Don't do me like that [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Child of the 7th Age

02-10-2006, 02:35 AM

Lush,

I can sense your frustration and I am not unsympathetic.

The greatest frustration for me is this: we know JRRT could do better. There are female characters in the Silm, most notably Luthien, who are miles above any of the depictions of women in LotR. And what about Andreth in Morgoth's Ring: a stong woman by any standard?

If it worked in the earlier renditions of the Legendarium (and some of the later ones as well), why wouldn't it work in LotR? Here is my take. Lord of the Rings began as a sequel to the Hobbit. It took a long time for the plot and writing to advance beyond that initial mindset and language. But there are certain aspects of LotR which still strongly mirror its Hobbit birth. Some of these are delightful, but others perhaps less so. While the Legendarium as a whole may have had strong female characters, The Hobbit did not. In fact there was not a single female in The Hobbit. I believe that was because he was reading it to his two sons. (Priscilla is not mentioned.)

Lord of the Rings only went a small way beyond the mindset of the Hobbit in terms of its depiction of strong female characters. When Galadriel is imported in from the wider Legendarium, she comes off as the strongest of the lot. Arwen is largely relegated to the Appendix. (Some of her experiences could have been incorporated, I'm convinced of it.) The one exception is Eowyn. Yet there is a curious ambivalence here since she must turn away from her duty to her own people to fulfill herself in a personal sense. This has provoked endless debate and fanficton. The plain fact is that I know of no other "good" character who has this dilemma.

It's not that I don't enjoy the story as it is. But, to be truthful, when I reflect on Middle-earth, I mentally add in the strong female characters who are missing from the written page. When I look at the fanfictions and RPGs on this site, I can see that I'm not the only one to do this, however far outside "canon" such a viewpoint is. (Ooh! There's that awful word again.)

Lalwendë

02-10-2006, 07:25 AM

To me, it's swings and roundabouts... On the one hand, Tolkien actually did create some amazing female characters (the power hungry Galadriel for one) so a lot of the criticism of his work is not all that valid, but on the other hand he possibly could have done a lot more or developed certain characters to take a more complete role in the story.

I don't know if it is always reductive to bring into the argument the position of the Author. Certainly I think some arguments are a little overdone - such as to bring up the chestnut that Tolkien was trying to represent a 'medieval world' and thus this is the reason that women do not have such an important position. What? Tolkien was creating a secondary world, not recreating our own world, so he could do what the heck he wanted within it, and if that included a race of Amazonians then so be it; and anyway, he has Hobbits and Balrogs, and there weren't too many of those around in medieval times, were there? If Tolkien's work was a true reflection of medieval life than Eowyn may have been locked into a chastity belt and kept under guard to stop her going off to war at all, that's if she hadn't already been married off to Grima at the age of 11.

But I do think that we have to remember that any text is merely the product of a writer, and that writer's experience of the world will have a bearing on what is produced. Tolkien was a conservative man, living in the highly conservative world of Oxbridge academe, and a follower of the again highly conservative Catholic faith. Many writers before him, and many of his contemporaries, were including challenging female characters in their work, but we have to remember what their own political and social experiences and knowledge were like, and whether they exerted a big influence on their 'art' or not.

Today we live in a world which expects everything to be inclusive, even our history, but we cannot accept that sometimes the experience of people of another era, society, age, class, country, etc. will be different to ours. Of course we can critique them, but we cannot expect that they ought to 'have known better'. That way lies the path of being revisionist, altering the history books so that the past is made more palatable to us, changing Lord of the Rings so that Arwen takes a more active role. As a woman I would find it incredibly patronising if literature were rewritten to include more focus on women. As it is, I often find it's a case of going round in circles to discuss why a writer from another era did not include women in his work. Far more fruitful in my opinion would be to discuss where the existing women are placed within Tolkien's world, and what that says about the world they live in. That would do justice to those characters, and justice to the story as it goes beyond that 'barrier' (or glass ceiling!) we get stuck at of just endlessly trying to work out why there are so few women!

Child of the 7th Age

02-10-2006, 08:29 AM

But why do we have stronger female characters in the Legendarium (some positive, others less so)? Why are such characters not present in LotR to the same degree?

Bêthberry

02-10-2006, 08:48 AM

If it worked in the earlier Legendarium (and the later ones as well), why wouldn't it work in LotR? Here is my take. Lord of the Rings began as a sequel to the Hobbit. It took a long time for the plot and writing to advance beyond that initial mindset and language. But there are certain aspects of LotR which still strongly mirror its Hobbit birth. Some of these are delightful, but others perhaps less so. While the Legendarium as a whole may have had strong female characters, The Hobbit did not. In fact there was not a single female in The Hobbit. I believe that was because he was reading it to his two sons. (Priscilla is not mentioned.)

Far[/I] more fruitful in my opinion would be to discuss where the existing women are placed within Tolkien's world, and what that says about the world they live in. That would do justice to those characters, and justice to the story as it goes beyond that 'barrier' (or glass ceiling!) we get stuck at of just endlessly trying to work out why there are so few women!

I find great merit in both these approaches. One considers each text in light of what the author produced in his other texts, while the second considers the text in and of itself. I think both, together, ultimately would help us reach a better understanding--although, at the same time, I do have to respect young female readers who say they just can't get interested in LotR because there is no interesting strong female character to draw them in.

Child points out that TH appears to be a story Tolkien wrote for his sons. This accords with the experience of many high school teachers and some pedagogical research into young readers: male readers traditionally aren't interested in books with leading female characters. It used to be that female readers could accept both--now perhaps they have taken a miscue from their teen counterparts and stepped down that solipsistic slope?

But this is to get carried away on a tangent. What both these ideas, from Child and Lal make me wonder is--and this is an idea I don't think we've had a thread on--how did Tolkien the author think of his readership? I don't mean a crass pandering to mass appeal, like market-driven commodities, but I do mean what was Tolkien's writerly relationship with the idea of reader? I think most authors have some kind of sense that they are not writing exclusively for themselves, have some idea of the community they wish to appeal to. Child's observations suggests that Tolkien created TH as an ideal kind of "Boy's story". There were magazines abounding in the 19th and early half of the 20th century that were designed just for boys. (See a sample of the Victorian Boy's Own here (http://www.sciper.leeds.ac.uk/index/sample/bop/boppages764-66.htm). Who would Tolkien have conceived of as his audience for the Legendarium? His fellow Inklings? Men who didn't have the flaw of entwives? Does Tolkien's comments on entwives have any bearing on his other female characters and on the absence of female characters in Middle-earth?

It would really be intriguing to see if Tolkien's Father Christmas letters changed as he began to write them to include Priscilla, and then for her alone, since she was younger than the boys.

As for understanding what the role, place and function of female characters is in the cultures of Middle-earth, that is also a rewarding point of view. What, if anything, do Arwen, Galadriel, Eowyn, Rosie, Ioreth have in common? Does each character reflect that commonality or not? Does this commonality have a similar aspect that is shared by the male characters?

Come to think of it, most of the heroes forge successful (we assume) marriages after the end of the War of the Ring--Sam, Merry, Pippin, Faramir, Aragorn. Gimli and Legolas--does their lack of marriage prospects signify something about the fate of the dwarves and elves? And Frodo--is he unable be healed because he cannot find a mate?

Well, I'm sure I'm rambling. Just some ideas that these excellent posts have stirred up in my cauldron of story-making.

alatar

02-10-2006, 09:39 AM

Note that as I'm a guy I completely understand if I get booted from this thread immediately. Anyway...

Did Tolkien consider more female characters, then shy away as he just couldn't 'see' them? As mentioned, in LotR we have a strong queen in Galadriel, the romantic interest princess in Arwen, the tomboy in Eowyn, the 'auntie' in Ioreth, etc. Did Tolkien consider increasing the involvement of his females characters, but then struggle depicting what the day-to-day interactions with the male ones would look like, and seeing where his prose faultered, back away? What would it be like to be accompanied by Arwen from Rivendell all the way to the Black Gate, if I were Aragorn? Then as Aragorn, how would I react differently but realistically?

Have made attempts (poor) at writing throughout my own life, and, like many others, using 'what I know' as the basis, I can see how my own depictions of female characters has changed/would change from the time that I was a goofy teen to young adult to married man to father of four, three of which are daughters. And considering this, did Tolkien get locked into an early storyline which could only be altered so much which changing the whole story, at least in his mind?

And lastly, I think that the writings in the Sil are more 'mythological,' and so may have provided the distance that Tolkien required to create more and stronger female characters.

I'll shut up now.

the phantom

02-10-2006, 10:45 AM

I have no problem with the amount of pages spent on women in Lord of the Rings, because there weren't any women in the Fellowship. If there had been, then I would've expected to see quite a bit of her, but since there wasn't a woman, I can hardly be surprised by the lack of female focus in the story.

Should there have been a female sprinkled into the Fellowship? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that would've seemed a bit contrived. The Fellowship was already full of males, and none of them could be easily replaced, you see.

The four hobbits- you obviously can't kick any of them out.

Aragorn, the returning King, is definitely in.

Boromir, the heir to the Steward, could not be replaced.

Gandalf- no question about him.

It makes sense that Gimli, the dwarf representative, was male, when you consider that the majority of dwarves were men, and dwarf women rarely seen. Plus, would a dwarf woman really be satisfactory to those desiring a female character? I mean, do you really think the average human female could relate to a dwarf female any better than she could relate to an ent?

Legolas is the Fellowship member that would perhaps be the easiest to replace, but the Fellowship needed an elf, so Legolas would've had to have been replaced by an elf woman. But who? Name me a noble, fair elven lady who would absolutely love to go off into the wilderness with a bunch of men and get all dirty and sweaty and knowing full well that there was a peril of being captured by orcs and such. We had a debate in this forum one time about what exactly befell Lady Celebrian when she fell into the hands of the orcs. Do you think any elf woman would like to risk that happening to her? Do you think any elf men would allow their sister/daughter to step forward and take this risk? No, they would've stepped forward themselves in order to shield their daughters/sisters.

Not to mention the fact that a female in the Fellowship would've changed the journey quite a bit. They'd have to bathe, dress, and relieve themselves separately and such, which would've been a liability because there were times when everyone needed to stay together and no one should've been wandering off alone.

Just for a moment, imagine sticking Eowyn into the Fellowship. Talk about a disaster. She and Aragorn caused each other enough problems in the short time they were around each other. And perhaps Boromir would've taken a liking to her. You never know. Let me tell you, there's nothing like an emotional complication involving a woman to harm a man's judgment. We're dumb like that.

So to sum it up, I don't think a woman belonged in the Fellowship. It makes sense the way it is. And since there is no woman in the Fellowship, you can't expect women to have a huge presence in the book, because the book follows the members of the Fellowship. Make sense?

PS I have this nagging feeling that I'm begging to have my head bitten off. Not that I care. If I stir up a storm of angry posts, at least I've done something. ;)

Child of the 7th Age

02-10-2006, 10:56 AM

Why does a strong female character necessarily have to be a member of the original Fellowship? For example, I would consider Faramir a strong and well defined character, yet he was not along on the original trek. Gondor, for example, could well have been graced by the presence of a strong woman. I would especially have appreciated a strong female character who was "older". (Yes, I admit, Galadriel was "older" but in a different sense than I am talking about.)

There are more ways than one to accomplish a given goal.

alatar

02-10-2006, 11:16 AM

Much agreed with both the phantom and Child. In the first case, I can understand the reluctance of having a female character be one of the Nine Walkers. Again, I think that Tolkien walked along with each character, drawing from his own life experiences, and so could not figure out how to present a member of the FotR who was both female and a cohesive member of the group. What does an eight male and one female FotR look like?

Also, I would consider the dynamics of a female in the FotR group considering the other Eight (whichever) remain the same. Gandalf could be changed to a female wizard, as that would simplify things. Legolas could also be female, but that might skew the friendship that develops with Gimli (note how well Gimli reacts to Galadriel). Would someone want to rewrite the entire story, switching the gender of many of the characters?

Assuming one character, does this character fall in love (as seemingly everyone else does) or marry as the other members of the Fellowship (excepting Frodo, of course), and is this person within or outside the Fellowship? If within, how does that complicate the story? And from without, what character would be the mate? Eomer or Faramir or some other?

And so what of female characters outside the FotR? I think that this would be somewhat easier, as Tolkien need not walk with them as far. Théoden replaced with Queen Elfhild? Denethor II replaced with Finduilas as Stewardess? Would Elfhild be more or less prone to Saruman's leechcraft, and could Finduilas send her child on a suicide mission?

Obviously I have no well thought out changes, but maybe others could propose some and we could discuss those.

Hilde Bracegirdle

02-10-2006, 11:54 AM

To be quite honest, I have trouble imagining a woman in the fellowship, but knowing that the fate of western Middle-eath was to be decided, I would have no trouble imagining a Dúnedain woman or two in the company of Halbarad - to lend a hand if they could. Though I do suspect it would not fall with in the bounds propriety for that culture.

But in switching various male for female characters in my mind, the whole is changed, so I think Child is right to think an additional character perhaps would have been prefered. A suppose though that any new major character might impact the story making it that much longer. Maybe a minor role, such as a leader who come to the aid of Gondor?

the phantom

02-10-2006, 12:13 PM

Why does a strong female character necessarily have to be a member of the original Fellowship?
I just assumed that people were clamoring for a female Fellowship member, because a strong female character outside of the Fellowship has already been done by Tolkien (Galadriel and Eowyn), and apparently that isn't enough for some people. The only way I can see a way to give a more significant role to a female would be to place one in the Fellowship.
Denethor II replaced with Finduilas as Stewardess?
Wouldn't work.
Théoden replaced with Queen Elfhild?
It wouldn't be the same.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, that's just what I think. The story seems to work pretty well with characters the way they are. There was never any point in the book where I stopped and said, "What's the deal? This part doesn't work without a female. I expected there to be a female here. It would totally fit. It would be more realistic with a female."

Honestly, did any of you have those thoughts when you first read the book?

Anyway, I say if it isn't broken, don't try and fix it, or you'll probably break it.

Farael

02-10-2006, 12:19 PM

Now there is an interesting thread, answered by people far better than me at expressing themselves.

I believe that a plausible reason for the lack of compelling females is the overall tone (or mood) of the story. LoTR is mostly a dark, gruesome tale of great heroics in a time of desperation. I hope I don't get labeled as a machist pig after saying this but at least to me, it's much harder to convey a sad mood with the precense of women.

First of all, love is a happy situation in any circumstance. What if Sam had been Lilly Gamgee instead? Madly in love with the brave and "noble" Frodo, who loved her as well. They would help each other move on and the story might soon turn into a tale about "the power of love" to paraphrase a songwriter. I see nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure that's what Tolkien imagined.

Also, I have found often that women in my life are the ones to cheer me up when my mood is somber. My sister will (in her own way) find ways to cheer me up... talking to my mother is always good and my girlfriend really is a little angel. On the other hand, even when talking to my best (guy) friend, the effect is not the same. Sure, it helps... he's really a great pal and we've had many a talk over coffee, but he does not affect my mood so greatly.

Of course, I'm sure that the ladies here present will say that they too feel sad, stressed and even they have reached the point in which "hope and despair are akin". From a male perspective (one that the Author might have shared), having many women in the story might have altered the mood Tolkien set out to achieve.

Still, in all honesty, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I do believe that Tolkien could have added more compelling, fully rounded female characters to the story. Not in the fellowship because I think that the sub-story of the fellowship was a story of male bonding (Very different guys coming together to defeat a greater foe) highlighted by Legolas' and Gimli's friendship. Eowyn is a nice start into a well rounded character, but that has been commented on before. A wife for Denethor would not be possible as I believe that he would have not sunk into despair like he did (which is an important part of the story) while she was still alive. After all, he would have had something to live for. If she had been killed during the battle, it would have taken away from Denethor loosing his mind when Faramir is wounded. A female Saruman might have been interesting but then again we have a potential for romance with Gandalf and it would detract from the story.

Maybe you will call me crazy, but Faramir could have been a daughter. It might become "simplistic" as Boromir (The man) would have been the impulsive and power-hungry one and Faramir (The "woman") would have been reflexive and almost poetical. Yet Faramir is a great character, even if he has less of the spotlight than his brother and I don't see how being female would stirr controversy. Of course, he could have not married Eowyn in the end, but something else could have been arranged.

I believe the greatest impediment for more females in the story is the Fellowship itself. If the goal was (as I believe) to portray a case of male bonding to overcome great peril, interactions with women might have had an adverse effect (see Aragorn and Eowyn). That leaves other women to either interact with Frodo and Sam once they peel off the Fellowship (possible female Faramir) or to have a secondary position to the men (see Ioreth).

I think that, other than female-Faramir, maybe other generals could have been women. I'm at school right now so I don't have my books handy and I'm having a bit of a mental lapse, but there is the Prince of somewhere... relative to Denethor if I'm not mistaken... that could have been a woman without detracting from the Felloship (by the time they get to Gondor, they are fairly separated). As well, some of the Dunedain could have been a woman (I can already imagine a comment by Gimli on their skill) and yet again it would have not detracted from what I see is the sub-story of the Fellowship.

We still have Galadriel who is still a woman, even if not quite femenine perhaps. We do have Eowyn, in spite of all her flaws and all her bravery. With a few female generals and a female Faramir, women might have been much better represented in the story, without changing the overall idea.

I still think that the correct "mood" would have been harder to achieve if (for example) Denethor or Theoden had a wife, or if Arwen had ridden with the Fellowship, or even if Sam had been Frodo's wife. But in the right places, some male characters could have been replaced. While it would not make any of the women as prominent as the men in the fellowship, it might have helped to represent both sexes in a fairer way.

To finish off this long rant and speculation, I would say that Tolkien was influenced by his background when writing LoTR and that is why we don't see nearly enough women. The "male bonding" sub-story might have been linked to his experiences in WWI but then, it is a compelling story for any man (I believe) and probably for any woman who will be willing to deal with the fact that her sex will be under-represented. Furthermore, while he could have done whatever he wanted, Tolkien would still be limited by his experience, beliefs and ideas. While it is not an excuse nowadays, it is a plausible reason when LoTR was written and published.

When asking why, then, are there more female characters in the Silmarillion, we should keep in mind that The Sil was never finished by JRR and we don't know how it would have shaped up in the end. Also, while Sil is the "background" for the happenings of LoTR, it is not quite a historical background. What happens in The Silmarillion influences LoTR only as much as Tolkien himself would want it to, it is not quite a cause-effect relation between the two stories, as a history book may be. I guess what I'm trying to say is that The Sil is still an independant story and while paralels between it and LoTR are bound to be made, they should be taken with a grain of salt as ultimately, Tolkien might have been trying to tell two distinct stories. I still think that LoTR is a story about good overcoming evil and bravery overcoming treachery, with a healthy dose of male bonding situations. The Silmarillion is more of a broader, mythological work and while good still overcomes evil (for the most part) the "good" guys can be evil as well (See Feanor's oath and its consequences).

I know I had said before that I was rounding up my post but more things came into mind. Now I must leave, but I hope I was clear enough. I'll probably edit any kinks out (I.E. the name of the prince that I can't recall) when I get home tonight.

Formendacil

02-10-2006, 01:07 PM

Théoden replaced with Queen Elfhild? Denethor II replaced with Finduilas as Stewardess?

Ignoring the book's gender-balance for a moment, this would have altered the story a GREAT deal more than just changing a man for a woman.

It would either have changed the patrilineal dynasties by which the Kingdoms of Gondor and Rohan were ruled, or it would have meant some rather different roles for various characters.

Under the hierarchial structures as they existed for Gondor and Rohan, the throne or stewardship was held by men, and only men. I shan't debate whether that be good, bad, or indifferent, so much as I wish to point out that those are the rules by which they were run, and such rules were quite in keeping with historical models. The Numenoreans, it is true, were "enlightened" enough to allow both male and female rulers, but in Gondor and Arnor- and Rohan- such was not the case.

Now, I don't see Tolkien having changed the ruling structure of Rohan. As many have noted, the Rohirrim are a very Anglo-Saxon-ish culture, and to the best of my knowledge they were a male-led society.

Tolkien MIGHT have changed the Gondorian model, in light of the Numenorean precedent, had "Denethor" been a woman. Or, since he was interested in showing the decline of the Dunedain, and since a lack of female inclusiveness may be perceived as a waning, he may have left it as it was.

