however, none of the people thought of as feminists are feminists. The only true feminists are those who don't talk about it or attack men, but just lead their lives the way their morals, talents, wishes, etc tell them to and do what they need to do. However, these aren't what we see as far as feminism goes. I think it has become a tainted word that won't escape its taint, and that you need to find a new word.



Not true *resisting urge to hijack thread! Resisting!* Is there another thread we can go discuss our views on feminism legitimately? 



> Same author. Different character and book: Elenor, Sense and Sensibility (admits to only having watched the movie but I've also watched the entire eight tape Pride and Prejudice).



Elenor was also less interesting in the book. She _had_ to be interesting in the movie because she was played by Emma Thompson.


----------



## HLGStrider

> What if a girl is in a position where she has no father?



Then she obviously can't be dependant on him, so the question of dependency on a father is moot. 



> Really? You're stereotyping for no good reason. Some of the women who march, who shout anti-Male rhetoric are feminists in their own way, and just because they care to voice their disgust with Men doesn't mean they reject the positive (In my eyes) ideals that feminism promotes.



I'm stereotypinig for a very good reason. I know a lot of women who, by the standards of thirty years ago, are feminists, who hate feminism because of the above. Feminism has been hijacked by a vocal minority, that isn't going to let it go. Therefore, I return to my original point: Feminism irks me even when it has a point. It's like having to agree with a person you don't like.



> A lot of Women work because they want to not because of some subliminal government messages.



I don't know where I mentioned the government. All I know is that I always hear this listed as a reason why women work when they don't want to work. . .by women, generally. So either they feel guilty for working (due to whatever reason) and are making it up, or they have been fooled, because generally, this isn't the case.



> To me this indiactes an ignorance of the world.



I wasn't going to argue this worldwide, however. I think that there are going to be obvious exceptions world wide. In some countries it is still legally determined whether a woman can work or not. I think these should be limited out of the discussion. . .and obviously, things are different in less developed countries. I was speaking generally, and GASP about my own country. I don't know enough about economics whereever you live to be able to judge that. I know a bit about American economics, and I know that very few married women with an employeed husband should have to work. I think I said there were exceptions, but in most cases, it just isn't true.



> I doubt you could tell a woman who has been left alone with five young children to raise that the job of provider belongs to the man.



Obviously, this is an exception. I think this even falls under your infidelity clause that I yeilded in the first bout. . .unless he died. 



> Just look at the number of one parent famalies WORLDWIDE.



One parent families are another obvious exception. However, it is sad how they are becoming the norm. It makes it much harder for women and DEPRIVES them of any choice. 

I wonder if anyone else sees the rising divorce rate as a blow to women's freedom. I didn't until just now. . .



> Masculinity and femininity are social creations.



This has been argued on the forum before. I believe that there is male and female spiritually as well as physically.



> Elenor was also less interesting in the book. She had to be interesting in the movie because she was played by Emma Thompson.



My sister likes Elenor better, but that's because my sister exists to stamp out everything that isn't color coordinated. . .

I never said Arwen was as interesting as Eowyn. She was undoubtably not as interesting. I'm just saying she was worthy of Aragorn and that it is ridiculous how much Arwen bashing go's on.


----------



## jimmyboy

> Masculinity and femininity are social creations.


This is the kind of thinking that comes about when people spend too much time in the university and/or watching too much TV, and not enough time in the real world.
 

After having lived, worked, and studied in a university environment for twelve years, I've come to the conclusion that every university should be strictly quarantined. Anything and anyone that goes within the boundaries of the campus, including all communication, written or otherwise, should be kept within the bounds of the institution. The only people that should be let off the campus for any reason at all are those who've proved that they have a grip on reality, and have learned to be un-selfish, humble, and sensible. Furthermore, nobody under the age of, say thirty, should be allowed to enroll, and even then only after they've demonstrated that they've lived a normal life (working, paying their bills, being law-abiding, etc) as much as they are able. This would prevent them being brainwashed and fooled by those foolish professors.

I'm telling you, universities are looney bins, and the inmates are running the asylum.


----------



## Elfhelm25

This is one of those topics that I find quickly gets out of hand. I prolly should have stopped it before my last post, so , sorry everyone for continued ramblings. I think it's safe to say that this is a topic with a lot of different views and that no one view is "right" and there are tons of analogies that can be used to argue either side. Basically, to put all my thoughts into one clear thought:all people deserve to have the right to decide what they want to do with their own life and not be told by anyone else what their "place " is. All people. Guys and girls. People can look upon it how they wish, but all in all people should get to decide for themselves. And that's all I'll say to that. Again, I apologise for getting way off topic and hope I've set myself completely straight. Thanks, and have a good day everyone!


----------



## laurelindorenan

Wow! Some really intelligent answers and discussions being made here! I think its really great how we can all discuss things like this. This has meandered a little away from the original point though. I have to say, in Eowyn vs. Arwen, I would pick Eowyn, definitely, although I can see that Aragorns heart is always with Arwen. I can also see that it is not just a superficial crush or infatuation, like Eowyn. Luckily she got over it, and lived most happily!


----------



## Rhiannon

> I never said Arwen was as interesting as Eowyn. She was undoubtably not as interesting. I'm just saying she was worthy of Aragorn and that it is ridiculous how much Arwen bashing go's on.


Not half as ridiculous as the Eowyn-bashing I'm forced to endure, thank-you. Funny how they shut up when I respond, though- and in such arguments I'm generally the only one backing myself up with the text. 

I want to discuss feminism, but not in here..._is_ there another thread, or does someone need to go start one? Arwen's passivity annoys me, and this is tied to my ideas about feminism, but I feel talking about that would pull this thread even more off-topic than it is already, because it goes in to gender roles and all of that. I kind of feel we need to move out of the book section and into S&B for this.


----------



## HLGStrider

> all people deserve to have the right to decide what they want to do with their own life and not be told by anyone else what their "place " is.



I think modern feminism isn't about this. . .and it wasn't what I was talking about. 



> Not half as ridiculous as the Eowyn-bashing I'm forced to endure, thank-you.



A lot of them just do it to get your goat. You know that, don't you? 



> Arwen's passivity annoys me, and this is tied to my ideas about feminism, but I feel talking about that would pull this thread even more off-topic than it is already, because it goes in to gender roles and all of that.



I think passivity is a personality trait. Some people are passive by nature. It seems to be one of those more common in females, but I wouldnt' call it a feminine trait. . . I know passive males.

There are people who will automatically do something when something comes up. There are wait and see people. There are people who accept that they can't do anything (which I'm still convinced Arwen couldn't have without violating everything she was). There people who being helpless would drive insane.

Etc.

I think Arwen would be a very good person to be with when there was nothing left to do but wait and see. She would keep you from going crazy. It probably helped Aragorn when the palace janitors were on strike.


----------



## Rhiannon

It's perfectly fine for passivity to be a personality trait- but it still annoys me. That is the title of this thread. I, personally, do not like Arwen because I, personally, am driven mad by her passivity.


----------



## Helcaraxë

Thorin, I'm far too lazy to actually find your quote, but Elves, contrary to what you say, are not the greatest created beings. That honor goes to the Ainur.

Besides, I believe Aragorn is very much good enough for Arwen. He is a direct descendent of the line of Numenor. He is wise, kingly, proud, strong-willed and mighty. Arwen, though she may be older, wiser and more compassionate, is not even close to matching Aragorn's power of leadership, and certainly not his martial prowess. Just because she's an elf doesn't automatically make her greater than any Man.

--MB


----------



## HLGStrider

I think Aragorn is good enough for Arwen as well. . .I'd marry the guy in a heart beat. 

Anyway . . .One thing Arwen definitely is is queenly. 

She inspired awe, admiration, and respect just from being looked at. We can either assume this was just because she was beautiful, or that it went deeper, but it seems pretty undeniable from the way everyone reacted to her.

Aragorn would've wanted a queenly queen.


----------



## laurelindorenan

> _Originally posted by Rhiannon _
> *Not half as ridiculous as the Eowyn-bashing I'm forced to endure, thank-you. Funny how they shut up when I respond, though- and in such arguments I'm generally the only one backing myself up with the text.
> 
> I want to discuss feminism, but not in here...is there another thread, or does someone need to go start one? Arwen's passivity annoys me, and this is tied to my ideas about feminism, but I feel talking about that would pull this thread even more off-topic than it is already, because it goes in to gender roles and all of that. I kind of feel we need to move out of the book section and into S&B for this. *



Wohoo! Go Rhiannon! I think its a very good idea to start a new forum (that is, if you cant find an existing one), and it is admirable how you support your arguements. And yes, I do not believe this is just a case of feminism, because it is a case of how you feel about a race or certain character anyway.
I think the title of this thread is bit too aggressive to be justified, unless a good arguement is made to back it up.

(by the way, could you inform me when that feminism thread is up, Rhiannon?)


----------



## Rhiannon

Thanks, laurelindorenan.  I don't know if there's really enough interest to start a thread on feminism, but we can try. I'm always curious about other people's reactions to it, anyway. Watch S&B! I'll probably start one there.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Funny, feminism is what makes me dislike Eowyn, even when I don't want to.

She's overused as their cannon fodder....

Tolkien most likely would've disagreed with Feminism, especially their use of *his* character for their ideas.)

