Why did Arwen do that??

[Lily]

Why did Arwen wonder around Middle Earth all her life? Didn't she have kids? Didn't she have things to do in Gondor? Or did I read something wrong?

[Evisse the Blue]

You must have read sonething wrong indeed. As far as I know, she pretty much stayed in Gondor after she got married, until Aragorn died and then she left Gondor and went to Lorien where she died.

[Sleepy Ranger]

Evisse check your PMs.
And she did have kids.Eldarion one son and I dont know how many daughters.

[Firnantoonion]

and before she married Aragorn, she stayed at Lorien most of the time. (and certainly didn't 'wander around', Elrond would've died by the just thought of his only daughter wandering in the wild [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img])

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

This does raise an interesting question, though. Arwen did indeed have children, and although they had all long since come of age by the time Aragorn died, it does seem rather dismissive of them simply to disappear to fading Lothlórien and lie down to die, especially so soon after their father's death. Presumably they cared for her, and she for them; it's also likely that there was still a place for a Queen Mother in Gondor, possibly sometimes acting as advisor to her son, but the impression is that Arwen just gives up on life at her first bereavement.

The chances are that this just made for a better story, but it's an interesting thought. 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).

[Rimbaud]

Her relatively abrupt departure speaks volumes for the central idea of the Elvish withdrawal that Tolkien attempted to express. Their time was over, and the desire, perhaps the need, within them to depart for the West grew day by day. An unbearable longing, it must have made life in the human lands very difficult.

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.

[Arothir]

Maybe Arwen died of age. Aragorn was 90 when they got married, and he reigned 120 years. That's a long time for most Men, except for the Dunedain. But it never said that Arwen was counted among the Dunedain.

[Evisse the Blue]

Not only Elves are unable to cope with the loss of a beloved one, especially if he is the love of your life. Humans tend to do that too, and forget about their children in the process.

Arwen gave up her immortality for Aragorn, so it makes sense her only wish would be to be with him after his passing as well. Maybe there is a bit of pride and nostalgia in her leaving Gondor and going to Lorien to die. She did not want to die as the queen of Gondor, even if it meant a glorious funeral. She wanted to be in the place where she fell in love with Aragorn " and her choice was made and her doom appointed".

[Kaiserin]

I have always wondered why Arwen chose to die in Lorien - great insight that she would have chosen to return to where she fell in love with Aragorn.

To add to the question - Legolas built a ship and sailed off after King Elessar died (and he took Gimli with him). Could not have Arwen gone with him, instead of just fading away in Lorien?

[The Saucepan Man]

Could not have Arwen gone with him, instead of just fading away in Lorien?

Yes, I don't see why not. But, having chosen mortality, she would remain mortal and so would eventually die in Valinor, just as Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and (presumably) Gimli did. I doubt that she would have been too keen to put her father and other relatives through the pain of separation a second time.

[samrohan]

Were Arwen's children considered elfic or human or dunedain? Which basically brings my question on as how old did they live and what special attributes did their less ordinary parents pass down to them?

[Elentári]

I would have thought they were Dúnedain, because Aragorn's family were, and because Arwen chose mortality yet was...high up. I reckon they would have had lives about as long as Aragorn did. But maybe it also depends on the person in question's nobility- because didn't those in Númenor who wanted longer lives get shorter ones?

[Mariska Greenleaf]

Their son, Eldarion, was most definitely Dunedain.
So, I guess the rest of the children would have been too.

[Bêthberry]

I would like to go back to the different interpretations offered by Squatter and Rimbaud; I find the difference fascinating.

Squatter says:

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:

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.

[The X Phial]

There are several interesting points here that merit exploration. Squatter brings up the idea that Arwen could have had a role beyond "lover of Aragorn." I agree, in spirit, that it would be very nice to see her break out of the mold of passive female for a while. The assumption, however, is that she would be capable of such a things, and this is where Rimbaud's idea that only a strong force kept her in ME at all.

As a student of psychology and human development, I want Arwen to be able to move on with her life and move through the grief of losing someone dear to her. As a lover of mythology and story, however, I see the need for symmetry in their deaths and the acknowledgment that as a half-elf living as an immortal that loss would have been far more significant for her than for a human.

Upon rereading the story of Beren and Luthien, I found this passage.

This doom she chose, forsaking the Blessed Realm and putting aside all claim to kinship with those that dwell there; that thus whatever grief might lie in wait, the fates of Beren and Luthien might be joined, and their paths lead together beyond the confines of the world.

