|
Post by Lady Elwen on Mar 12, 2005 2:13:19 GMT -5
So, Arwen.... The Lady of Imladris is one of the most controversial characters, book or otherwise. She bears an alluded-to characterization, and shows almost no physical appearance within the books... until the films came out... But ignoring the films for the time being, who thinks what? Do you hate her? Do you adore her? Do you think she had a point? I leave this to others to reply to first, before I give my two cents. ~ Elwen
|
|
|
Post by Varda on Mar 14, 2005 16:58:01 GMT -5
I like Arwen, personally. I love what she represents. She's such a... well, okay, so "concrete" character is not the best description for her, but she's there "in spirit", so to speak. She's a driving force for Aragorn, and though she has almost no physical appearances throughout the course of the novel, she is mentioned on and off almost constantly. She's the one that has him willing to aim for his destiny. So many people set her up as this nonexistent slut that shows up and marries the hero (after the movies.... Oh dear...), but I don't agree. Yeah, so she's not as much of a concrete character as, say, Eomer or Denethor, but she's there just as much by mention and in her partaking of... everything else. Okay, so that wasn't particularly eloquent, but I think you get my point. ~ Varda
|
|
|
Post by Anaroriel on Mar 15, 2005 17:17:47 GMT -5
*evil smile* Hello. We should really get some Arwen haters over here, like Maka so we can do this whole debate again. That was a lot of fun last time. On topic, I don't hate Arwen, and I have grown to really understand her and know her these last few months or so. I believe she is an 'underneath the story' character, and a real representation of Middle Earth in general. Yes, she could have been left out completely, but I think her part neatly wraps things up in a little packet and she plays an 'under the current' where she felt, not seen. Besides, she gives the Elves back their wonder. She is also a 'reincarnate' of Lúthien, so that Tolkien could put his wife in LoTR. She is in the appendices, and IMO, I think she pieces together the last few pieces of the puzzle. Without her and the story in the Appendix, I think it wouldn't nearly be such a complete story and would have some holes. For example, does Aragorn get married? Silly, I know, but basic and worthy of thinking of. When he marries Arwen, then the line of Numenor kings returns(with the addition of Elvish blood the line basically goes back to full Numenorean) and he has a successor, and he gets happily married, the end. And I think... well, go read my essay!
|
|
|
Post by Lady Elwen on Mar 15, 2005 17:24:24 GMT -5
*grins* We should!!! That was so great.... One of the first threads I ever joined at PE, and then I wrote about two pages worth.... I pulled it from there to use here eventually, and without changing the font, it totalled about 7 pages...
I'm going to hold off just a little longer with my opinion, though, but do read Ana's essay, whether or not you like Arwen; a much different perspective!!
~ Elwen
|
|
Angel
:~TOA~: Fellowship
.+*Elven Beauty*+.
Posts: 60
|
Post by Angel on Mar 16, 2005 3:02:37 GMT -5
I don't think half of the LotR fans really do understand her character. And i don't blame them. Without reading and research, a person would never really truly understand her character or her life.
That is why, shortly after FotR came out, i decided that if i don't make a statement, no one will. So, i started a little group online called .:Liv Tyler/Arwen Undomiel:. I wanted to portray Arwen in a very different light, not one of "If you're an Arwen fan, come here and yell and shout all about her". It was one of deep thought and real love for who she was, not because of the heroism PJ added into her character. (Before i go on, Elwen this isnt in any way advertising....sorry but it really does help say what im trying to say here). And so i made one of the first pages at the site, "Arwen's Importance". Now it's one of the most popular pages, simply because of one thing. Not because it's well made or whatever, because more people can read it and go away with a different perspective of Arwen and give her greater respect and understanding.
Arwen isn't in any way to do with war at all. She may of lived in many times of war and seen great evil, but she was never meant to get involved. The only way she involved herself was to be the light and hope for Aragorn while he was not only in a war, but a war against himself to find who he really was. Arwen's story weaves in and out of the LotR storyline, it's almost like the 'behind the scenes' part of it. She's portrayed as a beauty none have seen, with wisdom of many years. And she should stay only that way. Not as a pretty thing waiting for her long lost love either.
