The fact that it was entirely written from the point of view of one female character didn't diminish my understanding of Mansfield Park. An author will usually indicate which character or characters are intended to be the focal point of the narrative, and it is with these that we are intended to identify. In the case of LoTR, that's the four hobbits: we know what they're thinking, how they see things and what they're doing and we rarely see events in which they're not involved. We're not supposed to imagine ourselves being Gandalf or Aragorn; Eowyn or Galadriel and especially not Saruman; if we were then the entire tone and perspective of the story would be different. We're intended to imagine being present where they are present and seeing what they do and say, as in a myth. Besides which author's aren't required to provide an equal balance of gender, race, religion, eye-colour, occupation, social class or ability to drive. In fact during the first half of the last century it was perfectly acceptable to do the opposite. The obsession with equal involvement for everyone in everything is a very modern trend.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

I'm a girl, but I actually imagine myself to be Aragorn more so than the others (Freud would have a field-day, I know). I think my life is somewhat similar to his, as strange as that may sound.

Lord of the Rings is largely concerned with war. Of course there's going to be a lot more men than women in that case, because women aren't fighters on the front line, and in a vaguely mediaval society such as that of Middle-Earth, not involved in battle in any way. Eowyn is a romantic add-on that brings some more complexities and interest to the book.
Tolkien wasn't sexist, he just told it realistically. You can hardly blame him for having more men that women in a book about war.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ]

You're right. But the fact that there are very few female characters in Tolkien's books doesn't bother me. It's the poor characterization of these female characters that bugs me. Jane Austen mostly wrote about women. Her stories were told from a female perspective. But here male characters were as convincing as her female characters. I don't see the same quality in Tolkien's writings.

I've thought about this quite a bit since I first posted my message here some days ago. I concede (and agree here with Squatter) that yes, we can and do 'identify' with characters in books who are not necessarily at all like us and who may be of the opposite sex. And yes, certainly, in LotR, that's the 4 hobbits. Maybe it's a matter of thinking about what 'identifying' with a character in a book means.

Certainly for me the most intense parts of the book are always those parts of Books 4 and 6 that deal with Sam's and Frodo's journey into and across Mordor. No women figure there at all (except Shelob, I guess). But it's true, that hasn't stopped me from feeling WITH the hobbits, particularly with Sam, and imagining myself into that situation.

Judging from comments elsewhere I'm not the only one to find the relationship between Sam and Frodo particularly compelling. Maybe this is because it's not a conventionally 'macho' relationship but allows for a whole range of emotions, some of which have been traditionally associated with femininity.

I do think that Tolkien was 'sexist', if that word is taken in a crude sense (and it is a crude word, not much nuance there) but that doesn't necessarily tell us anything interesting at all about the book.

Judging from this site and a few others I've visited since I first found this one, LotR has a huge female fanbase -- something which surprised and delighted me!

“Sexist” is a harsh word, and one that I think is unfairly applied to Tolkien, especially considering its connotations of oppression, abusiveness, and domination. If anything, the prof is guilty of over-idealizing his women according to the chivalric tradition.

I think Tolkien gets a bad rap on this whole issue. I have the same reaction when people say that the LotR is an overly-simplistic, black-and-white tale of good vs. evil. Such folks have never plumbed the depths of Denethor’s ambiguity, nor pondered the impulses behind Boromir’s fit of “madness”, nor wondered if Gollum might be redeemable. So, too, critics are apt to write off JRRT’s treatment of women, saying he doesn’t know them, he doesn’t like them, he is mystified by them.

Galadriel, LotR’s most prominent female character (though Éowyn is arguably as significant), is a queen of considerable power whose male consort seems childish and petty by comparison. Is she any less “realistic” than Elrond? Any less remote and aristocratic than Denethor?

Éowyn is headstrong and competent, hardly a retiring stay-at-home-barefoot-and-pregnant figure. I think she’s arguably more complex than Faramir.