The implication is that the original decision to die took the choice to live on afterward away from Luthien, and presumably Arwen as well. Not that the choice was not possible in the abstract, but that the pain of loss and reality of death would make it impossible in reality. We do not know how long Luthien lived after Beren died, though I always imagined it was quite a short time. She, too, had a ruling son who could have used her counsel.

As for Bethberry's question about Gimli, I have no real answer besides the fact that the trip to the Undying Lands was reserved for those whose lives were changed and who did not fit with the world anymore. A dwarf who loves elves is unusual, and we do not know how the other dwarves reacted to Gimli's continued friendship with the son of the man who imprisoned his own father years before. Perhaps there was an unspoken tension there, a need for release from the world. Also to be considered is the reality (in my estimation) that for most non-elves of ME, the Undying Lands would not be a great reward. The virtue of the lands is in their connection with the old ways, their timelessness. While some, like Faramir, would have appreciated this, the majority of peoples left in ME would have balked at the unchanging nature of things. For most hobbits the longing for the Shire would have overwhelmed them before the end. It was only after Sam had lived a full life there that he was probably able to appreciate it.

[Bêthberry]

I have been unclear and clumsy in my argument and for that my apologies.

I do not mean to imply that Arwen's choice of death upon Aragorn's death is passive, not by any means. She does not die because it is easier to get her out of the way. Rather, Aragorn's death frees her to take her leave, finally, as the other elves have previously done. This is why, to me, Rimbaud's allusion to other elves who stayed behind is so crucial. Legolas also chooses to leave once Aragorn has died--he is free at last to submit to his heart's desire for closure, end, summation, his duty and his love now fulfilled. Here is the symmetry. It pertains also to Arwen. Her death is her self-fulfilment.

To expect her to stay and provide counsel to her children would be, I think, to demand that she continue to play a role of mother years after her child are responsible adults. This would be denial of her choice, in my humble estimation.

Bêthberry

[ September 03, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Lost One]

To follow up one remark, I don't think we can assume 'Queen Mothers' were unknown in Middle-Earth. We get very little insight into the workings of the Numenorean and Gondorian monarchies, but mothers of kings are always important (often more so than wives of kings, in early medieval monarchies for example). In a Roman or Byzantine like society such as Numenor and Gondor seem to be, there should be scope for this phenomenon. Among hobbits at least, dowagers were important, as Tolkien detailed in one of his letters (the survivor of a married couple retained headship of the family until he or she died). Obviously, hobbits aren't men, but the Shire society did evolve in the kingdom of Arnor.

[The Saucepan Man]

I must say that I tend to agree with Squatter on this one:

Arwen did indeed have children, and although they had all long since come of age by the time Aragorn died, it does seem rather dismissive of them simply to disappear to fading Lothlórien and lie down to die

I find it difficult to understand why Arwen would not wish to spend what time she could with her children, notwithstanding that they were grown to adulthood.

Bêthberry said:

To expect her to stay and provide counsel to her children would be, I think, to demand that she continue to play a role of mother years after her child are responsible adults.

But, even though it was no longer necessary for her to provide guidance to her children, it seems strange to me that her maternal love for them would not outweigh any desire that she might have to depart Middle-earth on the death of Aragorn. It is not a question of denying her a choice in the matter. It just seems to me that her choice would more naturally be to remain with her children out of love for them.

I have the same difficulty with Sam's decision to join Frodo in the Undying Lands. However strong the bond between Sam and Frodo (and it certainly was very strong), I would have thought that his bond with his children would be greater.

Back to Arwen, though. One thought does occur to me. Although she chose mortality, my understanding is she was nevertheless blessed with great longetivity and was likely thereore to have outlived her children (and possibly her grandchildren and more), had she chosen to remain. Perhaps, having already grieved for the death of Aragorn, she could not face further grief on the deaths of her children.

[ September 03, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Rimbaud]

Tolkien's point evolves from the fact, IMHO, that despite these vast emotional motivations for remaining in Middle-Earth, several major characters instead make their departure. In some cases it could be argued that The Gift of Men, tall dark chap with a scythe, was hugely appealing to grief-struck immortals, not normally having the option; in other cases it can be seen that the allure of the West, of being next to heaven, was greater than that of any earthly ties.

Few here, I would imagine, are suggesting that Tolkien neglected to consider Sam/Arwen's attachment to their offspring. Indeed, I very much suspect that the appreciation of that love, and his concept of limits on love imposed by mortality, formed the basis of his message here.

Perhaps Tolkien's point here is a more religious one than a glance might convey. That despite the incomprehensible love between those separated through the course of the stories, all find their final solace elsewhere.