The only thing I hate more is when they use St. Joan of Arc.

(Hey, she's a _Catholic_ saint! Give 'er back!!!) 

Feminism is just a long sated plan to divide Men and Women.

I'm glad I read this article though. As a fantasy author who feels himself alike to Tolkien, I'll be sure to write my characters in a way that honors femininity while making my characters independent.

When my books are published, I'll let Rhi give her essays. I'm dying to have her read them some day, i'm considering writing them in a way where the fans have nothing more good to say about them and the dislikers have a hard time saying anything!)

(Masculinity and Femininity are not social constructs, they are the way Men and Women ARE, sorry to burst your modern bubble.)

CL



P.S. Good thread.


----------



## PaigeSinclaire88

See? I highly disagree.

Sure we dont know much about Arwen, yes that is true. But we are meant to believe that she is the reincarnation of Luthien, the most beautiful of the Elves. We know she is Elrond's daughter, therefore making her royalty. We know she has a rebellious nature and isn't afraid to not follow the rest of the Elves and refuses to conform, which speaks to her character. 

On the second point, NO Eowyn didn't deserve Aragorn more, mainly because it would have messed up the notion of her being the reincarnated Luthien. In the books, if I recall right Arwen was more of a warrior princess and wasn't afraid to fight in to battle if needed. 
Now in the movies they didn't portray her this way which makes no sense too me. I guess Jackson only wanted one warrior princess. In my opinion the fact that Eowyn knew Aragorn was in love and by all means taken, her trying to be with him was wrong. Ethically she should not have even tried to separate them. It shows lack of honor in my opinion. 

And I agree, in Appendix A I felt as if there was a bunch that should have been in it. As if some part was deleted.


----------



## Persephone

Saucy said:


> join me now...may all anti Arwen's unite?!!!
> 
> 1.> she does nothing other then sit around and have "HOPE" that things work out!!!! if i was her, i'd be there fight along Aragorn's side.
> 
> 2.>She is so forlorn, like really id be way happier then she is if i was a gazillion (exageration) yr's old and still looked that good
> 
> 3.> Eowyn diserved aragorn WAY more but stupid arwen stood in her way!
> 
> 
> i posted this in the book section because i felt this way about her when i read the books...but even in the movie i cant STAND her cause pj has taken her annoying hated qualities and multiplied them a gazillion times




I kind-of-sort-of agree with this idea. I mean, Arwen was really useless in the book, and while they extended her role in the movies (replacing Glorfindel), she was still a bit useless... at least Eowyn killed the Witchking of Angmar.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

My, these old threads keep popping up at the bottom of the page. I'm beginning to suspect there's some sort of Algorithm Troll at work, always trying to stir the pot; not to mention goad me into another necropost -- something I find as difficult to resist as the temptation of the Ring!

I'll surrender to temptation (again) to try to address the subject. Female characters in romance can have various roles, of course; one important one is to be the counterpart of "wise old man", the White Queen to his White King, to use a chess analogy. Their opposites, the Black King and Queen, are the Dark Magician and Evil Witch.

As the function of the senex is to set the action in motion, and then retreat to allow the protagonist to make his way, so hers is to watch over the action at a distance, as a benevolent mother-figure, sometimes in the role of sibyll, like Galadriel with her Mirror.

These female characters seem to be more connected to the natural cycle, especially the lunar cycle, than male characters, and often appear to open and close the "cycle" of the story. They can function at any level: on the mythical plane, for instance, we notice how Elbereth appears in the song sung by the first Elves Frodo encounters; she reappears in the episode that closes the story, as does her romance-mode counterpart, Galadriel.

Another form of this character is as a bride, a Solveig-figure, on whose behalf the quest is undertaken; she will normally be introduced at the beginning, then wait patiently for the hero's journey to be completed, when she will reappear to close the cycle.

Arwen is the most obvious character of this type, and whether you like her or not depends, I guess, on how willing you are to accept the convention.

Again, this figure can operate at any level. In the children's fairy tale of The Hobbit, for example, her role is taken by Bag End, the female attributes of which no one could miss. In fact, "she" combines the two aspects, appearing as mother at the beginning of the story, to which the rather infantile Bilbo is still attached by the symbolic umbilical cord of the pipe he sucks, and at the end, as the "bride" he saves from desecration by usurpers.

This is all very well in a children's story, but would seem out of place and disturbing, even somewhat perverse, in the far more adult world of LOTR; and in fact her role as bride-mother is almost immediately taken over, on the return to the Shire, by Rosie Cotton.

One problem in romance with making this figure the hero's potential or oath-sworn bride is that it severely limits his adventures with the other female characters he encounters on his quest, particularly the ones he rescues from "fates worse than death", who often seem to be tied naked to trees, for some reason.

One way of getting around this is shown by the 19th century wtiters whose work was influenced by romance. They commonly present two heroines, one dark, one light. The dark one, to use Northrope Frye's description, is "passionate, haughty ,plain, foreign, or Jewish, and in some way associated with the undesirable or with some kind of forbidden fruit like incest". When both are associated with the hero, the dark one must be gotten rid of, or converted into some other relationship, if the story is to end happily. Otherwise the story can become a tragedy, as it does in the tale of Turin, who chooses the dark one, who turns out to be his sister.

It is worth noting that Tolkien reverses this light/dark duality in Aragorn's story. The reason for this may have had to do with the fact that his wife was dark-haired, and as we know, he modelled Luthien, Arwen's forbear, on her. But in the context of the story, it was associated with redeeming the darkness and night.

I guess the significance of this breaking with long convention on the part of Tolkien is not as recognized as much as it should be. Which is not to say he was the first to do so: Dickens did it in David Copperfield, one of his most autobiographical novels. (In that one, the light character dies).

In any event, Tolkien resolves the dilemma of the polarization of the "Lady of Duty" and the (at least potential) "Lady of Pleasure" by marrying off the latter. But it is notable that Aragorn has already repudiated her, refusing the temptation to break faith, though "temptation" is probably too strong a word. It is a resolution in the direction of the moral; a "Christian" resolution, you could say.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> My, these old threads keep popping up at the bottom of the page. I'm beginning to suspect there's some sort of Algorithm Troll at work, always trying to stir the pot; not to mention goad me into another necropost -- something I find as difficult to resist as the temptation of the Ring!
> 
> I'll surrender to temptation (again) to try to address the subject. Female characters in romance can have various roles, of course; one important one is to be the counterpart of "wise old man", the White Queen to his White King, to use a chess analogy. Their opposites, the Black King and Queen, are the Dark Magician and Evil Mother.
> 
> As the function of the senex is to set the action in motion, and then retreat to allow the protagonist to make his way, so hers is to watch over the action at a distance, as a benevolent mother-figure, sometimes in the role of sibyll, like Galadriel with her Mirror.
> 
> These female characters seem to be more connected to the natural cycle, especially the lunar cycle, than male characters, and often appear to open and close the "cycle" of the story. They can function at any level: on the mythical plane, for instance, we notice how Elbereth appears in the song sung by the first Elves Frodo encounters; she reappears in the episode that closes the story, as does her romance-mode counterpart, Galadriel.
> 
> Another form of this character is as a bride, a Solveig-figure, on whose behalf the quest is undertaken; she will normally be introduced at the beginning, then wait patiently for the hero's journey to be completed, when she will reappear to close the cycle.
> 
> Arwen is the most obvious character of this type, and whether you like her or not depends, I guess, on how willing you are to accept the convention.
> 
> Again, this figure can operate at any level. In the children's fairy tale of The Hobbit, for example, her role is taken by Bag End, the female attributes of which no one could miss. In fact, "she" combines the two aspects, appearing as mother at the beginning of the story, to which the rather infantile Bilbo is still attached by the symbolic umbilical cord of the pipe he sucks, and at the end, as the "bride" he saves from desecration by usurpers.
> 
> This is all very well in a children's story, but would seem out of place and disturbing, even somewhat perverse, in the far more adult world of LOTR; and in fact her role as bride-mother is almost immediately taken over, on the return to the Shire, by Rosie Cotton.
> 
> One problem in romance with making this figure the hero's potential or oath-sworn bride is that it severely limits his adventures with the other female characters he encounters on his quest, particularly the ones he rescues from "fates worse than death", who often seem to be tied naked to trees, for some reason.
> 
> One way of getting around this is shown by the 19th century wtiters whose work was influenced by romance. They commonly present two heroines, one dark, one light. The dark one, to use Northrope Frye's description, is "passionate, haughty ,plain, foreign, or Jewish, and in some way associated with the undesirable or with some kind of forbidden fruit like incest". When both are associated with the hero, the dark one must be gotten rid of, or converted into some other relationship, if the story is to end happily. Otherwise the story can become a tragedy, as it does in the tale of Turin, who chooses the dark one, who turns out to be his sister.
> 
> It is notable that Tolkien reverses this light/dark duality in Aragorn's story. The reason for this may have had to do with the fact that his wife was dark-haired, and as we know, he modelled Luthien, Arwen's forbear, on her. But in the context of the story, it was associated with redeeming the darkness and night.
> 
> I guess the significance of this breaking with long convention on the part of Tolkien is not as recognized as much as it should be. Which is not to say he was the first to do so: Dickens did it in David Copperfield, one of his most autobiographical novels. In that one, the light character dies.
> 
> In any event, Tolkien resolves the dilemma of the polarization of the "Lady of Duty" and the (at least potential) "Lady of Pleasure" by marrying off the latter. But it is notable that Aragorn has already repudiated her, refusing the temptation to break faith, though "temptation" is probably too strong a word. It is a resolution in the direction of the moral; a "Christian" resolution, you could say.



