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	36 Review(s)
cookiefleck	Reviewed Chapter: 4 on 6/11/2009
I'm an Atheist and a great admirer of The Lord of the Rings. I am alternately offended and amused (not in a good way) by fan fiction authors who reinvent the LOTR universe as Middle-Christian-earth, overlaid with overt Christian/religious references. I read your essay (Chapter 4) expecting something different and was pleasantly surprised. I haven't read your earlier essays. I was with you until this sentence: "The difference, I think, lies in the awareness of the god-like nature of creativity and in the conscious effort to contribute with one’s creativity to the overall beauty and variety of God’s creation, much in the way Johann Sebastian Bach dedicated his music to the greater glory of God." I think it makes more sense to say that the difference lies in the BELIEF of the god-like nature of creativity. And having said that, I think that - regardless of slightly different motives - all creative people are trying to create and share something that is either thought- or sensory-provoking (and not necessarily "beautiful"). Author Reply: "I'm an Atheist and a great admirer of The Lord of the Rings. I am alternately offended and amused (not in a good way) by fan fiction authors who reinvent the LOTR universe as Middle-Christian-earth, overlaid with overt Christian/religious references." Yes, I remember you mentioning that before. I think there are psychological reasons for this phenomenon, and at the heart of it is an insecurity. Some people seem to feel that it is somehow wrong for them as Christians to enjoy anything that isn't at least implicitly Christian. A mature believer, however, can enjoy all manners of things without feeling a need for them to have a Christian message. There also seems to be a notion that when an author, who is a Christian, writes a book, it must be a Christian book. To which I reply: If Tolkien baked a cheesecake, was it a Christian cheesecake? You know, I was wavering between "awareness" and "conviction" and I wasn't completely happy with either. I'll need to think about the word choice here again. I totally see your point.

Dreamflower	Reviewed Chapter: 4 on 6/11/2009
A fascinating examination. I too, think that some of the efforts to draw Christian parallels from LOTR are often overdone-- and in the areas you mention are the places where that "overdone-ness" is most likely to occur. I especially find it somewhat out of place in fic, where fanfic writers slip right on over into the area of allegory (which JRRT disliked). JRRT had in mind a "pre-Christian world" and his very reluctance to introduce any elements that might be interpreted as "pagan religious observance" contributes to the feeling of aloofness about his Creator-analogue, Eru. And yet by implication we are shown that Eru does relate to his world-- He is the "meant", the "chance if chance you call it", the One who saw that Gandalf was "sent back", and who rewarded Frodo's mercy to Gollum by Gollum's intervention. But He does not relate in the intimate manner in which we are shown in the Christian scriptures, because the events leading to that intimacy have not yet occurred. Frodo was not a Messiah; neither was Aragorn; nor was Gandalf-- yet each of them was what might be called a "Christ-type" in that they each embodied some elements which we identify as "Christ-like". As a Catholic, JRRT was familiar with the idea of certain people whose sanctification was a representation of Christ's qualities without making them a Messiah. There were many biblical saviors, prophets and kings who foreshadowed the One who became the Savior, Prophet and King. There are a good many overtly Christian motifs that are present throughout LOTR, but they are presented with great subtlety. Some of them are clear, others need to be "dug out". Have you ever read The Battle for Middle-earth by Fleming Rutledge? She points out a lot of things that I had missed over the years. It's an excellent book, although there are parts of it that I disagree with. At any rate, I think you have hit upon the most important thing: for JRRT, it was the act of sub-creation that was the most personally Christian thing about his work-- not just LOTR, but his entire body of work dealing with M-e and Arda. He felt, and often said, that there was another Writer of the story, and that it was not himself. Wonderful essy; lots to think about here! Author Reply: Thanks for your detailled comments. As I said, yes, there are some bits and pieces dotted about, but they fall short of the concepts as they appear in Christian theology. "But He does not relate in the intimate manner in which we are shown in the Christian scriptures, because the events leading to that intimacy have not yet occurred." That's a valid point in a way, but on the other hand, according to scripture, there is never such a time. God relates to all the patriarchs from the start. Thanks for your thoughts and for the book recommendation, I'll see if I can get my hands on it.

