Females in the Fellowship

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I've heard a lot of people say that they wish there were more female characters in Lord of the Rings. I've also heard a lot of people say they would have enjoyed the book more if there had been a female in the Fellowship. I don't know why, exactly, but I tend to disagree. I'm a girl myself, but I'm not offended that there were no girls in the Fellowship - actually I'm glad! Maybe it's all these Legolas fangirls writing about a female elf joining the Fellowship, and falling pathetically in love with Legolas, but I just couldn't see a girl in the Fellowship. Besides, the female characters that were present in Lord of the Rings were strong in my opinion and that more than made up for it. While I kind of saw Eowyn as a desperate (towards Aragorn) she still managed to kill the Witch King which is pretty amazing by my standards! And look at Galadriel, she's strong and intimidating, more so than her male counterpart Celeborn (you hardly hear anything about him...) I just wondered if other people share the opinion that a female in the Fellowship would have been a wrong move, or if they wish there had been a girl in the Fellowship.

[elven maiden Earwen]

I'm a girl to and I'm happy they left girls out of the fellowship.I mean this isn't a thing you would see a girl doing. And ya the girl characters were strong even though there were few. I would have more females in the book but they definitly wouldnt be in the fellowship

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I am a guy. I can't say I'm glad there were no females in the fellowship, but I'm just happy it turned out the way it did with no females in it. I think that it is fine not having females in there, they're not really needed. I wouldn't mind if there were, as long as it was as better than if there were no females, or at least as good. I really can't stand those people who argue that there should be females in there. I don't like having things made politically correct. I think that's a bunch of bs. But it doesn't matter because it won't be changed.

[balrogman]

There is a girl in the fellowship! (movie)legolas! just kidding smilies/tongue.gif

But it would have been cool if there was a woman in the fellowship, but it would have totally altered the story.

[Scott]

Ruler of the Frogs, elven maiden Earwen, I bow down in awe of you.

Whether the disgruntled are upset "fan-girls" or not, I'm glad that you're seeing past what people may or may not see as sexism in the story. I belive that, as any good writer, Tolkien was totally cognisant of what he was doing and did it for a purpose.

Too many people are getting too caught up in arguments like, "This book is soo racist and Anglican oriented!" or, "Well, why does Paradise have to be in the west?"

You read past it in such a politically correct society and I pay homage.

[elven maiden Earwen]

the books arnt racist or sexist.I mean the whole fellowship thing is a mans job. Its not something most woman of M-E would do unless they had a sprit like Eowyn.

[Scott]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood...
They're not my views, only those of other debutants that seem to come out of the woodwork every time the name Tolkien appears. smilies/smile.gif

[elven maiden Earwen]

i didnt misunderstand you. I know they werent your ideas but I seen threads about that topic. I dont agree with them.

[Orual]

Having females in the Fellowship--and by this I do not mean the book, but the actual Fellowship--would have been unrealistic, and if anything The Lord of the Rings is realistic. (I think the definition of such realism has been discussed, but if you missed it and don't know what I mean I'd be glad to explain.) In a society such as the one portrayed in LotR, women would not be brought into such a mission--and even today they might not, besides the fact that a mixed company would present some practical problems, if you follow me.

Myself, I hardly noticed that there were no major female roles until it was pointed out to me. Certainly I knew that there were none, on some peripheral level, but it never really occured to me that I should be somehow upset by this. All of the characters were so well-drawn and three-dimensional that I sympathized completely with them, and it didn't matter that they were all male.

I think what people are missing when they complain about the lack of central female characters in the Lord of the Rings is that the characters in the Lord of the Rings should be seen as people, and why does it matter what gender they are? I am a girl, and I admire a lot of men for who they are and what they have done. Just because they are male and I am female doesn't mean that I can't respect them as well as I can respect another woman. That's what people need to understand; they need to see past the gender issue into the character, and try to see what can be admired, and what they can learn.

~*~Orual~*~

[elven maiden Earwen]

I definitly agree with you Oural.I being a female wasnt the least bit upset without there being females in the fellowship. It wouldnt be right and they would be so out of place. People need to look past the gender, race, religon, or age of the charecters in the books like we have to do in the real world.

[Meoshi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but-

Would a male author really be able to make a good central female character?

[elven maiden Earwen]

If they were a good writer definitly. I mean they would probly make better male charecters but they could make a female one. Look at Eowyn she isnt the main charecter but I liked her as much as the men in the fellowship.

[Scott]

Unless you're talking strictly about SciFi/Fantasy...
Just look at Shelley, Angelou, Morrison, Plath, etc... All have created formidably strong female characters.

[Scott]

Sorry, I misread "male" as being female.
I think I need some sleep!
Anyways, Joss Whedon created Buffy, didn't he. I'd say she is definitely a strong central female character!

[Rina]

I think that Tolkien had a very flattering conception of women in LOTR. Most of the female characters are portrayed as being on a higher plane. They are powerful and pure and goddess-like. Think of Goldberry and Galadriel and Arwen and Eowyn. They are without the flaws and foibles of the male characters. Tolkein does not poke fun at his female characters. They are almost reverenced. I don't think this could have been achieved if there had been female members of the Fellowship. They would have been taken off their pedastals and set amidst the common toil. They could hardly have been ethereal while tramping through marches and up mountains. I think that, far from being misogynistic, Tolkien is actually being gallant in his portrayal of female characters.

[ March 16, 2003: Message edited by: Rina ]

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Before I came here, I used to post on another board where this topic came up a lot. I'm also female ( smilies/wink.gif not many male Sophias out there, I think...) and this question always really surprised me. Maybe the females in LOTR aren't in the fellowship, but they're in their own places, and very strongly. You guys have already pointed out Eowyn and Galadriel, but there are more stong female characters in the backstory too... like Luthien, and even Varda (even though Manwe was more powerful, Varda was more beloved), and Elwing who carried the Silmaril, and Arien the Maia of the sun, and Melian who was so powerful she could protect an entire kingdom by herself... need I continue? smilies/wink.gif Tolkien's full of great female characters smilies/smile.gif

[Orual]

Meoshi--

Speaking as a writer myself, yes, a man as talented as Tolkien could certainly have written a believable and likeable female character. The main character in my fantasy is a young man. Writing the opposite gender is just a matter of seeing past the gender issue, as I said in my last post, and seeing through to those things that connect all of us. Eowyn, Galadriel, Arwen, and even (or especially?) Ioreth are all believable female characters, who can be seen as real people. Writing a female character would be no real struggle for Tolkien. I'm laughing sheepishly as I write this, but Spider Robinson (yes, the guy who wrote "Callahan's Place" and all the sequels) wrote Zoey and Erin Stonebender, two very believable female characters (for sci-fi). And though I love Spider Robinson, Tolkien is indisputably a better writer.

~*~Orual~*~

[elven maiden Earwen]

But I would say Eowyn is unlike the other three and she had her flaws. I mean she fell in love with Aragorn and disguised herself as a male to go fight.

[Lush]

Would a male author really be able to make a good central female character?

I don't think Tolkien could write females well, but that doesn't mean that no male author can create a convincing central female character.

I nominate people such as:

Michael Cunningham (I met him!) for The Hours, where all the central characters are female. This book went on to win the Pulitzer, and the movie adaptation has been nominated for 9 Oscars.

Philip Pullman for the His Dark Materials trilogy, which is centred on a girl named Lyra.

Leo Tolstoy for Anna Karenina. Nevermind that Tolstoy was in part a mysogynist pig (and some people think Tolkien sexist? Ha!), he wrore about the title character with amazing depth.

How about D.H. Lawrence as well?

And others?

[Lily Bracegirdle]

I first read LotR when I was 12, and I definitely had a hard time relating to most of the characters until Eowyn showed up. At 12 you think anyone over 25 is ancient, so I couldn't identify with 50-year-old hobbits and 89-year-old Men, not to mention the thousand-odd-year-old elves. The idealized women were too idealized for me to relate to and didn't (as I thought then) *do* much of anything. Sure, Galadriel contested with the Eye, but we never got to *see* any of that. All we saw was: "Here, Frodo, have this phial" (Galadriel) and "Aragorn, I knitted you this flag" (Arwen). Eowyn was a breath of fresh air because she acted like a real (flawed) human being and she actually got to *do* something heroic that was central to the story (and not mentioned in passing like Galadriel). If Eowyn hadn't been in the book, I doubt I would have finished reading it all those years ago.

Was LotR sexist? Probably no more than anything else written back then. (Idealizing women is also considered sexist because it treats women like angels and not like people.) Would it have been unrealistic to have a female in the Fellowship? Back then, yes. Would it have enhanced my enjoyment if Tolkien *had* written a woman in the Fellowship? Yes, but Eowyn was great, too. Do I condone retrofitting amazon babes into the story *now* to appeal to modern audiences? Absolutely not. I'm glad Arwen's role in the movie was toned down from the original "warrior princess" concept to the more sedate Arwen we've seen so far and hope that she won't be seen on the Pelennor. For better or worse, Tolkien wrote his women the way he did, and they should be left alone. Finally, can good authors transcend gender barriers and write believable members of the opposite sex? Yes, definitely. I think a good author has a grasp of what it means to be human, and since all of us are human regardless of what parts we've got, it should be possible. Shakespeare is a good example. Juliet and Lady MacBeth were great female characters.

-Lily

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I am so glad so many people relplied! smilies/biggrin.gif I couldn't agree more with the statement about females in LotR being on a higher pedestal. I've never really thought of it that way until now. You're completely right - while there were no central female characters, the ones that were presented were goddess like, beautiful inspirations for the men of the fellowship. That could not have been acheived if they had been rooting around in the mud and trampling across the country. I'm glad that I've gotten that new perspective! Thank you! smilies/biggrin.gif

[Lalaith]

One thing that does need to be pointed out, I think. If the Fellowship had a bunch of girls in it, I'd bet anything most of you boys on this board wouldn't be here, because you'd never have read the book....
...it's a sad fact of life that women will read books with either male or female protagonists but most men won't read books with females in the main roles. That's why JK Rowling had to write about Harry Potter rather than Harriet - oh, and also why she had to call herself JK rather than Joanne on the book covers - her publishers told her boys wouldn't read books by female authors...

[Voralphion]

I think that the story is more realistic by the fact that there were no females in the fellowship. Remember that it was set in a place technologically similar to medievil England. Having a female in the fellowship would hinder it as women aren't as physically strong as men, something that is required to fight with swords.
In ME women did not for the most part fight in wars, possible exception the women of Haleth, and it would be seen as inaccurate in ME let alone inaccurate in the technological period it was set.
Attempting to apply modern thinking and politically correctness to a story written, let alone set in another place and time is pointless and if it were done would make for a less engaging story as it would be seen as inaccurate.
Also saying that the female characters did not have flaws is wrong as I think that Eowyn was one of the most flawed characters in the book, with her seeking death in battle at all costs.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I do agree that Eowyn was 'flawed'. Eowyn felt incredibly real to me, and she was definatly identifiable. I could identify with her as a female trying her hardest to become part of a world that is reserved for men. However the majority of the female characters were seen as slightly higher, like Arwen, Galadriel, Luthien, and others like that. They were more beautiful, elegant and magical in many ways than the males in LotR.

[Voralphion]

True, Arwen, Galadriel and Luthien were potrayed as above other people, but this isn't reserved only for females. Elrond is also seen in this was as is Celeborn and Glorfindel.
Arwen is seen to be above others because of the way she is described and is involved. She is said to be the most beautiful elf ever save Luthien, this description would make any character be seen as above others. Also because she is only seen briefly and described vaguely it adds to her mystery and appearance of 'highness.'
The vagueness of descriptions is the same with Celeborn. For Galadriel, Luthien, Elrond and Glorfindel, they appear to be greater than other people because they are. Galadriel, Elrond and Glorfindel are probablly the most powerful elves in LOtR and Luthien was the most powerful elf ever. For this it it almost impossible for them to be place in awe by others.

[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: Voralphion ]

[Lush]

You're completely right - while there were no central female characters, the ones that were presented were goddess like, beautiful inspirations for the men of the fellowship. That could not have been acheived if they had been rooting around in the mud and trampling across the country. I'm glad that I've gotten that new perspective!