Wow, these posts of yours just keep getting better! I am enjoying them heartily.

CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

CL, you're either a person of rarified and discerning judgment, or a glutton for punishment.

I'm not sure which. 

But thanks for the compliment!


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> CL, you're either a person of rarified and discerning judgment, or a glutton for punishment.
> 
> I'm not sure which.
> 
> But thanks for the compliment!


I could be both....

But you're welcome!

CL


----------



## Rilien

I agree with CL. I have really enjoyed the discussion on this forum of late, largely thanks to SES's posts (among others).



Rilien said:


> I agree with CL. I have really enjoyed the discussion on this forum of late, largely thanks to SES's posts (among others).



ps: I don't hate Arwen.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Gosh, thanks (I think this forum needs a "blush" emoji!).

Things should pick up, here and elsewhere, when the new series starts. I'm hoping it will spark renewed interest in the books.*

I notice there always seem to be a large number of people viewing the forum as "guests". I wonder what they're looking for, and if they find it. Hey, everyone! If you don't see it, why not register and tell us? You'll be adding to the discussion.


*And not just heated arguments about who the "hottest" actor/actress is.


----------



## Halasían

Why I 'don't' hate Arwen:

She is the evenstar of the Edain, most beautiful but for Luthien, the morning star. The tale as told in Lord of the Rings and Appendix B is so heartwarming even as it is sad.

The PJ fanfic movies didn't do Arwen justice by casting Liv Tyler and bloating out the tale so much.

And being part of many a forum through the first two decades of this century, I have to say this one is showing the most activity.


----------



## Ithilethiel

Thorin said:


> I hope I don't sound sexist or male chauvinistic here...
> 
> You misunderstand the nature of the Elves. The Elves are supposed to be stand-offish and secluded. They are the highest created beings. They were written to be mysterious, deep and old. The ways of man don't concern them to much anymore. Arwen is that 'put on a pedastal' type of woman. The whole point of Aragorn's quest to fulfill his destiny as king is to 'earn' Arwen. The fact is, is that Aragorn _doesn't_ deserve Arwen. The Elves are far above any man. Arwen not involving herself is what makes her all the more desirable to a mortal man.
> 
> Eowyn is 'every woman'. She's mortal and more like Aragorn, no doubt. But she is not Elven and does not have the kinship that Aragorn has with the Elves. Aragorn and Arwen's love is a deep love, not a surface crush.
> 
> By involving Arwen in everything like PJ did, he made Arwen as 'every woman', rather than the 'unreachable prize'.
> 
> Sheesh, that really sounds piggish doesn't it?



No, it doesn't sound piggish at all. It sounds as if it is written by someone who undetstands Tolkien and his characters quite well. And not just on the surface but deep down. Bravo for understanding their relationship and the relationship of elves and men as Tolkien intended.

The story is not some modern romance. It is ages old and not intended to be examined minutely under today's post modern he vs she microscopic struggle. Sheesh indeed!


----------



## st0rmb0rn

Arwen is my favourite. It's not her fault she's based on the troupe of a fairytale princess.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

st0rmb0rn said:


> Arwen is my favourite. It's not her fault she's based on the troupe of a fairytale princess.


Welcome to the Forum, St0rmb0rn! 



CL


----------



## Ithilethiel

Halasían said:


> Why I 'don't' hate Arwen:
> 
> She is the evenstar of the Edain, most beautiful but for Luthien, the morning star. The tale as told in Lord of the Rings and Appendix B is so heartwarming even as it is sad.
> 
> The PJ fanfic movies didn't do Arwen justice by casting Liv Tyler and bloating out the tale so much.
> 
> And being part of many a forum through the first two decades of this century, I have to say this one is showing the most activity.



Ahhh, the legend of Beren and Lúthien and to be _Evenstar of the Eldar_ <sigh>


----------



## BalrogRingDestroyer

Saucy said:


> well really i cant see what makes elves so great cause realy isnt everyone equal? and besides that how can pointy ers be attractive?
> 
> now Eowyn...aragorn doesnt deserve her, man should desire an independent women who will fight for what she believes in and is strong and will ful.
> 
> but i guess tolkien didnt agree with me there/



Um, didn't Eowyn marry Farmir? I think Faramir might have something to say if Aragorn tried to get her to marry him. Considering that Aragorn wanted a peaceful transition with the Steward of Gondor, ticking off Faramir by trying to take his woman would be a VERY bad move.

Though I cannot say for sure, I though that Arwen and Aragorn were both somehow related to Beren and Luthien and that they were the first to be married in that bloodline since Beren and Luthien themselves and also the only Elf/Human marriage where an Elf gave up their immortality to marry a mortal man. 

When you give up your immortality to be with someone, I think that's a pretty strong commitment if you ask me.


----------



## Rána

Squinty:

That might be my favorite forum post of all time because almost every single sentence makes me want to spin off into a quote-reply type comment.

I guess the specific line that I would comment on most directly:


Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Again, this figure can operate at any level. In the children's fairy tale of The Hobbit, for example, her role is taken by Bag End, the female attributes of which no one could miss. In fact, "she" combines the two aspects, appearing as mother at the beginning of the story, to which the rather infantile Bilbo is still attached by the symbolic umbilical cord of the pipe he sucks, and at the end, as the "bride" he saves from desecration by usurpers.


Wow... that really shines a whole other wavelength of light on The Scouring of the Shire for me in _Lord or the Rings_.


Generally towards the rest. There's a section in The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II) section of _Morgoth's Ring _that's stood out to me:
In all such things, not concerned with the bringing forth of children, the _neri_ and _nissi_ (that is, the men and women) of the Eldar are equal - unless it be in this (as they themselves say) that for the _nissi_ the making things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children, so that invention and change is otherwise mostly brought about by the _neri_. There are, however, no matters which among the Eldar only a _nér_ can think or do, or others which only a _nís_ is concerned. There are indeed some differences between the natural inclinations of _neri_ and _nessi_, and other differences that have been established by custom ... But all these things, and other matters of labour and play, or of deeper knowledge concerning being and the life of the World, may at different times be pursued by any among the Noldor, be they _neri_ or _nissi_. (213-14)​
Obviously that's pointed to a pretty specific group, but it has still left me with the idea that all things are generally equal (in theory) in the realm of Eä. The chief difference arises in the way that the Middle-earth mythology aligns itself with other classical mythologies. Because, personally, (to dive into my more vulgar day-to-day speech) I've generally thought the stories of Middle-earth to be a bit of a sausage-fest.

There are great women characters once you move beyond _LotR_ and _The Hobbit _(I'm not trying to disregard the women in _LotR_, I'm just trying to keep post length down)... I'm trying to get around to the statement that it's not that I don't like Arwen, I just think it's easy for her to get lost in the events of the story because not much is written about her during the War of the Ring. But I've generally held her in high regard because of the way she's compared to Lúthien Tinúviel: her connection to Galadriel and the House of Finarfin: and that Aragorn is deeding his way through Middle-earth hoping that she'll be at the end of it all.

Yet, despite the fact that I think it's "easy for her to get lost" in the story... there are two specific points in the legendarium where I still get highly emotional and misty-eyed after all these years.
1) The death of Huan.
2) The end of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A of _LotR._​


----------



## Ithilethiel

BalrogRingDestroyer said:


> Though I cannot say for sure, I though that Arwen and Aragorn were both somehow related to Beren and Luthien and that they were the first to be married in that bloodline since Beren and Luthien themselves and also the only Elf/Human marriage where an Elf gave up their immortality to marry a mortal man.
> 
> When you give up your immortality to be with someone, I think that's a pretty strong commitment if you ask me.



There are three such unions recorded between the Edain and the Eldar. It is why there are half-elven. They are,

Idril and Tuor
Lúthien and Beren
Arwen and Aragorn



Rána said:


> Squinty:
> 
> That might be my favorite forum post of all time because almost every single sentence makes me want to spin off into a quote-reply type comment.
> 
> I guess the specific line that I would comment on most directly:
> 
> Wow... that really shines a whole other wavelength of light on The Scouring of the Shire for me in _Lord or the Rings_.
> 
> 
> Generally towards the rest. There's a section in The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II) section of _Morgoth's Ring _that's stood out to me:
> In all such things, not concerned with the bringing forth of children, the _neri_ and _nissi_ (that is, the men and women) of the Eldar are equal - unless it be in this (as they themselves say) that for the _nissi_ the making things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children, so that invention and change is otherwise mostly brought about by the _neri_. There are, however, no matters which among the Eldar only a _nér_ can think or do, or others which only a _nís_ is concerned. There are indeed some differences between the natural inclinations of _neri_ and _nessi_, and other differences that have been established by custom ... But all these things, and other matters of labour and play, or of deeper knowledge concerning being and the life of the World, may at different times be pursued by any among the Noldor, be they _neri_ or _nissi_. (213-14)​
> Obviously that's pointed to a pretty specific group, but it has still left me with the idea that all things are generally equal (in theory) in the realm of Eä. The chief difference arises in the way that the Middle-earth mythology aligns itself with other classical mythologies. Because, personally, (to dive into my more vulgar day-to-day speech) I've generally thought the stories of Middle-earth to be a bit of a sausage-fest.
> 
> There are great women characters once you move beyond _LotR_ and _The Hobbit _(I'm not trying to disregard the women in _LotR_, I'm just trying to keep post length down)... I'm trying to get around to the statement that it's not that I don't like Arwen, I just think it's easy for her to get lost in the events of the story because not much is written about her during the War of the Ring. But I've generally held her in high regard because of the way she's compared to Lúthien Tinúviel: her connection to Galadriel and the House of Finarfin: and that Aragorn is deeding his way through Middle-earth hoping that she'll be at the end of it all.
> 
> Yet, despite the fact that I think it's "easy for her to get lost" in the story... there are two specific points in the legendarium where I still get highly emotional and misty-eyed after all these years.
> 1) The death of Huan.
> 2) The end of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A of _LotR._​



So well said!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Thanks, Rana, for the kind words.

