I would like to go back to the different interpretations offered by Squatter and Rimbaud; I find the difference fascinating.
Squatter says:
Quote:
|
Perhaps having lived for all those centuries as an Elf has left Arwen unable to cope with the death of someone close to her (as is implicit in her final conversation with Aragorn).
|
Whereas Rimbaud suggests:
Quote:
Only a strong combination of love and duty would overcome this, Tolkien implies, and if that bond were to be broken, no cause to stay would remain.
Taking this stance, I am necessarily inviting debate on the other Elvish types who stuck about after the major Elvish Egress.
|
Each is dependent upon the particular approach taken. Squatter expects modern psychological realism while Rimbaud refers to Tolkien's mythology. What we are given is a choice between nineteenth century realism and true tragedy. In one, we have a proscriptive view of Arwen; in the latter, an expansive view.
Thus, I would question what kind of psychological expectations Squatter brings to reading Arwen. I certainly don't see a woman who gives up and is unable to cope with bereavement. Rather, I read an elf experiencing--not just knowing, but experiencing--this bitter gift to man, as few other elves have known. It is the most important experience of Arwen's life, her greatest lesson; the Appendix gives us one of the very few times in LOTR that the narrative gives play to Arwen's thoughts and feelings. I don't think there is ever any sense that she balks at death or is ovecome by it--she accepts the vow made long ago when Aragorn points out an alternative to her. In fact, Aragorn's allusion is a reminder of how linked is their love with death. Instead, Arwen explores it in all its sorrowful meaning. Tolkien gives us the slowly dawning understanding of what the Doom of Man entails.
I might also ask, if we are to apply modern psychology, why we would expect Arwen to continue in the role of advisor, particularly of adult children? (The 'role' of Queen Mother had not yet been created when Tolkien was writing and we all know what effect the Queen Mum had on things in our time.) Is Arwen wrong to make a choice based on herself, her own experience? Does she have no right to explore her own meaning of life? After all, do we fault Sam for leaving Bag End after Rosie dies? Do we deny him the right to sail West and tell him he should have stayed on in The Shire and continued as mayor and father to his thirteen?
I would argue that Arwen's death must be linked with Aragorn's and with her vow to him because it is the way Tolkien explores the theme of death in LOTR--and of love, as well. It is a poetic structure, not a psychological structure. And so this leads me to Rimbaud's point, of the mythology and to, obviously, Legolas.
The text is quite clear about Legolas' motivation: It is Aragorn's death which sends Legolas west: "But when King Elessar gave up his life Legolas followed at the desire of his heart and sailed over Sea."(Appendix A)
What is unspoken, however, is how Gimli is implicated in all this. Why does Gimli sail West? Arwen gave her 'spot' to Frodo, who was a ring-bearer. Gimli was not. We are never given a fully satisfactory explanation of Gimli's choice to accompany Legolas, although we are often told of their great friendship which surpasses all expectations. The fullest statement in the Appendix is, "... out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel" but this passage ends with "More cannot be said of this matter." Shall we expect of Gimli also that he must stay behind and be useful still to others?
Rather explore the nature of death in the novels and of love.
Edit: This begs the question, of course, of whether Celeborn travelled third class. Also, there is so often reference made to the passage of time and change that one wishes Tolkien had been able to do more with Goldberry and the Persephone myth.