"But this pedestal is high/And I'm afraid of heights."

Anyway, at all of this I can only reinstate what I have believed since I finished reading the LOTR: Tolkien had trouble creating convincing, well-rounded female characters (he was most successful with Éowyn in that regard, and even then he had a multitude of problems that I'd rather not get into if I want to make a concise post).

Therefore, I'd take a well written story of an all-male fellowship over an "artificially" inserted female heroine any day.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I think that all elves were seen as 'higher' beings, but the emphasis of all that height was really put on the female elves. Elrond, Glorfindel, they were seen as greats. But there was just something more to the female elves. While Elrond was strong, wise and beautiful, there was a certain sight in which the females were seen that put them in an entirely different light. Perhaps this is because all the books central characters are male, and so therefore they would see females in a different light than males.

[Annatar, Lord of the Gifts]

Maybe, the Council thought it wrong to risk women, in the fight against Sauron. Eowyn would have been a good female member.

[Legolas]

Think of Goldberry and Galadriel and Arwen and Eowyn.

I think I missed the part where Arwen displays power.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

Arwen didn't really display any power, just she was seen as beautiful and fair (fairest since Luthien, wasn't it?) and an inspiration to Aragorn, and the thought of concering evil, becoming king and so having Elrond allow him to marry Arwen was what kept him strong. Not powerful, just goddess like.

[The Saucepan Man]

Reading through this thread, it did occur to me how "idealised" most of the female characters in JRRT's works are. They are all portrayed as attractive - indeed many are described as being exceptionally beautiful. Very few male characters (Elves apart) are described in these terms. Indeed, we are first introduced to one of the central male characters in LotR as "a strange-looking, weather-beaten man". And Frodo chooses to trust him because he thinks that a servant of the enemy would "seem fairer and feel fouler".

Also, there are no evil Human/Elvish/Hobbit female characters (ie excluding Shelob and Ungoliant). In fact, there are no female characters with flaws that might cause us to disapprove of them in some way. In other words, there are no female Feanors, Wormtongues or Maeglins. The only female character that I can think of that comes anywhere near is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, and her flaws are petty in the scheme of things, and she ends up with our sympathy. Eowyn's disobedience to Theoden has been described as a "flaw", but it is one that the reader can thoroughly approve of.

Having said that, the world of LotR (ME at the End of the Third Age) is a male-dominated one. The powerful female figures in JRRT's works are (almost without exception) Elves or Maiar. And the only truly powerful female figure in LotR is Galadriel. She hardly seems a likely recruit for the Fellowship - she is far more believable as the ruler of a realm where the Fellowship are able to find rest, and as the provider of guidance and gifts. (She does have a more active role - the defence of Lothlorien against Sauron's forces and the destruction of Dol Guldur - but this takes place "off-screen").

It seems to me that the only female character who might have "fitted in" to the Fellowship is Eowyn. She is the most down to earth - the one that the reader can most identify with. Consequently, she is the most believable to the human reader, certainly the most "well-rounded". But, as others have said, it would have been unbelievable, in the context of the world of LotR, to introduce a character like her into the Fellowship. She works best as a character who, in this male-dominated world, is only able to involve herself in the action by means of an act of deception.

[Child of the 7th Age]

And yet I wonder. In some of Tolkien's very latest writings that are contained in HoMe, specifically Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien does depict two very strong female characters who are not Elves or Maiar. Neither of these is portrayed as being particularly beautiful. One is discussed briefly and the other in some depth. The first is Adanel, and the second is Andreth.

The women are not portrayed as warriors, but rather as holders of lore or wisdom. Andreth, in particular, is shown as a woman of great dignity and some bitterness over her failed love affair with the Elf Aegnor. She can speak easily and confidently with Finrod, and is obviously a woman of considerable intellectual depth. She and Finrod have been friends for some time.

How I would have loved to see such women depicted in LotR itself! They simply aren't there. I wonder why? Is it that Tolkien only matured to the point where he could see a human woman (as opposed to a Maiar or Elf) in this kind of light quite late in his life? Or is there another reason? Anyone want to venture a guess?

In any case, as a human woman myself, I treasure these later writings. It's very interesting to me that C.S. Lewis also underwent a trnsformation late in life in terms of his ability to see and depict female characters. His last novel, Till We Have Faces, is by far the most in-depth and complex in terms of his portrayal of the two main female characters. In this case, we understand that this happened after his own marriage.

But what about Tolkien? Is this just coincidence that these wise women appear in the later writings, but not in LotR? Or is it something more?

[ March 18, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Aratlithiel]

It's always been my opinion that Tolkien had a bit of a difficult time writing women. As has been mentioned, the only relatable female character in the trilogy is Eowyn (I mean, let's be honest, girls - how many of us could really aspire to be Arwen?).

That being said, I hold to the opinion that a female character in the Fellowship would have been disastrous and distracting. Would we really want to have the additional burden of all the testosterone charging around in the air to impress the only female? Maybe have Boromir and a Hobbit come to blows over the fair maiden? (and you just know she'd hsve to be fair). Would we want to wonder how this female character deals with her personal sanitation problems in the wild? And what if she turned out to be (shudder) a Frodo-healer? (Nothing personal against the Frodo-healers, of course, it's just that I prefer my Ringbearer with a little dignity.)

Just as even the smallest plot points in this magnificent story depend upon one another to form the epic that it is, so too do the characters as written and any deviation would have resulted in a very different (and probably less artistic and well-received) work of literature. I for one, thank God that Tolkien lived and wrote this masterpiece before the age of politcal correctness!

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I think that the matter that no woman would want to join the Fellowship should also be taken into account. There are exceptions, like Eowyn, but don't you think that in those times, most women would be reluctant to go on a journey? Perhaps with other women yes, but with nine men? I don't think so. All these girls that pretend they are female members of the Fellowship (whether through fanfiction or roleplaying) neclect to think about some of the complications that a woman would face on a jounrey. Quests typically take more than one month, and everyone knows what comes once a month. Try having that and trampling through the wilderness with nine men. No thank you! It's just completely illogical to have a female in the Fellowship. Too many differences and difficulties.

[Lalaith]

Why are you all assuming a female would have had to have been a cute young human girl providing love interest?
Lets look at the races in the fellowship.
First off, dwarves. A hardy but wise dwarf woman, for example, could have gone on this quest without much problem.
Elves. Elf women carried out some extremely dangerous missions in Tolkien. Namely, Luthien's quest into the very throneroom of Morgoth - arguably more perilous and difficult than anything the Fellowship did.

Men. This is more problematic. There were warrior women in the First Age, among the people of Haleth, as someone has pointed out, and presumably they would have gone on missions with their male counterparts. But this culture did not survive into the Third Age so I agree that a human female would have seemed out of place in the fellowship.

Hobbits: we don't know much about female hobbits and what they were capable of, but they seem to be of rather domestic inclination. So probably a female hobbit would have been out of place as well.

As for women being too perfect and unrealistic in Tolkien, I agree that Tolkien's other writings reveal more depth and subtlety than LotR. As well as the women already mentioned, I would also point to Erendis (the Mariner's Wife) and Morwen Eledhwen, the mother of Turin Turambar.

[ March 19, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

[Cibbwin]

I personally would not have minded more women in the books, or the fellowship. But It worked out anyway. I mean, I love brave women, but the books are still really great, and Eowyn filled up my strong woman quota. It might have been better with more women, but it would have altered the story completely.

[elven maiden Earwen]

Lalaith I just want to point out that Luthien went on that quest because of her love for Beren. I dont think any other elven woman went on dangerous quest or journeys with exceptions of going to help or be with people they love, or so they wouldnt die. They could have a dwarf woman but they were extreamly rare. But I think an elven woman would be out of place too.

[ March 19, 2003: Message edited by: elven maiden Earwen ]

[Lathriel]

I agree with Voralphion that since Middle-earth has a bit of a medieval time setting where women weren't expected to fight. In the Medieval times women were the ones who took care of the childeren and whom did all the household chores or in the case of a lady embroidery.
It might have been a bit out of place if the women were also allowed to fight etc. Therefore its great to read about Eowyn slaying the Witch King because no other women in LOTR does this kind of thing.
She's Unique! smilies/smile.gif

[ March 19, 2003: Message edited by: Lathriel ]

[Lalaith]

Embroidery! Forsooth!
In mediaeval times women did a whole bunch of things. They travelled about on pilgrimages and ran kingdoms (for example Eleanor of Aquitaine) They fought - (Joan of Arc). They defended castles and strongholds against attack when their men-folk were away.(Numerous examples during the Hundred Years War and others)
I'm not saying that the fellowship should have had women in it. I'm very happy with the book as it stands! But I'm a little alarmed by all this female passivity I'm seeing on this thread.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I like the book as it is. That's how I'm just going to say it. There are strong female characters, Eowyn being my favourite. Therefore its great to read about Eowyn slaying the Witch King because no other women in LOTR does this kind of thing.
She's Unique!I couldn't agree more. I really liked Eowyn, and felt like I could relate to her, and that we were somewhat alike, in many ways. I could really sympathise with her problems and her personality. I realy enjoyed reading about Eowyn and I think that if there were a lot of strong female characters, it would have taken away my enjoyment. I like it that they have one unique, rebelious woman like Eowyn. She would be nothing special if all women were warriors.

[Lalaith]

I dont think any other elven woman went on dangerous quest or journeys with exceptions of going to help or be with people they love, or so they wouldnt die.
Eleven maiden Earwen, I would point you to Galadriel, who embarked on the highly perilous journery from Valinor with the sons of Feanor because she wanted to rule over a kingdom of her own. And to Aredhel, who left her brother's safe kingdom of Gondolin purely because she felt enclosed and wanted to ride free in the forests.

[elven maiden Earwen]

ok so that might happen but I dont nthink they woulg go on a perolis journey that they would most likely die on to distroy a magical ring if there were plenty of men that could go.
but then again.. maybe they would

[Lush]

I'm a little alarmed by all this female passivity I'm seeing on this thread.

*Lush snaps her teeth at being lumped with the "passive" crowd.*

but don't you think that in those times, most women would be reluctant to go on a journey? Perhaps with other women yes, but with nine men? I don't think so.

I am not criticising the LOTR, but your logic, I believe, is questionable: some women prefer the company of men.

Quests typically take more than one month, and everyone knows what comes once a month. Try having that and trampling through the wilderness with nine men. No thank you!

Female athletes manage to compete in the Olympics, no matter what time of the month it is, to give an example. Women are tougher than you think, why do you think that we are the ones who carry and give birth to children?

Not that Tolkien would give a hoot about any of this, of course.

[LeGoLaSz gUrL]

it would have been interesting if there was a female charater in the trilogy, but then it again, it would have altered the story. it could have led to a love relationship sort of thing with one of the males in the fellowship, and there are enough love stories i think. in my opinion, it just seems weird to have a girl part of the fellowship. the story is fine how it is.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

Maybe I've come across in the wrong way - I'm not trying to put down women. I'm a female, myself! And I love stories with strong female characters. I'm an aspiring writer, and I'm writing a story with a strong female lead, so obviously I have no problem with it. I was just commenting on how in LotR, with the exception of Eowyn perhaps, I don't get the impression that there were a lot of willing, adventurous women. There were a few that were, and that's what made them remarkable. Maybe at the time of LotR, Tolkien felt he could not write real enough female characters, and so decided to not put any females in too much spotlite. For whatever reason there aren't any females in the Fellowship, I am fine with it. I like the Fellowship as it is, and I try to see past the gender as someone here has said. I usually don't think, 'Oh, can't relate to them. There a guy!' Because I see the Fellowship as people, characters with a personality behind them. I don't dismiss them as a bunch of 'guys'. The same way as the first female character that appears, I don't latch onto and say 'If I were in Middle Earth, that would be me.' just because they are female. I try not to take gender into account. I am really happy with LotR. I loved Eowyn (and if anything, I wish she could have come sooner) as the strong female character. I think she would have been willing, and a good member of the Fellowship, but it would have altered the story too much, and as I love LotR how it is, I'm not for that. Tolkien wrote what he wrote for a reason, whether logical or personal, and because he is the writer I don't think anyone can argue with him. I just feel like maybe I've given a lot of you the wrong impression about me. I usually take the feminist side of arguments, and I realize that some of the things I have said may seem like I'm putting down women. I did not mean to sound that way. Also, when I said these things about a woman not wanting to go on a quest, monthly thing, it's not neccisarily my thoughts. I overlook that when I write, I'm just saying those MAY have been some things that Tolkien thought about. Who knows. All I know is I love LotR as it is, and I'm not degrating women. I am perfectly aware that they could have made the journey!!