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, I do not doubt that JRRT considered their emotional attachment to their children. As a father himself, this parental bond would have been only too clear to him. And I do not doubt that he had his reasons for having these characters' parental bond with their children outweighed by other factors.

In the case of Sam, it was his solid and unbreakable friendship with Frodo forged in the adversities that they shared in the Quest of the Ring. I suspect that Sam also wanted to see the Undying Lands and the Elves that lived there, but that desire alone would not have been strong enough to cause him to leave. He wanted to spend his final days with his friend, rather than his family. So I can fully understand Sam's motive, even if I do not fully identify with it.

Arwen is more difficult. It cannot be the allure of the West itself that dictates her cause of action, since she accepted that her fate did not lie there when she chose mortality. As a result of her choice, the Undying Lands were most likely barred to her. If they were not, she clearly had no great desire to go there (as a mortal) since, as posited earlier in this thread, she could have chosen to go with Legolas and Gimli.

Rimbaud suggests that she feels a need to withdraw borne of the Elves' almost instinctive desire to leave Middle-earth and head off West. But why should that desire outweigh her parental love for her children when it did not outweigh her love for the mortal Man that she married and for whom she gave up her immortality (and with it, I suspect, any right to go West)?

Squatter suggests that she was perhaps unable to cope with the thought of living following Aragorn's death. But, if that was the case, would not the comfort of her children's company have made life more bearable? I would put forward another possibility: perhaps she desired to be reunited with her husband beyond the Circles of the World. But that would happen eventually anyway, so why the rush (especially for one who had already lived so long)? In any event, whatever the reason, I cannot understand why it should outweigh the attraction of remaining with her children.

As I said, JRRT no doubt had his reasons for telling it the way that he did. But, for me, it is a matter of character believability. On my current understanding (although I am happy to be educated further), I find it difficult to believe that these characters would act in the way that they did in this matter.

[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Amarie of the Vanyar]

I think that the key to understand Arwen's behaviour after Aragorn's death is in the quote provided by X Phial from the story of Beren and Luthien. It has been said of Arwen that she was very similar to Luthien.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that the key to understand Arwen's behaviour after Aragorn's death is in the quote provided by X Phial

How so? The quote is relevant to her choice of mortality over immortality, but I don't see how it is relevant to her choice to depart Middle-earth following Aragron's death. Once she had chosen mortality, her fate was joined with that of Aragorn, and their paths would lead together beyond the confines of the world, whether she departed following his death or whether she chose to stay in Middle-earth for the remainder of her natural lifespan.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I wrote most of what follows last night, and although I've done my best to incorporate the later posts I can't be sure that I haven't missed anyone. My apologies to anybody whose arguments I've overlooked.

I don't believe that it's possible to disassociate the mythology from psychological realities. Throughout even The Silmarillion characters' individual personalities, motivations and feelings at pivotal points are made clear to us, and this makes the application of psychological realism quite possible and acceptable. In the example of Arwen above, my opinion that she died from despair was derived from this passage:

'But Arwen went forth from the House, and the light of her eyes was quenched, and it seemed to her people that she had become cold and grey as nightfall in winter that comes without a star. Then she said farewell to Eldarion, and to her daughters, and to all whom she had loved; and she went out from the city of Minas Tirith and passed away to the land of Lórien, and dwelt there alone under the fading trees until winter came.

Indeed it was the specific imagery of despair that Tolkien uses here that led me to my conclusion. The light of Arwen's eyes is quenched; she has lost the spark of vitality with the loss of Aragorn and now her paths can only lead to fading, winter and inevitably death. Indeed it is as though with the loss of Estel the Evenstar has lost hope itself; that she literally cannot live without him. I quite agree with the Saucepan Man that her family is the logical support at such a time, but this clearly did not suit Tolkien's narrative aims and certainly would not provide the symmetry that The XPhial mentions.

I cannot see how this relinquishing of life (at least as Tolkien portrays it) can be anything but passive. Although Aragorn himself gives up what little time remains to him, this is presented as a positive decision, taken for the sake of the dignity of the Kings, and more importantly a contrast with the later kings of Númenor. Were Arwen's death to follow the same pattern as his I would regard it as an active following of her love into death, but it does not. She wanders as someone who has lost the lodestone of her existence, and I do not find this very difficult to believe. It would hardly be surprising for someone who has lived for centuries among deathless and unchanging relatives to be unaware of the full burden that the Gift places on the race of Men, as indeed the text makes explicit with Arwen's words to Aragorn:

But I say to you, King of the Númenoreans, not til now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall. As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last. For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men, it is bitter to receive.