On the theory, however, that he would NOT have changed the political structures of Gondor and Rohan, having Queen Elfhild and Finduilas in the place of Theoden and Denethor has some immediate, major ramifications. First, let's look at Rohan.

Elfhild in place of Theoden immediately means that Theodred is King of Rohan. Who is there for Grima to subvert? If Elfhild, then his influence is severely more limited. On the other hand, if Theodred still dies at the Battle of Isen Fords, then Rohan is in much greater turmoil when Aragorn arrives in Edoras. Eomer, the King-Apparent, may have already taken off westwards to face Saruman, or Rohan may be cloven in two as he sits in the King's prison. Furthermore, would it be Elfhild riding with the Rohirrim to Gondor who faces the Witch-king, or is it King Eomer who falls before the Witch-king? Is Eowyn still the one to kill the Witch-king, or is it Elfhild? If Eomer dies, does Eowyn get the throne? Does Faramir? Does Erkenbrand? WHO?

Ignoring that kettle of fish, let's go to Gondor...

Again, assuming the rules of authority haven't changed, then a dead Denethor means a Steward Boromir. This means some massive changes. First of all, could Boromir even be the one who turns up in Rivendell? If not, do we see Faramir or do you get your female Fellowship member? But supposingthat Steward Boromir foolishly turns over the rod for a few months during the war, and goes on a wild goose-chase to Imladris, what then? Think of it: the Aragorn/Boromir showdown intensifies. Now we are not only seeing the Captain-General and Heir of Minas Tirith meeting the man who will be his king, but we are having the STEWARD of Gondor meeting his king. This may, in the end, mean less Aragorn/Steward tensions, but think of the stress at the beginning.

Anyway, moving along to Parth Galen, Boromir dies. Now what? Faramir is now Steward, but does he know it? A lot would depend on who the regent was. If Faramir, who seems to head the list, then he'll go on as regent, and all is well in Minas Tirith, but it's bad news for Frodo and Sam in Ithilien. If Finduilas, then all is well in Ithilien, and possibly things are better in Minas Tirith. But what of when Aragorn arrives? Will Finduilas have burned herself like Denethor? Will she remember and resent "Thorongil"- who just happens to have accompanied her now-dead elder son? Will Faramir, led by his mother, still support his king, or will he uphold the claim of Pelendur against the line of Isildur?

Will the Army of the West even ride to the Morannon?

Theoretical questions, all of them, but interesting ones...

the phantom

02-10-2006, 01:20 PM

Faramir could have been a daughter.
Sure, but then he wouldn't have met Frodo, which was an important event. And there also wouldn't have been the whole Denethor sending his son to die thing, which played an important role in the book.
maybe other generals could have been women
Oh, sure, if you want to sacrifice some realism for the sake of inclusion.

Notice that Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth and Faramir were not just statesmen- they were warriors who led their men out onto the battlefield and traded blows with orcs and dueled swordsmen. Now, I'm not trying to be sexist in this next part, so I don't even want to hear anything about it, I'm just stating facts- men are going to be your best warriors.

Especially in the case of making generals and lords female- the lords were supposed to be the very top when it came to fighting. Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Eomer, and Imrahil were all extraordinarily amazing warriors, the best of the best.

Why are there separate events for men and women at the Olympics? Because even the best women cannot compete with the male athletes. If you'll look at world track records, every single record for young high school boys is better than the woman's world record in the same event. Heck, there've been many years in my tiny little state (where track isn't really a big deal) that the women's Olympic champion wouldn't have even placed in the top three. And again, that's just in my not very populous state. There are many many men in the world who are faster than the fastest woman. There are many many men in the world who are stronger than the strongest woman. The simple fact is, the best of the best in a difficult physical contest (like fighting) are going to be males, thus it would be foolish to have female generals running around in Lord of the Rings.

So please, let's not pretend that it would've been normal or realistic to make Faramir or Imrahil into a woman and yet keep the role the same.

Anguirel

02-10-2006, 02:08 PM

Broadly speaking, I have to agree that warrior women should be the exception not the rule.

On the other hand, the sketchiness of female characters does allow for wonderful interpretation and fanfiction: see this story, In Brethil's Shade, focussing on Haleth. (http://henneth-annun.net/stories/chapter_view.cfm?STID=247&SPOrdinal=1)

But more to the point-while Faramira and Imrahila are rather ludicrous ideas if they are to appear on the field of battle, and a female fellowship member is aesthetically ugly, there is a simple solution.

Explore the world outside the battlefield. Let's play Agamemnon, not Iliad. Let's see Pippin's sisters amidst the Scouring, let's see Arwen and her trusted handmaids talking at Rivendell; let's see Galadriel and her seamstresses at work. This will call for a more War and Peace-like balance of course...

...and Tolkien isn't Tolstoy. So alas we cannot envisage it from his own pen. But that leaves all the more for us!

That's why, in my opinion, fanfiction writers and role-players are vitally important elements of the...study...of Tolkien, particularly when we stray from the beaten path; to the East, into peace and prosperity, and/or in my lady's chamber. The uncanonical writers dabble their fingers in mercury, split the atom, serve on the front line and conduct the cavalry charge.

Mithalwen

02-10-2006, 02:08 PM

.

The greatest frustration for me is this: we know JRRT could do better. There are female characters in the Silm, most notably Luthien, who are miles above any of the depictions of women in LotR.

This I have to disagree with.

I am a feminist. It has never stopped me enjoying the Lord of the Rings or indeed "Boy's Own". But every fibre of my being is revulsed by the "Tale of Beren and Luthien". The most "revered" woman in the canon barely speaks. Her "power" is in her beauty and in her "blood" neither of her own making. Despite her power she is passive until motivated my her desire for Beren. I suppose it is at least something that neither party in this relationship is attracted by the other's mind :rolleyes: . She allows herself to be imprisoned which shows a lack of self respect and she gets Finrod killed (unforgivable). All just to marry the gloopy Beren and pull one over on Daddy. If that is the summa cum laude of female depictions in Tolkien I would rather have no females at all.

On the other hand, there is a elven princess who is wholly admirable, unfortunately she doesn't get as much attention. She manages to marry her mortal with Daddy's blessing, uses her wits in the common good and ensures that at least some of her people survive. Go Idril! At least Tolkien's blondes aren't bimbos - and they have more fun.

Idril, Galadriel, Eowyn are all strong, feisty politically engaged women - yes they are beautiful and high-born but that doesn't define them in the way it does Luthien and her type Arwen.

Tolkien wrote few satisfying female characters but the ones he did are fabulous. For me Eowyn and her "evil twin" Erendis are the finest. As Lalwende has pointed out, Tolkien was a child of his time and culture. Also, perhaps more than any other really successful author, he was writing for himself above all. He certainly wasn't going to be writing to pander to a feminist movement that hadn't really kicked in at the time of publication . I don't see the point in criticising him for not being Margaret Attwood . You might as well criticise Turner for his failure to do portraiture. The vast majority of Shakespeare's characters are male too but some of his greatest characters are women.

Tolkien wrote what he wrote. It can't be changed. Disliking a certain aspect or a story doesn't mean we have to reject the whole. It is not invalidated. You don't have to reread anything that you dislike...the canon is a buffet not a set menu ;). Hey it works for me.....I have manage to ignore the existance of Bombadil almost continuously for over 20 years..... :D

Anguirel

02-10-2006, 02:17 PM

I agree with you to an extent about Luthien, Mith, though, despite all my best anti-mortal efforts, I always find myself liking Beren. When I was writing a script for a Lay of Luthien animated film I was always longing to get out of Doriath. The other thing I noticed was that Beren seemed to be almost constantly trying to get away from Luthien while on the quest! Oh yes, for her protection it may have been, but what would Dr Freud have made of it?

I do think that you remarking that she allows herself to be imprisoned is going a bit far though. She was unaware of the magnificent Celegorm and wondrous Curufin's supremely cunning intentions until it was too late...

As for your list of female worthies-Idril, Galadriel, and Eowyn-I would undoubtedly add Aredhel, Haleth, and Melian. Just because things often went wrong doesn't diminish their glory.

Oh, and Morwen.

Mithalwen

02-10-2006, 02:29 PM

I meant letting herself be imprisoned in the tree by her Dad .... It is the Middle Earth equivalent of being sent to your room :p

Aredhel rocks, apart from not making a clean getaway, but she wasn't a blonde :D . Morwen ... her story is so bleak.....

alatar

02-10-2006, 02:37 PM

But back to the original question, which I think is what character or characters, newly minted or replaced/subsumed, would attract more female readers in 2006?

And I would disagree with some of the posts where it's stated that women could not do certain things (hold the throne, go to war, etc). Umm, unless my library is all skewed, but isn't this fantasy? :eek: Sure, it seems realistic, but couldn't a Xena-type Arwen character at least hold her own against Aragorn etc? Peter Jackson seemed to think so.

And was the Balrog male or female?

Mithalwen

02-10-2006, 02:53 PM

Err could you specify the question then?.... I detected a release of storm but no actual question in the original post ....

And while it is classified as fantasy, it is not random. Tolkien created various cultures with their own rules and norms. In the culture of the Noldor, women fought only in defence therfore a Xena Arwen would be breaking from her culture. If you put such a unorthodox figure as a central character in the story the unorthodoxy is liable to become the story. Tolkien's story was of a small person's quest to save the world ( Eowyn is marvellous but realtively peripheral - and perhaps because of the fact she is not bearing so much of the burden of the plot has such a well rounded character). How many issues are you expecting Tolkien to tackle in his story before it is acceptably politically correct?

Should he have rewritten it with Frodo as a disabled, gay, single-parent from an ethnic minority?

Anguirel

02-10-2006, 02:55 PM

How many issues are you expecting Tolkien to tackle in his story before it is acceptably politically correct?

Should he have rewritten it with Frodo as a disabled, gay, single-parent from an ethnic minority?

But I thought he was...

Mithalwen

02-10-2006, 02:58 PM

Well maybe two of the four :D.... according to some..

Raynor

02-10-2006, 03:09 PM

While the Legendarium as a whole may have had strong female characters, The Hobbit did not. In fact there was not a single female in The HobbitWell, that is a bit over the edge; beside the general refferences to "women" and "girls", there is an interesting refference in the very first chapter:
As I was saying, the mother of this hobbit - of Bilbo Baggins, that is - was the fabulous Belladonna Took, one of the three remarkable daughters of the Old Took, head of the hobbits who lived across The Water, the small river that ran at the foot of The Hill. It was often said (in other families) that long ago one of the Took ancestors must have taken a fairy wifeThey'd have to bathe, dress, and relieve themselves separately and such, which would've been a liability because there were times when everyone needed to stay together and no one should've been wandering off alone.Cf the Druedain, UT, many of Haleth's warriors were women, and I doubt they had such problems; women also participated in the Marhwini attack on the Wainriders; the elven nissi also participated in fights (cf Of the laws and customs of the eldar).
The most "revered" woman in the canon barely speaks.She enchants Beren with her singing, she convinces Thingol not to kill him, she puts Melkor to sleep with, again, her singing, she is the _only one_ to change the heart of Mandos... come on ;).
she gets Finrod killedWhy blame her for his death? Maybe Beren for "twisting" his hand into joining him, but not her...
All just to marry the gloopy Beren and pull one over on DaddyThe ennoblement of Men by Elven blood is part of the 'Divine Plan', cf Letter #153... so there is more to it ... *feels special defending his favorite hero*; without her, there would have been no silmaril for Earendil to protect him on his voyage, therefore no war of wrath, etc; not to mention the general uplifting of moral her deeds caused ;).

Mithalwen

02-10-2006, 03:19 PM

She enchants Beren with her singing, she convinces Thingol not to kill him, she puts Melkor to sleep with, again, her singing, she is the _only one_ to change the heart of Mandos... come on ;).
Why blame her for his death? Maybe Beren for "twisting" his hand into joining him, but not her...
The ennoblement of Men by Elven blood is part of the 'Divine Plan', cf Letter #153... so there is more to it ... *feels special defending his favorite hero*; without her, there would have been no silmaril for Earendil to protect him on his voyage, therefore no war of wrath, etc; not to mention the general uplifting of moral her deeds caused ;).

Singing is not speech. And we don't know what she sang. We know nothing of her mind Basically she is motivated by lust (like Melkor). And most girls know howto get round their fathers so that is nothing special. She may be part of the plan but she is driven by selfish motives, trails death after her and has zero personality. And she is not revered for her role in the Silmarils such as it is but for her beauty and dying for love *sticks fingers down throat*. I just see her as a slightly less trashy Paris Hilton.... :p

There would have been no Earendil without Idril's brain and foresight ..........

Raynor

02-10-2006, 04:11 PM

And we don't know what she sang.From the Lay of Leithian, HoME III:
Then did she lave her head and sing
a theme of sleep and slumbering,
profound and fathomless and dark
as Luthien's shadowy hair was dark
each thread was more slender and more fine
...
His dreadful counsel then they took,
and their own gracious forms forsook;
in werewolf fell and batlike wing
prepared to robe them, shuddering.
With elvish magic Luthien wrought,
lest raiment foul with evil fraught
to dreadful madness drive their hearts;
and there she wrought with elvish arts
a strong defence, a binding power,
singing until the midnight hour.
...
With arms upraised and drooping head
then softly she began to sing
a theme of sleep and slumbering,
wandering, woven with deeper spell
than songs wherewith in ancient dell
Melian did once the twilight fill,
profound, and fathomless, and still.
The fires of Angband flared and died
...
Suddenly her song began anew;
and soft came dropping like a dew
down from on high in that domed hall
her voice bewildering, magical,
and grew to silver-murmuring streams
pale falling in dark pools in dreams. These quotes are proof of the magic in her words - she is the chief enchatress among the elves; but there is more to her merit, since magic itself couldn't move Mandos, only art (or Art maybe) from Of Beren and Luthien, Silmarillion:
The song of Luthien before Mandos was the song most fair that ever in words was woven, and the song most sorrowful that ever the world shall ever hear. Unchanged, imperishable, it is sung still in Valinor beyond the hearing of the world, and the listening the Valar grieved. For Luthien wove two themes of words, of the sorrow of the Eldar and the grief of Men, of the Two Kindreds that were made by Iluvatar to dwell in Arda, the Kingdom of Earth amid the innumerable stars. And as she knelt before him her tears fell upon his feet like rain upon stones; and Mandos was moved to pity, who never before was so moved, nor has been since.
I just see her as a slightly less trashy Paris Hilton.... I doubt this was Tolkien's impression of his wife ;)
I have at last got busy about Mummy's grave. The inscription I should like is:
EDITH MARY TOLKIEN
1889-1971
Luthien
brief and jejune, except for Luthien, which says for me more than a multitude of words: for she was (and knew she was) my Luthien.

Eonwe

02-10-2006, 04:24 PM

I doubt this was Tolkien's impression of his wife

Stole my thunder... :D

Lush

02-10-2006, 05:08 PM

I see this thread is off an running in a direction of its own, but I want to specify some things.

Mithalwen, et al, please take not of my original post.

I am not complaining about the fact that Tolkien isn't Margaret Atwood. I am complaining about reductive, reactionary discussion of the subject.

For example. Farael, and I hope you forgive me for picking on you in particular,

You wrote:
hope I don't get labeled as a machist pig after saying this but at least to me, it's much harder to convey a sad mood with the precense of women.

This pertains to your own enjoyment of the book, it doesn't have anything to do with the genre of the fairy tale, the work of archetypes, and so on.

For some reason, the second you bring up women in Tolkien's work, the same questions get asked,

"Oh so you don't like the book?" "You can't relate?" "You think he's sexist?" "You think Legolas should have been a Legolasa?"

I'm tired of this. Nobody, for example, is interested in looking at, say, Goethe's representations of the male as a sphere and the female as a cube; his ideas of domesticity and how they relate to fairy tale archetypes.

This is, as I wrote in my original post, reductive.

Lalwendë

02-10-2006, 05:48 PM

It makes sense that Gimli, the dwarf representative, was male, when you consider that the majority of dwarves were men, and dwarf women rarely seen. Plus, would a dwarf woman really be satisfactory to those desiring a female character? I mean, do you really think the average human female could relate to a dwarf female any better than she could relate to an ent?

Gimli could be a female dwarf. Well, they do all have beards, so it would be easy for one to impersonate a male. And it makes for something a bit spicier when Gimli falls for Galadreil and then gets close to Legolas. :p

I believe that a plausible reason for the lack of compelling females is the overall tone (or mood) of the story. LoTR is mostly a dark, gruesome tale of great heroics in a time of desperation. I hope I don't get labeled as a machist pig after saying this but at least to me, it's much harder to convey a sad mood with the precense of women.

You ever read any Plath? And what about Nienna? ;)

Explore the world outside the battlefield. Let's play Agamemnon, not Iliad. Let's see Pippin's sisters amidst the Scouring, let's see Arwen and her trusted handmaids talking at Rivendell; let's see Galadriel and her seamstresses at work. This will call for a more War and Peace-like balance of course...

...and Tolkien isn't Tolstoy. So alas we cannot envisage it from his own pen. But that leaves all the more for us!

This is interesting. Tolkien did expect, or at least hope, that others would 'fill in the gaps' and expand upon his story, and writers of RPgs and Fan-Fics have done exactly that, in exploring the 'others' of Middle-earth, the women. Especially the ordinary women. We see the princesses and queens of Middle-earth in the books, the fans provide the ordinary women's stories and I don't doubt for a minute that Tolkien would have disapproved.

Looking at LotR in context, he did write it as a sequel to The Hobbit, which was originally written for an audience of boys. Yet fans included women and girls - and the fanbase of Tolkien's work as a whole must be fairly equally balanced between men and women; Heren's poll says there are more women than men on the Downs (or at least who responded to his poll, anyway...). To me this means that either we respond as women to those female characters who are in the books, or else it doesn't have such a big effect on us, the work may be transcendant. And I also think that Tolkien must have realised after The Hobbit that some of his fans at least were women, as he then included female characters in LotR who were not mere ciphers.

Aside from The Hobbit, Tolkien's works do not actually have a main protagonist. In a way, in LotR, all the characters are the supporting cast to The One Ring. The absence of a 'leading lady' in that respect does not really matter - but what does matter is to consider those diverse female characters on their own merits and not dismiss them as pretty little appendages to the males in the story, because they aren't.

There are actualy quite a lot of diverse female characters: Eowyn, Galadriel, Arwen, Luthien, Rosie, Ioreth, Haleth, Aredhel, Shelob, Ungoliant, Beruthiel, Celebrian, Erendis, Idril, Lobelia, Belladonna, Finduilas, Dis, Elwing, Melian, Elbereth, Nimrodel, Goldberry, Niennor, Andreth, Ancalime, Gilraen, The River Woman, Silmarien, Miriel...........

Anyway, I'm sure the list could be added to. I'd welcome a proper discussion on how such characters (especially Erendis, long overdue thread...) were handled and what they represented, without having to explain them away with old arguments.

Durelin

02-10-2006, 06:47 PM

Fairy tale survives through its own logic and its own archetypes. Don't bring in the real world to justify the absence of females in the Fellowship...

I think I see your point here. I see a point, anyway, though it may not be your point, if you know what I mean. I really am not sure, and forgive me for that.

My only argument to what I believe you have said can be that because a fairy tale survives quite on its own, detatched from boundaries or laws or logic or achetypes or justification of the real world, it could also survive without any genders in it at all! Perhaps the only reason there are two genders in any fairy tale world is to make intimate relationships a little less baffling... ;)

And you of course could simply avoid overly vehement arguing over this by directing any questions to the simple notion that Tolkien created Middle-earth's gender archetypes in a way that did not allow room for a female in the fellowship, and so it must simply be accepted, because, in the end, it is his story. But, not only do I not like the sound of that, but it seems to carry the ghostly visage of a canonicity debate... :p

Lush

02-10-2006, 07:50 PM

I'm being vehement? If I am cross, it's mostly with the people who, in my opinion, over-simplify this issue in the book. :( I didn't start this thread to either defend or attackk Tolkien's choices regarding females in the Fellowship, and females in general. At least that's not what I had in mind. But threads like this tend to have lives of their own... ;)

the phantom

02-10-2006, 08:32 PM

I see this thread is off an running in a direction of its own
Well, if that be the case, I will go back to the very first post and respond to that. Surely that will put me back on track.
Don't bring in the real world to justify the absence of females in the Fellowship
Why shouldn't I?

