Sister

[Son of Númenor]

Sisterhood, I think, plays a key thematic role in The Lord of the Rings that we (at least I) have been overlooking entirely.

Let's take a look at the three primary female characters: Arwen, Eowyn, and Galadriel.

Arwen is the 'young' elf, Galadriel the elder: both are immortal.

Eowyn is mortal.

So here we have this crushingly poignant unfoldment of sister-roles that I was until recently totally blind to.

Eowyn marries and leaves her brother.
Arwen dies and leaves her brothers.
Galadriel is separated from her brothers and allowed to return after the death of the beautiful forest kingdom she has built.

Tolkien had one younger brother, no sisters.

Might Middle-earth be nothing more or less than the sister Tolkien spent a lifetime singing into existence?

[Beleg Cuthalion]

No. No and no.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Beleg Cuthalion

No. No and no.

I sense animosity in the way you've chosen to express yourself. Three no's could mean many things - one no and one yes would do just fine.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Three no's could mean many things - one no and one yes would do just fine.

I disagree. One "yes" would be dishonest and misleading, since I disagree with the three major aspects of this topic.

Really, it's just unwise, and probably unfounded, to try and reduce the creation of M-E to a handful of shared attributes between three female characters and the fact that Tolkien never had a sister. There were a huge amount of things in Tolkien's life experience that we can reasonably assume had a hand in shaping Arda, and to try and pin it all down on just this one thing seems a little silly.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by Beleg Cuthalion

I disagree. One "yes" would be dishonest and misleading, since I disagree with the three major aspects of this topic.

Perhaps, but there is no need to answer in such fashion. Really, how would you feel if you bothered to create a new topic and all the answer you got was "no, no and no"? Can't think that'd feel well, so if you don't have anything to add to the discussion (and clearly, there IS a reason why you say no, so might as well explain it rather than just say "no") don't post in a hurtful manner at least!.

I don't see it either, if anything I'd say that Arwen and Eowyn's separation from their respective families shows the power of romantic love over family love... or perhaps the bridging of class-gaps (Faramir being almost a pure descendant from Numenor and Eowyn being from Rohan and Arwen, an elf, with Aragorn, a man).

[Oddwen]

I think it's an interesting idea - these few powerful females in LotR, and none of them have sisters. If Tolkien had a sister, would there be more women in LotR?

[Boromir88]

Might Middle-earth be nothing more or less than the sister Tolkien spent a lifetime singing into existence?

If you ask if Tolkien intentionally created these 3 characters to kind of 'represent' a sister that he never had; I would have to give you a profound 'no.' I think Middle-earth was something different than to give a reflection/representation of his life. Tolkien created Middle-earth I think for an entirely different reason. In Letters there is the 'Thompson draft' to which he starts off:

"Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging letter. Having set myself a task, the arrogance of which I fully recognized and trembled at: being precisely to restore to the English an epic tradition and present them with a mythology of their own: it is a wonderful thing to be told that I have succeeded, at least with those who have still the undarkened heart and mind."

I think one important thing to remember is the characters in Tolkien's story are their own person. They have their own actions, motivations, even their own 'sub-story,' and I don't think they should be broken down into people/thoughts of Tolkien's personal life.

Now, I do say intentionally, because honestly based upon what Tolkien talked about...Middle-earth did not represent the 'real world,' therefor I don't think he purposefully meant for Galadriel, Eowyn, and Arwen to be seen as such. However, subconsciously is a whole different thing and I don't think we have a clue what Tolkien was thinking, there is only what he wrote down and told . Many authors (either intentionally or subconsciously) write about their personal life (Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald are two that come to mind). To a certain extent I think every author is influenced by what is going on during their lifetime, and what Tolkien was thinking subconsciously I don't think anyone knows.

I do agree with Farael here...I think it's an interesting coincidence more than anything else. I say it's interesting because I never noticed that either until now ...but I think the connection is too weak and that makes it look coincidental.