Only at the last does she truly realise the fate that she has taken upon herself, but it is the parting of death that is hard to bear, and that makes the gift bitter. Arwen has chosen the fate of Men so that she need not be parted from Aragorn, in fact for precisely the same reason as her ancestress Lúthien made the same decision. She now has the freedom to follow Aragorn beyond the circles of the world, beyond which is "more than memory", and she does so soon after; but she does this without thought to those she leaves behind, other than to bid them farewell, and I'm sorry to say that she appears to depart in despair.

Perhaps my over-liberal use of capitals has confused the queen mother issue. As Lost One quite rightly points out, we cannot compare Gondor with a modern constitutional monarchy, in which dowagers are effectively no use to anyone. Rather it is a medieval state in which the royal family and their peers run every aspect of the administration. Kingship in that context is a trade that must be learned (usually from one's father, I must admit), and a wise king avails himself of all the good advice he can get even once he knows how to arrange matters. Surely on some issues the advice of one close to his predecessor would have been useful. Perhaps more pertinent is the point that, though they might not literally need their parents (being well into adulthood themselves), Arwen's family will hardly be overjoyed to lose both of them in such quick succession, particularly since both of them die by their own free will, which implies a rejection of whose whom they leave among the living. Effectively, Arwen places the burden of grief that she has found so galling on the shoulders of her son and daughters (Eldarion would have an especially difficult time of it, since he also has the government of a kingdom to take over). She escapes into death from the pains of the world, leaving others with twice the misery, and it surprises me that they let her go. Like the Saucepan Man I have exactly the same reservations about Sam's rather abrupt departure, immediately on the heels of his wife's death. Whilst I can understand his desire to see Frodo again it does seem very hard on his family and unusual in a patriarch.

Of course the narrative effect of Arwen's death is no less powerful for its apparent thoughtlessness. Effectively she gives up her life twice: first her life as one of the Firstborn and then the years that remained to her after Aragorn's death. She is a woman who surrenders everything for love, for whom, indeed, love of her chosen man eclipses family, race and immortality. The choice between her Elven kin and her husband is one that is forced upon her, but her decision to wander off and die, abandoning her human loved ones, is her own. Although I can understand this and appreciate the bitter-sweet beauty of it as narrative, it does not sit well as a character decision, much as Míriel's refusal to be rebodied (the detrimental effects of which on her husband and son Tolkien explores in The Shibboleth of Fëanor and more briefly in the Silmarillion proper) leaves me with a feeling of frailty and selfishness that I find hard to reconcile with the courage and endurance that Tolkien normally portrays.

Rimbaud has mentioned that Arwen's death is symptomatic of a general Elven fading from Middle-earth (more a compulsion to leave), but there is to my mind a fundamental flaw in this argument, since Arwen is by the time of her death not one of the Eldar at all. She has forsaken the Twilight and chosen the fate of Men, who are not compelled to leave. We cannot have our cake and eat it too: either Arwen is an Elf, subject to a compulsion to leave the mortal lands or she is human (albeit with long-extended years) and therefore subject only to the fate of that people. She says herself "I must indeed abide the Doom of Men, whether I will or nil", and it seems to me in any case that if the half-Elven must be subject to the compulsions of both kindreds then the choice that is granted them becomes meaningless.

Even the cases of Legolas and Celeborn are by no means clear-cut. I shall leave the latter for the time being, since this post is already extending far beyond its intended length, but Legolas' desire to leave for the West does not come as part of some general Elven fading. Rather as he says himself, the sea exerts a strong pull upon the Elves

I have not yet beheld it. But deep in the hearts of all my kindred lies the sea-longing, which it is perilous to stir. Alas! for the gulls. No peace shall I have again under beech or under elm.

This does not seem to me like a recent compulsion, but a natural and eternal part of the Elven psyche, which is stirred by thoughts of the sea and not by the advent of Men. As for his decision to remain for so many years despite the call of the ocean, I can see no better authorities to cite than Gimli and Merry:

'Say not so!' said Gimli. 'There are countless things still to see in Middle-earth, and great works to do. But if all the fair folk take to the havens, it will be a duller world for those who are doomed to stay.'

'Dull and dreary indeed!' said Merry. 'You must not go to the Havens, Legolas. There will always be some folk, big or little, and even a few wise dwarves like Gimli, who need you. At least I hope so...'

Legolas overrules the call of his heart for many years because there are people who need him, and things in the world that he has not seen, but he has no real ties to Middle-earth, and with each ship that leaves the Havens less remains to hold him from the West. But Legolas is an unalloyed Elf, not one of the Half-elven who has taken the fate of Men. I expect that by the time he leaves Gimli is the person closest to him in all the hither lands.

