Calling all women

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I need help from BDers of the feminine type: the ladies, the maids. The Lasses of the Downs! The gals, girls, gurls...the women.

I was leading a seminar today in which we were discussing R.L. Stevenson's masterwork Treasure Island and much to my chagrin I was told, by the vast majority of the women in the class, that they did not like the book, as it was "a boy's adventure."

But wait, it gets worse. Much worse.

One of these objecting members of what I shall never call the gentler-sex went on to add that the only other book on the syllabus "as bad as this is The Hobbit."

:eek:

A spirited discussion ensued as I inquired after the opinions of the other women in the class. Imagine my horror when I realised that the women, almost en masse, did not like The Hobbit because it is, like Treasure Island, a "boy's adventure" with little to offer girls.

I am assuming that everyone who reads this post will be a fan of TH and that many of those who read this post will also be women. So please, can you explain to me:

1) what these women are talking about?

2) why you like the book, despite your being a woman?

3) how I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?

[tar-ancalime]

I haven't got time right now, but I'm going to chew on this for a while and try to give you a more reasoned reply.

To start with, though:

Imagine teaching "Little Women" to fifty teenaged boys.

Sometimes it's just difficult to invest in a story in which People Like You don't appear at all. Gender is not like race--I can read Chinua Achebe and not feel marginalized by the relative lack of white people in the story, for geographical and other reasons. But gender transcends geography: there are female hobbits, Elves, and Dwarves, to say nothing of female PEOPLE all over the world. A story that doesn't include any is making a strong statement.

A story like The Hobbit, which effectively ignores half the population of the world, can be hard to relate to despite its (many) other virtues.

Note to everyone: I AM NOT SAYING TOLKIEN WAS A SEXIST; merely that there aren't a lot of women in The Hobbit. (Are there any at all? I don't have my copy here at the office, and as it's my least favorite of Tolkien's works it's been a while since I read it).

Perhaps your female students are finding it difficult to engage with stories that just aren't about them, period, full stop. Please note, though, that this is not something you necessarily need to remedy in regard to the works in question. They need to be able to stretch their minds and get into these less-readily-accessible (to them) stories--that's what learning is about, isn't it?. In addition, the literary canon (and genre fiction, and movies, and theatre) is chock-full of stories that Just Aren't About Women. If they're ever going to read, watch, or listen to a story, they've got to get used to it.

I'll note that there are also a lot of stories that Just Aren't About Men, but I've found that men are much better able simply to avoid these (sometimes by relegating them to some kind of secondary-genre status...but that's a whole other discussion, not even remotely Tolkien-related, so I'll just screw the top back on that can of worms if I may), while not depriving themselves of literature, film, etc.

I haven't really addressed the question of how to approach The Hobbit, but I hope I've shed some light on what they may be thinking.

Then again, maybe they jsut didn't do the reading and are looking for an easy way out by claiming to be oppressed. (I wasn't this cynical before I had students of my own. :rolleyes: )

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Before I answer seriously, I feel that I must, for the sake of posterity, cry out in outrage that "They do not like The Hobbit?! What is wrong with them???" I must also, again for that pesky posterity, begin with "Tolkien wasn't sexist." And if he was, I don't care because his books kicked donkey. The End.

1) what these women are talking about?

I agree with tar-ancalime about the lack of accessibility. The Hobbit is very much a book about boys that would appeal very much to boys: a bunch of male Dwarves show up to a male hobbit's house under the influence of a male wizard. They then proceed to go travelling, meeting up with male Elves, male goblins, male Gollum, male Beorn, male Men, and there's a war full of males fighting. There is the slaying of a dragon (by a man) and then Bilbo eventually makes his way home in the company of that pesky male wizard. There's not even the traditional beautifully pedistal-placed woman that somebody or everybody somehow loves. No fiesty heroine, no lover, no goddess... pretty much the only "woman" in The Hobbit is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, and we all know how those Sackville-Bagginses are viewed. To a group of women that may not be all together enthusiastic about adventure stories in the first place, they may likely also fail to be excited by a story that seems to show women in such a non-important and simply "annoying" light.

2) why you like the book, despite your being a woman?

I like... nope... strike that, incorporate "love" in place of it. I love The Hobbit because it isn't a typical novel that involves some bit of love. It's a children's story sure, but it isn't a Disney story spiced up with rated G romance or something. It doesn't need to have random girls included. The story shouldn't be seen as "it doesn't have girls", it should be seen as "it has boys". I am very fond of dragons and gold, and singing Elves (tra la la lally is canonical, it is!), and Dwarves and magic spells and Rings and Eagles. I loved how Gandalf "tricked" Beorn with the story-telling, and I loved Beorn's gruff responses. I enjoyed Bilbo's trolls and how they were vanquished.

The Hobbit is an afternoon's read for me. While when reading The Lord of the Rings, I feel that I am in the novel and tend to be touched by the more moving passages. It is an actual experience any time reading, and while I love that, there are times that I feel more like being a spectator. With The Hobbit, I tend to feel that I am floating above the action and laughing and groaning in all of the appropriate places without being too caught up in it. It is a fun adventure to enjoy on a rainy day. It is innocent fun with no sexual intrigues and no betrayals or pesky backstabbings. I like The Hobbit for the sheer childishness of it. Growing up with older brothers, I spent more time on adventures out of doors than I ever did playing house. The idea of a story that I can read and enjoy is like a trip down the overly-used memory lane: I remember slaying my own dragons as well as sword fights and Elves that just happened to inhabit my back yard. The Hobbit brings to mind the simpler times before boys became such a big part of life and thought.

3) how I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?

Ah, the hard question. The first thing to do, I suppose, is to find out just what they are looking for in a book. Do you know, perchance?

[Alphaelin]

Fordim,

While I entirely understand the response of the females in your class to Treasure Island (I am sorry, but I have never liked books involving ships and the sea -- I loathed Moby Dick and The old man and the Sea , too), I share your horror at their dismissal of TH as 'a boy's adventure'. While it would probably get you fired to say so, it sounds to me like the girls are being a bit sexist!

1) what these women are talking about?
Okay, it sounds like they find TH as unengaging as Treasure Island based on the fact that there are No Women. There's nothing you can do about the characters JRRT used in the book.

An additional factor may be what they have been used to reading. One of the great disappointments of my life is that my girls have never indicated any interest in the good literature I and my parents have tried to provide them with over the years. They rejected Swiss Family Robinson (the greatest non-Tolkien kids' adventure book ever!), Little Women, and The Secret Garden among others, instead preferring to read drivel like the Babysitters Club. I have no idea how old your students are, but if their formative years were spent reading books where the big conflict is if Susie should 'fess up to sneaking to the beach without permission, then yes, TH and TI are both going to be more intense than they are prepared to deal with. Again nothing you can do about this.

2) why you like the book, despite your being a woman?
A great deal of my affection for TH, and eventually to Tolkien in general can be traced to my introduction to the book. An otherwise vile sixth grade teacher concluded that my class was the perfect captive audience and read it aloud to us over several months. She was an expressive reader who made the characters come alive. We also discussed the book at points, so were made aware of how Bilbo grows and develops as he leaves comfort and civilisation further and further behind, and Tolkien's use of different characters and situations (at least as well as eleven-year-olds could discuss those subjects.)

3) how I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?
Seriously, do you have time to read any passages aloud? I finally read TH to my younger daughter and that did the trick. She loved having me read it to her, -- we went on to FOTR and are now part-way through TTT. Even my super-cool teenager would come in to listen. Don't let your students read alound first unless any of them are also good expressive readers, or it will come out "Blah blah hole in the ground blah blah hobbit" or "Inaholeinthegroundtherelivedahobbit." Maybe introduce the book by reading the first paragraphs aloud? Perhaps offer to let your students read passages as you go through the chapters? Read a wee little section each day to start things off? I know they aren't as young as I was, and my daughter is, but TH is a delightful oral and aural experience at any age. And it's fun to make Thorin sound a bit like the Grand Poobah. :)

I don't know if any of this is at all practical for your situation, but I hope there's something there you can use.

[Alphaelin]

Forgive me for posting again, but another thought hit me:

Don't be afraid to show your own enthusiasm for your subject matter. The two best teachers I ever had were a Latin teacher in high school who loved her subject so much the Latin Club was one of the most popular student organizations we had, and a Classics professor in college who gave me a lasting fondness for Homer and Greek mythology with his vivid descriptions of the action. (He's another one who used reading aloud, and even acting out scenes, to get us involved.)

Both teachers approached their subjects with a sense of humor, too, and weren't afraid to joke about them.

Okay, I promise I'll stop now.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Thank you for the responses. Informed and informative all.

To clarify, this is a third-year university course so the students are all in their early twenties, so youth and utter inexperience is not an excuse. I have, in the past taught many of these same students (we're a small university) and in those courses we did study Achebe and other non-Anglo-American writers and never once did I run into a situation like this where they simply complained that it was a "bad book"...not just, "inaccessible" but "bad'.

Fea: I simply adore your way of expressing it -- The story shouldn't be seen as "it doesn't have girls", it should be seen as "it has boys" -- I am going to say precisely that to my group the next time we meet!

What most shocked me was the instantly closed minds that the women chose to adopt. If presented with a novel about a different culture they would instantly use that opportunity to understand that culture; to engage with its strangeness to begin a dialogue. But they show none of the same interest in doing so across the gender gap. I am definitely going to ask them why this might be...

Alphaelin: enthusiasm for the material and in my delivery is my calling-card. If I have a problem in this regard it would be in sometimes getting too caught up in the material! And I seize every opportunity to read aloud at the class.

[Holbytlass]

What most shocked me was the instantly closed minds that the women chose to adopt. If presented with a novel about a different culture they would instantly use that opportunity to understand that culture; to engage with its strangeness to begin a dialogue. But they show none of the same interest in doing so across the gender gap. I am definitely going to ask them why this might be...
It's so easy to get defensive when something is not "fair" or I should say "politically correct" and dismiss the thing entirely. Which is what these women are doing, choosing the easy way out.
If everything that was not P.C. to today's standards was thrown out, we would be left with very little to enjoy, and most of it would be very sterile.

Definitely point out to them their inconsistentcy in willingness to understand something 'different' because of gender gap. I doubt they even realize it.
They are young women, the world is their oyster, at a wonderful time when opportunities are there for them to be their own 'masters' of their domain, their futures. One of the follys is that to be a "today's woman" one must deny any and all things not female oriented.

So it's easier to not delve into something just because there are no females, then learn something even if there is just males.

I hope you still go forward with these books, Fordim. There will still be some who won't like them because they don't like the genre, but there is still something for everyone to learn about.

[mormegil]

I'm a male jumping into a 'female' conversation. I come with a little different perspective, perhaps. I've been happily married for about 6 years and in that time my wife and I have discussed litterature at some length and I've learned her mind a bit and think that it may be somewhat telling. She has read the LotR and I finally convinced her to put down her mystery and romance novels and read TH. Notice I've already put down my underlying premise

No females=No romance.

As a man I enjoy fantasy because I indentify myself with these characters who are either slaying dragons, killing orcs or just being great warriors whereas with woman (at least my wife) she enjoys a sappier story in which she can transpose herself. Let me say here that my wife doesn't read harlequin novels but romance that isn't as sultry. Anyway she enjoys the nice feeling it gives her and the sense that in life there is true love all around and life is a fantasy.

This, by time contraints, is a post with less content than I had hoped but let me express that I am not trying to generalize women and men, but give you my spin on it from what I've seen from a woman who I am closer with than anybody else in life.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Fea: I simply adore your way of expressing it -- The story shouldn't be seen as "it doesn't have girls", it should be seen as "it has boys" -- I am going to say precisely that to my group the next time we meet!
My thanks. I recycled that response from a 20-page research paper I just wrote about literary theory and how it applies to The Odyssey. Substitute The Hobbit for The Odyssey and the same point can be made about feminism in literature:

In any case, no matter how women are or are not portrayed by Homer, I don’t see how it makes any difference to his story. He composed an epic about Odysseus… not about Odysseus’ wife, or about Odysseus’ divine lovers. The women of the story, be they human or goddess, are supporting characters. If a story depicting the adventures and homecoming of a woman included equal amounts of detail about the men who helped her, the audience would be left wondering who the protagonist actually is, and any self-respecting feminist would be outraged that the main character was being overshadowed by a man who is only in the story for the purpose of propelling the heroine forward. I see little reason for there to be much insistence on equality of gender in a story of a man who went to war with a bunch of men, who returned from war with a bunch of men, and who ended up on a number of adventures while traveling home, still with these faithful men. If a person wants more attention paid to Circe, he or she should write about her, but to take a story and fragment it into gender specific pieces does an injustice to the creator and to the story itself.
I'm not saying that feminist theory, if that is what your lasses are practicing, doesn't have an important place in literary criticism, but to discount a book entirely doesn't seem at all fair. If all "boy books" were considered "bad" to girls, then surely a large portion of Shakespeare should be struck off the reading list. Look at Hamlet: the women are Ophelia (insane) and Gertrude (married her brother-in-law two months after he killed her husband). The rest of the play deals pretty much exclusively with boys and their issues. Macbeth: Lady Macbeth is not precisely a good example, now is she? The Tempest: Miranda has zilch control over her own life and ends up married, though she doesn't know it, for the good of her father. Othello: Desdemona is certainly not the main character. She is more of a plot device to highlight Othello himself.

Look at other novels by other authors such as Silence by Shusaku Endo: it deals with Christian missionaries in Japan. The only women at all dealt with are Japanese Christians, all portrayed as somewhat "lesser", and half of them end up dead anyway. Or from a less serious book, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Sure Becky Thatcher is in it, but she is not portrayed as supremely important, and nor should she be.

These books are not about girls. Hamlet is about a young prince and his issues. Macbeth deals with power-struggle. The Tempest works with revenge and regain, Othello with jealousy. Silence is about the plight of Christian missionaries, Tom Sawyer is the adventures of a boy.

The Hobbit catalogues the adventures of a hobbit.