Yes, the treatment of Bag End is similar in both books, but where in The Hobbit Bilbo's return halts a symbolic "rape" of the bride-figure, in LOTR it takes on greater significance: it is more in line with a "ritual of desecration" as the Encyclopedia of Fantasy has it, perpetrated as a deliberate and senseless act of petty revenge by Saruman, emblem and centerpiece, both of the larger desecration of the Shire, and the destruction and ruin of many beautiful things and peoples in the War. And, I would guess, the "real" world, affected by Tolkien's own experiences.

And of course, in LOTR, when the heroes return, the desecration has, significantly, already happened; Bilbo has only the inconvenience of buying back some of his belongings; the hobbits of LOTR, symbolized by Sam, must turn to the low mimetic world of hard labor and restoration, however eased by Sam's box of "magic dust".

As to your other point, yes indeed-- there are many important female characters in the larger cycle. I think of the bravery of Luthien especially, but also of Queen Tar-Miriel, "fairer than silver or ivory or pearls", drowned in the final moments of Numenor while attempting to climb to the holy place on Meneltarma.

And who could not have sympathy for Erendis, the Mariner's Wife, doomed to wait in loneliness, while her husband is off on yet another "sausage-fest", as you so colorfully put it?

Or even Queen Beruthiel, though admittedly her reaction took some extreme forms.

Indeed, the theme appears often enough that I have to wonder if it had to do with some guilt Tolkien may have felt toward Edith; by all accounts, she felt isolated and unhappy in Oxford.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Indeed, the theme appears often enough that I have to wonder if it had to do with some guilt Tolkien may have felt toward Edith; by all accounts, she felt isolated and unhappy in Oxford.


Wow. Never thought of it that way...

CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

As I say, it's mere speculation on my part. But still. . .


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> As I say, it's mere speculation on my part. But still. . .


I have heard of it before in my research, though. So, there's that...

CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

This thread, one resurrected by Ithilethiel, and another older one make me want to add something perhaps a bit more "practical".

Some of the older posts here stem from the fact that the character of Arwen seems undeveloped, compared to Eowyn, and the reasons for that have been explored, one of course being that she was a late addition to the story. Another is that LOTR is hobbit-centric; as we know from the famous letter to Auden, when Aragorn entered the story, Tolkien himself had no idea who he was.

He tried to fill in the "back-story" with the Tale, but the fact remains that in the body of the text,despite her introduction in Rivendell, and her interactions with Frodo in Minas Tirith, she remains something of a cipher, especially as contrasted with Eowyn.

I'm going to say something here that, from a Tolkien lover, may sound heretical: that given his powers of description, sometimes even the Master himself comes up a little short, especially with characters. I'll limit myself to Arwen here, though, and just say that his picture of her fails, in my opinion, to render her in a way that reaches his conception. Or I should say, what I believe was his conception.

Thinking about it, I feel this judgement, though I make it myself, is unfair; what is really required to do justice to such a character is poetry, for poetry unleashes powers of metaphor and imagery unavailable in the more linear medium of prose; there's a reason, after all, that prose is the root of "prosaic". Tolkien certainly recognized this, and used poetry where he could, sometimes in very vivid ways. Think of Gimli breaking into chant in Moria, for instance. Unfortunately, it would have been awkward to suddenly insert poetry into the feast scene at Rivendell.

And here I'm going to commit another offense or two, and go a little off-topic _and _somewhat heretical: there is another medium in which the picture of Arwen could be "improved", or perhaps I should say rather, realized: the medium of film.

I can hear howls of outrage, and believe me, I share them, as far as her portrayal in the PJ version goes. In fact, it was reading the thread I mentioned above which started me thinking along these lines. It began shortly before FOTR premiered, and was in reaction to the trailer featuring the infamous "If you want him, come and claim him!" Xena sequence. PJ and cronies wanted to flesh out Arwen, and that is what they came up with. Only to be expected, considering some of their other choices.

But there is another way, if you'll indulge me. The introduction of Arwen could have happened _as it did in the book_ very effectively, potentially overwhelmingly effectively, in film. Who, for instance, has not had the experience of being struck dumb by a single glance from someone? We usually think of this in the context of romantic encounters, but it happens in other kinds also. A single instant of eye-contact between Arwen and Frodo could convey a great deal, particularly if it is carefully prepared.

A good actor can produce this effect on demand. Combine it with competent direction, makeup, lighting, music, and the other elements that go into filmmaking, and the results can be, as I said, overwhelming.

I want to give an example that always comes to mind, when I think of this effect. The context is different, of course, but displays the sort of thing I'm talking about. You've no doubt seen this many times before, but I invite you to watch very closely the closeups of Ingrid Bergman in this clip, and also the looks exchanged:






You can see how, almost without moving a muscle, what a world of feeling she conveys, as the camera lingers on her face. Contrast this with the very different emotions she shows in this other famous scene from the same movie, again while remaining nearly motionless (I leave aside the other characters, although I will, as an example of the male side, draw your attention to the level of simmering anger Bogart is able to convey with only a slight contraction of the lips):






I admit I'm a softy, and that scene never fails to bring me to tears, but only the most cynical viewer could remain unmoved. And that is my point, such as it is: film, as a medium, can express some things better, or at least more fully, in a short space, than can prose.

At least _sometimes._


----------



## Rivendell_librarian

I came across this post looking for references to the Auden letter. They are great clips aren't they. We see that Ilsa realises that, though she still loves Rick, under the circumstances of the war she's made the right choice - and later we see that Rick comes to understand this as well. 

And there's delicious comedy, courtesy of Claude Rains, with the lines about having to arrest himself if he broke his own curfew and receiving his winnings from "illegal" gambling.

Another example comes to mind: the recently deceased Charles Aznavour in Truffaut's Shoot the Pianist. It's the sequence at the end of the film focussing on his facial expression when he has returned to his piano playing. We can see Aznavour turning over what has happened in his own mind through the stillness of his expression.

It comes in the last few seconds of:


----------



## Nameless Thing

I found this thread only now, even though it's 16 years old. I want to add something that might make you hate me, but I hope you don't take it the wrong way. 
So the OP argued that Eowyn is much more accomplished and therefore much more worthy to marry Aragorn than Arwen. But the thing is that it's not the woman who has to show her quality. It's the man. The woman is worthy by default. She is the one who is pursued. The prince is the one who goes on a quest to show his worth to the princess. 
It's like this all over the animal kingdom, it's biology. The male guppy shows off his colors and pursues the female guppy, who is just boring gray. The bulls fight for the cow. The male dog takes a huge risk when he escapes his owner's home to track down the bitch in heat.
And the more a woman shows how much she knows her worth, the more attractive she becomes in the eyes of men. Arwen totally knew this and that's why she is so attractive. It has very little to do with physical beauty. The woman who has this confidence is the winner. I'm not talking about playing hard to get. That's just playing stupid games while not having this confidence at all. That's just a power trip over the guys that's actually coming from insecurity.
What I'm talking about is believing with her whole heart that she is awesome and the guy better treats her well, love her, cherish her and adore her because she can easily find somebody else. She doesn't have to say it. She just have to believe it and guys will feel it.
A very good example is a story that happened to my grandmother several decades ago. One day a well-meaning coworker informed her that my grandfather, who was a manager at their company is being pursued by some blond beauty. My grandmother just smiled and said: it's OK, we can share. What she meant is that she isn't afraid of competition, she is the most awesome. She didn't start spying after him, question him, or forbid him from being around her. She just continued her life normally. Needless to say, my grandfather never started an affair with that lady.
Where Eowyn totally blew it is that she tried to prove that she is as good as a man. While we can't blame her for that after the systematic abuse by Saruman through Wormtongue, the fact is that at that point she wasn't her most attractive self. She reversed that dynamic I mentioned above and therefore she lost her feminine power. And that's what happens every time a woman tries to prove that she is worth as much as a man or pursues the man.
Feminists nowadays try to "empower" women by telling them they don't have to sit around and wait for the guy, they can tell the guy how they feel. Little do they understand that they are basically encouraging women to give up their feminine power by becoming the pursuer. They become the princesses going on quests to prove the prince how much they are worth and while doing this they lose their princessness. Those relationships almost always break down sooner or later. 
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for women doing their dream jobs even if it's on a masculine field like being a soldier. But bad things happen when they do it to show that they are worth as much as a guy.
Another thing is that we don't actually know if Arwen contributed to the war or not. She might have done some stuff in the background like healing the sick, but still probably didn't accomplish as much as Eowyn did. But the point is that it doesn't matter because it's not the woman who has to show off her resume to get the best guys.
Others mentioned that she sounds very boring, just sits at home and does arts and crafts, while Eowyn is doing some super interesting super cool stuff. This is a bit ridiculous, because most of us aren't very interesting people by this standard. We go to college, get a job, get married, have kids and eventually retire. Nothing cool to show off, but I don't think we are boring people just because we aren't war heroes.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian

Thanks for contributing Nameless Thing. This is a welcoming inclusive forum so I doubt that people will hate you. I do wonder whether Eowyn did what she did in LOTR because of who she was (a lady of Rohan) rather than to make herself attractive to Aragorn,


----------



## Nameless Thing

Not necessarily to Aragorn (although that was I think part or that), but I feel like she did want to prove her worth. She was witnessing Theoden going crazy and Wormtongue basically abusing the whole family, so her self esteem was quite low at that point and that's why she wanted to fight. Saruman told Theoden 'Dotard! What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll on the floor among the dogs?' while Eowyn wasn't there at particular event, this was probably not the first time Theoden heard these kind of insults and probably Eowyn heard them too and eventually started to believe them.


----------



## Olorgando

Oh boy, some of the earlier posts in this thread had me shaking my head in disbelief. To mix metaphors, or actually media (if this was really about book Arwen), I give my translation about the gripe:

“Arwen just wasn’t like Scarlett Johansson’s character “Black Widow” in the Avengers! I am angrily disappointed!!!”
Errrrr – well, why the _*bleeeeep*_ would you *expect* her to be?!? Or do you just gripe every time a story fails to have a Mary Sue character?
_(Yes, my sarcasm can sometimes get as snappish as one of those Tasmanian Devils) 👹_

Now some of the points I’m going to raise (repeating things said above at times) might be a little unfair to people who have not had the opportunity to get into Middle-earth background stuff as I have for by now over 30 years. Pointing out such “arcana” might help understanding – but if some people don’t go in for such stuff and prefer to retain their disapproval, OK, we agree to disagree.

The point has been raised that in the development of the story, Arwen is a late addition; so is Aragorn to a lesser degree – but JRRT was also still calling him “Trotter” when he had become a human ranger! So even if he had felt the need, he might not have had the time to flesh out Arwen’s character more – it was 17 years from starting to write until publication as it was.
That JRRT may not have felt the need to do any more fleshing out has also been pointed out. There are some conventions in some types of stories that are accepted as such, and JRRT was not rebelling against all such conventions.

But when the argument about lacking character development (a favorite Hollywood bugaboo that all too often strikes me as pathetic) arises, I’ll just hop over to Appendix B in RoTK.
Arwen is born in 241 TA. When Arwen and Aragorn first meet in Rivendell in 2951 TA, he’s all of 20 – and she’s 2710! Now that’s really plenty of time for her to develop all sorts of character, so why should be surprised that to our eyes little or no further “development” takes place? To put this in perspective, this would be like a woman apparently somewhere in her (late?) twenties telling us about how she had tried to talk Homer out of writing a certain section of the Iliad differently, but he was being obstinate …


----------



## Gothmog

Further to Olorgando's post, in the story we do not see character development of Aragorn as that took place in the 70 or so years leading upto his meeting with the Hobbits. What we saw was his character revealed due to his involvement through the length of the story. Arwen, though important to Aragorn was a minor character with only limited exposure in the book. There is far less chance for her character to be revealed in the short passages in which she appears.


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee

*Saucy, I am forced to disagree with you. 
Arwen does not just sit around, hoping. She is a woman. And an Elf. So, she is not expected to ride into battle with Aragorn. Remember, this is not our modern, feministic, world. This is Middle-Earth. And, Arwen does help him. He would not have succeeded in claiming the Throne of Gondor, or defeating Sauron without her. She was the reason he kept going. Also, she sacrificed her immortality for him. How, how, could he fail her after that?
Arwen might be forlorn, but you would be, too, if you stood at the choice of forsaking your last chance to see your mother again or staying with your loved one in a world full of Men, with hardly any of your kind left. I hope you have read the Appendix at the end of "the Return of the King." She might be a thousand years old, but she's an Elf, you know.
I do not understand how Eowyn deserved Aragorn. What did she do for him? I know, she slayed the Witch-King. That was brave and selfless. I know. But, she could not have done it without Merry Brandybuck. And, she did not do it for Aragorn, she did it for Théoden King. Arwen, on the other hand, sacrificed everything, literally everything for him. Also, Eowyn would not have made Aragorn happy. She would live a maximum of 100 years, whereas Aragorn lives for 210. She is no where near his age, and does not have, even close, the experience that he does. They would not have been happy together.
Saying all this, I do not want anyone to think that I dislike Eowyn. In fact, I admire her. But, she would have made a bad match for Aragorn.*


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Lily-Victoria Thorn said:


> *Saucy, I am forced to disagree with you.
> Arwen does not just sit around, hoping. She is a woman. And an Elf. So, she is not expected to ride into battle with Aragorn. Remember, this is not our modern, feministic, world. This is Middle-Earth. And, Arwen does help him. He would not have succeeded in claiming the Throne of Gondor, or defeating Sauron without her. She was the reason he kept going. Also, she sacrificed her immortality for him. How, how, could he fail her after that?
> Arwen might be forlorn, but you would be, too, if you stood at the choice of forsaking your last chance to see your mother again or staying with your loved one in a world full of Men, with hardly any of your kind left. I hope you have read the Appendix at the end of "the Return of the King." She might be a thousand years old, but she's an Elf, you know.
> I do not understand how Eowyn deserved Aragorn. What did she do for him? I know, she slayed the Witch-King. That was brave and selfless. I know. But, she could not have done it without Merry Brandybuck. And, she did not do it for Aragorn, she did it for Théoden King. Arwen, on the other hand, sacrificed everything, literally everything for him. Also, Eowyn would not have made Aragorn happy. She would live a maximum of 100 years, whereas Aragorn lives for 210. She is no where near his age, and does not have, even close, the experience that he does. They would not have been happy together.
> Saying all this, I do not want anyone to think that I dislike Eowyn. In fact, I admire her. But, she would have made a bad match for Aragorn.*


First off, welcome.

And secondly, what an entrance! Great comment and points!!!!!


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee

Thank you, CirdanLinweililin. (Sorry if I spelled you name wrong)


----------



## CirdanLinweilin

Lily-Victoria Thorn said:


> Thank you, CirdanLinweililin. (Sorry if I spelled you name wrong)


Welcome, Lily, and welcome to the forum!


CL


----------



## Ealdwyn

I am personally baffled as to why the Arwen vs Eowyn argument keeps emerging. They are never in competition for Aragorn. JRRT did not create a love triangle - this is a product of PJ's fanfic.

Eowyn is in awe of Aragorn as great and noble man. She wants him to love her because he is _"high and puissant", _and she is disappointed when he doesn't. 
But JRRT makes it clear in his letters that it is the _idea_ of Aragorn that she loves. This is different from actually loving him in a romantic sense, even though she is slow to recognise the difference herself.

Arwen vs Eowyn just isn't a thing. I can only think that PJ had fantasies about being a hot ranger and having two women fighting over him. 😂


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

To be fair, _this _one (re)emerged because I posted a link to it on another thread. 

BTW, Lily-Victoria, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a response from Saucy, who was last here in 2014.


----------



## Halasían

Ealdwyn said:


> I can only think that PJ had fantasies about being a hot ranger and having two women fighting over him. 😂


... and that is why I call the movies 'PJ's FanFics' ... 😆

... the emergence of this thread is that Squint-eyed one's fault! 

Welcome to TTF *Lily-Victoria Thorn*!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

And if you'd like to introduce yourself "formally", and say something about your own particular interests, there's a New Members forum:








New Members


Meet and greet the newest TTF members. -- [ One thread per new member only! ] --




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee

I think that *Ealdwyn'*s answer is the most reasonable here. Squint-Eye, I know not to wait for Saucy's answer. But how does that stop me from mentioning her? Thank you for the welcoming, *Halasían.*


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Lily-Victoria Thorn said:


> But how does that stop me from mentioning her?


Oh, it doesn't. I just don't want any of our members to turn blue! 😁


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Oh, it doesn't. I just don't want any of our members to turn blue! 😁


Okay!


----------



## Angelimir

Saucy said:


> join me now...may all anti Arwen's unite?!!!
> 
> 1.> she does nothing other then sit around and have "HOPE" that things work out!!!! if i was her, i'd be there fight along Aragorn's side.
> 
> 2.>She is so forlorn, like really id be way happier then she is if i was a gazillion (exageration) yr's old and still looked that good
> 
> 3.> Eowyn diserved aragorn WAY more but stupid arwen stood in her way!
> 
> 
> i posted this in the book section because i felt this way about her when i read the books...but even in the movie i cant STAND her cause pj has taken her annoying hated qualities and multiplied them a gazillion times


I didn’t dislike or like her character in the books, in the movies she was obviously given an enhanced part. She was given Glorfindel’s part for instance. But I’m sure Jackson had his reasons.


