If Arwen had been cut from the films

[Primula Baggins]

<spikes football>

[axordil]

Hey, can't I make a half-assed mostly-joking observation without getting ganged up on by the League of Woman Posters?

That's a rhetorical question of course.

[Primula Baggins]

It's just that we know how you love it.

Besides, it let me make a post in a Tolkien thread that was factually correct, and believe me, I treasure those up.

[Holbytla]

I admit to being guilty as well, but man sometimes we read too much into things.

The elves were fading. The three rings were either doomed to fade as well or be subjected to Sauron and the One. Arwen no more or less than anyone else.

The only thing she embodied was the hope that the elves couild do their little part in the futuring of the fourth age and the reuniting of the Númenórean bloodline.

She was no more representative of the elves plight than Galadriel or any other elf. In fact Galadriel was far more a literal representation of the elves and their fading than anyone in the Tolkien's books. PJ and Co overconcocted everything, so I have no clue as to what was connected to what or whom.

[vison]

[Sassafras]

Heh.

Just wait until we begin discussing The Divine Feminine in Tolkien's works, Holby.

Then you can really start pulling out your hair.

Or what's left of it.

[Primula Baggins]

Oooo, oooo! I am so there, Sass. And not just to torture Holby, either.

[axordil]

Hey, I can analyze till the cows come home, if people play nice.

[Holbytla]

Ah yes, let's make Varda the Virgin Mary. Gandalf can be Christ and Sauron can be the devil.

Ooh and Saruman can be Pontius Pilate. I wonder if we can stretch Éowyn into Mary Magdelaine.

I am far more likely to believe Tolkien had "happy accidents".

[Primula Baggins]

Or, he wrote from a mindset that values many of those archetypal images, and so there are shadows of them in his work. But I do respect his absolute conviction that he was not writing allegory by intention. Any allegorical interpretation that can only be found by twisting the work out of its natural shape also obliterates any real meaning that might be there, hiding under the leaves, so much more real and valuable.

[Holbytla]

Well you know he was what he was and he wrote what he wrote. We are all free to interpret his works as we wish, and subsequently criticize any adaptation.

Personally, I believe he wrote an epic fantasy story and naturally parts of him were visible in the story. I'm perfectly content with taking it at face value. There were valar, elves, men etc. born into a fictional world and they were nothing more or less than that.

[Sassafras]

While it is certainly true that Tolkien is famous for saying that he cordially disliked allegory in any of its manifestations he also maintained (and I quote here from one source but the contention of allegory>story>truth is repeated many times throughout Letters) ...... he is making the distinction between obvious allegory and applicability ..... or so I believe.

Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth. So that the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human 'literature', that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily can be read as 'just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it.
Letter 109

Meanwhile:

Holby said:

Personally, I believe he wrote an epic fantasy story and naturally parts of him were visible in the story. I'm perfectly content with taking it at face value. There were valar, elves, men etc. born into a fictional world and they were nothing more or less than that.

That is certainly a valid way to read LotR. I just happen to think that there are more layers than just that particular one. But, as you say, we are all entitled to read into Tolkien whatever we want.

And btw, he did say that Galadriel was influenced by his perception of Mary. Letter 142.

[Holbytla]

Yeah I read Letters, Unfinished Tales and the rest of the lot.
Tolkien was a master revisionist, especially regarding Galadriel. Or should I refer to her as Nerwen?

I am not denying the existence of underlying themes, they are certainly there. It is just some of these hypotheses are too convenient and we read too much into things.

As I said, the story on its own stands on its own merits and I don't need anything else from it. If people derive more pleasure by trying to read between the lines, then so be it.

I admit to my interest being piqued enough to research what I could regarding the "roots" that were laid down in LOTR. I've taken into account the Sil and Unfinished Tales etc., but the fact remains that the Hobbit and LOTR are the only Tolkien approved texts. The rest was indeed unfinished and in a state of revision up until his death.

[Frelga]

It is no easier for us mortals to realize that though we love, we will also always experience loss. Arwen's choice was to open herself to loss - and it is always a choice.

I never thought her sorrow and pain meant that she "regretted" her choice. Even when she said, "There is now no ship that would bear me hence". She knew what she was doing when she did it, but it hurt more than she could possibly have understood when she fell in love with Aragorn and vowed to share his fate.

It is true for all of us.

[Athrabeth]

and so she is the physical embodiment of the fading of the Three

That's perilously close to ALITTTFOTR, you know.

Not that close. The Three, not the One; and she is an Elf, so naturally her existence in Middle-earth is tied to the fate of the Three. It fits, where ALINTTTFOTR does not.

Ah, but fate of The Three is tied to the fate of The One. The ultimate doom of the High Elves in Middle-earth is decided by the destruction of The Ring.

But that still doesn't mean ALITTTFOTR makes any sense.

Personally, I believe he wrote an epic fantasy story and naturally parts of him were visible in the story. I'm perfectly content with taking it at face value. There were valar, elves, men etc. born into a fictional world and they were nothing more or less than that.

and

I am not denying the existence of underlying themes, they are certainly there. It is just some of these hypotheses are too convenient and we read too much into things.

I would agree with you if LOTR was written as a "stand alone" book (even with The Hobbit preceding it). But Tolkien was a myth-maker, first and foremost, and the world that is revealed in LOTR is not only rooted in that myth, it is infused with it. The real power of myth is not in the events and characters that are presented, it is in the meaning - often deeply personal meaning - that we discover through those events and characters. While LOTR is most definitely not "pure myth" like the Sil, there are elements, like Arwen's character, that are, IMO, there purely for their symbolic resonance. We are meant, I think, to "form hypotheses" about such elements, and while we may differ in our interpretations of their meaning, the personal truths we may find in that meaning cannot fairly be judged as reading "too much into things". If Tolkien hadn't wanted us to reflect on the deeper meaning of Arwen's and Aragorn's relationship, and especially on Arwen's fate, he wouldn't have written their Tale as he did.

Tolkien was a master revisionist, especially regarding Galadriel. Or should I refer to her as Nerwen?

Geek.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I would agree with you if LOTR was written as a "stand alone" book (even with The Hobbit preceding it). But Tolkien was a myth-maker, first and foremost, and the world that is revealed in LOTR is not only rooted in that myth, it is infused with it. The real power of myth is not in the events and characters that are presented, it is in the meaning - often deeply personal meaning - that we discover through those events and characters. While LOTR is most definitely not "pure myth" like the Sil, there are elements, like Arwen's character, that are, IMO, there purely for their symbolic resonance. We are meant, I think, to "form hypotheses" about such elements, and while we may differ in our interpretations of their meaning, the personal truths we may find in that meaning cannot fairly be judged as reading "too much into things". If Tolkien hadn't wanted us to reflect on the deeper meaning of Arwen's and Aragorn's relationship, and especially on Arwen's fate, he wouldn't have written their Tale as he did.

Moreover, that deeper meaning becomes all the more deeper when taken in the context of the full myth (rather than the glimpes of it that are given in LOTR alone). This is, perhaps, a thought that should go in the "Tolkien's Expanding Universe" thread rather than here, but for me the various components of Tolkien's legendarium each illuminates each other in different ways. As does reading Tolkien's own thoughts about his subcreation in his letters, as well as the thoughts of others, expressed both in scholarly works by "experts" such as Shippey and Flieger and in these discussions by all of you crazy people.

[MithLuin]

All us crazy people, huh?

Where does that leave you?

Oh, and my brother and I just watched RotK EE a few days ago. He fastforwarded through the scenes with Arwen in them Only those scenes

[Voronwë the Faithful]

All us crazy people, huh?

Where does that leave you?

As the inmate running the asylum?

[Anduril]

I actually haven't replied on my own thread yet... Right now, all I can answer is:

Well if the LOTR had been translated as written, Arwen would have turned uo in ROTK as just a trophy wife/seamstress.