Stories about girls can be written without being perceived as discrimination against boys, or as being seen as "girl's books", though admittedly they often are, I suppose. After all, I rarely find a guy that actually read (and even more rarely, enjoyed) Jane Eyre. Why can't a book be written about a bunch of boys without being perceived as something politically incorrect (oh how I love the day that that was sent to Mordor) and "bad"? Why can't gender barriers be more easily crossed? Is it something about society, perhaps, where even from birth, the difference is accentuated? When a baby is born, what is often the first question? "Boy or girl?".

I suppose I agree with you, Fordim. It is much easier to identify with cultures that are incredibly different than it is to identify across the gender barrier. Can't for the life of me figure out why though... One would think that I'd find more in common with guys similar to those that I've grown up with than I find in regards to an animalistic shamanist culture from Laos.

Another thought begs the question "Is this an all-girls class?" What sort of class is it, a lit class? Any specific variety of lit?

It's easier to get a hold over what thoughts are going through their heads if we know what sort of lasses they are and what sort of class they are expecting.

[Shelob]

Before I give this further thought I'd like clarification as to how you presented the novels. Did you present them as being "adventure novels" or did your class label them as such?

I ask because that may be part of your problem right there. Two years ago when my History/English class read Tarzan by Edgar Rice Burroughs the teacher presented it to us as being "an adventure story written for young boys". He didn't want us to read it in that light but he wanted us to know how it had originally been recieved. Unfortunately the vast majority of the class took it soley in that light and refused to look at it as being anything beyond an "adventure story", boys and girls alike practically no one liked it. Had our teacher presented it to us without calling it an adventure story (or had more people been able to step beyond that) we would have been able to read it more as he had ment for us to, as a way to understand the time period in which it was written...or even as a way to see if the literature for "young boys" has changed.

Which brings me to a second possible point. Still using Tarzan, I would point out that none of us students qualified as a "young boy". We were all teens and were being asked to read something written for children younger than ourselves. I know for myself that had it been left to me I probably would have never read Tarzan because it was a kid's book, similarily though I know and enjoy the story behind Treasure Island I have not once been able to read it through because every time I pick it up I view it as a children's book, and turn to something more my level. The Hobbit, conversely, I've known for as long as I can remember. It was presented to me when I was a good age to enjoy it and because I liked it I have continued reading it even though, were I to pick it up for the first time now, I may discard it as I do Treasure Island. It may simply be that your class is to old an audience to look at these books as anything but beneath them.

Finally, to address this:
Imagine teaching "Little Women" to fifty teenaged boys.
The same class which read Tarzan had earlier in the year read Little Women, and though the reading of this novel was less formal and prone to less in-class discussion I can say that it was, as a whole, liked only marginally more than Bourrough's novel. For myself I can say it was liked much less. It's not that I "connected" to one book more than the other, for in truth I probably did have more in common to the characters in Little Women, but simply that I found it annoying to read and boring. Dislike of a book can come from nothing more than that, and if that's the case you'll have a harder time convincing them to put aside their dislike than Sisyphus has of getting his boulder to the hill top.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

It's not that I "connected" to one book more than the other, for in truth I probably did have more in common to the characters in Little Women, but simply that I found it annoying to read and boring. Dislike of a book can come from nothing more than that, and if that's the case you'll have a harder time convincing them to put aside their dislike than Sisyphus has of getting his boulder to the hill top.
Ah, Little Women. I hated that book with a passion. I read it on my own, and that made it no better than if I'd been force to read it. It just keeps going, and I could never quite figure out the point, and when I finally thought I had it down, my favorite character up and died. My dislike had nothing to do with writing style or genre, it was really just the book itself. Good luck if they've all got that problem man. I can't for the life of me see how that book could become interesting to me.

But sticking with Louisa May Alcott, don't lose faith! Just because I didn't like Little Women doesn't mean that I don't absolutely love her Old Fashioned Girl. Just because they may not like The Hobbit doesn't mean that they won't fall in love with the LotR. :)

[Lalaith]

Fordim, I’m going to disagree with the general consensus here, I hope I don't sound too stroppy but you did ask.... :)
I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to your class by being shocked and horrified at their attitude. Would you experience equal shock and horror if a class of teenage/young adult males made a fuss if they had to read a girls’ school story with absolutely no male figures in it whatsoever? Perhaps you could meet your female students at least part way by acknowledging they do have a point. As tar-ancalime says, women are generally expected to appreciate "boys own" literature while men do not reciprocate the favour. I hope you are equally shocked and horrified by the fact that Harry Potter's author was forced to be known as JK rather than Joanne Rowling, because boys won't even read books by females, let alone about them.
Tar-ancalime says a lot of stories that Just Aren't About Men, but I've found that men are much better able simply to avoid these (sometimes by relegating them to some kind of secondary-genre status...: but actually, unlike boys’ books, which tend ignore the female sex completely, girlie genres and books nearly always include males.
I chose the example of the girls school story genre earlier because it was the only kind I could think of which would not contain any men. Jane Eyre, Little Women, all the works mentioned here as “girlie books,” are full of strong and interesting male characters - Laurie, Rochester....
But as for the Hobbit, your question certainly got me wondering. Yes, I read it and loved it as a child, and the "masculine" aspect of it did not even occur to me. Treasure Island on the other hand did not float my boat, although I did like Kidnapped....subject matter was a bit more romantic perhaps.
So why did I like the Hobbit? Firstly, I think, because I was only seven at the time I first read it, so probably too young to notice, and like Feanor, I had only brothers, no sisters. The fact that all characters were male would not in itself have been sufficiently exotic to grab my interest - with four brothers I was well acquainted with the masculine world. But I did not think of the characters as male, I thought of them in terms of their species: dwarves, hobbits, trolls and dragons. It was this that gave them the appeal of being exotic and exciting, of being “other”, not their maleness, which actually is irrelevant.
Do any of your female students like Watership Down? That might be a possible route of persuasion.... Now if The Hobbit is sexist (AND I AM NOT SAYING IT IS) Watership Down is super, super sexist. The doe rabbits, when they make their rare appearances, are just half-witted breeding machines. But when I read it, (at around 11, an age when I was more aware of such things than I was at seven) I honestly didn't notice - because they were rabbits, not people. Not that I would compare the two books in terms of the affection I hold for them, I consider the Hobbit a far superior work.
I would also add, that I totally agree with Alphaelin, that the current “Babysitters Club” type reading matter favoured by young girls is deeply depressing.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Fea: any time you feel the need for a change of school, feel free to transfer to where I teach and you can be in any of my classes! What a neat paper you've written.

I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to your class by being shocked and horrified at their attitude. Would you experience equal shock and horror if a class of teenage/young adult males made a fuss if they had to read a girls’ school story with absolutely no male figures in it whatsoever? Perhaps you could meet your female students at least part way by acknowledging they do have a point. As tar-ancalime says, women are generally expected to appreciate "boys own" literature while men do not reciprocate the favour.

Hey, I've taught Mrs Dalloway and Pride and Prejudice to young men and I'm more than familiar with their dismal and depressing (lack of) response to it. But to reiterate again, the women in this class did not simply say that TI and TH were boring, or that they didn't get into them, or that they did not have much to offer them -- the students were very clear: they are bad books. Not just books that they don't like, but books that they stopped reading half way through; books that they say are "silly and ridiculous" and "prove" that boys and men are silly. Now, I admit, not all of the women in this class were this vehement but a lot were and none of the other students felt the need to rise to the defense of the book.

By way of comparison, when (inevitably) some men begin to hammer away at Pride and Prejudice there is always a response to that -- including by some of the other men. I have been teaching for some years now and have never seen so dismissive a response as the one I was treated to last week. This is what has intrigued me so.

And to give further clarification in response to Shelob's questions: TI was presented to the students as a Boy's Adventure in a Children's Literature class. The Hobbit (which we won't be getting to for a while) is in the Fantasy unit of the course. So the class went in to TI with an idea of it as a "Boy's story" which I'm sure prejudiced some of them....but I wonder if their prejudice would have been so great if it had been labelled Travel Adventure??

Oh, and the classes are mixed, obviously. There were a few men in the class and they absolutely loved TI.

But to get back to what is most interesting to me: I really would like to hear from you all (the women) what it is that you love about The Hobbit. I'm interested in seeing if perhaps there are things there that I don't appreciate it as I've been reading it all my life as a Boy...

[Lalaith]

Fordim, I'm not saying I agree with your students, I obviously don't or I wouldn't be a member of this forum.
But you can't use Pride and Prejudice or Mrs Dalloway as a comparison, any more than you can Little Women or Jane Eyre. All these books have loads of strong and interesting male characters in them.

[Lathriel]

I get so annoyed with people who complain that there aren't enough female characters or vice versa. I have read loads of boys books and very girly books. They are both just as good and all this feministic hoolaboola. It just annoys me. It doesn't matter what the gender of the main characters are so long as the book is well-written.Well-written books are more important to me then the gender of the characters.
Sometimes, in more female oriented books( for teens especially) I find the problem that sex becomes more of an issue. I don't always want to read about that and I know that a boys adventure story is free of this threat. They often just provide innocent fun. In other words I don't understand what your students are complaining about. Besides its third year university, shouldn't people be growing up? :rolleyes:

[Shelob]

if they had to read a girls’ school story with absolutely no male figures in it whatsoever?

girlie genres and books nearly always include males.

Both quotes from Lalaith.

Ah, Girly books with few male figures. To bring up Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston, the class I mentioned before read that I am aware of 2 students who liked it and of the fact that more adults seem to like than do people who read it as children/teens. I tried reading it 2yrs before the class and had to give up because it was so deathly boring. Having been forced to read it though I'm forced to admit that not only was it boring beyond belief but that the main character, Janie, was by far the worst example of woman hood I had ever seen in a book before. My friend wrote her essay for that unit on why instead of having us read a book where the main female character flitted from man-to-abusive-man faster than one could imagine we should have read Lord of the Rings, for while there were few woman characters those portrayed at least did more than bemoan their fate.

And the story does not end there, the class moved straight from Zora Neale Hurston's book to How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents by Julia Alvarez. Another roaring failure because yet again all the main girls (for the book centered around 4 girls growing up) completely failed to live up to what the girls in the class expected. Though as a side note our teacher assigned that book without having finished it, not a wise choice as there were parts of it not really school appropriate. The year after another teacher had us read another Alvarez book, again one focused on the lives of 4 girls (though to the teachers credit she had finished reading this one before assigning it), and again it was widely disliked for the same reasons.

I'm using those as an example because next to Little Women they are the most girl-centric books I can call to mind and none of them were widely well recieved by the girls of my class. The problem may not be that the books feature no girls, it fact I doubt it is.

In all my experience just because a book is "male" centered doesn't mean that girls will dislike it, similarly just because it's "female" centered means we will. As a whole my class disliked the "girl-centric" books we read because we disagreed with their portrayal of women. We were being asked to look at the question "What does it take to be a woman?" and the only 'official' texts we were being given all portrayed woman as flighty, weak-willed, and in essence everything we felt woman shouldn't be.

How did we react to "boy-centric" books then? Well Tarzan I described our reaction to already, and the only other two which I think qualify for this would be Henry V by Shakespeare and The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane. Henry V is harder because not only was it "boy-centric" but it was also by Shakespeare, a big deterant in a highschool class, so I'm not even sure if everyone finished reading it. For those of us who did though we didn't have a problem with it on the basis that it had few girls. Similarly I don't recall anyone becoming annoyed at Stephen Crane's novel for that reason (other reasons yes, that reason no).

I do recall one girl commenting on the fact that these books had no women (or very few, as the case may be) but this was one of the few girls who later really enjoyed the "girl-centric" books we read. It may be this is the case then; some people worry about the existance of girls in novels, on whether or not they appear regardless of how they're portrayed, while some worry more about their portrayal. "Better a book without girls than book which represents them poorly" and the like. If that's the case though I find it hard to believe you've got a class of almost entirely women who feel girls should be represented regardless of how...it seems to me that they'd be the mostly to react in this fashion but also less likely to be in the majority. I'd ask about it though, if your class had an issue with the fact that there are no women in those books probe around that issue and see how they feel about books which represent women in various ways.

Conversely if the issue's just the style or genre of the books then it shouldn't matter to them if they're "boy" adventure novels or "girl" adventure novels. They should react the same way to The Hobbit as to, say, The Northern Lights* by Philip Pullman (which I disliked and so haven't read in a while, but I recall that it could fit into the same general genre as The Hobbit and that it's main character was a young girl).


*Judging from the price I got my copy of The Northern Lights in England, unless I'm much mistaken the title's different in America...I think it's The Golden Compass or something like that here.

~~All that was written before Fordim's latest post...now to address that...

the students were very clear: they are bad books. Not just books that they don't like, but books that they stopped reading half way through; books that they say are "silly and ridiculous" and "prove" that boys and men are silly.

hmm... books that are just plain BAD, well all the books I've mentioned above (Zora Neale Hurston's, and the two Alvarez books) all fit that category for me, if I didn't have to read them for school I never would have finished them.

You have a whole class that finds them to be bad though? That's insane...

I'm going back to my theory that either the genre's putting them off it (and it looks like you did that too, classifying it for them before they read it) or that it's the age thing, and personally I'd go with the age one being the more likely.


Boy's Adventure in a Children's Literature
but I wonder if their prejudice would have been so great if it had been labelled Travel Adventure??

Ask them about Gulliver's Travels. That fits under "Travel Adventure" (albeit as somewhat a mockery of the genre) and it could even be stretched to fit under a title of "Boy's Travel Adventure" but no one would think of classifying it as "Children's Literature". If their problem's with the genre they won't like it, they'll view it as being "silly and ridiculous". However if it's because Treasure Island is a children's book and not because it's an "Adventure" novel they would be less likely to think of Gulliver's Travels in the same way. (For clarification I mean the entire novel, not just the part on the Lilliputians, since that mini-tale is often a children's story.)