----------



## Angelimir

I didn’t like or dislike Arwen in the books. Her character has very little back story. In the movies she was given an enhanced role for whatever reason. For example she was given Glorfindil’s during the chase to Rivendale. And even Gandalf’s and Elrond’s role in bringing the waters up to disrobe the Nazgul. I didn’t enjoy these changes. But the first movie, I thought all in all stayed truest to the books than the second or third.


----------



## Olorgando

My guess, looking back to the origin of the thread in November 2003, that it was originated by, and participated in, by quite a few youngish female film-only (at the time) fans. Meaning they had not even read JRRT's book, and never mind The Sil, UT, HoMe and whatever else had been published at the time (Biography, Letters, stuff by tom Shippey, Verlyn Flieger etc.). So a lot if not all of what we grizzled book-nerd veterans have been spouting here (I was "only" 47 when the thread got started, but to a teenager that's probably ancient, at it was still ten year before I got internet at home) probably would have elicited "ehwot?!?" responses from the film-only crowd. So probably the background against which the early discussion was held would have been what had been in films and on TV by that time.

Squint-eyed Southerner earlier mentioned Xena. "The Avengers" with Scarlett Johansson was still nine years in the future, and what is probably today's "template", "Game of Thrones" eight (to my surprise). I hardly watched Xena (probably less than a handful of episodes in the 2000s), and I haven't watched GoT. It is being re-run (though I have no idea which season this is - hang on, somewhere in the 70s episodes) by RTL-II, the private TV RTL group's "channel two", on Saturday mornings a bit after midnight, three episodes in a row, I think, as per our TV's electronic TV guide.

That gripe that JRRT did not write (or PJ did not film) what others expected, or would have liked better, is as old as the book. The original gripes were by literature critics, TV still being relatively in its infancy in the 1950s (certainly in Germany, we only had a single channel with perhaps four to eight hours of programming daily. and in the teletext section of of public TV channel 1 there was recently an item about - I think in the late 1950s - Germany finally reaching the level of one million TV sets!). Now there are many films and programs in diverse media to compare to. George R.R. Martin is on record criticizing JRRT's lack of - well, I guess what he then put into GoT or rather his _A Song of Ice and Fire,_ didn't he. Criticizing *anybody* for not writing (or filming, or whatever) what one would have liked better strikes me as very silly. There's enough (I'd guess) of what such people prefer reading or watching, so where's the problem?

My main guess here are the enormous sales of LoTR, so it's often simply a matter of jealousy. And the again silliness that some people seem to be annoyed that other people like other things than they themselves do. Get a reality check, folks! My wife never managed to finish our German translation of LoTR, and I certainly wouldn't watch the one daily soap that she likes, nor much of prime-time TV (lots of crime series, a clear case of an industry in a rut), or for that matter many of the books she has bought, tending towards TV soaps.


----------



## GreatQueen

I'm not a fan of Arwen in the movies and I think criticism for characters that I like and dislike is valid. People are allowed to have and voice different opinions be it negative or positive.

Liv Tyler did a good job with making an otherwise flat and contradictory character charming. What most people miss is that in the movie she is two characters into one: Glorinfindel and Arwen. So while in a scene she is facing enemies (Glorifindel's role), in the other scene she is sitting submissively, waiting her shiny knight to save the world which raises an eyebrow since she is an accommodated damsel wanting to be saved and waiting for others to do the job, even despite having powers to join the battle, or at least potential do much more, it rubbed me in the wrong way.

Added to that, Arwen being the most beautiful woman in the world that everybody falls in love, and dying from grieving one year after her love interest died, despite her being a queen and having children and a country to rule with people that adore her, is not beautiful, but simply annoying. What is relatable or likeable about it? Imo nothing. Other than Liv Tyler charisma, she is very flat and even problematic.

The Arwen in the book didn't bother me so much, since she barely appears. Aragorn and Arwen are in love and that's it, she isn't supposed to be a major player. I'm alright with expanding Arwen, she has potential but the movie script did dirty to her imo.

That would be better if her background in the books were expanded on screen, but not changed. Not everyone need to be a warrior. A woman can have own mind and role without being in the battlefield, Arwen is progressive in her own way: she was a royal elf that decided to give up her immortality for a human, and defied a lot of traditions of her people, and helped behind scenes, she has a mind on her own. How to show it on screen? Dunno in flashbacks and maybe showing more of her political mind in the present? Idk. 

But the point is that she should have something more on her own than being pretty and in love with the protagonist and then dying because this gorgeous elf queen with mystical powers can't function without her man.


----------



## HLGStrider

GreatQueen said:


> I'm not a fan of Arwen in the movies and I think criticism for characters that I like and dislike is valid. People are allowed to have and voice different opinions be it negative or positive.
> 
> Liv Tyler did a good job with making an otherwise flat and contradictory character charming. What most people miss is that in the movie she is two characters into one: Glorinfindel and Arwen. So while in a scene she is facing enemies (Glorifindel's role), in the other scene she is sitting submissively, waiting her shiny knight to save the world which raises an eyebrow since she is an accomodated damsel wanting to be saved even despite having powers to join the battle, it rubbed me in the wrong way.
> 
> Added to that, Arwen being the most beautiful woman in the world that everybody falls in love, and dying for grieving one year after her love interest died despite her being a queen and having children and a country to rule and people that adore her, is not beautiful, but simply annoying. What is relatable or likeable about it? Imo nothing. Other than Liv Tyler charisma, she is very flat or even problematic as a character.
> 
> The Arwen in the book didn't bother me so much since she barely appears, Aragorn and Arwen are in love and that's it. I'm alright with expanding Arwen, she has potential but the movie script did dirty to her imo.
> 
> That would be better if her background in the books were expanded on screen, but not changed. Not everyone need to be a warrior. A woman can have own mind and role without being in the battlefield, Arwen is progressive in her own way: she was an elf that decided to give up her immortality for a human, and defied a lot of traditions of her people and helped behind scenes, she has a mind on her own. But she should have something more on her own than being pretty and in love with the protagonist and then dying because this gorgeous elf queen with mystical powers can't function without him.


There are a couple of faulty assumptions here.
1. There is not indication that Gondorian law or custom would have allowed Arwen to rule after Aragorn's death. In fact, considering that Aragorn's parting words to her include that his son is ready for the kingship, I think the opposite can be assumed. I very much doubt Gondor had it set up for the kingship/queenship to pass to a spouse after the death of the ruler. It's simply not how bloodline related rulership generally works. 
2. I don't really see any indication that everyone falls in love with Arwen. Galadriel gets more of this, honestly. There's the automatic, "Oooh, it's a pretty Elf" reaction, but honestly even dude Elves seem to have this effect on Hobbits. Aragorn falls in love with her immediately, but that has more to do with Tolkien's ideals of fated romance (he does the same thing with Melian and Luthien) than with any special traits assigned to Arwen. 

Tokien's ideal of a couple so linked by love that they pass away near each other is on one hand an ideal he espouses in multiple stories, and on the other something documented in long term couples quite frequently in real life (elderly married couples passing away within days of each other is a pretty well established phenomena). With Arwen, though, you add in the fated element that she is tied to Middle Earth specifically DUE to her link to Aragorn, and it becomes, again, tied to the concept of fated romance. 

On one hand, I agree that not every character, female or otherwise, needs to be a warrior ... back in the day, I was as skeptical of the need of Arwen being made into a warrior princess for the movies as well. Looking back, and having learned a little bit more about film making, I kind of understand the expediency of combining two minor characters from the book into a single one for the purposes of pacing and (probably) budget. Was that the best way to do it? Shrug. Saved some time. Saved some casting. Gave a bigger part to a character that otherwise would've been more in the background ... might've been other ways to expand on her character, but I get why having her be sort of lingering in the background only to show up in the end to marry Aragorn would've been weird to the average viewer.


----------



## Olorgando

Both Arwen and Faramir are late entries in LoTR, as per the HoMe volumes 6 to 9 dealing with it. Don't forget, Aragorn started out as a mysterious *Hobbit* Ranger named Trotter, and retained the nickname Trotter long after it had become ridiculous for a tall Dúnadan Ranger. Aragorn becoming a distant echo of Beren, as Arwen of Lúthien, took quite a while.

At some intermediate phase, JRRT seems at least for a short time to have envisioned Aragorn and Éowyn marrying. While Faramir appeared (as per a letter of JRRT to his son Christopher while the latter was in South Africa training to become a pilot foe the RAF in WW II) "unbidden", and JRRT stating that he "needed to find out more about him" (his being Boromir's brother seems to have been there from the start), Faramir's "function" of "diverting" Éowyn from Aragorn was probably also a late development.

JRRT simply was not interested in in-depth characterizations of his characters, perhaps even straying into the paleo-Freudianism (which probably severely misunderstood ol' Sigmund himself) that may have been fashionable at some time. I feel that he dealt more in what one could almost call archetypes (but not those of Freud's rebellious pupil Jung), as he was interested in applicability, which must generalize in a way. In modern terms, don't expect a Woody-Allen type character in Middle-earth.


