Much ado about Arwen: Elven Princess

Top 4. Jun 21, 2000 1:43 AM

» faxfayfaz - Arwen a power, but not a warrior

While it is possible to speculate about many aspects of life in Middle Earth, and such extrapolations can be insightful and exciting, in some cases we don't need to. Tolkien has provided us with explicit information about the character of Arwen and her relationship with her father. Although much is left unsaid in the LOTR, the outlines of her personality and her history are sufficient to rule out any warrior role for her in the War of the Ring. Instead, what makes her a fascinating heroine is her ability, typical of the Eldar of the Third Age, to have great sway over events merely through the power of thought.

In your arguments for the plausibility of a war-like Arwen you speculate that she frequently traveled through dangerous lands. From Tolkien himself we know for certain only that she made two return-trips from Rivendell (where she was probably born) to Lorien. She met Aragorn the first time she returned home, then again during her next visit to Lorien. Finally she returned to Rivendell shortly before the War started. If we believe what Tolkien tells us in the Tale of Years, that she only visited her grandmother's land twice in nearly 3000 years, then we cannot think of her as a great traveler. No doubt she faced the dangers of travel when she had to, and there is no harm in speculating that when she went abroad she did so armed and escorted. But it is one thing to deal with danger as part of one's duty, and quite another entirely to go off irresponsibly looking for it.

Here is what Tolkien tells us about her final trip home in the year 3009. "Elrond sends for Arwen, and she returns to Imladris; the Mountains and all lands eastward are becoming dangerous." Elrond does not "allow" her to travel the Mountains despite the danger; he orders her to return because the danger of travel is actually increasing. Of course it would be safer to stay in Lorien, but only in the short run. As Elrond no doubt foresees, despite Galadriel's great power (or perhaps because of it), Lorien is going to come under attack, as it does three times during the War. Rivendell fares much better, thanks in great measure to Gandalf's far-sighted strategy to make the North safer by eliminating Smaug.

In sending for her, Elrond wanted his daughter as far from potential battlefields as possible, far from Mordor and the Dark Lord, and far from the three Nazgul who have been threatening Lorien from Dol Guldur for the previous 50 years. Elrond must have felt that he rather than Galadriel had the power to protect the heir of Luthien. He wanted her over the mountains and safely by his side, and closer incidentally to the Havens of Lune should they need to flee Middle Earth... Remember that during the first War of the Rings in the Second Age he created the refuge of Rivendell and was even able to resist Sauron there for three years until help came from Numenor. The place must have been highly defensible, and it was for good reason that the heirs of Isildur, including Aragorn, were always reared there until manhood.

The bitter lessons the Eldar learned in their hopeless war with Morgoth during the First age allowed them to survive the next two ages in Middle earth. By the Third Age the Elves had become conservative in their strategy and avoided unnecessary risks. Rarely during all those long years did they go on the offensive as they did in alliance with the Numenoreans when Sauron was destroyed. They dwindled in numbers even as men increased. They might have continued with the "Long Defeat" had not the Istari arrived to encourage them. It was Gandalf who prodded them into some small offensive moves, such as the attack on Sauron's fortress of Dol Guldur in the same year the Ring was found.

So it is unlikely that Arwen, no matter how much of Galadriel's power she shared, would have engaged in any risky behaviour. Even the powerful Galadriel, Cirdan and Elrond stayed within the confines of the safe places they had created. After all, as Elrond explained to Gloin, the Three Rings were only useful as defensive weapons. This is not to say that the greatest of the Eldar were passive or inactive in the War, it just that there was no need for beings of their stature to battle with Sauron's troops on the physical plane. Instead they carried out a battle of the wills, as Galadriel explained to Frodo in Lorien.

It seems likely that Arwen's role in the War would have been similar: to use her strength of will, rather than might of arms. Indeed, Tolkien tells us that she used this power to protect Aragorn. "Arwen remained in Rivendell, and when Aragorn was abroad, from afar she watched over him in thought." Some who do not understand the relationship between them might think that these were mere romantic imaginings, rather than conscious attempts to protect the Isildur's heir from harm.

We need to see Arwen's greatness as of a kind with her father and grandmother, rather than turn her into a Luthien. It was a different age after all, and the Eldar had learned great caution, perhaps too much caution Gandalf would say. The power Arwen possessed was the ability to use her mind not only to see what would be, but also to effect the course of events. There was no need for her to venture forth from her place of safety against her father's wishes to play any other part in the War. Nor would she have taken the risk. To make her do so out of love changes her character in ways that are not supported by the evidence.

-- posted by faxfayfaz

Top 5. Jun 21, 2000 1:47 AM

» faxfayfaz - Faithful adaptation of LOTR to film would have been a winner

Just because most adaptations of novels to film don't
adhere closely to the originals does not mean it cannot be done, and many
of us LOTR fans believe not only that it can be, but that it ought to be.
An outstanding example of close adaptation is Emma Thompson's screenplay of
Jane Austen's Sense & Sensibility, which was both a critical and commercial
success. There is no reason to believe that a faithful rendition of the
LOTR would fare any worse.