As to what I love about The Hobbit, I would say that now there is nothing specific in it which causes me to enjoy it. For when I first heard it though, probably because it was travel, it was adventure, it was fantasy, it was new. Keeping in mind though that the first time I recall hearing The Hobbit I was five years old, and that my father had been reading it to me for long before that, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to pinpoint what about the story first caused me to like it. So far as memory tells me I have always liked that book.

As to why the same "travel, adventure and fantasy" which could catch the mind of a five year old and cause your class to dismiss it as "silly and ridiculous"... I'd say because to the mind of a five year old the book presented nothing strange. Hobbits, Dragons, Dwarfs, Elves, Wizards...none of this was stranger to me than things from any time and place in this world were. To me now though, and to your students, they aren't, and they can't be. There is now a difference to the world portrayed in The Hobbit and the world portrayed in, say, Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. Conrad's book isn't non-fiction, but it portrays a fiction of our world...a fiction which, under proper study, will tell us something real. I continue to love The Hobbit now though because I loved it before, and because I don't dismiss it immediately as being "silly and ridiculous" I can look at closer beyond the titles of "Children's literature"or "Fantasy".

(Well, I'm in shock. I can't believe I just said that much...it's almost more than I usually say in a day :rolleyes: )

[Lalaith]

I've seen a few comments in these threads about the function of female characters in stories being to provide 'romantic interest' and sex.
If that's all female fictional characters are good for, frankly I'd rather they stayed out of books altogether.
So here's something to impress your students with Fordim, that the primary function of the two most important female characters in LotR, Galadriel and Eowyn, have nothing to do with love or romance. Galadriel's chief function is as a person of wisdom and power, Eowyn of military prowess and the despair that a state of war can bring.
(Yes, ok I know Eowyn has a crush on Aragorn and marries Faramir, but for anyone who has read the book, rather than just seen the film, what you remember about Eowyn, her big scene if you like, is that she slays the Witch King.)

Doesn't help with the Hobbit, I know, but at least it might get them into Tolkien...

[Bêthberry]

I need help from BDers of the feminine type: the ladies, the maids. The Lasses of the Downs! The gals, girls, gurls...the women.



If I may, Professor Hedgethistle, I believe you have omitted one other class of this chromosome grouping, the Grrrls. ;)


Alphaelin: enthusiasm for the material and in my delivery is my calling-card. If I have a problem in this regard it would be in sometimes getting too caught up in the material! And I seize every opportunity to read aloud at the class.

With your experience in the classroom and the academic skills centre, I'm sure you might have considered this possibility even though you don't mention it here. What of the possibility that these students chose the book you might be the most passionate about to have a bit of sport with your enthusiastic delivery? After all, you have some local notoriety as a Tolkien man. Not unheard of of course for students to do this. :rolleyes:

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

After all, you have some local notoriety as a Tolkien man. Not unheard of of course for students to do this.
M'lady Beth of the Berries brings up a good point. One of my professors is a feminist that seems to view attempted male domination in everything... so when she gets unbearable, the entire class pitches in with comments such as "This book sucked. There weren't enough boys in it." just to annoy her and cause her to rant. You can also get her off topic really easily by comparing the book-world to our world, but that's another story. The point is... sometimes it's fun to mess with your professors. Even in highschool I made a point to let my old English teacher know how crummy his beloved Steinbeck's works were, or I'd comment on just how awesome *insert controversial politician here* happened to be to get my old US history teacher to schpeal. It really didn't matter if I actually thought what I said, it was more fun to see what they had to say about it.

As for 'girl' books tending to have strong male characters, it's true. But they aren't always nice guys. I mean... Rochestor kept his crazy wife locked in the attic and then tried to marry somebody else. And in the end, m'loves, he was blind and relied almost entirely on the girl. Talk about grrl power.

See, while in "boy" books, girls are often simply ignored, in "girl" books, boys are triumphed over, whether directly or indirectly, leaving the girls as the heroes of the story. Seems that we care far more than they do, doesn't it.

But as I can't think of a single book with no boys in it, I think I'll go out and write one. After all, that's what it takes for it to happen. :)

Fea: any time you feel the need for a change of school, feel free to transfer to where I teach and you can be in any of my classes! What a neat paper you've written.
*blushes a little* :D I'm just glad you didn't post a thread about Freud. If I'd recycled my bit of mischeif about psychoanalytic theory, I'd probably get in a wee bit of trouble as this is such a nice family friendly site and my paper leans towards the hilariously risque side when it comes to that section of literary criticism. I was a lot nicer to the feminists, and to be quite honest, I'm very relieved that my professor has a good sense of humor. :)

[Lush]

They are both just as good and all this feministic hoolaboola. It just annoys me.

"Feministic"? The word is "feminist," and I'm afraid that Fordim's students are not engaging in feminist discourse. :rolleyes:

Now, on to the actual topic:

1) what these women are talking about?

The divisions of literature into "women's literature" and "everything else" has been an unfortunate trend that we are not done reacting against, I'm afraid. As Lalaith pointed out, a lot of men and boys are still conditioned to dismiss books written by female authors and/or featuring female protagonists outright. I'm willing to bet that at least several of your students have, in the meantime, been conditioned to respond to male authors and male characters in such a way that perpetuates the literary gender divide, rather than addressing it in a meaningful manner.

Furthermore, and this is just a guess on my part, this could be just a sloppy attempt at literary criticism. Sometimes, when people have little to say about a certain work, they resort to thoughtless buzz-words and cliches.

2) why you like the book, despite your being a woman?

I actually bought the book so that I could read it out loud to my little brother, having heard that it was a great children's story. Well, what do you know, my brother was completely disinterested.

I, on the other hand, had read LotR by then, and was intrigued by the origins of the story.

What really drew me in, however, had more to do with the fact that I'm a fan of children's stories and fairy tales and adventure in general. For me, these books serve a very specific purpose, they make me smile. The issue of not being able to relate to a certain [male] character never comes up. After all, I can't imagine my little brother being able to fully relate to a Hobbit who lives in a hole in the ground either. It seems to me that both genders ought to approach these tales with a set of demands that is much different from our expectations for writers such as Kate Atkinson or Vladimir Nabokov.

3) how I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?

Well, I suppose if the initial hurdle really is gender, you can always ask the class what kind of books they do like. Does any one of these young women have a soft spot for, say, Joanne Rowling and her lovely male wizard? Do they like Cervantes? Paulo Coehlo? Any of them enjoy Heaney's re-telling of "Beowulf"? Surely by way of these examples you can get them to see that one should first and foremost criticize a work of literature on its merit, as opposed to using gendered buzz-words to create a quick splash of controversy. If none of them end up liking The Hobbit, that should be perfectly fine (right?), as long as they articulate their reasons well and actually generate a thoughtful discussion on the topic.

[Holbytlass]

But to get back to what is most interesting to me: I really would like to hear from you all (the women) what it is that you love about The Hobbit. I'm interested in seeing if perhaps there are things there that I don't appreciate it as I've been reading it all my life as a Boy...
I really had to think about this one.....
I like The Hobbit for my two main reasons why I like other "children's literature", notably Little House on the Prairie books and Redwall series.

1)They are all based on "simpler" times than today. I like how basic life was for the characters (aside from the adventure itself). Aspects of life that aren't really seen anymore, for instance, I love how Bilbo has so many hooks in the front hall for visiters that might pop by. Nowadays everything is so scheduled, even children's play is scheduled with "play dates", so far I have not had a "Can Tiffany come out and play?" and she's ten!

I realize I "romanticize" that time but I do envy it also.

2)I like the adventure part also, I am very much for escapism :D at least mentally, through a book. I notice very few beings who are on quests or epics are tied down with a spouse/children and for good reason. I do crave an "adventure" even maybe a life or death kind of thing but not now, when this point in my life I am commited to my family.

I don't know if that will help at all, but there it is for me.

[Lalwendë]

Confessions of a Grrrl...

To start from the last question, I doubt there is much you could do to get your class to appreciate The Hobbit to the same degree that you do. I've tried to convert many a person to Tolkien and it is certainly not easy because so many have prejudices about his work. That's a danger with teaching something you really love, that 'they' will knock it down.

When you are talking about a class of students then peer pressure might have taken effect. Having been a female undergraduate, I have been through the pressure to conform, to say the right thing in class, to appear knowledgeable about 'grown-up, serious' issues, to be appreciated for my considered opinions. To openly declare my admiration for Plath was a wonderful thing and it was in no way feigned; I remember (shamefully, now) pursuing another student in a rigorous Plath discussion when I became suspicious that she was a 'bluffer' and merely trying to appear 'correct'. Likewise, I kept my head down in discussions on Middlemarch because I found the book utterly tedious and couldn't be bothered reading beyond the first 50 pages, but I would have been mortified if anyone had known I was a bluffer*. I'm sure any 'Downer who has been through, or indeed is, at University will agree that there can be tremendous intellectual peer pressure.

What are they talking about? They are University students and being asked to read texts with a critical eye, with the conscious mind, instead of just grabbing a book off a shelf through free will and just reading. They read each text to find things, to collect ideas they can give in response to their teacher. They read texts in the same way I read a policy paper (though are more likely to get some pleasure from their reading ;) ). One of those critical 'eyes' will be trained to collect perceptions on gender, just as I might use an 'eye' for inherent risks in a plan.

There is a lot of literature which is aimed squarely at specific gender groups. Some of it is utter trash, and some of it is pernicious. I find the Bridget Jones films funny, but the 'image' of Bridget Jones is now imprinted on the minds of men who think we are all neurotic about our knickers. Cheers. It has also spawned miles of pulp that I hate. But equally, there are many works which are also 'women's literature which I have enjoyed, e.g. Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit. I think it down to what we identify with. I am not given to being neurotic about what men think of me, so I don't identify with Bridget Jones, but I do know a lot about strange Northern towns and the culture of the Chapel, so I like Jeanette Winterson's novel.

However, I do realise that me being able to identify or not with a character or situation in a novel is not the ultimate deciding factor on whether I will enjoy it or not. I admit I will use that line as an intellectual excuse for not liking something which others get a lot of pleasure out of. It could be that this class is using this as an excuse for simply not liking The Hobbit (or more likely the thought of having to read it).

Why do I like The Hobbit? The simple answer is because I've always liked folk tales, myths, legends, poems about magical things and so on. I was brought up on these. As a child I loved Brer Rabbit, Rupert The Bear, Alice In Wonderland (though I had to read this myself as my father hated it and refused to read it to me), Goblin Market, Godzilla, Battle of the Planets, The Faraway Tree, The Phoenix and the Carpet etc etc.... But I think there is more to it. I also used to enjoy the Katy Did books, and Mallory Towers - which in retrospect was one long essay in how to be a prig. I think it is that I've always been a little bit contrary and liked to search out the unusual. As a five year old I declared I did not want to be a nurse or a secretary, I wanted to be Prime Minister. I used to spend hours making dresses for my dolls, but next day would find me playing War! (this game had a capital W and a ! because it involved noise and mud bombs and getting filthy and scabby knees) or getting done for running my 200+ toy cars down my grandparents' stairs. As an adult I take immense pride in the fact that my name will not fit on most standard workplace forms. That's how I am. Awkward. :rolleyes: ;)

I think in Tolkien I again satisfied my need to find the unusual. I know I am not alone, as my best female friends have all been similar to me, sharing a preference for loving obnoxious music and hating sappy pop, watching sci-fi and war films and being knowledgeable about cars, amongst other 'traditionally male' pursuits. I would be willing to place a substantial bet that such girls lurk in this class. But peer pressure is a horrible thing for us women, and we often just go along with the herd in order not to be universally despised; the only other option is to go along with the men and be friends with them instead, but then the other women seem to hate us even more.

When reading for pleasure to be perfectly frank I don't really notice the absence of any particular gender. I do notice a sexist comment or behaviour in a character, but I don't need there to be either men or women, just a story I enjoy.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

But peer pressure is a horrible thing for us women, and we often just go along with the herd in order not to be universally despised; the only other option is to go along with the men and be friends with them instead, but then the other women seem to hate us even more.
*big nod*

If you follow the crowd, you can't think for yourself, and if you think for yourself, then you aren't thinking the same things as the crowd and are immediately cast out from it. I mentioned on Lush's confessional thread that my most daring moment was raising my hand in a bio-terrorism lecture to disagree with the lecturer. While in my case, I was contradicting an expert (:eek:), it can be just as terrifying to share your opinion with peers that may or may not take seriously a single thing you say. Perhaps you've got a few closet fans, Fordie. :)

[tar-ancalime]

I'll address your second question now, Fordim:

As I mentioned in my previous post, The Hobbit is my least favorite of Tolkien's works. For me, it doesn't go as deep as the other works, and (yes, I'm going to say it) frankly Thranduil is a ridiculous old coot, there isn't enough of the Shire, and what's the big deal about the Arkenstone anyway? (Wow, that previous sentence, uttered in present company, definitely qualifies as my "most daring moment" as per Lush's thread. :eek: )

BUT....

There is one aspect of The Hobbit that Tolkien got exactly right, and that's the narrative tone of the story. It's conversational, genial, and there's something very English about the unhurried, parlor-room narrative writing, with its many asides and descriptions that seem aimed directly at me, the very special reader (or, better, the one and only hearer of a story being told by a kindly elder). I think this is why the book responds so well to being read aloud--"doing the voices," i.e. a pompous Thorin or a scary Smaug, isn't the point, but rather the voice of the narrator carries the whole story through.

(Another thought--perhaps it's not particularly English at all--it could be that I only think so because it's so like the comfortable discursive tone adopted by Patrick O'Brian in his many, many novels, with which I'm currently much engaged.)

[Roa_Aoife]

*Judging from the price I got my copy of The Northern Lights in England, unless I'm much mistaken the title's different in America...I think it's The Golden Compass or something like that here.

I've read the Golden Compass, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Well, having never actually read The Hobbit, I don't know how much help I'll be. However, I have taken many discussion based classes in college. Many students follow a general dichotomy: they either agree with the professor to get on his good side, or they disagree with the professor to get on his good side. I've had professors state outright that the students who argue get better grades. It is a general trick of the trade that a controversial student gets attention and respect.

