||The LOTR Movie Site
November 18, 2000
Rob E. Stating the Obvious
... and Others Too
Unfortunately, it is yourself who wishes to bring this down
to an arguement on feminism. It is plain that you've had your points sitting in wait to be
flexed at the first sign of "feminazism", obvious since you moved as far away
from any sort of real textual analysis as possible (your "reality" arguement).
1) No, I'm not a feminist, but if you had actually studied feminism at all you'd know that
a) the model you describe has been dispensed with and expanded b) feminism has many
different models and theories. Again, like PM,while I don't like the "movement"
overall I do find value in some things expressed.
2) As you said, historical figures can be brought into play (both mythical and real) to
back up my "modern society depiction of the warrior woman argument". Your
introduction of "physical reality" to try to dissuade against the use of warrior
women in a *fictional work* at all, is amusing and arguing a different point (not
one from the historical line the point was originally made for). Shall we also discuss the
fact that magic is not a "physical reality"? How about dragons? (a nod goes
towards Brian on this tactic)
3) I'll say it better than your famous woman "Men and Women are different.That doesnt
mean we have to confine them to preconcieved roles"
To sum up, women and men are still defined by choice rather than nature (in modern times
and historically and in fiction). A man (and a few in Tolkein's work!) can choose not to
be a warrior or "manly" and stay home and sing and sew to his heart's content.
So too, I believe, can a woman choose to pursue more "masculine" activites, if
not actually battle (as Eowyn), then an active role such as accompanying the followship on
a dangerous journey. Despite the fact that she can *possibly* bear a child, it does not
mean she must sit at home doing nothing but give birth. Nor do I mean, that if she does,
she is devalued. But I do want some diversity and balance in my stories. Humans (despite
gender) do not all have to conform to a set mode.
1)I have to say that it's a boat I have no interest in catching. It really isn't that huge
a plot or story developement. Again, nothing that Arwen can not fill.
2) And why is it strange to bond with an elven Princess? Obviously not the royalty
factor...since Legolas has that. Is it simply their genders? Do you and Stephanie not bond
with people of the opposite sex? I can't understand finding that strange.
3) First, nobody claimed the bow was a "sissy" weapon. Your choice of words and
discourse. Nobody else's. Secondly, if you think movie goers are going to reel in
confusion about where and when Arwen learned to use a bow in her childhood (her childhood
being first and foremost in their minds, of course) then I'll let you keep that point.
4)You do however, have a point as to how Arwen may enter the journey. It's an interesting
point, but I will say again that my Legolas/Arwen ( as an original companion)was simply
5) I recommend learning more about Celtic and Pictish culture's in full.
And what comic books do you pencil? You're American, correct?
Excellent and well thought out, I have to congratulate you. I only regret that I have so
little time to devote to this. Now, on to the points-
1) As fascinating as you find Legolas, I am sorry to say that a film audience wouldn't
much care if they got Arwen instead. It's only an extreme idea if you keep coming from a
Tolkien "fan" point of view.
2) Simply because Gimli admires one Elven lady, he will become jeolous and obsessed with
each one he meets? He is more of a cad than I'd ever suspected.
3)I still don't believe the story would be warped "beyond recognition" (bad
ring-hobbits and friends go on a journey-lots of heroism-bad ring destroyed-check).
4)As I have said before in regards to challenging roles assigned to gender, I'm simply
arguing along the lines I've been presented with. I'm more than happy to ditch any and all
references to them as such, but the fact remains that people's contentions were that Arwen
"butch" in a more active role.
5)And don't make the mistake of equating force, influence, or aggressive activity with
negativity. I am not asking for Arwen to be a "brute". If the fellowship are
brutish in our eyes, then they really are a dispicable part of the story.
6) Your Hollywood description is an excellent example of how society still refuses to
accept the character of the active female. She must still submit to men in some manner...
But you seem to polarise strength/action away from intelligence/mind unreservedly. Why?
7) As for your contrasts of Eowyn and Arwen, I argue that contrasts can be made with
charaters that are not polarisations of one another. That is simply lazy writing. There
were contrasts between male characters who were much less obvious opposites. As I have
said before, having Arwen on the journey does not need to make her a "Warrior
Princess". Was Sam considered a "Warrior Gardener" by anyone here?
7) Though I challenge the idea of "doing it right" (ooh, will anyone jump on
that?), I concede that Jackson appears to be doing things in the wrong way. As for the
rest of your points in the last paragraph, I'm afraid I'll have to refer you to my last
post where I've said more than enough about it (in particular to Brian).
I'll confess that I didn't have time to do anymore than skim over people's points, so if I
did miss some or misrepresent others, then feel free to point it out as snidely as