I never said I wanted such a film... flashbacks derived from the Appendices were welcome, but they had to go beyond that with "fate tied to the Ring", "reviving with a kiss" and the "Evenstar"... it could have been salvaged if it turned out to be the jewel Frodo receives in Minas Tirith.

If Arwen at the Ford is a given, it wouldn't have affected the film if she had companions - including Glorfindel! Why not? I mean, ROTK pandered to certain fans with the return of "Figwit". Glorfindel wouldn't even have to speak any lines, just be the "blonde guy".

Without Arwen the entire dynamic would have changed.

True, true...

[Mrs.Underhill]

I remember being extremely annoyed by knife-to-the-throat and ASTF (was there such an abbreviation? Arwen Stealing Frodo's Thunder?), but ended up mostly liking Arwen in the movies. The scene of Aragorn's death alone was worth Arwen's expanded role.

I recently rewatched LoTR, for the first time in 5 years and with a fresh look. And I saw so much more sense and depth in the movie-Arwen. There were still moments which grated, yes that tied up to the Ring thing wasn't resolved satisfactory, but she was important as a symbol of hope rising and fading, for Elves and the future of ME.

Funny how she didn't quite work as a romantic partner but remained a symbolic figure, just like in the book. And most of the symbolism worked.

For example, in FotR SEE her helping Frodo (and Aragorn) on the flight to the Ford was actually a passable interpretation of the book events.

In SEE we get a first hint of her with Aragorn's song of Lúthien, just like in the book. It's when Frodo first learns about Lúthien, and in the book he calls on her at the Ford, and her name, memory of her, helps him to stand against the Nazgûl.
In the movie Arwen comes to Frodo's help as an embodiment of Lúthien herself. I love her first appearance to Frodo, as an otherwordly figure of light. He might think it was indeed Lúthien coming to their aid. And so at the Ford she helped him in person – not in spirit like in the book, but still in the same vein. I’d still prefer Frodo to stand there himself, but I also can live with this Arwen moment (but not with the-knife-at-the-throat, that was awful!).

In FotR Arwen tries to share her hope with Aragorn. Aragorn with his "she died" shows us that he thinks he shouldn't put claims on Arwen, thinks himself unworthy. He doesn't want to subject her to the mortal fate. He doesn't have faith in his destiny, his bloodline etc. (which is easily explainable in the movie, ‘cause duh – have you seen Movie!Elrond? Imagine Aragorn being raised by this guy with the constant drone of “Men are weak”. No wonder he had no belief in himself).
Arwen coming to their aid is as symbolic for Aragorn as for Frodo. Aragorn didn’t believe he’s worthy of love like Lúthien’s. But his Lúthien came to him in a desperate hour, showing him that he should hope.
Then we have Rivendell scenes where Arwen again tried to encourage Aragorn, and in the end she gave him the EvenStar which became the symbol of hope, of Estel, in the movies. It plays out so good, especially in TTT where it appears at key moments to show hope wane and wax for our heroes. Arwen gives hope to Aragorn, and is left without, symbolically. And so in TTT she falters, while Aragorn, also inspired by Gandalf and Frodo and Boromir, finds his hope and accepts his destiny.

TTT was my favorite movie of the three and it's even more so now, after I saw the thread which tied all its strands and plot lines: and that thread is Estel. All of the heroes find it by the end (and Sam’s speech actually ties into it), and are ready to face the decisive battle in RoTK. EvenStar inspires Aragorn to give hope to Théoden and even Legolas in Helm’s Deep, for example. For that reason him being pushy around the King of Rohan didn’t bother me: he wasn’t pushy - he was enlightened and was trying to share that light. It was his purpose in TTT.
Arwen goes against the grain here, as the one losing hope, and her going away grated on me for this reason. But now I see that it goes along with EvenStar symbol, as she gave it away to Aragorn. Elrond echoes it too in RotK, with his ‘I gave hope to Men, but left none for myself’. And so she alone of the good guys ends on the note of doubt and despair.