[Frodo Baggins]

Forget not, dear people, the Arthurian legends (which LOTR resembles in a few places). In the tales of the good king Arthur, the men are always the ones running around fighting, going on quests and shedding blood. The women, on the other hand, (except for Morgan Le Fay and her cohorts) are seen as goddes-like fair beauties. They are the ones that stay home but will support their men. They are the reason their men fight, the men fight for their ladies. Idealized? Yes, but that's the beauty of it, the ladies are protrayed as noble and fair and rare jewels that are to bre treasured.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Frodo,

I think there is another issue which is pertinent to this question when you compare the women present in LotR with those who appear in the Arthurian corpus. And I think that issue does have at least indirect relevence to the question that's been raised in this thread.

First, my general feelings on this question......I think Tolkien's depiction of the fellowship, and its close bonds (with the exception of Boromir), stem from his own perceptions of male friendship which grew out of his experience at Oxford. Whether we like it or not, women were not in plentiful numbers at the University when Tolkien was a professor there. This is an historical reality. The ethos of Oxford, and more importantly JRRT's own experience with the Inklings, rose from very male roots.

Yes, I know JRRT acted as a tutor for one of the few women's colleges because he was a "safe" married man, but this is definitely the exception rather than the norm.

In my mind's eye, both JRRT's portrayal of the bonds of the fellowship, and the friendship between Sam and Frodo, are actually a reflection of the kind of male bonding that one finds in the Inklings. I truly think that the interaction of the men in the Inklings had a great influence on his depiction of male relations in the fellowship. Because I feel and sense that whole backdrop of male bonding, a woman would not fit into the fellowship per se, at least not for me.

I do wish that Tolkien would have included stronger female characters, particularly human women (as opposed to Elves or Ainur) at other points in the book. And I wonder if he might have done it, if he'd written LotR later in his life. His portrayal of Andreth certainly shows that he could have.

But what about the Arthurian issue wich you raise? Was this Tolkien's model? To me, there is one huge difference between how women are portrayed in the Arthurian corpus and how Tolkien depicted them. This has been discussed many times before--the fact that it is very rare for women to be depicted as evil, or even as perpetrators of evil in LotR. The same is not true of the Arthurian legends. Figures like Morgause, Morgan le Fey, and Iseult are far more "corrupted" than any of Tolkien's women. This is true even of the figure of Guinevere. While she is not "evil" per se, it is her presence that brings about the love triangle and eventually leads to the downfall of Camelot.

JRRT did not portray women in this light. Perhaps, it was his position as a Catholic, his devotion to Mary, that pushed him to develop a far more idealized picture. Perhaps it was his love for his own wife. But, for whatever reason, Tolkien rejected the often negative slant on women that's given in the Arthurian corpus where women often appear as the deceivers and tempters of men. (We also know he had ambivalent feeling about the legends as a while, since he speaks of this in the Letters.)

So I don't think he consciously looked to the Arthurian legends as a model for women. His depictions of women in many respects deliberately rejected what he'd found in the Arthurian legends. I think if we want to look for influences on Tolkien and how he depicted women, we have to study the historical climate he grew up in, his views as a Catholic, and perhaps just as importantly, the body of Norse legend.

sharon

[ March 21, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Ascuwen]

I completly agree. A female in th fellowship wouldn't work, it would have to bring sex int he fellowship, and that would be absurd. the women that are present are beautiful, admirable women, and thats exactly as it should be.

[Princess_Fairy]

I be of the same mind! I am a female my self and having more females in the fellowship would ruin it! The females that they do have in the film played a influential part and they did it well. But being in the fellowship is not a thing I see girls doing! I think if there would be more females the movie it wouldn’t be that nice! So I agree!

[Lush]

A female in th fellowship wouldn't work, it would have to bring sex int he fellowship

I agree that a female in the fellowship was less than appropriate, but what is it with this logic behind your statement? A female character in the company of male characters is automatically supposed to sleep with one (or more) of them? Tut tut.

[Kalimac]

Lush - people tend to assume the worst when it's one girl and bunch of guys out on their own for weeks at a time, don't they? smilies/smile.gif. Though frankly, even if there HAD been a female human/Elf in the fellowship, it's hard to picture anything happening; for one thing, they'd all be too tired, and for another thing, nothing kills romance like (a) complete lack of privacy, (b) the constant risk of getting pulled awake at 2 AM to flee something and (c) being a good adventurer, you'd have to keep a weapon at hand at every moment. Eh, maybe not.

That being said, no, I don't "miss" having females in the Fellowship; if JRRT had written it with a woman or two, I wouldn't have objected, but as it is it never bothered me. To be honest, when I was first reading the books (I was ten) I identified much more with the hobbits than with anyone else, albeit they were all male and at least twenty years older than me. That didn't matter; what mattered was that their world was closest to mine and theirs were the eyes I was seeing things through. I saw Galadriel and Arwen as distant, impressive creatures, and Eowyn was only marginally less so, given that she was trained to fight and bear arms and ride horses and so forth, whereas I was much more Pippin-like in the sense at not being much of an expert at much except breaking things. The fact that Eowyn et al were female really didn't register with me as something to identify with; I may have been too young.

Also, I'd like to second what Child said about Tolkien's background; I don't think that's the sole reason that he may have had difficult writing about three-dimensional women, but being raised almost in an almost exclusively male environment like that (especially with having the vague memory of a beloved mother to idealize) couldn't really have helped. Like Jack London, writing about women just wasn't his forte - the same way that writing about legendary creatures and philologies just isn't Michael Cunningham's thing. I wouldn't call it a weakness, more of an absence - plenty of male writers can write convincingly about women, after all, but very few can create worlds like ME.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Interesting discussion! It seems inevitable that I must, at an hour much too late for sanity, find a chord struck that I must answer. Actually, it was a letter of Tolkien's to his son Michael (#43-6-8 March 1941) that provided the striking surface. The letter is quite long and covers the relationship between men and women, and one passage seems to speak (to me, anyway) to the complications inherent in inserting a female into the solid male Fellowship:

In this fallen world the 'friendship' that should be possible between all human being, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favorite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This 'friendship' has been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails.

The letter goes on to elaborate on this and other points, but the idea I get from it is that Tolkien felt the relationship between man and woman to be of a character that cannot exclude sex and/or romantic love (excepting perhaps between a man and woman who have passed the age of their sexual prime). I imagine such an inclusion in the fellowship would have distracted from the major points he wished to stress, and also may have diffused the storyline and detracted from the powerful themes present and beautifully illustrated in the storyline as it is.

That's my idea, anyway. I believe also that Tolkien's understanding of women must issue from the point of view of a man surrounded by men, as was said earlier in this thread. The depiction of Eowyn and her transformation as she resided in the Halls of Healing demonstrates a surface understanding but not a line of reasoning or emotional verity with respect to this female character. Eowyn's epiphany is convenient, and it is obvious she feels strongly, but there is no light to guide us through her thoughts at that point as there is for the males in the story. I can understand Eowyn forsaking arms for healing, and there are valid reasons for doing so, but her motivations (and her revelations) are not explored, only the sudden light that comes upon her. To a casual observer, it might look as if Tolkien has opted for the cop-out, presenting her as a stereotype of a woman who can behave as a man, but who is tamed by a man in the end and thus having been set to rights, takes up her pre-ordained role in the home and as wife. I have a feeling he could only follow her so far...

These are just a few of my thoughts...thanks for the interesting thread!

Cheers,
Lyta

[Lush]

Good post, Lyta.

I have seen this Tolkien quote on friendship come up before, and I think it serves as a good (albeit partial) illustration of his reasoning, especially in light of the fact that the LOTR was not to exceed its standard "quota" of romance.

I disagree with good JRR entirely on his position, of course, but that's another story, and doesn't affect my reading of the book.

[Lalaith]

Firstly, I have to admit that I am quite in despair by some of the (I am assuming) young women posting in this thread who, in the year 2003, are quite unable to see their own gender portraying any other literary function than love/sex object.
Girls! Lift your imaginations above Hollywood and the more mawkish kind of fanfiction.
I have already given you a wise dwarfwoman. What about, instead of Gandalf, we have Melian, the powerful Maia, returned to Middle Earth on one last mission? Now, don't tell me *she's* going end up messing up the quest by having her period and crying and getting a crush on Legolas...
smilies/rolleyes.gif
But seriously.
Child of the 7th Age, I love your Arthurian legends analysis. I would add that the Arthurian canon is one that has evolved over some 1500 years, during which women were portrayed in all kinds of ways...but the popular Arthurian image is I think the one most closely associated with Malory's Morte d'Arthur and the French romances. That is, middle/late mediaeval. Tolkien's own period of speciality, and the period he I think most identified with, was considerably earlier, (what some term the 'heroic' period) and I agree, he wasn't overly fond of the late mediaeval mindset in general.
I also think it is interesting that many of Tolkien's most complex and (in terms of modern thinking) most 'right-on' heroines were in his writings not intended for publication. The characters in LotR were, to some extent, driven by commercial considerations and what was considered 'proper' at the time.
Judging by the writing in the Silmarillion etc, his own personal views of women were, for a man of his era and circumstance, remarkably progressive.
Oh, and with regard to male/female platonic relations, what of Aredhel, sister of Turgon, and her friendship with the sons of Feanor?

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

I posted on this thread a bit ago, but the discussion has come so far I wanted to put in another small bit.

A lot of people have mentioned Eowyn and her courage and strength and so on. And partially, I agree (she is one of my favorite characters in LOTR after all...) but I think we forget that Eowyn's determination and such were inspired by her despair. She went to the battle, not so much to do great things, but to do great things and die while doing them. She saw nothing ahead of her but "female passivity" and was willing to do pretty much anything to escape from it. she was defeated in every area, denied Aragorn's love, forced to wait on the men, kept inside basically. Realistically, I think she was a little unbalanced.

When she does "come around" in the end we accuse her of accepting her male dominated role? True Tolkien didn't look too deeply into her thoughts, but I think something can be taken from the fact that she turns from war when she's no longer despairing. I can't however, imagine Eowyn sitting inside doing cross stitch. Let's not be so bloodthirsty as to assume that the only place for an independant female is out hacking up orcs. When she found a little appreciation (Faramir) Eowyn was free to pursue something other than virtual suicide.

And as a sidenote, if we're looking for flawed female characters, Galadriel's past wasn't spotless.

[Durelin]

YOU ROCK! Ruler of the Frogs. As a girl, I am the same way. I wish people would stop complaining. Why does it matter? It's reality, men are the warriors. Face it!

Sorry, anyway, well, I am glad too that there were few women in LOTR and especially no female members of the fellowship. They'd try giving Sauron the silent treatment! smilies/biggrin.gif J.K.!

The thing is, women bring life into the world (I'm not getting into sex-ed) and therefore are very important. Men have always taken up the role of protecting the "life-bearers" and have always been more qualified for that. Women need to calm down in their 'women's rights' stuff. There going to get what they want in the U.S. If there is a draft at some point in time (I'm not saying that's likely) than I have heard that there will immediately be a lawsuit for equal rights to include women in the draft. Man, that will be wierd. Women aren't made for that, it's plain fact. And what is so wrong with that? It's life. If you want it in a religious viewpoint, God made women that way, and men the other. Okay?

[ March 22, 2003: Message edited by: Durelin ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

Firstly, thanks for the compliment on my post, Lush! :=) I always try to say something thoughtful when I post! I'd say that probably it was Tolkien himself who couldn't conceive of male-female friendship in the same sense as male-male friendship, simply as a result of the social situation in which he lived and thought. I do not have the advantage of having read the histories, other than LOTR and the Hobbit (the Silmarillion was so long ago and an abortive attempt then that I cannot claim to have read it), but I could see, even in his letter quoted previously, he denoted some exceptions.