Is Ioreth any more of a broadly-stroked comical figure than the Gaffer? Is Lobelia portrayed with less sensitivity than, say, Ted Sandyman?

There are plenty of examples of strong female characters in The Silmarillion. To say that Lúthien, Melian, et al are mysterious and unknowable – i.e., larger than life – is simply to be disputatious. Like it or hate it, the Sil is what it is – a collection of the myths and legends of Middle-earth’s gods and heroes. All the characters are larger than life, and all the drama is dialed up to operatic intensity.

Having men consciously keep women out of the mix in warfare or when a dangerous mission is about to be undertaken is hardly a new idea, especially in British literature. Compare Kipling’s dynamic duo Peachy and Danny from The Man Who Would Be King who draw up a “contrack” between themselves before undertaking the dangerous enterprise of attempting to set themselves up as kings of Kafiristan, the second clause of which reads, “That you and me will not, while this matter is being settled, look at any Liquor, nor any Woman, black, white, or brown, so as to get mixed up with one or the other harmful.” Not because women are intrinsically harmful; on the contrary, as Peachy declares, “We have kept away from the two things that make life worth having.” This retreat into asceticism before setting out to perform a dangerous task is a common motif of myth, so it’s no surprise that we find it in LotR as well.

But there is a reason for keeping women out of front-line war. Men make better warriors, and a system works out wherby the men go off to fight while the women look after what they've left. It happened in both world wars in Britain at any rate, and worked nicely.

There's no place for distraction in a dangerous situation. Perfectly sensible thing to do, which is probably why it's appears so often.

I've just finished reading The Mariner's Wife in Unfinished Tales. When the dramatic situation allowed he could portray a woman convincingly. Unfortunately for the person who'd like an accessible female character he does tend to show us characters' personalities through what they say and do, which requires their involvement in events close to the narration and their being forthcoming with their emotions. Galadriel is a Queen and the luxury of telling people what you're thinking and feeling is not for royalty. Does Queen Elizabeth give personal interviews to The Mirror listing her favourite films or explaining what she thinks of the Prime Minister? Of course not; it would be inappropriate, although plenty of idiots would like to see it.
The same rule applies for Melian: the necessary distance of monarchy; we can get some sort of an idea about Morwen Eledhwen, because we see her in emotionally-charged circumstances and isolated from society (in any case, Hurin's family were pretty headstrong, poor fellow). I think it's quite believable that noblewomen should keep back a lot of themselves, especially since people like Aragorn and Gandalf behave in the same way, and we only see them in any more detail by witnessing more of their words and actions.
Austen had an unfair advantage in that she was writing about the provincial gentry rather than courtly high society; about the English countryside rather than the battlefields of Napoleonic Europe and about social rather than military events. Also her plots, in their tendency to culminate in weddings, couldn't very well avoid containing men. Battlefield warfare, when managed correctly, is not a mixed event, whereas a country ball necessarily is.

While this is not meant as a crticism to Tolkien (his books are in a class of their own, set apart from the rest, and are not easily judged by the same standards that we may apply to other familiar literature, modern literature in particular), the deep recesses of the characters' minds, the dirt under their fingernails, the salt of their tears, are, when presented well, the things that make us care for them in the first place. I am personally quite bored by high society with their stiff upper lips, starched collars, and the like. I do not mean that people like the Queen should rush out on some talk-show and entertain the audience with tales of her naughty childhood (if she even had one). I actually quite like mystery, but only if I believe that there is substance behind the veil. It is pretense I can't tolerate-especially in literature.
Having said that, I believe that Tolkien pulled the mystery bit off! We know little about Galadriel, yet we love her anyway. Thus I believe there is nothing to complain about.