----------



## GreatQueen

HLGStrider said:


> There are a couple of faulty assumptions here.
> 1. There is not indication that Gondorian law or custom would have allowed Arwen to rule after Aragorn's death. In fact, considering that Aragorn's parting words to her include that his son is ready for the kingship, I think the opposite can be assumed. I very much doubt Gondor had it set up for the kingship/queenship to pass to a spouse after the death of the ruler. It's simply not how bloodline related rulership generally works.
> 2. I don't really see any indication that everyone falls in love with Arwen. Galadriel gets more of this, honestly. There's the automatic, "Oooh, it's a pretty Elf" reaction, but honestly even dude Elves seem to have this effect on Hobbits. Aragorn falls in love with her immediately, but that has more to do with Tolkien's ideals of fated romance (he does the same thing with Melian and Luthien) than with any special traits assigned to Arwen.
> 
> Tokien's ideal of a couple so linked by love that they pass away near each other is on one hand an ideal he espouses in multiple stories, and on the other something documented in long term couples quite frequently in real life (elderly married couples passing away within days of each other is a pretty well established phenomena). With Arwen, though, you add in the fated element that she is tied to Middle Earth specifically DUE to her link to Aragorn, and it becomes, again, tied to the concept of fated romance.
> 
> On one hand, I agree that not every character, female or otherwise, needs to be a warrior ... back in the day, I was as skeptical of the need of Arwen being made into a warrior princess for the movies as well. Looking back, and having learned a little bit more about film making, I kind of understand the expediency of combining two minor characters from the book into a single one for the purposes of pacing and (probably) budget. Was that the best way to do it? Shrug. Saved some time. Saved some casting. Gave a bigger part to a character that otherwise would've been more in the background ... might've been other ways to expand on her character, but I get why having her be sort of lingering in the background only to show up in the end to marry Aragorn would've been weird to the average viewer.


Well, fair point. There's no indication one way or another that she could rule, and much less that she had interest on doing so. She had an adult son and even probably had grandchildren at that point.

But what I'm saying is that Arwen is a flat and satellite character, and the way she was expanded in the movie turned her a disjointed character. Even Luthien has more substance than Arwen imo.

I understand the producers decisions. They thought that the only solution to make Arwen a strong or interesting character would be making her more of an 'action girl', so it would justify Aragorn preferring her over Eowyn. But it just doesn't make sense to her characterisation imo:

- One day she is facing bravely enemies without fear using powerful magical incantations but why she doesn't do it again to help the man that she loves if she is so magical and strong? Is she a coward? Nothing matters other than romance, while the human world that she wants to be part, is failing apart? We know she is a nice person so it doesn't make sense. Too much mental gymnastics are needed to explain her behaviour. 

-And another scene she passively is at home while everything is failing apart, and then she appears again whipping because her husband died and then she retired to die too. The final result makes her seem like a prize waifu or spoiled short sighted character, instead of a wise elf. It's just a big "no" to me, but there may be people that like this kind of character, I simply can't.




Olorgando said:


> Both Arwen and Faramir are late entries in LoTR, as per the HoMe volumes 6 to 9 dealing with it. Don't forget, Aragorn started out as a mysterious *Hobbit* Ranger named Trotter, and retained the nickname Trotter long after it had become ridiculous for a tall Dúnadan Ranger. Aragorn becoming a distant echo of Beren, as Arwen of Lúthien, took quite a while.
> 
> At some intermediate phase, JRRT seems at least for a short time to have envisioned Aragorn and Éowyn marrying. While Faramir appeared (as per a letter of JRRT to his son Christopher while the latter was in South Africa training to become a pilot foe the RAF in WW II) "unbidden", and JRRT stating that he "needed to find out more about him" (his being Boromir's brother seems to have been there from the start), Faramir's "function" of "diverting" Éowyn from Aragorn was probably also a late development.
> 
> JRRT simply was not interested in in-depth characterizations of his characters, perhaps even straying into the paleo-Freudianism (which probably severely misunderstood ol' Sigmund himself) that may have been fashionable at some time. I feel that he dealt more in what one could almost call archetypes (but not those of Freud's rebellious pupil Jung), as he was interested in applicability, which must generalize in a way. In modern terms, don't expect a Woody-Allen type character in Middle-earth.



Fair point. But I think adaptations are a great opportunities to expand otherwise unexplored characters. And the movie producers didn't do a good job with Arwen, but as already mentioned she is a side character and they had limitations of time and maybe resources. Well, at least showing more of Arwen is better than ignoring her and making them marrying out of blue, but I found her a bit annoying.

I don't have any hard thoughts about book Arwen, she just exists and is underdeveloped enough to insert with any headcanon and characterisation (respecting the lore of course). My criticism is more about the movie version.

About Eowyn, it seems that the main reason that some people dislike Arwen is that they prefer Eowyn as a love interest, which is understandable since she is a more compelling character and the female lead, but particularly I don't think that protagonists need to marry the main girl, it's a boring cliche. Aragorn already had a strong connection with Arwen prior the story, explained in side material, but the movie didn't expand it enough, which is a huge missed opportunity.


----------



## Olorgando

GreatQueen said:


> Fair point. But I think adaptations are a great opportunities to expand otherwise unexplored characters. And the movie producers didn't do a good job with Arwen, but as already mentioned she is a side character and they had limitations of time and maybe resources. Well, at least showing more of Arwen is better than ignoring her and making them marrying out of blue, but I found her a bit annoying.


I won't even try to pretend I have a better solution of how to expand Arwen's role in the context of a High Fantasy film, given the slim material to be found in the book. I think one problem Hollywood (as a generic term) has is that they have a limited number of templates to "steer" them. My impression is that the template ("flavor of the ...") of the time was "Xena: Warrior Princess" (now it might be "Wonder Woman" or whatever - my knowledge of post-millennium films besides PJ's two trilogies is very low - and that includes films (film franchises) of which I own DVDs!). At least in the Extended Edition appendices of The Two Towers, PJ acknowledges that they had considered having Arwen present at the Battle of Helm's Deep to kick (or slash) some butt. They decided against it; perhaps, as has been suggested in an Éowyn thread here, that it would have taken away from Éowyn's singular feat in RoTK of destroying the Witch-king - with some help from Merry.


----------



## Ealdwyn

I guess it depends who you consider the "real" Arwen. I don't really acknowledge PJ's Arwen. The character in the film is, frankly, a mess.
In the book she has no significance other than for Elrond to influence Aragorn, to steer him towards his destiny.


----------



## Halasían

Ealdwyn said:


> In the book she has no significance other than for Elrond to influence Aragorn, to steer him towards his destiny.


Hey... she made a beautiful standard that Halbarad toted all over Middle Earth...
And a simple way that Arwen could have been brought into the movies was to have her ride with her brothers with the Dunedain Rangers south....


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

I shouldn't laugh -- it's an important moment, though of course we don't see its significance until later.


----------



## Ealdwyn

And it took her something like 40 years to make it. I mean, how on earth does it take that long? I guess she was far too busy doing whatever beautiful elf maidens do for 40 years. Admiring herself in the mirror?


----------



## Olorgando

40 years, bah! When Arwen and Aragorn "plighted their troth" at her grandma's place Lothlórien in TA 2980 - he was 49 then, she 2739 (*cough, cough*), she had had far more time to fill up to that time than 40 measly years. Even the 2690 years of her life before future hubby was even born are still 89% of her life until they got married 89 88 years after his birth ... what the? Twice 89?!? This cannot be a coincidence!!! Have Shippey, Flieger, Hostetter and Co. been notified of this ground-breaking, nay, earth-shattering discovery?!?!?!? oops

JRRT stays strangely silent about Elven occupations, except for some smithying and of course military duty in the First Age (the latter declining very much in the next two ages). Actually, except for the Dwarves with their mining and smithying, JRRT leaves economists among his readers (be they micro- or macro- specialists) perhaps more frustrated than any other professional group. 😭


----------



## Oromedur

It seems now that if a female character doesn’t fit with modern feminist tropes or ape male archetypes then she is not considered worthy. Sad.


----------



## Ealdwyn

Oromedur said:


> It seems now that if a female character doesn’t fit with modern feminist tropes or ape male archetypes then she is not considered worthy. Sad.


It's more that Arwen doesn't actually *do* anything in LotR. It's hard to deem a character worthy when she does nothing at all.
I mean, Ioreth does more.


----------



## Halasían

Oromedur said:


> ... modern feminist tropes ...


What would that be? Equality?



Ealdwyn said:


> It's more that Arwen doesn't actually *do* anything in LotR. It's hard to deem a character worthy when she does nothing at all.
> I mean, Ioreth does more.


Quite true really.


