If Arwen had been cut from the films

[Sassafras]

I accept your that interpretation of the scene, Ath is in fact, probably almost precisely what the writers were attempting to achieve ..... seeing the vision of Eldarion was the catylst that caused Arwen change her mind about leaving Aragorn and Middle Earth.

I saw no other symbolism.

What I don't like is the entire story arc of Arwen even considering the possibility of leaving her one true love because her father is able to convince her that love is doomed and will end in death. It is, IMO, very un-Tolkien. Who, as we know, wholeheartedly subscribed to the ideals of high romance; to fulfill that Romance absolutely requires the further mingling of noble Elvish blood with that of one of the last remaining 'true' Numenoreans. So that a stronger strain of elvish blood may continue into the fourth age.

Now, I do realize that having decided on a modern approach to Aragorn ...... the angst-ridden reluctant hero .... PJ et al thought that Arwen needed to be equally conflicted ..... I just happen to disagree with the approach. We could still have had sublimity of those images from Appendix A (the death of Aragorn; and Arwen in Cerin Amroth ) We could even still have had Aragorn (and Elrond) trying to convince Arwen to save herself and retain her immortality ..... but I do take exception to the notion that her decision to keep the promise of plighted troth hinged upon the birth of a child.

She made a promise and in Tolkien's world, promises like oaths, are sacred.

[vison]

I agree with Sassafras.

Arwen would NOT have left Middle Earth. She just wouldn't.

[axordil]

Given that Arwen is, in the books, a cardboard cut-out, how do you know?

[vison]

'Cuz.

That's why.

[Primula Baggins]

Because a Tolkien character we're supposed to admire wouldn't break her word, I think. That's not really characterization, of course; just a fact about Tolkien's world view.

I agree that we don't "know" Arwen from the book at all. But the role she plays defines what we can expect from her, and this kind of individual volition isn't on the checklist for Hero's Trophy Bride.

[axordil]

But the role she plays defines what we can expect from her, and this kind of individual volition isn't on the checklist for Hero's Trophy Bride.

And I think that's the core of why JRRT was never happy with his handling of the story of A&A--it was supposed to be an echo of Lúthien and Beren's, as Frodo's story is an echo of Eärendil's. Lúthien is NOT a Trophy Bride, and Arwen shouldn't be, but Tolkien couldn't get there without a major reconsideration of the rest of the story--thus appendix A, which is like a little preview of the Silmarillion in terms of condensing a story because the details don't work.

[Alatar]

Because a Tolkien character we're supposed to admire wouldn't break her word, I think. That's not really characterization, of course; just a fact about Tolkien's world view.

You mean like Éowyn

[Holbytla]

Am I mistaken, or didn't Elrond's children make their irrevocable choices long ago?

[Primula Baggins]

I don't remember that, Holby. I thought it was Elrond and Elros who had the choice to make.

Alatar, I wasn't sniping at Tolkien. It's just a fact that a Tolkien "good guy" is going to keep his or her word by default. Ëowyn is a slightly different case because there's more to her than the default, the icon: her character is explored, and challenged, far more than Arwen's. She breaks her promise to lead her people so she can run off to the Pelennor and, as she thinks, die—but then as events work out, that was the right thing to do and leads to life, not death.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I think PJ's scene where Arwen saw a vision of a possible future with children was a clever economical way to show her sudden realisation that there is a form of human immortality to stand beside the Elvish one.
Not precisely Tolkien's thinking but still a courageous stab at philosophical depth.
Shame about some of the other things.

[vison]

While it turned out that Éowyn's breaking her vow meant she could nuke the WitchKing, she was still in the wrong.

I assume there was a court martial and she was stripped of her stripes or whatever. Like whatsit, Beregond? The guard?

Éowyn was a mishmash, not a satisfactory character at all, mostly she was a typical Victorian "heroine" and she irritated the heck outa me.