I too wish to see a more dynamic Arwen, someone who is more than just a prize to be won or a devoted helpmeet. At the very least I'd like to see someone whose strength and patience applies in all cases and not just when it comes to waiting for Aragorn. Sadly, it would appear that Appendix A is not going to grant me that, much as I may love the story it has to tell.

[ September 06, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[Evisse the Blue]

Right - let's see if I got this straight (if I misunderstood you at any point, Squatter, please let it be known [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]):
You seem to imply that both Arwen and Sam are a sort of 'sidekick', unidimensional characters whose only purpose in the story is to stand by the heroes (Aragorn resp Frodo), whose only actions and development serve or are in connection with the object of their affection. Perhaps you are right, in a way. This from a literary point of view. From a psychological pov, you imply they're selfish and give no thought to the other persons who play a part in their lives. You also contrast this with Legolas, whom you say acted unselfishly by staying in ME until Aragorn died. This you cannot prove - he might have had other reasons than keeping ME beautiful by the mere presence of his elvish good looks or other unselfish reason.

I am too startled to contradict you though on your main argument, because logically speaking you are right, but I feel that you are wrong.

Alright, what do we still agree on here? That the part of Arwen's departure and death is one of the most beautiful pieces of literature that graced the Tolkien written pages? Would you be willing to give this up for the sake of a more dynamic and politically-correct Arwen?

[Bêthberry]

Well indeed do children decry bitterly the passing of parents as a loss and even a betrayal. Yet such feelings can themselves be deemed selfishness.

There are stages to death and dying and there comes a time when not all the love in this world suffices and those we would hold dear turn away from us and are ready to move on. This is a psychological reality of our species and it is a bitter, bitter lesson. As Charlotte Bronte said of Emily Bronte's passing, "She made haste to leave us."

And it is this aspect of our human existence which Tolkien chose to memorialize the choice of Arwen, whose passing speaks poignantly of the invisibility of women's contribution throughout most recorded history.


Edit: Then again, I could just quote Lou Reed here. "I've come to hate my body, and all that it requires in this world."

[ September 06, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'm enjoying this fascinating discussion! Squatter, I would agree that we need to accept the story the way Tolkien wrote it, rather than reading our own expectations and values into it. In rereading the lines about Aragorn’s and Arwen’s deaths, I discovered a phrase which tells us clearly that Arwen did not choose to die because she was weary of life in general (or pining for the Undying Lands).

And for all her wisdom and lineage she could not forbear to plead with him to stay yet for awhile. She was not yet weary of her days…

According to this statement, her choice is based only on the fact that she does not wish to live on without Aragorn.

It seems to me that this element of the tale belongs to the epic narrative that Tolkien used for his stories of Middle-earth. Even his romantic ideals weren’t such that he felt the need to die himself when his wife preceded him in death. (And that despite the fact that he had “Beren” and “Lúthien” engraved on their tombstones.) He lived two more active and fulfilled years after that.

[Rimbaud]

...we need to accept the story the way Tolkien wrote it, rather than reading our own expectations and values into it.

Esty,

Really? Isn't the better part of good literature the subjective enjoyment?

Provocatively,

Rim

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Indeed it is, Rimbaud; I distinguish between what I read out of a story - my personal enjoyment and benefit - and what I read into a story. The latter hides pitfalls of misinterpretation.

[Amarie of the Vanyar]

Saucepan Man, I was literally reading the word 'toghether' in the last line in X Phial quote:

This doom she chose, forsaking the Blessed Realm and putting aside all claim to kinship with those that dwell there; that thus whatever grief might lie in wait, the fates of Beren and Luthien might be joined, and their paths lead together beyond the confines of the world.

Of course you are right that it can only mean that she became mortal and that I am likely to be over-interpreting it; but I think that the fact that she becomes mortal is said in the previous sentence the fates of Beren and Luthien might be joined; and that the second sentence their paths lead together beyond the confines of the world means that they are to die almost at the same time.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

One could read it that way. However, I would point out that one's path and one's self are two different things.

[Lush]

Really? Isn't the better part of good literature the subjective enjoyment?

Provocatively,

Rim

Quit with the provocations Rim, I only have so much time for cold showers these days. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I would point out that one's path and one's self are two different things.

Yes, but, as retarded as this is going to sound, one's path determines one's location. And lovers want to be together in the afterlife. And the Elves didn't have an afterlife, unless you count Aman, but it wasn't the same thing that men experienced.