I tried to post days ago but it didn't work :/ this is mainly in response to a comment that there's very few female characters to identify with and that can make keeping interest during long periods without them hard...well I do identify with Eowyn (I know I'm stating the obvious [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) but like others before me I can sympathise with the men too-maybe just bits and pieces of them, and not as much as guys would-and I love the books [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I agree that in a tale of war there will be more men than women
*just another installment of my two cents' worth*

The keyword here is 'war'. Lord of the Rings is almost all about war. If Tolkien had had women regularaly fighting battles against orcs and southrons, it would have been a lot less realistic. He was not sexist.
True, he should have written about a few more female elves in Lorien & Rivendell, and maybe some more women in Rohan, but that is somewhat of a minor thing, easily overlooked. And what about the Entwives? If he was really sexist he wouldn't have included them so much as he did.
Most of the roles of Third-Age Middle-Earth figures of prominence had to do with fighting, and that is, I believe, why women were largely left out of those positions. In places where fighting was absent - and there were few - women wer there.

I can't do anything but agree with most of you. Tolien was not a sexist.

As mentioned by several others, women generally don't go to war. Of course, there are female soldiers, but not really any significant amount, compared to men.

As for the Entwives, very good point, Gwaihir.

I read somewhere that one of the reasons for Tolkien's not including the women any more than he did - and not embellishing on the love stories (at least not until the end of the book) - was because he would then have had to make more of it (baby-making and stuff). This could have lead to some people feeling offended (literature containing *sex* was considered tacky) [especially in the Aragorn/Arwen thing]. He was simply being careful. Do you want to read a book that's constantly stepping on your toes?

I think Tolkien actually did a great job, including women as best he could. Perhaps you could have done it better - having read it, thought about it, and then reconsidered and stuff. Have any of you done anything you couldn't possibly have done better?

Tolkien rules.

I can't agree that there's no substance behind Tolkien's noble characters; you just have to look for it carefully and read between the lines. He didn't emphasise the moments when we're supposed to be watching out for the people behind the veil because he wasn't a scriptwriter for a second-rate situation comedy.

As for pretence: to be a leader, social or military is to have others follow one's example, for good or ill. If it's all right for people to go revealing their personal weaknesses and those of their society to the enemy, then I suppose it's all right for the leaders to make public their feelings and motivations. Pretence is a necessary evil when it comes to holding together a threatened society. As I've said before, the likes of Morwen and Turin behave in a way that we'd recognise and everything they do ends in disaster.

When I wrote about lack of substance and abundance of pretense, I wasn't talking about Tolkien. I was talking about people. Particularly much of the world's wealthy and powerful. I cannot appreciate a person on such a level, I need to know them as human beings first. I also think that leaders do not have to *pretend* to be strong and honoroubale, they should possess such qualities already.
As for J.R.R., I don't think he's empty, just subtle.

I think for the most part the characters other than the Hobbits are archetypes, a little more fleshed out than normal, but still... Whenever I see archetypes I don't think it matters whether they're male or female: they're rocks in the course of the stream, directing it one way or the other. The fact that of the five Hobbits (I include Bilbo) there are no girl Hobbits, doesn't bother me either. Five is an awfully small percentage, a focused little group, and the boys do tend to buddy up, yes?

I don't know why, but in fantasy feminist themes seem to flop (Bradley a notable exception). Eowyn works only because of the quasi-viking quality of the Rohirrim. Feminist themes in SciFi on the other hand do well.

Read Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth. If you still believe Tolkien might have been sexist, there's simply no hope for you.