~ Angel ~
|
|
|
Post by Lady Elwen on Mar 19, 2005 1:44:42 GMT -5
That's the issue: no one does understand her. There's too much hatred, especially after the films. (Ana - have you seen that anti-Arwen site of Maka's? It's almost amusing! ) And Angel, that's fine with the "non-advertising". It isn't, and that's fine. I can see why you said that, so no issue. And now that I've seen what the rest of you have to say, I'm going to subject you all to the ridiculously long post that no one will likely read that I had on Arwen and why she has an actual point. I think Ana's seen most of this... maybe... So anyway.... I have to agree that so many seem to hate Arwen. I also have to say that "hate" is an extremely strong word. Many dislike her, many like her, and several hate her. But the point here is, what is the point? I'm not going to go into an essay-type thing, although this may get that long just by my ranting, but I suppose I can see where people come from. I, personally, like Arwen just fine, one to the other, although I, like any serious Tolkienite, have my own bones to pick with New Line and Peter Jackson. But there are points to be addressed. The problem here - not here selectively, but as a general statement - seems to be the fact that people can't stand the changes made to her character. If Arwen had indeed performed such feats in the original works, would we be harping on her so? No. It is because her character has been magnified to something that we, as Tolkien purists, did not expect that we cannot quite bring ourselves to accept her as how she is shown. Basically, a lot of people hate her because she comes in and marries Aragorn, and because her character is different from that of the books. At this point, I am disregarding everything else. Well, everyone hates her already for coming in and marrying Aragorn. But don't you think that, in the movie, people would have been far more upset if a random elf showed up and married the hero? One cannot portray such things in a cinematic production, because there is no guarantee that viewers will have read the novel behind the movie. Humanity in general does not care for change, but my basic reply to that is, "deal with it." It happened, you can't change it, and it didn't really hurt anything. Having her appear for about three or four extra scenes does not change the outcome; Frodo still destroyed the Ring, Aragorn still took his throne, and Middle-Earth survived. Arwen does not do very much in Tolkien's writing: she appears in Rivendell, sitting beside her father, and we get a cursory description of her beauty. Aragorn is then seen standing behind her. She gains one mention when Aragorn is in Lothlorien, at Cerin Amroth, vanishes through the course of the second novel, sends a banner through her brothers to her love when he is undoubtedly riding to his death, and shows up and marries him, after which she bequeaths the Evenstar to Frodo. Within the course of a thousand-something page writing, that simply isn't a lot. What needs to be understood about her character is that, from Tolkien's standpoint, LoTR was not about a romance between a hero and his love, but rather about a quest destined to decide the fate lying over Middle-Earth. He saw no need to go into further depth regarding Arwen and Aragorn. But, however, she serves as the driving force behind Aragorn and his destiny. It is she that he remembers, and it is she that renounces all of her Elven capabilities to dwell with him for as long as she is allowed. She is not mentioned. Rather, she is present as a spirit that drives Aragorn's will forward to claim what is his. The topic of simple infatuation has been brought up throughout Tolkien discussions, and I must say that, after at least sixty years, if not more, wouldn't that love have diminished, were it truly nothing more than infatuation? They have been separated for years on end, with only the memory of the other to keep that love alive, and yet, it remains as true when their marriage finally comes as it did when they first met in Rivendell. That, to me, signifies something more than infatuation.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Elwen on Mar 19, 2005 1:44:57 GMT -5
Now, since the darned character counter cut me off, turning to the parts she replaced in the movies... What one needs to keep in mind is that these movies are not exact replicas of the novels; they are Peter Jackson's interpretation, and by that, he has license to alter the story slightly. And consider the fact that extras on a set that large would be large in number already. She replaces the part of Glorfindel, yes, that's true. But perhaps there is indeed a reason behind it: Glorfindel has no major part through the course of the novel, save a few lines at the Council. For the sake of an audience with no Tolkien background, keeping track of that many people (i.e. Erestor, Glorfindel, Orophin, Quickbeam, etc.) would have gotten desperately confusing, as there are simply too many character with one-liners and nothing else. Therefore, the directors picked a character that could use more development, took their license with that character, and picked its part to pieces before reassembling it into something comprehensible, which is what we gain with this presentation of Arwen. Having Arwen come gives her a concrete introduction, and allows the audience a view of the woman who will come to be a more important character as time goes on. She needs the extra screen-time to establish her character and give the reasoning behind her relationship with Aragorn. The mention of Glorfindel comes up in almost every discussion ever begun regarding Arwen. But who has stopped to think of how much he truly contributed to the Flight? Now before you hit me, hear me out. He was a key character in that he aided the company to Rivendell. But changing the elf who arrives does not change to entire course of the story. If we were dealing with the escape from Gondolin and the slaying of the Balrog and Idril somehow took his place, I would agree that Glorfindel had been unfairly replaced. However, in this