The LOTR Movie Site
November 18, 2000

Re: Legolas, Arwen, and the Sexes ... Oh My!
Cicily T.

Thank-You, for your support Marta A. Also, I agree with you, on that the way Orlando Bloom is depicted in the movie; blonde hair, sword etc.,... that this is definitely Not how Legolas is described in the books. It almost seems that it should be the "look" of Glorfindal and not Legolas, since Glorfindal was a High-Elven Prince of the Noldar, and Legolas was one of the Sindar. Perhaps, Glorfindal will be the "guest appearance" that was being discussed some time back. I have also read your articles on Legolas and I guess we have the same opinions regarding our favorite elf. I have also read articles by Stephanie C., and some others, who also believe Legolas to be a very important character in the trilogy, because of what he brings to the fellowship, and his magnetic personality throughout the book. When I was reading the books (for the first time), I found that I was drawn to the mysterious elf-prince and would often skip ahead to read more passages about Legolas. *Also, do not worry about English being your second language, your articles come across clear and precise. Please keep writing.

Rob B. has hit the nail on the head regarding the Arwen / Xena issue which is driving most of us nuts! Thanx Rob B. I couldn't have said it any better than you. I am glad you included references to females in martial arts, it sounds as if you also, know quite abit about the sport, so I am guessing that you, yourself hold a belt. I have done many things in the athletic realm as well, mostly Powerlifting and some Bodybuilding, and I can tell you, from both sports, that unless they are "genetically enhanced", women are clearly not comparable to men; this is not to say that they cannot achieve a wonderfully muscular body, and attain great feats of strength; (I myself, can squat 275lbs, and my deadlift is over 300lbs, at a bodyweight of 128lbs.), but there is a difference in the way the female anatomy puts on muscle and how it is used, most women tend to be the strongest in the lower half of the body: hips, legs, lower back etc. (due to how they have been designed for carrying and nurturing the very areas women hate...I'm talking thighs...are designed for storing fat when times are lean...all this is designed for survival)... Men seem to be most powerful in the: chest, shoulders, arms, and back, they have narrow hips, and longer strides, designed for covering great distances at a very fast pace...(no doubt the upper body strength is designed for protecting and attacking)....The differences as you say, Rob. are "in the bones" There are many differences between the sexes that are too numerous to mention in one debate letter, and before someone drags out that; "well what about the Amazons?" argument, lets remind them, that the Amazons are a myth, and have never actually been proven with any evidence what-so-ever.

I feel compelled to mention the films: Gladiator and The 13th Warrior, both excellent films, that kept an accurate depiction of the roles of women during the period of time. The women that were in these films, still somehow, gave us a sense of "nobility, pride, and resourcefulness"; we thought no less of their roles because they were not trotting about in armor. I admired how the women used their logic, wisdom and pride to overcome obstacles. They did not "shrink" behind their warriors, they used what resources they had to help battle the "evils" that befelled their people, and thus attained their own heroic status.