Stories of Arda - Lord of the Rings Fan-Fiction Archive


	About Us News Resources Login Become a member Help Search

Virtuella's Idiosyncratic Literary Criticisms by Virtuella	17 Review(s)
Estelcontar	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/7/2009
And many people would also argue that the fact that she was chosen to fulfil a position of power and responsability by her king in his absence illustrates a society in which woman are not so discriminated against. But then again, even if she thinks she was chosen "on account of being a woman", that does not prove Aragorn was a misogynist. does it? It only proves Tolkien was brilliant and fair enough to portray in the character of a woman what many feminists argue today. Let me point out that during the entire dialogue Aragorn not once refers to gender, but only to the duty and responsibility of those who accept the charge to govern their people, again, I repeat regardless or their sex. It is Éowyn who mentions gender as an excuse not to fulfil her duty and responsibility and to follow her own heart. In the context, Aragorn was not being a sexist; he was just being true to his own self. After all, instead of sitting in peace in Rivendell, where his heart was (FOTR, flight to the Ford, p. 202), he is about to thread The Paths of the Dead. Now, if I were perverse, I could argue that Tolkien as an author was being sexist, in thus portraying Éowny , but that wouldn’t have been true either, would it? He was just, as you mentioned, giving voice through Éowyn to some of today's feminists, in my mind misguided opinion, that duty and responsability-based ethics is a trap to enslave us. As for her pointing 'out that men have chosen for their duty that which gives them honour and social status, whereas the duty assigned to women (by men) are those for which they cannot expect to receive much in the way of a reward', as you mentioned, again, in no way proves that Aragorn was a misogynist. It only proves that Tolkien was once more fair enough to let a woman character air our plight throughout history. As I said, let us agree to disagree. Otherwise we would be arguing this point here to Kingdom come. Author Reply: If you wish. I don't shun debate, and I rarely run out of arguments, but if you're getting tired of it, let's put it to rest. Thanks for your input.

Estelcontar	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/7/2009
So, we will have to agree to disagree about this. In my opinion, given the situation which they were facing, if Éowyn after accepting the charge of being responsible for her people, just left after Aragorn because she loved him and would rather be with him, she would have been totally irresponsible, and he would have been even more so if he had accepted her help. Aragorn was not defining what a woman's duty was. He was defining what he thought a marshal or captain's duty was: "'If you had not been chosen, then some marshal or captain would have been set in the same place, and he could not ride away from his charge, were he weary of it or no.'" I'll go even further, he was defining what he thought a virtuous person duty was regardless of sex. Don't forget that duty had always been the overriding principle by which he guided his life. Let me remind you that Aragorn was not Éowyn's father or guardian, so, even if he had wished to do so, he could not have imposed anything on her, or put down anything as the law for her. He could, as he did, point out what he would have done in her place, which would most not be follow his own heart's desire. He did indeed not accept her offer to follow him down The Paths of the Dead. This he could do because he was the leader of the Grey Company, and as so it was his right to decide who should go with him or not. Furthermore, in love as he was with Arwen it would be doubly irresponsible of him not only to encourage Éowyn to desert her duty to her people in a time of peril, but also to encourage her hopeless love for him; both of which he would have done, let me point out, if he had accepted her offer. What we have here are two different points of view, regardless of the sex of the character who stands for each: one, quite modern, which puts personal fullfilment to the fore, and another, not so modern which puts duty and responsability for others to the fore. I, for one, do agree with Aragorn, and have admired him imensely for many years now, among other things, exactly because of this. Given though that this is most certainly a matter of personal choice, let's leave it at that, shall we? You may think of Aragorn as dull and a misogynist. I'll always admire him as a kind, generous, self-sacrificing and virtuous character, who, paraphrasing Legolas, all those who come to know come to love after their own fashion. I most certainly have done so since I first read LOTR back in the 60's when I was still a 'flower child'. Author Reply: Fair enough. I'd just like to add though that the point Eowyn is making is that, yes, a marshall or captain would have had the same responsibility, had they been chosen, but the fact was that she was chosen, and she thinks it was on account of being a woman. Many feminists would argue that the entire concept of duty is as example of abstract reasoning which they would attribute exclusively to the male domain. I don't agree with that, though I think it is noteworthy that the main proponent of a duty-based ethics in the Western tradition is Immanuel Kant, easily one of the most androcentric thinkers in European philosophy. The other thing that Eowyn questions is why it is considered an man's duty to ride into battle and a woman's duty to "wait on faltering feet." She rightly points out that men have chosen for their duty that which gives them honour and social status, whereas the duty assigned to women (by men) are those for which they cannot expect to receive much in the way of a reward. Anyway, interesting to discuss this with you. Thanks for eltting me know your thoughts!