instance, it is possible. Do I agree with the change? Not necessarily, but I do, however, accept it. We know what she truly was, and by drawing it together as one, we can gain a slightly wider perspective on who she was and what she stood for. If Glorfindel had appeared elsewhere (and by elsewhere, I do not mean speaking two or three lines at the Council), I would be the first to admit that he should not have been cut. For example, I do not think that Halbarad, the twins, and the Dunedain should have been removed, because they played a large part. But while Glorfindel's presence makes more than enough sense to us, Tolkien "virgins", to use the term, would not understand who Glorfindel was historically, nor would they understand why he appears for a scene and then vanishes through the course of the remaining story. Arwen, on the other hand, needs to be introduced prior to her concluding part, in order to stave off the confusion of her marriage, and her part in LoTR is considerably more substantial than that of Glorfindel, for she is mentioned in a few more concrete scenes. I admit that tying her fate into the Ring was one of the stranger things I noticed; that really had no point, and simply served to confuse me. But, again, one must consider the viewpoint of Tolkien-illiterate moviegoers. Admittedly, though it lent a reason behind Elrond's journey to Rohan's encampment, that would not have even been necessary had the sword simply been bequeathed to its rightful owner at the right time, but, alas, this is not the time to discuss this... On the other hand, the scenes between Aragorn and Arwen are a good visual tool to strengthen our image of the love that lies between them. If it had turned into some R-rated sex scene, I would be the first to sue New Line. However, that is not what happened, and hence I do not see the problem. We see a stronger bond between them than simply lust and desire. They do love one another, and that needs to be shown in order to get a positive response to the tonal change at the end of the film with their marriage. As viewers who have read the books, we are appalled that such a drastic change could have been made to classic novels, since Arwen's lack of appearance bothered very few people while reading the books. But first-time viewers who have no knowledge of Tolkien will see her, get introduced to her character, and understand the underlying tones of Aragorn and Arwen. Tolkien purists are benefited with a visual of the relationship expressed in the Appendices. Furthermore, a movie like this is tense already, but the romance angle is taken - directly from the ideas of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, I might add - to appeal to more than one audience and provide a change of pace. For those of you who have watched the cast commentaries, you may have caught John-Rhys Davies' comment regarding the basic breakdown of LoTR. It basically sums up to realizations, battles, more battles, bad circumstances, worse circumstances, and so on. Movies like that are very tense, but they can get predictable. It is for that reason that a romance angle should be included, providing a change of pace and a smoother current to ride. Every tense movie has this; they appear out of the blue with much smoother lines and emotions that give the viewer a chance to relax and change positions without falling off of the couch. Regarding Arwen's bitterness at Aragorn's death, however, and turning back to the novels in and of themselves, that is understandable. She gave everything she had for him, and yet, he left her before his time was indeed over. If he did not wish to rule any longer, he could have relinquished the sceptre to Eldarion, and spent a few years in peace with Arwen. However, that is not our discretion to make. Another of the most argued lines in Arwen's history is where she says, before Aragorn dies, "As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last." People take this to mean that she hates the people she ruled, and that is done by a one-sided argument, for her very next words are, "For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the Gift on the One to Men, it is bitter to receive." She did not hate the people she ruled; she simply did not completely understand their ways. Coming from a race that had no knowledge of the test of time, she could not see the reasoning for the rush of Men to succeed and accomplish things that, to her, may have been seen as frivolous. But when she finally witnessed the truth behind Iluvatar's Gift to Men, she understood them, and realized that she had not understood them as they were to be. One cannot sympathize, understand, or have wisdom for that which they have not experienced, and it was not until that she felt the full impact of that Gift that she did understand the people she had ruled for so long. I do not see those statements as ones that should mark her down. For her to admit her "error in judgment" and concede to their reasoning is a stronger feat that to simply accept the unnatural. And there are comments about how she was such royalty, and then became an essential nobody, or something to that extent. My response is this: do you honestly consider the Queen of the biggest kingdom of Men a nobody? I, personally, think she should be respected and revered because of her choice, rather than in spite of it. Luthien did the same, and she is legendary. Idril Celebrindal did the same, and she is also revered in name and image. Arwen, related to both of these women, perhaps had this choice lain in her blood and destiny, but no matter. She is indeed her own person, and deserves her own name, respect, and entity for the noble choice she made in the name and honor of the man she loved and chose to spend eternity with. Yup, and that's my spiel. If anyone actually read that whole thing, then congratulations!! Hehe... I'm stealing Ana's evil smile... ~ Elwen
|
|
Elbereth
Ranger
~The light of Il?vatar lives still in her face.~
Posts: 190
|
Post by Elbereth on Mar 24, 2005 2:01:18 GMT -5
Wow... Excellent topic, and that's one really long post!!!
