Homosexuality and LotR

'Men are weak'

seems like he was talking from experience to me, whats dickish about that?

Elrond is not a 'dick' but a father who loves his only daughter. Mrs Figg

What about his love for Aragorn who supposedly loves as if a son and has raised since childhood?

And a father lying to his daughter and telling her all there is for her is death in order to get her to do what he want her to, and then making her choose if she loves him or Aragorn more, seems pretty dicky to me.

"takes control of the situation (taking Frodo to Rivendell). "

You mean she is inserted and replaces the role of a male character and performs
essentially the same function. Thats hardly making her more proactive, its just giving her someone else who was proactive job (and one of them was a horse in the book)

"In the book she is relagated to the passive female who stays behind knitting"

If they had included more of the story from the appendix then she would not only have knit, we have seen their initial falling in love when he mistook her for Tinuviel, and their beautiful pledge in Lorien to reject the darkness together, and we would have seen her post wedding, counselling Frodo and giving him her gift, persuading Gandalf that he should get her place on the ship.
This would all have been better than what we got in my view and would have meant you don't have to contrive something for her to do.

"Arwen and Galadriel are gift givers, knowing what each member of the fellowship needs to succeed on the Quest. Galadriel for all of them, and Arwen just for Aragorn."

It should be Frodo she gives the necklace to at the end to help with his pain. Aragorn is given the elf stone by Galadriel if I remember right.
So the important gift giving Arwen does in the book, isnt even in the film.

"Its NOT Elrond who tells her to leave ME but Aragorn, he tells her to leave"

Yeah, right after Elrond confronts him whilst he is mourning at his mothers grave side (see dick!) and then essentially tells him to "I will not leave my daughter here to die! She goes with her people." (Dick- again!)

oooo get Mr Sarky pants, it seems you prefer Arwen to be home quietly doing the knitting rather than being an equal partner to Aragorn. figures.

I prefer her to be the strong woman whose love for Aragorn never faltered and who made her own mind up for herself, the woman who swore an oath against the darkness and who dared to brave mortality just for love. The woman who like so many women during WW1 had the horrible duty to be left behind awaiting news. Although Arwen at least still watched over him in thought and prepared his banner for him, an object of huge personal significance both for Aragorns personal destiny and their joint destiny if he succeeds.
You dismiss it as knitting, I see it as a devoted act of love that symbolises all they hope for and which she sends to him when he needs hope most.

PJ gives a woman who has decision made for her by her father, who is rejected in her love by Aragorn and told to leave because he was bullied into saying it by her father too, and who only returns when she sees her future includes a child.

I think Tolkiens Arwen is the stronger woman and PJ's a shallow impression of her.

Mrs Figg wrote:'Men are weak'

seems like he was talking from experience to me, whats dickish about that?

It's a departure from the source material. And the only thing that movie-Elrond is really basing that on is Isildur's not being able to resist the Ring.

Also makes no sense if he thinks that why he harbouring a line of kings of men in his home and all their heirlooms.

Just one of a long list of things that don't make sense.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I prefer her to be the strong woman whose love for Aragorn never faltered and who made her own mind up for herself, the woman who swore an oath against the darkness and who dared to brave mortality just for love. The woman who like so many women during WW1 had the horrible duty to be left behind awaiting news. Although Arwen at least still watched over him in thought and prepared his banner for him, an object of huge personal significance both for Aragorns personal destiny and their joint destiny if he succeeds.
You dismiss it as knitting, I see it as a devoted act of love that symbolises all they hope for and which she sends to him when he needs hope most.

PJ gives a woman who has decision made for her by her father, who is rejected in her love by Aragorn and told to leave because he was bullied into saying it by her father too, and who only returns when she sees her future includes a child.

I think Tolkiens Arwen is the stronger woman and PJ's a shallow impression of her.

Hi yeah shallow impressions??. you mean like not even speaking in the Whole of LOTR?? plus she gives him the  banner in ROTK or had you forgotten.
In Fellowship (the book) she is reduced to an object Frodo experiences. Frodo looks at her, Frodo is taken by her beauty, she is portrayed through another persons perceptions, totally about her physical body. We know NOTHING about her as a person, nothing about what she thinks, nothing about her motives. We get NO character arc, we get no information other than what Frodo sees. In the films she suddenly becomes a person in her own right, with feelings and actions outside the male gaze. She is no longer just some beautiful object. The gulf between the two versions is like the difference between flesh and stone. and you prefer the hollow shallow version of some didtant knitting woman in the background. I also think there may have been legal limitations on how much PJ could use from other Tolkien stories or books, so if he could only use LOTR he would be pretty limited to a pretty woman just looking at Frodo at a meal.