Tolkien had a bad time with women.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, we're so danged uppity.

I always thought Tolkien sidestepped the whole thing all too neatly, by having her marry someone and step into an appropriately feminine role, hundreds of miles from Rohan where she might have been called on the carpet for what she did. "No more will I be a shield-maiden! I will put Band-Aids on people and make tea! And maybe my brother will overlook my little mistake. . . ."

Though maybe a woman healer (in charge, not like Ioreth) would also have been out of the ordinary.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I think you are a little hard on Éowyn. Through history warriors who have bent or ignored the rules (and, this is crucial, succeeded of course) have had their indiscipline ignored. Moreover Tolkien himself makes a point through his stories of highlighting soldiers who disobey their orders to think for themselves; Hama, Éomer, Faramir, Beregond etc.

I take the point that Éowyn derogated her duty out of nihilism rather than because of a positive choice for the good and what followed was her rescue from that psychological state. Nor do I think that marriage in her case was a demeaning result given her story of deep loneliness. She deserved some happiness. I never read her after-story as staying at home and making stew in Ithilien.

[Primula Baggins]

I don't think it's demeaning at all. I just think it's quite a 180, and as a reader I would have enjoyed seeing a little more of the process (and of the result, too). Her transformation into being a shield-maiden is much more clear than her transformation into being a wife and healer.

No doubt, from the writer's point of view, that's because the former was unusual or even "unnatural," requiring justification, whereas the latter was simply nature taking its course.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Hmm. I'm not certain Éowyn transformed into a shield maiden. I think she had always considered herself one and she had chafed at the task of nursing Théoden. Moreover she had a keen sense of her class and birth and felt her nursing tasks beneath her. 'I am no mere serving woman...' remember?
I know the moment when her reserves melt is somewhat fast and Tolkien defended it in retrospect by saying that firstly these were people who did not play at courtly romance and secondly that in traumatic times such as warfare such speedy decisions are often made. I compare that moment of surrender to that of Galadriel's choice of humility. I share your regret that we saw no more of her in Ithilien but then we all wish the story were longer don't we?

[Primula Baggins]

We saw her change, but from outside. It's not the speed I regret, it's the fact that we don't understand what made her change.

I see your point about being a shield maiden all along—but she'd also been a dutiful sister and granddaughter, and she threw that over and abandoned her duties for war and death. We even know why she did it—her hopeless love for Aragorn. But we don't know why she's able to turn so completely and quickly to another man. I like to understand why major characters make major decisions; if I don't, there's a little hollow place in the story, which in Éowyn's case is filled (I believe) with the words "womanly destiny."

[WampusCat]

I found Éowyn's turn easy to understand, in part because I had a similar experience of thinking I was in love, then being confronted by the real thing. It really was a sudden melting, an enlightenment. That's not your path, this is.

I can only imagine how much more powerful such an experience might be when flavored by war, weariness and grief.

[Primula Baggins]

That's my problem. We can only imagine it.

Tolkien had a lot going on at this point of the story, so I can understand that he didn't feel there was room to describe everything. But I wish he hadn't chosen to skim over this turn, which is essential to the story of a beloved character and is almost our last look at her.

[Athrabeth]

Thanks for your reply to my question, Sass.

Sorry I haven't been back to this thread for a couple of days....our first onslaught of seasonal guests required my due attention.

to fulfill that Romance absolutely requires the further mingling of noble Elvish blood with that of one of the last remaining 'true' Numenoreans. So that a stronger strain of elvish blood may continue into the fourth age.

<snip>

but I do take exception to the notion that her decision to keep the promise of plighted troth hinged upon the birth of a child.

But isn't the child, in essence, just a personification of the "grand plan"? A stronger strain of elvish blood continuing into the Fourth Age is pretty much about Arwen and Aragorn making babies together.

What I don't like is the entire story arc of Arwen even considering the possibility of leaving her one true love because her father is able to convince her that love is doomed and will end in death.