[Son of Númenor]

Thank you all for your replies. I do agree that Tolkien, unless he had a brilliant poker face which he wore for a few odd decades, probably did not write The Lord of the Rings with the intention of creating a sister for himself.

However, the sister connection is still an interesting one, and I think these three relationships have a lot to say about the whole of Tolkien's literary achievement.

Galadriel plays a relatively small but extremely important role in the Lord of the Rings: through three acts she does her part to save Middle earth: the act of renunciation (refusing the Ring), the act of sacrifice (Nenya ergo Lothlorien), and the act of giving (the gifts which she imparts on the Fellowship, all of which become necessary at some point to complete the Quest).

It is never mentioned that Galadriel is a sister. Nevertheless, we are given access to that knowledge via The Silmarillion.

Arwen is another figure who is central to the plot of The Lord of the Rings: she is Aragorn's earthly - I would even say sexual-reproductive - motivation for fulfilling the Quest. Without her, his ascent to Kingship is a burden without personal reward.

We know in the narrative of The Lord of the Rings that Arwen has brothers, but Elladan and Elrohir play only a passing role in the narrative. All three are mentioned in the Silmarillion, but they play no key role in the narrative.

Eowyn is crucial to the plot of The Lord of the Rings: she slays the chief emissary of Evil on Earth (Sauron). She is rewarded for this moral act with marriage; her brother, meanwhile, plays a less important role, but in the end they are separated. Eomer and Eowyn exist only in the moral framework of The Lord of the Rings: they are not mentioned in The Silmarillion, thus are totally unimportant to its narrative.

If we look at the Silm as Trans-moral and the LotR as Moral, we have this relationship

Galadriel : her four brothers :: Morality : Trans-morality

Eowyn : her brother :: Morality : Unity

Arwen : her two brothers :: The bridge between trans-morality and morality : Eternal Duality

The logical conclusion is that wrong acts can exist in Middle-earth, but cannot exist in the Silmarillion.

[Mithalwen]

For me the most interesting thing about sisters in the books is their absence.
It occured to me that I could think of no portrayal of a sister relationship. Some of the male characters have sisters but none of the women do - that we see at least - other than the minor character of Ioreth, which is a rather onesided thing. The remarkable daughters of the Old Took are mentioned (which may have been a bibliographic reference to Tolkien's mother and her sisters whose father was remarkably longlived if I remember correctly) but not seen. All the major female characters either have brothers or are only children - the exception being Niniel/Nienor whose sister died before her birth.

And none of the women seem to have surrogate sisters and are often motherless - they are women in a world of men. Think of how isolated Arwen is in the original descriotion of her.

So while I do not see the significance in the same way as Son of Numenor, I do think it is an aspect of the overall portrayal of women and female roles - more significant in their absence than in their presence ...

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

So while I do not see the significance in the same way as Son of Numenor, I do think it is an aspect of the overall portrayal of women and female roles - more significant in their absence than in their presence ...

Ah, but then you're assuming I see it in a certain way, and am not just hypothesizing based on random ideation.

I like what you have to say about Ioreth; I overlooked her role as a sister. It's strange to me that she does not seem to fit in thematically in the unfoldment of the narrative - while there are certainly hobbits who rival - even surpass - her ability to gossip, blather, and presume, they exist as part of a less baroque plane (The Shire in time of peace versus Minas Tirith in time of war). She is the only Mannish character in The Lord of the Rings whose best descriptor may be 'silly'. There are moments of 'comic relief', but few characters who represent in their entirety a comical relief from the narrative (unless you posit that Bombadil is that - but I think he's far too magical ).

[Mithalwen]

I mean that I do not see that Tolkien was creating a sister for himself .

I think Ioreth gets a rough deal. But I think it is easier to link this thread (where I had more than my tenpennorth rather than recap.

As for Bomabdil - I ignore him as much as possible - I tend to jump to Bree...