We are talking about the films, I have already said I think if you are going to do a film or tv of the books you have to move her from the appendix into the main story.
And as its in the appendix of LotR's which PJ has the rights to he can use the whole story, every last bit of it.

But thats not what PJ did he moved her then made up a story for them that in my view was poorer than Tolkiens and weakens her as a strong female character.

Its easier to do in film and tv with quick cutting than to do in the style Tolkien wrote the book in where he doesn't cut away often, he says himself he tried to put her in the main story more but couldnt find a way to get their whole story in without grinding the main story to a halt or greatly reducing it, so he opted to put the complete thing in the appendix rather than that.
That he went to that length tells me he cared very much that people knew their full story, I dont see it reflects in any way at all on the strength of the character as a female character or that it points towards Tolkien not thinking her important enough, which you seem to be implying- quite the opposite.

And she does speak, to Frodo at the end. The one scene she has with the books central character and PJ left it out in favour of some stuff he had made up. I think Tolkien cared more and PJ was mainly concerned the hero got the girl at the end.

no he doesnt weaken her, PJ actually turns her into a character. She wasnt a character before. She didnt have a character, she was just Elronds daughter, Aragorns future bride and someone Frodo glimpses in Rivendell from time to time.

I would have to disagree. She was a character, just not an Elf Grrl.

Mrs Figg you are ignoring the entire story presented in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen and which Pj has the full rights too.

Your complaints about Arwen are all based on the little we see of her in the main text. But her full tale is in the book and it is I think much better than the one PJ gave us that he just made up.

.. most of the complaints against Arwens character in the film are based on stereotypical gender prejudice. ie she is not suitably 'feminine' enough. The people that dont like her in LOTR films call her a kick ass Elf or something like that, because their reading from the book (LOTR) is that she is just a passive background figure and should remain so, so she shouldn't defy the Nine, she shouldnt take control of a dangerous situation, she should just 'be there' for her hero. knitting her little banner. whereas Frodo and Aragorn are criticised for being too 'feminine' because they display stereotypical female characteristics such as weakness, gentleness or doubt, because people want or need them to be more macho and free from weakness like in the books. So basically PJs males are too 'feminine' and PJs women are too 'male' and that upsets peoples subconscious applecart. I personally think this makes PJs characters more nuanced, interesting and less simplistic.

Besides her little moment in FotR, what else does Arwen even do?

I'd hardly describe book-Frodo's actions as macho; rather they are indications of his character and demonstrate why he is fit to be the Ringbearer. Otherwise, he's basically just there, as in the movie. Also, where is book-Frodo ungentle? Against the troll trying to barge in through the door in Moria? Or against the wight groping its way toward the hobbits in the barrow?

I find the notion a woman can only be deemed strong if she chops her way through a million orcs and fights like a man depressing and these days very tired and cliched.

I dot see what is wrong with a woman having a role that is female and still strong, men have roles in literature that are masculine why cant women have female ones? Whats wrong with that?

Arwen in the world as presented would not be expected to go off an fight in a war- hell Queen Elizabeth the 1tst put on the armour and gave the speech but she didnt go into battle- it doesnt make her any less strong a woman for it. Its just thats how woman acts in those societies.

"knitting her little banner."

What exactly is it you have against the notion she makes a banner for him symbolising all their hopes and dreams if fulfilled? Do you have some deep seated resentment of knitting too?   

"whereas Frodo and Aragorn are criticised for being too 'feminine'"

I complain about Frodo because all his proactiveness is taken away an he is left looking largely hopeless. Got nothing to do with him being feminine or not its about is character form the book being crapped all over.

As to Aragorn for me to make him doubt is to completely misunderstand the type of heroic character Tolkien was striving for. So I dont see where femininity comes into that either  

Yeah, I don't think Tolkien was very comfortable with women as combatants. He comes from a time where women didn't often enlist in the military (if at all) but I think there was more to it than that.

so what I said then.   

Mrs Figg wrote:so what I said then.   

In regards to what?

