Response to Changes, etc.
Ian S.

I feel a need to add my say to the jumble of opinions, particularly on the arwen theme.

I feel that those advocating the introduction and development of new roles is misguided. I understand that in today's society it may be PC to introduce a stronger female into the fellowship but I just cannot reconcile that with the book or Tolkien.

Tolkien was never adverse to having a heroine where one fitted the tale. Luthien is a case in point. So if he considered it wrong to include her as an active party member then it was for a reason. A recent poster argued that sam showed a sensitive nature which is commonly seen today as showing his feminine side. surely this demonstrates that roles other that the stereotypical mid 20th C male were included. Galadriel is a strong female role and is in fact the most powerful elf (Oh yes she is) in middle earth at the time of the book. She tries to thwart and pits might with might against sauron. Arwen is her granddaughter and it is just that an elven princess does not scrap with orcs.

Please, I am not against strong women, but in some books and scenarios they are not placed and adding them retrospectively damages the feel of the plot. I would similarly not expect to see women getting stuck in on the normandy beaches. I dont recall seeing one in saving private ryan recently, and the film did not suffer for a lack of female leads.

The LOTR is in essence a WAR story. I think the case should be put as to why a war party on a hopeless quest would include and accept an elven princess. Would aragorn put his great love in that danger ? would elrond let her go ? whould her brothers ?( who do play a visible part in the book )
 
anybody care to persuade me with something other that it would be nice to have a bit of gender balance.