Replying to the original message:
There are some points there I suppose- but that person obviously didn't know what she was talking about! She could at least have found out a little of the background of Lord of the Rings and known that Arwen is an elf, not a woman. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]
When considering this we have to remember that Tolkeins' works were essentially a collection of myths and legends from Middle Earth, and if you look at any myths and legends from other cultures, such as Greek or Roman, there is a definite absence of women with swords, saving the day. It's the men who are the heroes in that sort of genre.
Also, as Lord of the Rings was set far in the past, when women's roles were definitely set as the ones that stayed at home and looked beautiful, then it's hardly surprising that womens' roles in the book were what they were. A really forthstanding female heroine would not have fitted in in that world. Considering all this, and society as it would realistically have been on Middle Earth, some of the women in Lord of the Rings are surprisingly unconventional, especially that one that comes in in the second book, I think, I can't believe I've forgotten her name… the one that wanted to ride to battle with her father. You know which one I mean…
So, no, I don't think Tolkein's books are sexist really.
Phew! What a lot of words!
[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Incidentally, is there such thing as a female dwarf on Middle earth? If so, what are all those male dwarves doing to the females? Are they kept locked up in a dungeon somewhere? I think there's a serious issue of mistreatment there.
And if there isn't such thing as a female dwarf, how the hell are the dwarves reproducing?
Definitely something fishy going on…
Does Tolkein explain this in any of his works, or is it left as one of the Great Unanswered Questions of Middle Earth?
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Wait a minute. Galadriel a Queen? I remember reading that Galadriel and Celeborn specifically did NOT take up the titles of Queen and King, hence they are always refered to as Lady and Lord. Or am I missing something? I would have assumed those who posted that Galadriel was a Queen to be wrong if it were not the esteemed Mr Underhill himself! <shock> [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

-rèd

I decided not to be lazy and looked up this quote. Plus, you'll remember in LotR, G and C are always refered to as Lady and Lord, never Queen and King. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

-réd

I think she was really a queen in all but title (at least according to UT). However there is this rather odd quote from 'of the Rings of Power' in the Silmarillion:

-Voronwë

I think it says somewhere that female dwarves are few and hard to find. They supposedly also have beards, like male dwarves (or am I thinking D&D?), so outsiders often have a hard time telling them apart.

Galadriel was originally of noble descent from the Noldor and Teleri elves of Aman. hear grandfather on her mother's side was Olwë, king of the Teleri who completed the journey to Aman, and her grandfather on her fathers side was Finwë, king of the Noldor and also the father of Fëanor.
(the family trees of Silmarillion)

She was counted a princess, but as Red stated: She was only guardian of the realm of the woodland Elves. She had no desire of taking the title as queen. Probably because she was not of their kin.

This actually shows us her character when it comes to the choice of power. Already as early as this, she refused to take power, like she did when Frodo offered her the One Ring...

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Carannillion ]

Trying to catch me on a technicality, eh, réd? Note that I used the lowercase “q” as opposed to the titular “Q”, by which means I have applied the word in a broader, less literal sense (cf. www.m-w.com: 2 a : a female monarch b : a female chieftain; 3 a : a woman eminent in rank, power, or attractions).

Technicalities aside, though, who is Galadriel kidding? Guardian-schmardian. Everyone knows that before coming to Middle-earth, “…she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will.” Declining to formally declare herself a queen was just another bit of Elvish nonsense. Everyone knew who was boss of the old Golden Wood. There’s that quote that Voronwe mentioned, and also note that at one point Gimli refers to her as “Queen Galadriel” and Legolas doesn’t correct him…

Yes, and applying the same reasoning to the issue of who was king of the Noldor in Tirion . . . [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

I know there weren't many important women in LotR, but those who were in it were very important. Galadriel, for example, was a very wise and wonderful elf. She was a very powerful character who was a wome. Then Eowyn, she slayed the Witchking. That was a very dangerous and amazing task. Even though there weren't many women in LotR, they were very special.

I'll make it short for the sake of everyone [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] I get too confusing when I babble on!

No. In his time period, that's how things were. Everything was different.

Exactly [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

the books were published in an age when women were not very prominent outside the home. it is possible that the books are sexist, but HIGHLY unlikely. if he was then why would he had made Eowyn prevail over the witch-king? he was showing a triumph of weomen and i do not see that in any way sexist.
The age in which the war of the ring took place, was also a time when women were kept at home. tolkien was merely showing the bitter truth that that was how it really was. grim...

Warning, rant follows. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] This is a pretty outrageous example of the kind of feminist revisionist hooha that comes out of literary criticism, where people don't bother to actually read a book, let alone try to appreciate it. "Scholars" like this spend their time skimming synopses of books trying to sniff out the big bad sexists and then write journal articles hoping for just the kind of plum reaction this lady got (ie, being invited to a talk show). Bleccch! Rant cooling down now...

