From: krsear02@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Kendall 'Opusii' Sears)
Subject: Eowyn, Destiny, and Settling Down Re: Eowyn
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:05:44 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Dec17.222119.26100@leland.Stanford.EDU>, jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.125855.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> krsear02@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Kendall 'Opusii' Sears) writes:
>>
>>How about this....  Eowyn's *DESTINY* dictated that she be the way she is.
>>Her whole purpose in being born was to slay the Nazgul.  Remember that
>>no _man_ may slay him, but SHE is woman (hear her roar? ;-)
> 
> 	I think the role of destiny and of fate in LOTR is an interesting
> question-- and one that is, perhaps, even more debatable than that of 
> Eowyn.  There certainly are prophecies in LOTR and other forms of divination
> (i.e. Galadriel's mirror, the palantiri), but the role of choice and free
> will in the narrative are also profoundly important.

Choice?  I think not in most cases.  Most "choices" were made out of necessity
and as with the rest of the LOTR the "choices" were clear cut in that there was
bad/good: surrender/hide, give up/go on, turn back/continue ahead, die/fight.
Tolkien left _very_ little grey in most of the decisions of the characters.
Even the first choice was coaxed (Bilbo joining the dwarves), and Gandalf
himself said later that he was "confident" that Bilbo would make the "right"
decision.

> 	I don't think that the idea of "destiny" really has anything to
> do with the existence of particularized gender roles in LOTR--  unless you're
> trying to say that Tolkien was somehow destined to construct the narrative in 
> the way that he did.  No matter how you want to contextualize it--  there _are_
> noticeable gender roles in the text.  In one of my earlier postings on this
> topic, I went through a list of the other signficant female characters in
> LOTR--  Goldberry, Arwen, Galadriel-- as well as some of the minor ones--
> the Healers, the Entwives, Rosie Cotton-- showing that they _all_ occupied a
> role that can be easily described as "domestic." (Nobody has yet disagreed
> with this, I might add). Eowyn challenges the domestic role that is relegated 
> to every other (humanoid) female character in LOTR.  The language she uses in
> her speech with Aragorn indicates an an awareness of the fact that Eowyn, in 
> wanting to ride out to battle, _is_ challenging the gender roles that seem to
> be the textual norm.  Regardless of how you wish these roles (or her challenge
> to them are explained) are explained with regards to fate or free will within
> Middle-earth--  they are undeniably there in LOTR. 

I am not saying that there aren't definite gender roles.  I am saying that
Eowyn is a special case from a special people.  The Rohirrim are a more
barbaric people than the Gondorians (as mentioned in many of the supporting
works) and the women of the Rohirrim NEVER backed down.  At helms deep the
women weren't cowering, they were doing what was necessary for the battle
(unlike the Gondorian women who chose to evacuate, or were forced to evacuate).
No indeed, Eowyn was a special character from the outset.  Aragorn noticed
this immediately and warned Eowyn to take care.  Eowyn not not challenging the
female role as much as the word of her King who she felt was not strong enough
to head off to battle so soon after the words of Grima Wormtongue.  When
Theoden was under the influence of Grima, Eowyn felt ill used.  In order to
feel that she was worthy of her royal lineage she decided (if decision it was)
to win her glory (or death) in battle.  I find it more than chance that a
"non-man" (actaully 2 "non-men") was on the battle field exactly at the exact
time necessary for the victory.

As for the other significant female characters, especially two of the three
you name, Arwin and Galadriel, are strong willed to the EXTREME.  I personally
would not say that Galadriel was acting a "female" role as she most certainly
wasn't.  Galadriel was a renouned warrior and scholar in her own right.

Goldberry, in and of herself, is as much an exception as Bombadil.  Goldberry
definitely DID NOT act the part of the typical female any more than Tom acted
the part of the typical male.  Tom did not "run" the household nor did
Goldberry submit.  Tom was as much a domestic one as Goldberry.

What I find interesting in all of these discussions is the apparent lack
of notice that the women and men of EACH society acted in accordance with
that society.  The women in the Shire acted the homey as did the men.  The
female Elves acted differently depending of where they were (in Rivendell
the women were as recognized as the men, while slightly less so in Mirkwood).
The women of Gondor acted more domestically than the women of the Rohirrim.