Estelcontar	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/6/2009
"...Aragorn indicates that to his mind women are serviceable and decorative objects..." ...'Your duty is with your people', he answered. 'Too often have I heard of duty', she cried. 'But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?' 'Few may do that with honour', he answered 'But as for you, lady: did you not accept the charge to govern the people until their lord's return: If you had not been chosen, then some marshal or captain would have been set in the same place, and he could not ride away from his charge, were he weary of it or no.' 'Shall I always be chosen?' she said bitterly. 'Shall I always be left behind when the Riders depart, to mind the house while they win renown, and find food and beds when they return?' 'A time may come soon', he said 'when none will return. The there will be need of valour without renown, for none shall remember the deeds that are done in the last defense of your homes. Yet the deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised.' And she answered: 'All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your part is in the house. But when the men have died in battle and honour, you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men will need it no more....." You have to take your hat off to Tolkien because in a few lines of dialogue he has given a perfect portrayal of his Aragorn and his Éowyn. And there are people who say he's not good at characterization. I apologise for the long quote, but I had to do it to make my point. Unless I'm blind, I see no portrayal of someone who thinks "women are serviceable and decorative objects" here. I see a portrayal of a man, who has been raised to put the need of his people always ahead of his personal desire or need, and who has spent his whole life selflessly sacrificing himself to fulfill the role that was expected of him. He's reminding Éowyn of her duty to her people and remiding her that that comes foremost; honour, like everything else, comes in second place. No man who thought of "women as serviceable and decorative objects" would accept and remind a woman that she was responsible for the government of her people, and that she should sacrifice her own desires to their need. Quite the contrary, in fact, I believe. You could argue that Tolkien was a misogynist for painting Éowyn as a woman who put her desires and wishes ahead of the needs of those she was supposed to help and rule as a man would not, but that is not true either. He was just trying to show how desperate she was. But in this scene though Aragorn is true to his own self as painted by Tolkien, he most certainly is no misogynist. Author Reply: I am most definitely not going to argue that Tolkien was a mysogynist; this was never my intention. I am going to argue, though, that in the quoted passage it is the man who defines (and thinks it is his right to define) what the woman's duty is, and it is the woman who questions his right to do so and insists on her right to define such things for herself. She actually asserts her right to decide whether or not duty must be the overriding principle by which she constructs her self-concept, in defiance of the man who tries to put duty down as the law for her. That is indeed cleverly done by Tolkien, but I don't think it is a scene that favours Aragorn's view. Thanks for taking the time to write such a long review. It's nice to know that I've been provocative enough to get strong contradictions. ;-)