As has been pointed out, Galadriel is a figure that looms very large in all of the chronicles. Not to mention Elbereth and all the female Valar! We can also likely assume (though we're not told) that there were female warriors: elven females. The fact that most human societies in ME had "traditional" roles for women can be thought of as reflecting history. I think someone brought up "The Mariner's Wife." Tolkien, in his way, did explore the issue of male and female roles. Of course, for some feminists, it would not be enough.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Genandra of Mirkwood ]

are tolkien books sexist?
no.
and even if you can point out sexist undertones, they are accidental and do not comprimise the quaitly of his work. the problem is, and reason why these things are pointed out, is that times change. standards change. thoughts and views change. it is unfair to judge something using the views of your time when the books were written in another.
but my ramblings are irelavent. the fact remains, no matter what is said in offence or defence, tolkien's works are not sexist.

Yesterday I was exploring my opinions of Éowyn for a post on the "Hope-lessly in love" thread and I realised that far from being sexist, which I'd never believed him to be in any case, Tolkien had quite a liberated attitude to women. The whole story of Éowyn's escape from domestic monotony to play a pivotal part in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is one of liberation from a traditional feminine rôle to one more usually associated with men. In relating it, Tolkien takes an ironic swipe at the plot device of the handsome Prince turning up on his charger to save the poor little woman from drudgery (see my posting on the other thread for a more complete explanation of my ideas about this).
I don't see it as any coincidence that Disney were producing their hideously bowdlerised and saccharine versions of European fairy-stories at about the time that Tolkien was writing his epic. I think that in a way Éowyn's story is a direct attack on films like Cinderella, through its placing of the responsibility for a woman's destiny firmly in her own hands and demonstration of the happy results.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this matter?

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

I am very glad to hear that most of you believe as I do, that Tolkien never had an ounce of malice in him towards women.
In fact, I sometimes wonder, the books are rather Freudian in nature, seemingly placing women upon pedestals as creatures of untouchable beauty. Nobility, grace, all virtues they are given. Even the human women are treated with gentleness and respect. Eowyn is feisty, and when up against Aragorn, whom she wants, he does not taunt her. He speaks with care and love. I cannot say that I saw as much respect of women in CS Lewis's work! (And he is the nearest author to compare to Tolkien, obviously. but Lewis wrote of children, not of grown women, unless you count the White Witch as a woman...)

10 Richter rant warning!!!!

Some analyzers say that in Tolkiens world the women conform to certain stereotypes. To a degree this is true... his male charachters do as well. In my opinion all of Tolkiens charachters are rather romantic and dramatic then sexist or sensual. All of them are paper thin in the places that are not usually explored in romantic fantasy epics, sagas or such.

(Was Boromir married? Did the Istar have affairs? What really was going on between Sam and Rose before the journey... something obviously... was it hard decision for Sam to go? Thin femininity = thin masculinity.)

But how far can you take the precence of stereotypes as a basis for criticism? An analysis I red while ago commented that it was proof of Tolkiens misogynism that Eowyn was clearly part of the Xena-Red Sonia stereotype. The analyzer also felt it was proof of Tolkiens misogynism the there were so few female charachters...

-DUH-

The epic is mainly made of annal-like historical stories of the times of war!

If you have female warriors, you are a sexist, if you do not, you are a sexist. Tolkien manages to be double as sexist by having one.

-DUH-

Sexual liberation IN ATTITUDES AND LITERATURE is thing of the sixties... or nineties. Up to that it was basically almost forbidden to give active and powerfull roles to women in literature. And in the fourties-fifties, Tolkien made up charachters like...

Galadriel: Definately the most powerful mortal of middle earth of the third age, most ambitious one and still one of good guys.