Also, I have known people (quite a few, actually) who find LotR and TH boring in general. Shocking, I know, but they either dislike fantasy, or they dislike the style of the writing. Complaints I've heard include too much description, not enough action :rolleyes:, and difficult language. That may also be the problem with Treasure Island. Most works from that era tend to be, for lack of a better term, long-winded. I know I had trouble getting started on FotR, simply because the opening seemed to just bog everything down.

Just a question: How deep did your discussion with the girls go? Did they leave it at "bad," or did any of them even try to explain? I think you should make them write a paper for such insolence. ;)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Wow -- wonderful thread this is turning into....

Beebs m'love, in reference to my Tolkien-infamy: that flash in the pan was so brief and so long ago now (in the terms of academic life in which every four years sees a complete turnover of the resident population) that -- as flattering as it is to my ego to believe that the students would be trying to rattle my chain -- I doubt very much that they even know to put my name together with Tolkien's.

And to those who fear that the students are trying to kiss up to me, I've been around the block a few times and can see that from a mile away. Here's something to scare anyone who is a university/college student: when you are bluffing, pretending, or sucking up....we can tell. (We can also see you talking to your friends, passing notes, sending text messages and cheating on exams.)

I did in fact engage the students about their dislike for TI, at some length, which is how I found out that it was not just the absence of girls which upset them, but the overwhelming focus on the growth of a boy. I think, however, having had time -- and the opportunity afforded me by all your incredible replies -- to understand it a bit better. NONE of the students in the class had really "got" that Long John Silver ends up as a father-figure to Jim Hawkins. The book ends with Jim glad that Silver is gone, and never wanting to see him again, but wishing him well and clearly thinking a lot about this man who has come to dominate his imagination. I took it for granted that this would very clearly signal that Jim looks upon Silver as a father -- it's just so exactly how that relationship is. When I did point it out, the men in the class all understood instantly their own feelings about Silver, but the women were frankly skeptical that the book unfolded as I was describing it: they seemed unsure that the relation of Jim and Silver could be seen as a child-parent one.

So, they didn't 'get it'... Fair enough, I suppose, I don't get Bridget Jones...although I devoured all of the Little House books; and Ann of Green Gables and Little Women are fine stories. But of course, there are men in all of those... curiouser and curiouser.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Here's something to scare anyone who is a university/college student: when you are bluffing, pretending, or sucking up....we can tell. (We can also see you talking to your friends, passing notes, sending text messages and cheating on exams.)
Now dear ForHedgethistledim, you must remember that most students don't have the same pinache that some of us do. It's far more subtle to, instead of pretending to A) stretch, B) you've got a crick in your neck, C) ask a student behind you a question, D) check your cellphone, or E) look at your watch in order to see a clock, to keep your eyes on your professor always. Surely they don't notice a quick glance at the watch that they wear religiously on their right wrist. If you don't already, keep an eye out for that. ubb/tongue.gif

they seemed unsure that the relation of Jim and Silver could be seen as a child-parent one.
Perhaps a difference of perception of "parent" between genders? I haven't got the faintest shred of proof to back up that comment, but maybe somebody else does?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Ok, ok. I am feeling very persnickety tonight. So I will disagree with everyone else on this thread.

If I were you, I might actually tell those girls that, while you might not totally agree with their assessment of Hobbit, they have hit upon a criticism that has some validity. And those who know Tolkien, who've delved into the by-ways of Silm and HoMe, are actually more competent to make such a judgment concerning the lack of female characters than students such as these who've barely cracked open a page.

The plain fact is that Tolkien was capable of delineating very strong female characters if and when he cared to do so. Galadriel, Luthien and Andreth are certainly three strong examples of such. Galadriel does make an appearance in Rings, but in a fairly fleeting way. And there are elements of strength in Eowyn. But there is simply no female characters equivalent to Luthien or Andreth in either Rings or Hobbit. What I would give to have just one Wise Woman appear! There are certainly mythic precedents for this that JRRT could have drawn on. There could have been such a character blended into either book, but Tolkien chose not to do it.

The strong female character in Hobbit would have had to be presented in a different way than in LotR. But surely that is not impossible. Just take a look at the character of Gandalf whom the professor certainly succeeded in fitting into two very different books. It could have been done with a female character if the will was there.

Not every book has to have a strong female character......just as not every book has to have a strong male character. But since we know what Tolkien could do when it comes to depicting strong females, we are the ones who should feel deprived.....not these bone-headed girls whom, I'm quite sure, have never seen the Luthien of the Silm or the Andreth of Morgoth's Ring. I do lament the lack of the truly strong female character, especially the "mature" female character as depicted in Andreth. In that sense, I have some sympathy for these women in your class, even though their complaints obviously spring from ignorance.

If you really want to give these girls a headache, give them an assignment. Explain that Tolkien's character almost always have some roots in existing myths and legends. Then ask them to do some snooping and come up with some mythic female characters whom Tolkien might have "adapted" to fit into Middle-earth and specifically into the Hobbit in the same way that Dwarves and Orcs were adapted by the Professor. That should keep them busy and out of trouble!

[Kath]

1) What these women are talking about?
I have no idea! I have always loved The Hobbit, and have certainly never seen it as a 'boys only' adventure story. There may well only be males in it but just look at the time in which it was written for reasons why that is. But then, I suppose, that could be part of their reasoning (if they have any). The book was written in what many women feel was a sexist period, with women having very few rights of their own, and being seen as baby machines that stayed at home and looked after the family. Therefore it makes sense that in a story written then it would be the males that went off on these adventures.

Saying all that though, we have to remember that the book was written for Tolkien's sons. Tolkien was obviously trying to write a book that he thought would appeal to them, and so he wrote small male characters (hobbits and dwarves) as the lead roles. It is a children's story, and if that is their objection to it you can't do much about that. It was written to be enjoyed by children, though there is no reason that adults shouldn't like it either.

Is it really true that none of them have ever read it? Because with a class of say 20, it's reasonable to think that at least one would have. It is possible that whoever spoke about peer pressure is right, and that the reason they have no good explanations for why they dislike the books is that they have none, they're just agreeing with the 'cool' people in the class so as not to be seen as an outsider.

If though they really see it as a boys adventure that they can't get into because they can't identify with the characters, try asking them what books they do identify with, and then see how many female characters there are in those. If there some then see how they are portrayed, and if they are weak and reliant on the whims of the males in the story, ask them then whether they would prefer to be excluded completely or go back to being seen as those stay-at-home baby machines with no wills of their own.

And though you didn't really ask, I'll say now that I love Treasure Island and always have. The old pirate stories were always some of my favourites, and the fact that there were rarely any women in them had no bearing on whether I like them or not. And I'll bet every one of your students likes Pirates of the Caribbean, but isn't a great fan of Elizabeth.


2) Why you like the book, despite your being a woman?
I don't really know because I can't remember a time when I didn't know and like it. I know that my father read it to me when I was little, and then gave it to me to read for myself when I was 7. I think it may have helped that I was always into the fantasy adventure stories, having read and been read Narnia from about the same age. To me it doesn't matter the gender of the people in the story, just that you can read and enjoy it for the story itself. The Hobbit is a good book! It has characters and events that make you laugh, cry, be angry or even be scared, and any book that can engender such a range of emotions must be well written. But maybe it's necessary to have read it from a young age, because a lot of people that read it for the first time as an adult seem not to enjoy it, often because they have read LotR first and find it far more childish, which of course it is. Also, I think I like it because the first time I heard it was when my dad read it to me. It is a book given to being read aloud, with much more dialogue and less description than LotR, so when you hear it you are transported into this imaginary world more so than when you read it, because you don't have to concentrate on looking at the words on the page.

3) How I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?
Until they can give you real reasons as to why they find it unappealing there's not much you can do. But looking at some of the suggestions on here about making them find the history behind it, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea. They may well resent you for it since they are already against the book, but it might help to broaden their minds a little. You could also try getting them to look at the King Arthur stories and the Mabinogian, which I found similar to Tolkien in a way though more advanced than The Hobbit. If you could make them see that both come from myths and legends, and that the ways they have been used are simply to create different writing styles it might help.

Yes I am clutching at straws now, I just don't understand the quite widespread dislike of this poor unassuming book!

[davem]

Staying out of this generally, but I was just wondering if they felt the same way about Winnie the Pooh or Wind in the Willows - or would they escape censure because the males in them are animals?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

But there is simply no female characters equivalent to Luthien or Andreth in either Rings or Hobbit. What I would give to have just one Wise Woman appear!
I'd give a rather large amount to keep her out. The Hobbit can stand on its own feet without adding superfluous femininity to cater to the masses. The book is belovèd the way it is. It doesn't need a Wise Woman.

[Mithalwen]

But while I loved the hobbit as a child, having heard it read on Jackanory, I now find it virtually unreadable. Not because of the lack of female protagonists but because the style grates and unlike Pooh or even Alice, I don't get anything more out of it than I did as a child. the depths of the Hobbit are revealed in LOTR. It works best read aloud to small children (I heard this done as an adult when I was a matron in a boarding school and it seemed enchanting again). As a book to read it doesn't appeal anymore - not becasue I am a woman but becasue I am an adult.

[Shelob]

As a book to read it doesn't appeal anymore - not becasue I am a woman but becasue I am an adult.

But if you were to pick it up for the first time now, never having read and enjoyed it before, would you find it BAD or just something you wouldn't be able to finish reading?

There is a difference. I have a real hard time reading through Lord of the Rings but under no circumstances would I say it's BAD. Similarly the second Alvarez book I mentioned before was an easy read but I just can't stand the book. Some books just fit both, Their Eyes Were Watching God is unbearably hard for me to read and it's BAD, Horrible even...


I certainly agree that the style of writing plays somehow into their dislike of the book, both The Hobbit and Treasure Island were written for children after all, but I doubt that it's enough on it's own to warrant such a response. The genre or the gender issues probably play into it at least as much as does the age difference.

[Lalaith]

I don't get anything more out of it than I did as a child I have to agree with this. I loved the Hobbit as a child, and since I became an adult I've enjoyed reading it aloud to children. (I personally don't find the style grating at all, though)
But I wouldn't pick it up and read it again for my own pleasure, unlike LotR which just seems to offer more.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

What an interesting thread this is! I've been away from home, so haven't had a lot of time to think about the question, but I will post what thoughts I have now.

The Hobbit is not my favourite Tolkien book, and I did not have the privilege of reading it as a child. I read it as a prelude to the LotR, and in the course of the years, I reread the latter more often than the former. However, I've come to enjoy it again in the past couple of years, certainly prompted in part through discussions here. Why is something I'll have to ponder longer.

I generally do enjoy books with a female slant, though not necessarily the modern ones, and being able to identify with the primary characters is important to me. However, that does not exclude the male characters - depending largely on how well they've been characterized and how the dialogue is written. The main character of one of my favourite books (The Far Pavilions) is male, and I can identify with him strongly.

It's not about gender - it's about humanity! And even when it's about Hobbits, it's about humanity. Perhaps the women can choose a character with whom they can identify on some level - either Bilbo, as the underestimated underdog who develops unexpected strength, or one of the Dwarves, or another character. If they could choose to be one of them, which one and why? How would they write themselves into the story? Do they feel wronged by someone like Thorin? Do they like to get things moving like Gandalf?

As Mithalwen's signature has said (I'm not sure of the exact words), "Men are from Earth, women are from Earth - just deal with it!" Do we have to divide everything into gender issues?!

[davem]

Perhaps the women can choose a character with whom they can identify on some level - either Bilbo, as the underestimated underdog who develops unexpected strength, or one of the Dwarves, or another character. If they could choose to be one of them, which one and why?

From the sound of them maybe they'd find something in common with the Mirkwood spiders.........

(I'll get me coat....)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

From the sound of them maybe they'd find something in common with the Mirkwood spiders.........

Hmmmm, how about Smaug?! ;) Love of expensive jewelry, hiding a weak spot, not willing to share...

[Lalwendë]

I still enjoy The Hobbit just as much as I ever did. It's also not the only 'children's book' that I can still pick up and enjoy. On a basic level a children's story needs one thing, a cracking plot, and The Hobbit has got that in spades. If it did not have that then I seriously doubt it would still be such a well loved book. It also has the element of danger, something which the Harry Potter books share, which makes it exciting (and it has a dragon too, which any child with a taste for such things will tell you is 'cool') and though the protagonist is a grown up, he is a little grown up.

I think that children especially do not tend to pick up on the absence of either girls or boys all that much, and so the male-centric world of The Hobbit wouldn't trouble them. It has the adventure traditionally assocaited with boys' tales and the magic traditionally associated with girls' tales but most of all it is a fairy tale and such things are universal; whether or not a child would enjoy it would simply depend upon their taste.

Perhaps getting a class to read it as a fairy tale would tempt them more into appreciating it. Maybe even examine it as a Fairy Tale which lacks a simpering princess or a handsome knight? ;) Really, in comparison to a lot of other children's fiction, and to many of the fairy tales, the omission of women in The Hobbit is no bad thing. Is it better that they are absent altogether than that they are portrayed solely as either love objects or evil witches (fairy tales), a 'good brick' who brings along the sandwiches or a little brat who scweams and scweams until she's thick (sic... :p ) (novels). I also wonder whether gender is relevant in a novel about Elves, Hobbits, Dwarves, Wizards, Dragons, Spiders, Bears, Eagles etc but not human children?

Following on from what davem asks about animals as characters in children's stories and if this has any bearing, the Rupert The Bear (http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~afm/followers/) stories (as seen in The Daily Express and the much loved annuals) feature a virtually all-male cast list, all of whom are animals. Interestingly the only girl is Tigerlily, a human Chinese girl, and she does not appear all that often. Despite the fact that the stories remain old-fashioned, to the extent that Podgy Pig wears plus fours, they remain very popular for children in the UK.

I think it may be a question of age rather than gender.