[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Lily]

Whoa! I haven't been here for awhile. I didn't know my (what I thought) was a somewhat simple question, started a huge conversation! But anyway thanks for answering my question. Also I hope the other questions I read in here got answered as well. Wow! I think I got more information than I needed! But thank you all very much! And don't let this post end the discussion either. This is very interesting...

[Arothir]

Besides having an afterlife, the Hildor would also join in the second Ainulindale, right?

[The Saucepan Man]

... and that the second sentence their paths lead together beyond the confines of the world means that they are to die almost at the same time.

Well, I suppose it is a matter of interpretation, Amarie. I read that as meaning that, once Arwen had chosen mortality, she shared her fate with Aragorn beyond the confines of the world. Their spirits would ultimately be reunited, regardless of when either of their respective deaths occurred.

Well indeed do children decry bitterly the passing of parents as a loss and even a betrayal. Yet such feelings can themselves be deemed selfishness.

Indeed, Bêthberry. Had Arwen stayed against her will because her children insisted (literally or emotionally) that she remained, that might be considered selfish on their part. But it seems that they were given little choice in the matter. Arwen's decision was made purely on the basis of her own feelings. As Estelyn makes clear by reference to the quote that she gives:

... her choice is based only on the fact that she does not wish to live on without Aragorn.

My point is that I find it hard to empathise with her decision to leave Middle-earth, whatever despair she might have felt at the loss of Aragorn, when I would have thought that her own maternal love for her children should have exercised such a strong pull on her.

Regardless of the dramatic symbolism in Arwen's choice, for me it still comes down to her believability as a character. I just find it difficult to believe that a loving mother would have been able to leave her children (albeit that they had reached adulthood) when she was not (As Estelyn's quote shows) yet weary of the world.

Even his romantic ideals weren’t such that he felt the need to die himself when his wife preceded him in death. (And that despite the fact that he had “Beren” and “Lúthien” engraved on their tombstones.) He lived two more active and fulfilled years after that.

But Tolkien himself was 81 years of age when he died and had therefore lived a full life according to his natural expectancy, whereas Arwen could surely expect to live on for a great many years following Aragorn's death.

...we need to accept the story the way Tolkien wrote it, rather than reading our own expectations and values into it.

Well yes, I agree to an extent. But if the story doesn't ring true then the reader will encounter difficulties in accepting it. And that this reader's reaction to Arwen's decision if (as it seems) it was based solely upon her despair occasioned by Aragorn's death.

[ September 07, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Mister Underhill]

It is a hallmark of Tolkien’s most admirable characters that they are not crippled by sentimentality. This is especially true of Aragorn and his kith and kin. They feel sorrow at misfortune and partings and the ending of good things, but they are not ruled by it. Any number of examples may be cited. Aragorn, only moments after Gandalf has fallen, quickly rallies: “Let us gird ourselves and weep no more! Come! We have a long road, and much to do.” When Aragorn laments, “Then bitter will my days be, and I will walk in the wild alone,” his mother Gilraen doesn’t sugarcoat it for him: “That will indeed be your fate.” And when Gilraen later announces that she will soon die, does Aragorn hang around for the bitter end? No. He goes away with heavy heart – but he goes away. These characters do not fear death, though they may lament it, nor do they cling desperately to life – their own or another’s – when its season has passed.

I’m not sure where I’m heading with all this, so I’ll just blurt out some thoughts and impressions and hope that some coherent observations appear:

It is recorded that Aragorn and Arwen’s marriage lasted for 120 years. I think we may safely assume that their children are all over 100 years old – no spring chickens; doubtless parents and probably even grandparents themselves, with families and lives of their own. The grief of the parting of parents and children is mitigated by the long preparation for it, and by the fact that all involved have had long and (no doubt) full relationships. In terms of sheer time, Arwen has, by any yardstick, fulfilled her obligations as a mother to her children. As an aside, Squatter, I’d argue that Eldarion’s duties and obligations as the new king would probably make it easier rather than more difficult for him to deal with the loss of his parents.

In HoME XII, there’s a slightly different line from Aragorn in which he makes a much clearer distinction between sorrow and despair: “In sorrow we must go, for sorrow is appointed to us; and indeed by sorrow we do but say that that which is ended is good. But let us not go in despair.” Does Arwen give in to despair – indeed, die of despair? I don’t think we can say “yes” with certainty. She doesn’t immediately lay down and die. The wording – “...she went out from the city of Minas Tirith and passed away to the land of Lórien, and dwelt there alone under the fading trees until winter came” – suggests to me a season of reflection and of making peace with her fate before death comes.

