The Character Development of Arwen

[Magician of Nathar]

I was just wondering about the character of Arwen in the books. Somehow it seems to me this character is so poorly developed it's not even like Tolkien. Did Tolkien only remembered to give Aragorn a gilfriend/wife at the end of the book? Or does he think a feminine character really won't fit into the novel? Even in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen it's not very specific. It just feels kinda empty. Don't get me wrong, that is my favourite part of the entire appendix. The ending is especially tear jerking. But the beginning part just doesn't feel right, you can't see how they fall in love. Maybe Tolkien was just not the romance novel. But then again there is the story of Eowyn and Faramir which is perfectly romantic. So what's the deal with Arwen?

Sorry I think I am rambling again.....

[Beren87]

Tolkien seemed to have a difficult time writing women characters. Eowyn is the only real developed female character in LotR, and she is somewhat "tomboyish". Tolkien's compannions were all male and he grew up in an all male surrounding. Quite a few english authors of the early 20th century show a problem with female characters.

[Legolas]

I think Tolkien wasn't satisified with his development of Arwen.

[ January 04, 2003: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Kalimac]

I don't think Arwen was a last-minute "Oops, gotta get Aragorn married off" thing, if only because there's that line in FOTR where they're all in Rivendell and Frodo sees a few significant glances pass between Aragorn and Arwen (not that she speaks, but in Tolkien's world, those glances are quite significant). Certainly she's less of a surprise than Rosie Cotton, whom we don't even get an inkling of until Sam starts thinking about her most of the way through TTT, and whom we don't even see until the end of ROTK.

I agree that she feels rather underdeveloped; we're being told that Aragorn falls in lifelong love with her at the age of 20, so clearly there's something there, but we can't see it (had to be there, I suppose). I don't think this detracts from FOTR at all, though, and the reason is that there's no real reason that we *have* to know - it barely affects the main story at all. Aragorn has already fallen in love long before the story begins, and their marriage upon his becoming King is pretty much a given; the only thing this *changes* for any character (except Arwen herself) is the fact that Frodo is now given Arwen's spot in the ship for Tol Eressea. That is an important thing, obviously, but even so, it's hard to believe that Gandalf or someone couldn't have finagled him aboard somehow even without that (after all, Gimli and Sam both managed later on without having any Elves trade with them). For this reason we only really need to know the basic facts; namely, she's an Elf, she gave up her immortality to marry Aragorn (parallel to Luthien - the circle is complete!), they had children, and later died. Since their mutual affection does not materially alter the course of events in LOTR in any way - nor does it drastically change their characters during these events - there's no reason we have to know every detail. (I'm speaking from a story-writing perspective only; from a personal perspective I wouldn't mind seeing more of her).

Faramir and Eowyn are different. First of all, their love story takes place right in the thick of the story's events, secondly, it changes both of their characters a great deal. Faramir, for the first time, is not operating with the constraint of his father and brother somewhere in his mind (not that he always did what they wanted, but they were still there); in essence his actions in the Houses of Healing are a sneak preview of what sort of man and ruler he will be on his own, and of course all signs are highly favorable. For Eowyn, she is transformed from a "caged" and frustrated shieldmaiden into someone who has a renewed love of life, thanks largely to Faramir.

Tolkien does not seem to have been a natural writer of love scenes, though I'd hesitate to ascribe it to his upbringing - after all, Ivy Compton-Burnett lived pretty much her entire life surrounded by women but still managed some fairly intense love scenes in her books. Tolkien may well have shot his entire bolt on the Faramir/Eowyn love scene; if so, it was well worth it. It's one of the best I've ever read.

[doug*platypus]

!!

I was going to add that the story of Arwen and Aragorn is so non-existent in the text, because the story is told from the hobbits' perspective. That's my two cents on why Arwen is so (lamentably) absent from the story. Not because she is not critical to the plot (since she absolutely is!), but because she has little direct interaction with Frodo and Company.