[The Saucepan Man]

First of all, I should point out that (although it may come as a surprise to some here), Tolkien's tales do not appeal to everyone. Many take one look at the books and decide that they are not for them, while others try then and find that they are not to their taste. That does not make them bad people.

So some of these women might simply have felt that the story was not one which would appeal to them. We all make those kinds of decisions about books (and many other things), rightly or wrongly.

But that really does not begin to answer the questions which Fordie poses here, for the following reasons in particular:

1. They have chosen to participate, as I understand it, in a course on children's literature.

2. There seems to have been a particularly vehemently reaction against the book.

3. That reaction appears to have been shared amongst a majority of the women in the class.

I find this reaction strange, given the first point noted above. My first reaction was similar to a number of those here, summarised nicely by Esty:

I think it may be a question of age rather than gender.Having read The Hobbit at a young age, it holds a special place in my heart. However, I can understand that those who first read it when older might dismiss it as childish, having not experienced that magic that it conjures in the young mind. But hang on a minute here. These students have chosen to take a course on children's literature. Surely, therefore, they should approach classical examples of the genre (which The Hobbit is) with an open mind?

Have any of them actually read the book yet, or are they simply drawing conclusions about it based upon what they have heard?

If they have not read the book, then they really have little standing to criticise it. The lack of female characters (or, indeed, any other circumstance based upon a superficial understanding of the tale) cannot provide the basis of a valid argument for anyone who has not actually read it.

If, on the other hand, they have read the book, then this may form a valid argument, depending upon how they express it. From what you say, Fordim, they are simply dismissing the book as "bad" because it has no (or no principal) female characters. Well that's not good enough. As literature students, they should be able to articulate precisely why, in their opinion, this makes the book bad - as an example of children's literature (which is, after all, what they are studying it as). If they can come up with valid and coherent arguments to support that contention (even though you may disagree with them) then fine. Otherwise, it seems to me that they are not really displaying the kind of abilities that I would expect from literature students.

Edit: Apologies to Lalwendë, whose quote it was that I posted rather than Esty's. :rolleyes:

[Encaitare]

I think it may be a question of age rather than gender.

It definitely could be that they feel like they're too old for the story, in which case their inner children need some serious therapy. Or... well, it's time for me to sound very anti-feminist, I suppose. It could be that with affirmative action and feminism and people going absolutely mad with "He's discriminating against me because I'm a woman!" and the like, it's gotten to the point that if there are no female characters in a story (or none who play a huge part), it's immediately considered male chauvinist or immposible for a woman to enjoy. There are so many books written for teenage girls and young women which feature scenarios like sex and drugs and shallow teenybopper dilemmas that would make poor Bilbo keel over and die. Some of those books are actually demeaning to their target audiences. My younger sister reads many of them, and I know she is an intelligent person, but from the subject matter these books deal with ("Ohmigosh does he like me? I just don't know! Whatever should I do?") it really doesn't seem like it. Then there are romance novels, which just make me laugh looking at the covers. It's always some impoverished yet really buff nobleman and a gorgeous country girl or a Highlander and a cold reporter whom he woos... and they have really ridiculous titles. Forgive me if this has become a rant; no offense is intended towards anybody who reads anything of this variety. I just dislike them intensely... can you tell? :rolleyes:

This is NOT to say that all female-geared literature is bad. It's definitely not. I loved The Bell Jar, Anne of Green Gables, Little Women, even Nancy Drew. (I think The Little Engine That Could was a girl, too, and that was the first book I ever read.) Yet I must wonder if males would be interested by these stories. Probably not; I believe one or two were even mentioned by some our XY-chromosomed members as books they couldn't get into. Personally, I'd rather read a book with lots of swordfights than any of those, though; I'd rather see an action movie than a chick flick. I love The Hobbit because it's adorable, just like my other favorite children's books. (My all-time favorite is this one called Animal Bedtime Stories. It, too, has mostly male characters: two badgers called Basil and Dewey, and a mole called Willie. If you have any idea what I'm talking about, you're really cool.) TH cheers me up and makes me laugh when I'm sad -- I've even used it to calm down before an audition. The absence of female characters is something I really never noticed. Bilbo and the dwarves are awesome all by themselves, so who needs anybody else?

As for making your students appreciate TH more, maybe you can bring in some info from LotR. You can talk about what's going on behind the scenes, and whip out a "Well, I bet you didn't know this!" and explain how Gandalf was away at the White Council, arranged by Galadriel -- a lady not to be trifled with -- or how Lobelia actually turned out by the end of RotK to be a hobbit with some spunk. Good luck with the class, though. Hopefully you can make them like it.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I can't help but state complete contempt of the idea of any books being only for a certain age group. Look at our very own Barrowdowns: The Lord of the Rings has attracted loving fans from early teens to who knows how old (though certainly none of our belovèd ladies are older than say... 29?).

[Formendacil]

I be not a lady, let that be made quite clear!

But I have a humble little thought to offer:

Perhaps the author writes about what he knows.

It is foolishness to stray in writing from things that you are not familiar with. This tends to present a clearly fake picture, which is worse than an incomplete one.

Now we know that Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, Middle-Earth, mythology in general, and storytelling for his children were all points of strong knowledge for Tolkien. In writing a relatively simple story for his sons, why stray any farther than that? We know that Tolkien did not spend a great deal of time in the company of women, so it would seem logical to assume that he was no expert on the subject of the other gender.

Well, that little idea may or may not explain why there are women in The Hobbit, but it opens up the question of: if Tolkien knew so little about women in general, then how come the few that he did do often seem so convincing? Surely they aren't ALL based on his mother or Edith!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

One quick intervention that is sure to drag the thread off topic but, perhaps, into other interesting areas...

There is, of course, no such thing really as Children's Literature insofar as the books gathered under that classification are written by adults and sold to adults (children having no money and no rights, it is up to their parents/guardians/teachers to select which books to make available to them). Children's Literature as a body tells us far more about adult conceptions of children than about children directly -- The Hobbit, for example, was not written by Christopher Tolkien, nor even really for Christopher Tolkien, but for the Christopher Tolkien as imagined by John Ronald Ruel. Now, who among us will be so foolish as to claim that our parents understand us perfectly?

And it's interesting to me to see how often in this thread we see people -- a many of them women -- revealing that their first exposure to TH was from a parent reading it to her! So, a book written by an adult is selected by another adult for presentation to a child -- that's a lot of layers and editing to get through -- too many to start making bold claims about TH as something that children should or do respond to.

And Fea is right making distinctions between age groups in terms of reading is wrong and even misleading -- the "classic" children's stories remain classic only because parents like them. This is due in part to the force of circumstance: one thing children, particularly young children, like is familiar patterns and memory games. This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again. So parents have to be sure that they like the stories as they are going to have to read them again and again. So a good children's book is going to be good only insofar as it can convince an adult that it is "suitable" for a child, then convince that adult to buy it, then entertain the adult enough to withstand multiple readings.

All of which is a long way round of saying that Saucy is right: the complaint from my students is not that TI or TH are childish -- we spent a week on Where the Wild Things Are and had wonderful time with that -- but very cleary and specifically centred on the fact that it's about boys. Not just that it's not about girls, but that it's about boys. What's interesting to me is to see how the women in this thread who like TH don't see it that way at all -- it's not about boys, but about people, or adventure, or Fairy Tale...

Fair enough, and this much I can work with in class, but let me pose a tough question: what's wrong with having a book that is about boys? Or, more precisely, what's so off-putting about looking at TH as a book about boys? Boys and girls are different in our world (without getting into the reasons for this, or why it perhaps should not be this way...) and so does not each group deserve his or her own stories? And is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?

Now, I'm not suggesting that TH, has or must be read as a boy's tale, only that given that it is a boy's tale, must we work to deny that or find ways "past" it for women to find a way in?

*Fordim begins to seriously consider making his students register to the Downs and participate in this thread*

[Shelob]

the complaint from my students is not that TI or TH are childish -- we spent a week on Where the Wild Things Are and had wonderful time with that -- but very cleary and specifically centred on the fact that it's about boys.

So Treasure Island and The Hobbit are "very clearly and specifically centered" on boys, but Where the Wild Things Are isn't? I wonder how Max feels about this...


This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again.

And in all honesty I'm not sure how I feel about this one... sure when I was really little (little enough that I now can't remember it) I probably enjoyed hearing the same thing over and over, but at about the point where I begin to remember things I always wanted to hear something new. That's my first recollection of The Hobbit actually, going up to my dad when he was reading it and asking "what's that?", "what's it about?" and a whole string of questions ending with "read it to me". Since I had no earlier memory of it the book was something completely new and therefore worth hearing, and after he finished reading it to me that time he mentioned that there was a series of books which came after it (LOTR) so I made him read those to me. I was maybe 6 at that point, I got scared well before the end but I'd wanted to hear them because they were something new. I guess I could have said that shortly by saying that I think by the time kids are old enough to be really interested in books like The Hobbit they're also probably into the stage where they're looking for something new, which is probably why so many books for that age group are adventure style stories...

As for your lists of questions, I guess it depends on how you're looking at it.
To use the last question, "is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?", as an example. Children probably don't notice, the general consensus here is that when we were 5 or 7 or what have you it didn't matter that The Hobbit had no girls. Now though, it might. If I were reading of Bilbo's adventures for the first time this year it may really irk me that there are no girls in the book.


EDIT: And what exactly do you mean by "memory games"?

[tar-ancalime]

Fair enough, and this much I can work with in class, but let me pose a tough question: what's wrong with having a book that is about boys? Or, more precisely, what's so off-putting about looking at TH as a book about boys? Boys and girls are different in our world (without getting into the reasons for this, or why it perhaps should not be this way...) and so does not each group deserve his or her own stories? And is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?

Now, I'm not suggesting that TH, has or must be read as a boy's tale, only that given that it is a boy's tale, must we work to deny that or find ways "past" it for women to find a way in?

Well, the trouble is not with the book. The trouble is that your students are missing the point. In my first post I perhaps dwelled too long on the reasons why thse books might be off-putting at first to the young women in your class. However, as others have so rightly added, it is not the book's job to be all things to all people.

I think you need to present TH book as a book about boys. About men. Present that as a positive thing! After all, half of the children your students will be teaching (I assume these are elementary-ed majors) will be boys, and the other half will have to understand boys on at least a superficial level.

In the end it's your students' responsibility to be open-minded enough to be able to appreciate works of literature that might not be immediately appealing to them. Barring that, it's absolutely their responsibility to articulate some better criticisms than "its' a bad book" or "it's a boy's story." (Because, as you've so rightly pointed out, the fact that it's a story about boys isn't really a problem at all, as long as boys' stories aren't the only kind you read, which it sounds like they're not.) Maybe they didn't like TI; maybe they won't like (or didn't like in the past) TH; but they need to be able to give you something more than the vague statements they seem to have been coming out with. My cynicism is back--it's still sounding to me like they aren't doing the reading, or aren't doing it closely enough, and are grasping for something to say in class.

[Aiwendil]

At the risk of leading the thread astray . . .

Fordim wrote:
There is, of course, no such thing really as Children's Literature insofar as the books gathered under that classification are written by adults and sold to adults (children having no money and no rights, it is up to their parents/guardians/teachers to select which books to make available to them). Children's Literature as a body tells us far more about adult conceptions of children than about children directly
the "classic" children's stories remain classic only because parents like them. This is due in part to the force of circumstance: one thing children, particularly young children, like is familiar patterns and memory games. This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again. So parents have to be sure that they like the stories as they are going to have to read them again and again. So a good children's book is going to be good only insofar as it can convince an adult that it is "suitable" for a child, then convince that adult to buy it, then entertain the adult enough to withstand multiple readings.

There's certainly some truth in this. However, I think that the children themselves (i.e. children as children, not children as adults conceptualize them) also play a very important role here. I imagine that the children's literature that survives and becomes "classic" reflects something of a compromise between the tastes of children and the tastes of adults (as opposed to reflecting simply the adults' view of children).

It would be a mistake to assume that children have little or no power of discernment. We must consider not only the tendency for adults to choose to read The Hobbit to children but also the tendency for children to enjoy The Hobbit. I am one of the many who had The Hobbit (and later LotR) read to me when I was young and I recall that, even then, I enjoyed it far more than most other books I was exposed to.

I'm attempting to figure out what import this has for the topic of Tolkien and women, but I'm afraid I'm at a loss.

[Firefoot]

I've been following this thread with interest but haven't yet posted. So here's my thoughts:

First of all, my first introduction to the Hobbit was from a friend at school; I was twelve or thirteen years old and I would say that I didn't have a lot of experience in the sci-fi/fantasy genre in particular - it was more like whatever I picked up off the shelf at the library. So anyway, I started to read this book really having no clear idea of what it was about - I'm not sure I even realized until I started reading it that it was fantasy. But from the first few pages of the book, I was enchanted/delighted/absolutely hooked. It was one of the few books I have ever talked to my mom about - as in, this book is absolutely amazing and I love it. To my surprise, my mom actually recognized the book. Apparently my uncle had really liked it back when they were kids, though my mom had tried it and it had turned her off - she hadn't finished it. I don't think the conversation went any further - I think I went back to reading.

I would say that there were a couple things that pulled me in. First and foremost is the plot - somebody else already mentioned it, but I can't find who at the moment. TH has a fantastic plot, going from one adventure to the next. I had afterward heard people say that the ending got dull, but this was something I never found. The book's tone draws you in, but the plot keeps you going. There's always a "what happens next?" The other contributing factor is its tone and gentle humor. I was not young as many of you were young when you read the book; I was in jr. high, and whether because of or in spite of this, the way the book was written delighted me - still does, actually. I did not know that it was supposed to be a children's book (as I said before, I knew very little about it), though I was able to recognize later that it was a simpler book. It's beautifully light-hearted to read without being childish. As Fea said, it's a rainy day sort of book, a book to relax with.