If the Fellowship was made up of some species of bug-eyed green martians with six genders, then I would have no business bringing up the real world to justify the members of the Fellowship because there is no real world experience with bug-eyed green martians with six genders.

However, we are dealing with two genders, not six, and those two genders exist in our world. Also, we are dealing primarily with humans, not martians, and humans exist in our world as well. It doesn't matter what genre you are doing- historical drama, fantasy, or sci-fi. No matter what type of book the human is in, a human is a human and male and female are male and female and thus real world rules apply to humans in books unless the author says otherwise.

For instance, it would not be acceptable if Aragorn got his head sliced off in one scene and simply placed it back on his shoulders and continued fighting. Humans don't do that. You can't toss that into a book simply because its genre is fantasy. That's stupid.

Middle Earth has mountains, rivers, cliffs, oceans, and forests just like our world. They fight with the same weapons we have in our world. You see, Tolkien didn't create a totally different world. It's our world with elves, dwarves, dragons, and a bit of magic sprinkled in.

The real world most certainly has a place when discussing things in Tolkien's books if they are things that exist in the real world. The real world is what a normal person uses to define something.

Farael

02-10-2006, 08:50 PM

This pertains to your own enjoyment of the book, it doesn't have anything to do with the genre of the fairy tale, the work of archetypes, and so on.

I beg to differ though, because I'm not saying whether I like the book or not, I was trying to explain my thoughts on Tolkien's intentions

Fairy tale survives through its own logic and its own archetypes
I would not say its own but rather its authors. A fary tale, as any tale, is an outgrowth of the imagination of the author(s) and as such, while it might be isolated from the real world, it cannot be isolated from the author. I went on a ramble on what I believed Tolkien might have been trying to do because none of us IS Tolkien. My guess is as good as yours, even when I'm a Biochemistry student rather than English.

Now, please do let me know if I should delete my previous post. I thought I was contributing to the discussion yet perhaps I was not. I don't mind either way, you seem to care much more than me.

No hard feelings,

Farael

Lush

02-10-2006, 08:55 PM

Phantom, you have to look at my statement in context. Feminist literary criticism of fairy tale in general, and Tolkien in particular hinges on several things, in my opinion; one is that, as Toril Moi put it in her "Sexual/Textual Politics," writes that we should not necessarily take literature and expect it to portray 'reality' as we know it. Art is not a transparency, essentially. When I wrote about "the real world" I was referring, primarily to statements made repeatedly in communities such as the 'Downs, ones that, in my humble opinion, do not widen, but reduce our understanding of Tolkien's work and the choices he made. Now, of course we are going to have to be able to respond in a tangible way to what we encounter on the page, otherwise there would be no connection between the reader and the written word, but we should always be aware that our understanding of any text, be it Lord of the Rings or something else, always exists in a particular framework.

In my study of fairy tale, I have encountered the notion that fairy tale conventions should not be taken out of context. There are a variety of approaches in making sense of them: feminist, Freudian, Christian, etc., but I think most readers are coming from a place where a father can't cut off his daughter's hands on the Devil's bidding and get away with it, and a Balrog won't spring out at you from the depths of the Grand Canyon when you're on vacation there with your family. Do fairy tale conventions apply to the real world? Of course. We wouldn't respond to them so strongly if they did not. But if we are not to treat a Balrog in a literalist fashion, why should we treat the gender of the Fellowship's members in the same way? Please understand that this is merely musing, I by no means think that a rule should be made, I just think people ought to step back from their regular points of reference when addressing fairy tale. Stringent interpretation is, in my opinion, reductive and unreasonable.

No matter what type of book the human is in, a human is a human and male and female are male and female and thus real world rules apply to humans in books unless the author says otherwise.

What rules in particular are these? Do you think Tolkien addressess any specific rules of gender?

The real world is what a normal person uses to define something.

Of course. Though I'm not sure what normal is, or if I am the person to talk to when it comes to normalcy. I am home on a Friday night with a mug of hot chocolate, debating gender in Lord of the Rings, after all. :eek:

Lush

02-10-2006, 08:56 PM

Farael, why would I want you to delete your post? I wouldn't want to see something deleted merely because I disagree. This isn't 1984, right? ;)

the phantom

02-10-2006, 09:28 PM

Lush, you seem to be making this as difficult as possible, but maybe it's just for the sake of encouraging more posts. If that is your intention, then you have succeeded.
No matter what type of book the human is in, a human is a human and male and female are male and female and thus real world rules apply to humans in books unless the author says otherwise.
What rules in particular are these?
Stuff like humans have two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms, one mouth, one nose, they bleed when you cut them, the males are larger, the females bear children, etc....
But if we are not to treat a Balrog in a literalist fashion, why should we treat the gender of the Fellowship's members in the same way?
Balrogs don't exist. Males and females do. That is a big difference. I can't explain it any simpler than that.
I just think people ought to step back from their regular points of reference when addressing fairy tale
No, that should not be the general rule. People should step back from their regular points of view only when addressing a particular thing within the fairy tale that is itself fantasy.

If Aragorn sits down on a chair, it is a chair as it exists in the real world. It doesn't matter that it is a fantasy story in the case of a chair! Fantasy doesn't mean that we need to reconsider everything we know, it just means that the author has added things that we don't know.

Lush

02-10-2006, 11:21 PM

Lush, you seem to be making this as difficult as possible, but maybe it's just for the sake of encouraging more posts. If that is your intention, then you have succeeded.

Quoi?

People should step back from their regular points of view only when addressing a particular thing within the fairy tale that is itself fantasy.

Hmmm. I'd disagree. Once again, I'd cite Toril Moi in this. Reality has just as many interpretations as fantasy. Two different people might have very different takes on the same event, whether in literature or otherwise. And this event does not have to be outside the realm of possibility in my opinion.

Stuff like humans have two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms, one mouth, one nose, they bleed when you cut them, the males are larger, the females bear children, etc....

This doesn't really explain to me the nuances of male-female dynamics, whether in fairy tale, or in real life. After all, the fact the single "females bear children" postulate has as many interpretations as there are opinions. This postulate cannot, and should not, in my opinion, determine the female role in fairy tale, especially since so many fairy tale conventions are gender-neutral. To me, a lot of them do not directly deal with the biological functions of men and women, but rather with more abstract notions, rites of passage, for example, or chemical marriages (yin and yang and so on). Besides that, the very idea of a woman giving birth has different implications. An ancient Indian myth recalls a monk witnessing a woman who gives birth to a child, nurses it tenderly, then grows horrible in apperance, and devours it. Obviously this legend's view of birth is more nuanced.

Balrogs don't exist. Males and females do. That is a big difference. I can't explain it any simpler than that.

But males and females do not exist in a vacuum, right?

the phantom

02-11-2006, 12:20 AM

But males and females do not exist in a vacuum, right?
1) Nothing at all exists in a vacuum.
2) None of us live in a vacuum. Therefore...
3) That statement doesn't appear to have value.

All in all, it appears you are telling us that we should disregard realism and cast aside all rationality when it comes to fantasy, and just allow for whatever to happen, and believe that absolutely everything is allowable and understandable somehow. But why do you want us to do this?

Will it make the story better? Will it make the story more accessible to more people? I don't think so, because the average person doesn't throw the real world and everything in it out the window before he reads a book. The whole idea seems rather pointless and silly.

Bleh. I'm getting the feeling that we aren't on the same page, and that everything we are saying is flying straight over our heads. But despite that, I still have the urge to continue posting out of pure stubbornness- or perhaps because I'm getting attention from an attractive blonde with a sexy accent. That's generally reason enough to post.
Stringent interpretation is, in my opinion, reductive and unreasonable.
Stringent interpretation is, in my opinion, logical and a good use of time.

Raynor

02-11-2006, 01:04 AM

There is a strong that Tolkien went at great lengths to parallel our own world:
-generally
G: I thought that conceivably Midgard might be Middle-earth or have some connection?

T: Oh yes, they're the same word. Most people have made this mistake of thinking Middle-earth is a particular kind of Earth or is another planet of the science fiction sort but it's just an old fashioned word for this world we live in, as imagined surrounded by the Ocean.

G: It seemed to me that Middle-earth was in a sense as you say this world we live in but at a different era.

T: No ... at a different stage of imagination, yes.
Astronomically:
At that point (in reconsideration of the early cosmogonic parts) I was inclined to adhere to the Flat Earth and the astronomically absurd business of the making of the Sun and Moon. But you can make up stories of that kind when you live I among people who have the same general background of imagination, when the Sun 'really' rises in the East and goes down in the West, etc. When however (no matter how little most people know or think about astronomy) it is the general belief that we live upon a 'spherical' island in 'Space' you cannot do this any more.
Ethically
I sometimes feel appalled at the thought of the sum total of human misery all over the world at the present moment: the millions parted, fretting, wasting in unprofitable days - quite apart from torture, pain, death, bereavement, injustice. If anguish were visible, almost the whole of this benighted planet would be enveloped in a dense dark vapour, shrouded from the amazed vision of the heavens! And the products of it all will be mainly evil - historically considered. But the historical version is, of course, not the only one. All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their 'causes' and 'effects'. No man can estimate what is really happening at the present sub specie aeternitaris. All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in.closely paralled in:But, if we dare to attempt to enter the mind of the Elder King, assigning motives and finding faults, there are things to remember before we deliver a judgement. Manwe was the spirit of greatest wisdom and prudence in Arda. He is represented as having had the greatest knowledge of the Music, as a whole, possessed by any one finite mind; and he alone of all persons or minds in that time is represented as having the power of direct recourse to and communication with Eru. He must have grasped with great clarity what even we may perceive dimly: that it was the essential mode of the process of 'history' in Arda that evil should constantly arise, and that out of it new good should constantly come.Also, when in The new shadow he says :"since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good", I am pretty sure he means humans as well..

Maerbenn

02-11-2006, 07:04 AM

The BBC interview was first broadcast in January 1971.

davem

02-11-2006, 07:09 AM

Lalaith

02-11-2006, 07:28 AM

if the Fellowship was made up of some species of bug-eyed green martians with six genders

It was made up of five species, phantom, four of whom do not exist in our world. And whose inter-species differences were more important than their genders. As for females being weaker than males, do you fancy a fight with Shelob? :smokin:

the phantom

02-11-2006, 10:40 AM

if the Fellowship was made up of some species of bug-eyed green martians with six genders
It was made up of five species, phantom, four of whom do not exist in our world.
True, but elves, hobbits, and dwarves are all human based species. When you consider how many possibilities there are for a species (from human all the way to the afore mentioned bug-eyed green martians), it is quite apparent how similar the free peoples of Middle Earth are to each other. An elf is a pretty human with a bit of magic. A hobbit is a short human who likes to eat. A dwarf is a short stout human with a beard who loves mining. I'm generalizing of course, but you get the point. Those species aren't terribly foreign.
As for females being weaker than males, do you fancy a fight with Shelob? :smokin:
Ha ha! Obviously I was talking about humans when I made that comment, but just to humor you- I recall that Shelob was soundly defeated by a little male hobbit.

Child of the 7th Age

02-11-2006, 10:56 AM

Such activity and tumult! Just a few fast replies to some questions and observations that were mentioned earlier on this thread.

Mithalwen - My own view of Lúthien is quite different than yours. Since this goes beyond the pale of this thread, I'd encourage you to put a new thread up where this could be discussed. I think you would get a lot of takers. And I do agree with you about Idril. She is a magnificent example of a strong character who is a woman. In fact, her very presence underscores the question I raised: if Tolkien could create strong and compelling characters in the rest of the Legendarium, ones who helped pushed the action forward, why couldn't he do that to the same degree in Lord of the Rings? If a Haleth can exist in the First Age, why can we not have a comparable woman in the Third Age? Yes, you can not give Gondor a "female" queen :eek: , but there are plenty of names in the appendix and pedigrees, some even mentioned in the story itself, that would just need some fleshing out. This also points to the fascinating question that's been discussed at length before: why did Tolkien "kill off" so many female characters before the book began? ("Tolkien the Matricide" thread started by Bird)

Lalwende provided a list of names for women who appeared in the book. Yet, we see most of these in a sentence or two, a page at most. It is difficult to get to know a character and feel a strong attachment to them within such a short space. There could even have been more done with existing characters in the story. Bethberry has pointed out on many occasions that Goldberry's name was never mentioned at the end when Gandalf decided to go back and visit Bombadil.

Davem -

As usual, you've made a thoughtful and insightful commentary. Yet I can't help feeling that your argument hinges on one assumption (which I've put in italics) that I can not agree with.

The Legendarium is the Legendarium. Only Tolkien could have produced these tales & he could only have written the tales as he did write them. What would you sacrifice of the Legendarium in order to get more women in LotR? You can't have everything. Complaining that's its not 'perfect' in your opinion is fine, but if it was somehow made more acceptable to you I suspect it would be a damn sight less acceptable to others. Until we can say we fully understand every aspect of the story, every nuance of meaning, have assimilated every meaning & reference of the story (& the very fact that we keep going back to it shows we have not) I think we should take what we've been given.

Respectfully, I disagree. If we take your last sentence at face value, we would have no criticism of LotR whatsoever---and I do not mean criticism in a negative sense, but thoughtful discussion that points out the strengths and weaknesses of what the author is attempting. It would eliminate any debate over such topics as whether Tom Bombadil really fits in the story, whether the varying language and style that Tolkien uses for particular characters and scenes enhances or detracts from the pleasure that the reader takes, or whether the author's poetry is as compelling to the reader as his prose. The question of female characters is no different than this.

What most fascinates me about this thread is the emotion it elicits. We can debate canon, language, or whether the earliest chapters are successfully integrated into the rest of the book and, only rarely, will posters show strong personal feeling. Yes, they will have well defended opinions, but it is not at the "gut level" we are talking about here. But the minute the question of gender is raised, the discussion takes a different turn. I believe this is part of what Lush was referring to in her initial post. The only other question that I can think of that has a similar impact is how and if race plays a role in the delineation of characters and peoples in LotR. (And I am not talking about a bone headed and over simplistic question that asks whether Tolkien was a racist!)

When talking about gender or race, we are dealing with something that is very personal, something that people have strong feelings about whether in reference to Tolkien, literature in general, or the vagaries of real life. Those experiences shape our answers and our own emotional response, and they create the strong feelings that I believe underlie this discussion. I will readily admit that, in emotional terms, I would have liked to see stronger female characters, and I believe there are mythic/legendary paradigms that Tolkien could have drawn upon to do this.

We are also bound by our own culture and its maxims. Who hasn't heard about "political correctness"? Whether we accept or reject it, we can not help but be influenced by its arguments one way or another. I think this element also transforms the discussion of Tolkien's female characters into something emotional. We are creatures of our own times (just as Tolkien was a creature of his) and none of us can escape that influence.

To put it simply, I am not interested in feminist or marxist interpretations of Lord of the Rings. What I am interested in is this. I want to look at the whole body of the author's writing, canonical or not, and see to what extent the various devices, emphases, and themes are similar throughout the entire work and to what extent they are different. We have had many discussions comparing and contrasting Silm with LotR. It was in this context that I raised my question: why did the author create strong female characters in the Legendarium (written both earlier and later than LotR) and yet LotR has a relative lack of such strong characters, at least ones that get any kind of in depth treatment. I am not asking for a female Walker; I am not asking explicitly for any one character, since there are a variety of ways to accomplish this goal.

I suggested one reason for the difference might be the influence of The Hobbit. But surely it can't be as simple as this, since Tolkien worked for many years on LotR, to the point that he complained he had trouble remembering some of the details of The Hobbit. It would be possible to argue that my basic assumpton is "false": that the female characters in the Legendarium are no different in this respect than those in LotR, but I don't believe anyone has said that yet. It would be possible to say that it isn't important whether the book has strong female characters --some have suggested this. But, even if the latter is true, my question still stands. In my mind those female characters born in an earlier age--Haleth, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Varda--are greater in number and stronger in nature than those whom Tolkien conceived for the first time in the Rings tale. Why is this?

davem

02-11-2006, 11:13 AM

It would be possible to say that it isn't important how whether the book has strong female characters --some have suggested this. But, even if the latter is true, my question still stands. In my mind those female characters born in an earlier age--Haleth, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Varda--are greater in number and stronger in nature than those whom Tolkien conceived for the first time in the Rings tale. Why is this?

I suppose it depends how seriously (or literally) we take Tolkien's repeated statements that he was attempting to write 'what really happened'. How much control did Tolkien have (or choose to have) over what he wrote?

I suppose he could have set out with a plan & wrote what he consciously wanted (or what he thought others might want). The early drafts are so full of false starts & dead ends, promising ideas that he just cast aside that I think he effectively surrendered to his muse (another incredibly powerful female figure in the Legendarium, if you like).

I can't help feeling that if he'd been more in control of what he produced rather than giving his Muse free reign we'd have a book that was more 'acceptable' to his contemporary audience, one that was easier to get published, & that would have been forgotten in a few years. The draw of LotR is in its sense of 'reality'. We feel it to be more than the invention of one man. Of course he could have put in more powerful & significant female figures, but then he'd have been writing it himself, rather than writing 'what really happened'.

Lush

02-11-2006, 01:14 PM

All in all, it appears you are telling us that we should disregard realism and cast aside all rationality when it comes to fantasy, and just allow for whatever to happen, and believe that absolutely everything is allowable and understandable somehow. But why do you want us to do this?

I think you're misunderstanding my intentions, phantom. I am asking us to momentarily cast aside our prejudice.

Will it make the story better? Will it make the story more accessible to more people? I don't think so, because the average person doesn't throw the real world and everything in it out the window before he reads a book. The whole idea seems rather pointless and silly.

The "average person" rarely engages in literary criticism. This has been my experience, and, therefore, my prejudice. But I recognize it as such. ;)

Bleh. I'm getting the feeling that we aren't on the same page, and that everything we are saying is flying straight over our heads. But despite that, I still have the urge to continue posting out of pure stubbornness- or perhaps because I'm getting attention from an attractive blonde with a sexy accent. That's generally reason enough to post.

Oh dear. I appreciate the compliment, but I really, really do not wish to engage in a discussion that hinges on my looks. Unless, of course, you're teasing and are prepared to say so. :D

Stringent interpretation is, in my opinion, logical and a good use of time.

Why? Then you may never experience literature on a higher level. Imagine what wouold happen, for example, if I accepted the viewpoint expressed in my freshman seminar, that John Milton only wrote Paradie Lost to try to justify divorce, and never attempted to approach the piece from any other angles. I'd be really miserable right now, seeing as I'm talking a Milton class with Reynolds Price! Price's relationship with Milton has opened up an entire new dimension for engaging the text. I think the same can be said of Tolkien, especially since so many different people are taken with his work.

Lush

02-11-2006, 01:32 PM

First, I don't think we can compare the Legendarium to traditional tales. The Legendarium has a single author, traditional tales have multiple authors over millenia (some themes/episodes in traditional tales have been traced back to the stone age). These tales (the same applies to traditional folksong, especially the 'magical ballads') are the products of many voices through many ages. They are also the products of oral cultures. This is essential, because the culture(s) which produced the tales would have had a whole store of lore, history, & tradition which would have supplied a lot of background information for the hearers which would not have been present in the tale itself. If a fox appears in a traditional tale the hearers of that tale would have drawn on a whole range of other stories & sayings about foxes as they listened - something we can't do, as most of that lore will have been lost.

Davem, I can agree, but up to a point. I think we should not discount Tolkien's debt to the oral tradition, or to the recordings and refashionings f such tradition, to the likes of the Brothers Grimm, Perrault, and so on. I think his texts themselves establish the importance of the wide base of myth that human storytelling rests upon.

As an example of something closer to home, if I mentioned Star Wars here, most people would think of the movies. If I had mentioned Star Wars back in the 80's people might also have thought of Reagan's satelite defence system. Cultural references change so the meaning of tales can also change. This is why feminist or marxist interpretations of traditional tales are at best questionable & at worst completely misleading - we cannot know the worldview(s) of the culture(s) & individuals which produced, adapted & altered them. We cannot know what they meant to our ancestors or what they will mean to our decendants. To state, as some 'experts' do, that this particular tale means 'such & such' & so our ancestors must have believed such & such is nonsensical. 19th-20th century political theories tell us nothing about traditional songs & tales.

