• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

🧝Arwen: why i hate her

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
 
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.
 
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?)
 
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.
 
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!!!) :D

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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

:)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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? :p

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

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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:
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.​
 

Similar threads

Back
Top