[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Bravo, Lush, for standing up to pseudo-feminism, that trades one form of repression and rigidity for another. My dislike of the inept movie-Arwen does not extend to Tolkien's Arwen. She does in fact represent the classic romantic Medieval feminine ideal.. noble, gentle, wise, chaste, beautiful: but such qualities do not demonstrate sexism. Otherwise only a sword-wielding barbarian would be considered an 'acceptable' non-sexist female character, and we should ignore or deny the full range of female characteristics and capacities. Good and bad, strong and weak. That in and of itself implies a lack of self-worth, that we cannot handle any portrayal of women that doesn't express 'the best.' Or what we assume is best.

Look at our acceptance of the range of male characters in the LotR. Does anyone think that having a weak Wormtongue denies the nobility of Men, demonstrates Tolkien's anti-male sensibilities? Is anyone rushing to the defense of Denethor, on behalf of Men? So what need is there to defend Arwen, on behalf of all women?

What if Tolkien had put in the LotR a really miserably evil woman, a female version of Wormtongue. Would we think that demonstrated his hatred of women, or feel a need to defend Ms. Wormtongue? On behalf of all women? Why?

In a way there is a Ms. Wormtongue, in Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. Does anyone think this character is a demonstration of Tolkien's sexism? She is simply part of the panoply of female characters in LotR.

To demonstrate sexism you have to find a clear pattern. There is none. We have one classic beauty in Arwen, the Princess that is Won, whose hand had to be earned, though her heart was given long ago. A stock fairy-tale character from a man who sought to write... a fairy-tale. True, instead of the 20-year-old blond princess, the elf is learned and wise and noble. But this is a stock character. There is nothing 'sexist' or even wrong with it.

-Maril