First of all, I think you're misreading my intentions in starting this thread. I am not necessarily advocating such a reductionist approach to tales, in fact, this is what I am working against in this thread.

Yet to say that a feminist reading of Lord of the Rings has no basis is also, in my opinion, reductive. Feminism and marxism are not strictly modern phenomena, in my opinion, they did not plop into our collective laps out of the ether. These strains of thought exist under different guises in different cultures and societies. The rhetoric changes from time to time and storyteller to storyteller, but don't tell me there is nothing we can pick up on when it comes to gender dynamic in a story such as the Grimms' "The 12 Brothers," in which a king with 12 sons decides to murder all of them if his 13th child is to be a girl.

I'd say the same thing about such analyses of Tolkien's writings, which are steeped in traditional tales & images. The Legendarium is the Legendarium. Only Tolkien could have produced these tales & he could only have written the tales as he did write them. What would you sacrifice of the Legendarium in order to get more women in LotR? You can't have everything. Complaining that's its not 'perfect' in your opinion is fine, but if it was somehow made more acceptable to you I suspect it would be a damn sight less acceptable to others. Until we can say we fully understand every aspect of the story, every nuance of meaning, have assimilated every meaning & reference of the story (& the very fact that we keep going back to it shows we have not) I think we should take what we've been given.

Davem, once again, I think you are misinterpreting my intention. Who is talking about "getting more women in LotR"? Not me, and not anybody else in this thread, or so it seems. Your attitude is exactly of the sort that I was bewailing when I decided to open this thread; this immediate reaction that attempts to brand all feminist (and otherwise) cricics of Tolkien as deeply unsatisfied, even hateful readers that somehow wish to alter the stories to their own liking. This is now what's going on here at all.

Above all else, I fear that the word "women" and the word "feminism" are simply red herrings to some. Any attempt at a serious discussion is thwarted at the root. :(

Mithalwen

02-11-2006, 01:57 PM

Mithalwen, et al, please take not of my original post.

What and shut up? That was the main thrust wasn't it? That those of us who don't share your field of research, and haven't been here so long, and may relate our experiences of our own world to Tolkien's Middle Earth should stop boring you?

davem

02-11-2006, 02:16 PM

I haven't read Tatar's 'Annotated Fairy tales, but from this (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.10/18-tatar.html) interview it seems that she focusses on the value & relevance of Fairy stories to children:

Tatar gives much of the credit for her book to the students who have taken her Core course, which explores fairy tales as a point of departure for considering broader cultural issues of childhood.

In fact, exploring the 'broader cultural issues of childhood.' seems to be her concern - fairy stories, it seems, have no value in & of themselves as far as she is concerned, & they only have any relevance in the service of something else - ie to tell us something about children.

I doubt Tolkien would have given any credence to such an approach. In fact he dismisses the idea that fairy stories belong in the nursery, or are the especial province of children in OFS.

Just because some fairy stories involve children does not make them children's stories, & does not mean they tell us anything at all about 'broader cultural issues of childhood'. In fact, as the stories were not invented or written by children the most they could tell us is something about the broader cultural issues of adults. These tales were created & told by adults as entertainment first & foremost, & they were not aimed at any age group in particular. They weren't written, either, to conform to any particular 'philosophy' (which, for instance, the 'fairytales' of Angela Carter were).

I can only say that her final words in the interview:

"I have enough trouble with the real world, and suddenly there's this other world, where everything has a new name," she says of J.K. Rowling's wildly popular fantasy series. "I have trouble mastering the rules of soccer. I don't want to have to learn about Quidditch."

seem to me to perfectly sum up her irrelevance as far as the subject of fairytales is concerned.

Lush

02-11-2006, 03:00 PM

Mithalwen, my original post is more tongue in cheek than anything. Please don't think that I am not interested in what you have to bring to the table. I am merely tired of what I perceive to be the flatness of the discourse on gender here at the Downs.

Davem, I am saddened by this impression of Tatar that you're getting. I'm currently using her ideas on the Brothers Grimm to help me in my thesis on Kate Atkinson's postmodern fairy tale, which is certainly a very adult subject. You might actually discover Tatar to be a close ally when it comes to feminist readings of fairy tale; something I don't necessarily agree with her on.

Lalwendë

02-11-2006, 03:01 PM

Cultural references change so the meaning of tales can also change. This is why feminist or marxist interpretations of traditional tales are at best questionable & at worst completely misleading - we cannot know the worldview(s) of the culture(s) & individuals which produced, adapted & altered them. We cannot know what they meant to our ancestors or what they will mean to our decendants. To state, as some 'experts' do, that this particular tale means 'such & such' & so our ancestors must have believed such & such is nonsensical. 19th-20th century political theories tell us nothing about traditional songs & tales.

That's the nature of criticism though. It doesn't seek to find 'the truth' of the text, it seeks to find the 'truth' of individual readers' experiences. It's that old chestnut applicability. It's also a critical phenomenon of the post-modern era. If we want to find the truth, or what the author intended then that's a different thing. But for example, Marxist criticism might seek to discover what Tolkien's text (but not necessarily Tolkien) says about society and the class struggle. So there's nothing wrong in a feminist critique of the text in itself. Some might seek to find what the text says about that, and I'd defend their right to do so, even if i did not agree with what they said.

Might not bring us any closer to what Tolkien wanted the text to mean, in fact it might take us further away from that, but it's not about that, it's about seeking to discover and articulate what the reader might find.

I'm not saying what I think is the right way. ;)

What most fascinates me about this thread is the emotion it elicits. We can debate canon, language, or whether the earliest chapters are successfully integrated into the rest of the book and, only rarely, will posters show strong personal feeling. Yes, they will have well defended opinions, but it is not at the "gut level" we are talking about here. But the minute the question of gender is raised, the discussion takes a different turn. I believe this is part of what Lush was referring to in her initial post. The only other question that I can think of that has a similar impact is how and if race plays a role in the delineation of characters and peoples in LotR. (And I am not talking about a bone headed and over simplistic question that asks whether Tolkien was a racist!)

Simple answer? It's that the most common and vehement criticisms of Tolkien have centred around three things: it's childish, it's racist or it's sexist. So naturally our hackles are raised when we hear those three things being raised! We have ready lines to take and we fire them out!

davem

02-11-2006, 05:17 PM

To me, a lot of them do not directly deal with the biological functions of men and women, but rather with more abstract notions, rites of passage, for example, or chemical marriages (yin and yang and so on). Besides that, the very idea of a woman giving birth has different implications. An ancient Indian myth recalls a monk witnessing a woman who gives birth to a child, nurses it tenderly, then grows horrible in apperance, and devours it. Obviously this legend's view of birth is more nuanced.

Well, that's a theory. Its a very modern take on the meaning of fairytales though. Whether our ancestors saw that as the 'meaning' of the stories is another matter. The problem with 'theories' is they tend to result in you finding exactly (& only) what you set out to find.

Our ancestors worldview was not 'political' or 'philosophical', but magical. The world worked differently for them to the way it does for us. For them Elves & Dwarves were not (as they were for Tolkien - at least when he put off his artist's hat & put on his critic's) - 'aspects of the human'. They were real beings. Faerie was a real place. Modern critical theories abound, but none of them seem to take that simple fact into account. Our ancestors lived in a reality where you could stray into Faery & encounter the Faery Queene. Critical & literary theories can go on till the cows come home about Archetypes & the idealisation of the Feminine, about male societies reducing women to stereotypes of the Virgin or the Whore, but they miss the point entirely. The 'meaning' of your story of the Monk & the mother eating her baby is clear enough to anyone who has encountered the Dark Goddess in meditation. It isn't 'nuanced' at all - its very stark & simple. The Goddess is both giver & taker of Life, She weaves & she unweaves all things, is both womb & tomb of all life. Ask any Pagan.

Davem, I am saddened by this impression of Tatar that you're getting. I'm currently using her ideas on the Brothers Grimm to help me in my thesis on Kate Atkinson's postmodern fairy tale, which is certainly a very adult subject. You might actually discover Tatar to be a close ally when it comes to feminist readings of fairy tale; something I don't necessarily agree with her on.

I don't know which of Kate Atkinson's books you're referring to. What I can say is that whatever it is it isn't a fairy tale in the strict sense, but a novel, by an known individual. True Fairy tales are different, work differently, & served a different purpose. The problem I have with this approach to fairy tales is that it treats them as being no different to the modern novel, believing that they can be deconstructed, 'translated', & made to serve a particular theory about life, the universe & everything. Such theories are claimed to be 'bigger' than the tales they 'analyse', able to encompass them, 'explain' them. Actually, as Tolkien pointed out in both OFS & the Smith essay, the fairy story is bigger than any 'theory' which could be created to 'explain' it.

Peig Sayers, the Aran Island storyteller, told how she remembered long stories (which could take many evenings to relate) after a single hearing. She would stare at a blank wall & visualise the events as the storyteller related them. These tales are collections of Images & these Images have very powerful effects on the individual consciousness, if they are allowed to work, & not subjected to 'analysis'. Tolkien's work is full of such Images & that's why it affects us so powerfully (its also why all our attempts at explanation & analysis are ultimately unsatisfying - these images, like the traditional images of folktale & song - affect us on a much deeper level than the intellectual).

(If you want to really understand what the story of the mother becoming a monster & eating her child means, visualise it as powerfully as you can, as if it were happening in front of you. Don't analyse it, or attempt to 'explain' it to yourself. No 'theory' will tell you as much about the 'meaning' of it.)

Lalaith

02-11-2006, 05:56 PM

At the risk of flattening what has become, IMO, a most rich discourse, I'd like to know if I understand Lush's original question/challenge aright and if my own thoughts are along the right lines.

Downers, one assumes, enjoy and accept Tolkien's world of fantasy. A world which lives by its own rules and its own terms, beyond our own experience - to the extent that it was originally flat. There is for example a race that lives forever, that does not need to sleep and defies the laws of physics by running over snow. There are spirits that can assume humanoid form, be reincarnated and battle with others through mind power alone. There are tree-like personages of huge antiquity, there are spirits of great power and evil, and a great variety of creatures, great and small, that can only be imagined in our own world.
Even among the mortal humans of middle earth, there is much that is para-normal - for example, a certain race of men that can live way beyond the lifespan of ordinary folk, and heal with their touch.
All these things have been accepted on their own terms - and alternatives, possiblities and explanations are discussed with subtlety, depth and humour (Balrog wings, anyone?) by Downers.

But as soon as gender is raised - thump! The discussion slumps to arguments along the lines of "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty." It's the one thing that brings people crashing back into the mundane and limited "real world" (or rather their own particular world).

Lush, is this the kind of thing you were getting frustrated by?

Lush

02-11-2006, 09:05 PM

Well, that's a theory. Its a very modern take on the meaning of fairytales though. Whether our ancestors saw that as the 'meaning' of the stories is another matter. The problem with 'theories' is they tend to result in you finding exactly (& only) what you set out to find.

Were our ancestors so alike in thought and character with one another?

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with theorizing. Provided you've got your eyes and ears and open to whatever it is that might be out there.

Our ancestors worldview was not 'political' or 'philosophical', but magical. The world worked differently for them to the way it does for us. For them Elves & Dwarves were not (as they were for Tolkien - at least when he put off his artist's hat & put on his critic's) - 'aspects of the human'. They were real beings. Faerie was a real place. Modern critical theories abound, but none of them seem to take that simple fact into account. Our ancestors lived in a reality where you could stray into Faery & encounter the Faery Queene. Critical & literary theories can go on till the cows come home about Archetypes & the idealisation of the Feminine, about male societies reducing women to stereotypes of the Virgin or the Whore, but they miss the point entirely. The 'meaning' of your story of the Monk & the mother eating her baby is clear enough to anyone who has encountered the Dark Goddess in meditation. It isn't 'nuanced' at all - its very stark & simple. The Goddess is both giver & taker of Life, She weaves & she unweaves all things, is both womb & tomb of all life. Ask any Pagan.

Once again, davem, I fear that you are putting words into my mouth. I used the example of the goddess devouring the baby to provide a little more depth to phantom's statement that "females give birth," which, at least to me, didn't really clear up what he meant.

Furthermore, to suggest that our "ancestors" (which ones are we speaking about anyway? Mine are the Varangians. What are yours?) had no concept of philosophy or politics is beyond belief. Aristotle? Plutarch? Plato? Cyrrill and Mefodious? Wu Zeitan?

Finally, I'm not quite sure how a good dose of critical thinking on the subject of, say, the Faerie Queene somehow renders how myth impotent and unimportant. One can reduce almost anything to an abstract, but I am surprised that you would accuse me of this kind of reductionism, indeed, tell go as far as to tell me what I am and am not thinking about and what my purposes are. Whatever it is you're reacting against when you write these posts, I think it has little to do with me.

I don't know which of Kate Atkinson's books you're referring to. What I can say is that whatever it is it isn't a fairy tale in the strict sense, but a novel, by an known individual. True Fairy tales are different, work differently, & served a different purpose. The problem I have with this approach to fairy tales is that it treats them as being no different to the modern novel, believing that they can be deconstructed, 'translated', & made to serve a particular theory about life, the universe & everything. Such theories are claimed to be 'bigger' than the tales they 'analyse', able to encompass them, 'explain' them. Actually, as Tolkien pointed out in both OFS & the Smith essay, the fairy story is bigger than any 'theory' which could be created to 'explain' it.

Kate Atkinson is writing the postmodern fairy tale, which does place the fairy tale into the framework of the novel. Having said that, accusing Atkinson of making theory "bigger" than fairy tale is, in my opinion, a misinformed sort of decision. One of the reasons why I admire Atkinson so much is that I think she treats myth with a whole lot more respect than some of the few other writers out there. I think myth is a living part of life to Atkinson. I don't know if that necessarily makes her a "true" fairy tale writer, and I don't care. She's working with a medium that she knows best, that suits her best, but I think she does it beautifully and with much love and respect to the rich tradition of myth that she draws upon.

Peig Sayers, the Aran Island storyteller, told how she remembered long stories (which could take many evenings to relate) after a single hearing. She would stare at a blank wall & visualise the events as the storyteller related them. These tales are collections of Images & these Images have very powerful effects on the individual consciousness, if they are allowed to work, & not subjected to 'analysis'. Tolkien's work is full of such Images & that's why it affects us so powerfully (its also why all our attempts at explanation & analysis are ultimately unsatisfying - these images, like the traditional images of folktale & song - affect us on a much deeper level than the intellectual).

Davem, if you don't want to explain and analyse, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't think that it has to be a choice between one and the other, though. The intellectual level is a part of the overall experience, and an important part, in my opinion.

(If you want to really understand what the story of the mother becoming a monster & eating her child means, visualise it as powerfully as you can, as if it were happening in front of you. Don't analyse it, or attempt to 'explain' it to yourself. No 'theory' will tell you as much about the 'meaning' of it.)

I disagree, up to a point. I think theory helps us to sort out our most powerful responses to the things we encounter in life. I would agree with you that encountering the goddess/the magical does ultiamtely render all our attempts to explain and to analyse useless. But we have these tools at our disposal for a reason. We cannot forever remain in a spiritual ecstasy; and analysing and explaining help guide us on our way from one revelation to the next.

Lush

02-11-2006, 09:06 PM

Lush, is this the kind of thing you were getting frustrated by?

Precisely.

Elu Ancalime

02-11-2006, 09:22 PM

Th?oden replaced with Queen Elfhild? Denethor II replaced with Finduilas as Stewardess?

Now I personally would not agree with what im about to say, but you know whenever there is a descision someone always hates it...

So if they did replace Denethor and Theoden, some might critizize that 'Gondor was weak because of her' or 'if Rohan had a King, they could defeat Sauruman' (not: spoken in a whiney voice)

Once again, I dont think this, but i could see that would happen. Not that i think Tolkien didnt want to avoid this, just what I thought...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm...If I woman joined the Fellowship (removing the Nine Walkers), it would be hard to decide who.

Elf-I dont think Gandalf (forget that, Elrond!!!) would allow Arwen, especially when its camping with her boyfriend.0_o Yeah, thats a little odd, and Aragorn whimself probably wouldnt want it. Galadriel would probably want to stay in Lorien, and considering the fact there was already one of the Wise that fell to the RIng's lure and another (gandalf) that was around it. And who knows what Celeborn would think.

Dwarf - Well.....yeah. Sorry.

(Wo)Man-Of course uncle would not let Eowyn go, but considering that hes under the consiricy of Grima...I dont think Grima would allow it either.

However, If a woman did join the Fellowship, I would say it would be a Maia, like Ancalima the Pink (JUST KIDDING, not meaning to stereotype, but some example needed...)
________
CBX1000 (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_CBX1000)

alatar

02-11-2006, 09:50 PM

But as soon as gender is raised - thump! The discussion slumps to arguments along the lines of "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty." It's the one thing that brings people crashing back into the mundane and limited "real world" (or rather their own particular world).

No problem with replacing the entire FotR with women, changing the gender of Gollum, etc. To me, with enough time and help and thought, the LotR trilogy could be completely reworked to have heroines in place of heroes.

The point is that Tolkien could not do this, and did not.

And so we can make whatever changes that we like; my concern is that I'm not sure that Lush really cares about how I could have Gandalf as a woman and still have a story similar to the original.

And the more that I read, the more I feel that I have no clue what Lush is asking for. Glad to help, but not sure what to do :( .

davem

02-12-2006, 04:01 AM

Furthermore, to suggest that our "ancestors" (which ones are we speaking about anyway? Mine are the Varangians. What are yours?) had no concept of philosophy or politics is beyond belief. Aristotle? Plutarch? Plato? Cyrrill and Mefodious? Wu Zeitan?

I was going further back than that. Aristotle & Plato certainly are 'modern thinkers' (though we do know Plato was an initiate of the Mysteries). What we do know is that all our ancestors saw the world differently to the way we see it. They may have had their equivalent of politics & philosophy, but these were aspects of a magical worldview. They weren't detatched from the natural world as we are. Any reading of Jung for instance will confirm that the same stories, reflecting the same worldview, were common among them.

Finally, I'm not quite sure how a good dose of critical thinking on the subject of, say, the Faerie Queene somehow renders how myth impotent and unimportant. One can reduce almost anything to an abstract, but I am surprised that you would accuse me of this kind of reductionism, indeed, tell go as far as to tell me what I am and am not thinking about and what my purposes are. Whatever it is you're reacting against when you write these posts, I think it has little to do with me.

Come on, I'm not accusing you of anything. I was attacking a certain modernist (or post modernist, or whatever it is, or whatever all those particular definitions actually mean) approach to myth & fairystory, which attempts to tell us what they mean. Whatever they might mean to us we can in no way say that's what they meant to our ancestors. Or what they will mean to our decendents. Its like the way people talk about the 'ignorant past', implying that we know more than our ancestors, that we've 'sussed them out' & know better. As Bob Stewart has pointed out, we are living in what our decendents will very probably call their ignorant past.

Kate Atkinson is writing the postmodern fairy tale, which does place the fairy tale into the framework of the novel. Having said that, accusing Atkinson of making theory "bigger" than fairy tale is, in my opinion, a misinformed sort of decision. One of the reasons why I admire Atkinson so much is that I think she treats myth with a whole lot more respect than some of the few other writers out there. I think myth is a living part of life to Atkinson. I don't know if that necessarily makes her a "true" fairy tale writer, and I don't care. She's working with a medium that she knows best, that suits her best, but I think she does it beautifully and with much love and respect to the rich tradition of myth that she draws upon.

I don't think I actually accused Atkinson of of making theory bigger than fairy tale is. I was referring to the reductionist approach in general. If I could be accused of generalising about 'our' ancestors, I think any modernist (or post modernist, or post post modernist) theory which attempts to provide little boxes into which all fairy stories, folksongs & modern novels can be neatly fitted is bound to be, in the end, an abject failure.

Davem, if you don't want to explain and analyse, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't think that it has to be a choice between one and the other, though. The intellectual level is a part of the overall experience, and an important part, in my opinion.

We can analyse as much as we like - it exercises the brain - but the experience of the stories is the only really important thing, & the only thing we will actually learn from.

I disagree, up to a point. I think theory helps us to sort out our most powerful responses to the things we encounter in life. I would agree with you that encountering the goddess/the magical does ultiamtely render all our attempts to explain and to analyse useless. But we have these tools at our disposal for a reason. We cannot forever remain in a spiritual ecstasy; and analysing and explaining help guide us on our way from one revelation to the next.

