Reviews for "Tolkien and the Problem of Characterisation: Éowyn and Arwen"

Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:34 pm

A very thoughtful and clearly written essay. You make an excellent point that the unfinished nature of Tolkien's writing provides a largely blank canvas upon which a writer can feel free to construct their own personal vision of Arwen, Eowyn and the other characters. I will definitely refer back to this essay in the future.

Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:10 am

I almost stopped after reading your introduction (I mean, who really wants to read about LotR's flaws?). But I continued since I was more than a little curious to see what your arguments would be. Your essay is filled with good points and definitely made me acknowledge the flatness of Arwen and Eowyn's characters (I've mostly just ignored it). You're right, too, because even though the story is lacking in this aspect it's still enjoyable. Very well written. Bravo! Smile smiley face

Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:52 pm

I enjoyed this, although I would have to disagree with your point on Shakespeare. Whilst he was an exceptionally talented poet, his characters feel flat and overblown to me. It always seems that only true meaning can be found where, perhaps, there is nothing to be found. That said, I've only acted in the comedy plays, so perhaps I have no understanding for the deeper characters. Smile smiley face

There were a lot of excellent points about the characterisation of many characters - I especially like the point that only Sam was a truly defined character. Your definition that LOTR is an epic rather than a novel is an extremely interesting one. I'll refer back to this, and definitely point other people towards it.

Thank you for an interesting read!

Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:46 pm

I have studied Arthurian Literature and Homer's works in Uni, and I think this is very well informed and written. However, about halfway through the essay you aren't clear about whether you're writing about Arwen or Eowen, I think you missed a sentance or something. well done though

Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:21 pm

I could argue with you for whole minutes that Galadriel was the most realized character in Tolkien's opus, but that would be ultimately boring. Smile smiley face

This piece was chatty yet academic, unexpected yet not rambling, clear yet complex. If I had to offer any critical input, it would be to have a proofreader go over the whole thing once (to catch some very minor typos) and to reconsider the title. Although you spend a fair amount of time discussing Arwen and Eowyn (to good effect), the main point seems to be that LoTR is most approporiately described as an epic, rather than a novel. I buy the argument, but I was expecting something slightly different when I clicked on the story title.

Sat Aug 28, 2004 2:39 pm

Hmm.. This is ery intresting. I was thinking out writing something aloong these lines as well, but ya beat me to it. Tolkien was not a novelist, he really didn't know that much about it when he began. He wrote about something he knew: war, in a world that he was happy with: fantasy. Arwen and Eowyn are characters that might have been done without, but he made them necisery. If there was no Arwen and Eowyn, it would just be a story about a bunch of sweaty men, and whoo wants that? Galadrial is not very well rounded, if you think about it. She reallyy doesn't have to be. These women are just plot devises added for variety, so it means they don't have to be very fleshed out, tthey just have to be there. On the other hand, you lear just aboout everything about Aragorn, and Frodo. Legolas and Gimli share the same plight as Arwen and Eowyn, and you learn precious little about Boromir and Faramir and all those other people. Tolkien made it so that you would only learn about tthe most necisery characters, and that is that. TY for the thought.
Luv,
Ur SamwiseTS

Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:11 pm

I really enjoyed this essay, it was well thought out and very readable. I like a writer who can explain things without a pretentious air. Thanks for that!

Tue May 17, 2005 2:18 pm

Viv said
> I could argue with you for whole minutes that Galadriel was the most realized character in Tolkien's opus, but that would be ultimately boring. Smile smiley face

This piece was chatty yet academic, unexpected yet not rambling, clear yet complex. Although you spend a fair amount of time discussing Arwen and Eowyn (to good effect), the main point seems to be that LoTR is most approporiately described as an epic, rather than a novel. I buy the argument, but I was expecting something slightly different when I clicked on the story title.
<

My thoughts exactly, including the Galadriel comment. And I liked your reference that LotR leaves so much fertile ground for Fanfics as opposed to "The Classics".

However, one must read the Sil and UT to have that opinion. Which brings me to my only dig, the fact that LotR was a small part of a much larger work. The foregrounding is in the Sil. So much so that I would suggest reading the Sil (and UT) before reading LotR.

You nailed it that it should be read with the mind set of one reading the Illiad and not *insert Great Novel title here*.

Tue May 17, 2005 9:58 pm

I don't think that Tolkien *ever* saw himself as writing anything but an epic, albeit one in novel form. The characterization is typical of an epic, right down to the standard archetypes (questing hero, etc).

I've read a lot of Mediveal literature. And I would question that courtly love requires the man to "fall" for an older woman; he can & does fall for women of all ages, so long as they are in similar classes. You are correct that most "love" is of a sighted nature--they have their eyes opened by love etc. We see this at least twice in LOTR--Aragorn, of course, and also Gimli with Galadriel.

The essay would have been considerably stronger if you had concentrated on one or the other, but by trying to cover both Arwen & Eowyn, you end up giving both short shrift.

I do think that you are correct about *why* LOTR has captured so many fans' imaginations, as opposed to, say, Dickens.

Oh, and Michael kicks serious a88 in "Paradise Lost".

Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:32 am

I like this.

I think that Tolkien was, indeed, writing an Epic. We, creatures of the modern age that we are, often seem to be unable to understand the Epics, probably because they were never meant to be read, but rather, to be sung. Look at The Illiad, The Oddyssey, Beowulf, etc. This tradition - one that has been with us for so long that we've forgotten even when it was that the first storyteller stood up and began to sing - is dying swiftly.

In Tolkien's works I find an echo of the feelings that I get when I read the Illiad or the Oddyssey - the strangest longing to have lived then, to have known such courage in such dark times. And I think that's why we're drawn to Tolkien's works. There are no Elves in our world, no Wizards, no Hobbits, and no Men of the West who will stand bravely before impossible odds. I think we long for a time when there were heroes we could look up to, when the land wasn't covered in concrete and the water and air poisoned by industry.

And I agree with some of the earlier commenters - Tolkien isn't very good at developing characters, but neither is Shakespeare. Many of his plays (including Hamlet, I might add) strike me as flat and boring. Maybe I'm just not a Shakespeare person, I don't know.

In the end, for me it's Tolkien's world that draws me in. He may not be able to develop characters well, but my GOD is he good at developing cultures. So, yes.

Login

Navigation

RSS Feeds

Reviews for "Tolkien and the Problem of Characterisation: Éowyn and Arwen"