She saw nothing ahead of her but "female passivity" and was willing to do pretty much anything to escape from it. she was defeated in every area, denied Aragorn's love, forced to wait on the men, kept inside basically. Realistically, I think she was a little unbalanced.

When she does "come around" in the end we accuse her of accepting her male dominated role? True Tolkien didn't look too deeply into her thoughts, but I think something can be taken from the fact that she turns from war when she's no longer despairing.

Sophia, I do agree that Eowyn is unbalanced, but so are her times. She seems to echo the state of her realm. I do not believe she is copping out when she turns to healing rather than fighting. I understand she has had an epiphany and the darkness is gone within her; anything that extracts that unhealthiness from her is a good thing. I do not believe that it necessarily is a one-to-one equivalency with laying down arms. This was simply an individual choice of Eowyn's. When the desire to fight is motivated by the desire for death, certainly it is not a proper warrior instinct, but a symptom of despair, much like what happened to Denethor. So I agree with what you say to a point. It seems to be a logical progression for Eowyn's character, rather than a cop-out. But superficially it would look like one (to someone who did not divine the sickness in Eowyn's soul).

If there is a draft at some point in time (I'm not saying that's likely) than I have heard that there will immediately be a lawsuit for equal rights to include women in the draft. Man, that will be wierd. Women aren't made for that, it's plain fact. And what is so wrong with that? It's life. If you want it in a religious viewpoint, God made women that way, and men the other. Okay?

Durelin, I must disagree with the absolute nature of your statement. Women are certainly made for childbearing and rearing, but they are also quite capable of practicing the warrior arts. One part of this concept that many do not get is that men would treat women differently on the battlefield, when, in fact, in cultures that welcome women as full warriors, these women reliquish their status as traditional 'nurturing women' when they take up arms and become targets and threats, the same as men. If a women chooses the way of the warrior, she accepts this danger, not, in Eowyn's case, as a death-wish, but as a natural consequence of being a defender.

The interesting thing about women is that they have a choice--to be defenders or nurturers. If they choose the nurturing path, then it is folly to leave their charges to defend others; it is a denial of their chosen responsibility.

The thing I am still considering is what choice did Eowyn have? She was pressed into the role of keeping the people of Rohan by her birth and position at the time of conflict. Her desire for a warrior's life and for death is a desire to break away from a role she has had no say in, a rebellion, rather than a life choice. Interesting character she is!

Cheers,
Lyta

[elven maiden Earwen]

What about, instead of Gandalf, we have Melian, the powerful Maia, returned to Middle Earth on one last mission? Now, don't tell me *she's* going end up messing up the quest by having her period and crying and getting a crush on Legolas...

I dont think that would happen. What most of us are saying is that it wouldnt work for womanor maybe elven woman to be in the fellowship.they would cause magor conflict.Ya you could have a dwarf or a maiar but do you think that a elven maiden, woman,or hobbit woman would make a good campanion??

[Aratlithiel]

Firstly, I have to admit that I am quite in despair by some of the (I am assuming) young women posting in this thread who, in the year 2003, are quite unable to see their own gender portraying any other literary function than love/sex object.

Lalaith - I don't necessarily think that these young women (myself included sans the 'young' part - 'young-ish' maybe?) feel that a woman in the fellowship could have served no other purpose, but that Tolkien himself, whether because of his own history or the times in which he wrote, would have been unable to write it otherwise. As wonderful an author as the man was - and no one could possibly revere him more than I - I don't believe he would have been capable of writing an effective female character as a member of the fellowship without the story itself suffering.

Doug and I discussed on another thread not long ago how every plot-point - however miniscule - was necessary to the story as a whole...remove one single point and the story falls down like so many dominoes. (ex.: Bilbo doesn't give Sting [a sword made expressly for the elves to fend off giant spiders in Mirkwood] to Frodo so Sam can't wield it against Shelob therefore using "the Spider's Bane" against the ultimate spider. I don't think the barrow blade would have been quite so effective, hmmm?)

By the same token, if you add or subract any single attribute or character-flaw from any member of the fellowship, it would necessarily affect plot and, therefore story. Imagine what the addition of another member - male OR female - would have done? I can hear the dominoes tumbling now. And what a tragedy that would be!

Might a female in the fellowship have worked? Possibly. But would it then be OUR Lord of the Rings? Absolutely not.

And for those of you women who are disappointed in those of us who prefer it the way it is, sans females, I'm terribly sorry but I'm quite willing to forfeit my 'PC-ness' to maintain this work the way it was originally presented. I personally don't need a strong female character in every tale I read - I know strong females exist (and like to think myself one of them) and therefore do not need every author to include one in order to feel validated. I think it's more a measure of strength to appreciate a literary work on its own merit without needing an author to give you someone to identify with and thus tell you how strong you are. That's what Mary Sue fan fiction is for.

I can't help but feel the same pressure here as I have encountered in my life with the career vs. family issue. If I stay home with my family, I'm spitting in the face of the ERA and striking a blow against all womankind. If I focus on my career and drive for success I'm neglecting my family and imperiling the future of America with my wild offspring. By the same token the discussion here seems to veer off every now and then to, 'if you don't think a female in the fellowship would have worked, you're betraying womankind.' Nonsense.

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Aratlithiel ]

[Nurumaiel]

I found this discussion very interesting, and I felt as though I had to put my own views in. My mother and I discussed this for a long while, and came up with some interesting points.

One of the first things that came to my mind when I thought of a fellowship of men and women was Han Solo and Princess Leia. Eilonwy and Taran. I do not believe that Tolkien would write like this, but I do believe I would have set the book down, fearing it would be another story of a company of men and women who fall in love with each other.

I myself am a female (see the -iel at the end of my name), and I do not see a place for a woman in the Fellowship. No, I cannot see a female Istari battling the Balrog, the Return of the Queen, and so forth. If you change Boromir to, say, Boromira, than you have a lot of people thinking that Tolkien's view was that women were evil, because of what Boromir did. I can't imagine them caring that he- she was sorry. And then my mother pointed out that you no longer have the whole Boromir-Denethor-Faramir story. Denethor saying how he wished Faramir had gone instead of Boromira. Denethor favoring his strong and brave daughter over his son. It wouldn't work.

I have to disagree that woman wouldn't be strong enough for this Quest. Why wouldn't they be? If they were, then why would Éowyn face the Nazgûl Lord? Read p. 822 - 824 of RotK and you will see what a woman did. And Éowyn is not just an exception.

Yet still I do not think the Quest was as much a challenge of physical strength than of a challenge of courage and strength of heart. The Fellowship would have failed if it had not been for their courage and determination. I do believe that a woman could be in this fellowship and do all right.

But there was no place for a woman. This part of the story did not call for a woman, and that's what mattered. The Witch King could not defeated by man, so, therefore, a woman had to destroy him. But the Fellowship could survive without a woman, and they did.

On a closing note, I think the Fellowship was good just the way they were, and I wouldn't want a woman to come spoil that wonderful male - male comradeship they had while it all lasted.

[Lush]

Sophia, I do agree that Eowyn is unbalanced, but so are her times. She seems to echo the state of her realm.

Lyta, I think you've about hit the nail on the head in regards to Eowyn's emotional state. If Theoden wasn't lulled into near-madness by the arts of Saruman, Eowyn would not have been stuck playing a dry-nurse; if Grima was denied his influence in Theoden's land, Eowyn probably would not have been in the state of despair that she was by the time she met Aragorn. From then on, things progressed rather quickly. I think if Eowyn was not wounded in battle, she was likely to have gone ahead with Aragorn's army to the Black Gate (though then she wouldn't have had the time to be wooed by Faramir! Ah!), whether she was wanted or not (she was a stubborn girl). Unbalanced? You bet she was. But that doesn't negate the validity of her impact on the story, or her character traits.

And for those of you women who are disappointed in those of us who prefer it the way it is, sans females, I'm terribly sorry but I'm quite willing to forfeit my 'PC-ness' to maintain this work the way it was originally presented. I personally don't need a strong female character in every tale I read - I know strong females exist (and like to think myself one of them) and therefore do not need every author to include one in order to feel validated. I think it's more a measure of strength to appreciate a literary work on its own merit without needing an author to give you someone to identify with and thus tell you how strong you are. That's what Mary Sue fan fiction is for.

Ara, your complaint would be legitimate, if it wasn't for the fact that most of us on this thread are not arguing that the fact that there were no chicks in the Fellowship was "bad." I personally just disagree with some of the logic used to back up Tolkien's choice: statements akin to "that would have brought sex into the whole thing" are, well, sexist. If so many of Tolkien's characters are as noble and idealised as we say they are, I doubt he would have had a problem with making that seem believable, if only he could write a believable central female character in general. I don't recall myself, or anyone else posting that "because there were no females in the Fellowship, that was a bad thing." Au contraire. It was a good thing, but not because of some of the reasons being listed.

I can't help but feel the same pressure here as I have encountered in my life with the career vs. family issue. If I stay home with my family, I'm spitting in the face of the ERA and striking a blow against all womankind. If I focus on my career and drive for success I'm neglecting my family and imperiling the future of America with my wild offspring. By the same token the discussion here seems to veer off every now and then to, 'if you don't think a female in the fellowship would have worked, you're betraying womankind.' Nonsense.

I'm sorry that this thread has affected you on such a personal level, but it affects me too. That's part of being a woman in the modern world today: society sends us mixed messages. But there is nobody on this thread who has called anyone else a betrayer of womankind, this thread is rather more of a backlash against bad fan fiction coloured by a general distaste of the concept of the "f" word (feminism) and what it stands for (I apologize to Ruler I am misinterpreting or forgetting something here).

And what I think I, and a few other members are trying to say is that its ok to be annoyed with the excess of political correctness and "feminazism" as related to Tolkien's work, but the sweeping generalizations that are taking place in the logical progression of this thread are disagreeable to us.

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Tinuviel87]

In all honesty this thread should probably be closed.
But first of all, I of course have an opinion! smilies/evil.gif
Being a female with a strongly feministic point of view i still would not change one single thing about any of Tolkien's works. I don't feel like going into detail so to put in bluntly:
Can you honestly remeber the name of every male character in LotR without thinking for a few minutes?
Now try that with the females.
The female chracters stick out in your mind. Each one is unique has her own special place in the story. and Eowyn is there for the tomboy in all of us! Tolkien knew what he was doing. He was being realistic. Women in that period didn't do the things women do now. And Tolkien did want this to be his own little mythology of England in a sense. He k got it. Tolkien was too much of a perfectionist to not get this right.
We are all fans here...take a deep breath... and let it go smilies/biggrin.gif
(so much for being blunt! smilies/rolleyes.gif )

[Lalaith]

Lush, you beat me to it. Lyta, your point about Eowyn is spot on.

But to those who have been complaining about PC (whatever that means - friendly fire, anyone?) I would like to emphasise the difference between "could" and "should".
*Should* a female (maia/dwarf/hobbit/elf/ human/whatever) have gone on the quest? I say, of course not. I have stated elsewhere in this thread that I like the book very much just as it is.
*Could* one have gone? I say yes. My suggested substitutions were made, however, in a light-hearted spirit.
And while we are talking about the difference between "could" and "should," this, for me, is what human rights (not just womens rights)are all about. They are not about dogma, about being forced to do things, but of having the chance to do them IF you want to.
Durelin, you say that you believe that God created men and women to be different. I believe that God created us ALL different. That was his genius. And some people have a fighting, questing spirit, some are happier by hearth and home. Some like to flit between the two. We all, men and women, have a right to choose where our spirits can best flourish.
Oh, and Aratlithiel, I take and respectyour point: it may well be that Tolkien could have had problems introducing a female. (Although even this point is worth debating, judging by the stronger female characters in his works not written for publication). But some posters seemed to be saying that they themselves could not envisage a literary female in a non-romantic function. That was what I was expressing dismay about...

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

[Lily Bracegirdle]

Lalaith, I love you.

It's true that the book would have been quite *different* if there had been a female in the fellowship, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it would have been *worse*. After all, the Professor would have written it and he would have paid the same amount of attention to detail as he did in the version we all know and love. He didn't put a female in the Fellowship, and that's fine. But if he had, I would have enjoyed it.