Direct experience will, of course, lead us, if we are thoughtful beings, to attempt to explain & analyse that experience. What I'm saying is that the experience should come first, not the analysis. When you've had the experience you can then go on & construct your own 'theory' if you want. Going in already armed with someone else's theory, which tells you, before you've had the experience, what it all means, what's important, will very likely leave you unaffected by the whole thing, or worse, affected in the wrong way. Your story of the monk & the woman, if viewed through the eyes of feminist theory, is likely to be reduced to no more than yet another male attack on women. Yet myths & legends from all over the world have this 'ambiguous' figure of a woman who is either beautiful & becomes ugly (cf the Fairy Queen in the Romance of Thomas the Rhymer) or ugly & becomes beautiful (the figure of Sovereignty in Irish myth, or the Loathly Lady in the Gawain story).

And finally, although I'm really enjoying this discussion, & I hope you're not feeling too embattled, I have to go along with Alatar:

And the more that I read, the more I feel that I have no clue what Lush is asking for. Glad to help, but not sure what to do .

Lush

02-12-2006, 01:22 PM

I was going further back than that. Aristotle & Plato certainly are 'modern thinkers' (though we do know Plato was an initiate of the Mysteries). What we do know is that all our ancestors saw the world differently to the way we see it. They may have had their equivalent of politics & philosophy, but these were aspects of a magical worldview. They weren't detatched from the natural world as we are.

We are? Like, totally?

Any reading of Jung for instance will confirm that the same stories, reflecting the same worldview, were common among them.

Jung's my boy, but I don't think he's the end-all be-all, if you know what I mean,

Come on, I'm not accusing you of anything. I was attacking a certain modernist (or post modernist, or whatever it is, or whatever all those particular definitions actually mean) approach to myth & fairystory, which attempts to tell us what they mean. Whatever they might mean to us we can in no way say that's what they meant to our ancestors. Or what they will mean to our decendents. Its like the way people talk about the 'ignorant past', implying that we know more than our ancestors, that we've 'sussed them out' & know better. As Bob Stewart has pointed out, we are living in what our decendents will very probably call their ignorant past.

And who in this thread is talking about an ignorant past? Not me.

I don't think I actually accused Atkinson of of making theory bigger than fairy tale is. I was referring to the reductionist approach in general. If I could be accused of generalising about 'our' ancestors, I think any modernist (or post modernist, or post post modernist) theory which attempts to provide little boxes into which all fairy stories, folksongs & modern novels can be neatly fitted is bound to be, in the end, an abject failure.

It's got its merits and its drawbacks.

We can analyse as much as we like - it exercises the brain - but the experience of the stories is the only really important thing, & the only thing we will actually learn from.

I think the experience is not necessarily detached from analysis.

Direct experience will, of course, lead us, if we are thoughtful beings, to attempt to explain & analyse that experience. What I'm saying is that the experience should come first, not the analysis. When you've had the experience you can then go on & construct your own 'theory' if you want. Going in already armed with someone else's theory, which tells you, before you've had the experience, what it all means, what's important, will very likely leave you unaffected by the whole thing, or worse, affected in the wrong way. Your story of the monk & the woman, if viewed through the eyes of feminist theory, is likely to be reduced to no more than yet another male attack on women. Yet myths & legends from all over the world have this 'ambiguous' figure of a woman who is either beautiful & becomes ugly (cf the Fairy Queen in the Romance of Thomas the Rhymer) or ugly & becomes beautiful (the figure of Sovereignty in Irish myth, or the Loathly Lady in the Gawain story).

LOL! All feminists are that simple then, are they?

And finally, although I'm really enjoying this discussion, & I hope you're not feeling too embattled, I have to go along with Alatar.

Embattled? Sir davem flatters himself. ;) I think Lalaith summed it up best above.

Lush

02-12-2006, 01:23 PM

And the more that I read, the more I feel that I have no clue what Lush is asking for. Glad to help, but not sure what to do :( .

I think Lalaith said it better than I ever could. :)

davem

02-12-2006, 02:59 PM

We are? Like, totally?

as a cullture, yes. and I'm not referring to 'environmentalism'.

And who in this thread is talking about an ignorant past? Not me.

I know - I was making a general point not a specific one.

It's got its merits and its drawbacks.

more of the latter than the former.

I think the experience is not necessarily detached from analysis.

No, but they're not the same thing, & the experience is always true, while the analysis is not always so. Our ancestors experienced the sun on the eastern horizon in the morning, overhead at noon & on the western horizon at evening. Their analysis was that it was the sun that was moving.

(And I'm not saying that you said it was the sun moving - I feel I now have to make such clarifications....)

LOL! All feminists are that simple then, are they?

Risking becoming repetitive I can only say that I never said that all feminists are that simple. I only said it was 'likely', not that it was inevitable. Admittedly, feminist (& marxist) analyses of fairytales is not something I go in for studying (neither is Jungian any longer, if it comes to that). I did hear Germaine Greer make exactly that analysis of Cundrie in Parsifal though, & I don't think its so uncommon among feminists.

Embattled? Sir davem flatters himself. ;) I think Lalaith summed it up best above.

Are you referring to:

But as soon as gender is raised - thump! The discussion slumps to arguments along the lines of "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty." It's the one thing that brings people crashing back into the mundane and limited "real world" (or rather their own particular world).

If so, i accept that that can happen. The point, though, is that Tolkien created Middle-earth & the rules by which it operates. No, there are not many significant female figures in TH or Lotr. But that's what he wrote. You might as well object that there are no aircraft in the story, & say, well, its a fantasy world, so why shouldn't there be flying machines in it. There just aren't. Live with it, or read something else. No-one's forcing you to read it. If challenged, I think Tolkien might have responded along the lines of 'I'm not here to live up to your expecations. There are plenty of other books to read which would maybe appeal to your taste more'.

This is what I'm still struggling with. Its like me finding fault with the Mona Lisa because Leonardo painted a woman. By God, it wouldn't have hurt him to put a bloke in there as well!'.

I can only say that I still haven't got your real point. Of course you can ask why there aren't many more female characters in LotR, but all anyone can really say to that is, you know, you're right , There aren't. We can't change the story. We can't even psychoanalyse the author. A feminist critique will suggest one reason, a marxist critique another. And I'm sure there are any number of other theories around which will come up with something else, but none of them will change the story & add more women in there. I accept that it may be annoying but that's just the way things are.

Lush

02-12-2006, 04:51 PM

as a cullture, yes. and I'm not referring to 'environmentalism'.

Which culture is that?

Besides all that, davem, I think you've got this thread wrong. I posted in regards to a problem I think is specific to readers of Tolkien, rather than Tolkien himself.

Furthermore, your "don't like it, don't read it" comment is slightly... er... off-putting. I honestly couldn't care less what Tolkien would say to me if challenged on any point, women-related or otherwise. My reading of him is mine, it belongs to me. Just like anyone's reading of my stuff belongs to them. While I may strongly disagree with a reader's interpretation of a work, I wouldn't respond in a way that suggested they take a hike and read something else. That's awfully reactionary in my opinion. If you're putting your work out there, in the public domain, expect it to be criticized, both positively and negatively; expect it to be misinterpreted, re-interpreted, spat upon and praised. That's the nature of the game.

As for feminism, et al, I agree to disagree.

davem

02-12-2006, 05:08 PM

Tolkien:

Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.

I get the feeling that you're reading LotR & wishing it was another book & getting upset that it's not.......

That's the nature of the game.

Who said it was a 'game'?

Child of the 7th Age

02-12-2006, 06:03 PM

Davem -

I can't say what Lush was thinking or feeling, since I can't get inside her head (or anyone else's for that matter). And I may be looking for something from this thread that she did not envision. Yet I do have problems with something I believe you are saying. If I am incorrect in my assumptions, you can straighten me out.

First, in any thread dealing with gender, it seems that the discussion always veers off onto extremes: with one person suggesting that the other fails to appreciate Tolkien, is asking him to write a different book, or should simply go read another work, which they may find more to their liking. I don't think that's what we're discussing here. There have been any number of threads voicing sharp criticism of one or more aspects of Tolkien's writings: his poetry, use of language, depiction of Elves, contradictions between differing parts of the Legendarium, etc. Yet it's very unusual if one person would question the "loyalty" of another reader by suggesting they are asking the author to turn his work upside down. I do think the role of women in the Legendarium should be approached with the same seriousness and respect as other legitimate topics. It is not "off base" or to be dismissed simply because Tolkien might have disliked it (not that you or I can read his mind!) Perhaps, if we can set emotion aside, we are really getting back to some serious questions raised in the canonicity thread: to what extent does the interpretation of a tale lie in the hands of the reader, and to what extent is it the provence of the author alone. I find myself in the middle of this equation, not only on this question but many others.

I do feel that there has been a lot of oversimplistic reaction on this thread, and on other threads where this subject has been raised in the past, at least in the last four years. I think you are correct on one point. If we admit that the discussion of this topic has sometimes been irrational or laden with emotion (probably on both sides of whatever fence exists), the more important question remains what comes next? It isn't enough to groan or complain: this whole thing should lead somewhere.

I think there have been two approaches raised on this thread that deserve more serious consideration. One if that of Lalwende, whose post I found extremely cogent:

There are actualy quite a lot of diverse female characters: Eowyn, Galadriel, Arwen, Luthien, Rosie, Ioreth, Haleth, Aredhel, Shelob, Ungoliant, Beruthiel, Celebrian, Erendis, Idril, Lobelia, Belladonna, Finduilas, Dis, Elwing, Melian, Elbereth, Nimrodel, Goldberry, Niennor, Andreth, Ancalime, Gilraen, The River Woman, Silmarien, Miriel...........

Anyway, I'm sure the list could be added to. I'd welcome a proper discussion on how such characters (especially Erendis, long overdue thread...) were handled and what they represented, without having to explain them away with old arguments.

I think this is an excellent suggestion.

I hesitate to blow my own horn--it's not usually my style--but I do think someone should also give more thought as to why Tolkien's treatment of women born in the First and Second Age (or even the days before) seems different than those characters depicted in Lord of the Rings. This is essentially a complementary query to what Lalwende is suggesting. I personally do not see the equivalent in LotR of Third Age characters like Andreth, Halath, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Erendis. Why is this so? You have a better background in Silm than I do, and I would appreciate your views on this (and anyone else who would like to chime in.) As to whether, such a discussion would be more appropriate on this thread or another, I could not say.

Lush

02-12-2006, 07:30 PM

I get the feeling that you're reading LotR & wishing it was another book & getting upset that it's not.......

Yeah. I've spent the last four years on a Tolkien forum, because I want LotR to be another book. Brilliant, Sherlock. ;)

Who said it was a 'game'?

I did.

Bêthberry

02-12-2006, 10:11 PM

While I am full of respect for Child's sauve and gracious manner of addressing this discussion, I think it perhaps it would behoove us all--and, yes, I will employ that archaic word, in the finest tradition of Tolkien--to return--as Lailith suggests--to a hint in Lush's first post.

I suggest a good dose of Maria Tatar on the subject.

Here, for your deglutition, for a second time suggested is Maria Tatar on the subject (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.10/18-tatar.html ) .

There's lots I find very intriguing there, but especially this comment:

"The real magic of the fairy tale lies in its ability to extract pleasure from pain," Tatar writes in the introduction to "The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales." It's this complex duality that fascinates her and, she says, that imbues fairy tales with powers therapeutic as well as entertaining.

Is Tolkien a tooth fairy with all his extractions?

davem

02-13-2006, 03:19 AM

Ok, too few strong women characters in LotR, lots in the Sil writings. One thing to recognise is that there are many stories in the Sil tradition whish have even less than LotR. The problem is that hardly any of the Sil stories were written in the style or at the length of LotR. The problem, perhaps, is that the one stolry out of the Legendarium that Tolkien chose to write in real depth was one which had so few women characters. The published Sil compresses thousands of years of history into a book a third of the length of LotR. There are fewer strong female characters in the Tale of Turin than in LotR for instance. If that had been written, as it could have been, in the 'romance' style of Lotr Lush would have even more trouble with it than with LotR.

Maria Tatar:"The real magic of the fairy tale lies in its ability to extract pleasure from pain," Tatar writes in the introduction to "The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales." It's this complex duality that fascinates her and, she says, that imbues fairy tales with powers therapeutic as well as entertaining."

Is that the real magic of the fairy tale? Not for me. For me it is, in Tolkien's phrase the glimpse they offer of something 'beyond the circles of the world'. Of course, the 'extracting pleasure from pain' thing is simply Tolkien's Eucatastrophe on a more mundane level.

Back to the subject of the thread (if I understand it) Yes, Tolkien was capable of writing strong female characters, but didn't introduce us to many in LotR. Why? I have no idea. I just can't help feeling this is another 'Balrog's wings' debate. Why didn't Tolkien just come out & say whether Balrogs have wings or not? I'm reminded of the scene in Monty Python's Meaning of Life:

Exec #1: Item six on the agenda: "The Meaning of Life" Now uh, Harry, you've had some thoughts on this.
Exec #2: Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren't wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this "soul" does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
Exec #3: What was that about hats again?

Exec # 1:Gandalf, the incarnate Angel, sacrifices himself for his friends. He lays down his life in the face of pure evil. He passes beyond thought & time, & returns, resurrected, having passed through fire & death to heal those who suffer & lead the struggle against Sauron to free the people of Middle-earth...

Exec # 2: 'Ok, but did the Balrog have wings or not?

Exec # 3: And why weren't there any strong women characters there?

I have absolutely no idea why Tolkien didn't put lots of strong female characters in LotR. He just didn't. He could have put more in. Maybe it would have been a better book if he had, but he didn't. We could draw up a list of reasons - have a poll (somebody shout Heren!).

Yes, he could write strong women characters. Maybe, though, he set out his thoughts & feelings, told the stories he had to tell about women in the other stories he wrote, & wanted to write about other things in LotR.

Why didn't Shakepeare explore the theme of racism in Hamlet - he'd shown he was more than capable of doing it in Othello? Most probably because he had dealt with it elsewhere & wanted to deal with something else in Hamlet.

Thinlómien

02-13-2006, 09:37 AM

I think this thread itself has become a good example of the things Lush (and many other people) don't appreciate about gender discussion. This has turned a debate about feminism, and I don't think that was the original idea. (Of course correct me, if I'm wrong.)

Tolkien wrote only a few (strong) woman characters. That's a fact and we can't change it. We can call Tolkien a conservatist or even if a chauvinist, if we want. (The latter one is a bit unfair accusation, but I won't start writing about that.) We should accept LotR with all its faults including the lack of strong women characters. No one can write books that everyone thinks perfect. And it seems Tolkien didn't write to please feminists. I don't think he wanted to please anyone with his books, he was writing more to himself. (Or, so I have read from somewhere. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)

The things that we should be discussing here (and most people are) in my opinion are 1) Why it always turns into useless debating and use of frail arguments here in the 'Downs when the topic turns to (the lack of) women in Tolkien's works. This, I believe, was the original idea for the thread. 2) As suggested by Child and Lalwendë we could also discuss about the position of the women that are in the books, not the ones that could be there. This may need a thread of its own, because it is maybe a bit off-topic. Or what say you, o mighty threadmistress Lush?

Lalwendë

02-13-2006, 09:47 AM

I hesitate to blow my own horn--it's not usually my style--but I do think someone should also give more thought as to why Tolkien's treatment of women born in the First and Second Age (or even the days before) seems different than those characters depicted in Lord of the Rings. This is essentially a complementary query to what Lalwende is suggesting. I personally do not see the equivalent in LotR of Third Age characters like Andreth, Halath, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Erendis. Why is this so? You have a better background in Silm than I do, and I would appreciate your views on this (and anyone else who would like to chime in.) As to whether, such a discussion would be more appropriate on this thread or another, I could not say.

Personally speaking I would welcome such discussions, as there are a great number of interesting questions waiting to be asked and addressed. Reading through the arguments I can see what Lush means that we all too often sweep aside such discussions by just claiming that they aren't relevant. Perhaps we are all a little frightened of addressing gender specific issues in Tolkien's work. Why? I couldn't say. But there is certainly plenty of room to do so in my opinion! So Tolkien's work is not about gender issues? So what. There are women in it, and as readers it is interesting to look at that.

Some topics that I'd like to address: Are the portrayals of women different in the Sil and LotR? Does Tolkien use female archetypes to create his female characters? Could any other female characters survive the text after being compared to the triple threat of the powerful Eowyn, Galadriel and Shelob? And do they represent maiden, mother, crone? Does Tolkien's work go beyond gender issues? Is Luthien 'all that'? Do you sympathise more with Erendis or Aldarion?

Maybe we are getting scared that to discuss such issues we are suddenly going to turn into literary critics and shout about Tolkien being sexist? I wouldn't say that is going to happen at all! ;)

alatar

02-13-2006, 09:50 AM

I did. (said that it was a game)

So what's the game? My two guesses are:

Play 'magic Eight Ball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-ball)' with Lush where she shakes the Eight Ball and shows you the answer. You get to come up with the question, at which point she can decide if you're even close to what she was thinking.

Change genders of characters in LotR and/or add new or enhance current female roles in the same. Before playing such a game, however, I would think that we would need some rules, as we need to bound the discussion so that we don't spin our wheels nor end up with another episode of Xena (which is fine, but not LotR). For example, we can discuss how having Legolas as a female character would impact on the story.

Then again, this post is most likely very doubtful what Lush intended or wants, and so it is certain that I may have to concentrate and try again. ;)

Thinlómien

02-13-2006, 09:52 AM

Some topics that I'd like to address: Are the portrayals of women different in the Sil and LotR? Does Tolkien use female archetypes to create his female characters? Could any other female characters survive the text after being compared to the triple threat of the powerful Eowyn, Galadriel and Shelob? And do they represent maiden, mother, crone? Does Tolkien's work go beyond gender issues? Is Luthien 'all that'? Do you sympathise more with Erendis or Aldarion? Sympathise with Aldarion?!!! :eek: ;)

Seriously, I think those questions are very interesting, but they might need a new thread.

Fordim Hedgethistle

02-13-2006, 10:58 AM

Could it be that Tolkien wanted to write a tale that did not have an obvious "moral", and thus he "had" to leave women out of the active roles?? Let me explain:

A woman in the Fellowship would have been a "statement" of one kind or another -- what that statement may have been I don't know, but it would have clearly been something put there for an effect. Given Tolkien's predilection for telling a story that has meaning over using his story to get a meaning across, such a gesture would have been too 'obvious' for him??

I am really very uncertain of myself here but I felt compelled to float this idea.

Put another way, having a woman in the Fellowship might have -- to Tolkien's mind -- proved to be a distraction insofar as the point of his tale is about the Ring and it's effect on Frodo and the others around him; to have a woman there so pointedly being, well, a woman and not a man might have introduced a theme or idea that does not directly 'play' to the one that the Fellowship was supposed to play toward??

Again, getting less comfortable. It would be so much easier if there were no Eowyn -- then I could say that Tolkien was clearly a sexist and didn't want or see the need for interesting women!

Morsul the Dark

02-13-2006, 11:24 AM

its about continuity...***the following post is merely speculation and does not show the exact opinion of the author

the hobbit had all male charactors(mainly because the absence of dwarf women...i just thought of something hmmm...)^ anyway so the hobbit became very boy oriented and lotr became geared towards booys in a time lets face it women were too busy cleaning and cooking to read. so the lower showing of women.

^look in i found the entwives for my off-topic thought (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=445771&postcount=12)

Raynor

02-13-2006, 11:36 AM

As stated above, the prime reason which for there are much more strong female characters in the Silmarillion than in LotR would be simply a game of numbers: much more heroes, acting in different ages.

But I think we should look beyond the work itself; it seems to me that Tolkien was too influenced by the social roles during his era when he considered the abilities of women compared to men. Upon reading letter #43, one gets the feeling that women have a natural limit (unlike men):

The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range

or that they seldom surpass their male teacher (in whatever form he may be):

Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point - and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him

or that their economic independence is illusory (compared to a man's):

A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of 'love'. A young woman, even one 'economically independent', as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the 'bottom drawer' and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks.

but this one tops it all:

But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. .... No good pretending. Men just ain't, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of 'revealed' ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh

He also defends the idea that 'arranged' marriages are better than those decided by the spouses themselves - considering the exceptions (his included) as very rare. In letter #49 he also decries the fact that religious vows (making special refference to the vow of obedience made by the woman) are laughed at by the modern state ritual.