But Kalimac mentioning the great romance that actually is in the book made me realise... there's no hobbits present! Was Merry up to his usual tricks, dropping eaves on Faramir and Éowyn in the garden? If so, that has got to be the funniest thing in the book yet!! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] That Merry, what a character! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Are there any other instances where the story-telling perspective is unexplainable? Really, the entire book should be from the point of view of one of the hobbits, except where things could have been detailed to them later. Would Faramir have told Merry exactly what had happened that fateful day in the garden? He doesn't seem like the sort to kiss and tell, but then again appearances can be deceiving! Man, this is too funny! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Lord of Angmar]

"Character Development of Arwen" is an oxymoron. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Seriously though, I found Arwen and Aragorn's relationship to be poignant in its subtlety, and Here Follows A Part of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen is probably my favorite part of the Appendices to Lord of the Rings. Arwen did not however, have any character development whatsoever in the conventional sense, in the books (nor really in the Appendices either, despite having actual dialogue, actions, etc.); what she did have was a mysterious, ambiguous and Elvish aura that (arguably) would have been detracted from had she been featured in a much more prominent role in the books. I would not mind more of her interactions with Aragorn being highlighted in the novel (I thought Peter Jackson's additions to Arwen and Aragorn's relationship in Rivendell in the Fellowship of the Ring were quite well done, but that is a topic for another thread.) However, I must say that I did like the way Tolkien set up their romance, and found their relationship to contain plenty of depth, even if Arwen is lacking in character development.

Since their mutual affection does not materially alter the course of events in LOTR in any way - nor does it drastically change their characters during these events - there's no reason we have to know every detail. (Kalimac)

Very good point, although one might argue that Aragorn's character and his actions would be at least slightly different if it were not for Arwen.

-Angmar

[Fosco Burrows]

Don't you Yanks get it, us Brits are very shy, reserved types and get embarrased talking about girls, love and we especially dislike showing our emotions!!! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Finwe]

Arwen didn't need the character development necessary for the other characters. Tolkien was an author who only put details into his story, if his reader(s) really needed them to understand the story. Arwen was a behind-the-scenes character, because her main purpose was to provide inspiration and courage to Aragorn, and shore up his strength whenever it waned. For that sort of purpose, you don't really need much character development.

Lord of the Rings is from a Hobbit's perspective. The only reason we're given character development for the non-Hobbit members of the Fellowship and main characters is that one or the other of the Hobbits meets them face-to-face, and gets to know them. The only Hobbit who even got close to meeting Arwen was Frodo, and even he didn't even speak to her. How can you get to know someone if you don't even speak to them?

[Sparrow]

Tolkien was an author who only put details into his story, if his reader(s) really needed them to understand the story.

I agree that any expansion upon Arwen's character would have been bereft of any real virtue in the sense that it would only succeed at making the book that much more dense, but I do not agree with the part about Tolkien only putting necessary detail.

The sons of Hador were Galdor and Gundor; and the sons of Galdor were Hurin and Huor; and the son of Hurin was Turin the Bane of Glaurung; and the son of Huor was Tuor, father of Earendil the Blessed. The son of Boromir was Bregor, whose sons were Bregolas and Barahir; and the sons of Bregolas were Baragund and Belegund. The daughter of Baragund was Morwen, the mother of Turin, and the daughter of Belegund was Rian, the mother of Tuor. ("Of the Coming of Men Into The West")

While that does provide a bit of exposition for the War of the Jewels and the events thereafter, it is a bit more than the average reader needs to understand the story, is it not? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Tolkien also said he spent countless hours on family lineages and reading over maps and his stories to make sure that the distances and times were correct, even though he admitted that it would probably not benefit the reader.

Sorry to digress like that. I do see what you are saying Finwe; in the case of Arwen's character development, subtlety wins out over needless elucidation.

~Sparrow

[Finwe]

I'm inclined to disagree with your second statement. Those names and relationships were stated so that the reader would understand the relationships between all of the main characters, most of whom, were somehow related. In many cases, their fates involved vengeance of some kind, with many similarities. Knowing their backgrounds, and how they were related to each other does really help, especially in The Silmarillion.

[Durelin]

I've always believed that the character of Arwen was not an important aspect of the story. Perhaps Tolkien planned her to be, but it did not end up so. Or, perhaps Tolkien thought this, too.

Not only was The Lord of the Rings from the hobbits points of view, but it was about the hobbits. (a little repition there, I know, but they are a little different) Aragorn was not as important a character as the hobbits, and Arwen certainly not as important as Aragorn, I'm afraid.

Arwen didn't need character development in Tolkien's mind: either for the benefit of the story, or for the reason that she is a feminine female (as stated before in this thread). The fact is, a feminine female didn't have much of a place in the story. Though you could also wonder if Tolkien was just incapable of creating such a female character. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I hope that all made sense (and was sense-worthy...)

[Kronos]

The only Hobbit who even got close to meeting Arwen was Frodo, and even he didn't even speak to her.