It's interesting that feminism has such a bad rap these days. I'll bet most if not all of you actually *are* feminists without knowing it.

Ask yourself this: "If a woman can do the same work as a man, should she be paid the same amount and be given the opportunity to do that work if she wants to?" If you answer "yes," you are a feminist. I'm not talking about being in combat or becoming a firefighter or anything like that, just any old white-collar job.

To bring this back on topic: the question boils down to "could a female do the same things as another member of the fellowship?" You don't need physical strength to do any of the things the hobbits did, just determination, so I'd say the answer is "yes." Lalaith has already covered the difference between "could" and "should" admirably, so I'll leave it at that.

-Lily

[Voralphion]

To the people that are saying that Eowyn would have made a good member of the fellowship, I have to disagree with you. While Eowyn was hardy and capable of wielding a sword, the only thing she sought was death in battle. Because of this she would have made a poor member of the fellowship because she wanted to die and possibly would have tried to do something heroic that in the end may have jepardised the others.
She only thought of her own glory not the overall goal of defeating Sauron.

[Durelin]

I know that woman are capable of being extremely talented in the arts of war, but men tend to be more so, bore often. Plain fact. I myself, like to dream of being a female warrior! smilies/biggrin.gif I just hate "Girl Power" t-shirts and junk. smilies/biggrin.gif I don't have to proove that I can beat men in things, it doesn't really matter. Both men and women (really boys and girls) are better at certain things than I am. To other girls and women, it does matter that they beat men, and sometimes a little too much.

[Lush]

She only thought of her own glory not the overall goal of defeating Sauron.

Surely you don't mean that. Eowyn's courage is inspired by her anger at what Rohan has become, her love of her uncle, her people, as well as desire for Aragorn and to be Queen. It's not one-dimensional.

[Durelin]

Part of Eowyn's riding out to war also had to do with her not having the will to live. She had gained a mental being like many male warriors that they can die, because there is no reason for them to live, as long as they die honorably and in glory. In other words, fighting to the death. She had that in her, she had a sadness, as did many of the Rohirrim, I believe at the point of the War of the Ring. Her sadness went beyond Aragorn not loving her and her not being able to fight. She had watched her uncle suffer, yet could do little about it, she had watched her people suffer, though she could do little about that also. Then there's her cousin dying, Eomer banished, the end of the world, so to speak, coming with Sauron's armies. It goes on and on. I believe most of us would feel suicidal, though many of us would realize, like Eowyn, that we must live through all. *bows* Thankyou. (I believe you already talked about her suicidal tendencies, but I had to put in my word. smilies/biggrin.gif)

[Lobelia]

Personally, I think the only believable woman in the whole of LOTR was my namesake, Lobelia! ; - ) Well, maybe a few other hobbit women and the ladies of the Houses of Healing. Hobbit women, by the way, CAN be strong - they have a system whereby a woman can be anything except the Thain, and hobbit matriarchs run their families for years, even if their husbands die and there's a male heir. Tolkien wrote a very funny letter describing how Pippin's sister Pearl accidentally-on-purpose disposed of the female tyrant in their family...Also, Dwarf women look so like the guys - how do we know Gimli wasn't "daughter of Gloin"? (g)

[Belethfacwen]

Also, there are no evil Human/Elvish/Hobbit female characters (ie excluding Shelob and Ungoliant). In fact, there are no female characters with flaws that might cause us to disapprove of them in some way. In other words, there are no female Feanors, Wormtongues or Maeglins. The only female character that I can think of that comes anywhere near is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, and her flaws are petty in the scheme of things, and she ends up with our sympathy.

To be picky, there's also Thuringwethil.
Looking at these three (I'm not going to go into Lobelia, because as you stated, her 'evils' were just petty..) Thuringwethil, Ungoliant, and Shelob..Well, more so about Thuringwethil and Shelob. So Tolkien didn't have many main female characters, and even less evil ones. But the ones that were evil did accomplish a lot, such as Ungoliant... Morgoth couldn't have taken the Light of the Trees without her, IMO. Thuringwethil is the weaker side of my point, the only thing I can provide for her is that she provided Luthien a good disguise. But she WAS Sauron's messenger, so that probably meant she gave him some good info. Shelob is the weakest aspect of my musings. She greatly hindered the quest of the destruction of the Ring, but whether she knew she was doing that is really debatable.

Well, to wind up, this concludes--We all know there's far less females in Tolkien's works than males. There were a few that did important things, like Galadriel and Eowyn. But what I'm asking is- Does anyone think Tolkien was better at crafting evil female characters than ones dedicated to doing good? Mainly their accomplishments, I mean. We don't know much description wise of Thuringwethil besdies that she was a bat like thing. Okay, I'm rambling. Thanks if you're still reading. smilies/wink.gif

[Lalaith]

Thank you Lily for your kind words. I also commend you for your point about hobbits. Now, there was a bunch of gentle, domestic homebodies who proved to be remarkably tough cookies when push came to shove, hmmm?

I've also been pondering on a couple of points raised earlier in this thread by Child of the 7th Age.
Firstly, this:
But what about Tolkien? Is this just coincidence that these wise women appear in the later writings, but not in LotR? and secondly, her(?)point that Tolkien, as a married man,was considered safe to teach at women's colleges.
Despite the era and the environment he lived and worked in, Tolkien's literary portrayal of women never (except perhaps in the case of the Entwives) displayed that crusty-Oxbridge-don misogyny we find in, for example, CS Lewis. I've always maintained that his attitudes were influenced by his interest in early north European literature, where women had unusually proactive roles.
But his work as a tutor may also have influenced him. Unlike CS Lewis, who married so late that he would have been teaching just males for most of his life, Tolkien would have had intellectual dealings with female students. This may well have opened his mind to the concept of women as intellectual as well domestic forces...hence the appearance of women like Andreth in his later writings. I'm ashamed to say I've not read Morgoth's Ring but from the way it's been described, Finrod and Andreth's debate sounds a bit like a university tutorial discussion...

[The Saucepan Man]

Does anyone think Tolkien was better at crafting evil female characters than ones dedicated to doing good?

Actually, no. I think that these instances of evil female characters in JRRT's works (Ungoliant, Shelob and Thuringwethil) only lend support to the argument that his view of woman as literary characters was somewhat idealised. Discounting Lobelia (for the reasons already stated), they were all hideous creature-monsters, and there is little development of their characters beyond the fact that they are evil.

In these respects, they provide a sharp contrast to the Human and Elf females that we encounter, who are invariably fair and virtuous, and many of whom (Eowyn in particular, as this thread has shown) are well-developed and complex characters. JRRT seems to have been far more comfortable with female characters when they were of the "fair and virtuous" variety. (But, then again, aren't we all smilies/wink.gif.)

[Lyta_Underhill]

I suppose I strayed slightly from the main thrust of the topic when I decided to delve more deeply into the character of Eowyn. But such is inevitable, I suppose. As for the idea of Eowyn being a candidate for membership in the Fellowship, I would certainly not put her forward for such a thing. I believe that, in her unbalanced state, she would fall to the power of the Ring in a similar manner to Boromir. She is desperate for a means to lift Rohan out of its plight, just as Boromir is desperate to save Gondor. I think she would see the Ring in a similar light and be tempted thereby. It is difficult to foresee what anyone would do under such a strain, and that is the main stress placed upon the members of the Fellowship. Also, there is the palpable tension between her and Aragorn, which would have destabilized the membership somewhat. I do not see Aragorn being dangerously distracted, however. A different female may have provided less of a destabilization, but there would be a slightly different dynamic between the Fellowship members--one that, I think, Tolkien did not wish to spend time on, as it would have distracted from the main thrust of the saga.

As was said earlier, I do think that the Fellowship could have admitted of a female member, but not necessarily that it should. I, too, prefer the books as they are written; but it is always interesting to speculate, and I wouldn't give up my right to do that, no matter what the merit of the work being speculated upon.

It would have been interesting to see "Boromira" though, Nurumaiel! I imagine her as a sort of Brunnhilde type Valkyrie, armor-clad and terrible! smilies/wink.gif And of a female of the Istari? I think the dynamic between her and the hobbits would have been quite different and less chummy, unfortunately, but in one aspect I can see it: a feminine wizard would have separated the Istari from the mortals in a further way, creating yet another level of removal and thus of awe. This could work for some stories, but I think I prefer the more sociable and interactive Gandalf as he is. I don't think there would have been quite the subtle charm of the relationships with the hobbits in particular with a female wizard in charge.

These are just my impressions, not based on facts or even logic sometimes; but I am quick to admit influence of intuition. (A woman thing, I suppose!) smilies/wink.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

[Atariel]

i have several points to make, some of which are a bit silly, so if you'll just bear with me:

1) the menstrual cycle. You can hardly expect a woman to want to be trudging over mountains, or fighting off orcs, or doing anything strenuous when they're either pre-mentstrual, menstrual or post-menstrual (and this happens to take up a lot of time)

2) the girliness. yes, i know that there are girls who come along and aren't scared of a thing. but i hardly think that anyone would want to traipse through Moria in the pitch black and dust, getting their dress dirty. Becuase, inevitably, they would be wearing dresses.

3) the male camaraderie. Were there a woman in the fellowship, chances are they would fall in love with someone, or have an argument with someone. Women are notoriously *****y, and this would break up the whole male Wherever You Go, I Go thingy.

4) the death and destruction. i'm not necessarily the MOST feminine person in the world (not saying that i'm particularly masculine, though) but i still go to pieces if someone dies, even just in films. women tend- TEND, mark that- to be more sensitive than the average bloke, and a wailing, moaning girlie isn't so convenient when trying to escape from rampaging orcs.

5) the unrealisticness. all the women in M-E seem to be very feminine. yes, EVEN eowyn. who would really choose to put their life on the line? and i don't actually think that the elves- who were perhaps traditionalists- would have allowed women to be at the Council of Elrond. AND the men folk (fathers, brothers, whoever was in charge of the woman)would hardly have permitted them to go, anyway, in case she died or fell in love with someone unsuitable.

i think people have to remember that middle earth had a very medieval soceity, and that the idea of a woman having an important role in, ultimately, a violent cause is laughable

[Lalaith]

Oh dear. Groundhog thread.
Atariel, no offence, mate, but we've covered this ground before about 30 posts back.

You know, I'm going to blame PJ for all of this. Most of these objections are not based on idea of females (maia, dwarves etc) joining the fellowship. The objections are to Hollywood actresses joining the fellowship. Which of course is entirely reasonable.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

2) the girliness. yes, i know that there are girls who come along and aren't scared of a thing. but i hardly think that anyone would want to traipse through Moria in the pitch black and dust, getting their dress dirty. Becuase, inevitably, they would be wearing dresses.

And I suppose when Gandalf wears a dress, it is called a 'robe!' Anyone ever wonder what Gandalf wears UNDER the robe? Anyone think that women might wear bloomers or something else under their dresses? smilies/wink.gif

And what about the getup that Frodo is forced to wear after he is stripped bare by the Orcs? I doubt any orc-pants were worn there, not small enough for little hobbit...that would be a stylishly belted orc-cloak with matching oversized helmet...hmmm...Frodo in a dress?

More silliness, anyone? I'm game! smilies/wink.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

[Atariel]

je suis desolee, peeps, but i read the first three posts and then decided to write something, so it isn't as if it's entirely my fault if something's already been covered. and gandalf was dusty anyway. and i hardly think he'd appreciate people with- shock horror!- electricity discussing the manner of his undergarments, which are probably magical anyway. sorry if i was silly, but i did warn you....

[Lyta_Underhill]

A little silliness is good for the soul, Atariel! smilies/smile.gif And, being at times irrepressibly Pippinish, I'd probably talk about Gandalf's underthings to his face! And he'd turn me into a newt and I'd hide in his hat! But if you're looking for someone to dance on the table and sing bawdy songs, look to Frodo! *snickers and gets off table*

Cheers,
Lyta (A Took from an unfashionable part of the Shire...being so unfashionable she has to use another name and wear heavy makeup to disguise herself...)

P.S. I know this has nothing to do with Females in the Fellowship, but it has everything to do with Gandalf's dress sense!

P.P.S. I wonder what magical underwear does?