Eowyn: The one exeption to break the historical ”stay at home rule”, rather a Joan d’Arc type. (One of the first female charachters to break this rule in fantasy, I'd say. Eowyn was no "quota female" hero.)

Luthien: A heroine carrying most of the burden and definately having active role. Also interrestingly Luthien was not violent charachter and still managed to be a true hero. Modern fiction seems almost incapable of producing such charachters male or female.

Melian: Female charachter having undisputable, heawy duty power.

Yawanna, Varda, Nienna, etc: Female gods exist in every legend, Tolkien however is exeptional in not making any of them fall in the categories of *****es (Hera, Friga, Isis), evils (Hecate, Hel) or sexobjects (Freya, Afrodite,Bast, Astarte).

Lobelia, Gollums grandmother: matriarchtypes.

Haleth: Quite another type of warrior/matriarch of the Boaedica variety.

Ruling Queens in Numenor (4): are about as frequent in Tolkiens history as they are in the history of England.

Tolkien did give different roles to men and women. There are only few female warriors who are driven by extraordinairy motivations and even fewer female ”adventurers.” Tolkien did give the women in his stories both personality and power however. I’d rather see him as pioneer. This is especially true if you compare his female charachters to those of contemporary authors like Howard, who only knew how to portray women as sex-objects, chainmail-bimboes or evil sorceresses.

Tolkien employed practically all of historical and epical archetypes available to him for creation of believable active and powerful women and invented two new archetypes (Galadriel and Luthien). Curiously neither has been much used in the literature since. Perhaps it is easier to satisfy the gender quota by adding a couple of paper thin Xena-Red Sonia-Eowyn type charachters or evil sorceresses and forget all about it.

Seriously speaking... I think LOTR is still today a rather examplary in a positive way, of fantasy that is epic but still gives women a role. I just wish some more modern authors would dare to build on that foundation.


Janne Harju

(BTW: to clarify things, I am a man, -Grunt-. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] )

Well, no, he wasn't. Right off the top of my head: Tolkien wrote that Boromir wasn't interested in marriage (surprising how so much fuss is always being made over the relationship between Frodo and Sam, while nobody is even remotely curious as to what Boromir was really up to, if you get my drift...not that I want to start one of those discussions). Basically, the guy appears to have chosen a bachelor's way of life.

Oh no, you are not implying that...? Did I sleep through the sexual liberation? Is it over? But...but... [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Nah, dude, it's all good. I'm not surprised, however, that you have left Arwen off the list. Actually, some people can convincingly argue that she was as strong as anyone, just in a less showy way.

Well... Arwen I left out intentionally... I am enough male equality activist to see her rather negatively.

a) sexobject... prize for Aragorn

b) devious behind the scenes manipulator.

If one assumes Arwen to be strong charachter, one is also automatically faced with the realization of to what degree she walks Aragorn in leach.

I think I'd rather go for a.

Does not question my point however.

Janne Harju

I'm afraid that I see Arwen as neither, bombur. Some of my earlier posts on this very thread should clarify my opinions, but it would help if you could substantiate yours: I can understand the view of Undómiel as a sex object (although it's rather a crude one to take of her and not one of which Tolkien would have approved); but a devious manipulator? Where on earth did that come from?

Uh, yeah. Personally, I have concluded that Arwen is a powerful guiding force in the story, but devious...? What, have you discovered an obscure Tolkien letter that suggests she was cheating on Aragorn with the Witch-King of Angmar? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

As for the whole "sex" thing, well, she's obviously not unattractive. Then again, this is true for pretty much every major female character Tolkien ever created. You could call Galadriel a sex-object by the same token, what with her brilliant golden hair, Gimli's crush, and Fëanor's advances.

Of course, the few times that Arwen is overtly referred to, a big fuss is made of her appearance, but if you read between the lines, there is something deep, mysterious, and all together wonderful about Arwen, something that does not fit into the standard sex-kitten frame.