Frodo did speak to her. In Minas Tirith.
And the fact that the Hobbits do not speak to someone does not preclude Tolkien from talking about them. We probably get more of Shelob’s inner thoughts than we do Arwen and I don’t recall Frodo and Sam chewing the fat with her.

And I wish people would stop with this fallacy that the LOTR is told from the Hobbits viewpoint. That is a concept by Tolkien that does not stand up to scrutiny.

If the LOTR was told from the Hobbits viewpoint then the Faramir/Eowyn chapter would not be nearly so detailed. You would also be unlikely to hear the thoughts of a passing fox.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

There are a couple of points here that could do with clearing up, and fortunately I can address them at once.

In Letter #181 (undated, probably 1956), Tolkien wrote:

Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees. That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is part of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily the study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.

Tolkien's comments concerning Arwen and Aragorn's story stand alone, but I think that his use of 'hobbito-centric' sums up much better his approach to the story than the idea that he wrote it through the eyes of hobbits. Rather it is a story about hobbits in which hobbits are the central characters. His point concerning the sanctification of the humble is interesting, particularly since we can apply it to the tale of Aragorn and Arwen in an intriguing way. There is certainly a sense that Aragorn is ennobled by his love for Arwen, which seems to me a common theme in all of his marriages between Men and Elves (I notice that it is always men and not women who form the mortal half of such unions). When we first see Arwen and Aragorn together in the Hall of Fire in Rivendell it is also the first time that we see Aragorn dressed in anything other than his travel-stained old clothes. When he receives the brooch from her in Lothlórien it is the occasion on which he takes his destined title, and when he receives the standard that she has made it is as he is preparing to ride to Gondor and claim his birthright.

Arwen herself, though, remains something of a mystery. What we do know of her must be guessed from her words and actions, which are few, and whether this is intentional or a sign that Tolkien really didn't know what he was about must, I suppose, be left to the individual reader. Myself, I don't think that we are meant to know much about her (unlike, for example, Éowyn, whose motivations are essential to an understanding of the part she plays in the narrative). Those who claim that he was incapable of writing convincing romances have clearly not read Aldarion and Erendis: The Mariner's Wife in Unfinished Tales, which explores many themes that are thought alien to his world (not least the failure of love and the collapse of marriage). The fact that he failed to publish or complete this story seems to imply to me that he was not really interested in the themes of erotic love, which would explain why he so often glosses over them.

I think that this is probably why Tolkien is so often criticised as a childish writer, but this probably says more about what we are taught to expect in a modern novel. There should be deep psychological characterisation; important characters' romances should be explored in detail, and if a character loves someone we should find out a lot about them. In quite often ignoring these conventions, Tolkien was harking back to others that are much older; those of, for example, Beowulf or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which would probably have come in for the same criticism had they been written in the 1950s. We do not, for example, know anything much about the Lady of the Castle's thoughts concerning Sir Gawain, only having her husband's words "I sende hir to asay Þe", despite the fact that her willing participation in this testing is central to the story being told. Tolkien was always very frank in stating that he had read very little modern literature, and I think that this shows through often in his work.

All of which is just really an apologia for Tolkien's treatment of Arwen. Her character is clearly not developed at all, and she appears to exist solely to love Aragorn and reunite the lines of the Half-elven. Why Tolkien was reluctant to give her the fuller treatment that he gave to Lúthien in the Lay of Leithian is a mystery to me as well, unless the reason was a simple lack of space or time. I think that we must accept that she is a minor character in The Lord of the Rings, but I believe that it should have been possible to flesh her out a little more without detriment to the plot. Why Tolkien felt it unnecessary to give her more depth is something that we will probably never know, although I have always been satisfied that he tells us enough to understand the story he was telling. More than that is sadly confined to the thick folder labelled 'Tolkien might-have-beens'.

[Sleeping Beauty]

I have always been satisfied that he tells us enough to understand the story he was telling. More than that is sadly confined to the thick folder labelled 'Tolkien might-have-beens'.

Ah, alas. So true......

[Durelin]

It could be that Arwen was a way of giving the truly interested reader a more deep understanding of how much the Elves truly differed from Men just by their immortality and its effects upon them. Perhaps...though that seems a little too simple for Tolkien.

In quite often ignoring these conventions, Tolkien was harking back to others that are much older; those of, for example, Beowulf or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which would probably have come in for the same criticism had they been written in the 1950s.