[Lush]

*the most notoriously serious member of the Downs stomps in*

Don't mean to bah-humbug you, Atariel, but it usually helps if you read the entire thread before posting a long, drawn-out comment, even if you spot something that you are dying to address right away. Perhaps if you had, you would have remembered that the menstrual cycle doesn't affect all women in the same way: female athletes deal with it, for example, as do the women in the military. Perhaps its silly to compare our modern world with that of Middle Earth in that fashion (ME certainly didn't have Midol, although the medicines of the Elves could conceivably take care of that anyway), but then again, it's a made-up world you're talking about here. Anything is possible as long as the author can imagine it, and make it so it makes sense.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Bêthberry]

*applauds Lush and Child for demonstrating wherein lies discussion and debate, as opposed to mere opinion.*

As to the effect of Tolkien's experience as a teacher, here's a quotation from a letter to his son Michael, 6 - 8 March 1941. Letter # 43.

Under this impulse [that of sympathy and understanding] they [women] can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. 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.

Hmm.

Bethberry

[mark12_30]

If I may add a military perspective on the development of close combat situations and a tightly knit team:

In terms of the Fellowship, I would compare them to a submarine crew; together for many months under tremendous stress and strain, needing to depend fully on each other in sudden crises.

A submarine commander simply cannot risk that one of his sailors be emotionally involved-- I mean romantically but not necessarily physically-- with another on board ship. The sailor must be able to consider everything with a dispassionate mind. If five guys are dying in one compartment and one guy is dying in another compartment, the sailor cannot choose which one he wants to go and get; he has to go and get the one that his commander tells him to. Emotional attatchments are out of the question.

That is a very important reason why females are not on board American submarines. The odds that one of those hundred-or-so guys would fall for the woman is pretty high, especially after three months of intense nearness and teamwork and cameraderie. Whether he acts on it, whether he's allowed to express it or not, is not the question. The question is, "Is she special to me." Cmomanders can't afford to have that question being asked.

Even if nobody fell for her, there could still be the tendency to have a chivalrous attitude towards her, which places her on a different emotional plane than the rest of the crew, again, making her "special". You have one woman dying in one compartment, and five guys dying in another compartment. We can say they shouldn't think or feel chivalrously til we are blue in the face. The fact is they do feel that way.

So the submarine commander cannot risk women on board because he cannot risk emotional entanglement. (Let's also remember, some of these sailors are eighteen years old-- I've saat in class with them; they are hormones with feet, God bless 'em.)

For the SAME reason, submarine commanders don't want gay men aboard: because the risk of ANY emotional entanglement is a threat to military efficiency and cool-headedness in battle.

We can deny this all we want, but experience bears it out; and gentle, non-discriminatory, equal-opportunity minded submarine commanders nevertheless stand by this. The risks of emotional involvement are not acceptable.

So what about women in combat? If we are to put women on board submarines, I say great; but it will have to be an all-female submarine.

Heh heh heh. Now there's a thought.

Anyway, is that why Tolkien didn't have any women in the fellowhsip? I doubt it; there were no women in the trenches with him in WW1; it wasn't a topic for discussion back then. He had plenty of wartime experience, and all that experience told him that you send teams of males. He did what he knew. But if he knew then what we know now, would he have changed it? I doubt it.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Atariel,

Thanks, Bethberry, for the kudos.

As I said before, I think there are a number of reasons having to do with Tolkien's own past and the nature of his writings why it would be difficult for a woman to fit easily into the fellowship.

But, Atariel, I wanted to make clear that, though we may loosely stand on the same side of the fence on this question, I radically dissent from your reasoning. Your arguments are based on common, outdated stereotypes.

1. The statement about the menstrual cycle is not valid since some women experience difficulty, while others do not. By the same flawed logic, you could argue that fifty-year old Frodo should definitely have been excluded from the fellowship on the grounds that he might have had a man's mid-life crisis, which is quite common.

2. "Girliness and "getting your dress dirty"....Please no. Do not tell me that after all this time, something like this still hangs over our heads.

3. "Women are notoriously *****y, chances are they would fall in love with someone, or have an argument with someone"..... Is this what happens when, we send up "mixed" crews of astronauts, male and female, which would be a comparably difficult task in crowded conditions. I had not heard such reports.

4. "Men versus women falling apart when someone dies." I guess that's why my close friend chose to go into hospice nursing and do the hard day-to-day work with terminally ill patients. Actually, she tells me that eighty percent of the health care workers in hospice situations are now women.

5. ..."the idea of a woman having an important role in, ultimately, a violent cause is laughable." Does this mean that the fifteenth-century Joan of Arc who rode at the front of the French troops was laughable?

Yes, women in battle situations are still the exception rather than the rule even today, but even in the middle-ages there were women who stepped forward. There are documented cases of the lady of the household taking over the efforts to reist a siege, after her own husband was killed.

If we take your logic even further, why would anyone include any hobbits in the company? If we're only looking for the blokes with the biggest muscles and hardest heads, as your argument implies, surely hobbits would not have been welcome.

Tolkien obviously thought differently. He could see how we all have different skills and contributions to make, and that the efforts of a Merry or Pippin in the Fellowship (to say nothing of a Frodo or Sam) were just as valuable as those of a Gimli or Legolas.

Helen,

I know we've politely disagreed about the topic you've raised before. I have to run now, but will respond later.

sharon

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Lush]

If you apply the same logic that Helen (i.e. mark12_30) uses in describing the disruptive possibilities of the male/female dynamic in the military, you would be leaving out the aspect of homosexuality, because gays, though they are not wanted in the military, are still present within its ranks.

*Lush thinks that Helen, must have forgotten about the don't ask/don't tell policy in the American military*

Most importantly, it's against human nature not to become emotionally involved with certain people who share the same hardships with us for a long period of time, with or without sexual innuendo: it's called friendship. Perhaps our military commanders like to pretend that such a thing does not exist within their ranks, but everyone knows better than that; so of course there are going to be situations when emotional involvement double-crosses duty, it's called life, and it happens with or without females present.

Even better, if we go further and apply the same logic to the Fellowship: Sam should have been chucked out of there and sent home to harvest his potatoes on the very first day.

At this point, it is very hard for me to accept any sort of logic behind the explanations as to why there are no females in the Fellowship, unless it addresses Tolkien's personal beliefs and abilites as a writer.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[mark12_30]

No, Lush my dear, I didn't forget. My point was, what commanders WANT. And they want no emotional entanglements.


Having said all that-- the Fellowship was a different kind of team, mature (mostly) and varied (mostly.) And I also think the emotions between the males were pretty strong. So I agree with you there.

However, compare that, with Gimli's reaction and devotion to Galadriel. If Galadriel was endangered, could Gimli be objective about it? I don't think so.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon, I so love your ability to politely disagree. smilies/wink.gif smilies/tongue.gif

Are you going to talk about Deborah? She's cool. smilies/biggrin.gif

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Lush]

However, compare that, with Gimli's reaction and devotion to Galadriel. If Galadriel was endangered, could Gimli be objective about it? I don't think so.

Naturally. Neither could Samwise be objective when Frodo was endangered.

[mark12_30]

He managed it, rather frequently, I think. "Whoa, Sam Gamgee; your legs are too short, so use your head..."

He talked himself into it. Frequently. Not always, but often enough.

Besides, Sam was Frodo's servant; strictly speaking, he was under Frodo's direct command, not Gandalf's or Aragorn's except by chain-of-command. His default choice of of loyalty to Frodo was obvious and appropriate.

[Lush]

So? The point still is: Sam was emotionally involved. No regular military commander would stand for that.

[mark12_30]

In modern day, it would have been grilled out of him in Boot Camp. That's what Boot Camp is for.

[Lalaith]

Please. Can we not have any discussions about the American military? Not just because they are not actually relevant to Middle Earth, but because this is one of the few places where one can flee from such discussions, at the moment....

[Durelin]

An excellent analogy, mark12_30. I have much trouble explaining this stuff. I am already at a loss. Oh well.

Lalaith - Why not speak of the U.S. Armed Forces? Fleeing those kinds of discussions is running away from reality. You see things about the U.S. Military no matter what is going on in the world, why stop talking about it? Why stop discussing reality? Sorry. A totally seperate and non-Tolien related discussion.

[Lalaith]

Durelin, I was going to put a smiley on the end of that plea to signify that it was only intended as semi-serious in tone, but then I thought it might look flippant and inappropriate. But if there were such a thing as a semi-serious smiley, please take it being there...

But in fact, I think that the discussion is getting a bit bogged down in our own, contemporary reality. So, instead of allowing our imaginations free rein and investigating the characteristics and possibilities inherent the different races Tolkien created, within the boundaries of Middle Earth, some of us are getting tied up in knots about ERA and sexuality aboard submarines and periods and heavens knows what else.
Surely, this thread is not just about whether you, or I, or any other modern human female in the real world would be able to cope on such a quest, and how there would be no face cream or tampax in the backpacks and Legolas would get this big crush on us and all the boys would fight about it and everything.
I'm personally more interested in the different races Tolkien created, what gender differences *they* had. Tolkien had some very interesting ideas on this issue - female elves could and did fight, for example, but not after having children. Also, no elf, male or female, who was involved in healing could fight as this was seen as contradictory.

[The Saucepan Man]

Why not speak of the U.S. Armed Forces?

Well, you said it yourself:

A totally seperate and non-Tolien related discussion.

I just don't see any analogy (sorry, applicability smilies/wink.gif ) between the structure of US (or any country's) military forces and the formation of the Fellowship. Quite possibly, if we were discussing military forces in ME, this might be relevant. For example, why did the Rohirrim provide weapons training for their women (or at least their noblewomen such as Eowyn) but not include them in their armies.

But this is a discussion of why there were no women in the Fellowship. The Fellowship was not formed in the same way that one might put a military cadre together. It was formed almost spontaneously (OK, not quite as spontaneously as in the film smilies/wink.gif , but relatively so nevertheless) from those that were available and willing to go. And its formation also relied to a fairly significant degree on pre-existing friendships/relationships (the hobbits).

I see no reason, in ME terms, why, if there were females who were present at the Council of Elrond (or, indeed in Rivendell at that time) who were willing to join the Quest, whose abilities were trusted and respected by the likes of Gandalf, Elrond and Aragorn and/or who had developed strong bonds of friendship with existing members, they should not have gone. None of the various arguments put on this thread for excluding females convinces me otherwise.

However, the fact is that there were no such female characters (of which we are made aware) fitted this description. Arwen comes closest, but only in her film role. We know very little about how suitable "book" Arwen would have been for the Fellowship. And it seems unlikely to me, in any event, that Elrond would have sanctioned her becoming one of the Nine Walkers.

So, why were there no suitable female characters? Because that's the way JRRT wrote it. And I am sure that's because that is the way he felt it worked best. Possibly, in view of the time that he was writing, it would not have occurred to him to include a female character in the Fellowship. But I doubt that, given his development of Eowyn's character. No, I believe that he felt that the Fellowship worked best as an all-male outfit. Possibly, this is linked to his experiences of male comradeship in harrowing situations in WW1. Quite possibly there are other reasons. I do not know enough about his life to speculate (although others who have read biographies and/or the Letters might be able to assist further). But whatever the reason, it seems to me that that is the way he wanted it, so that is the way he wrote it.

[Lush]

I think the quote that Bethberry provided pretty much says it all for me, Lalaith, whether we are talking about Elves or Men.

*runs off to put on her face cream and use her obviously inferior brain in order to somehow complete her homework assingment, but ditches it to go flirt with an Orlando Bloom look-alike instead*

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen,

I honestly think that the personnel of a submarine or a unit in the U.S. armed forces does not resemble the Fellowship. Such groups have hundreds or thousands of folk within their ranks who do not know each other in the slightest. They also have an organized hierarchy with every person knowing his exact rank.

Let's take a model which would be much closer to that of the Fellowship. OK, I'm biased since I live in Houston, but, in my mind, that would be the space program. Every shuttle that goes up carries a mixed crew, men and women, all dedicated to one task and working in very tight quarters for a considerable length of time. Like the Fellowship, these folk's main goal is not to engage in battle but to go on a long and potentially dangerous journey.