Erulisse	Reviewed Chapter: 4 on 6/11/2009
A very interesting examination of the ramifications of Tolkien's religious tenets and his life's work of creativity. Although I do not necessarily see all of these aspects the same way that you do, you offer some serious food for thought. Thank you for this contribution, I found it occupied my thoughts for quite a while and I suspect that I will be thinking about aspects of it for several days more. Author Reply: Oh, goodie. I'm a teacher, so I like nothing better than making people think. (Well, apart from chocolate, of course. And sweat-peas. And ... well, you get my point.) Thanks for reviewing!

BeeGee	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/10/2009
I feel that Prof. Tolkien styled himself rather a "master-poet" (in the way of Irish ollaves and Welsh bards) than a novelist. I would call Aragorn a {reluctant) hero with a "doom" on him (or geis, or fate); rather than a "cliche". Like Beowulf or the Mabinogi, or Hercules. Aragorn couldn't really escape his fate as King. With his descendance from Elros, his healing ability, and his fosterage in Imladris, I see him as a "hero-god"; too human to fit in with immortals, and too close to the immortals to fit in totally with the humans. No matter what gender. Aragorn's ascendance to the throne ushers in a new Age, and as a symbolic God of the Waning Year, ties himself to Arwen (last of her line, the "Evenstar"). The age of elves is definitely over when Aragorn and Arwen die, and just humans thereafter. I think Aragorn is telling Eowyn to "do her duty" as a royal daughter of Rohan, and I don't think that makes him anti-feminist. Even though there are not many female characters in LOTR, there are strong female characters in the Silmarillion (Melian, Luthien, Galadriel, Finduilas, Aredhel, Idril) and he would surely have known of them, growing up in Imladris. This is all just my opinion. Author Reply: Yes, that makes sense: another literary topos. Tolkien was obviously fond of them. I would still want to ask rather a lot of epistemological questions on the issue of "duty." And I never said he was "anti-feminist" - how could he be, at a time when there was no feminism? Annoying attitude is another matter. Thanks for these interesting thoughts!

Pryderi	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/7/2009
Hi Virtuella, I must apologise for being so idle that I have never reviewed any of your stories on this site before. I have enjoyed all of them and followed them as you have posted them. I also share your love for Terry Pratchett. There are only a few authors who I follow on this site these days and you are one of them. Well I wish to encourage you to continue to express your views on Tolkien's works even though I don't necessarily agree with them. My own views on Aragorn are complex but more in line with Inzilbeth's than your's. Nevertheless your thoughts gave me pause and I do have to reconsider my position as a result. I have not yet done so. As I say it is complex. However I do wish to defend you from the hectoring Estelcontar. I'm afraid I would describe his (her?) opinions as (in places) incoherent rants and I suggest that you ignore them. Please do not stop posting your, maybe controversial, but nevertheless thought provoking thoughts here. I for one am looking forward to more! Pryderi. Author Reply: Hi, I'm glad you've enjoyed my stories so far, thanks for letting me know. It's always nice when a reader "delurks." ;-) I don't mind being contradicted, I find it rather refreshing! I do wonder, though, whether I should change the order of the chapters, because most people seem to get stuck on the first one...

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: 2 on 6/5/2009
Oh, this is quite excellent! I've been aware of some of the symbolism of some of the bodies of water mentioned, but I had never before looked at it as a motif! Your evidence is quite compelling. I think that the association of water with the Good Guys can't be denied; and even the fact that water can present a danger to both friend and foe aligns it with "good". I am reminded of the Narnia chronicles, when the children ask if Aslan is safe. The answer was, no he wasn't safe, but he was Good. That which is good carries its own sort of danger to mortals. Two things I would ask you about: the longing of Frodo and Sam for water and light when they are in Mordor. And the Ent-draughts-- I'd love to hear your opinion about the Ent-draughts! Author Reply: Oh, thanks for reminding me. I had completley forgotten about the Ent-draught. I've added a bit under "Water and magic." I think it is one of the most interesting things about LOTR, the way the scenery is used to advance the story. Thanks for your comments!

First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page

Return to Chapter List