Elves in Helm’s Deep also make perfect sense in this context, even them bearing a message from Elrond while coming from Lórien. What we have here is the replay of the Last Alliance, Elves, and even Elrond, gaining hope that this battle is worth fighting even if they won’t reap the rewards. As they stood by Isildur, they’d now stand by Aragorn, and EvenStar. That’s why the message is from Elrond – because he was there at the Last Alliance, and so he gave his blessing for Elves to fight again. I’d say – he’s convinced by Galadriel that Arwen’s future in ME is worth fighting for, but Arwen’s leaving – so close but no cigar, this interpretation doesn’t hold…

Now we come to RotK, where EvenStar gets shattered but where Arwen regains hope, seeing the mortal way of continuing after death: children.
It came out muddled in RoTK, especially with EE where it seemed they were too tired by the end to work too much on the extra scenes. But I think what they were trying to say with Arwen’s death plot is that because she stayed, her future was tied with fate of ME - which was tied to the fate of the Ring.
Sauron uses it to blackmail Aragorn with Arwen’s death in palantír. Evenstar breaks, symbolizing the loss of personal hope for Aragorn. But he still goes to Ragnarok-like fight in the end, to battle without hope, like in Northern myths. At Black Gates Sauron again taunts Aragorn with Arwen’s death, but Aragorn is set to fight because they have to fight, without hope to gain anything. At least that’s what I thought they were getting at. Show Aragorn as a Northern hero and as a reflection on Frodo’s Endurance beyond Hope.

So I think Arwen really enriched the movie with this hope symbolism. But as Aragorn’s girlfriend, however… Well, it didn’t help that Aragorn didn’t think himself worthy of her 99% of the time, and treated her as something above himself, as a symbol and an inspiration rather than a love interest. The Coronation kiss salvaged that impression somewhat, but not entirely.

The thing which also didn’t help was the way PJ and Co had fun with Legolas being Arwen’s stand-in on Aragorn’s quest. I can’t believe I’ve never noticed it until now! But those guys were really mean to Arwen: first they turned her into a horse with that kiss, then they made Legolas tenderly hand EvenStar to Aragorn, while commenting on his looks – all that before the eyes of astounded Éowyn. Who might wonder at that moment exactly which Elvish beauty was the giver of that jewelry, and whether Aragorn specified beauty’s gender…
And the coronation.. *groan*. It really looked like Aragorn was going to kiss Legolas, until Legolas made this gesture of “nu-uh, look behind me”.

Still, Aragorn’s reluctance to accept Arwen’s love was as good way as any to resolve book’s dilemma of trying to make Arwen like Lúthien, and yet letting her wait patiently at her dad’s side for 70 years, without trying to help Aragorn in his toils towards their destiny. This is so not like Lúthien, and I wondered about how this Arwen’s passivity could be explained, why was she ready to wait for so long, risking this destiny never coming to pass? Because she loved her father? Or maybe she did help Aragorn more and maybe they even had a union behind the scenes, but it was left out of the book? Or maybe she herself didn’t want to give her love to Aragorn until he’s a King? I hope not!
Movie version actually gives a pretty good explanation: it was Aragorn who didn’t want this sacrifice from Arwen.

As I see it, the point of Arwen's choice is not to give Aragorn his trophy wife or to restore the bloodline - she didn't have to renounce her immortality to do that (see Elf blood in Dol Amroth). The point was for her to spend an eternity beyond the circles of the world with Aragorn rather than with her parents.

But the Doom of Men is hidden, and at the end, Arwen is faced with the certainty of loss without being assured that the reunion is to be happy, or even possible. Just like the rest of us, really.

Frelga, that’s a great insight, and those words finally made me understand Arwen’s choice. I could never make sense of it in the book: I thought she would have no choice by the time of Aragorn’s death, and also that she would have a mortal lifespan now, and wouldn’t be able to abide for so long in Lórien, in despair of her Gift. But it all makes sense now.