Tolkien Gateway



[edit] Portrayal in Adaptations

The point is made in here that Arwen turns back for Rivendell after seeing a vision of her future child, but that this is unlikely to have been a major surprise to her. I always took this as a reference to the idea that elves had fewer children than humans, so it was not automatic that Arwen should bear a child at all in her lifetime. I know that LOTR and Silmarillion mention the relative fertility somewhere, can't remember where right now!

See the following quote:
"Also the Eldar say that in the begetting, and still more in the bearing of children, greater share and strength of their being, in mind and in body, goes forth than in the making of mortal children. For these reasons it came to pass that the Eldar brought forth few children; and also that their time of generation was in their youth or earlier life, unless strange and hard fates befell them. But at whatever age they married, their children were born within a short space of years after their wedding. . ."
Morgoth's Ring

[edit] General Griping

My problem with Arwen's role in the movie was not that she replaced Glorfindel, which was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but that she stole screentime from other characters who were more important to the story. Instead of Frodo making a brave-but-futile stand against the Black Riders at the Ford of Bruinen, he just becomes baggage for Arwen. Her dream-sequence appearance in The Two Towers is completely contrived, and the time could have been better spent developing the Ents or including the final confrontation with Saruman. Her scenes in The Return of the King were not as bad, but her best role would have been delivering Anduril instead of the contrived "Arwen will die if the ring isn't destroyed" plot thread. --Ted C 15:10, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Be glad she didn't go to Helm's Deep as was originally planned! But I agree with you on most of your points. It would have been, in my opinion, good if there were scenes of her weaving the banner of Elendil, and then the triumphant unfurling of it. The significance of this event was either overlooked or rejected by PJ. Then again, perhaps it would be considered too "anti-feminist" for this modern generation. . . --Narfil Palùrfalas 17:53, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Indeed, she could have defied Elrond by having the sword reforged herself and taking it to Aragorn, which would have tied her into the story much more neatly. Of course, that would create the problem of her and Eowyn having a chance to meet, but I'm not sure that would work so badly, as it would handily explain Eowyn's reckless desire to go get killed in battle. --Ted C 11:17, 7 November 2006 (EST)

This would be at the further expense of Elrond's character. I disagree with the whole sword-comes-late idea anyway, though it is not as big a change as some others. As I said, I think if PJ had stuck to the book (and the Appendixes) he would have had plenty of material. --Narfil Palùrfalas 12:45, 7 November 2006 (EST)
Do people really accuse such books as LotR as sexist for lack of female characters? I've heard of the ridiculous charges of racism (because of the violation of political correctness), but does this charge of sexism really happen? --Narfil Palùrfalas 07:56, 16 November 2006 (EST)
I certainly don't hear charges of sexism aimed at Tolkien. He was actually quite liberal for someone of his generation. I haven't heard such charges aimed at PJ, either, but of course he pushed Arwen and Galadriel into the story in every film, which would probably deflect that sort of criticism. --Ted C 10:23, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Really, the lack of female characters, not only in LotR but in just about all of Tolkien's writings, is rather noticeable. They aren't generally treated in a sexist fashion when they are represented (just look at Éowyn and Haleth! Especially in the 1950's, such female characters were rare), but often they're just nearly absent from the stories. Now, this probably has something to do with Tolkien's "historical" feel; mentions of women in our own histories are sadly few. —Tar-Telperien 15:28, 16 November 2006 (EST)
Lack of named female characters, rather. Rog 16:07, 20 November 2006 (EST)
Tar-Telperien wrote: Now, this probably has something to do with Tolkien's "historical" feel; IIRC, Tolkien wrote somewhere that, as a man, he didn't feel qualified to write about women, or something along those lines. --Earendilyon 17:26, 20 November 2006 (EST)
That's interesting. I'd very much like to see the original statement. I'm not surprised he might have felt that way, didn't his mother die at a very young age? But I'm usually not displeased with how he portrays the female characters he does put in the stories. (Obviously I dislike some of them, but I dislike plenty of the male characters too.) I suppose I'm satisfied because plenty of the women in the histories are strong characters and (like me) in touch with their masculine sides (Éowyn and Haleth again). I really like that he didn't show all his characters as conforming to gender roles. That'd just be too boring for me. —Tar-Telperien 17:40, 20 November 2006 (EST)

[edit] Removal of 'Evenstar' from title

Since we, at this point in time, have taken the route of separate pages for each name, epithet and translation, i think it is confusing to include in the title an epithet which already has a separate page- namely [[Evenstar]]. For these purposes i would therefore reccomend dropping the epithet from the page title. Dr Death 08:29, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree. I had wondered why it was included in the title in the first place, but didn't think it was a big enough deal to bring up at the time, and forgot about it. I suggest a move to Arwen. Personally, I think Arwen Undómiel is better than Arwen Evenstar, so I'm fine with that as well. --Narfil Palùrfalas 09:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Image

Can anyone else not see the current infobox image? If so, which image would be recommended as a replacement? We don't have the best collection of Arwen images. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:27, 27 January 2008 (EST)

I do see it, no problemo! ~ Earendilyon 13:31, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Looks fine to me, although if you can't see it maybe there are others who can't in which case a change might be beneficial. --Hyarion 13:43, 27 January 2008 (EST)

I think the top profile image is a bit inappropriate. Of course I don't want to rant on the talented artist's work, but I think a hasty and sketchy depiction of the most beautiful being on Middle-earth would deserve a better (and colored) illustration for the infobox. For this reason I put Howe's picture in the infobox and I hope you agree Sage 09:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, agree. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 09:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Me ranting about languages again. "and shares the -miel evening / nighttime suffix." Okay, here goes: Tindomë refers to the twilight of dawn. The second element is probably -iel, "daughter". As for Undómiel... Undómë refers to the evening twilight, with a second element el "star", thus translating Evenstar. The /-i-/ is a relic; the ending /-ë/ comes from a Common Eldarin ending /-i/, which is preserved in compounds. -- Ederchil 03:51, 7 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] House of... categories

Arwen is a Third Age character and it seems to me that by the Second and Third Ages, the Houses of Finwe, Olwe et al. did not exist as political entities. Ancestry does not equal membership. It's like saying that Tolkien is Indo-European or that Nathaniel Lees is Polynesian. Sage 13:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think our "Houses of..." categories are over-used and abused in general. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
+1 --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction to Jackson's portrayal

I think that a large part from this category is rather unnecessary. For instance, the accusations of Tolkien being sexist are rather irrelevant to the article. There could be a separate article similar to "Racism in Tolkien's Work" that contains criticism on that matter. The lack of female characters could still be mentioned as the reason behind the expansion of Arwen's character and the reaction by fans but nothing more. Unsigned comment by Sandy (talk • contribs).

I'm okay with removing it. It's mostly opinion. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
+1 to deleting entire section. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
In the reference part it is stated that "References are the cornerstone of any serious encyclopedia. Though much of our old content remains without references, Tolkien Gateway wishes to properly credit its facts. This way, fanon and overinterpretation can be properly identified as such, and omitted. " This part as I said before is rather irrelevant and I think it falls under this category. It has no sources apart from the irrelevant Laws and Customs of the Eldar and it is an overinterpretation of Arwen's character portrayal. After two admins agreed deleting it I deleted it and edited some part of "Portrayal in Adaptations" to make it a bit more objective. My changes were undone and I think that it's up to the admins to decide to keep the overlong and unnecessary part or not.--Sandy 13:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Another editor undid your edit, but Ederchil restored it. As you can see on the page, your edits stand. :) --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 09:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)