As for it being a "boy's book" - this never occurred to me. In fact, it never really occurred to me that all the characters in the book are male in the same way that it never occurred to me that all of the Winnie the Pooh characters are male (except for Kanga) before my high school baby sitter noticed it when we were watching it on TV. And just like this did not take away from my enjoyment of Winnie the Pooh, it does not bother me in the least that there are no female characters in TH. It doesn't need them; that is not the point of the book. It's the same reason why I get irritated when fan fic writers try to put female characters in the Fellowship. It doesn't work. I enjoy strong female characters and have read and enjoyed many books - but only where they work (i.e., Anne of Green Gables, Pride and Prejudice, etc... and not just classics, either - there are adventure/fantasy stories that can feature strong female characters - take the Chronicles of Narnia. In fact, I wonder if it wasn't for the presence of the female children in those books if they wouldn't be classified as "boys' books" as well :rolleyes: ). I actually find myself getting annoyed when books try to force female characters in where they really aren't needed - they're meant to be strong, but they get annoying as the author tries to make their achievements match the males'. Strong female characters only work where they fit - and in TH isn't one of those places.

What makes a book a "boys' book" or a "girls' book," anyway? My youth group was talking about various fantasy books one time and my youth leader made the comment that he was surprised that I (and my cousin, for that matter) had enjoyed Hitch-hiker's Guide so much as he had considered it more "guy's humor." This rather surprised me, having enjoyed the book myself as well as known several female Downers who had enjoyed the books. And if all or mostly male characters make a book a "boys book," well then, I guess many of my favorite books growing up have been "boys' books" - White Fang by Jack London has no major female characters; Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, as someone has already mentioned, both have few female characters. This has never bothered me. I don't think that lines can be drawn that way - boys books and girls books. Certain books may be more appealing to one gender or the other in general, but lines are better drawn in terms of personality and interests.

Bearing Fordim's latest post in mind, though, if you were to look at the Hobbit as a "boys' story." Hm... I guess I don't see the point, since that isn't the point. Essentially, it's meant to be a fairy tale, and I still find it very odd that so many of the women in your class would classify it as a boy's story, and as they do, why that makes it a bad book. It's one thing to classify the story as a boy's book; I can at least see the reasoning to that. But to classify it as a bad book because of that doesn't make sense to me. I would find out if they feel similarly about other books they would call boys books, and how they make that conclusion. There are very very few books that I have ever read that I would call bad. I have been too bored to finish many, or find that I do not care for the topic or genre, but that does not mean those books are bad.

[Lalaith]

This discussion has inspired me to pick up the Hobbit again, and the more I think about it, I just can't see the Hobbit as "a boy's story". It is a very un-macho book.
The tone, for example. It is gentle and discursive, and Bilbo's love of cosy home comforts is constantly being referred to. Practical domestic things - the problem of drying wet clothes, for example - are considered. Bilbo himself is an entirely unmacho character, he rarely uses physical force - only words and guile.
In fact, I think that the reason I liked the book so much when I was little is that I identified with Bilbo. He could be you, because he feels the way a child - of either gender - might feel on an adventure, frightened but excited. He wants to go home a lot of the time, he needs looking after by the others. Tolkien constantly refers to him as "poor little Bilbo", the way you might talk about a child.

PS I dig Formendacil's thesis: that Tolkien was quite comfortable in the world of dragons, dwarves and trolls but human women were a completely alien species.... :cool:

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well, this discussion really makes me look forward to the Hobbit CbC discussion that I will be initiating early in the new year! I hope all of you will join in, so that we can share our ideas.

By the way, I'd like to add one more thought from the viewpoint of a mother (which is similar and applicable to teachers) - I hope parents still read to their children and don't depend entirely on recordings and TV for their discovery of story. If so, it just might be a good idea to know which books could appeal to sons as well as to daughters; I have one each, and a lot of our reading sessions were to both simultaneously. That means finding books that appeal to both genders and different ages!

[Lush]

But since we know what Tolkien could do when it comes to depicting strong females, we are the ones who should feel deprived...

A legitimate gripe if I ever saw one.

Though, to be honest, what is "strong"? If it means that Tolkien portrays a number of females in possession of wisdom and power, I agree 100%. But if you mean a "strong" character in terms of texture, I can't say I'm all that pleased with the way his female characters measure up to the males, perhaps with Andreth being an exception. It's a minor issue for me, but an issue nonetheless.

Of course, saying this has gotten me in trouble before. I should probably cut it out. :cool:

[Holbytlass]

I should have put this in my second post of why I like TH. I read TH only 4 years ago at the ripe age of 28. I was smart enough to tell it was 'simpler' and it didn't bother me in the least it had no females, because I was in it for the story not the anatomical make-up.

Why so old? Because my mother (the reader in the family) didn't and still doesn't care for the fantasy/sci-fi genre, whereas I eat it up. I was at the mercy of what she brought into the home.

Would these women not read/give them to their daughters (or younger female relations) because there are no females in the story? Are they that hung-up on gender that they would deny others to experience something different? Would they be so hipocritical and let their sons (male relations) read it but not the females because it's a "boy's story" thereby perpetuating one gender can't do something because of the way they were born?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

So Treasure Island and The Hobbit are "very clearly and specifically centered" on boys, but Where the Wild Things Are isn't? I wonder how Max feels about this...

Well, the story is all about Max's imagined reaction to his mother's having called him "Wild thing" and sending him to bed without supper; and it ends with him returning to his real life and finding that his mother has forgiven him by sending up his dinner. And there are many of the Wild Things with distinctly "feminine" hair and, I would suggest, bearings.


EDIT: And what exactly do you mean by "memory games"?

This really is more common among younger children, but it's that game of anticipating the next page and/or the next illustration. As the book becomes more familiar children begin to anticipate with joy their favourite moments or events and to race ahead. Children who cannot yet read say aloud the story or point to pictures when asked by the parent to find the mouse, say. It becomes familiar territory....

...kind of like a hobbit hole, to drag myself back to something Middle-Earth related (lest I be Barrow Wighted :eek: )

[Mithalwen]

But if you were to pick it up for the first time now, never having read and enjoyed it before, would you find it BAD or just something you wouldn't be able to finish reading?



I never said it was bad and were I required to write an essay on it, I could reread it. If I had, and indeed if I ever do have children, I would certainly read it to them.

But frankly I am astonished that anyone is surprised that a person who has long reached their majority should find the Hobbit, unappealing as something to read for themselves anymore than I would expect them to be surprised that I would prefer to drink Merlot rather than cherryade. It is very definitely aimed at smallish children and I do not particularly enjoy being spoken to as if I were six. It jsut doesn't appeal any more.

I am not a particularly snobbish reader. I read widely - supermarket fiction as well as Booker type stuff. Some "children's books" do have a lot to offer the adult reader. I read "his Dark Materials" and while I felt the second and third parts (the third particularly) were weaker, I felt that "Northern Lights" was one of the best books I have ever read - although one of the blackest and bleakest.

For me it is not a gender issue. I belong to a generation that caught rather than was innoculated against the childhood disease, also there was virtually no daytime TV (yes I am serious) and during those weeks of being confined to barracks but not feeling particularly ill, I read anything I could get my hands on including my father's "Boy's Own" annuals from the thirties and a lot of John Buchan. Other favourites were PC Wren (Beau Geste etc), and CS Forester (Hornblower), The Prisoner of Zenda/ Rupert of Hentzau ,Baroness Orczy (Scarlet Pimpernel), . Not all "children's" books at such but definitely not girlys stuff and only the demmed elusive Pimpernel with a female author.

I do occasionally re-read childhood (and by that I mean stuff really aimed at smalls rather than the crossover stuff) favourites but often with a sense of wallowing in nostalgia. I find the end of "The house at Pooh Corner" still moves me to tears and the poems still make me laugh.

The Hobbit is different because it is a portal to a world that has an adult and far more interesting version. I don't need The Hobbit other than as reference for LOTR and I always feel that I have been fobbed off with the childs version - the adult's version is hinted at in the Quest of Erebor in Unfinished Tales. I do find the death of Thorin moving - one of those more "LOTR" -ish passages but I thinkI was more upset at the time I first read it by the ponies being eaten. I wonder if thatis what put your ladies off ;).

[davem]

I think Mithalwen is right. I also think too much is sometimes demanded of TH, which was never written for publication, only to entertain Tolkien's own children. If it 'fails' at all it is only because of the way LotR overshadows it. I, as I've stated elsewhere, place it firmly outside the Legendarium proper, where it can be read & enjoyed as a story in its own right. If its placed alongside LotR it can only suffer by comparison. For that reason I'd hesitate to bring in references to LotR in order to 'draw people in' to TH. It must stand or fall as a story in its own right. If it can only appeal because of the greater work, then in effect it has failed as a work of fiction.

[Lalwendë]

Getting back to the question of whether The Hobbit is a "boys' adventure", I wondered what had made these young women come to that conclusion. Plainly the book focusses on male characters, but it would have to be something more than this to make it a book exclusively for boys. Adventure is not exclusive to males, nor is fighting and danger, and fantasy and magic. It begs the question of what is a "girls' story"?

Some time ago (well, less than five years ago actually) I complained in Sainsbury's as I was sick and fed up with them labelling their magazine shelves "Men's Interest" and "Women's Interest". Under the former category came not just Loaded and FHM, but also Q, NME, Empire and Private Eye. Under the latter section came parenting, interior decoration and cooking magazines. Go into any British newsagent and while the shelves may no longer be blatantly labelled as gender specific, all the magazines are still divided up in this way. Do men not raise kids or cook meals? Do women not listen to music or watch films?

I'm thinking that years of media influence may also have had an effect on these young women. I've met many a woman who bemoans her partner's interest in Sci-fi, and who believes all those who love Tolkien to be somehow mentally deficient. Tolkien is not something we are supposed to like; no, better leave that to the men with their childish games whle we get on with the serious business. Which all too often simply boils down to having the latest handbag. :rolleyes:

What is a man's book? And if we have those, then do we also have men's films (don't answer that ;) ) or men's music? I'd say that there is no such thing, so why are we able to label a book in that way? There are films made for the young male audience such as the whole Vin Deisel ouvre, but there's nothing in them to prevent a woman from enjoying them if she likes adventure, tough guys and fast cars. There are songs such as Teenage Kicks which are from a man's point of view but which women love too, and contrary to what mas like Cosmo would have us believe, yes, there are many women who love metal and rap and who don't find it beneath them. What makes books so different? Is it that they are being read in the academic world where the critical mind takes precedence over pure enjoyment? It's possibly something which cannot be avoided, and as such it ought to be no surprise that such opinions do arise more often.

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

What is a man's book? And if we have those, then do we also have men's films (don't answer that ) or men's music? I'd say that there is no such thing, so why are we able to label a book in that way?

I'd say that, primarily, a book could be labeled "A man's book/movie" if it deals with the subject of war; movies/books like "Band of Brothers" or "Apocalypse Now" (Neither of which, I a female, particularly liked.) So, is it perhaps this, Fordim that turns the girls in your class off? I, for one, do not particularly like war and would rather avoid it at all costs, even within my literature. But even still, I don't think that The Hobbit deals with war or weapons all that much. The battle at the end is even rather funny at times (when they can't find Bilbo edhc.) and isn't graphic at all.

This theory seems to work though. I've never read Treasure Island and perhaps I should, but I seem to think that it would have some sort of violence with guns and war. And The Hobbit with the battle with the goblins and at the end near the Lonely Mountain seems also to fit in this category. Ask them if they enjoy watching war movies like "A Very Long Engagement" (romantic/war) or if they like to read stories like "The Wall." (Sartre) These encompass a very broad view of war and I wonder if they are inclined to like any of them.

[tar-ancalime]

I'd say that, primarily, a book could be labeled "A man's book/movie" if it deals with the subject of war; movies/books like "Band of Brothers" or "Apocalypse Now" (Neither of which, I a female, particularly liked.)

This is dangerous.

Works of art about war are some of the most important things we have. To assume that they're written/filmed/painted for only half the world's population prevents the rest of us from reflecting on some of the darker parts of reality.

I am glad to live in a world that, after a horrifying war, produces "Night," "Catch-22" and "Slaughterhouse Five;" and after another horrifying war, "The Things They Carried." (With deference to the more widely-read among us who may have better examples.)

I apologize if this post is too harsh--I feel very strongly about this.

[Shelob]

I'm pretty sure "war" isn't what determins whether something's a "boy" book/movie or "girl" book/movie. I personally enjoyed Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse Five, though the latter was a very strange book. And even today I still love The Battle of Five Armies. For many women, yes war/violence may turn them off a book/movie but this is just another generality.

[Lalaith]

As far as I'm concerned, there's war and war.
So I could have watched the battle scenes in LotR forever, I love a good siege and I always say you can never have too much swordfighting in a film.
But mortar attack and machine gun war stuff bores the pants off me.

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

I meant war for war's sake (You know, the type of violence portrayed in some video games) rather than a very well-written and poignant novel/movie about it. I hold true to the statement that I didn't like "Band of Brothers" or "Apocalypse Now" (though I don't think that either of these movies really show war for war's sake), but I did find "The Wall" fascinating and "Catch-22" hilarious. But for the sake of this thread I'll try to get back on topic. (Sorry Fordim)

Perhaps you should try to introduce them to the Elvish or hobbit-ish societies. Both are peaceful and fun and some might even argue that Thranduil's people are feminine. :rolleyes:

[davem]

Just as an aside, has anyone else noticed how if a man reads poetry written by another man, or listens to classical music composed & performed by another man, he's said to be 'in touch with his feminine side'?

[Lhunardawen]

Warning: You are about to read a very unhelpful post.

I have to admit I don't like The Hobbit much. The first time I read it, when I have been a member of the Downs for quite a long time, I fell asleep before finishing the first chapter. The second time I did - a looong time afterwards - I managed to convince myself to finish the book by telling myself that I don't have the right to call myself a Tolkienthusiast :rolleyes: without even reading it. Sure, there were sparks of enthusiasm in a few parts of the story, but nothing really stuck. So, stone me if you will, but I barely remember what TH is really all about. (Maybe for this reason I should join the next CbC.)