Funny how it works. I remember a thread a while back about people criticizing Tolkien for a lack of depth to his characters. I wish we could stay away from all this character psychology we so like to delve into these days. The narrarator does not need to know the characters' thoughts to express meaning or 'depth.' If they must, that could be seen as a limitation on the writer's part. Also, it can be plain creepy! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lily Ahern]

I think that Tolkien has a mental block on writing feminine character/personality. I mean Eowyn wasn't a very complex character either but she wsa so much better than Arwen.
Arwen just seemed to appear at the end all nice and convenient for Aragorn. You never find out what he likes about her or anything like such.
But Tolkien grew up in a male dominated society it would have been very difficult for him to have the insight that writers now have.

[Finwe]

I'm inclined to disagree with your assertion that Tolkien had less insight than writers today. The female characters in his legendarium simply didn't need to be as fully developed as the male ones. It wasn't essential to the story. In some cases, especially in The Silmarillion, a lot of character development was included for Galadriel and Aredhel, because they were important to the story. I'm not saying that Eowyn wasn't important, but from looking at her role in the story, she didn't need to be any more developed than she actually was. There's no point in overworking or overdeveloping a character. Sometimes I feel that more "modern" authors are guilty of that crime. When a character, especially a more minor character, remains less developed, it adds a certain hint of mystery to the story, because we don't know them. We don't know how they think. We know what Frodo is thinking, and how he reacts to situations, but we don't know that about Eowyn and Arwen, and that makes them all the more interesting.

[Sparrow]

The female characters in his legendarium simply didn't need to be as fully developed as the male ones. It wasn't essential to the story. In some cases, especially in The Silmarillion, a lot of character development was included for Galadriel and Aredhel.

I disagree. I saw no real evidence of character development in either character, aside from basic conflics (Aredhel wanting to assert her independence, only to long once again for the place she had lived before).

While female development was certainly not necessary to the works of Tolkien as we know them, it certainly would not have hurt too much, especially from the P.O.V. of female readers. I would like to have seen a female go as a member of the Fellowship, for example.

~Sparrow

[Tar Elenion]

The character Arwen is actually a very late addition to the text in the developement of LotR. She does not appear until after rewrites happening in 1944, IIRC. The original intent was for Aragorn and Eowyn to wed.

[The Dark Elf]

Its simple. Tolkein had a problem with girls.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

A problem so deep and so pronounced that he remained happily married from 1916 to 1971.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:01 PM January 17, 2004: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[Sparrow]

Yeah, Dark Elf, that's kind of an unsupportable conclusion. Remember, Tolkien lived in a different era than most of us did - in an age with no MTV, no WNBA, no Annika Sorenstam. Take a look at literary pieces written by men from his time period, and you will find much the same terrible "problems" with the authors' female characters. At least Tolkien gave them roles besides wife and mother (e.g. Elven princess Arwen, shieldmaiden Eowyn, freedom-asserting Aredhel, wise and powerful Galadriel).

~Sparrow

[Belin]

Tolkien lived in a different era than most of us did

Er.. LotR wasn't published that long ago. I'm less familiar with British history, but in America there had already been a women's movement or two (with another coming soon!), and blaming his portrayal of women on his time period hardly seems fair to me.

That is, of course, assuming that this portrayal is blameworthy to begin with. Unlike many posters in this thread, I found Eowyn one of the most interesting characters in the books, and am inclined to think that Arwen's lack of characterization has more to do with Arwen than with women characters generally. I agree, you don't know much about her. I tend to cite, as Squatter does, "a simple lack of space or time."

Where would one put more information about her? In Rivendell? That would have revealed more about Aragorn than I think would have been appropriate at the time; it is very important to the structure of the story that our understanding of his identity comes slowly. At the end, when she shows up? Wouldn't it have distracted from the task of wrapping up the story? In fantasy scenes throughout, as the movie does? I think that would have been far more distracting in a book than it is in the movie. In any case, then we'd only be seeing her through Aragorn's eyes and this thread would have been full of complaints about that. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

This problem is especially pertinent if, as Tar-Elenion says, Arwen was a late addition to the story and its structure was already developed when she came on the scene.

I think Tolkien squeezed what he could of her into the "Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" and put it in the appendix because there was no other convenient place for it.

She is perhaps not as strong as some of his other minor characters (I am in awe of how little it took to give us Gorlim), but we do get that nice moment of her looking away from Aragorn and thinking.

--Belin Ibaimendi