We might question the very idea that Arwen has a choice to linger for decades in Middle-earth. A series of quotes suggest that Aragorn’s and Arwen’s fates are bound in a very literal sense:

...yet it was not [Arwen's] lot to die until all that she had gained was lost.

Aragorn: 'Lo! we have gathered, and we have spent, and now the time of payment draws near.'

And for all her wisdom and lineage she could not forbear to plead with him to stay yet for a while. She was not yet weary of her days, and thus she tasted the bitterness of the mortality that she had taken upon her.

Aragorn: 'And on the hill of Cerin Amroth when we forsook both the Shadow and the Twilight this doom we accepted.'

“In sorrow we must go...”

There are a lot of we’s in there. Aragorn may be using the “royal ‘we’”, or he may mean “we mortals”, or – he may mean that when it’s time for him to go, it’s time for them both to go. This makes for an alternate reading of the idea that Arwen is “not yet weary of her days”. She doesn’t want to go yet, but knows that once Aragorn dies, she soon must follow him. From this point of view, the whole sentence suggests that her bitterness stems from the thought of her own impending death – not merely from Aragorn’s death. She also speaks of the gift of Men being “bitter to receive”. This discussion has assumed that she’s referring to Aragorn’s death, but to “receive” the gift is to die. Perhaps she refers to her own.

On the other hand, there does seem to be, as I’ve mentioned, at least a bit of a grace period for her to get herself in order. The ability to choose the time and place and circumstances of one’s death rather than lingering on while the infirmities and indignities of old age assail the body is a blessing which many of us may only begin to appreciate as we grow older. To everything there is a season – and Tolkien’s noblest characters know when their season is ended and have the grace to leave when it is. Indeed, every model Arwen has to follow has taken this road: Elrond, her father, Galadriel, her mother-figure, and Aragorn, her husband, all willingly pass from Middle-earth to their respective afterlives, leaving behind loved ones. Why should we begrudge Arwen this same path?

Overly long, rough and rambling, but not without grist for the mill...

[ September 09, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Underhill, that’s the best explanation of the circumstances of Arwen’s death that I’ve heard! I like the thought that she takes time to reconcile herself with her own (and Aragorn’s) death. It rings true for me and gives her voluntary death more dignity, less despair and bitterness. She obviously needed that time alone to come to terms with the fate that she faced; perhaps she thought that no one else could share or understand it. I had never considered the “we” aspect of the quotes you listed, but that does explain “why she had to go” (to quote a Beatles song).

I also appreciate your thought that a voluntary death is preferable to a prolonged life with the “infirmities and indignities of old age“. I know of elderly family members and acquaintances who wish that they could choose the grace of going voluntarily when they are ready for death. We may well experience that ourselves when our time comes. When we do, wouldn’t it be wonderful to look back on a life lived “in great glory and bliss”? (I guess that’s the fairy-tale aspect – there doesn’t seem to be much of that to a normal life nowadays.)

One more quote to add to the bitter-sweetness of their parting; Aragorn says:

I speak no comfort to you, for there is no comfort for such pain within the circles of the world.

It seems that we attempt to choose avoidance of pain nowadays, rather than accepting it as a part of life. Tolkien shows us that sorrow is there, but it is possible to accept it without bitterness. I’m reminded of something that Aragorn said earlier in his life, speaking of Merry:

His grief he will not forget; but it will not darken his heart, it will teach him wisdom.

May I be granted such wisdom, in life and in death.

[Amarie of the Vanyar]

Brilliant and deep thoughts Underhill and Estelyn! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Yes, that time in Lórien had for Arwen the same purpose than to the time given to Frodo and Bilbo in the Undying Lands!. Your words had made me aware of what I unconsciously knew but was unable to explain.

I completely agree with your words, especially with your last sentence Estelyn:

May I be granted such wisdom, in life and in death.

I hope that wisdom would be granted to me, too. I firmly believe this is possible in real life, not only in fairy-tales, as I have seen my father dying with that dignity and Estel.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

You're probably right, Underhill. I thought I might be missing something with my reading of that story, and you seem to have put your finger on it with your comments about the age of Eldarion and his sisters at the time of their parents' death. To be quite honest this matter simply hadn't occurred to me, but now that you come to mention it, Aragorn does describe his son as "a man full-ripe for kingship", which by Númenórean standards would imply that he has to be at least sixty, and probably quite a lot older.

This neatly disposes of any practical rôle that Arwen may have had in Gondor, even if we do not assume that she was compelled to follow Aragorn into death. This point, though, seems to me less certain. You have detailed a number of possible readings, any one of which seems valid; but the following passage, apparently doomed to much quoting here, speaks more to me of the pain of parting than of anything else

And for all her wisdom and lineage she could not forbear to plead with him to stay yet for a while.