Up until now I still can't pinpoint exactly why I don't like TH much. Perhaps it's because in my mind I have stereotyped Tolkien as a writer of LotR-ish books (whatever that means), and there was a sort of culture shock when I realized that the same author of LotR wrote TH. It's weird and unfair to say the least, I know, but it could be the cause.

Or probably it's because there's no specific issue that I can sympathize with. I prefer to be able to interact with a book I'm reading, and for me TH just doesn't reach out and whisper, "Come, let me know how you feel about this." It's all "Come, sit back and be the audience." No offense intended, of course; this is all my perspective.

Now I also don't think that literature should be categorized according to age, as there are a lot of people who do not think their age. (I've 'met' quite a lot here in the Downs.) As for the gender issue, it's all very relative. Though, for example, a certain story only has negligible female characters, if the male characters deal with something females can understand or relate to it would probably be easy for them to appreciate it. But who knows what goes on in the mind of a female? ;)

As for the last question, you can probably use the scholastic merit of your class to scare them into appreciating TH. :D

[Lalaith]

Just as an aside, has anyone else noticed how if a man reads poetry written by another man, or listens to classical music composed & performed by another man, he's said to be 'in touch with his feminine side'?

very true, davem. :)
It is also true, and rather sad, that these days women tend to read a lot more, in general, than men. A friend of mine who's a novelist, was saying the other day that he used to get a bit miffed that some of his (male) friends clearly had never read any of his books.
But then he realised that an awful lot of men simply don't read novels at all, not even ones written by other blokes, not even written by their own mates....

[Cailín]

Interesting thread.

As myself, I have always loved the Hobbit and have recently grown to love Lord of the Rings as well. As a woman, none of these works seem very appealing. I know I risk some anger here, but the way Tolkien depicted women (if he depicted them at all) is not something I easily identify with. I don't think he really 'got' women, but which man really does? ;)

Would female readers have been satisfied if Bilbo were Bilba? I highly doubt it. I just fail to see why the lack of female characters make this a 'boys story'. I'm not even quite sure what a boys story is. But the Hobbit is definitely not it. Any book which would be gender specific, should be gender specific. That is to say - how can you make a difference between boys and girls when this division is not even made in the book? The Hobbit is not about men and women. It is a children's story and children often don't really care about gender, unless the difference is enforced upon them by their surroundings.

I'm not explaining myself too well here, I'm afraid, but I think the Hobbit might be one of those stories that transgresses gender completely. Your female students obviously do not share my views, but I think that the Hobbit is neither about men nor women and gender is actually completely irrelevant in this book. As irrelevant as it is to young children.

[Alphaelin]

Fordim wrote:
And it's interesting to me to see how often in this thread we see people -- a many of them women -- revealing that their first exposure to TH was from a parent reading it to her! So, a book written by an adult is selected by another adult for presentation to a child -- that's a lot of layers and editing to get through -- too many to start making bold claims about TH as something that children should or do respond to.

and

All of which is a long way round of saying that Saucy is right: the complaint from my students is not that TI or TH are childish -- we spent a week on Where the Wild Things Are and had wonderful time with that -- but very cleary and specifically centred on the fact that it's about boys. Not just that it's not about girls, but that it's about boys. What's interesting to me is to see how the women in this thread who like TH don't see it that way at all -- it's not about boys, but about people, or adventure, or Fairy Tale...

Response to TH is as individual as each person, I think. For myself, I certainly was responding to the story rather than the adult reading it, as she was a teacher I quite disliked.

Giving more serious thought to what I enjoyed in TH: I liked the hints of an older history implied by the swords Orcrist and Glamdring and in Bilbo's Sting (made by the High Elves, kin of Elrond, in the city of Gondolin -- what a tantalizing hint of other times and places). And I liked Tolkien's version of elves as personified by Elrond ("hale as a warrior...kind as summer"). No silly dancing about just because you've got a new set of clothes, like in 'The Shoemaker and the Elves', or lame conversation such as the fairies in 'Midsummer's Night's Dream' when Bottom is introduced to them. I also enjoy the gently humorous tone of TH. I don't feel I am being talked down to, but invited to see the funny side of Bilbo's predicaments.

What disturbs me about your students is their blanket condemnation of TH as 'bad' because it is only about boys. Can't understand that -- I've always rather liked males myself. ;) Are they trying to suggest that TH is bad for children in general because it has no females??? I honestly don't get this. Do they also condemn 'Peter Pan' for its poor presentation of females? Or 'Winnie-the-Pooh'? Or 'The Gingerbread Man' because of it's lack of female characters?

One of the things I most enjoy about Tolkien's writing in general -- and everyone is free to disagree with me -- is his use of archetypes in characterization and plot. They're all over the place in his literature: the Innocent -- Bilbo, the Wise Man -- Gandalf (sorry Child ), the Sacrifice -- Frodo, the Wise King -- Elrond in TH, and later the Wise Queen, Galadriel...the list goes on. These are not gender-specific concepts by any means.

Pondering further, Tolkien was upfront in 'On Faerie' about the topics which appealed to him as an author. If I remember correctly, he was fascinated with the idea of The Quest...and he does an excellent job in TH of presenting both an external Quest (to win Erebor and its treasure back from Smaug) and an internal Quest (Bilbo's growth from the safe, settled hobbit of the Shire to an individual interested in the Great World and its history). The gold is won, but more interesting to me has always been Bilbo's growth as a person. He finds he is braver, smarter, more capable than he'd ever imagined back in the Shire. Yes, TH is clearly aimed at youngsters, but the points I've just mentioned are what I've always considered to be the bones of the story, and they appeal to me irregardless of the gender involved.

[Mithalwen]

Cailin has made some good points.

I also think that the fact that most of the characters are non-human minimises the gender thing. Bilbo child sized and slightly childlike as he ventures into the wider world but he is not a little boy. So even though on mature reflection the thing could have been subtitled if not the Hemingwayan " men without women" then "males without females" I don't think I even noticed as a child.

However, I do find it depressing that people who have presumably to some extent chosen to study Literature have not got the self discipline to get through the Hobbit. I mean I am never going to be a Dickens fan but I did my penance of 50-100 pages a day when I had to.... I used to find that I would quite enjoy the last 200 pages having slogged through the first 700......

[mark12_30]

The obligatory two kopecks:

I'm a tomboy. Tea parties don't interest me much. Dolls gag me or scare me; sometimes both. Riding through the wild, though, in a tattered old cloak, and singing songs-- now that's a good time. Tiptoeing quietly through the woods unheard, or invisible, and meeting elves and dragons is even better.

Having said all that-- Fordim, I can't help you much, because when I consider your diilemma I scratch my head and wonder, <<begin brief rant>> what is WRONG with you chicks? Can't you see beyond the gender of the participants into the abstraction of what is going on? Does it HAVE to be about skirts versus pants to make it interesting? How about right versus wrong, truth versus lies, life versus death???

Sorry. I'll get off of my soap box now. <<End rant.>> Good luck, Fordie. Let us know how it goes.

PS. My fourth grade teacher read it to the class. Big hit. She also read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Charlotte's Web, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, James and the Giant Peach... I've forgotten a few others. Cool teacher.

PPS. Rereading this post makes me laugh. I've been trying to have a (hobbit-style?) tea- party for, oh, ten years now. Never happens. Somehow I'd rather go hiking or mountain-biking. Not that I don't love my girlfriends; oh no. But how about a bike ride instead of the social scene? See you at the trailhead...

[The Saucepan Man]

The results of my own very unscientific research. Make of it what you will ...

I took my 7 year old daughter to see the new Harry Potter film today. On leaving the cinema, I asked her who her favourite character was.

"Hermione," she said without hesitation.

"Why?" I asked.

"Because she's a girl," she replied.

Being immediately reminded of this thread, I tried a few other books and films.

Her immediate response to the same question asked in relation to the Faraway Tree books (which we have read recently) was Silky, the Fairy (one of the few female characters amongst the folk of the Faraway Tree). After some thought, however, she changed her decision to the Saucepan Man - "Because he's funny".

Her favourite character in Shrek was Princess Fiona - and Donkey (the latter, again, because he's funny).

As for the LotR films (we have not read the book together yet), her answer was "Shadowfax", followed by "No, Arwen".

I also recall that, when we went to see The Invincibles, her favourite character was Violet, the daughter of the family.

"Would you enjoy a story if it had no girls in it?" I asked her.

"No," she replied adamantly.

"But you enjoyed The Hobbit, didn't you? That doesn't have any girls in it."

"It has a girl in it at the end."

"Who's that?" I asked, finding it difficult to imagine that she was referring to Lobelia.

"Oh, I don't know ..." she replied.

To be fair, it is some 2 years since we read The Hobbit together, and she certainly enjoyed it at the time. I'm planning on reading it again soon to her and her 5 year old brother. We shall see whether she enjoys it as much now ...

As I said, make of this what you will.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I have always been of the opinion that if a story is good and enjoyable and you keep coming back to it for that enjoyment, weather the characters are male or female is irrelevant. The Lord of the Rings and Middle Earth history is, in my opinion, a fantastic story, its something I can't stop reading once I get started. To simply throw it away on the grounds that there aren’t enough of one sex or one group is madness!

I have never been a fan of Jane Austin, which annoyed my English teacher at High school. When I read Pride and prejudice and said, "I didn't enjoy the story. Not a lot really happened." she replied, "The story doesn’t matter!" I was quite taken back by this. Obviously, she is entitled to her opinion, but it seems that the story would be the most important part!
Later on in the year I asked this English teacher what she thought of Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings. Again, she seemed to disregard the story as an irrelevance, saying, "It's all male. How can I read something like that?" So I asked, "Don't you enjoy a good story?" and she said, "why? Its not the story that matters, its what the author is trying to say."
Well, in my opinion, what the author is trying to say is only a small part of a book. Without a good story, how can the meaning be seen without eye rolling? ;) I think I once wrote a story to annoy this teacher, it went something like this.

"Once upon a time there was a woman named Jim who was fed up of political oppression and so shot her husband and went to downing street and married the prime minister and went on to rule the world."

Immature, I know. But I was trying to make a point. You can argue till your blue in the face about what an author meant by something, but first and foremost should be a good story.
That’s how I always saw it anyway.
Any thoughts?

[Lalwendë]

I agree that the story is the most important factor in any book. Yet maybe Fordim's female students don't even relate to the story? The Hobbit is primarily an adventure story, and many of those which have been published do seem geared towards men and do centre around male characters. As shown on this thread, some female readers do find they connect more easily to a book which features female characters.

But as I've already pointed out, not all women need that connection. I've been thinking of which books I have read which might be said to relate exclusively to men. American Psycho is about a man, and though it does have female characters these are used by the male character to define himself and his propensity for extreme violence; it is not always a comfortable read for a woman as women are objects in this book, to be collected like his designer goods.

Yet I was not alienated by this; is it because women also have a capacity for violence, or is it that I sought some kind of secret knowledge about men from the book? I've also read a fair few books by men about 'thugs' which I've found fascinating; I am no thug nor do I have even the slightest liking for them, so there has been little to 'relate to' in such books. But I did want to get an insight into what goes through the minds of such people. I'm sure there are as many men who do not want to know such things as there are women who do not. Why are these 'books for men' if they are simply about society?

I was talking yesterday about Rogue Male, which I read for O Level. This could be said to be a traditional male book in every way as it is about an assassin, a former hunter, who goes into hiding. It does not feature any women as far as I can remember. But I enjoyed it, and many women are avid readers of thrillers of all kinds. Obviously here the element of story is vital. Again, I know of several women who are enormous fans of Patrick O'Brien's novels (Master & Commander was based on these) despite them being about naval warfare. So adventure is clearly also important to women readers.

There are even films which on the surface look like men's films, e.g. Top Gun, with the bit of romance added in to please wives and girlfriends of men wanting to watch the film; am I the only woman who'd fast forward all the soppy bits to get to the shots of the jet fighters? ;) It seems like every thriller or action film just has to have a five minute gratuitous romance bit added in and I wonder if it really is put there to keep the women in the cinema or if it's actually there so the blokes can look at Kirsten Dunst? I don't care about that, I just want to see the car chase.

So what I'm getting at is in this day and age, there possibly isn't much substance in saying something is a book 'for boys'. Girls aren't restricted to maintaining an appearance of being 'girly' any longer and have a wider opportunity of experience so they are more likely to accept or even relate to a male character.

[The Saucepan Man]

It seems like every thriller or action film just has to have a five minute gratuitous romance bit added in and I wonder if it really is put there to keep the women in the cinema or if it's actually there so the blokes can look at Kirsten Dunst?It seems to me that, nowadays, female characters in "action films" are no longer included just for the gratuitous romance. In the past, I believe that certainly was the case. But the tendency nowadays is for the female character to be strong-willed and independent. She is generally a primary character in her own right, and not simply a "romantic accesory" for the male lead. Compare, for example, the female characters in Bond films today with those of the '60s and '70s. And I suspect that this phenomenon has developed as women's "purchasing power" has increased. Rather than relying on their husbands' or parents' purchasing decisions, as was largely (although not exclusively) the case in times past, they now have the means to make their own purchasing decisions. Films have responded to this, no doubt in consequence of extensive market research.

Funnily enough, Jackson's initial instinct (no doubt in line with this trend) was to have Arwen as a much more active character. Yet the reaction of fans prompted him (guided, I believe, by Liv Tyler) to give her a much more passive role in the final cut.

[Bêthberry]

One area that has not been guided by purchasing power or market research is the experience of high school teachers, who report a very interesting finding.

When high school students write poetry, a fair percentage of the female students can write from a male POV, creating a poem whose speaker is a male, imagining his character and getting into his POV. However, teachers report that male students almost never write poems with a female speaker or create/imagine female characters. Interesting, no? And, to keep this on topic, Tolkien's letter to his son Michael, Letter # 43, presents Tolkien's ideas concerning the relation of the sexes.