Wow! Thanks everyone! I see this has gone off on another tangent, but I'd like to say my newer topic. Sauron is the hegemonic class in society, the Ring is the power people think they can achieve through wealth. The Ring is a disciplinary apparatus that teases folk of power, making them bound to the One (the rings of power are the same-- a way for Sauron to control others through the idea of personal power, when really they are bound to his One). The hobbits succeed because they are altogether ignored by Sauron because they are a subculture and are not a threat to the main culture, therefore they can't be disciplined by him either. Aragorn succeeds because he's a hybrid, so he doesn't exactly have one identity. He's a rugged ranger but also the highest lineage of men in Middle Earth. He also has elven blood in his veins, making him kind of biracial, and therefore not subject to a racial identity either. I was thinking of adding the bit that he's driven by love to achieve his goal of becoming king instead of getting power, which is why he's successful. He can see beyond the ideology and can fight against it.

Mrs Figg wrote:'Men are weak'

seems like he was talking from experience to me, whats dickish about that?

You have clearly forgotten Biggus Dickus --- now there was a man... oooh he were, ducky.   

Radaghast wrote:Yeah, I don't think Tolkien was very comfortable with women as combatants. He comes from a time where women didn't often enlist in the military (if at all) but I think there was more to it than that.

Silly comment. His military stuff mirrored what was known to him. I don't think it entered his mind to even consider having a host of warrior maids so comfort or  discomfort would not have been relevant (or considered). This does mean he was unfamiliar about Amazons and Valkyries - just didn't enter his mind to have a host of warrior maids for the (Anglo-Saxon?) 'era' he was writing of. Of course, he had no discomfit about writing about Eowyn, who's perspective he clearly understood and respected. His women were strong - especially Luthien who was all woman and also awesomely powerful magic-wise too. Not comfortable? Silly comment.

Call it silly if you want, Orwell, but I never said his women weren't strong. Just that not many of them were combatants. That Eowyn's desire to enter into combat was not something that was exactly celebrated. She was rather a tragic figure until the end when Faramir came into the picture. Not a situation I'd call "comfortable."

Tinuviel wrote:Wow! Thanks everyone! I see this has gone off on another tangent, but I'd like to say my newer topic. Sauron is the hegemonic class in society, the Ring is the power people think they can achieve through wealth. The Ring is a disciplinary apparatus that teases folk of power, making them bound to the One (the rings of power are the same-- a way for Sauron to control others through the idea of personal power, when really they are bound to his One). The hobbits succeed because they are altogether ignored by Sauron because they are a subculture and are not a threat to the main culture, therefore they can't be disciplined by him either. Aragorn succeeds because he's a hybrid, so he doesn't exactly have one identity. He's a rugged ranger but also the highest lineage of men in Middle Earth. He also has elven blood in his veins, making him kind of biracial, and therefore not subject to a racial identity either. I was thinking of adding the bit that he's driven by love to achieve his goal of becoming king instead of getting power, which is why he's successful. He can see beyond the ideology and can fight against it.

Wow Tin, I have to admit I barely follow I word you said. This will probably make for a successful paper - via intellectual intimidation.

And since I left Figgy alone to fend for herself, I think most of the Arwen arc was appropriately done: we needed to see her looking over Aragorn in thought. I didn't mind so much the bit of Elrond trying to send her off, it provided a chance for him to rub in what her fate would be, which I thought was very well done. It did turn Elrond into a bit of a dick, though he redeemed himself by having the sword reforged and delivering it in person; unfortunately bringing the movie far afield from the book. I also liked the scene where Elrond discovers Arwen has chosen mortality, though it's debatable whether or not this aligns with Tolkien's intent.

I didn't like not hearing Elrond's charge to Aragorn that Arwen would marry no less than the King of Gondor reunited (it wasn't in the movie, right? unless I missed it). I hated with a passion Elrond's dismissive attitude towards men, and his lack of respect for Aragorn.

In other words, the movie's treatment of Arwen and Elrond was a mixed bag. Some of the choices they made I actually thought were good.

Aragorn's status as an exile reflects the Marxist theory that dispossessed elements of the bourgeoisie will lead the proletariat in revolution.  The civil wars of Arnor are a metaphor for the endless competition and internecine fighting inherent to capitalism.  Mordor obviously is the extreme end point of industrial society.  The Shire is the communist ideal in which the state has at long last withered away.  The Elves are intellectuals and, uh ... Sauron being an Ainu is a commentary on how even the supposedly good capitalist countries in the West (like America ... Valinor = West = US/UK) are really akin to fascist regimes a la Sauron, who is similar to Hitler.  The decline of Numenor mirrored that of Germany and Ar-Pharazon's coup was like the Enabling Act of 1933.  Saruman, also being an Ainu, is Neville Chamberlain.  No, make that Henry Ford or Oswald Mosley.  Or maybe the Duke of Windsor.  Fuck if I know, I'm just spitballing here.