Arwen's biggest fault indeed may be that she is just too perfect; or is seemingly so, considering how little we actually know about her.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

Can't you two see that she was just using Aragorn to worm her way out of that oh-so-boring immortality thing and the all-too-predictable Halls of Mandos ("Oh, Uncle Celebdemoníal. Yeah, great to see you, too. Looking forward to spending eternity with you. Again.") so that she could see what's behind Door Number Two, the Doom of Men? All the other elf-maidens must be sooooo jealous.

Mr. Bombur, I think you posted that just to incite an argument.
For what it's worth:
Arwen was "The Most Beautiful Elf-Maiden in Middle Earth." Lucky her. So, she had tweezers and hair brushes and was treated like a princess. Damn, I wish I could hang around in the beauty salon all day, doing nothing but looking pretty. (Don't they say it's not easy being beautiful?? )
Do you remember that she actually did not want Aragorn, when he met her at 20 years old in Rivendell? She thought he was too young! (And he was.)
It wasn't until Galadriel dressed him up like a prince nearly 40 or more years later that she saw that special something in him.
You might say that it's Galadriel's fault. She's the one who gave him the princely clothes and jewels to wear. A little bit of Elvish matchmaking there, I think....

Arwen stays true to her promise, and spends years embroidering the Standard that Aragorn uses to lead the Acursed Men to war.
She also helps out in getting him good advice on how NOT to die.

I do not remember reading anywhere that she worked with her father Elrond in order to push Aragorn to his Kingship. I think she would have been satisfied to move to Lorien with him, and have a nice, lush life. Unfortunately, there was other business to do if Lorien was to be there much longer. Aragorn took the responsible role of leader in this. Can you fault either of them?

I see the antagonists as Galadriel and Elrond. Respond to that, sir.


[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I did NOT write that to provoke argument.

As I DID read the earlier parts of this discussion, I decided to leave that out from my first message in order NOT to provoke argument.

I am quite aware that Tolkien would not have approved that interpretation and most certainly did not intend such to be made.

In Tolkiens unions between man and elf, the elven woman (no exeptions - a woman) is typically so pure that one is almost unable to look at her without sunglasses... The man seems to be more or less a "noble savage" with slight inferiority complex... Perhaps this has got something to do with personal life of that couple on whose tombstone has been inscribed the words Luthien and Beren.

Tolkien in my opinion, especially compared to his contemporaries, gives women charachters genuine importance. So what if this is result of holding ones own spouse in very very very great regard? If it is I emphasise. In my opinion the saga in general manages to be exeptionally egalitarian in this regard. Possibly in part due to this balancing feature.

Now, taking all this into account, think of Luthien and Beren. Luthien goes with Beren to fulfill the task imposed by her father. She is the stronger of the two in all ways save swordplay, I'd say. They do great heroics. They live happily ever after.

What does Arwen do in exactly similar situation? She sends Aragorn to do great heroics and occasionally sends encouragement.

I see only two alternate interpretations. Firsat one is, that she is pure and beautiful as Tolkien surely intended. Mystical perhaps. But she is not person of strong will, great skills and wisdom like Luthien. (Lack of wisdom at least is supported by the fact that she grasps the tragedy of mens mortality only when Aragorn is dying.)

The secong alternative is in my opinion that she is strong in will, skill and wisdom, but CHOOSES to send ones knight to do great things to win ones hand. Much in the same way that the strong willed women on pedestal do in Arthurian legend. (And that is what I as male gender equality activist DO call devious manipulation.)

Thus I just left her out from the list of strong, independet and active female charachters and hoped no-one would notice. I prefer the first interpretation.


Janne Harju

Ah... now that I think, I may have been provoking. Sorry.

In my earlier message I gave two choises, a) sexobject, b) manipulator...

May I rephrase...

As I do not see her as manipulator, I must see her in a role that POLITICALLY CORRECT FEMINIST might categorise as a sexual object and price for fulfilling a quest.

Anyways I explained why I did not consider her one of the strong charachters. I myself do not automatically think her role as weakwilled charachter makes her a sexobject.


Janne Harju