Lush

02-13-2006, 11:45 AM

Or what say you, o mighty threadmistress Lush?

I say, rock on.

So what's the game?

Hmmm. If alatar was paying attention to my conversation with davem, as opposed to trying to electronically poke me in the ribs, he might know the answer to his question.

Raynor, I've read these letters before, and was not particularly surprised by them, but I am not entirely sure that they directly relate to representations of women in LotR. Remember, someone like Galadriel is very independent in her thinking and her deeds. Perhaps there are some clearer connections you could draw for us? Or are there none?

alatar

02-13-2006, 11:57 AM

Hmmm. If alatar was paying attention to my conversation with davem, as opposed to trying to electronically poke me in the ribs, he might know the answer to his question.

Sorry, as I just couldn't help but post even though all has been made clear, and though I've tried to remember all that I've read (forget understanding it all, as I'm just a simple person) I blame my post on child-induced amnesia. Have children, can't remember a blessed thing ;).

And I'm sending anti-rib pokes to cancel out those sent before.

Raynor

02-13-2006, 12:15 PM

Perhaps there are some clearer connections you could draw for us? My point concering the letters was that Tolkien mirrored the world of his time which was not conducive to building up female heroes - only as exceptions, since by and large the women were considered inferior in range of preocupations, expectations and initiative.

Even in the case of Eowyn, daughter of a king, the same prejudices concerning the role of females (which take the form of social mores or even institutuinalized rules) apply just the same as apparently during Tolkien's times:
- My friend, said Gandalf, you had horses, and deeds of arms, and the free fields; but she, born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours. Yet she was doomed to wait upon an old man, whom she loved as a father, and watch him falling into a mean dishonoured dotage; and her part seemed to her more ignoble than that of the staff he leaned on.Her situation reflects, in the words of Johan Galtung, an institutionalized violence against women (rules which prohibit equal opportunities of development), which is necessarily based on a cultural violence (the idea that women are inferior in status/abilities/values/worth).

davem

02-13-2006, 12:16 PM

Maybe its because I'm male that I don't feel the absence of more strong female characters in LotR. Perhaps because I don't feel that 'absence' I don't wonder why Tolkien didn't put them in, or what the story would be like if there were more of them.

At the same time, I wonder why there's a focus on the absence of female characters. Why aren't there more strong animal characters - fairy stories are full of magical beasts. Why aren't there flying machines, why aren't there more (fill in the blank)....

Maybe there's something to be gained by analysing the absence of women in Lotr, & the role women play in the Legendarium as a whole. The danger, though, is that in focussing on what's not there you may miss what is there. By concentrating on what Tolkien didn't say, you may fail to hear what he was saying. (I note that nowhere in any of her posts on this thread has Lush mentioned the first manned space flight. I can't help wondering what this tells us about her, or what her posts would have been like if she had brought in Yuri Gagarin....)

Lush

02-13-2006, 12:46 PM

davem, I can only wonder if you would have said the same sort of things about the issue and about me if, say, this thread was about the absence/presence religion in Middle Earth.

The Saucepan Man

02-13-2006, 01:09 PM

.. but this may simply stand as a passing comment.

It seems to me that the point Lush was making was that, whenever the issue of gender in relation to Tolkien's writings is raised, many feel a natural impulse to defend Tolkien (for example by reference to the time he lived in or the nature of women in the "real world") rather than considering the issues raised further. Some of the responses on this thread would appear to bear her out.

In my view, there is certainly an interesting discussion to be had concerning the absence of (many) strong female characters in LotR. Why (from the point of the story, as opposed to "real life" issues - historical and contemporary) is this so? What is its impact on the story? What is the impact on the story of the manner in which those female characters who are present are portrayed?

Child and Lalwendë have identified a number of questions concerning those female characters who are present which would make for more fruitful debate than simply a frothy to-ing and fro-ing on the fact of their absence in siginicant numbers.

Here are some more that occured to me:

What is the impact on the tale of Tolkien's conscious decision to remove most of the tale of Arwen and Aragorn to the Appendices? How might it have affected the story had this detail been included in the body of the tale itself?

Is it fair to say that most of the main female characters who are present in the tale (and the Legendarium) are defined, to a large extent, by their beauty (and/or fecundity)? If not, why (again, in terms of its impact on the story) are most of the main female characters "beautiful" in traditional terms? The only two I can think of who are portrayed as postively "un-beautiful" are Shelob (and her Mirkwood spawn, I suppose) and Thuringwethil (and I am not sure about the latter). And the only "plain" female character I can think of is Ioreth. Perhaps there are more. Yet many of the male characters are not defined by reference to their physical appearance (Aragorn, for example, "looks foul but feels fair"). What are the reasons for this (again, in terms of how it impacts upon the story).

Now I shall probably sit back and watch the discussion continue. :D

Oh, and behave ... ;)

davem

02-13-2006, 01:10 PM

davem, I can only wonder if you would have said the same sort of things about the issue and about me if, say, this thread was about the absence/presence religion in Middle Earth.

Probably not, but that was one of Tolkien's central concerns in the Legendarium (to justify the ways of Eru to Man, if you like). Writing strong female characters was not.

What is the impact on the tale of Tolkien's conscious decision to remove most of the tale of Arwen and Aragorn to the Appendices? How might it have affected the story had this detail been included in the body of the tale itself?

It would probably have cluttered & confused it, as it did with the movie, because that's not what Tolkien is about in LotR. He explored those themes in Beren & Luthien. A writer can't possibly say everything he wants to say in a single story without losing control of it & having it 'leap on to its horse & gallop off in all directions'. 'Aragorn & Arwen' contains important background for the story of LotR, but if the events in it were brought into the foreground (as Tolkien realised) they would detract from the central story - which is Frodo's, not Aragorn's.

Bêthberry

02-13-2006, 02:14 PM

Maria Tatar:"The real magic of the fairy tale lies in its ability to extract pleasure from pain," Tatar writes in the introduction to "The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales." It's this complex duality that fascinates her and, she says, that imbues fairy tales with powers therapeutic as well as entertaining."

Is that the real magic of the fairy tale? Not for me. For me it is, in Tolkien's phrase the glimpse they offer of something 'beyond the circles of the world'. Of course, the 'extracting pleasure from pain' thing is simply Tolkien's Eucatastrophe on a more mundane level.

Of course, we would *never* demean your personal experience of the fairy tale, davem, but perhaps it would be more meaningful in terms of discussion and debate for you to explain WHY "extractingly pleasure from pain" is "simply Tolkien's Eucatastrophre on a more mundane level". I personally think that such a statement ought to be clarified and developed, for the benefit of those who might not be able to leap tall buildings as you obviously can. Furthermore, I would have thought you would have found some sympathy with Tatar's statement:

"And then, in the middle of the project, I discovered that I was forgetting about what I think my audience wanted: to really think about the magic and enchantment of the stories."

Isn't this somewhat akin to your notion of the experience of reading? What has she herself develped out of this EXPERIENCE of reading which lead her to ideas about the attraction of fairey? It seems to fit right in with your demands of "experience first, think about later."

Further to Tatar's concept of fairy tales helping children explore the angxieties of adulthood, does this idea relate to LotR? Tarar suggests that characters change their moral status: the beautiful woman turns out to be unspeakable cruel. Does this idea pertain to Tolkien? Would this explain the inconsistencies in Galadriel's character and the differences between Rivendell and Lothlorien, which we have discussed in other threads?

Tatar also makes a profound claim for fairy tales:

What fairy tales don't do, says Tatar, is provide tidy moral lessons for young learners.

Is this true? If not, then it is not especially relevant to a Tolkien board. If true, then what does this say about Tolkien? Was he writing a fairy tale that went against previous fairy, his own particular version of Fairy? If so, why? --NOTE: I am not saying he is wrong if he doesn't do this. I am suggesting we consider why this difference exists and what the difference might mean in terms of understanding his concept of fairy. Coupled with the absence of sex in LotR, and thus the absence of secrets about sex which Tatar believes--rightly or wrongly--exist in fairy--we might be lead on to a greater awareness of what constitutes Tolkien's Fairy.

My dear Fordim:

It would be so much easier if there were no Eowyn -- then I could say that Tolkien was clearly a sexist and didn't want or see the need for interesting women!

Perhaps Tolkien was venting more of his spleen against the French when he imagined an Eowyn who took up the behaviour of a St. Joan of Arc. In which case Eowyn owes more to the history and realistic novel traditions than to fairey. :p ;)

Raynor, thank you for quoting those passages from Tolkien's letters. They have, in various forms, been quoted here in ages past in former arguements. While one may comment upon Tolkien's perceptions of women, by and of themselves how would they relate to Tolkien's depictions of women? Would you say that his personal understanding of woman, based as you say on culturally-determined standards, influenced his understanding of fairy?

'Aragorn & Arwen' contains important background for the story of LotR, but if the events in it were brought into the foreground (as Tolkien realised) they would detract from the central story - which is Frodo's, not Aragorn's.

See, I do recall several threads here and even discussions elsewhere concerning the question of to whom belongs the central story. After all, the book is not titled after Frodo. The ring's story? But perhaps fairy stories are morally ambiguous after all, and Tolkien's is far less so ...

Raynor

02-13-2006, 02:34 PM

While one may comment upon Tolkien's perceptions of women, by and of themselves how would they relate to Tolkien's depictions of women?Well, there is a considerable level of 'realism' in his work, as I tried to argue previously (i.e. he tried to parallel our world in his creation). The way I interpret those letters, he considers women through the glass of social normes of the era; their equality with men stands on "companionship in shipwreck" - otherwise they are 'receptive' (as in lacking initiative) and reduced in horizons - though more practical than men.

I have been flirting for some time with a thread topic similar to this; the valier are pretty much passive powers. Just as a Tolkien's women, they take care of the 'house' , see to it that life is created - while the valar are out there, being in charge, being active (esspecially in war - I don't remember any valie chasing Melkor); Aule is the chief artificier, Orome the best hunter, etc. The way I see it, Tolkien's view on gender is projected on the archetypes of his world, and the rest of creation follows the blue-print.

The entwives and the dwarven women are other missing links in the mundane world; even on his (apparently) last work, The new shadow, the active characters are men, again...

davem

02-13-2006, 04:35 PM

Of course, we would *never* demean your personal experience of the fairy tale, davem, but perhaps it would be more meaningful in terms of discussion and debate for you to explain WHY "extractingly pleasure from pain" is "simply Tolkien's Eucatastrophre on a more mundane level". I personally think that such a statement ought to be clarified and developed, for the benefit of those who might not be able to leap tall buildings as you obviously can.

Well, she's either talking about something along the lines of Eucatastrophe & the happy ever after ending which comes after suffering, or she's talking about masochism, & if its the latter I have to bow out of the discussion as its not really my field.

"And then, in the middle of the project, I discovered that I was forgetting about what I think my audience wanted: to really think about the magic and enchantment of the stories."Isn't this somewhat akin to your notion of the experience of reading? What has she herself develped out of this EXPERIENCE of reading which lead her to ideas about the attraction of fairey? It seems to fit right in with your demands of "experience first, think about later."

Similar - I said I disagreed with certain of her statements & what I percieved (rightly or wrongly) to be her approach to fairy tales. I don't think I said she was absolutely wrong about absolutley everything.

Further to Tatar's concept of fairy tales helping children explore the angxieties of adulthood, does this idea relate to LotR? Tarar suggests that characters change their moral status: the beautiful woman turns out to be unspeakable cruel. Does this idea pertain to Tolkien? Would this explain the inconsistencies in Galadriel's character and the differences between Rivendell and Lothlorien, which we have discussed in other threads?

Some characters change their moral status, some merely change their role

Tatar also makes a profound claim for fairy tales:
What fairy tales don't do, says Tatar, is provide tidy moral lessons for young learners.

Is this true? If not, then it is not especially relevant to a Tolkien board. If true, then what does this say about Tolkien? Was he writing a fairy tale that went against previous fairy, his own particular version of Fairy? If so, why? --NOTE: I am not saying he is wrong if he doesn't do this. I am suggesting we consider why this difference exists and what the difference might mean in terms of understanding his concept of fairy. Coupled with the absence of sex in LotR, and thus the absence of secrets about sex which Tatar believes--rightly or wrongly--exist in fairy--we might be lead on to a greater awareness of what constitutes Tolkien's Fairy.

Well, first I'd say that Tatar is once again telling us 'what fairy tales do', & to be frank, I'd say they're far less didactic in their original forms than she is claiming. As to Tolkien his own version of Faery, we discussed that recently in the 'You say Fairy & I say Faerie' thread, so I think its best carried on there. On the absence of sex in LotR & 'the secrets of sex'. I can only say again that Tolkien dealt with that particular aspect in many other stories within the Legendarium. The fact that he misses it out of one of his stories (though the erotic dimension is not entirely absent for LotR. It is, however presented subtly - as in the mingling of Faramir & Eowyn's hair in the gardens of the Houses of Healing). Sorry, but sex & its 'secrets' are not central to all fairy stories (or all dreams, either, whatever Frued might have said).

Lush

02-13-2006, 04:36 PM

Probably not, but that was one of Tolkien's central concerns in the Legendarium (to justify the ways of Eru to Man, if you like). Writing strong female characters was not.

I think you're dodging the question, my dear davem. I think at this point, I've successfully proven that time and time again, the subject of gender flattens the discussion to the level of the dismissive (and, in my opinion, quite rude) "Go read something else!"

Mister Underhill

02-13-2006, 05:29 PM

Put another way, having a woman in the Fellowship might have -- to Tolkien's mind -- proved to be a distraction insofar as the point of his tale is about the Ring and it's effect on Frodo and the others around him; to have a woman there so pointedly being, well, a woman and not a man might have introduced a theme or idea that does not directly 'play' to the one that the Fellowship was supposed to play toward??It seems to me that it would be highly uncharacteristic of JRRT to create in this manner: to consider the analytical impact of story choices as opposed to considering the artistic impact. In other words, his method seems to have been "does this work as a story element" rather than "does this work to bring out what I'm trying to say on this subject". In all the copious notes published in HoME VI-VIII, I can't remember one in which Tolkien wrestles with critical/analytical issues as your post imagines that he might. He seems to be most concerned with making his narrative work as a story.

I've successfully proven that time and time again, the subject of gender flattens the discussion to the level of the dismissive (and, in my opinion, quite rude) "Go read something else!" Much as I enjoy your knack for creating lively threads, Lush, I think all that's been proven here is that it's easy to provoke a certain type of response with a certain type of topic.

You started the thread off with a rant against people who dismiss questions about why there aren't more females in LotR with simple explanations. Okay, I get that it bugs you. But there are inevitably boneheaded replies to any topic, from Balrog wings to Elf ears.

As has been mentioned, the question itself is sort of self-limiting. LotR doesn't have a lot of female characters. Why? Over the years, I've seen as many reductive boneheaded replies for "why" as for "why not": "Tolkien doesn't understand women"; "Tolkien doesn't like women"; "Tolkien believes women should be pretty, barefoot, and pregnant", etc. If you have gained new insight into this question from your recent studies of Tatar and fairy-tale, I'm pretty sure you haven't really articulated them yet, and you certainly didn't share them in your first post.

There aren't a lot of female characters in LotR. In the end Tolkien didn't write them and we can only guess at why or why not. In my view it probably wasn't because of any particular conscious agenda one way or the other. Is there really a lot of meat on this bone that hasn't been chewed yet?

On the other hand, I think that the idea that gender discussions automatically produce a knee-jerk result isn't borne out by Downs history.

Over the years, there have been numerous thoughtful discussions of gender in LotR, as well as deep discussions of the individual female characters that are present in the work. Fordim's recent "Calling all women", Birdland's "Tolkien the Matricide", and Child's old "The 'Fair' Sex in LotR", for instance, all tackle Tolkien in relation to gender with interesting results (ironically, doing a quick search of "Tolkien sexist" will fetch all these topics). Topics on Galadriel, Arwen, and Éowyn have all yielded fruitful, albeit sometimes fiery, results as well.

In other words, a good topic breeds good discussion, even if there will be the inevitable amount of "noise" in the form of knucklehead replies.

Several topics have already been suggested which I bet could spin into interesting threads.

The Saucepan Man

02-13-2006, 05:32 PM

It would probably have cluttered & confused it, as it did with the movie, because that's not what Tolkien is about in LotR. He explored those themes in Beren & Luthien. A writer can't possibly say everything he wants to say in a single story without losing control of it & having it 'leap on to its horse & gallop off in all directions'. 'Aragorn & Arwen' contains important background for the story of LotR, but if the events in it were brought into the foreground (as Tolkien realised) they would detract from the central story - which is Frodo's, not Aragorn's.Well, I would disagree with the first statement, but that is a discussion for another place.

I do not see why the tale of Aragorn and Arwen could not have been weaved into the story rather more than it is without cluttering and confusing it. I am not saying that he should have made her the Xenarwen that film Arwen is often (unfairly, in my view) accused of being. But rather more of a presence than she has could perhaps have enriched to the story without cluttering it. As it is, her almost total absence (from the substantive tale itself) has the opposite effect. My experience is that I had no sense at all, the first few times that I read LotR, of who she was. To such an extent that, when I first saw the action figures in the shops (my first real experience of the films), some 15 years after having last read the book, I thought that she was a character specifically created for the film. In those circumstances, to the young reader that I was then, she loses such significance as Tolkien may have intended.

But the main point, I suppose, is that you are really saying that the story is perfect as it is, as Tolkien intended it, and that we have to "make do" with what we are given. Of course, we have to accept the collection of words that Tolkien gave us and our presence on this forum shows, by definition, that we are not dissatisfied with them. But to leave it at that is to suggest that there should be no further discussion on the issue. Which is an approach that I disagree with. It should not stop us (if we be so inclined) considering what the story might have looked like with Arwen playing a greater role. Whether it might have worked without detracting from the central story of the Ring. And how it might have added to the story (in addition to how it might have detracted from it). To do so is not to suggest that Tolkien should have written the story differently, but simply to explore alternative themes - or those which may only be subtly expressed in the story as it is.

I know that you will probably disagree with me on this, but it's not all about what Tolkien intended, but also what we experience from the text and what we can gain by sharing our experience with others and listening to their own experience.

Mister Underhill

02-13-2006, 06:59 PM

You know, there were some interesting things I came across in glancing through HoME today but forgot to add to my initial post:

Éowyn was initially conceived as a possible mate for Aragorn. This storyline was of course later dropped, but it may help to explain why the tale of Arwen and Aragorn is less integrated into the larger tale.

One of Tolkien's notes guesses that, "Probably Eowyn should die to avenge or save Theoden." I wonder if some of Tolkien's critics would have been happier or less satisfied if this had been Éowyn's fate.

Éowyn is also described in at least two instances in the professor's notes as an "amazon". I don't know if that means anything about anything, or if it offers any insights. I think that it's interesting that Tolkien initially planned to pair his warrior king with a warrior queen.

Then there's the tantalizing matter of Idis, Théoden's daughter, who appeared ever so briefly onstage in early drafts before disappearing without explanation...

davem

02-13-2006, 08:57 PM

I think you're dodging the question, my dear davem. I think at this point, I've successfully proven that time and time again, the subject of gender flattens the discussion to the level of the dismissive (and, in my opinion, quite rude) "Go read something else!"

Oh come on - you're the one who said this was a 'game'. I said 'There are plenty of other books to read which would maybe appeal to your taste more'. & I was speaking very precisely in terms of LotR, not the Legendarium as a whole. If you don't like the lack of female characters in LotR, you can read Aldarion & Erendis in UT, or the Athrabeth in Home 10.

That being said, in Tolkien's mind there was only really the one story. LotR is part of the Legendarium. If there are no significant female characters in Lotr apart from Galadriel & Eowyn, there are individual chapters where those characters dominate. In the final analysis, LotR itself was only one 'chapter' in the Legendarium.

But the main point, I suppose, is that you are really saying that the story is perfect as it is, as Tolkien intended it, and that we have to "make do" with what we are given.

I'm saying the story is as it is, perfect or otherwise. I'll also say that I don't believe anyone could 'improve' upon it by introducing changes in style or character.