So I liked Arwen in the books and both loved her and hated her in the films. In terms of canon, I hated what she became, but in terms of representation of the story, I loved her presence and ethereal quality.
Did she have a point? Of course! She's the ultimate driving force behind Aragorn's destiny - she's his love, his life, his ultimate hope, just by being there.
I do agree with the fact that we saw too little of her in the books and too much of her in the films, but in the books, I was partly attracted to her because of that ambiguous quality. She was there, she was mentioned once or twice, and after that initial intro at the dinner in Rivendell, we are left to remember her through idle mentions, until she shows up again in Gondor for a marriage and some cursory lines.
What she stands for is, I think, the most important part of her character, rather than how many times she does and does not appear. She is the ultimate beacon of hope and love and pride and sacrifice, for who would give their lives for their love in what is not a blind fate?
~ Elbereth
|
|
|
Post by Lady Elwen on Apr 23, 2005 22:47:44 GMT -5
Regarding her ambiguous quality, we're back to what we were once saying about Legolas. With a "secondary main character" that doesn't have the development, history, and life of the main characters, it is the very ambiguity that resides around them that attracts us. As readers, we want to build on what is given and develop it. Arwen was another of those characters, and again, New Line managed to develop her too much and take away that curiosity around her. I did like how they showed her in the films, partly - the quality about her (Liv Tyler was a good choice for her character) was good, with that ethereal, angelic aura. (Has anyone else heard the comments about her being a "slut" in the dream sequence because of her dress? Am I the only one who gets mad over that comment?) Did she have a point? Of course! She's the ultimate driving force behind Aragorn's destiny - she's his love, his life, his ultimate hope, just by being there. And that's exactly my point. She doesn't have to have a physical embodiment within the books to have importance. It may take a more observant person to notice what, exactly she's there for, but it doesn't mean she isn't there. If she weren't there, a part of me really wants to believe that Aragorn wouldn't have taken the throne. And for the books, that is more important than how many times we see her. What she is and what she represents is what makes up her importance. ~ Elwen
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Apr 26, 2005 2:11:58 GMT -5
Management Note: This post has been moved to the Cinema board, in the thread entitled "Helms Deep and the XenArwen Conception". This is a post concerning Arwen as a book character, not solely her film character. Please keep with content on the appropriate boards.
Thank you, Tales of Arda Management
|
|
|
Post by Mithwen Delbaeth on Apr 30, 2005 14:49:53 GMT -5
Dun dun dun. Now we can have a real debate. I DON'T like Arwen. I see her as an unessissary character. She didn't really do anything except sew a couple banners and didn't help at all. She left her children right after Aragorn died, so they lost both a mother and a father in a very small span of time. I have heard that Arwen was supposed to be the one who kept Aragorn from taking the Ring, but I don't beleive that she could be the only one keeping him from submiting to Sauron's will. He had many friends didn't he? Wouldn't they have given him hope and the will to go on and reject Sauron?
Mod Note: As stated, please don't advertise personal sites here. While it may be understood why this has been placed here, it still stands as a personal site and the argument can be furthered without it. The link has been moved to the Advertising board.