Was Eowyn so different from the other women of the Rohirrim?  From the reading
of the acts of the Rohirrim I would say not.  She had a higher profile in the
narrative because of her destined acts, but was she all that different (royalty
aside)?
 
>>It is not that she was trying to break the "female role" for the "good/bad"
>>of all the women of the Rohirrim; she was driven by destiny, just as Bilbo's
>>destiny was to find the ring.
> 
> 	I didn't say she was trying to break the domestic female role for 
> the good or bad of all the women of Rohan or of Middle-earth.  I said that
> she was challenging a gender role that exists in the text of LOTR--  and that
> the language that she speaks suggests that her character is meant to be 
> aware of the fact that she is challenging the role that is specified for
> female characters virtually everywhere else in the narrative.
> 	Once again, I think the issue of "destiny" is an interesting one
> in it's own right.  As an explanation for why things are constructed the
> way that they are in LOTR, however, it seems to be an answer that leaves
> the question unanswered.

Unanswered? No.  Early on Mithrandir explains to Frodo that destiny plays a
major role.  He flat says that Bilbo was MEANT to find the ring, and Frodo was
MEANT to be a ring bearer, and that Smeagol has a significant role yet to play
(even though Mithrandir thought him safely imprisoned by the elves).  Tolkien
oftimes openly gave destiny a large part to play.

>>Eowyn didn't _decide_ to settle down either. She was forced into submission by
>>Aragorn in a pseudo-Royal decree.  Her eventual settlement was because she had
>>fulfilled her role, just as Frodo and Bilbo BOTH felt the need/urge to settle
>>down once their roles were finished.  If you'll (generic you) reread the
>>series (I have MANY times) you should notice that _every_ character settles
>>down after their role is finished. 
> 
> 	I'm sure we've all read LOTR many times, Kendall, and are very aware
> of the workings of the narrative.

No insult intended for those who have read TLOTR multiple times.  As one who
has read TLOTR many times you (Jim) most likely know that EACH reading reveals
details passed in the previous readings.  After my first reading of the Hobbit
(many many moons ago) I was so enthralled I made a decision to not just read
but to study Tolkien's works.  EACH time I reread TLOTR another detail I had
before overlooked leaps out and says "here I am".

>                                    And I don't think it's accurate to say that
> _every_ character settles down to a peaceful domestic existence. Frodo sure
> doesn't--  nor does Bilbo, Gandalf, or the great majority of the Elves.  
> Merry and Pippin don't settle down in the actual course of the narrative--  
> they remain vassals of Rohan and Gondor respectively and, unlike Sam, Faramir,
> and Aragorn, remain arms-carrying bachelors through the last chapter.  (The 
> appendices, of course, tell us that do end up getting married, but I think 
> it's noteworthy that they end up dying and being buried in Gondor rather than
> at home in the Shire).  Legolas and Gimli certainly never "settle down" in
> either the story or the appendices. 	

Do they not?  Let's see.  Frodo heads to the West with Bilbo, Mithrandir, and
the great majority of the Elves for specifically THAT purpose.  To settle down.
This is not to say that every one gets married and has lots of children.  My
"settle down" above is not an implication of that.  Settling down is to lead
a more leisurely life, which is what Bilbo says to Mithrandir after the Party.
Merry and Pippin do indeed settle down, no longer are they warriors after the
cleansing of the Shire.  Legolas and Gimli no longer spend their time counting
scores of Orc heads taken, nor do they revel in the excitement of the hunt for
Hobbits, they settle into a life of travel.  Both had spent a great part of
their (long) lives fighting one foe or another but when given the chance after
the war they decided to see the sights of Middle Earth.  Is that not settling
down?

Kendall.
-- 

   Kendall Sears                   KRSEAR02@ULKYVX.bitnet
   Programmer                             ///
   Child Development Unit                /// Amiga
   Department of Pediatrics          \\\/// Currently running AmigaOS 2.04
   University of Louisville           \XX/ And Supporting Unix Sys V Rev 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Numbness is bliss... I can't feel a thing." -me.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien