Difference between revisions of "Talk:Éowyn"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(final warning to T)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
: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.<br>  
 
: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.<br>  
 
: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. ~ [[User:Tolkiendil|Tolkiendil]] 18:01, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 
: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. ~ [[User:Tolkiendil|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
 +
and
 +
*she was given '''temporary''' leadership ... '''while''' the King went to war
 +
 +
The following phrases are misleading:
 +
#she was given leadership - implies a permanent position
 +
#her people - implies absolute power, rather than a regency
 +
#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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:51, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 08:51, 30 August 2008

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

and

  • 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)