While these two are scarcely equivalent, they are a lot closer in spirit and intent than a large modern fighting force would be. No one complains or says that we shouldn't put male and female astronauts together. As far as I know, no missions have been imperilled because of the crew having a mixture of men and women.

Another analogy--the small research crews made up of dedicated men and women who go to the Anarctic for month after month of extreme hardship and danger. Again, no one gripes or expresses concern about some of the participants being women.

I'm with Lush on this one.

At this point, it is very hard for me to accept any sort of logic behind the explanations as to why there are no females in the Fellowship, unless it addresses Tolkien's personal beliefs and abilites as a writer.

I do think there are factors within Tolkien's own past, and the society that he lived in, which made it impossible for JRRT to create a felowship with both men and women. But, in my view, there is nothing inherent in the psychology and make-up of men and women on this earth that would preclude such an option on those grounds alone.

It seems to be that we're also dealing with cultural factors here. Helen, your assumption and presumably that of the military is that all personal ties must be pummelled out of the soldiers. But, historically, this has not always been true. In ancient Greece, and certain other cultures, the military leaders were pleased when the men under their command developed lasting bonds with each other. They felt this would make the men more likely to risk their lives and perform brave deeds for each other.

Believe me, I am happy the way Tolkien depicted the fellowship, but it's not the only possible model that could be followed.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Aratlithiel]

OK, everyone - we're talking about a man who was born in 1892. I stand by my earlier statement that he simply could not be expected to be capable of writing a female character who would have weathered the feminist storms of recent years and still remained attractive to female readers in today's society. Even female characters written by female authors contemporary to Tolkien are not women that would have stood up to today's standards. Jane Austen and Lara Ingalls-Wilder wrote strong female characters for their times, but those characters would still be considered lacking by today's standards.

I don't believe any female character written in the context of Tolkien's times could possibly have avoided the weaknesses inflicted by the prejudices the writer HAD to have had concerning women in leadership roles. I don't think a woman in the fellowship would necessarily have had problems with mooning over the men or with 'monthly' problems, but that the author couldn't help but write her that way - he would have to have given her many of the weaknesses that a man born in 1892 would have certainly believed women to have. Is that something we really want to have to deal with in today's times?

Considering all of that - it's my personal belief that it's better that no woman was written in so that I don't have the problem of avoiding one of my favorite past-times (which is, of course, re-reading LotR) simply because I can't stand the way the female is written.

Again - any change in the make-up of the fellowship would have made the end product DIFFERENT. I don't even want to think about that!

[Morwen Tindomerel]

I read somewhere that Eowyn was created by Tolkien specifically to give his daughter, Priscilla, a character to identify with. Judging by the way female readers have been connecting with the Shield Maiden of the Rohirrim ever since he did a fine job.

Marnie Goodbody, (listmistress of The_Istari@yahoogroups.com) pointed out that Gandalf, (and so by extension Tolkien) shows a great deal of sensitivity to the problems of a spirited woman living in an patriarchal society, you remember that speech to Eomer about Eowyn having spirit and courage equal to his.

The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and Histories of Middle Earth most definitely prove Tolkien was capable of creating vivid female characters, nor were all idealized; Aredhel is a spoiled, willful brat and so is Tar-Ancalime; Erendis is at least as sinning as sinned against; and Galadriel doesn't come out smelling like a rose either in some versions!

[Lalaith]

Thank you Morwen! I agree entirely.
I have to confess that a lot of the time I'm a bit confused by the PC debate. I studied English Lit at university, but not in the US. It sounds to me from what some people have been saying that the way Eng Lit is studied these days in the US is rather political. Am I right?
Bethberry, your quote from Tolkien's letters was very interesting, but it was written in 1941. As someone (Child I think) pointed out, Tolkien's creation of characters like Andreth came much later in his life. In 1941, he would probably not have been teaching women for that long, but I would hazard a guess that his views may have changed from that expressed in the quote, over the years. Particularly with his creation of Andreth.

[Bêthberry]

Lalaith,

Yes, it is true that some of the female characters in Tolkien's later writing moved away from this stereotype of the inspiring, beautiful goddess. However, that does not, I think, negate the value and importance of the 1941 letter,

Tolkien's academic career spanned the years 1925, when he was voted to the position of Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford, to 1945, when he became the Merton Professor of English Language and Literature, to his retirement from Merton College in the summer of 1959, five years after the publication of LOTR.

Thus, the letter written in 1941 represents Tolkien's view of female students in his mid-career. He had been teaching for 16 years and would continue to do so for another 18.

The genesis of LOTR appears to have occurred c. 1937, with the the decision to name this 'sequel' LOTR coming about the time that Chamberlain signed the Munich accord with Hitler, according to the biographer Carpenter (p. 252).

While it is true that Tolkien was an extraordinary reviser and revisionist (and his literary remains provide us with fascinating evidences of the nature of his creative process) that letter probably can stand as some sort of signal of his thought during the initial years of writing LOTR. What he did in his unpublished writings in later years does not change the state of his thought while composing LOTR.

That said, I hope I will be allowed a short observation about this thread. It seems to me that this topic is about as fruitful as any of the other "what if" topics--an opportunity to put forth unexamined ideas (we are all prey to our menses)or to argue tangential applications rather than to look for a more knowing understanding of Tolkien's work, in either its genesis, its evidence, or its implications.

It might also be good to recognize that our sources--the letters and the biographies--are limited in scope and information. We need a scholarly edition of the collected letters and a scholarly biography, which would not be dependent upon sales in the public market nor upon the cooperation of the family members who own the letters.

My thoughts on Tolkien's characterization of his female characters I will save for a different thread. (Yes, there is still room for original analysis of this topic.) If Lush has her way with me, I suppose I will be prodded eventually to produce that thread. smilies/wink.gif

Bethberry

[ March 27, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Lalaith]

letter probably can stand as some sort of signal of his thought during the initial years of writing LOTR.
Bethberry you are quite right on this point. I also concur with your wish for a scholarly edition of Tolkien's letters etc.
Just to get this thread REALLY tangental, I've got somewhere an interview with a woman who was an au pair to Tolkien's children when she was young. I seem to remember she had some very interesting things to say about Tolkien's domestic attitudes and so on, some of which might be relevant... If I can only find it...

[Morwen Tindomerel]

Alas yes, the teaching of literature and history and anything else you care to name has become *very* politicized here in the states.

And agreed, a man born in 1892 is bound to have held attitudes we today would consider sexist. What this means in literary terms is he would cast his female characters in more or less traditional roles.

In addition he was consciously imitating the style of the legends and literature of the Dark and Middle Ages which for the most part, cast women in the traditional roles of lover, wife and mother, though there was also the occasional Shield Maiden or Enchantress. Tolkien include one each of the two latter in LotR, (Eowyn and Galadriel).

LotR consists of a dangerous quest and a number of battles, activities in which women would not figure prominently in either ancient Europe or early 20th c. England. The Silmarillion on the other hand included far more domestic settings, and thus women featured more prominently again in their traditional roles but this does *not* preclude them being strong characters.

Luthen Tinuviel is no warrior-princess but she's no passive lady-love either! Instead of languishing in her treehouse prison until her love returns to save her she escapes, rescues *him* and they carry on together as full partners in the quest, he handles the swordplay, she takes care of the sorcery.

Idril Celebrindal is barely seen in the published Silmarilion but in the early draft seen in 'Lost Tales' she is not only a counsellor of her father the King but actually takes up a sword in defense of her city during the final battle and prowls its streets searching for wandering survivors and sending them down the way of escape she's had built.

It should perhaps be mentioned that the earliest stories featuring these spirited ladies were apparently written about the time of the First World War. In fact it's my understanding, from HoME, that much of the Silmarillion material predates the LotR.

[Lalaith]

I didn't know that about Idril. Thanks for that. And don't forget your namesake, Morwen...who I think was one of Tolkien's most intriguing female characters.
I would actually quibble about your point, however, of women not having strong roles in the literature of Tolkien's sources. There were an awful lot of women appearing in old Norse literature and poetry, and some of them were damn scary, I can tell you. Very few 'lady-loves', actually.
The Finnish Kalevala, too, had very strong female characters, although of a different and more 'enchantress' type nature.
The lady-love prototype came in during the high-mediaeval period of literature. Tolkien certainly looked at this era (re his translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight) but his main period of interest was earlier.

[lindil]

In fact it's my understanding, from HoME, that much of the Silmarillion material predates the LotR.


It does, pretty mucg everything in HoME I-V excepting the latter work on the Lays in III.

Also a few points/sources that may not have been mentioned:

Laws and Customes among the Eldar: therein in [ somwhere !] we read that women of the Eldar could fight quite nicely, but rarely did unless difending their homes or in an emergency.

Also healers tended not to fight, as it detracted from their ability to heal on a psychic/energetic sort of level it seems.

The very first quote in the 'gems from the Letters' thread: bears on 'Galadriel as Amazon' in Aman.

Another example of prominent women are the Haladin and Haleth.

Personally i found Helen's submarine analogy to be applicable, if only on a sub-concious sort of level for JRRT. Aslo as regards Arwen in the FotR, I am sure Aragorn would be as displeased by the idea as Elrond. It would be crazy. Not because she could not have held her own, but because it would confuse the heck out of poor Aragorn, and possibly Arwen too.

Males were most suitable in the fellowship for different reasons in each race, but they all boil down to the same set of generalized gender roles. Generalizations, not absolutes, as Eowyn plainly shows in the slaying of the Lord of the Ringwraiths.

lindil bows out ...

[Morwen Tindomerel]

"I didn't know that about Idril. Thanks for that. And don't forget your namesake, Morwen...who I think was one of Tolkien's most intriguing female characters."

No one could accuse Morwen Eledhwen of weakness, to much pride perhaps. And of course she was under the influence of Morgoth's curse when she made her worst decisions.

"I would actually quibble about your point, however, of women not having strong roles in the literature of Tolkien's sources. There were an awful lot of women appearing in old Norse literature and poetry, and some of them were damn scary, I can tell you."

Oh yeah! What about that Gudrun, ready to sacrifice her sons lives to get her revenge?

My favorite has always been Signy, sister of Sigurd. Torn between loyalty to father and brothers, (murdered by her own husband) and to husband and children she solves her dilemma by helping her surviving brother avenge their family, (even bearing him a son to fight beside him!) but chosing to die with her husband and their children.

The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen is cast very much in the pattern of a Courtly Romance with the conventions of the 'Fair Unknown' and cruel father keeping the lovers apart. I hate the Tale precisely because it makes Arwen out to be such a passive ninny. *Some* heroines of Romance are like that but most are pretty tough ladies, running their own castles or roaming the countryside as a Damsels Errant, searching for a knight to right a wrong or undertake an adventure she knows of and guiding and advising him every step of the way once she's found him.

What I meant was while both Northern legend and Medieval Romances have strong women characters they express their strength in traditional female roles, wife, mother, mistress, sorceress and only rarely shield maiden, just like Tolkien's women.

[Lalaith]

I know one should let sleeping threads lie, but then I found this and it made me laugh so much I just can't resist posting the link... http://www.subreality.com/marysue/nmaall.htm

[Aratlithiel]

Oh, GOD, Lalaith! That was just too funny! If you try very hard to picture the movie characters speaking these lines it makes it that much funnier. Thank you so much for the chuckles. smilies/biggrin.gif

[Belethcuwen]

Hello, I'm new here,
I think Morwen is right, Arwen is made to look a bit of a ninny in The tAle of Aragorn and Arwen. The only reason I like it is because it lets you know a little more of their background.
My favourite female in all the books has to be Eowyn, she's such a strong character, and very inspiring!
Belethcuwen

[Rivendell elf]

there should be more females in the films and the girls should not just be cute they should be dangerous and strong!!!!! smilies/evil.gif

[Novhloke]

One reason i think that there was no female is because everyone in the fellowship had high stature or rank, And no kind would send his duaghter to a council of Elrond, but they would send thier son, why? Perhaps to prove the strength of the nation. But the fellow 'Encounterd' females on the way, and quite powerfull and mystical and cool ones, Galadriel, Eowyen, and who else? So perhaps the reason is that Tolkien that it would be best perhaps to not create a female presense in the book unless encounterd, and if encounterd it would not be forgotten.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

It's reality, men are the warriors. Face it! This comment was a while back, but I only just saw it now, and had a very strong reaction, so here's what I think:
You are making an extreme generalization. I have friends who are guys (that could also disprove the quote about girls and guys not being able to be just friends, as I do know that I will never be in any way involved with any of them), and I can beat all of them up easily. What you are saying is like saying all girls who try to fight use their "girl-slap". I have never "girl-slapped" anyone in my life, and know that (*somewhere*) there are other girls who understand that a punch is certainly more effective. smilies/wink.gif As to the menstrual cycle, as many said before, there are many women whom it doesn't affect at all. I do not think that there should have ben a female in the Fellowship, but am feeling very feministic just now.