She was not yet weary of her days, and thus she tasted the bitterness of the mortality that she had taken upon her.

Obviously if she is doomed to follow Aragorn shortly afterwards then her being not yet weary of her days would still be relevant, but I cannot help but look to the preceding paragraph, which seems to imply more a desire not to be parted. To me this suggests that Arwen realises that she will want to follow Aragorn, that she will effectively be offered another choice (between however many years she has left to her and following close on her husband's heels), which she does not wish to make. As for her not dying until she has lost all that she has gained, this looks to me like a simple prophecy of her condition at the end of her life rather than a predicted condition of her death.

The chances are, though, that it is my reading that is aberrant. The day after I posted my comments above I came across a letter of Tolkien's that throws a lot of light on his ideas about death, and I'd been waiting for a good time to post it. This looks to be as good a time as any.

A divine 'punishment' is also a divine 'gift', if accepted, since its object is ultimate blessing, and the supreme inventiveness of the Creator will make 'punishments' (that is changes of design) produce a good not otherwise to be attained: a 'mortal' Man has probably (an Elf would say) a higher if unrevealed destiny than a longeval one. To attempt by device or 'magic' to recover longevity is thus a supreme folly and wickedness of 'mortals'. Longevity or counterfeit 'immortality' (true immortality is beyond Eä) is the chief bait of Sauron - it leads the small to a Gollum and the great to a Ringwraith.

A description of the equal folly of Míriel's attempt to die follows, and Tolkien continues in one of his characteristic footnotes:

It was also the Elvish (and uncorrupted Númenórean) view that a 'good' Man would or should die voluntarily by surrender with trust before being compelled (as did Aragorn). This may have been the nature of unfallen Man; though compulsion would not threaten him: he would desire and ask to be allowed to 'go on' to a higher state. The Assumption of Mary, the only unfallen person, may be regarded as in some ways a simple regaining of unfallen grace and liberty: she asked to be received, and was, having no further function on Earth.

Letter #212 (draft continuation of a letter sent to Rhona Beare on 14th October 1958)

It would seem, then, that by the time of her death Arwen has fulfilled her purpose and can depart in peace and in her own time. I still believe that she hastens to follow Aragorn, but first she travels to visit the place of their meeting, which, it should be remembered, she will never see again. Perhaps this travelling is her way of taking leave of Middle-earth itself, just as she has taken leave of her family and people. Perhaps also what I have read as despair is simply a sadness born of the realisation that her days of life within the circles of the world are almost over.

However, my original devious purpose (that of inspiring the sort of debate that I associate with 'The Books') has succeeded, even if I've had to cede my central point. I can at least do so gladly, since the opposing view shows Tolkien and his characters in a far better light. Hopefully, though, there's more meat left on this particular bone for us to worry at.

[Mister Underhill]

Further to the question of Arwen’s ability (or lack thereof) to choose to stay in Middle-earth for years after Aragorn’s passing, here’s more from HoME XII. This is draft material from the Tale of Years, and while it is admittedly clear that much later revision of the story took place, this may be a case where an early sketch can provide some insight into the meaning and intentions of the final text:

King Elessar and Queen Arwen reigned long and in great blessedness; but at the last the weariness came upon the King, and then, while still in vigour of mind and body, he laid himself down after the manner of the ancient kings of Numenor, and died, in the hundred and second year of his reign and the hundred and ninetieth year of his life. (*These numbers obviously were altered later.)

Then Arwen departed and dwelt alone and widowed in the fading woods of Lothlorien; and it came to pass for her as Elrond foretold that she would not leave the world until she had lost all for which she made her choice. But at last she laid herself to rest on the hill of Cerin Amroth, and there was her green grave until the shape of the world was changed.

P.S. -- You really ought to hatch more of these devious schemes of yours, Squatter old boy.

[Evisse the Blue]

It was also the Elvish (and uncorrupted Númenórean) view that a 'good' Man would or should die voluntarily by surrender with trust before being compelled (as did Aragorn). This may have been the nature of unfallen Man; though compulsion would not threaten him: he would desire and ask to be allowed to 'go on' to a higher state.

This is an ancient idea which the Oriental and eastern Europeans still hold on to but which others reject utterly as weakness or cowardice, but in fact it speaks for a higher wisdom.
It is completely opposite to the 'do not go gentle into that good night, and rage against the dying of the light' theme which seems to be very fashionable these days.
Just a thought.