I have to say I think this thread has been a bit confused from the start, in treating Tolkien's work as no different from a traditional fairy story, & asking 'why, if we have 'X' in traditional tales, do we not have 'X' in Tolkien's work?' Because Tolkien's works are not traditional tales, however powerfully & effectively he may use traditional images & themes. To take the approach 'I have this wonderful tool for interpreting traditional fairy stories & I'm going to apply it to Tolkien's work, even though its not a traditional fairy story at all' & when you find that Tolkien's work is not susceptible to your 'tool' & won't open up to that method of interpretation to start complaining that you've been let down (whether by Tolkien or you interpretative tool) is a bit off - & to start off by putting your hands on your hips & telling Tolkien 'Don't do me like that' is complaining that he's somehow failed to come up to your standards.

Formendacil

02-13-2006, 09:05 PM

He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

Lush

02-13-2006, 10:05 PM

Much as I enjoy your knack for creating lively threads, Lush, I think all that's been proven here is that it's easy to provoke a certain type of response with a certain type of topic.

You started the thread off with a rant against people who dismiss questions about why there aren't more females in LotR with simple explanations. Okay, I get that it bugs you. But there are inevitably boneheaded replies to any topic, from Balrog wings to Elf ears.

As has been mentioned, the question itself is sort of self-limiting. LotR doesn't have a lot of female characters. Why? Over the years, I've seen as many reductive boneheaded replies for "why" as for "why not": "Tolkien doesn't understand women"; "Tolkien doesn't like women"; "Tolkien believes women should be pretty, barefoot, and pregnant", etc. If you have gained new insight into this question from your recent studies of Tatar and fairy-tale, I'm pretty sure you haven't really articulated them yet, and you certainly didn't share them in your first post.

There aren't a lot of female characters in LotR. In the end Tolkien didn't write them and we can only guess at why or why not. In my view it probably wasn't because of any particular conscious agenda one way or the other. Is there really a lot of meat on this bone that hasn't been chewed yet?

Actually, I started this thread with a very specific question - absence of women in the Fellowship - and a very specific criticism - one which Lalaith nailed on the head much better than I did when I attempted it, in mind. It has morphed from then on out.

On the other hand, I think that the idea that gender discussions automatically produce a knee-jerk result isn't borne out by Downs history.

Over the years, there have been numerous thoughtful discussions of gender in LotR, as well as deep discussions of the individual female characters that are present in the work. Fordim's recent "Calling all women", Birdland's "Tolkien the Matricide", and Child's old "The 'Fair' Sex in LotR", for instance, all tackle Tolkien in relation to gender with interesting results (ironically, doing a quick search of "Tolkien sexist" will fetch all these topics). Topics on Galadriel, Arwen, and Éowyn have all yielded fruitful, albeit sometimes fiery, results as well.

In other words, a good topic breeds good discussion, even if there will be the inevitable amount of "noise" in the form of knucklehead replies.

Several topics have already been suggested which I bet could spin into interesting threads.

I wasn't criticising the Downs in general, but a very specific strain of thought in particular.

Lush

02-13-2006, 10:16 PM

Oh come on - you're the one who said this was a 'game'. I said 'There are plenty of other books to read which would maybe appeal to your taste more'. & I was speaking very precisely in terms of LotR, not the Legendarium as a whole. If you don't like the lack of female characters in LotR, you can read Aldarion & Erendis in UT, or the Athrabeth in Home 10.

That being said, in Tolkien's mind there was only really the one story. LotR is part of the Legendarium. If there are no significant female characters in Lotr apart from Galadriel & Eowyn, there are individual chapters where those characters dominate. In the final analysis, LotR itself was only one 'chapter' in the Legendarium.

Did I say "I don't like it"? Or did I say, "I don't like the way people approach it"? And what was I referring to? The Fellowship, of course!

I could have done without the "shut up" when I opened the thread, but I had just crawled back from the pub after a long, and no less fiery, discussion of literature.

Per my usage of the word "game," it appeared in this context:

"While I may strongly disagree with a reader's interpretation of a work, I wouldn't respond in a way that suggested they take a hike and read something else. That's awfully reactionary in my opinion. If you're putting your work out there, in the public domain, expect it to be criticized, both positively and negatively; expect it to be misinterpreted, re-interpreted, spat upon and praised. That's the nature of the game."

So... did this word simply jump out at you for some reason that I am not seeing?

I'm saying the story is as it is, perfect or otherwise. I'll also say that I don't believe anyone could 'improve' upon it by introducing changes in style or character.

I don't think anyone here is attempting an improvement of it. If certain aspects of the book fascinate some readers, yet ultimately leave them unsatisfied, perhaps they can write their own stories? We have a number of talented writers around here. This has always been my personal approach to all great literature I have loved, and whose lacks and depths I have mulled over in time.

I have to say I think this thread has been a bit confused from the start, in treating Tolkien's work as no different from a traditional fairy story, & asking 'why, if we have 'X' in traditional tales, do we not have 'X' in Tolkien's work?' Because Tolkien's works are not traditional tales, however powerfully & effectively he may use traditional images & themes. To take the approach 'I have this wonderful tool for interpreting traditional fairy stories & I'm going to apply it to Tolkien's work, even though its not a traditional fairy story at all' & when you find that Tolkien's work is not susceptible to your 'tool' & won't open up to that method of interpretation to start complaining that you've been let down (whether by Tolkien or you interpretative tool) is a bit off - & to start off by putting your hands on your hips & telling Tolkien 'Don't do me like that' is complaining that he's somehow failed to come up to your standards.

What?! Davem, I am going to cut and paste my original post, it's now glaringly obvious to me that you have mis-read it:

I've been here since 2001.

I've seen a lot of threads about women in Lord of the Rings on this forum.

Yet ever since doing serious research ino the fairy tale, I've discovered that you cannot always apply the rules of the tale to the rules of the real world. Therefore, all those guys talking about "women don't belong in stories of war" and "Tolkien was merely using his own experiences in WWI when it comes to women" need to shut up.

Fairy tale survives through its own logic and its own archetypes. Don't bring in the real world to justify the absence of females in the Fellowship, for example. This is reductive. It doesn't do justice to the fairy tale and to the real world.

I suggest a good dose of Maria Tatar on the subject.

Four years of putting up with reductive discussions on the precense/absence of women in Tolkien's work have taken their toll on me.

Am I telling Tolkien "don't do me like that"? Am I speaking to the dead? LOL!!!

Per your criticism of the overall application of traditional fairy tale, I would agree. I am not trying to take LotR and interpret it to a particular mold that Tatar discusses. But I think that she does process a lot of information that could be of use when approaching the book.

Lush

02-13-2006, 10:17 PM

He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

Agreed.

Now who's breaking what?

Mister Underhill

02-13-2006, 11:57 PM

Actually, I started this thread with a very specific question - absence of women in the Fellowship - and a very specific criticism - one which Lalaith nailed on the head much better than I did when I attempted it, in mind. It has morphed from then on out.Re-reading that reposted first post, I don't see the question. I think this is the reason why a lot of people are confused and wondering what you want out of the thread. If, for example, you have some ideas on a connection between fairy tales and why there are few female characters in LotR, I'd be interested to hear them. I haven't yet. Have I? I've lost track -- it may be lack of sleep and a screen resolution that's set too high.

I'm looking at Lalaith's post that you keep referencing and even she doesn't seem quite sure of what you were going for originally. Is your peeve -- summed up by Lalaith -- that some posters use "real-world" reasoning to explain why there are relativey few female characters in LotR? And that said reasoning is sometimes, er, how shall we put this delicately? -- not very deep or insightful? If that's it, then 10-4, got it. Roger that. Is there more to the subject? For instance, some reason within the bounds of the created world, or maybe some sort of technical reason, which explains the lack?

Lush

02-14-2006, 12:54 AM

Lalwende pointed out that this for many people, this is a give-and-take kind of situation. A lot of shallow writing has accused LotR in particular of being a 'sexist' book. Therefore, it is natural that some people should react vehemently, or dismissively when women are brought up in almost any critical context.

I also think that there is a lot of juvenile appropriation of the Fellowship out there. When Lalaith wrote "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty," this resonated with me. I think LotR is on the cusp of serving both the literary voraciousness of discerning readers, and the needs of children who are just beginning to delve into this "good yarn" and all that it has to offer. I think this seeming duality often leads to problems of perception, wherein gender is twisted and assumed to be something it isn't.

I have my own reservations regarding Tolkien's dealing with gender, and sometimes Tolkien the man does blend with Tolkien the writer in my understanding, though I would not dismiss the gendered aspects of his work outright because of the letters Raynor helpfully quoted. But the more I look at fairy-tale, and the more I look at the all-male Fellowship, the more I become convinced that this particular entity is, in itself, more gender-neutral than it appears on the surface. All of the bonding, camaraderie, and shared responsibility, in my opinion could have easily occured within a mixed-gender setting. Tolkien did not choose it to be so, and while that is his prerogative, I do not see the gender of the members of the Fellowship to be a commentary on gender in and of itself.

Am I making myself any clearer? Or should I wrote more during daylight hours, on a clearer head?

davem

02-14-2006, 05:43 AM

All of the bonding, camaraderie, and shared responsibility, in my opinion could have easily occured within a mixed-gender setting. Tolkien did not choose it to be so,

Perhaps I see a flaw in your argument here. You say Tolkien did not choose to have a mixed gender setting - as if he sat down with the two alternatives of mixed gender & single gender Fellowships, & consciously chose the one & rejected the other. Reading the relevant sections of HoM-e shows that he never did anything of the sort. The Fellowship went through many stages, with different numbers of members - five hobbits, four hobbits, one Man (Boromir - Aragorn was originally Trotter the Hobbit with wooden shoes).

Of course, the New Hobbit was to become in the course of time LotR, & move from another adventure quest tale (like TH) & become both the story of the War of the Ring & the culmination of the Legendarium. As a war story it would inevitably be a male dominated one, with its active participants being overwhelmingly male. This is not down to Tolkien's innate conservatism so much as to the simple fact that up to his day war was the province of males - 'warrior' = 'male'. I think this is showm by the fact that when he wants a term to cover the role Eowyn plays he has to go for 'Amazon', one of a group of semi mythical warrior women from the period BCE.

What I'm saying is, a war novel, written by a man of Tolkien's generation would inevitably be male dominated. Which is not to say that Tolkien didn't realise that women had fought in the past, when backed into a corner & in defence of their loved ones, its just that to go to war was a thing men did. And let's not just dismiss the fact that the war which Tolkien had experienced directly (WWI) was a male affair. I daresay that to Tolkien soldiers were male & he never even questioned that fact.

Of the main female characters in the Legendarium few are involved directly in battle. Erendis isn't, neither is Andreth. Even Luthien does not fight, but rather uses her magic. As far as women warriors are concerned we have Eowyn & Haleth (not sure we could include Galadriel - she does throw down Dol Guldur but I'd assume she does that in a similar way to that Luthien used to destroy the tower on Tol-in-Gaurhoth). Another problem arises in that, as I recall, Haleth was originally male.

So, women warriors in the Legendarium are the execption rather than the rule, & LotR is a story about soldiers, & therefore it is male dominated.

As to the statements in your original post:

Yet ever since doing serious research ino the fairy tale, I've discovered that you cannot always apply the rules of the tale to the rules of the real world. Therefore, all those guys talking about "women don't belong in stories of war" and "Tolkien was merely using his own experiences in WWI when it comes to women" need to shut up.

I think is confused, because, as I've said, it draws no distinction between traditional tales & the writings of Tolkien, which are two different things, & we cannot apply the same rules to them. Also, as I've said, the statements '"women don't belong in stories of war" and "Tolkien was merely using his own experiences in WWI when it comes to women" were simply true for Tolkien, whether or not the former is true for fairy tales or not.

&

Fairy tale survives through its own logic and its own archetypes. Don't bring in the real world to justify the absence of females in the Fellowship, for example. This is reductive. It doesn't do justice to the fairy tale and to the real world.

I'd say that Fairy tale survived not through its own logic & its own archetypes, but rather because fairy tales were entertaining, exciting, & very often uplifting. I don't see why you say bringing in the real world is reductive & unjust in this context. Fairy story must, if it is to convince, obey certain logical rules & inner laws. The same can be said of Fantasy. Middle-earth has rules, both in the sense of natural laws (which may be different from the natural laws of our world, but are still 'laws' nonetheless), & also a set of moral, ethical, political & social standards, which Tolkien gave to it. In Middle earth women don't fight as a rule. In times of war the males do the fighting, the women don't. All we can require of the sub creator is that his or her secondary world is consistent, not that it suits us, or lives up to our expectations, or conforms to a particular literary theory.

littlemanpoet

02-14-2006, 10:58 AM

I haven't read beyond the first three posts, so sorry if I'm saying something somebody already said. Seems to me that if Tolkien were part of this discussion, he'd tell you to do what he did: "If you can't find what you're looking for in the fiction you read, write one yourself, and put in all the stuff you want in."

Lush

02-14-2006, 05:18 PM

Hiya d. I'm posting this at a zillion words per minute, seeing as I'm stuck in the library again and I really want to go home, so if it makes zero sense don't hesitate to let me know.

I think it is fair to say that Tolkien probably never intended for women to have been part of the Fellowship. But what I was talking about is a general sense of the lack of importance of gender when it comes to the Fellowship's story. Thousands of female readers respond powerfully to the bonds between the males in the Fellowship, and I daresay that most of us can identify. As I wrote in my original post, I honestly don't care if in the 'real' world outside the page Tolkien was a man, who served in a war with other men. His own life and his own experiences and his own intentions can only take me so far. I don't doubt their importance. But, as I've already written, the process of reading and experiencing the book belongs to each individual reader, and cannot be taken away from us. Personally, the "maleness" of the Fellowship does not register with me anymore. I pay very close attention to gender specifics and the way they apply to the females that come up in LotR, but never to the males. Perhaps Tolkien would have never wished for me or someone like me to identify with members of the Fellowship. As Raynor pointed out, his views on women seemed to have been quite, *cough*, specific. But the story of the Fellowship has impacted and inspired me in such a way as to render his own views on gender and gender roles to be inconsequential to a reader such as myself.

davem

02-15-2006, 05:08 AM

I honestly don't care if in the 'real' world outside the page Tolkien was a man, who served in a war with other men. His own life and his own experiences and his own intentions can only take me so far. I don't doubt their importance. But, as I've already written, the process of reading and experiencing the book belongs to each individual reader, and cannot be taken away from us.

But the point is that, unlike traditional tales, the Legendarium was written by a single man, with a biography. His experiences shaped him & produced the stories he wrote. Because of this we cannot leave his personal history, experiences & values out of any analysis.

Of course, we can just read the stories & let them work on us as they will, open us to new perceptions & ways of thinking. But once we start into analysis we have, first & foremost, to take into account the man. Yes, the process of reading and experiencing the book belongs to each individual reader in a sense but that kind of claim to ownership can be dangerous if you start thinking 'this means whatever I choose it to mean. These are just words until I give meaning to them. Tolkien actually had something specific to say, & there's a difference between discovering your own meaning in the text & ignoring Tolkien's, or at least giving preference to your own over his - which is one thing - and denying that there is any intentional meaning there at all.

I pay very close attention to gender specifics and the way they apply to the females that come up in LotR, but never to the males. .... But the story of the Fellowship has impacted and inspired me in such a way as to render his own views on gender and gender roles to be inconsequential to a reader such as myself.

You seem to want an analysis of the roles (or lack thereof) of women in LotR - what do they do, why don't they do other things, why aren't there more of them, what does the lack of prominence of females in the story tell us about Middle-earth, but you rule out the only real explanation for all those things - Tolkien the man & the things that shaped him - from the analysis. Hence, whatever theory you manage to come up with will be flawed. You can either just enjoy the stories, or you can attempt an in-depth analysis of them - which must include Tolkien himself. Any analysis of a writer's work which attempts to account for it as if it had just appeared spontaneously, or as if it were reportage is bound to fail (imo).

Lalwendë

02-15-2006, 05:50 AM

But the point is that, unlike traditional tales, the Legendarium was written by a single man, with a biography. His experiences shaped him & produced the stories he wrote. Because of this we cannot leave his personal history, experiences & values out of any analysis.

You can either just enjoy the stories, or you can attempt an in-depth analysis of them - which must include Tolkien himself. Any analysis of a writer's work which attempts to account for it as if it had just appeared spontaneously, or as if it were reportage is bound to fail (imo).

It's becoming clear again to me that this all boils down to a fundamental difference in modes of criticism. On the one hand we have the post-structuralist school of "The Death of the Author" and on the other the classical school of thought which sought to discover what the Author really meant.

A post-structuralist would argue that there is little point in attempting to find out the truth by looking at the Author's life as how can we ever really know what he or she thought? they would also argue that much of what authors write is unconscious reflection of the world and so is beyond their control. A post-structuralist would also argue that the literal presence of a text puts up a huge wall between Author and Reader which the latter cannot peek over.

I've found a link to Roland Barthes' famous and influential essay The Death of the Author (http://faculty.smu.edu/dfoster/theory/Barthes.htm). Light reading it is not. But it is also compulsory reading for anyone studying English or Literature. And challenge it at your peril. ;)

What is interesting is that much of what Barthes says in his essay would probably go against much of what Tolkien believed. For example:

In precisely this way literature (it would be better from now on to say writing), by refusing to assign a ‘secret’, an ultimate meaning, to the text (and to the world as text), liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fix meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases—reason, science, law.

Although a post-structuralist would probably dismiss that point as irrelevant in any case. ;)

It's also interesting that post-structural linguistics have entirely taken over from Tolkien's own discipline of philology in English language and linguistics departments, and it is post-structuralists such as Barthes, Chomsky and Saussure who put forth the kind of criticism which asserts that the Author's voice is irrelevant.

This type of criticism can be extremely useful in my opinion. Taking the example of Plath, many feminist critics take an incredible focus on her life, on her biography. The fact of her suicide soon becomes all important. The style, structure and language of her poetry soon becomes subsumed in psychological analyses of her mental condition and speculations about her marriage. Taking a Post-structuralist approach to her work can help the critic to focus on the words rather than the life.

But what I often wonder is if it is appropriate to take a post-structuralist approach with every Author? If we do, are we at risk of reducing all literature to mere slogans - I remember an entire tedious term of linguistics seminars spent analysing the one advertising slogan "It asda be asda"; I think our post-structuralist lecturer was trying to hammer his point home somewhat. :rolleyes:

I also wonder how such post-structural theory is truly placed when it comes up against 'celebrity authors', such as Plath, Tolkien, Austen, those Authors for whom every aspect of their life is endlessly turned over by the fans, and who end up being viewed somewhat as demi-gods. Should we wholeheartedly embrace only post-structural theory in the face of such Authors? Or does that theory go against our natural inclination to know what the mid of the Author was, who lead us into such a sense of wonderment?

I think on the Downs we have some clear classicists, and some clear post-structuralists. I'm neither.

The Saucepan Man

02-15-2006, 08:16 AM

I think on the Downs we have some clear classicists, and some clear post-structuralists. I'm neither.I would same that most here are neither - or rather both. And more. Myself included.

Surely, when we first read LotR, most of us will have had little impression of the author's philosophy or experiences. And few of us (that first time, at least) will have approached it with any conscious theory of analysis in mind. We simply read a book that had come to our attention in some way and experienced it.

I was 11 or 12 the first time that I read LotR. Funnily enough, I had no grounding in literary theory at the time. I probably read the Foreword, but I doubt that it made much of an impression on me. And I do not recall analysing the book on any conscious level. I simply read it and enjoyed it. Any analysis took place at a subconsious (and probably fairly rudimentary) level. The experience was probably the same the next few times that I read LotR, even after studying English literature at 'A' level and gaining some kind of a (very basic) grounding in literary analysis.

My approach to LotR only really changed when I first came across the Downs and discovered debates about such things as whether Olog-Hai were sun-resistant and whether Balrogs had wings (which of course they do, in my experience ;) ). And, later, what it said about religion and politics even. It never occurred to me before that one could approach LotR in such a manner, not on a conscious level at least. Previously, I had merely regarded it as a means of enjoyment, rather than a potential field of study. This new approach attracted me, however, and so I became an active member.

And, in joining the various discussions over the years since I first became a member, I have employed a variety of approaches to the numerous debates that I have participated in. Sometimes, I look at the text in terms of how I experience it. Sometimes, I choose to analyse it, either from a 'literal' point of view, or from the perspective of the perceived intention of the author. Or even just in terms of what it means to me, how I react to it. Similarly, the text can be examined to see what it says about the author or to see what it says about us, either individually or as groups (society).