[Lalwendë]

It seems to me that, nowadays, female characters in "action films" are no longer included just for the gratuitous romance. In the past, I believe that certainly was the case. But the tendency nowadays is for the female character to be strong-willed and independent. She is generally a primary character in her own right, and not simply a "romantic accesory" for the male lead. Compare, for example, the female characters in Bond films today with those of the '60s and '70s. And I suspect that this phenomenon has developed as women's "purchasing power" has increased. Rather than relying on their husbands' or parents' purchasing decisions, as was largely (although not exclusively) the case in times past, they now have the means to make their own purchasing decisions. Films have responded to this, no doubt in consequence of extensive market research.

There are still not that many 'Ripley' figures about though, and when there is a strong female character then she is notable, which suggests that it is still not necessarily the norm for such characters. I do have to say that having a strong and unique female lead attracted me in to the cinema to watch Kill Bill, as I'd not been all that interested in Tarantino films before; I loved the idea that she was a mother and an assassin.

It has often crossed my mind whether Jackson made Arwen more strong as a character purely to appeal to the female audience who might not respond to someone who spent their time weaving - the subtleties of the significance of weaving is one of those ideas that just would not have transferred to film! The odd thing about the films is that even though they did give Arwen an active role, it is still a film which has very few female roles, like the books. This does not seem to have kept women and girls away from the cinemas; in fact I seem to notice even more female fans of Tolkien than ever before! It has to be something deeper than the Legolas effect. ;)

When high school students write poetry, a fair percentage of the female students can write from a male POV, creating a poem whose speaker is a male, imagining his character and getting into his POV. However, teachers report that male students almost never write poems with a female speaker or create/imagine female characters.

Possibly it has to do with the youth of the writer - young men do tend to write more about being a young man, not having that much experience of women! While young women tend to write about idealised men/boys when they create a male character. That's just from my experience of teaching writing.

That could be a very interesting topic for a teacher/tutor - how well does Tolkien write from a female point of view? Not much use for examining The Hobbit, but if Fordim decides to teach LotR he has a ready made topic with a gender slant. ;)

[Bêthberry]

Possibly it has to do with the youth of the writer - young men do tend to write more about being a young man, not having that much experience of women! While young women tend to write about idealised men/boys when they create a male character. That's just from my experience of teaching writing.

That could be a very interesting topic for a teacher/tutor - how well does Tolkien write from a female point of view? Not much use for examining The Hobbit, but if Fordim decides to teach LotR he has a ready made topic with a gender slant.


That's a fascinating observation, Lal, for it suggests that male students write merely out of 'historical accuracy' while female students are the truly creative writers. ;)

On the other hand, and not to disparage your experience (I wasn't aware you are a teacher, Lal, or had taught at any rate), the research and the writing I have seen does not suggest that female students write "idealised men/boys" with they write from a male POV (at least in North America). Far from it.

It is still the case that most literature students see is literature which foregrounds male protagonists. Thus female students read more about male characters than male students read about female characters. And it is still very challenging for teachers to get male students to read literature with female protagonists. Thus, there is still the norm or ethos that the important stories and the most privileged forms of literature deal with male POV.

I still think that a classroom of bright female students, when given a syllabus such as Professor Hedgethistle has apparently organised, will at some point decide to have a bit of sport with the curriculum. Unless of course our esteemed BarrowDowns "pullster" is indeed pulling our legs. :p

[Lalaith]

I don't care about that, I just want to see the car chase.

Of course, but it would be nice if there were girls doing the driving for a change, rather than squealing in the backseat. :smokin:

Going back to a point I made earlier, the interesting and unusual thing about Ripley is not that she is a strong female lead character, but that she is one without a "love interest". (At least, if she did have one it was so peripheral that I've forgotten about it.) It is very hard indeed to think of a female heroine who doesn't have some kind of love story attached to her, because women in film and fiction are generally portrayed in the context of their relationship to men.

The reason why we have so many "boys books" like the Hobbit, which don't feature women at all, is that it is easy to imagine men doing exciting interesting things worthy of being written about, entirely independent of women: wars, adventures, and so on.

"Girls books" (other than the school books I mentioned earlier) always have boys in them, because women on their own are not seen as having particularly interesting lives. Single-sex female environments are always 'enclosed' - convents, schools, harems, prisons. When such environments are portrayed in film or literature, it is usually related to a male influence/intruder and the women's reaction to this.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I still think that a classroom of bright female students, when given a syllabus such as Professor Hedgethistle has apparently organised, will at some point decide to have a bit of sport with the curriculum. Unless of course our esteemed BarrowDowns "pullster" is indeed pulling our legs. :p

A bit of sport indeed...

To report back: we had a look at Peter Pan and it did much better than TI. The students liked it in part because there were women (girls) in it, which gave me the opening I needed to address these issues head on. I asked them about the roles accorded the women/girls in PP and let the book do the rest: mothers, wives, hangers-on, dependents etc. They pretty quickly began to think how unhappy it was to be a woman or girl in that world. And then they began to confront Peter himself and far from finding him a charming boy, they thought him selfish, cruel, and idiotic. Some even began to think more favourably of Jim Hawkins who at least grew up a bit in the course of the story.

And that's when I sprang! I pointed out how pleasant it had been in TI to see a boy become a man not through the sexual or romantic dominance of a woman/girl. Jim doesn't assert his manhood by becoming powerful over a woman, which is the opposite of Peter, of course, who is doomed to remain a boy forever because he refuses sex/romance. The women began to think how much better it is to have a boy mature who is not dependent for that upon asserting himself over and above women.

And so I have cunningly laid the ground work for The Hobbit, in which we have a male story of male growth that once again is not about the conquest of the female. In fact, in a lot of ways its very much about a male adventure of male growth that leads toward the female (his home/womb/domestic space beneath the earth at the end).

Of course, this all goes only for those few students who had both done all the reading (about half of them) and thought it through carefully (about half of those) -- thankfully, that one quarter did a lot of good stuff for the benefit of the rest.
]

[Lalwendë]

On the other hand, and not to disparage your experience (I wasn't aware you are a teacher, Lal, or had taught at any rate), the research and the writing I have seen does not suggest that female students write "idealised men/boys" with they write from a male POV (at least in North America). Far from it.

The keyword is that I was a teacher, and I'm not alone on the 'Downs... ;) Bear in mind that I taught teenagers, so the creation of idealised male characters was perhaps not so surprising; girls develop an interest in the opposite sex much sooner and go through the 'idealising' stage much earlier. Though the Byronic figure can linger in the female imagination for many years! :eek:

Single-sex female environments are always 'enclosed' - convents, schools, harems, prisons. When such environments are portrayed in film or literature, it is usually related to a male influence/intruder and the women's reaction to this.

I have a rather bizarre example of a female centred TV show, set in an enclosed environment which was almost entirely about the women's relationships with one another - the defunct Australian soap Prisoner Cell Block H ! I remember this achieved a high level of cult popularity when I was a student and the blokes all loved it, despite it being an unremittingly grim look at life in a women's prison (with no dolly birds :eek: )! It would begin with them laughing at a certain character with an unfortunate nickname and then they'd be hooked on it, presumably because they enjoyed the tales of the women's lives.

[The Saucepan Man]

Getting a bit off topic, I know, but a great example of a female centred television show was the classic 1980s BBC drama, Tenko. It was set in a Japanese PoW camp for women in World War Two (following the fall of Singapore). Although there were male characters, primarily the Japanese prison guards, the storylines was centred on the female prisoners. I was in my early teens when the three series were first shown (1981-1984), and I was hooked.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I seem to notice even more female fans of Tolkien than ever before! It has to be something deeper than the Legolas effect.
Nah. We were recently discussing Tolkien's work in my comp class in comparison to The Saga of the Volsungs. My class has perhaps ten girls and five or six guys in it. Only one guy was in class this day (not counting the head of the writing department who was sitting in that morning), so my unofficial stats are based entirely on girls.

Two students had read the LotR. Only I had read the Silm (though the head of the department enthusiastically raised his hand when I jokingly asked that question to my classmates). Maybe six of us had seen the movies, and five of those six had been lured there by Orlando Bloom (or, in one case, peer pressure to see... Orlando Bloom).

If the girls in my dorm get to talking about movies, we can talk at length about the artistic merit of Finding Neverland. We can discuss the historical importance of Schindler's List. We can go on about the incredible animation of Finding Nemo, or the books that The Princess Diaries movies are based on. One mention of The Lord of the Rings and you will hear a widespread sigh over how gorgeous Orlando Bloom is. "But the story..." I say. "Who cares?" they respond. "Orlando Bloom is hot."

Of course, but it would be nice if there were girls doing the driving for a change, rather than squealing in the backseat
True. As long as they have well-developed characters that don't rely alone on "she's a female kicking butt". My favorite girl-power movie's got to be Mulan. :) I mean... she's got character development, the plot is good, she works really hard, almost fails, and then KABANG! she succeeds and all of China is bowing to her. Mulan rocks. And that Lee Chang... ;) No, seriously though, I agree totally with Lalaith that more movies and books need female leads. They just need to be strong leads that don't rely on gender alone to captivate an audience. Eowyn is an excellent character, though not really a lead, because you actually feel for her. You see her grow and change, becoming a strong, independent woman, instead of a care-taker niece. She knows what is important to her, is willing to give her life for it, and she succeeds and lives happily ever after. Go Eowyn.

I said my next comment once already, though I'll say it again: if women are so upset by the distinct lack of women in literature, they should go out and fix the problem. Do we really expect it to suddenly fix itself? Are we going to sit back and demand that men write books about women? After we sit around and laugh about how men are so clueless about us? Yeah right. Professor Hedgethistle, if your ladies are so upset by the lack of girl books, challenge them to go write their own. Every good female author of good female adventure stories I've come across has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "I write what I want to read."

[Mister Underhill]

There are still not that many 'Ripley' figures about though... Funny, I would have said that "girl power" is stronger than ever these days. Between Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sydney of Alias, Elektra, The Bride of Kill Bill (and all her female antagonists), Jessica Alba in Dark Angel, Alice of Resident Evil and Lara Croft the Tomb Raider, Charlize Theron in the upcoming Aeon Flux, and the soon-to-the-big-screen Wonder Woman, women are kicking butt in record numbers these days. A couple are even complex, fully developed characters.

Now I'm pretty sure that all these characters, including Ripley, were created by men; what that tells us, I don't know.

Also, Ripley did have a love interest, at least in her most iconic appearance in Aliens. Corporal Hicks teaches her how to fire a rifle and then spends the third act passed out on a stretcher.

[Firefoot]

When high school students write poetry, a fair percentage of the female students can write from a male POV, creating a poem whose speaker is a male, imagining his character and getting into his POV. However, teachers report that male students almost never write poems with a female speaker or create/imagine female characters. A good point. I've had some experience with this in the form of my brother - he finds it extremely strange that I should play male characters in RPG's.You can argue till your blue in the face about what an author meant by something, but first and foremost should be a good story. I agree one hundred percent. Of the books I do not read for school, I do not consider the author's intent in writing the book in very many of them. I might think about a book, especially a very good one, but that isn't my goal of reading - I read for enjoyment. If I don't enjoy a book, I will not finish it (prime example: Jane Eyre. Couldn't stand it). And that enjoyment comes primarily from the plot. I hate having to slog through books (*coughGreatExpectationscough*). In my leisure books I rarely go any deeper analytically than plot level.

[Lalaith]

Are we going to sit back and demand that men write books about women?
In the old days, they used to, Fea....there's Hardy, with Tess of the d'Urbervilles. There's one of the (sorry - just my POV) worst books about women ever written, Women in Love by the ghastly DH Lawrence, and in contrast, one of the best novels ever written about a woman, Anna Karenina.

I wonder, incidently, if men are more likely to read Anna Karenina (because it was written by a man) than Jane Eyre? Should Charlotte Bronte have stuck to her original plan and remained Currer Bell?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Just wanted to let you all know that my class and I have had our encounter with The Hobbit and that it went very well. Unlike my experience with Treasure Island the issue of the story as a "boy's adventure" didn't come up so vehemently, and when it did most of the students did not feel that it was a terrible "flaw" in the work. There were still a shocking number of students who found the book "boring" :eek: and who complained about having to "force" themselves to read it :eek:

These students shall receive about as much comment as they deserve....

As to the rest of the students: there was still an interseing gender-divide in the class. It was obvious from the get-go that the majority of the book's real diehard fans were men -- there were plenty of women who had read it (and LotR) as children and who loved it, but in a class of about 180 students that has 12 men in it, to have SIX of those men all fans of the book is a remarkable ratio.

There were complaints about there being "no women" but these were quickly dealt with by other students pointing out how it's got very few humans as well! The one point that really came out in our discussion, however, is how UNLIKE the story is from other boys adventures.

Typically, the boy's adventure ends with the boy becoming a man through an apprehension of or search for some kind of father figure; he also gains in his material circumstances (ie he gets rich or finds a better home), and almost inevitably the boy performs some kind of physically heroic act. Very little of this is true of The Hobbit though!

Bilbo has Gandalf as a mentor but for the most part, Bilbo's moral development and education takes place while the wizard is away.

Bilbo does get richer, but not vastly richer and he ends up using his dragon gold to cement his current lifestyle rather than to augment it. His life at the end of his adventures is not significantly different than it was before -- sure, he has changed, but his circumstances have not.

Bilbo does perform all kinds of physical heroism (particularly with the spiders) but his most heroic acts come at the end when he gives up the Arkenstone (presaging Frodo's great heroism). He's so non-physcically identfied at the end that he is actually unconcious during the Battle of Five Armies.

So what we began to realise is that Bilbo (who gets his adventurous streak from his MOTHER's "Tookishness") ends up in a story that looks like a boy's adventure only to have that appearance overturned at the end. It even begins to look as though Bilbo's final stance is more like what you find in traditional GIRL's adventure stories/coming of age stories insofar as he has learned about his own capacity in a world that does not afford him a lot of scope, other ways of acting and being active than the purely or merely physical, and in managing to find a way to return home and make that domestic space simultaneously a place that he lives in for the rest of his live AND a place of freedom rather than imprisonment.

So....what do you think...The Hobbit as boy's adventure become girl's coming of age story? Bilbo as female? Fordim has off his rocker?