Thanks, Tales of Arda management[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Lady Elwen on May 1, 2005 15:10:18 GMT -5
Yay!! We have an anti-Arwen person!! Now we can have some fun... *evil grin*
As stated, she isn't a concrete character with a physical being in the course of the books; she's there as a driving will behind Aragorn. She may not have been the one driving Aragorn to take the Ring, but his love for her was so great that he was willing to claim the throne he wasn't sure he wanted to gain her hand. Elrond was adamant that she would not marry Aragorn unless he became all he could be. If he had not had Arwen as a love, the chances that he would not have partaken in the Quest at all are extremely high. True, Aragorn had many friends, but not necessarily capable of bringing him to join the Fellowship, hence never exposing him to the lure of the Ring in the first place. He may have stayed a Ranger for the entirety of his life, never trying for his true place.
She may have left her children, but one can say that they were more than old enough to handle things. We also don't know for sure how long a time interval lay between Aragorn's passing and Arwen's departure. It may have been years, and it may have been months. We can't make that discretion. And furthermore, it is said that "the light was quenched in her eyes" and whatnot; would having a shell of what their mother once was be desired over the knowledge that she had passed in peace and was now back with the one she loved? She would have lived until all she loved had been taken from her, but with her immortal heritage, she could have still died from grief, as she would not simply grow old and die, that being part of the curse of taking immortality.
~ Elwen
|
|
|
Post by Mithwen Delbaeth on May 7, 2005 10:56:32 GMT -5
Where does it say all this. I read the Story of Aragorn and Arwen I don't remeber it saying that.
What about Gandalf? Wern't he and Aragorn close friends? Gandalf was in the Fellowship. Also what about Frodo? I think Aragorn would not have stayed a Ranger. He would have joined the Fellowship because he would know what would happen if Sauron regained the Ring and his path in the LOTR would have brought him to Gondor and he would have seen how much Gondor needed a king.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Elwen on May 8, 2005 20:50:21 GMT -5
Well, what specifically? The notes about Elrond are in the Tale, and the notes on Arwen being the driving force... Well, "read between the lines" is as best as I can say - much of what Tolkien says isn't directly stated, but rather stated very subtly by combining into other statements. Equally, many concepts are speculation, but they aren't entirely unjustified. I will say more on the Gandalf angle later, but keep in mind that Aragorn didn't really know Frodo until the Quest began. He knew Gandalf, yes, but that's another explanation for another time. And that time is now... Hehe... So yes, he knew Gandalf. But I don't think that Gandalf would have pressed him into joining the Fellowship, or indeed even asked him to return to Rivendell. Perhaps, by chance, he may have been home during that time to learn of it from his father, but there's no guarantee that he would have joined. Have you ever loved something or someone so much that you were willing to do almost anything to help them or make them happy? (That came out wrong; it's not meant in as patronizing a manner as it seems...) It seems that Arwen loved Aragorn, but the reality of their union lay with him, and no her. She could marry him, yes, but Elrond himself told Aragorn that she would not marry him by his [Elrond's] leave unless he became who he was meant to be. It is in the Tale - I don't have the book on hand right now or I'd quote it. So he was willing to take a throne with attention he didn't want to make himself and Arwen happy in their union, as doing it without Elrond's blessing would not have likely been pretty. In all honesty, much of this is speculation, but a good amount is also in the text. To each his own, I suppose... ~ Elwen
|
|
|
Post by Anaroriel on May 11, 2005 17:07:39 GMT -5
*reads and cheers for Elwen while randomly muttering "hey, you stole that point from me..."* JK. We just think too much alike, and I also steal from her. I have nothing to add really. I have lost my fire for this topic, and wish to sort of move on to another character now (thinking Aragorn, which ties into Arwen, which means lots of more inconspicuous Arwen debating!) and I also have a feeling we are overwhelming our poor one Arwen-hater. *Yay Eldariel! You are so brave* And, I think I accidentally overwhelmed her in my essay reviews thread. *oops!* I also really liked Angel's points. Really good and thought out.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Elwen on May 19, 2005 22:37:05 GMT -5