What I am saying is that there are a variety of different ways of looking at a text and I do not believe that they should be mutually exclusive. Each has its own merits, depending on what you are trying to discover or achieve.

Take the topic at hand. When I first read LotR, the lack of strong female characters did not make much of a (conscious) impression on me. It still doesn't really. In the main, I simply take the story as given and go with it. There is nothing wrong in that. But equally, there is nothing wrong in considering what this text may say about the author or the society he lived in, or what one's own reaction to it (and the reactions of others) is, irrespective of authorial intention, and what this may say about oneself or the society that one lives in. These two approaches may lead to very different conclusions, but there may be benefits to gained from both. By restricting oneself to one way of approaching the text on this issue, one may end up missing something relevant to the question (if any) which prompted one to undertake the analysis in the first place.

But (and I agree with davem here) one should try never to lose sight of one's initial experience of the text. For it is in that (subconscious) reaction that the key significance of the issue to you may lie.

Which probaly means, for me, that the question of gender balance in LotR is not one which overly concerns me. So I'd better shut up ... :rolleyes: ;)

Fordim Hedgethistle

02-15-2006, 08:38 AM

Oh no! Barthes!! The last time he reared his hoary old post-structuralist head was in The Thread That Must Not Be Named (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10593).

Lal, as always, makes some nice points but I would hasten to add a couple of things to what she's offered:

First, Barthes is rather 'old fashioned' now in lit crit with most theorists having gone on from post-structuralism to other things. Interestingly enough, there's been something of a return to reading texts as actually containing some substantive relation to the 'real': usually along the axis of politics (postcolonial reading, neofeminism, ecocriticism) and in each of these the authors are returning from the dead.

It's also important to keep in mind that Barthes was writing a rhetorical piece that was meant to garner and cause a reaction -- which it did. At the time the essay appeared the world of lit crit was still suffering from the Romantic notion that the meaning of any text springs wholly and solely from the Intent/Genius of the Prophet-Author. The reader in this model was a poor second cousin who comes along after the fact, sits passively at the knee of the author and sees what he (and it was almost always a he) had to tell about the world. Breaking through this mode of thinking and creating a more interactive role for the reader -- making the reader more active in the process -- was Barthes' aim, and in that he succeeded admirably.

I make these points because from my view of Tolkien and Barthes they are not really that different in their approach to what Barthes calls the "author-function". Obviously, he never argued that there is no author to a text, only that the person who writes a text is not its Author (i.e. sole and original creator, the originary point from which it springs as the world did from the Mind of God); instead the person who writes the text fulfils the author-function of acting as a screen or mediator between the myriad and infinite number of texts and experiences and social forces that he or she has moved through, on the one hand, and the reader on the other. This is much like Tolkien's view in some interesting ways, insofar as while Tolkien argued that in fairy story the writer acts as the subcreator of a new world, the 'meaning' of that world is not something that springs from the writer. The meaning of the subcreated world comes from the underlying truths of the primary world that the writer acts as a transmitter of or for.

So Barthes and Tolkien are alike in how the author functions: for both of them you have something like this...

the "real" world/Primary world --> writer --> the text/Secondary world --> Reader

Neither of them thinks that the meaning of the text is contained by the writer, and both of them argue forcefully for the reader's active and participatory role in the reading act. The 'point' of reading for both is that the reader can engage with a text and then use that engagement to move toward an understanding of the forces that are at play in the text and which shaped it through the writer. Neither sees the writer as a prophet, but as a mediator.

Where they do differe significantly is in their perceptions of what constitutes that "real" or Primary world. For Barthes, the real world was sociological and materialist; for Tolkien it was pschological and religious. So while they both agree on what the "author function" is they disagree over what that function is about. For Barthes, the reading act immerses the reader in sociological and material historical forces (which are protean, multiple but, ultimately, analyzable), while for Tolkien the reading act immerses the reader in psychological and religious truths (which are stable, singular and, untimately, an ineffable mystery to reader and writer alike).

davem

02-15-2006, 09:33 AM

Clearly Tolkien believed that the reader (or hearer) of tales is a co-creator, but not one in a position oof equality with the writer/teller of the tale. Tolkien (sub)creates a pseudo Medieval world, predominantly natural as opposed to man-made, filled with strange creatures, heroes & magic, with an underlying morality.

By writing such a convincing story, in such detail, Tolkien actually restricts what his readers can contribute to the story - you can't bring in cars or aircraft, you can't introduce new (female) characters into the central events of the story - you can write fanfic about secondary events where female characters take on central roles, but if you introduce a female character into the Fellowship for instance you're no longer a 'co-creator' with Tolkien: you've gone off on a tangent of your own. In other words, you can ask why there aren't loads of women running around Middle-earth whacking Orcs & chopping the extremities off Trolls, but you can't put them in there - not even in fanfic, because if there were such hordes of women doing that kind of thing at the end of the Third Age Tolkien would have mentioned it. Even fanfic written in response to Tolkien's desire that other minds & hands should take up brush & pen & continue the creation of Middle-earth is limited, as if it is to be 'authentic' it must not contradict what Tolkien has set down.

No 'equality' in this 'co-creation' I'm afraid. Tolkien is always going to be the dominant partner.

As to the original question. I've just come across the following passage in White's Once & Future King:

Yet Guenever could not search for the Grail. She could not vanish into the English forest for a year's adventure with the spear. It was her part to sit at home, though passionate, though real & hungry in her fierce & tender heart. For her there were no recognized diversions except what is comparable to the ladies' bridge party of today. She could hawk with a merlin, or play blind man's buff, or pince merille. These were the amusements of grown-up women in her time. But the great hawks, the hounds, heraldry, tournaments - these were for Lancelot. For her, unless she felt like a little spinning or embroidery, there was no occupation - except Lancelot.

I think that could sum up the position of many of the women in Middle-earth at the time of LotR. Of course, its restrictive, & many women readers may even feel a desire to chain themselves to the railings of Minas Tirith, or throw themselves under Aragorn's horse in protest. But that's the world, those are the rules that Tolkien created. One point I would make, though, is that if warrior women & wise women were ten a penny in M-e Eowyn would not stand out as such a strong & significant figure, or Galadriel be such a mysterious & inspiring one. Can't have it both ways....

The Saucepan Man

02-15-2006, 10:26 AM

In other words, you can ask why there aren't loads of women running around Middle-earth whacking Orcs & chopping the extremities off Trolls, but you can't put them in there - not even in fanfic, because if there were such hordes of women doing that kind of thing at the end of the Third Age Tolkien would have mentioned it.I disagree. Tolkien's tale concerns only one part of Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age. Who is to say that there was not a society of warrior women in the far south or the far east of Middle-earth who played no (or little) part in the events which he relays? While he provided much detail concerning Middle-earth, he surely did not tell us everything that there is to know about it.

Lush

02-15-2006, 12:30 PM

d, I appreciate the discourse on the importance of the author, but my original point was the fact that I find the Fellowship, as an entity in and of itself, to be gender-neutral. That may not have what Tolkien intended, of course. Perhaps I'll take a hardback Alan Lee-illustrated copy and beat this nonsense out of myself. :D

Of course, its restrictive, & many women readers may even feel a desire to chain themselves to the railings of Minas Tirith, or throw themselves under Aragorn's horse in protest.

Perhaps if I wasn't born in a violently shovenist society, I'd find the above wickedly funny. As things stand, however, I simply find it in extreme poor taste. :rolleyes:

Raynor

02-15-2006, 01:00 PM

It is interesting that some of Tolkien'points on the difference between on men and women, as expressed in letter #43, are rather closely paralelled in his description of elven nissi and neri (males and females), as found in Laws and customs of the eldar, HoME X:
The nissi are more often skilled in the tending of fields and gardens, in playing upon instruments of music, and in the spinning, weaving, fashioning, and adornment of all threads and cloths; and in matters of lore they love most the histories of the Eldar and of the houses of the Noldor; and all matters of kinship and descent are held by them in memory.

But the neri are more skilled as smiths and wrights, as carvers of wood and stone, and as jewellers. It is they for the most part who compose musics and make the instruments, or devise new ones; they are the chief poets and students of languages and inventors of words. Many of them delight in forestry and in the lore of the wild, seeking the friendship of all things that grow or live there in freedom The same active/passive roles seem to apply, though in a more diluted manner.

Lalwendë

02-15-2006, 01:02 PM

I think that could sum up the position of many of the women in Middle-earth at the time of LotR. Of course, its restrictive, & many women readers may even feel a desire to chain themselves to the railings of Minas Tirith, or throw themselves under Aragorn's horse in protest. But that's the world, those are the rules that Tolkien created. One point I would make, though, is that if warrior women & wise women were ten a penny in M-e Eowyn would not stand out as such a strong & significant figure, or Galadriel be such a mysterious & inspiring one. Can't have it both ways....

Unlike TH White, Tolkien does not make in his text any statement about whether women are forbidden from acting in the way that Eowyn and Galadriel do, nor even does he say that their behaviour is in any way unusual for women. The fact that they are remarked upon where other women are not does not automatically mean that there were not other women who fought or who exercised leadership. The portrayals of Eowyn and Galdriel may be distinguished by the context within which each acted.

For me, I don't think Eowyn and Galadriel stand out particularly because they are women operating outside the context of their gender, but because of what they do. Their gender can be separated from their roles in the book. Eowyn is remarkable for disobeying Theoden and for being desperate (and in any case I often think she is equally representative of a young man put in the same position). Galadriel is remarkable for her power and her thirst for and eventual rejection of power.

Bêthberry

02-15-2006, 01:31 PM

Perhaps this is the proper junction to step in with some thoughts that some of the latter posts have suggested to me. No, I have no intention of revisiting the big blunderbuss thread.

I've been thinking of some of the fairy tales and their depictions of women and women's relationships. And of men's. And of gender and gender differences. And also of relationships as depicted in the literary tradition which Tolkien did not like, apparently--classical literature. And trying to figure out just what it is that Lush wants to say.

Now, she has said she finds the Fellowship gender-neutral:

But the more I look at fairy-tale, and the more I look at the all-male Fellowship, the more I become convinced that this particular entity is, in itself, more gender-neutral than it appears on the surface. All of the bonding, camaraderie, and shared responsibility, in my opinion could have easily occured within a mixed-gender setting. Tolkien did not choose it to be so, and while that is his prerogative, I do not see the gender of the members of the Fellowship to be a commentary on gender in and of itself.

. . . .

But what I was talking about is a general sense of the lack of importance of gender when it comes to the Fellowship's story. Thousands of female readers respond powerfully to the bonds between the males in the Fellowship, and I daresay that most of us can identify. As I wrote in my original post, I honestly don't care if in the 'real' world outside the page Tolkien was a man, who served in a war with other men. His own life and his own experiences and his own intentions can only take me so far. I don't doubt their importance. But, as I've already written, the process of reading and experiencing the book belongs to each individual reader, and cannot be taken away from us. Personally, the "maleness" of the Fellowship does not register with me anymore. I pay very close attention to gender specifics and the way they apply to the females that come up in LotR, but never to the males.

I'm not sure what she means by 'gender-neutral', other than the obvious point but I'm not sure I would apply it to that classical tradition of male friendship. I don't know of course if Lush is thinking along those lines, but the comments got me thinking. There's that very famous painting of The Death of Socrates (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/deathofsocrates.jpg) by David. It might not reproduce well here, but off on the left in the far background is, supposedly, Socrates' wife, leaving him to his heroic death scene with his male buddies. This has always to me typified the basic and inherited tradition of bonding and friendships in western culture: the important friendships are those between men. To some extent, this cultural value was shifted under Christianity, but not exclusively--witness David's vision of it in 1787.

So what's going on here? Tolkien rejected classical literature for the sagas, tales, mythologies of the northern peoples. But did he in fact inherit and maintain the tradition of male friendship from classical literature, and not incorporate the gender specifics of fairy tale?

After all, there is only the vaguest hint of sisterhood or female society in Ioreth and her sisters and we never have very significant scenes between Arwen and her grandmother or Rosie and Mrs Cotton. In that sense, Tolkien is the reverse image of Austen, who never shows male characters alone without women.

And here davem is suggesting some sort of maenade behaviour for us? :p ;)

davem

02-15-2006, 01:43 PM

Perhaps if I wasn't born in a violently shovenist society, I'd find the above wickedly funny. As things stand, however, I simply find it in extreme poor taste.

I think this is perhaps imposing a meaning on the author's words that was not necessarily intended. How can we know the author's mind & intent? Clearly any 'meaning' you find in the statement is something you have imposed on it. Any 'offence' found in any text is down to the reader, not the author, as meaning only resides in the text itself - or rather in what the reader finds in/imposes on the text.

And, even though I am a white Englishman, & therefore in Hollywood shorthand personally responsible for all the badness & villainy in the whole world ever, I don't see that I can be blamed for where you were born & what the blokes over there are like.

Unlike TH White, Tolkien does not make in his text any statement about whether women are forbidden from acting in the way that Eowyn and Galadriel do, nor even does he say that their behaviour is in any way unusual for women. The fact that they are remarked upon where other women are not does not automatically mean that there were not other women who fought or who exercised leadership. The portrayals of Eowyn and Galdriel may be distinguished by the context within which each acted.

I suppose that women in M-e don't take part in front line combat for one of two reasons - either because it is 'against the rules' either legal or social, or because they think that sort of thing is 'men's work'. The fact remains that women who take an active role in combat are the exception rather than the rule, as they are worthy of mention by the author.

Lush

02-15-2006, 05:21 PM

Any 'offence' found in any text is down to the reader, not the author, as meaning only resides in the text itself - or rather in what the reader finds in/imposes on the text.

Hee hee. If you're referring to Lal's earlier post-structuralist v. classissism post, I am glad to inform that I am neither and am not bound up by any of these conventions, though I do agree with Lal that the persona of Tolkien can easily overshadow our experiences of the text (if that's what she said). Now, if you just wanted to say that you didn't mean to offend, I'm down with that.

And, even though I am a white Englishman, & therefore in Hollywood shorthand personally responsible for all the badness & villainy in the whole world ever...

Really? I guess you're more up-to-date on Hollywood than I. I usually see white Englishmen taking the slightly awkward sex-object role. Or maybe it's all to do with the films I see.

I don't see that I can be blamed for where you were born & what the blokes over there are like.

d, you made a dismissive statement that is, to me, offensive. I think it would be offensive to anyone, even to you, if you step back and place it in the appropriate context. Think outside the box, d! :)

Lush

02-15-2006, 05:38 PM

So what's going on here? Tolkien rejected classical literature for the sagas, tales, mythologies of the northern peoples. But did he in fact inherit and maintain the tradition of male friendship from classical literature, and not incorporate the gender specifics of fairy tale?

To be honest, I haven't the faintest. I based my reading of the Fellowship on the language surrounding it, on the relationships that spring up between various members, and the responses they triggered in me were very different than the image you provided, where gender, I think, is specifically delineated and placed. I'm not sure what's acting here; my own biases, my strong attachment to the work in general, or if this is something that exists beyond me and if anyone else, male or female, has felt the same way. I'd like to know what others think.

davem

02-15-2006, 05:42 PM

d, you made a dismissive statement that is, to me, offensive. I think it would be offensive to anyone, even to you, if you step back and place it in the appropriate context. Think outside the box, d!

If anything I said was offensive to you I apologise. I usually try to be generally offensive to everyone - purely so as not to be accused of favouritism - but if I have been specifically offensive to anyone in particular I can only say it wasn't intended.

If I can rephrase what I said:

''I don't see that I can be blamed for where anybody was born & what the blokes (or the women) anywhere are like.'

I hope now that everyone feels equally dismissed & offended.

Lush

02-15-2006, 05:45 PM

Thanks, d. Now... how about the effects of the Alan Lee hardback on my head? I can't afford a copy right now, but I'll let you know how it goes. :D

davem

02-15-2006, 05:53 PM

Thanks, d. Now... how about the effects of the Alan Lee hardback on my head? I can't afford a copy right now, but I'll let you know how it goes. :D

You can have mine if you want - the movies have ruined it for me :( Can't look at the pix without thinking of the movie, so I've had to buy the new 50th anniversary h/b set as my 'special' set.

(You'll have to pay the postage though :p )

The Saucepan Man

02-15-2006, 06:05 PM

Eowyn is remarkable for disobeying Theoden and for being desperate (and in any case I often think she is equally representative of a young man put in the same position).Quite so. In terms of her disobedience to Theoden and reaction against an externally imposed stricture that she was not to go to war, a parallell may be drawn with Merry. Who is of course male and of a race referred to as not particularly warlike, but doughty and resistant when called upon. And Merry's experience in the War of the Ring is part of his development (alongside Pippin, who is in a similar position) into one of the prime movers behind the resistance in the Scouring of the Shire.

Another point occurs to me with regard to Eowyn. She is forbidden to go to war by Theoden because he wanted her to take charge of those that were left behind in case the Riders failed and the enemy came to Rohan. I believe that Eowyn specifically refers to the women of Rohan being trained in swordman(woman ;) )ship so that they could defend themselves at need. So, while it is the men that ride to war, Rohirrim culture nevertheless does not consider women as wholly unsuitable for combat.

Not sure where those points take us, but I just thought that I would throw them into the mix ...

Numenorean

02-17-2006, 09:45 AM

Given the elegant and highly intelligent posts that have gone before me in this thread, please excuse my clumsy attempts at focussing on only one aspect of a vast topic. I agree entirely with your viewpoint here Saucey:
The Saucepan Man
Tolkien's tale concerns only one part of Middle-earth…. Who is to say that there was not a society of warrior women in the far south or the far east of Middle-earth who played no (or little) part in the events which he relays?

I am going to put Haleth and her people forward as a clear example of the existence of warrior Women within the Legendarium. As a female warrior ‘of great heart and strength’, Haleth was not an exception amongst her people, indeed for the Haladin it would seem that mixed gender warriors were in fact the traditional ‘norm’.

From Unfinished Tales – Part Four - The Drúedain:
Regarding the Folk of Haleth JRRT states –

“…many of their warriors were women” and “This custom was evidently ancient; for their chieftainess Haleth was a renowned Amazon with a picked bodyguard of women.”

With this mixed gender army, the Haladin – despite being only few in numbers – were significantly skilled enough in military matters for their reputation amongst the Eldar, the Edain and the Orcs of Beleriand to be as follows:

“…they were esteemed as loyal allies and redoubtable warriors…..and they excelled in forest warfare. Indeed for long even those Orcs specially trained for this dared not set foot near their borders”

Christopher Tolkien seems somewhat bemused in the footnotes to this chapter that ‘nothing is said in The Silmarillion about the Amazonian element in their society, other than that the Lady Haleth was a warrior.’

Mister Underhill
Éowyn is also described in at least two instances in the professor's notes as an "amazon". I don't know if that means anything about anything, or if it offers any insights.

Perhaps the Profs notes infer that Éowyn was not the solitary Amazonian warrior-type that she is sometimes thought to be, but in fact she was just a more high-profile example of an ancient tradition that stretches back across the history of the Atani, as glimpsed in the writings concerning the Folk of Haleth.

In ‘real world’ history I find interesting parallels – maybe JRRT did too – between Haladin and Celtic society, where women participated in both warfare and kingship. Indeed, among the ancient Celts, women rulers and warriors were so common that when a group of Brigantian (Brit Celts) captives were brought to Rome in the reign of Claudius they automatically assumed his wife, Agrippina the Younger, was the ruler and ignored the Emperor while making their obeisance to her. There is also Bodiecia and her renowned Iceni army, which was described by the Roman historian Tacitus as having "in their ranks more women than fighting men." A final example (among a myriad of historical references) comes from another Roman author, Ammianus Marcellinus, who describes Gaulish(Celtic) women as being even stronger than their husbands and fighting with their fists and kicks at the same time "like missiles from a catapult".

Lush
All of the bonding, camaraderie, and shared responsibility, in my opinion could have easily occured within a mixed-gender setting

I completely agree. As history clearly shows, women were (and are) more than a match for and often surpass men in combat, therefore the often heard arguments that ‘there could be no females in the Fellowship because they were unable to compete with men in military matters’ or ‘that it wouldn’t be realistic’ (etc) are, in my opinion, nonsense.