[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Bêthberry,
I feel bound to play devil's advocate for a bit and point out that if the question is women's agency, then putting a weapon in a character's hand is just one way of showing agency, and not even a particularly imaginative one. For example, Lúthien is as active and self-determined a character as they come and certainly did more to ensure the success of the quest for the silmaril than Beren accomplished himself, but she managed all that without using a physical weapon. It seems to me many critics of warrior-Galadriel (certainly those I've seen posting on the Downs) would have been fine with a more Lúthien-like Galadriel using magic instead of a sword - which would also have been truer to what we read about her in LotR and the Silmarillion.

Thanks for chiming in, Pitch. And I agree that a sword is just one way of showing agency. But ...

First, in the interests of full disclosure, let me say I am not particularly a fan of the elves. I didn't like their condescending assumption of their superiority or privilege in LotR, as if there were a hierarchy of peoples and they were/are at the top. And while I like the hobbits, I'm not especially keen on their parochialism or fearfulness of what's outside The Shire (except for our intrepid four). It was the dwarves in LotR who gained my sympathy, perhaps because I tend to look towards those who are marginalised in some way. So I'm not one to have really great admiration for Galadriel. And reading in HoMe or the Silm does not do much to improve my view of elves. They had their chance and essentially blew it and were/are as culpable of error and mistakes as any other of the peoples of the Legendarium.

That said (and take away my Lembas if you want and send me to the corner), I think there is a lot of room to show how a younger Galadriel behaved or misbehaved before she found some equanimity or serene wisdom. I think Tolkien too was conflicted about how to write Galadriel into the Silm after LotR. So I don't object to seeing swordsmanship being used to demonstrate her physical prowess and expect to see growth in her character. I also recall Tolkien's effort to explain away magic and try to explain the special effects of the elves as some kind of art which we readers cannot appreciate or yet see. I also see her in this Age as something equivalent to an angsty adolescent who isn't sure how to express herself in anything other than a rebellious attitude or stubborn self-will. So I am expecting to see her "grow out of" relying on kung fu fighting. Maybe I have greater expectations than I should of this series or maybe I am just too willing not have too strong expectations of what I want to see in her. And I remember Jael and Sisera in the Bible or Judith and Holofernes as well. We do see the woman healer beheading an orc.

To be clear, I don't think presenting Galadriel as a swordswoman was a stellar decision on the makers' part - it's a rather lazy visual shorthand for agency, and it seems like they felt they needed to have their own Brienne to keep up with Game of Thrones; but it doesn't bother me, and I think there are worse problems with RoP's writing of Galadriel - like, what in the name of diplomacy did she think she was going to accomplish by being all haughty and lick my boots (oh wait I'm barefoot) with Míriel? Shouldn't Finrod's sister have been a little more sympathetic towards mortals?

Another disclosure: I haven't watched Game of Thrones nor read Martin's books either. I just couldn't get past the third chapter of the first book, so I'm missing that context. And I agree her behaviour with Miriel seems wrong, seems destined to lead to trouble. But then, that could just be the arrogant elf aspect of her character and something she will learn is inappropriate. On the other hand, it could just be bad characterisation, bad writing.

I guess I am just willing to sit back and see what plays out rather than have any high expectations of the character. But I do object to people mixing up their ideology with Tolkien's art and calling that Tolkien's canonical statement, which you have neatly sidestepped.