From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article exalts Eowyn, then demeans her. What's the point of that?

Was she really made Queen over Rohan, or was her "leadership" more of a limited responsibility and authority to ensure their safety? I don't recall reading that "if Theoden falls in battle", she will succeed him. But correct me if I'm wrong; I only read the book 8 times.

Saying that she forsook her duties also seems wrong. Wasn't her decision to put on man's garb and ride into battle winked at and accepted willingly by the soldiers of Rohan? And wasn't her presence in the ensuing battle the key turning point of the war, when she ("no man born of woman") dismayed and unseated the leader of the nine RingWraiths?

I suspect whoever wrote this version of the article is trying to score ideological points. I recommend a longer block (or a ban), unless they change their tune. --Ed Poor Talk 09:53, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry that the text was misunderstandable. Éowyn was not made Queen nor heiress to the title, but was made leader of the people headed for Dunharrow in the absence of the King. (LotR, III, 6: "[Théoden:] 'I name Éomer my sister-son to be my heir. If neither of us return, then choose a new lord as you will. But to some one I must now entrust my people that I leave behind, to rule them in my place. Which of you will stay?’ ... [Háma:] 'Let her be as lord to the Eorlingas, while we are gone.' [Théoden:] 'It shall be so. Let the heralds announce to the folk that the Lady Éowyn will lead them!'")
As for being accepted riding to Gondor, Éowyn did so disguised as an anonymous warrior. Neither the people around her nor the reader know of her until she reveals herself during her confrontation with the Witch-king. She had not been relieved of her duty as leader by the King, and as such can be said to have forsaken said duty (as Aragorn points out to her in LotR, V, 2: "[Éowyn:] 'Then wilt thou not let me ride with this company, as I have asked?’ [Aragorn:] 'I will not, lady. For that I could not grant without leave of the king and of your brother; and they will not return until tomorrow.'"). Her archievements at the Pelennor were great, and I am the last one to doubt that, but the fact that she left her duty without having been given leave still stands separately. I do not think that stating objective facts demeans her, unless you meant something else I oversaw.
As for "trying to score ideological points", I truthfully do not know what you mean. Misogyny? That I say Éowyn is better than everyone else? That she is stupid? I do not think she is, nor that she is more than the other characters. But objectively she was hopeless, and she did leave her post, and then she went on and did great deeds. And subjectively she was absolutely awesome and lovely doing so.
When I added to the article I just intended for an objective overview of life pre-, during, and post-War; and during the War the waypoints of her being appointed leader in Dunharrow, disguising as Dernhelm, and slaying the Witch-king, although I did not (yet) add the issue of her crushing on Aragorn, as I feared it getting to long. I hope I understood the objections you made, and cleared my intentions. Perhaps if one added the quotes as references they would not be misunderstood, and her doings during the War could be restored. ~ Tolkiendil 18:01, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

There is a difference between:

  • she was given leadership of her people when the King went to war


  • she was given temporary leadership ... while the King went to war

The following phrases are misleading:

  1. she was given leadership - implies a permanent position
  2. her people - implies absolute power, rather than a regency
  3. when (instead of while) - bolsters 1 and 2 by provide a date of the "transfer of power"

You need to accept corrections like this gracefully, instead of spouting tons of verbiage that look like protests. Otherwise you won't enjoy working here.

I've read LOTR 8 times, I'm a sysop. Please follow my editorial direction and stop complaining. Or find another project. Last warning. --Ed Poor Talk 10:51, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Disguised as a soldier

Is this bit really necessary?

"While some may accuse her of betraying her trust, she could not actually have ridden as an anonymous man since in a battle formation every man must be known to his superior and his comrades. The fact that no one ever spoke aloud to her although she walked freely around the camp shows that her guise was not impenetrable."

Neither the book nor the movie show fellow soldiers seeing through her disguise, so why do we need to say here that they did? The impression I got was that she remains unrecognised (except to Merry) right up to the battle. I don't remember whether Tolkien said this explicitly, but he certainly didn't write that she was recognised by others.

I suggest removing this paragraph & sticking to what is said explicitly in the story, rather than conjecturing about things that are not stated. Most importantly, this is writing about fiction & should not be treated as if Eowyn is a real person or the events really happened. Sideways 11:48, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

You have my permission to remove that bit from the article, but the movie is not what I'm talking about. Her follow soldiers clearly knew who she was. They kept apart from her (IMHO) so that she wouldn't have to speak aloud and reveal her identity via her womanly voice. Merry didn't know her, but he didn't grow up in Rohan.
Do you think horsemen who can ride in formation as skillfully as the Rohirrim had no leadership hierarchy? Any strange man hanging around camp would be sure to be challenged. --Ed Poor Talk 20:09, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Do you think it is impossible Eowyn could have assumed a false name? Either way, all of this conjecture is non-encyclopedic. Better to stick to what is in the text than speculate about hypothetical situations involving the characters. Sideways 20:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

While justifying his distortions, the user I blocked claimed, "Neither the people around her nor the reader know of her until she reveals herself during her confrontation with the Witch-king." But no one who actually read the book and understands it could possibly think this way; he might have been thinking of the movie.

In her disguise as Dernhelm, how could she pass freely through the camp unrecognized? Soldiers only ride with others they know. No anonymous man could possibly slip in. Clearly the others know who she was and refrained from addressing her on purpose. They went along with her ruse because they loved her and trusted her.

In multiple incidents in LOTR, a leader has been faced with a crucial choice between blind obedience and doing the right thing. Eomer spared the lives of Aragorn - seeing that a valid reason existed to make an exception to the general order of Theoden concerning strangers abroad in the land. He even gave them horses, recognizing that they were allies (not trespassers). Eowyn might not have had a specific premonition of defeating the head Black Rider, but her heart was true - and proven so by her heroics. Faramir (like Eomer) allowed Frodo and Sam to live; he even spared Gollum. Don't you get it? Gandalf explained it once: "Many deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement". It was by this principle that Frodo was able to tame Gollum - even restoring his rightful name - long enough to slip into Mordor, find Mount Doom and destroy the Ring.

I don't care how many details are gotten right, if the key point is missed. --Ed Poor Talk 09:55, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Personal tools