Inzilbeth	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/6/2009
Goodness, what a clear demonstration of how the same passages can be read and interpreted entirely differently. To be honest, I’m wondering whether you meant any of this to be taken seriously, but assuming you did, here is an alternative, more generous view of the incidents you cite. Where you see selfishness, I see self-sacrifice [his leaving Gilraen – he can hardly stay at home and care for his mother with Gollum to find and an enemy to defeat]. Where you see possessiveness, I see a sense of humour [his first meeting with Arwen – a great one liner from a rather overwhelmed young lad - and the ‘boys talk’ with Eomer – I expect they said far worse after a few more beers]. Where you see haughtiness, I see patience [Ioreth babbling on when men are literally dying around her would try any man let alone one as exhausted as Aragorn]. Elrond is so distinguished to clarify the state of their relationship following their conversation the day before [his mother’s love is so obvious it needs no comment]. Arwen IS the fairest in all the world and Eowyn is pissed-off at having been rightly admonished for trying to abandon her duty. These incidents are all a matter of subjection, of course, and you are quite at liberty to promote a more jaundiced view. I happily admit to being a huge admirer of Aragorn and as such tend to find stars where those who are less enamored seek dirt. But you are factually incorrect in saying that the only quality Aragorn mentions about Eowyn is that she is ‘fair’. This line is said by Aragorn in the Houses of Healing: ‘few griefs amid the ill chances of this world hold more bitterness and shame for a man’s heart than to behold the love of a woman so fair and BRAVE that can not be returned. You take a very unbalanced view, making no mention of Aragorn’s fears for Eowyn [greater even than his fears for himself on the Path’s of the Dead] nor of his great pain at having to leave her behind, desperate at Dunharrow. Neither do you mention his devotion to Arwen and all that he suffers to earn her hand. Surely if he only sought a pretty face, any number of Dunedain ladies would have fitted the bill. You ask for an example of where he speaks respectfully to a woman – try Galadriel. I concede that Aragorn is underdeveloped as a character which is partly a result of how he evolved in the story and Tolkien’s belated realization of his great important. Almost as if to compensate, he then went out of his way to shovel praise and superlatives on to his king in the Appendices. But we can learn much by extrapolating from how others perceive him. I find it quite inconceivable that a man so beloved and so honoured by so many diverse peoples could possibly possess the character defect that you suggest. Misogynist is quite a charge. The Oxford dictionary definition is ‘one who hates all women’. I ask you, would Arwen, daughter of such wise kin, really have made the difficult choice she did for such a man. And would Elrond have granted his permission and Galadriel have played matchmaker for anyone like this, no matter his bloodline. Well you did say 'be my guest'! You may consider yourself well and truly hit over the head by a rabid Aragorn fan! Author Reply: Thank you for your thoughts - it's certainly good to get a different perspective. I confess I was being deliberately provocative, and I have at least succeeded in this: to make someone at SOA post a review that does not just heap praise on the author! ;-) I was never a fan of Aragorn, finding him basically rather dull, and I'm in general not keen on characters who have "destiny" written all over them, but that is beside the point. What I am wondering is whether Tolkien meant to give us two contrasting models of manhood, one in Aragorn and one, the more differentiated and complex one, in Faramir, with whom, as Dreamflower keeps assuring me, he himself identified. See, I'm paying Tolkien the compliment to assume that he had some purpose in mind with the portrayal of his characters. ;-) "I concede that Aragorn is underdeveloped as a character which is partly a result of how he evolved in the story and Tolkien’s belated realization of his great important. Almost as if to compensate, he then went out of his way to shovel praise and superlatives on to his king in the Appendices." That is an excellent point and explains a lot. I am not a show-don't-tell Nazi, but in this case I think Tolkien expects us a bit too much to take his word for it that Aragorn is wonderful. Thanks for taking the time to make such detailled comments! Goes away to find ice-pack for bump on head

Dreamflower	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/4/2009
You make some good points, especially about "too much of the wrong kind of respect." I would contest, though, that Tolkien wrote "about a time in which the ideals of Chivalry held sway" and that this is why Aragorn is the way he is, because, as I have pointed out, the other male characters in the story are different. It is only Aragorn, so that makes me wonder if there is some kind of point to it that I haven't grasped yet. Well, essentially, none of the other characters have anything much to do with a woman in the romantic sense with the exceptions of Gimli, who displayed Courtly Love (worship and devotion from afar) to Galadriel, and Faramir and Sam. And both of those characters were not typical of the others. Sam, as a hobbit, was a representative of a much more "modern" society. The Shire was essentially a late 19th-eartly 20th c. society, with what Tolkien called a "diarchal" social structure (by which he meant that the matriarch and patriarch of a hobbit family were essentially equal in power). Sam was also a representative of the "working class", who would not have much truck with Idealized Courtly Love-- it would be seen as totally impractical. And Faramir, as I have posited, is Tolkien-- or at least very close to him in attitudes and sensitivity. And Tolkien, for all the idealization of Edith (such as calling her his "Luthien") was a happily married man who had a far different notion of a real woman than he otherwise lets on in his story. We have no idea of how the other characters related to women. Gandalf was a Maia, and Legolas and Boromir give no indication of their personal life at all. For all we know, Legolas might even have been married! Frodo displayed a touch of Courtly Love towards Goldberry, Arwen and Galadriel-- but it was very tentative and subtle, and furthermore they not of his own race. We only know from the Appendices that Merry and Pippin married and fathered at least one son apiece, but we are never shown their courtships, or what their attitudes towards their loves would have been. Other characters are peripheral. But I think you might take a guess that at least in their protectiveness of Eowyn, that Theoden and Eomer both showed an attitude that was closer to Chivalric than to Egalitarian. Finally, it seems clear that Arwen herself was content to play the role she had been given-- which is not necessarily a flaw in her character. For some people, whether male or female, the best role is that of staunch supporter. Author Reply: I keep coming back to the question, though, whether there is a purpose in this portrayal of Aragorn, especially since, as you say, Tolkien used other models of gender relationships parallel to this, and he identified with Faramir. The other thing that occurred to me: the idealization of women usually goes hand in hand with the damnation of the "wicked" woman. (Which, BTW, supports my idea that the idealization of women is a mechanism of social control, rather than a first step towards liberation. It's "Fit into this mould or else!")But this concept is conspisciously absent in LOTR - the only wicked witch ever mentioned turns out to be Galadriel! Hmm, must think about that some more... Thanks again, it's always a pleasure to discuss things with you.