*grins* Which point would that be? There's a lot of them! Aragorn and Arwen... We could debate back and forth on every aspect of Tolkien's Middle-Earth nonstop, but admittedly, some of them have become a bit jaded.... *chuckles* Kudos Eldariel; I'll have to recruit some Arwen haters for the site to give you your army. Nah, Ana... I think we're all just busy. If my schedule is any indication, everyone's probably getting near to exams. And on my closing point, allow me to say that with Arwen, she was one of those embodiments of the feminine side that didn't appear very often in ME. I don't think this is true, but Tolkien may have been making a statement upon the women of his time. If that's true, then I have plenty to say, but, well, yes. ~ Elwen
|
|
|
Post by Anaroriel on May 20, 2005 19:39:14 GMT -5
Everyone is, or at least me, is getting closer to exams. Which is why I haven't emailed you back yet. *sorry!* And I'd like to personally cut out the tongue of the teacher who first decided take home essays should count as an exam... Yes, jaded, I agree. I thought of the most awesome thing the other day concerning Arwen leaving her children: Sam, Merry and Pippin did it too! Ha! So there Arwen-haters! If you have to hate Arwen, you're going to have to hate Sam, Merry and Pippin too! And while I am on a roll, Frodo! Yes, Frodo! He left and he could have stayed but he was in too much pain. Frodo = pain = Arwen. Same pain guys! And, what about Aragorn? Ok, so he was dying, but he even admitted that he could have stayed alive longer (I think that was him, or maybe I am confusing him with someone else) anyway, so Arwen should be hated for leaving her family when everyone else did too! HA! Ok, done now.
|
|
|
Post by Coriandra on May 21, 2005 22:24:18 GMT -5
I would have liked to have seen more of Arwen in the books and less of her in the movies. I didn't give her much thought until I read her story in the appendix which I found fascinating and I admired the sacrifice she made. It's too bad she wasn't more developed.
On the other hand, she took up entirely too much space in the movie. I could live with her replacing Glorfindel because it didn't change the story. They could have shown a brief love scene with her and Aragorn in FOTR too and kept her scene with Elrond in TTT to explain the situation for people who hadn't read the book, but that should have been it for her until the end. The time could have been better sent on developing the other characters and for scenes that were in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Elwen on May 22, 2005 0:52:34 GMT -5
Nice argument, Ana. And yes, Aragorn did admit that theoretically, he could have remained longer, but he wished to retain dignity and not become as those of the last line in Numenor. So yes, he could have stayed, just as Arwen could have and didn't. Everyone sort of left everyone else, if you want to think of it that way - Merry and Pippin went to Gondor and Rohan, Sam passed to the Havens, Frodo left all his friends, etc. Never quite thought on that one until now... And yes, she did, up to a point, take up a lot of space. But then, from the perspective of people who had never heard of LoTR or Tolkien until the films arrived, it may have been beneficial. After all, part of the point was to have a film that people who hadn't read the books could follow. Developing Arwen's relationship with Aragorn in a way that wouldn't involve too drastic a change (i.e. in dreams and flashbacks) worked better to show their relationship without either retaining Aragorn in Rivendell or, for example, going through with putting Arwen in Helm's Deep. I think that they had to show her that way so that people wouldn't fall over from confusion when she appeared at the end to marry Aragorn. From the perspective of one who has read the books, then yes, by all means, having her there in the films as much as she was was completely unnecessary, because we knew what she was there for, what she was doing, and what her purpose was. We didn't need all that random stuff to show us who she was. Unfortunately, I've met people who still don't get her point after all that, so I have no idea what that tells you. But yeah. That's my spiel. I suppose it beats a movie like the recent Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where it was confusing unless you'd read the books... Depends upon preference, I guess... ~ Elwen
|
|
|
Post by Mithwen Delbaeth on May 23, 2005 17:56:31 GMT -5
Yes, but Sam had many relatives who could take care of his children and all of his children were likely old enough to take care of themselves. And didn't Merry and Pippin not know they were going to die when they left? I thought that they had left because they received a message from Eomer saying the he would like to see Merry again and Pippin went with him.
Frodo had to leave with all the Ringbeares, didn't he? All of the Ringbearers were going so Frodo had to go with them for he had born a Ring of power. That is also part of the reason Sam left too. Because he also bore the Ring for a small amount of time and he did wear it for a while actully.
|
|