You know, from the first time I saw that scene, I never interpreted it as Elrond "convincing" Arwen about her doom. I saw it far more as a rendering of that special Elvish foresight that is so integral to their nature. For me, this is Arwen actually seeing her father's words taking shape as an image from her future. This isn't something that "just might possibly happen" - this is the way it's going to be; it's true, and Arwen knows it.

Arwen would NOT have left Middle Earth. She just wouldn't.

Of course she wouldn't.

But IMO, that's not the whole point of the Tale of Arwen and Aragorn. I think Arwen's main purpose, really, is to personify the burden of mortality as no mortal character could. One of the "Deathless" accepting death as her fate only to discover that in the end, she cannot face "the loss and the silence" with estel, and instead, succumbs to grief and despair despite the wisdom gained in the long ages of her life. This is the essential theme that I think the screenwriters captured with their version of her tale, except they actually allow her to rise from that despair, and renew her trust in the path she originally chose to tread, even knowing that it will end in death.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I'd love to chime in on Éowyn, but the second onslaught of guests is about to begin and I haven't finished vacuuming. Later........

[Sassafras]

seems like old times,eh?

to fulfill that Romance absolutely requires the further mingling of noble Elvish blood with that of one of the last remaining 'true' Numenoreans. So that a stronger strain of elvish blood may continue into the fourth age.

Ath wrote:

But isn't the child, in essence, just a personification of the "grand plan"? A stronger strain of elvish blood continuing into the Fourth Age is pretty much about Arwen and Aragorn making babies together.

Indeed yes, of course it is ...... I am not quibbling with the end result because the film is essentially the same as the book (Aragorn and Arwen wed and one assumes that the uninitiated among the audience will think they will have a child) .....but ..... my objection is this: As a quintessential elf, Arwen, having been schooled by Elrond and Galadriel, the two greatest Elves remaining in Middle Earth, has the accumulated wisdom of 2,000 years and the knowledge of her forebears ..... but instead of celebrating the steadfastness of the Eldar, as is done in Fellowship where Arwen is portrayed as strong, supportive and full of hope, as the films progress she is increasingly shown as weak by succumbing to the persuasion of foresight (as you put it) by agreeing to leave Middle Earth and Aragorn behind in order to escape certain death ..... and in effect reneging upon the solemn promise given at Cerin Amroth.

..... A progression which, I might add, finally leaves us with the conundrum of ALINTTTFOTR!!


The fact that a vision of Eldarion is necessary for her to change her mind and accept her doom is what rankles with me. I do not believe that Arwen would ever abandon Aragorn (even if she suspected, or knew, she might prove barren) As I said before, IMO that particular story arc is thoroughly un-Tolkien ..... it is the antithesis of his morality where an oath is an absolute. It is without compromise and is utterly binding.

Laws and Customs: Betrothal

......for the Eldar do not err lightly in such choice. They are not easily deceived by their own kind; and their spirits being masters of their body, they are seldom swayed by the desires of the body only, but are by nature continent and steadfast,

But IMO, that's not the whole point of the Tale of Arwen and Aragorn. I think Arwen's main purpose, really, is to personify the burden of mortality as no mortal character could. One of the "Deathless" accepting death as her fate only to discover that in the end, she cannot face "the loss and the silence" with estel, and instead, succumbs to grief and despair despite the wisdom gained in the long ages of her life.

I agree.

This is the essential theme that I think the screenwriters captured with their version of her tale, except they actually allow her to rise from that despair, and renew her trust in the path she originally chose to tread, even knowing that it will end in death.

Disagree.

It is a lovely, poignant, and visually stunning piece of cinema but ..... it is just another example of the scriptwriters overwrought (and overused) lamentable penchant for reversal........ much like Pippin tricking Treebeard in rousing the Ents to war on Isengard (which I can tolerate) or Frodo sending Sam away ( which I cannot).