-- posted by faxfayfaz

Top 6. Jun 25, 2000 2:18 AM

» Michael_Martinez - Arwen's dangerous travels

: In your arguments for the plausibility of a
: war-like Arwen you speculate that she
: frequently traveled through dangerous lands.
: From Tolkien himself we know for certain only
: that she made two return-trips from Rivendell
: (where she was probably born) to Lorien.

[snip]

First of all, Arwen's journeys are not the subject of Tolkien's history. The two return trips mentioned in the book are intended to place Arwen in the context of events which were being gradually explained in greater detail as the years rolled toward the War of the Ring.

We don't have precise dates for Gildor's visits to the Shire but we know he made at least several trips because he tells Frodo he has seen Frodo with Bilbo, and that Bilbo said farewell to Gildor and his folk in the same place where Frodo stayed with them.

Tolkien is clearly implying that the Elvenfolk were travellers. That was part of their culture.

Secondly, Arwen's purposes for visiting Lorien are not explained anyway. She may only have gone to spend some time with her grandparents but she was spending years, not weeks or months there.

The Misty Mountains became dangerous to travel through after the end of the Watchful Peace in 2460. Sauron began colonizing the mountains with Orcs and Trolls soon afterward, and they revealed themselves in 2509 when they attacked Celebrian's party and took her prisoner.

The Misty Mountains never really became safe again, and yet centuries later Arwen is travelling through them just as her mother had. So it's reasonable to infer that Arwen began travelling to Lorien at least after her mother departed over Sea and perhaps had travelled with her or of her own volition before then.

Such journeys were not vital to the histories being portrayed, but there is nothing in the texts which indicate that Arwen's trips to Lorien in the 30th century were unusual events.

Elrond's sending for Arwen is not a sign that the Misty Mountains are becoming dangerous for the first time, but that war with the eastern lands is imminent. The mountains were clearly dangerous in 2941 when Gandalf led Thorin and Company up into them. And yet Arwen was at that time in Lorien. After the Battle of Five Armies the Orcs of the Misty Mountains were diminished, but Sauron wasn't yet ready to declare himself, and the eastern lands weren't yet ready to assemble for war.

So Elrond very definitely allowed Arwen to travel through the mountains despite the danger, and the choice was probably not even in his hands. His sending for Arwen is the act of a father -- no doubt about that -- but Arwen was nearly 3,000 years old. She was well beyond childhood in the reckoning of the Elves.

Rivendell was itself in constant danger from the north, and probably from the mountains themselves. Elrond's sons and the Rangers were often seeking out dangerous creatures in the lands just north of Rivendell. The fact that Arwen still travelled over the mountains only underscores her freedom to move through dangerous lands at will. Elrond's action in 3009, therefore, is indicative of an increase in peril, not its advent.

Rivendell was no longer the fortress Elrond had created in the Second Age. Many of the Elves had fled over Sea, or died in the various wars. Elrond's people may have remained strong until the last great exodus near the end of the Third Age, but he really wasn't in a position to challenge Sauron. By all indications, Lorien had a stronger army and a larger population than Rivendell in the Third Age.

And your analysis of Eldarin initiative in the Third Age is also incorrect. The Eldar of Lindon actively suppressed Angmar for at least two centuries. Elrond himself went on the offensive from Rivendell on at least two occasions in the Third Age. There is no indication that the Eldar became "conservative". They were dwindling to some extent, but the greatest dwindling appears to have occurred at the end of the age when there was the great exodus mentioned in "The Shadow of the Past".

There is nothing wrong with letting Arwen become a warrior in the movies. She was certainly capable of it by all accounts, and her heritage would not have discouraged her. Following in Luthien's footsteps is a better expansion for her role in the story than following in, say, Melian's (Melian basically did nothing but maintain her girdle and advise Thingol -- she was powerful, but her power was invested in a defense no Elf could have maintained).

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 7. Jun 25, 2000 2:32 AM

» Michael_Martinez - The faithfulness of adaptations

: Just because most adaptations of novels to film
: don't adhere closely to the originals does not
: mean it cannot be done, and many of us LOTR
: fans believe not only that it can be, but that
: it ought to be.

[snip]

Just because a faithful adaptation CAN be made doesn't mean it SHOULD be made. I can tell you right now if I were involved in writing the screenplay I would probably make Arwen an active member of the White Council. I wouldn't drop Bombadil except to save screen time, but I would certainly consider other changes.

It's not that I think I can tell the story better, but that I accept Tolkien's admission that the story isn't suitable (as he wrote it) for a screenplay or any similar dramatization. Fans who want to be respectful of the author should remember that he never held other writes to the standard being demanded of Peter Jackson.

