>>45333
They only represent that to men because that is the way men are, men are far more driven by sex than women. In fact you could argue that if Tolkien forgoes that then actually he is creating a much more realistic representation of women and not just a male fantasy.

Well considering how they aren't really anything alike at all there actually are, but I don't see why Tolkien would have even needed a basis for her. What exactly is so special or niche about her that would dictate that she must have been based on something else and that nobody could have thought that up on their own?

>It is not. That's a proper arc for that character, based on literary parallels, which could raise her as a dramatic figure instead of melodramatic.

It is, and it's also a completely different story, like I am always saying, there is nothing wrong with an author doing that but it is a different story with different themes. It doesn't need to parallel anything either.

>You did not even read the book.

And that is irrelevant to the arguments you are making.

>It's a monumental empty narration with many missed opportunities

This actually would be a relevant argument for the above as I cannot attest to it because of the fact that I have not read it.