----------



## GreatQueen

Olorgando said:


> 40 years, bah! When Arwen and Aragorn "plighted their troth" at her grandma's place Lothlórien in TA 2980 - he was 49 then, she 2739 (*cough, cough*), she had had far more time to fill up to that time than 40 measly years. Even the 2690 years of her life before future hubby was even born are still 89% of her life until they got married 89 years after his birth ... what the? Twice 89?!? This cannot be a coincidence!!! Have Shippey, Flieger, Hostetter and Co. been notified of this ground-breaking, nay, earth-shattering discovery?!?!?!?
> 
> JRRT stays strangely silent about Elven occupations, except for some smithying and of course military duty in the First Age (the latter declining very much in the next two ages). Actually, except for the Dwarves with their mining and smithying, JRRT leaves economists among his readers (be they m
> 
> 
> Olorgando said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40 years, bah! When Arwen and Aragorn "plighted their troth" at her grandma's place Lothlórien in TA 2980 - he was 49 then, she 2739 (*cough, cough*), she had had far more time to fill up to that time than 40 measly years. Even the 2690 years of her life before future hubby was even born are still 89% of her life until they got married 89 years after his birth ... what the? Twice 89?!? This cannot be a coincidence!!! Have Shippey, Flieger, Hostetter and Co. been notified of this ground-breaking, nay, earth-shattering discovery?!?!?!?
> 
> JRRT stays strangely silent about Elven occupations, except for some smithying and of course military duty in the First Age (the latter declining very much in the next two ages). Actually, except for the Dwarves with their mining and smithying, JRRT leaves economists among his readers (be they micro- or macro- specialists) perhaps more frustrated than any other professional group. 😭
Click to expand...

We all know that Arwen was an important businesswoman, an economist in the elf world. She took care of kingdom's finances 😎

Now seriously, idk how they could had expanded her in that movie without derailing it too much. A tv show could provide more space to explore Arwen without turning her a disjointed mess.



Halasían said:


> What would that be? Equality?
> 
> 
> Quite true really.


Yep I don't know why some people in this topic mentioned feminism as a bad thing. Equality is good. Women being useless is not alright, specially since Arwen is often the poster girl in expense of Eowyn (I think it's Liv Tyler star power?) Feminism doesn't mean turning every woman a warrior though. Even the main protagonist of the LOTR is not a warrior and he is great. The main problem with Arwen is giving interesting characterisation, and tying her to the story without making her look random.


----------



## Olorgando

GreatQueen said:


> We all know that Arwen was an important businesswoman, an economist in the elf world. She took care of kingdom's finances 😎
> 
> Now seriously, idk how they could had expanded her in that movie without derailing it too much. A tv show could provide more space to explore Arwen without turning her a disjointed mess.


Just think of the numbers: by the time Elrond left Middle-earth at he end of LoTR the book, he had spent roughly 6,500 years there (he was born there and had no first-hand knowledge of Tol Eressëa or Valinor). That is simply 100 times my age. Can anyone imagine living to such an age? JRRT couldn't (he never mentions what they were doing for those thousands of years) nor can anyone else - least of all Hollywood. Book Arwen is 2,778 years old when she marries Aragorn. Liv Tyler was 26 when the last LoTR film premiered. Hollywood had her play her actual age (or possibly even less - that bunch is totally hopeless as far as female characters are concerned). Elves and the ages they reached in JRRT's legendarium are simply utterly beyond our comprehension.


----------



## Ealdwyn

GreatQueen said:


> Women being useless is not alright, specially since Arwen is often the poster girl. Feminism doesn't mean turning every woman a warrior though. Even the hero of the LOTR is not a warrior and he is great. The main problem with Arwen is giving interesting characterisation, and tying her to the story without making her seem random.


Arwen doesn't have any characteristion at all in LotR. It's not just that she isn't a warrior - she isn't anything! Who is she? We don't know. She might not be useless, but we have no infomation. We're told she's beautiful, but that's all. We only know her as somebody's daughter or somebody's betrothed. Even including the Appendices we know next to nothing. Arwen is mostly an unknown because Tolkien decided that her character did not merit further development.

I have no problem with that. You can't give full backstory and motivation to every minor character (and that is a separate issue than the lack of female characters in LotR). But I do have a problem with PJ making Arwen into a Big Deal, and (for example) usurping Glorfindel, who is a far more prominent character in canon, just for the sake of a 'love interest'. I think PJ said in an interview that writing out Glorfindel was a good decision because he only has a brief appearance, but you could say the same about Butterbur or Celeborn. In fact, Glorfindel is more crucial to LotR than Celeborn, so it makes absolutely no sense at all that he was written out in favour of barely-there Arwen.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Ealdwyn said:


> Arwen doesn't have any characteristion at all in LotR. It's not just that she isn't a warrior - she isn't anything! Who is she? We don't know. She might not be useless, but we have no infomation. We're told she's beautiful, but that's all. We only know her as somebody's daughter or somebody's betrothed. Even including the Appendices we know next to nothing. Arwen is mostly an unknown because Tolkien decided that her character did not merit further development.
> 
> I have no problem with that. You can't give full backstory and motivation to every minor character (and that is a separate issue than the lack of female characters in LotR). But I do have a problem with PJ making Arwen into a Big Deal, and (for example) usurping Glorfindel, who is a far more prominent character in canon, just for the sake of a 'love interest'. I think PJ said in an interview that writing out Glorfindel was a good decision because he only has a brief appearance, but you could say the same about Butterbur or Celeborn. In fact, Glorfindel is more crucial to LotR than Celeborn, so it makes absolutely no sense at all that he was written out in favour of barely-there Arwen.



Yes, but without Celeborn, a crucial part of this would be missing 




In all seriousness, I do agree with you regarding Glorfindel vs Celeborn.


----------



## Olorgando

Within the entire legendarium of M-e, reuniting the lines of Elros (Aragorn) and his brother Elrond (Arwen) is anything but trivial. But it seems to be a late development in LoTR (and never mind the entire legendarium). Galadriel also didn't exist in M-e before LoTR. This caused JRRT no end of issues in shoehorning her back into the older tales (for more details about Galadriel, just look for posts of our esteemed member @Elthir  )


----------



## Oromedur

Halasían said:


> What would that be? Equality?
> 
> 
> Quite true really.


Equality doesn’t mean that all female characters is historic literature have to copy what some see as male archetypes. There are significant characters in LOTR who do happen to do this. Why is it so wrong that Arwen isn’t Zena Warrior Princess?



Ealdwyn said:


> It's more that Arwen doesn't actually *do* anything in LotR. It's hard to deem a character worthy when she does nothing at all.
> I mean, Ioreth does more.


She represents much in the story without needing to grab a sword and shield and kill a load of orcs.


----------



## Elthir

Olorgando said:


> ( . . . ) Galadriel ( . . . ) Galadriel . . .



My favorite post in this thread! A bit edited here by me . . . but still


----------



## GreatQueen

Oromedur said:


> Equality doesn’t mean that all female characters is historic literature have to copy what some see as male archetypes. There are significant characters in LOTR who do happen to do this. Why is it so wrong that Arwen isn’t Zena Warrior Princess?
> 
> 
> She represents much in the story without needing to grab a sword and shield and kill a load of orcs.



I don't think anyone is arguing that Arwen should be a warrior princess, and that a woman being in the battlefield necessarily mean feminism.



Olorgando said:


> Just think of the numbers: by the time Elrond left Middle-earth at he end of LoTR the book, he had spent roughly 6,500 years there (he was born there and had no first-hand knowledge of Tol Eressëa or Valinor). That is simply 100 times my age. Can anyone imagine living to such an age? JRRT couldn't (he never mentions what they were doing for those thousands of years) nor can anyone else - least of all Hollywood. Book Arwen is 2,778 years old when she marries Aragorn. Liv Tyler was 26 when the last LoTR film premiered. Hollywood had her play her actual age (or possibly even less - that bunch is totally hopeless as far as female characters are concerned). Elves and the ages they reached in JRRT's legendarium are simply utterly beyond our comprehension.



I think developing Arwen also mean expanding the LOTR world. Which other roles elves could have that would flesh out that world, and that Arwen would fit in? And how to implement it without it looking like a bad fanfiction or out of place? Could Arwen be a healer? Other role that medieval women or elves could have that wouldn't make she look vain or obtuse?

You pointed that she has centuries of age, which is another interesting point. Movies rarely make centenary people believable. Why she fell for Aragorn who mentally, is barely a child compared to her? More likely this is a point that would never be addressed as no human so old exists anyway, but this is an issue that I often ask when there's elves or vampires or similar creatures in media.


----------



## Halasían

Oromedur said:


> Why is it so wrong that Arwen isn’t Zena Warrior Princess?


Never said it was "wrong". It just wasn't the way Tolkien wrote the character.
I have already wrote a screenplay tweak of the PJ FanFic that had Arwen ride south along with her two brothers and the Dunedain Rangers and took part in the Battle of Pelennor Fields.



GreatQueen said:


> You pointed that she has centuries of age, which is another interesting point. Movies rarely make centenary people believable. Why she fell for Aragorn who mentally, is barely a child compared to her? More likely this is a point that would never be addressed as no human so old exists anyway, but this is an issue that I often ask when there's elves or vampires or similar creatures in media.



Maybe Aragorn had other redeeming qualities she discovered about him?


----------



## Hisoka Morrow

Oromedur said:


> Equality doesn’t mean that all female characters is historic literature have to copy what some see as male archetypes. There are significant characters in LOTR who do happen to do this. Why is it so wrong that Arwen isn’t Zena Warrior Princess?


Totally agreeing you. After all, this is a fantasy work, shall I account for more some expert?


----------