Tolkien disliked one adaptation (Morton Grady Zimmerman's) but was dutifully satisfied (if not enthusiastic) with another (the BBC First Programme broadcast) after a poor start -- and I should note that the First Programme included Bombadil, although Tolkien didn't like their Bombadil. Tolkien was far more gentle to Terence Tiller (the BBC adapter) than he was to Zimmerman.

Tolkien fandom must find a capable screenwriter to fulfill their dreams of a faithful adaptation, but then they must assure that screenwriter of sufficient backing to produce the inevitable string of movies which would be required to complete the project.

It's already patently clear that three movies is not enough, and yet these three movies are the first ever to be filmed together (unless one wishes to consider the 84-hour "Cure for Insomnia" as a series of movies).

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 8. Apr 3, 2001 4:47 PM

» yankee_girl123 - THats dumb

Everthing in this moive should be the samr as the book. But now everthing is being changed. It should stay the way it is.

-- posted by yankee_girl123

Top 9. Jun 11, 2001 11:11 AM

» desertblue - Arwen as Warrior Princess

Seems like having Arwen be a Warrior Princess is more of a nod to what movie-goers expect in their epic films. Princess Leia was a sharp-shooter, like her mother: royalty raised to use arms to protect themselves if necessary. Xena has raised the bar on women action heroes. Not having a strong woman warrior would be felt in its absence...

This is not to diminish Eowyn. Her story is very specifically drawn and I hope Jackson is faithful to the pathos and honor of this wonderful character. But she cannot be the "love interest" and people will wonder what the hell is wrong with Aragorn for spurning her, if he doesn't have something else going on. The book kind of springs Arwen on us at the end. The movie can't really do this: it won't make much sense in the context of movie expectations.

I'm not supporting the enlargement of Arwen's role but I'm not negating its necessity for the general public.

As with most things, I will withhold my judgement and wait to see if Jackson can pull it off in an engaging (and not overplayed) way.

-- posted by desertblue

Top 10. Feb 15, 2002 6:56 AM

» ArwenRules - Re: Arwen as Warrior Princess

Personaly I think Liv Tyler As Arwen Was Very Good Indeed. I was glad to see they Enlarged her part. that was one of the best parts of the movie to me, I have seen it 11 times already, and joined the fan club, I have also read the books, Arwen is more exciting than the other elf guy. I just dont under stand why everyone thinks it was a bad judgment by Jackson, but thats just my opinion. I will continue try and find more sites about Arwen, A TON of people have no clue who Viggo Morentson is, but I know he was on A Perfect Murder And GI Jane. He Is a WONDERFUl actor and does not look 43 (yeah can ya believe it) He and Liv Look Cute Together.

-- posted by ArwenRules

Top 11. Oct 1, 2002 5:52 PM

» Princess_Arwen - Re: Re: Arwen as Warrior Princess

I agree. I may not be very educated in this area, but I do read books, and I think Arwen was a great Princess. I have seen the movie plenty of times to know how well she handled things. She was a very brave woman. She loved Aragorn so much that she gave him the Evenstar. Now, that is LOVE, giving up your immortality. In fact, I am watching the DVD right know.

-- posted by Princess_Arwen

Top 12. Oct 2, 2002 8:33 AM

» Laitoste - Re: Faithful adaptation of LOTR to film would have been a winne

In response to message posted by faxfayfaz

I've been agreeing with your arguments, even though I have no problem with Arwen in the FOTR. Now, if she were to be at Helm's Deep(which well-respected websites and TTT trailers[I LOVE the one that came out two days ago!] have suggested that she is not.)...that's another story. That would be going too far--it would overshadow Eowyn. She's supposed to be the major female warrior in the book, and if someone who is already wise and beautiful were to almost take over her role, there would be no importance in her character. Gosh, you might as well have Arwen kill the Witch King, and kick Eowyn out of the story--forget about poor Faramir.
As for Sense and Sensibility being a faithful rendition...well, not really. No more than LOTR has been, that's for sure. Now, A&E's Pride and Prejudice would have been the best example there--it's just about word for word. But let's not get off the subject.
As for the other side of the argument...it is convincing in that Jackson can not be totally true to the book. But what's wrong with an unnoticeable point on the elf ears? I think that's kind of silly too, but you can't even see it--just ignore it. I don't remember any medieval castles...As for the armored orcs, if Tolkien implied(or said) that they weren't, I'll agree with you there.
LOTR is my favorite movie, and I think Jackson did an excellent job with it. Like I said, as long as Arwen doesn't take Eowyn's role, it really isn't too unrealistic that she carry a sword in her hand and there's really no problem with it.
By the way, speaking of the TTT trailer that came out Monday, even though I loved it I think they kind of got off the subject. If you didn't know any better, you might think the name of the movie was "The Two Lovers". But I understand why they put those scenes in the trailer.

-- posted by Laitoste