6336	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/4/2009
No, I don't want to hit you over the head, You do have to understand though, that Tolkien came from a time and society where women were just that, decorative objects whose only function was to provide a home and children. It wasn't until the Great War and the Second World War that women came into their own. You also have to remember that Tolkien was Roman Catholic with very strict notions of propriety where courting was concerned. Don't forget though that all knights have to have a Fair Maiden tucked away somewhere,it's either that or Tolkien couldn't write romance to save his life and so just didn't! Lynda Author Reply: Thanks for your comments! It's not historically accurate, though, to say that Tolkien just wrote at a time before women's liberation. LOTR was written well after first wave feminism, seventy years after John Stuart Mill's "Subjection of Women" and nearly a hundred and fifty years after Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Woman." But I am not saying anyway that Tolkien was anti-women. I am saying (or failing to say clearly enough?) that he cast one particular character in a very reactionary role, and I am wondering what purpose that serves. It's a question I have not yet managed to answer.

Dreamflower	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/4/2009
An interesting essay, encapsulating a good many feminist arguments that I have heard before, and they have a certain amount of validity when looked at on the face of it. However, you have to realized that Aragorn is to be the epitome of Chivalry, and that in LOTR, the women are all idealized Woman. Now, Chivalry has its own problems as far as feminists go, but it is a far cry from misogyny, and a necessary step, as far as men go, to achieving a better status for women. Chivalry was a direct outcome of the Marian cult in the medieval Roman Catholic church. Mary was the idealized woman, both mother and virgin, a symbol of perfect Womanhood, to be respected and put on a pedestal and worshiped from afar. Gradually this sort of attitude extended itself to concern women in general, and so the Ideal of Courtly Love was born, in which the Ideal Woman was treated as a precious fragile treasure. Now that might seem annoying to a real flesh and blood woman, but considering that previous to this, women were treated as mere chattel with no existence beyond that of serving first her father and then her husband, it was at least a step up. It seems that socially speaking, in order to achieve gender equality, a society must go through the Chivalry phase in order to reach the Equality phase. (Compare this development in Western civilizations to those of the Middle-east. Women there were never Idealized, and so even now are treated like sub-human possessions-- listen to the propaganda of the Taliban, for example.) Since JRRT was writing about a time in which the ideals of Chivalry held sway, it is no wonder that Aragorn displayed a chivalrous attitude, rather than an egalitarian one. The Marian Ideal would have meant a great deal to JRRT as devout Catholic-- all of his women display certain of Mary's qualities, although Galadriel is most obvious. But there are two of his female characters who are "more modern", and they are Eowyn and Rose Cotton. We see this in their romances. I am firmly convinced, for example, that it was not only the desire to come full circle with the "Elf/Human unions" that led to Aragorn and Arwen being paired, rather than Aragorn and Eowyn as JRRT had originally envisioned. I believe that he concieved of betrothing Arwen to Aragorn after Faramir (whom he freely admits was his favorite character and the one with whom he most strongly identified) came into existence. Suddenly, Eowyn became Faramir's love interest. That Tolkien secretly thought of Faramir and Eowyn as himself and Edith, I think is shown by the fact that THE ONLY ROMANTIC KISS IN THE ENTIRE STORY takes place between Faramir and Eowyn. Faramir's attitude towards his beloved was far less lofty than that of the Ideal Chivalric Knight, Aragorn! But anyway, my long-winded way of saying, Aragorn, if anything did not suffer from too little respect for women, but too much of the wrong kind of respect. Author Reply: You make some good points, especially about "too much of the wrong kind of respect." I would contest, though, that Tolkien wrote "about a time in which the ideals of Chivalry held sway" and that this is why Aragorn is the way he is, because, as I have pointed out, the other male characters in the story are different. It is only Aragorn, so that makes me wonder if there is some kind of point to it that I haven't grasped yet. Interesting line of argument about the idealization of women. The whole "Angel in the House" concept comes into that, too. Fascinating book in that context it Naomi Wolf's "Fire With Fire," in which she argues that the idealization of women (in this case, by women whome she accuses of "victim feminism") is a hindrance to the full humanity of both men and women and, among other things, prevents women from acknowledging their dark sides. I agree, too, about the inner logic of the Aragorn/Arwen pairing, though it does indeed come across as a bit of an afterthought.

First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page

Return to Chapter List