[Cibbwin]

Hey, don't feel bad, I am feeling feministic, too, and I'm a guy. As I've said countless times before, there is nothing more beautiful to me than a woman with a sword, so... you get the idea. smilies/wink.gif

[Earendil Halfelven]

I also think that the reason Tolkien didn't put any women into the actual Fellowship was because he was following Medieval tradition. The style of speaking in the LOTR trilogy follows the Old English style. And, in medieval times, women just didn't go on quests or do anything outside of the home. To fully make LOTR realistic and to seem as if it could have existed, Tolkien needed to have followed medieval tradition. And that still happens in today's military. In the US Army ( I don't know about other country's military) women cannot join frontline units. Thats just the way things are. And besides, I think if Tolkien would have worried about being politically correct and making sure LOTR didn't offend anyone because of the way it was written, it wouldn't be as good.

[Morwen Tindomerel]

It should be pointed out that in the Middle Ages there was not the firm line between home and public life that exists today.

Craftsmen and merchants worked out of their homes and their wives were very much a part of the family business, in fact some guilds allowed them membership. Noblewomen managed the family estates, took over their husbands' official duties in their absence, and on occasion commanded military actions in defense of home and family. Some women, both common and gentle, even accompanied their men on crusade.

This is not to say Earendil is wrong, he's absolutely right in saying that women's role was primarily domestic, just that the domestic sphere was rather wider in those days than 'Children, Church and Kitchen.

[Lyra Greenleaf]

It's reality, men are the warriors. Face it!

(This was Durelin, a long time ago.)
Well, I'll just make Mara abandon her quest for the Ainereg and go back to the kitchen shall I?

I think that women may not be as strong as men but they can fight the same with skill, thats to do with practice and oppurtunity. If, say, Legolas was female there's no reason SHE wouldn't be as good with a bow. Or knives. It's not like they go wrestling, is it? You wait till you get to Far Dereis Mai in the Wheel of time...

[Mitheithel]

I think that The Fellowship is the best as it is. And I agree with this submarine stuff, although this sounds a bit crazy smilies/smile.gif

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

*wakes up topic* I don't think that there should be females in the fellowship, just that there could be. I think that women may not be as strong as men You're alking average, though. Elrond would be sure to find some much stronger than that smilies/smile.gif

~Menelien

[Nyneve]

I agree with the person who said that not all male authors can't write female characters. Has anyone read the books Sabriel, Lirael, or Abhorsen by Garth Nix? The Female Characters are very strong in these stories. I a a girl.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Sometimes they just don't want to. I think that if Tolkien had reallly wanted to he could have had more women, but the story's great as it is, and he probably didn't feel it would anything to it. Also, Tolkien didn't live in a time as 'politically correct' as today. But even today, lots of things (like media images) still bring the stereotypes in and in.

~Menelien

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It's funny that amid all this talk of how few women there are in The Lord of the Rings nobody has mentioned Ioreth, Queen Berúthiel or Erendis. Admittedly none of them plays much of a role in Tolkien’s works, but I’m offering them up in defence of his ability to write female characters, and to make a point about dramatic necessity that seems so often to be missed. They are also all in their way breakers of the beautiful, noble and graceful mould from which so many people cheerfully assert Tolkien’s women to have been drawn, and which is often used as a stick with which to beat him. Éowyn is the exemplar of this, but I shall come to her later as she has already received a lot of attention here.

I shall begin with a character who ought to be familiar to all of us: Ioreth, the old wife from The Houses of Healing. Ioreth is neither beautiful nor wise; nor is she of noble blood, a shieldmaiden or possessed of any other rarified qualities: she's the archetypal old wife, inclined to be garrulous and sentimental, perhaps not possessed of great learning, but nonetheless very competent in her own sphere, remembering useful information such as where to find Kingsfoil, deemed unimportant by the scholarly or heroic men around her. She it is who remembers the fragment of folklore The hands of the king are the hands of a healer, which goes a long way towards proving Aragorn's legitimacy, coming as it does before he reveals either his skills or his lineage. Although she has a very small part to play, she is a believable and sensitively drawn character, with a clearly defined personality and world view; moreover she is a thoroughly ordinary person, who nonetheless has the power to help the great mythic figures of Aragorn and Gandalf, justifying, I might add, Gandalf's faith in apparently unimportant people. Tolkien also has her diffuse some of the grandiose atmosphere that has built up around Gandalf, Aragorn and Imrahil, as in this passage from The Houses of Healing: And Gandalf, who stood by, said: 'Men may long remember your words, Ioreth! For there is hope in them. Maybe a king has indeed returned to Gondor; or have you not heard the strange tidings that have come to the City?'
'I have been too busy with this and that to heed all the crying and shouting,' she answered. 'All I hope is that those murdering devils do not come to this House and trouble the sick.'In other words, while the great heroes of the saga have been doing noble and heroic things, people like Ioreth have been quietly and practically getting on with their jobs: she's every bit as important in her way as is Faramir, Aragorn or Éomer, and her implicit criticism of the saga-hero behaviour of her social betters is reminiscent of Éowyn's 'All your words are but to say: you are a woman and your part is in the house. But when the men have died in battle and honour you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men will need it no more.' Tolkien criticises heroic and chivalric codes in some of his other works as well, notably in The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son, only here, in the supposedly sexist Lord of the Rings he does so through the mouths of women.

Beruthiel is the perfect counter to the argument that there are no really bad women in Tolkien’s stories on the same level as Wormtongue or Saruman. Admittedly she doesn't appear in The Lord of the Rings itself save in passing, but her story illustrates the fact that not all of Tolkien’s women were noble and selfless: some could be really nasty.

Berúthiel seems very much a Miss Havisham character, remaining locked in a loveless house, hating all works of beauty and running a rather sinister secret service using her pet cats. She is clearly powerful, having the ability to communicate with her pets in order to spy on the people of Gondor, but she abuses that power and puts it to selfish uses. In building up mistrust between the people and the monarchy, as is implicit in King Tarannon’s action in setting her adrift with her cats, she imperils the whole Gondorian system of heroic personal leadership, doing perhaps as much damage as Gríma in the general scheme of things.

Erendis is the other side of the Arwen coin. Like the Evenstar she is left alone for long periods as her husband goes travelling (although unlike Aragorn, Aldarion is not sent on his travels by necessity), and probably because there is no earthly reason for his constant seafaring beyond simple wanderlust, and because her time is so much shorter than his (she is not of the line of Elros and therefore does not have the longevity of the line of the Kings), she becomes embittered and brings up her daughter to become an infamous queen. Here, parellels with Dickens’ miserable spinster are more obvious with the inclusion of the younger woman brought up in bitterness and becoming a scourge for men (although in Tolkien’s story this is not intentionally a part of her upbringing).

All of this is quite believable given the situation. These women are not evil, but are, no doubt, driven by the restrictive rôles they are forced to play in the society of myth into petty and selfish behaviour. These characters date from across the development of The Lord of the Rings, the latest being from a tale composed in the mid-1960s, which may indicate Tolkien’s discomfort with female characters before then, but is, to my mind, not particularly significant.

Now I come to my point about dramatic necessity. We have to ask ourselves whether at any point in Tolkien’s stories his narrative ever requires that a woman be present without his including one: what would have been the dramatic advantage of having a woman along with the Fellowship? Essentially she would be unsexed as Lady Macbeth desires to be because she would be in a situation demanding only fortitude and combat skill (like it or not, in the world of Middle-Earth, these are not traits that it’s easy for a woman to acquire, least of all one with enough spare time to go gallivanting half-way across the continent on a quest). Éowyn could have managed it, but she would have caused problems with her unrequited love for Aragorn. Given Tolkien’s view on the relations between men and women given in Letter #43, he would have regarded some sort of awkward entanglement as an inevitable side-effect of taking a woman young enough to fight along with a lot of men into the middle of nowhere (so ludicrously taboo in Tolkien’s young day that it would probably never even have crossed his mind). He wrote to his son Michael in the letter to which I referred above: In this fallen world the ‘friendship’ that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous, romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This ‘friendship’ has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life, when sex cools down it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a ‘friendship’ quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by ‘falling in love’.
Here, then, we have a primary motive for the author in keeping his male and female characters separate, and since he was concerned with the historically predominantly masculine practice of quests and warfare it’s understandable that he left the women somewhere safe and sent the men out to run all the risks. To me Éowyn is an indication that Tolkien believed that women were quite capable of taking on military rôles, but also believed that no man should readily allow them to do so. We can hardly blame him for chivalrous impulses, since he grew up in a society that was forever reminding young men that it was their duty and responsibility to protect women and children. To an old boy of an Edwardian private school the idea of allowing women to place themselves in any sort of physical danger when there were men standing idle would be unthinkable, hence Aredhel defies Turgon in order to ride forth to her doom and Éowyn defies her uncle and his warriors in riding off to war. The men are absolved from their duty to keep the women from harm by their being ignored or deceived: had they simply allowed women into harm’s way they would have been at fault within their own system of ethics.

In my opinion, Tolkien was actually rather forward-looking in his view of women. Given that he was heavily influenced by the overwhelmingly male-dominated sagas of early-medieval northern Europe and brought up in the profoundly patriarchal Edwardian England, his cheerful admission that women are as much capable of heroism and wisdom as men (he was 26 when women were first given the vote in Britain) is remarkable. He casts women in a variety of parts: ruler and seeress, servant, mythical princess bride, warrior and mother. The fact that he avoids the now horribly clichéd ‘warrior princess’ is to my mind a strength rather than a weakness. It would be all too easy to throw in a couple of stock characters like the film version of Arwen just to spice up the plot (although probably not quite so easy for the Professor), but he still manages to throw in the vulnerable yet skilled shield-maiden who is their template. It would be simple to show all the women as ethereal and perfect, but he throws in the insufferable and steely Lobelia Sackville-Baggins and the frothy yet competent Ioreth. He never compromises his plot or the internal consistency of his world by bringing forth Athena-like swordmaidens from polite and patriarchal societies, or demure and submissive helpmeets from tough lands like Rohan. During the War of the Ring he deems it a woman’s rightful place to govern the people of Rohan, a job with great responsibility attached to it and requiring great skills of leadership; a task for which, in my opinion, Éowyn is not very well suited on account of her youth.

In these days of equal opportunities for all, in which women are serving in the front line of battle and playing any part in society that suits them it is perhaps more difficult to understand a world in which there are set tasks for men and women. To many people it seems unfair that the women are left to fend for themselves while the men fight the battles, but what of the man unsuited to war: his place according to this world is on the battlefield, and only accusations of cowardice will attach to him if he remains where he is most useful. A woman who steals away to war and does well will win renown, but what of the man who stays at home and achieves great things there? The chances are that he will be forgotten. That’s the problem with the world of saga, myth and fable: it simply isn’t fair. It has a place for everyone and everyone in their allotted place, which is so fundamentally opposed to our system, in which (officially) nobody has an allotted place at all, that we are bound to have trouble with it. However, to regard it as an authorial weakness that a writer remains consistent throughout his work, or to think that he leaves things out of his writing because he cannot write about them, is to my mind overly simplistic and rather uncharitable. We might as well say that Tolkien couldn’t write about children, or cows, since there are so few of the one and none of the other in The Lord of the Rings. As we have established, we all appreciate the world that he created, and different gender rôles, or a closer concentration on domestic life, which would have been necessary in order to include more women within his reality, would have given his work a different tone, perhaps even changed its basic nature. I’m not sure that any of us would really have wanted that.