[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

"Fiction is the willing suspension of disbelief." Fantasy doubly so. <P>I think the main point is, did you find Arwen believable in her movie role? I for one did not. It's a matter of how far your willing suspension was willing to go. There were a number of small clues - including "A ranger, caught off his guard?" -that added up to a dissonance of traits which I did not, and do not, buy. <P>For one thing, isn't Arwen hundreds if not thousands of years old? If she's been wielding a blade all this time with the other elves, wouldn't she have had a little practice and been confident with it, a real warrior princess? <P>If the martial role was new, why? There're no circumstances or backstory to explain, her new expanded role is poorly thought out. The elves were fading, not recently decimated.<P>Kalimac, your theory is great, but it's not included in either the movie or the Lord of the Rings. <P>I'm sorry, Lush, we disagree rarely, but as far as the theory she was not playing a martial role: hogwash and foolishness. You don't pull a blade on <I>anyone</I> in the woods unless you're being aggressive. It's a very aggressive martial action, though it demonstrates a - yes - false bravado-style ignorance of weapons, as that's something you're trained never to do, in both fencing and guns (not to mention the bow). It's a basic. (There's another point against your idea, Kalimac, that Arwen like all elves carried a sword regularly. Lush, again, if she's sent with a sword, untrained, inexperienced, out into the wild - why?) It's particularly foolhardy with an expert swordsman, hair-triggered, fresh from a fight. Just begging for tragedy.<P>"What's this, a range - ?"<BR><I>*dodge* *Spin!* - <B>THA-WHACK!</B></I><BR>Aragorn stares down at his newly beheaded girlfriend. Uh. Ex-girlfriend.<p>[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]