Well, I admit that in the first book there is only a brief mention of Arwen and she seems somewhat of an ornament. But then we move on to Galadriel. Though she was featured a little more in the movie she is still a strong feature in the book. A lot of people don't know the histories of the characters. And Galadriel is very important when reviewing her history. She is also a strong femail figure because she does not let herself become corrupted by the one ring. She passes the test.
After Galadriel we see Eowyn, who doesn't seem as though she will turn out to be too much in the book at first, but then she becomes one of the most pivotal characters in the third book. If it wasn't for her (and Merry) who knows what couldn't happened.
I don't think that Tolkien overlooked women. Its just that women in Middle Earth are like women in our own world'ts history... they weren't allowed to do much.
I think that overall Tolkien was great at writing how the smallest and/or "weakest" can actually become the greatest. Hobbits are another example of this. I believe that the hobbits accomplish more than any of the men (with the exception of Aragorn perhaps). They are beings of a lesser greatness who become great in the end. The same goes for all of the women in the story. Eowyn overcomes her longing for Aragorn to find true love after killing the Witch King (now if that's not an accomplishment...). Arwen basically banishes herself from her own people in the end. That alone takes a great deal of courage. And Galadriel used her courage to return to the Undying Lands, from where she was banished.
So, overall, I don't think anything is wrong with how Tolkien portrayed the women. I think that because there are fewer it makes them stand out more. Because, I must admit that all of the men and elves became one big mass at one point, but the Hobbits and Women always stood out amoung them.
|